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

[d taylor]

I understand, but at the same time Paul also was extremely well-read on the philosophical figures and literature of the places he went to evangelize in; I believe he actually quoted a non-christian figure in one of his epistles? Correct me if I'm wrong, I do not remember which passage that was in.

Besides that, the people in the bible were preaching with divine inspiration; all we have now is a book that's been passed down for so long that people are beginning to question it, so before we can even hope to gain listening ears, we need to make sure we have our facts straight about our whole book.

You can build an entire empire on lies and half-truths, but one contradiction could result in devastating consequences and hurt the trust of those who listen to us beyond repair.

Are you not satisfied with The Bible (all we have now is a book) and really what are you wanting the Bible for. To argue/debate with atheist, they state human given history as fact. So you are trying to find other human history or human reasoning to say the Bible is true. So what will you do, compromised the Bible as many have before by bringing in a human argument to support the Bible. So it will agree with human history.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

I wonder where this understanding came from who these “New Testament scholars” are. Lol.

The early church was convinced the Gospel accounts were written by who they are named.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

How can you trust the teachings of Christ if the Scriptures are a human endeavor?

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Only if one denies prophecy.

 

[PaulCyp1]

Irenaeus lived in the 2'nd Century. The bishops of the Catholic Church did not select the 73 texts of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit until the mid-4'th Century.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Probably why as Christians we confess the creed where it says we believe in the communion of the saints.

 

[redleghunter]

Irenaeus lived in the 2'nd Century. The bishops of the Catholic Church did not select the 73 texts of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit until the mid-4'th Century.

Not entirely accurate. The NT Scriptures were widely quoted in early Christian works well before that.

Early Christian NT References

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Let us not confuse the fact Luke investigated the accounts thoroughly which means relying on eyewitness accounts.

Luke 1: NASB

1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Only if we ignore the communion of the saints who came before us. Only if we think Christianity is built on 19th century skepticism devoid of the Power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't think they're perfectly accurate though.

Then how do you trust them?

 

[redleghunter]

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.

The fact is the NT books were in wide circulation very early.

Early Christian NT References

 

[redleghunter]

Strobel interviewed a series of acknowledged experts. His book is a series of reports of his interviews.
For his work to have been shredded would mean solid evidence has need found that demonstrate that Christianity is false.

One of the scholars Strobel (who at the time was atheist) interviewed was Norman Geisler. Who also published a book named “Evidence of an Early New Testament Canon.”

 

[redleghunter]

These supposed scholars, over 1800 years removed from the writing, believe they can tell with certainty who wrote the gospels.

Not to mention most of the scholars deny the supernatural, deny the Virgin Birth and deny the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Basically they deny Christianity.

 

[redleghunter]

After looking at a parallel edition of the gospels, not many people will agree with you.

Why is the immediate assumption by skeptics someone copied another’s work? What we have actually are eyewitness accounts that match up. You would expect that and expect some variation as different eyewitnesses provided the data.

 

[Sam81]

If people were evil and corrupt all the way up to when Jesus came & died--especially in the name of religion--what makes you think they've changed now and are suddenly pure and spirit-filled?

So you reject the inerrancy of God's word? If so, you are not a Christian.

 

[redleghunter]

Side by side, these two accounts are noticeably different.

Yes but not contradicting in their account.

 

[redleghunter]

Of the 19 negative references to scribes in Mark, Matthew dropped 7 completely, kept 6 intact and altered 6 so as to remove the negativity. Matthew's community obviously regarded the scribe in higher esteem. Seems fairly obvious that Matthew followed Mark.

Well Matthew sure does not hold back the Woes to the scribes in Matthew 23.

 

[redleghunter]

You need to look at a parallel edition of the whole Gospels to see the similarities and differences. There are too many verbal similarities to think that they're independent.

Again Hedrick why is the assumption that it was copied? These were shared experiences.

 

[redleghunter]

The reason the same verses are in Matthew is because they happened. Not cause it was copied. It was written under inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, God-breathed. God preserved His Word. See, people need to stop thinking in the natural. If there is no God who involves Himself in the handing down of His Word then it would be different.

The problem is that the scholars who study this stuff come at it already imposing naturalism from the start.

Most skeptics deny the supernatural Power of God. So yes they approach this from a purely materialistic mindset.

 

[Sam81]

Natural minded scholars come to their conclusions because they never consider divine influence. Prophecy must have been written after the fact; books must have been copied instead of divinely inspired; biblical inerrancy is thrown out so original authorship is rejected in lieu of missing autographs.

And then skeptics have the gall to tell God believing, God trusting Christians that our Bible doesn't date to the appropriate time. What a farce.