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

[klutedavid]

The usual theory is that Matthew and Luke took a lot of it from Mark, but there's also lots of material not in Mark. Much of it is common between Matthew and Luke.

You've shown a place that isn't the same. Now let's look at one that is

Mark
"But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.”

Matthew
But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’

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.

I see your point but this does not mean that the authors copied from a common source.

Matthews gospel is twenty eight chapters and Marks gospel is about sixteen chapters. Matthews gospel is almost double the size of Mark's gospel. A common source?

On this collapse of consensus, Wenham observed: "I found myself in the Synoptic Problem Seminar of the Society for New Testament Studies, whose members were in disagreement over every aspect of the subject. When this international group disbanded in 1982 they had sadly to confess that after twelve years' work they had not reached a common mind on a single issue." (wikipedia)

Does anyone really have any idea?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

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.

Iv'e heard this one I think even more than the first. The Silly thing is this one I think would be almost impossible to not be true by virtue of having certain modern literary genres not being invented yet. But anyway what does the author of it expect or hope? He/she wants something like a modern Pulitzer book or documentary complete with it's ancient bibliography, or a transcript of a Roman Court Deposition that investigates the claim that Jesus might actually be a fictitious person that was created to swindle ancient church goers out of money?..... The only thing sort of close to what he is asking is when people like Julius Cesar, wrote their memoirs..... But those are few and obviously biased...

 

[Zao is life]

The gospel of Mark only has 9 parables spoken by Jesus. Where as Matthew records 21 parables spoken by Jesus.

The resurrection accounts in Mark and Matthew are different accounts.

Matthew and Mark used a common source?

The evidence is pointing the other way; Matthew and Mark used different sources for the accounts!

I agree, and I'm aware of the differences between Mark and Matthew, as well as where certain accounts in both Matthew and Mark are almost word-for-word the same - but that could merely be (and probably is) an indication of the fact that it's the record of two eye-witnesses relating what they remember. Just because they agree, does not mean they copied one from another - I was merely addressing what scholars say about it.

 

[Sam81]

1. I'm a girl, not a guy.

2. It might surprise you, but perhaps for some people, the reason why they can have hope in Jesus is more than just 'because everyone told me so'? You would understand this more if perhaps you were born and raised in a different country where a totally different religion was dominant, thus needing more than the average person to be convinced to convert.

3. Jesus spent most of his time rebuking the pharisees and corrupt religious leaders--not the pagans.

4. If the bible is your reason for believing that the bible is inerrant, well...I don't think I can help you understand where that goes wrong.

5. I don't know why you call the NIV 'gender neutral'. I use it in conjunction with other bible translations, but I quote it the most because it is the one I'm used to and it is easier to read. Certainly easier on the eyes and mind than the KJV, which I have a plethora of personal reasons to not give the time of day, unless it is perhaps the revised version. The fact that you, however, can call a translation of our bible a 'piece of trash fit for toilet paper' almost made me physically sick.

I used to be full of hate for people, non-religious and religious alike. Even today it is difficult to subdue the seed of wrath that took root in my heart, but at least I try with all of my might and ask God to help give me patience and understanding. I'm very firm in my faith, but I refuse to sit by and listen to people selectively tell me the parts of the church's history that help them 'keep me in line' with whatever new movement or political nonsense they're trying to drag me into--and hiding anything that threatens their beloved doctrines which are used to, in my opinion, play 'god' and control others. We have so many modern-day Pharisees, and most of them go right under everyone's noses.

Even if the bible was a mashup of who-knows-what and was most man-made(not saying it is per se), I would still believe in Jesus. I've had all the convincing I need, and I have always believed that what we do absolutely know about Jesus and his ministry in and out of the bible is the bare necessities of what it means to be a Christian.

There is so much hate and anger in your reply. If you don't like what is being discussed, then please leave the thread by all means. This thread was meant to start an intellectual conversation to separate fact from fiction.

1. Apologies, ma'am.

2. I believe it is by the word of God and the testimony of the saints that people are saved. That's what the Bible tells me.

3. True. False religion was a bigger issue in Jesus' day. But He did refer to the gentile pagans as "heathen".

4. I need no reason outside the Bible to believe the Bible is inerrant. I believe what the Bible says. And the Holy Spirit in my heart testifies to what is written. Even logic dictates to me that God preserves His word.

5. Just google "2011 NIV gender-neutral" and you'll see. Not to mention that the NIV is based on manuscripts that leave out a lot of verses. I don't consider the NIV the word of God. Sorry if I made you ill.

Yes I do have a lot of hate and anger towards false doctrine and attacks on God's word and sovereignty. As I've said, the problem with scholarly research is that it comes at it from a naturalistic point of view. It rejects even the possibility of God's involvement in bringing about the scriptures. They won't consider: divine inspiration, biblical inerrancy/original authorship (in lieu of missing autographs), prophecies being written beforehand and not after the fact, etc. They approach the research from a purely naturalistic mindset. So I don't believe anything they have to say regarding dates or authorship or anything. I believe in a sovereign God; I believe that the Holy Spirit was involved in the bringing about of God's word. I believe the scriptures were God breathed and that God Himself preserved His word. And with that consideration, I am in no way bound to the scholarly consensus.

