Lets take a closer look at these "1st hand" testimonies:
Here are the generally accepted dates for the writing of the synoptic gospels -
Matthew - 70-110 CE
Mark - 60-70 CE
Luke - 60-90 CE
John - 80-95 CE
So, clearly, the pivotal books of the New Testament were written decades at best after the supposed events they describe.
But its worse than that. The average lifespan of someone living in the Palestine in the first century was about 25 years of age! Even if we remove the effect of a very high infant mortality rate, the average is still less than 40.
So, there is a very high chance that these books were written 2 generations or more after the events they claim to represent!
But, it gets worse. The earliest documentary evidence we have of these writings don't appear until the 2nd century, and these are only fragments! And, as already mentioned, the complete works were not decided until the 4th century.
But it gets worse. We know that the early Christian movement that formed in the first couple centuries was markedly different in its beliefs from that which was later formalized. The early Christian leaders, in many cases, did not even believe in the divinity of Jesus. That being the case, and because we don't have the earliest manuscripts, who is to know what 'editing' took place with those stories during that time?
This crappy 'evidence' would be laughed out of any court. It wouldn't even make it to the front steps of the courthouse!
Here are the generally accepted dates for the writing of the synoptic gospels -
Matthew - 70-110 CE
Mark - 60-70 CE
Luke - 60-90 CE
John - 80-95 CE
So, clearly, the pivotal books of the New Testament were written decades at best after the supposed events they describe.
But its worse than that. The average lifespan of someone living in the Palestine in the first century was about 25 years of age! Even if we remove the effect of a very high infant mortality rate, the average is still less than 40.
So, there is a very high chance that these books were written 2 generations or more after the events they claim to represent!
But, it gets worse. The earliest documentary evidence we have of these writings don't appear until the 2nd century, and these are only fragments! And, as already mentioned, the complete works were not decided until the 4th century.
But it gets worse. We know that the early Christian movement that formed in the first couple centuries was markedly different in its beliefs from that which was later formalized. The early Christian leaders, in many cases, did not even believe in the divinity of Jesus. That being the case, and because we don't have the earliest manuscripts, who is to know what 'editing' took place with those stories during that time?
This crappy 'evidence' would be laughed out of any court. It wouldn't even make it to the front steps of the courthouse!
Upvote
0