(Atheist Arguments from History: 2#) The gospels were not eyewitness accounts

theoneandonlypencil

Partial preterist, dispensationalist molinist
Oct 11, 2019
806
678
A place
✟60,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Oh boy, I have another post here to start a discussion over and it is quite the doozy. Check out my first post to know more about this 'atheist arguments from history' thing;

--------

"The four gospels in the Bible are not eyewitness accounts. This is the standard understanding, a historical fact, among nearly all New Testament scholars.

The gospels were written anonymously & not by eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry nor his disciples."

The sooner the church acknowledges this instead of asserting faith over historical fact the sooner we can have rational discussions.
.
The four gospels we have now were decided upon mostly by Irenaeus, a bishop of Rome. His reasoning? There were four pillars to the universe and four universal winds so it only makes sense the gods truth is held up by four pillars- four gospels. That’s some solid reasoning.
.
The reason he even had to come up with a certain number is that there were DOZENS of gospels being passed around- all of them were heretical, of course, heretical to Irenaeus’ version of orthodox belief, except the four he picked. The winners write the history books. These heretical gospels would be banned only the four they chose would be considered non heretical. These are the four we have today.
He picked these because he assumed they were actually written by the names given to them which occurred roughly 60 years before.
Apparently he did not know the lack of scrutiny that went into their authorship.
.
Nearly no NT scholar believes the gospels are actually written by who they claim to be and those reasons are beyond reasonable and, at the very least, impossible to refute with current evidence.
.
The story of how we got the gospels we have today is a picture and the remnants of a power struggle, or one well organized movement that dominated another. It is the very example of organized religion stepping on the people and ideas they deem heretical.
These were voices who would be silenced from history forever due to doctrinal differences.
.
2k years later, not much has changed. If Jesus was indeed a Holy Man, “his” so-called church destroyed his message by the end of the second century. All in the name of religion and being theologically right- and everyone can, literally, be damned.
 

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel essentially shreds this argument. I recommend giving it a read.

In my reading I think that Lee Strobel's argument is the one that was shredded.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
What's your opinion on the OP(original post), Jack?

I am in general agreement with what you posted. Who were you quoting? I do disagree with your assessment of modern critical Bible scholarship is being essentially atheistic.
 
Upvote 0

theoneandonlypencil

Partial preterist, dispensationalist molinist
Oct 11, 2019
806
678
A place
✟60,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am in general agreement with what you posted. Who were you quoting? I do disagree with your assessment of modern critical Bible scholarship is being essentially atheistic.

Pardon me; my posts are not necessarily that the subject matter is 'atheistic', but that it is often used as a component in anti-religious arguments by atheists. I was asking how it is that you personally, as a Chrisitan, reconcile the difference of scriptural accuracy with your faith? A lot of Christians feel as though the validity of our faith hinges on the accuracy/divinity of scripture, so I wanted to learn more about that.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Pardon me; my posts are not necessarily that the subject matter is 'atheistic', but that it is often used as a component in anti-religious arguments by atheists. I was asking how it is that you personally, as a Chrisitan, reconcile the difference of scriptural accuracy with your faith? A lot of Christians feel as though the validity of our faith hinges on the accuracy/divinity of scripture, so I wanted to learn more about that.

OK, your questions are quite valid. I have been a Christian for over 75 years but I am no longer a Christian who regards the Bible as inerrant or to be understood literally nor is it "the Word of God" as that is understood in fundamentalist circles. It is a human endeavor throughout but I also am convinced is that while a great many Bible stories are not "true stories", most are "truth stories" somewhat like parables on a grander scale. This is certainly a minority Christian view and is quite unpopular in conservative Christian circles.
 
Upvote 0

theoneandonlypencil

Partial preterist, dispensationalist molinist
Oct 11, 2019
806
678
A place
✟60,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
OK, your questions are quite valid. I have been a Christian for over 75 years but I am no longer a Christian who regards the Bible as inerrant or to be understood literally nor is it "the Word of God" as that is understood in fundamentalist circles. It is a human endeavor throughout but I also am convinced is that while a great many Bible stories are not "true stories", most are "truth stories" somewhat like parables on a grander scale. This is certainly a minority Christian view and is quite unpopular in conservative Christian circles.

Interesting. I do agree that I do not think all of the bible is meant to be literal, and the explanation of the grand-scale parables is a concept I reference quite often. The question I'd have then, I suppose, it what leads you to believe Christianity is more true/'right' than other religions, or even atheism?

