Godot

I remember playing a game as a child in school where a phrase was written on a piece of paper, and then passed around the room verbally from ear to ear to ensure it was confidential. Not once did the final result bear the slightest resemblance to the original.
So, something "based on an eyewitness account" can (quite reasonably) bear little resemblance to the original. Aren't you the least bit sceptical as to the accuracy of a film 'based on a true story'? Why not apply the same level of scepticism to the bible?

MonkeyMan

Tercel wrote:
Eyewitnesses abound I'd say.

Now isn't it funny that he fed a multitude, yet none of the participants, other than the disciples, were impressed enough to write about it or cause a stir or in whatever way leave a verifiable trace in history?
Same goes for his preaching from the hilltop...

As to the Gospels, well 1945 the Gospel of Thomas was discovered, unknown to both the Christians as to Ingersoll.
There are references around that Peter also wrote a Gospel, plus fragments of his Revelation are referenced in other apocryphal texts.

Just my 2 cents' worth.

Tercel

I have played the same game as well. Part of the fun of the game is to deliberately try to speak as quietly as possible to ensure maximum chance that the person did not understand the message. Hence it hardly provides a reasonably analogy to any real situation where important beliefs are involved.
I can agree that a nth hand account (where n>>1) in a game of "Chinese Whispers" has little relation to what was said in the first place. I do not agree that the gospels are based on nth hand accounts, nor do I agree that the early believers would have had as little regard for transmission of their teachings as this analogy suggests.
Of course. It tells me that the writer heard of an event and it inspired them to think "gee, if it had really happened like this... then it would make a really good story."
I sincerely doubt the Bible writers were writing a movie. Why is it unreasonable to believe that the gospels are based on eyewitness accounts? Luke and John claim as much themselves, and early church writers claim as much for Mattew and Mark also. Is it unreasonable to believe that a man named Jesus was baptised? Is it unreasonable to believe that this same Jesus taught on religious matters? Is it unreasonable to believe that this Jesus criticised the religious teachers of his day? Is it unreasonable to believe that this Jesus was crucified at the instigation of the aforementioned religious teachers? Is it unreasonable to believe that Jesus' followers believed he performed miracles? Is it unreasonable to believe that Jesus' followers believed he rose from the dead?
I'm not inclined to think any of these things unreasonable. What I do think is unreasonable is to doubt without a good reason the multiply attested evidence we do have that these things were the case.

Tercel

Sheesh, I should have known mentioning the word "eyewitnesses" anywhere near "gospels" would be a mistake. For goodness sake people I'm not suggesting that eyewitnesses were on the scene writing the gospels as it happened. I'm simply suggesting there's little reason to doubt the fairly standard position that that gospels were loosely based on 2nd hand acounts.
Personally, what I am inclined to believe on the matter is that the "eyewitness" Matthew wrote a document in Aramaic containing many of the sayings of Jesus, and that this was combined with information from other sources by another writer who wrote the Gospel of Matthew as we have it today. I am inclined to accept the early tradition that the Gospel of Mark was indeed composed by a person who had known the "eyewitness" Peter, and that Luke was composed by a person who had done a reasonable amount of homework. I am inclined to accept that view that the "eyewitness" John wrote something of what he had seen, and that this was further expanded (perhaps by him, but certainly by a later writer ironically probably called John also) to include what these writers felt "moved by the spirit" to include - resulting (for the Gospel of John) in the kind of "based on a true story" that we are familiar with from the movies.

Given that the multitude were supposedly composed largely of illiterate peasants who had nothing better to do that go and almost starve themselves listening to what the region's latest religious fanatic had to say for himself, and that we do have four accounts of this event: I don't see your point.

Yup, it does.

Both the "Gospel of Peter" and the "Gospel of Thomas" were known to the early (3rd & 4th century) Christians and were ignored as "forgeries of heretics" and "impious and absurd". (H.E. 3:25)
A few scholars would suggest that the Gospel of Thomas is perhaps as old as the four New Testament Gospels, but they are very much in the minority and most scholars seem to agree the Gospel of Thomas is a second century forgery which copies from the standard Gospels.
The Revelation of Peter on the other hand was well known in the early church and used in some churches, though it was eventually dropped.

Shake

For a systematic tearing apart of some of Strobel's work, see Objections Sustained!

Welcome Jake! If you like, you can introduce yourself or visit the II Library for more good reading! Also, for support about dealing with family/religious issues, go here. Feel free to peruse any and all fora that interest you!

Celsus

On what grounds do you judge the Gospel of Thomas judged as heretical to be the same as the Gnostic Gospel at Nag Hammadi?
Other second century forgeries:
1 & 2 Timothy
Titus
2 Thessalonians
2 & 3 John
1 & 2 Peter
(and I might include Ephesians and Colossians for good measure)

Joel

Vesica

I too would primarily identify myself as Christian, but am not characterized by your sketch of a "stereotypical" Chrisitian. I do continuously challange and expand by beliefs based on outside info. Of course, reviewing my posts will not show me doing lots of arguing but that has more to do with a distaste for fruitless strife. For me, my faith does not depend on a literal interpretation of the Bible or even on defending any particular cannon...It is a personal experience in which little is held 'sacred' or 'taboo' (which makes for really lousy argument ).

I do see the truth in your criticisms of "typical X-ians", however I see these same traits in society as a whole. There are plenty of people who are content to believe what they are told, if it comes from a source they believe reliable. Psychology has even given us terms for the stress and reactions to conflicting world views. I am fairly sure that ignoring the obvious in response to cognitive dissonance is not a purely X-ian or even theist trait. Some people are simply uncomfortable with high levels of ambiguity in the world and need black and white explanations to be able to make sense of this crazy world.

I am being more long winded than I intended...Welcome! Nice to meet you and look forward to more challenging posts in the future!

Tercel

The name.

~shrugs~ I am aware some scholars think that. I am personally inclined to think 1 Peter authentic, and inclined to believe some of the others are 1st century forgeries or even perhaps authentic.
I see it as more important that the early church considered these books a fair representation of its beliefs, than whether or not they were written by who they claim.

christ-on-a-stick

Hi Kevin -

I recall on this thread you stated that Obviously not a hard-and-fast "No, I would never change my beliefs NO MATTER WHAT" (which is good) but this answer also doesn't suggest to me that you are really (still) searching out your beliefs but rather that you feel you have already done so. However, further to that point, you also wrote in this thread I recall several times that you did answer me honestly "I don't know".

In this thread you didn't know why God commanded Moses to slaughter all the Midianite babies and children along with the "wicked". Have you been thinking about it? I can't think of a bigger "red flag" than an allegedly loving God commanding the cold-blooded murder of infants and little children, and I wouldn't be able to rest easy just shrugging it off with "I don't know". Are you "still trying to find the answer"?

Radorth

It's a great marvel how some supposedly "rational" atheists question the older Gospels and pastorals, and even declare them complete myths, while asking why heretical junk written much later was left out of the canon. It's as if they worship new theories because they are new, or simply wish to find witches whatever the intellectual cost. These are not skeptics, though they call themeselves such. They are merely intellectually dishonest cynics IMO, who apply wildly variant tests of truth.

Rad