Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 09-10-2009, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I think the authors probably did intend them to be read in that way, but I don't think you're justified in being so categorical about it. It is possible in principle (although I don't incline to this view) that the original writers did not intend them to be taken as historical accounts and that this view of them was imposed later.

Your point about Luke is an excellent one (and thank you for that)--the initial verses do strongly signal that that Gospel was written with the intention of being taken as a historical account. But even if that's true of Luke, it doesn't automatically follow that the same is true of Matthew, Mark, and John (although, for what it's worth, I repeat that I think it probably is).

But, I did not ever claim it was automatic.

The information was provided by the Church. It was the Church writers that vehemently claimed that the Gospels were true.

Look at the preface of De Principiis. The author claimed Jesus was truly the creator of the world and was God who became a man while still being a God who truly resurrected and went to heaven.

There is simply no information anywhere from the Church to suggest that the supposed historical accounts with respect to Jesus should be discarded or had no veracity.

The Church published the Gospels but we don't know that it wrote them. Whatever the Church's view of the Gospels, it doesn't necessarily follow that the writers had the same view. You may think that the Church's views about the Gospels are more important than the writers' intentions, and you may think that the question 'What did the writers intend the Gospels to be?' is of no interest, but the question must have an answer, even if you're not interested in it, and no matter how much more important you think the Church's views are, they don't settle the question. You may not want to discuss anything but the Church's position, but that's not a reason why everybody else should be similarly restricted.

mountainman · 09-10-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Church considered the Gospels as historical, even the author of gLuke made reference to eyewitnesses. See Luke 1.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the canonised Gospels were written to be believed as historical facts.

I agree with these two statements and suggest that
the fabrication of the christians was a fiction of men
composed by an organised fraud at a late century.
This suggestion seems to fit the facts of ancient history
better than the idea that pigs (or HJ's) fly.

mountainman · 09-10-2009, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The Church published the Gospels but we don't know that it wrote them.

Constantine ordered that the church publish the gospels.
Constantine dabbled in the literature.
Constantine constructed many new churches.

True we dont know who wrote the gospels, but everyone
at that time who was anyone swore that they knew in their
heart of hearts and intellect of intellects that the authors
were named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and of course
Senecca and Paul and the usual orthodox line-up.

The arcane knowledge associated with actual authorship
we must remember was - and still very much is - a matter
of BIG BUSINESS.

Apostolic authorship today is rejected as fraudulent.
The idea of course has been floated for some time.
I wonder in which century the idea was first floated.
It seems to have at least made the late news in the 4th.

aa5874 · 09-10-2009, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, I did not ever claim it was automatic.

The information was provided by the Church. It was the Church writers that vehemently claimed that the Gospels were true.

Look at the preface of De Principiis. The author claimed Jesus was truly the creator of the world and was God who became a man while still being a God who truly resurrected and went to heaven.

There is simply no information anywhere from the Church to suggest that the supposed historical accounts with respect to Jesus should be discarded or had no veracity.

The Church published the Gospels but we don't know that it wrote them. Whatever the Church's view of the Gospels, it doesn't necessarily follow that the writers had the same view. You may think that the Church's views about the Gospels are more important than the writers' intentions, and you may think that the question 'What did the writers intend the Gospels to be?' is of no interest, but the question must have an answer, even if you're not interested in it, and no matter how much more important you think the Church's views are, they don't settle the question. You may not want to discuss anything but the Church's position, but that's not a reason why everybody else should be similarly restricted.

Well, if you don't know who wrote the Gospels and what was originally in the Gospels then how in the world can you find out the views of the original writers?

What we have was published by the Church and they have made their views very clear. The Gospels are true as found in the NT.

Who wrote Matthew 1.18., Luke 1.35, John 1.1-3 and Acts 1.9? And what were their views on these passages?

We know the view of the Church. We know the views of the publishers.

The Church canonised the books of the NT and may have even interpolated or written and backdated works using names of people who did not ever exist.

And I have not restricted your view just as you cannot restrict mine. The boards are open to everyone. I can defend and support my view that Jesus was just a story fabricated from fiction and was believed or propagated to be true by the Church.

Until the authors of the Gospels can be positively identified and their original writings are known, then the Church, the publisher or those who canonised the Gospels as true, must bear full responsibility for all the information therein.

Once it is admitted that the Church writers gave erroneous information about the authorship, the original contents, the date of writing and chronology of the Gospels, then trying to find out the views of the original writers is a case of futility since there are no external corroborative source for the Gospels.

Vinnie · 09-10-2009, 09:28 PM

Some are, some aren't, most we have to suspend judgment on as there is not enough evidence either way.

Vincent Guilbaud · 09-10-2009, 09:39 PM

Apart the landscape like Pilate, Jerusalem and its temple and Sanhedrin, Herod,
Rome and the crucifixion of many rebels,
"None of them are historically accurate.".

Gospels need corroborative source and finds
mostly historical and scientific opposition,
without one noticeable element that stands likely.