I have often called into question whether or not the mainstream Christian views are actually all that 'Christian' or not.
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,984
9,400
✟380,249.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
In my reading I think that Lee Strobel's argument is the one that was shredded.
In your liberal opinion, that is. Even if you were right, the argument presented by the OP would not be a good one to make.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
The question I'd have then, I suppose, it what leads you to believe Christianity is more true/'right' than other religions, or even atheism?

That is not a belief of mine. I am a Christian and remain so because I love the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua --- not so much the Christ that they have made him to be.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ChetSinger

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
3,518
650
✟124,958.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
...The gospels were written anonymously & not by eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry nor his disciples."...
And why do many scholars believe the gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses such as Matthew and John, or by Mark, a companion of Peter?

The elephant-sized answer is: the Olivet Discourse.

When dating any ancient document it's a no-brainer that it had to have been written after the events described in it transpired. For example, every biography of Lincoln was written after he lived, not before.

So what do most scholars do with the Olivet Discourse that appears in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, where Jesus prophesies in some detail of a Jewish war that occurred 40 years later? The conclusion is logical and follows the accepted rules of dating any ancient document: those three gospels had to have been written after that war. Which makes it difficult (but not impossible) to have been penned by witnesses. And this conclusion follows naturally because they believe it's impossible that Jesus actually prophesied: because prophecy is impossible.

But if someone is a believer who accepts that Jesus actually did prophecy of the war, then the gospels could've been written at any time after that prophecy, including prior to the war. Which puts them in the time frame where witnesses could've penned them, as the church has taught.

I'm a believer and have no problem believing that the gospels were penned by the names attached to them; it's easy because I believe that Jesus prophesied when the gospels say he did.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
In your liberal opinion, that is. Even if you were right, the argument presented by the OP would not be a good one to make.

In my posts on this thread I have never used the word "liberal" but thank you for the compliment.
 
Upvote 0

theoneandonlypencil

Partial preterist, dispensationalist molinist
Oct 11, 2019
806
678
A place
✟60,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That is not a belief of mine. I am a Christian and remain so because I love the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua --- not so much the Christ that they have made him to be.

Okay, so do you believe in a God, or do you follow Christianity as a kind of philosophy...?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Of course they’re not eyewitness. Luke tells us that he got his information from other people. Early church tradition says Mark wrote Peter’s teaching. So neither of them were witnesses. It’s not likely that Matthew and a John were either.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

theoneandonlypencil

Partial preterist, dispensationalist molinist
Oct 11, 2019
806
678
A place
✟60,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Of course they’re not eyewitness. Luke tells us that he got his information from other people. Early church tradition says Mark wrote Peter’s teaching. So neither of them were witnesses. It’s not likely that Matthew and a John were either.

Do you think this impedes the authenticity/truthfulness of sincere Christianity?(regarding the existence of God himself)
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm a believer and have no problem believing that the gospels were penned by the names attached to them; it's easy because I believe that Jesus prophesied when the gospels say he did.

I understand your point of view completely but there is no way of validating it. So we are in the same boat. The opposite of faith is not doubt --- the opposite is certainty.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Do you think this impedes the authenticity/truthfulness of sincere Christianity?(regarding the existence of God himself)
No, I think we know Jesus' life and teaching sufficiently to be good followers. I don't think they're perfectly accurate though.
 
Upvote 0

jacks

Er Victus
Site Supporter
Jun 29, 2010
3,809
3,063
Northwest US
✟674,908.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The only importance I can see as to when they were written is to help determine who wrote them. Even then, that to me is only of academic interest. In any case we really have no way of determining when they were written. Only when they were published or disseminated. (For a trite example, I wrote a variety of stories 30+ years ago, but since none are published who would know when they were written. And of course there are examples of modern authors being published decades after their death.) Even if they were written 50 to 100 years after Jesus death, that would change the authorship, but doesn't diminish their accuracy. When we watch a Ken Burns documentary on say the civil war, we don't say that it lacks validly because he wasn't alive then. An argument against the truth of Christianity based on when the gospels were "written" is very weak.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

timewerx

the village i--o--t--
Aug 31, 2012
15,274
5,903
✟299,820.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel essentially shreds this argument. I recommend giving it a read.

Nevertheless, it's also perfectly valid for us to review the other Gospels.

....The Bible itself supports such study!

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

1 John 2:27
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.
 
Upvote 0