Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
01-02-2005, 12:13 AM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 93
|
Gospels first hand accounts?
It seems that authorship is still quite open to debate, but do most bible scholars accept the premise that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts? There are many here who make it sound as if this is common knowledge. When I mention this idea to xians I know, they are quite taken aback and doubtful of this claim.
Is this common knowledge on "both sides of the fence"? Any good sources for me? |
01-02-2005, 12:20 AM | #2 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Early Christian Writings
Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts Christians do not want to give up on the idea that there is eyewitness testimony in the gospels. The more sophisticated apologists claim that oral accounts of Jesus circulated for decades before being written down. This is highly speculative, to say the least. |
01-02-2005, 08:31 AM | #3 |
Moderator -
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
|
I don't think it's common knowledge among for Christian laity. The traditions are still held to for the gospels and for the "Apostolic" letters. Even a lot of disinterested non-religious types seem a little surprised to find out that nothing in the NT was written by an eyewitness. This is the sort of info you have to find on your own. Christians certainly aren't going to hear it in church and we've all seen how glurge-y and uncritically the popular media treats these kinds of topics even on allegedly more "scientific" media like the Discovery or History Channels.
A lot of contemporary Biblical scholarship tends to be unknown or avoided in the US. It's been common knowledge for years among Israeli archaeologists that there was no Exodus or conquest of Canaan but the American populace is still largely unaware of it and neither their churches nor their news media has any desire to tell them about it. Hell...we still think that the historicity of Noah's Ark is a serious topic of debate. |
01-02-2005, 08:38 AM | #4 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
|
I've been trying to get someone to debate this over here for a while now. Gospels are NOT first hand accounts and THIS IS VERY COMMON KNOWLEDGE in scholarship today. Conservos are stuck living in the past clutching their long debunked mythologies.
|
01-02-2005, 08:45 AM | #5 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
Hopefully, Vinnie, hopefully, I'm trying to get you a debate partner!
|
01-02-2005, 09:03 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: St Louis, MO
Posts: 686
|
Quote:
|
|
01-02-2005, 09:11 AM | #7 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
|
Quote:
|
|
01-02-2005, 09:30 AM | #8 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 31
|
My question is why are only 6 of the 12 been included in the Bible?
Can someone provide me with a link or two that at least attempts to explain it? |
01-02-2005, 12:48 PM | #9 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: KY
Posts: 415
|
Quote:
|
|
01-02-2005, 01:03 PM | #10 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 93
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|