So the real question is not anymore about the Gospels,
but about the other set of Christian records
that have spread initially the cult everywhere: the Epistles!

Before the Gospels were written, and for a long time still after,
were the Epistles talking about this Gospel character,
a miracle worker from Galilee with 12 disciples?
or solely a mythical Son of God or GodMan, savior of humanity?

Well, without the blind light of the later records,
the answer is honestly very clear.

So the Gospels are also innacurate to explain the birth of Christianity.
which is what I mean, when I vote for:
"None of them are historically accurate."

What do you think?

J-D · 09-11-2009, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

True we dont know who wrote the gospels, but everyone
at that time who was anyone swore that they knew in their
heart of hearts and intellect of intellects that the authors
were named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,

You do love making up your little stories, don't you? Absence of support for them never seems to bother you.

J-D · 09-11-2009, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The Church published the Gospels but we don't know that it wrote them. Whatever the Church's view of the Gospels, it doesn't necessarily follow that the writers had the same view. You may think that the Church's views about the Gospels are more important than the writers' intentions, and you may think that the question 'What did the writers intend the Gospels to be?' is of no interest, but the question must have an answer, even if you're not interested in it, and no matter how much more important you think the Church's views are, they don't settle the question. You may not want to discuss anything but the Church's position, but that's not a reason why everybody else should be similarly restricted.

Well, if you don't know who wrote the Gospels and what was originally in the Gospels then how in the world can you find out the views of the original writers?

You can't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What we have was published by the Church and they have made their views very clear. The Gospels are true as found in the NT.

Who wrote Matthew 1.18., Luke 1.35, John 1.1-3 and Acts 1.9? And what were their views on these passages?

We know the view of the Church. We know the views of the publishers.

The Church canonised the books of the NT and may have even interpolated or written and backdated works using names of people who did not ever exist.

And I have not restricted your view just as you cannot restrict mine. The boards are open to everyone. I can defend and support my view that Jesus was just a story fabricated from fiction and was believed or propagated to be true by the Church.

Of course you can post whatever you like (within the board rules). And if you post inaccurate statements I can point out the inaccuracies. You said 'There is no doubt whatsoever that the canonised Gospels were written to be believed as historical facts.' You said lots of other things as well, but even if everything else you said were true, that statement still wouldn't be. There is doubt about whether the canonical Gospels were written to be believed as historical facts--not from me, but from other posters on this board.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Until the authors of the Gospels can be positively identified and their original writings are known, then the Church, the publisher or those who canonised the Gospels as true, must bear full responsibility for all the information therein.

Once it is admitted that the Church writers gave erroneous information about the authorship, the original contents, the date of writing and chronology of the Gospels, then trying to find out the views of the original writers is a case of futility since there are no external corroborative source for the Gospels.

mountainman · 09-11-2009, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

True we dont know who wrote the gospels, but everyone
at that time who was anyone swore that they knew in their
heart of hearts and intellect of intellects that the authors
were named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,

You do love making up your little stories, don't you? Absence of support for them never seems to bother you.

Let's start with Eusebius and work our way through the fourth century.
Eusebius firmly believes the apostles wrote the gospels....

Quote:

Originally Posted by EUSEBIUS, BOOK 3

Chapter XXIV. The Order of the Gospels.

Those great and truly divine men, I mean the apostles of Christ, were purified in their life, and were adorned with every virtue of the soul, but were uncultivated in speech. ..

6 For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue,199 and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.

And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason.

The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.201

etc, etc, etc,

16 So much for our own account of these things. But in a more fitting place we shall attempt to show by quotations from the ancients, what others have said concerning them

spamandham · 09-11-2009, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Some are, some aren't, most we have to suspend judgment on as there is not enough evidence either way.

I'm curious what you think is, and what the evidence for it might be.

View Poll Results: Do you think the statements the Gospels make about Jesus are historically accurate?
All of them are historically accurate.	4	6.25%
Some of them are historically accurate and some of them are not.	23	35.94%
None of them are historically accurate.	37	57.81%
Voters: 64. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-10-2009, 09:28 PM	#25
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Some are, some aren't, most we have to suspend judgment on as there is not enough evidence either way.

09-10-2009, 09:39 PM	#26
Vincent Guilbaud Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Cary, NC, USA Posts: 42	Apart the landscape like Pilate, Jerusalem and its temple and Sanhedrin, Herod, Rome and the crucifixion of many rebels, "None of them are historically accurate.". Gospels need corroborative source and finds mostly historical and scientific opposition, without one noticeable element that stands likely. So the real question is not anymore about the Gospels, but about the other set of Christian records that have spread initially the cult everywhere: the Epistles! Before the Gospels were written, and for a long time still after, were the Epistles talking about this Gospel character, a miracle worker from Galilee with 12 disciples? or solely a mythical Son of God or GodMan, savior of humanity? Well, without the blind light of the later records, the answer is honestly very clear. So the Gospels are also innacurate to explain the birth of Christianity. which is what I mean, when I vote for: "None of them are historically accurate." What do you think?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.