J
Jack Koons
Guest
I know this was not addressed to me, but since this is an open forum:
bhsmte stated,
"I have done quite a bit of research into the works of NT historians and scholars and find the following that give me great pause as to the credibility of the NT:
-The gospels were written by anonymous authors and the names attached to them, were only attached to them 150-200 years after Jesus died.
-The four gospels were written 30-70 years after Jesus died, making eye witness accounts highly unlikely.
-The gospels were written in Greek, and Jesus' followers spoke Aramaic and were considered to be illiterate.
-There are significant discrepancies in the crucifixion and resurrection accounts in each of the gospels
-Mark had numerous verses added to it, centuries later, so it would jive with the other gospels
-Stories were added to the gospels centuries after the fact. The famous story of the adulteress, is no where to be found in any of the oldest copies of the gospels and most scholars agree, it was added centuries later.
-John is the only gospel that mentions Jesus states he is God and it was the last gospel written (about 70 years after Jesus died) and is considered the least reliable of the four by most historians and scholars. Why would Matthew, Mark and Luke fail to mention such an important point about Jesus?
I could go on and on, but will finish with this. The consensus of NT historians can only agree on the following in regards to Jesus with a high degree of confidence:
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified
Beyond that, there is little consensus as to what in the NT is reliable, from a historical perspective."
This is one of the greatest tragedies of modern Bible colleges. When Christians are taught in so-called "Bible colleges" the Bible we have now is full of errors.
I will respect the purpose of this thread: the purpose of which is discussing the true evidence concerning evolution. However, if the author of the above analysis of NT truth would like to discuss that which he posted; with his permission, I would gladly start a new thread titled:
"Is the historicity of the NT valid?", with the above quote as the main text of the OP.
Furthermore, I will further address the statements (and questions) directed at me in a further post. It is however my desire to not shift the attention of this thread away from the OP. I will do my best to only address matters of 'evolution' and that which pertIns to it in this thread.
Jack
bhsmte stated,
"I have done quite a bit of research into the works of NT historians and scholars and find the following that give me great pause as to the credibility of the NT:
-The gospels were written by anonymous authors and the names attached to them, were only attached to them 150-200 years after Jesus died.
-The four gospels were written 30-70 years after Jesus died, making eye witness accounts highly unlikely.
-The gospels were written in Greek, and Jesus' followers spoke Aramaic and were considered to be illiterate.
-There are significant discrepancies in the crucifixion and resurrection accounts in each of the gospels
-Mark had numerous verses added to it, centuries later, so it would jive with the other gospels
-Stories were added to the gospels centuries after the fact. The famous story of the adulteress, is no where to be found in any of the oldest copies of the gospels and most scholars agree, it was added centuries later.
-John is the only gospel that mentions Jesus states he is God and it was the last gospel written (about 70 years after Jesus died) and is considered the least reliable of the four by most historians and scholars. Why would Matthew, Mark and Luke fail to mention such an important point about Jesus?
I could go on and on, but will finish with this. The consensus of NT historians can only agree on the following in regards to Jesus with a high degree of confidence:
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified
Beyond that, there is little consensus as to what in the NT is reliable, from a historical perspective."
This is one of the greatest tragedies of modern Bible colleges. When Christians are taught in so-called "Bible colleges" the Bible we have now is full of errors.
I will respect the purpose of this thread: the purpose of which is discussing the true evidence concerning evolution. However, if the author of the above analysis of NT truth would like to discuss that which he posted; with his permission, I would gladly start a new thread titled:
"Is the historicity of the NT valid?", with the above quote as the main text of the OP.
Furthermore, I will further address the statements (and questions) directed at me in a further post. It is however my desire to not shift the attention of this thread away from the OP. I will do my best to only address matters of 'evolution' and that which pertIns to it in this thread.
Jack
Upvote
0