 

[JackRT]

Yes I do have a lot of hate and anger towards false doctrine and attacks on God's word and sovereignty.

Hate is like a powerful acid. It corrodes the container in which it is stored as much as the object on which it is poured.

As I've said, the problem with scholarly research is that it comes at it from a naturalistic point of view. It rejects even the possibility of God's involvement in bringing about the scriptures. They won't consider: divine inspiration, biblical inerrancy/original authorship (in lieu of missing autographs), prophecies being written beforehand and not after the fact, etc. They approach the research from a purely naturalistic mindset.

That is a perfectly legitimate approach to any question, even questions about the Bible. They ask "what information do we have?" and "what possible explanations do we have for this information?" The approach is "do we need to involve the supernatural if there are reasonable explanations that do not?" This approach has met with huge success in fields that do not involve belief. Remember that the opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.

So I don't believe anything they have to say regarding dates or authorship or anything. I believe in a sovereign God; I believe that the Holy Spirit was involved in the bringing about of God's word. I believe the scriptures were God breathed and that God Himself preserved His word. And with that consideration, I am in no way bound to the scholarly consensus.

And that is your prerogative. You are open and honest about your beliefs and I respect that. What troubles me is your attitude towards those who disagree. Hate and contempt should not be the approach of a Christian. It is in fact a blot on Christianity.

Go with God my friend.

 

[lsume]

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.

Something to consider is that until Christ opens your eyes, you can’t see The Truth. Also, most don’t want The Truth.

 

[Hawkins]

The four gospels in the Bible are not eyewitness accounts.

It is the same argument that reporters are not eyewitnesses to compose the daily news. They don't need to be. Historians are not necessarily first hand eyewitnesses. Not all written by Josephus are actually witnessed by him. Both reporters and historians are gatherers of witnessed events from supposedly eyewitness accounts. They can sometimes be the eyewitnesses themselves though.

 

[Berean Tim]

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.

You're assuming Matthew 24 is all about 70AD

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

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

So you had to make the leap from me making a valid point about Christianity, to questioning my status as a Christian? That's downright dirty, right there. If you had listened to anything I said and taken it into consideration, what's obvious is that I do DEARLY care about following God's word; it's a matter of what is God's word, and what is man's word that has my interest. I've already said my piece about how I believe we know enough about Jesus and his ministry to hold most of the core beliefs of Christianity still even without a lot of the bible, and if you think that I'm not a Christian for any of that, perhaps you should examine whether or not your faith is genuine or indoctrination and parroting of what you've been taught.

 

[JackRT]

Well said!

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

1. Apologies, ma'am.

2. I believe it is by the word of God and the testimony of the saints that people are saved. That's what the Bible tells me.

I believe that God knows also how to soften the heart of certain individuals in order to get them to accept the testimony of the saints and to believe in Jesus Christ.

3. True. False religion was a bigger issue in Jesus' day. But He did refer to the gentile pagans as "heathen".

So, there were heathen gentiles having homosexual orgies and killing people(including his own), yet Jesus still felt as though the legalistic, controlling pharisees were more important of a matter to deal with? Yes, that's very telling, I agree.

4. I need no reason outside the Bible to believe the Bible is inerrant. I believe what the Bible says. And the Holy Spirit in my heart testifies to what is written. Even logic dictates to me that God preserves His word.

1a. With this reasoning, you'd have almost no chance converting a Muslim who thinks the same way and making them believe the Quran is not the divine, written word of God.

1b. It seems as though the 'holy spirit' you're referring to(as I call into question if it is the real deal or not), according to our many denominations and sects of Abrahamic belief systems, have either been telling people wildly different things, or these people are being swayed by something that is NOT of God.

5. Just google "2011 NIV gender-neutral" and you'll see. Not to mention that the NIV is based on manuscripts that leave out a lot of verses. I don't consider the NIV the word of God. Sorry if I made you ill.

I'm no scholar, but from what I've read the 'gender-neutral' nonsense you've been referring to is actually more accurate to the original manuscripts in most cases. A lot of the times when the bible would say things like 'mankind', 'his' or 'men', it was referring to the human race as a whole(likely all stemming from the 'mankind' term, which is not gender specifically obviously). I don't know how the original language worked exactly, but it's just word semantics and not propaganda. Furthermore, I don't see why one would be upset about it; someone could easily read a more 'man-heavy' translation and assume the commands only apply to men when they obviously do not.

Yes I do have a lot of hate and anger towards false doctrine and attacks on God's word and sovereignty. As I've said, the problem with scholarly research is that it comes at it from a naturalistic point of view. It rejects even the possibility of God's involvement in bringing about the scriptures. They won't consider: divine inspiration, biblical inerrancy/original authorship (in lieu of missing autographs), prophecies being written beforehand and not after the fact, etc. They approach the research from a purely naturalistic mindset. So I don't believe anything they have to say regarding dates or authorship or anything. I believe in a sovereign God; I believe that the Holy Spirit was involved in the bringing about of God's word. I believe the scriptures were God breathed and that God Himself preserved His word. And with that consideration, I am in no way bound to the scholarly consensus.

