Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How do you know they aren't reliable, as they pertain to whether or not Jesus existed? Beyond simply not knowing the names of who authored them?
The fact that they weren't written until several decades AFTER the events described, the fact that they appear to be copies and/or based off a single source document, the fact that they contradict each other...
The fact that they weren't written until several decades AFTER the events described, the fact that they appear to be copies and/or based off a single source document, the fact that they contradict each other...
If they are copies, that means there were originals that existed beforehand, during the contemporary time.
The book of Mark is suggested to have been written by 65 AD, which means Josephus would have been in his 30s.
James, brother of Jesus is said to have been executed by 62AD. Josephus again would have been some 30+ years old and his works came out perhaps just 30 years later.
We aren't talking about multiple generations here, these historians were living at the same time as the apostles.
I didn't witness the Vietnam or gulf wars first hand, but that doesn't mean that I'm not a credible source on whether or not they occurred simply because I wasn't there to experience them first hand, or simply because I wrote about them 30 years after they occurred.
Remember, Jesus was just a nobody rebel carpenter with some fisherman followers. There is no reason to believe Josephus or Tacitus or the historians that perhaps taught them or raised them, would have even cared about Jesus during his ministry. Nobody of course would care to have written about Jesus until after he was executed, and that's what we see. Within a single generation after the alleged execution of Jesus, we have the apostles generating their gospels, and a Jewish and Roman historians talking about it, which is just what we would expect.
Also, remember further that, given that Jesus was hypothetically just a carpenter, he would have had a hired professional scribes with him during his ventures. So there is no reason to believe that anyone necessarily would have written down his history as it was unfolding, no more than is the case for you or I.
And while it is true that even the gospels sometimes contradict one another, it is also true that in many cases, the gospels tell the same stories, and mention the same people. The same people who also happen to be spoken of by these historians.
It obviously existed before the copies did. Unless you're suggesting time travel or something.
That doesn't mean it was written at the time of the events being described.
How do you know they were copied from anything? The Gospels were composed, not copied.. Mark's 30 or 40 years after the supposed date Crucifixion from a variety of unknown sources, Matthew and Luke another 20 years on and based on Mark and other unidentified sources. The Gospel of John reached its final form about the turn of the century and the author appears to have known of the Gospels of Mark and Luke although whether he relied upon them significantly for source material is unclear. To regard the Gospels as copies of eyewitness accounts is fatuous.The earliest copies are already only a few decades off. If they are copied from earlier records, I'd say that makes it close enough.
The earliest copies are already only a few decades off. If they are copied from earlier records, I'd say that makes it close enough.
How do you know they were copied from anything? The Gospels were composed, not copied.. Mark's 30 or 40 years after the supposed date Crucifixion from a variety of unknown sources, Matthew and Luke another 20 years on and based on Mark and other unidentified sources. The Gospel of John reached its final form about the turn of the century and the author appears to have known of the Gospels of Mark and Luke although whether he relied upon them significantly for source material is unclear. To regard the Gospels as copies of eyewitness accounts is fatuous.
Well that's just because you don't have faith.
That seems to be rather circular.
You need to have faith that it supports the thing you have faith in.
Sounds to me like it's just lowering your standards for what constitutes valid evidence simply because it tells you what you want to hear.
Obviously you wouldn't understand.
If you could produce a rational argument for it, yes I would.
Please don't try to paint ahteists as being unreasonable just because they want more evidence than can be provided.
'For those who disbelieve, no explanation is possible. For those who believe, no explanation is necessary'.
That just proves what I said - you wouldn't understand.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?