There are a lot of Christians who claim a lot of things are from God, which totally contradicts the current bible. How do you plan on telling a Muslim that the Quran is not the word of God? How do you reconcile the Christian denominations such as catholicism and orthodoxy which have books in the biblical canon that we do not? Oh right, we consult history because if we just assumed that anything claiming to be 'God's word' was real, our bible would be a mess.

I believe God will preserve his words--I don't know about scripture. Nowhere in the bible does it say you need to read scripture to be a Christian, but what it does say is to believe in Jesus Christ and follow his commands if you want to be saved. Jesus Christ IS God's word, that I know for sure.

In any case, I also have no problems with people assessing scripture from 'naturalistic' means; or do you forget that God is still God of the 'naturalistic' too, and that his work is present in everything?

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Something to consider is that until Christ opens your eyes, you can’t see The Truth. Also, most don’t want The Truth.

Or maybe Christ has opened my eyes, and other people in this thread don't' want to hear the truth and have their comfortable faith challenged.

 

[James A]

The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel essentially shreds this argument. I recommend giving it a read.

There are many "case for …" books by the same author and they all worth reading. A friend of mine recommended "Cold case Christianity"

 

[Sam81]

So, there were heathen gentiles having homosexual orgies and killing people(including his own), yet Jesus still felt as though the legalistic, controlling pharisees were more important of a matter to deal with? Yes, that's very telling, I agree.

Yes, false Christian liars and spiritual perverts are a bigger issue. That's why I spend the bulk of my time here, and not somewhere secular.

My laptop is down right now, and I don't feel like responding to your gish gallop using my phone. I do want to ask though, out of sheer curiosity, which scriptures you affirm and which scriptures you deny. That which accords with your own lifestyle and arbitrary beliefs? Perhaps you can make it known.

And what are your thoughts on Paul the Apostle?

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Yes, false Christian liars and spiritual perverts are a bigger issue. That's why I spend the bulk of my time here, and not somewhere secular.

My laptop is down right now, and I don't feel like responding to your gish gallop using my phone. I do want to ask though, out of sheer curiosity, which scriptures you affirm and which scriptures you deny. That which accords with your own lifestyle and arbitrary beliefs? Perhaps you can make it known.

And what are your thoughts on Paul the Apostle?

At the moment, I believe everything that is in the bible is useful for teaching--Paul's epistles included. I don't have a clear-cut statement to make as to which scriptures I fully affirm and which I do not, as that was what I was trying to spark discussion over and learn about before the thread was derailed.

Thanks terribly for the insinuation that I could be picking what scripture I affirm based on my own 'lifestyle and arbitrary beliefs', but you are gravely mistaken; I'm interested in finding out that which has been covered up and left in the past, closer to Christianity in its purer infancy.

It would be nice and all if my faith was as easy as plugging my ears and accusing anyone who asks hard questions of 'not being a true Christian', but I happen to realize that the bible has a messy past that I would rather help reconcile/understand instead of repeating the same ostracizing dogma that every modern Christian seems to just love to bits.

I won't be replying to you after this. I don't mind stating that you have quite openly offended me, and if you see me as such a terrible Christian, go spend your time in another evangelical echo-chamber instead. 'Bad company corrupts good morals', and all that.

You've sparked an anger in me that I do not wish to fuel, and it is better for myself that I do not continue to respond.

Regardless of my personal opinions, however, God Bless you and I hope that you find peace in whatever sphere of Christian belief you reside in.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

I believe they are all historically accurate. That Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke wrote Luke and John wrote John. Matthew was one of the apostles, so he was an eyewitness. Mark was the scribe of Peter, writing what Peter said, so it's a secretary writing an eyewitness account. Luke wrote what Paul told him, and Paul wasn't an eyewitness, except that Jesus showed him his life, I believe, in visions. John was also an apostle, and wrote his own gospel. I also believe that they all wrote independently, that Matthew wrote first, Mark wrote second, Luke, then John. I know there is scholarship that claims this to be false, but there is scholarship to show that it's true, too.

So an atheist who says otherwise is relying on recent scholarship which has veered off from the truth.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

We believe that the books of the Bible are meant to be understood in the way the author meant them to be understood, known as literalistically. In order to know what the author meant, we need to go back to the historical period to see the environment, and see what those closest to the author believed about what was written. We cannot take a scene from the Bible and put it in modern day, and expect to understand it. We have to be there, on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, smelling the smells of the sea, and the fish, the sweat of the fishermen, etc. We have to know what kind of literature those books are. Esther is not historical, but as someone said, is a parable. We have a lot of questions about the Creation accounts, but I believe them to be true for what they tell us, whether or not you believe the very timeline. I've seen very good arguments from both young-earth and old-earth theories. I believe in the literal world-wide flood.
Mainstream Christian views today? Which ones?