A question for atheists . . .

[37818]

ALL the many Christian denominations and sects are "genuine" in their eyes and they ALL claim to know God. What makes you different?

Oh, so are you saying there is no difference then? There are essentials which all genuine Christians agree on. Your difficulty is you do not know what genuine Christianity believes.

You have no "proof".

No. Your problem is in recognizing what is or what is not true.

[Tassman]

Oh, so are you saying there is no difference then? There are essentials which all genuine Christians agree on. Your difficulty is you do not know what genuine Christianity believes.

It's you who made the distinction between "genuine Christians" and non-genuine Christians.

No. Your problem is in recognizing what is or what is not true.

Your problem is the total lack of substantive evidence.

[37818]

It's you who made the distinction between "genuine Christians" and non-genuine Christians.

Yes. By reason that distinction does exist.

Your problem is the total lack of substantive evidence.

How is the Christian New Testament not the evidence?

[Tassman]

Yes. By reason that distinction does exist.

How is the Christian New Testament not the evidence?

[tabibito]

According to the best information available, the apostle Paul was born between AD 5 and 10, and died some time before AD 70, with early to mid 60s being the most accepted time frame. Accordingly, a substantial proportion of the New Testament - Paul's epistles - was written within a few decades of Christ's own death, reasonably estimated to be around AD 33. In short, Paul was a contemporary of the first generation apostles and other disciples, and did in fact meet with them. It is also certain that the first of Paul's epistles (Romans) was written some years before his death. It would be a safe call to say that Romans would have been written no later than AD 50.
The claim that none of the gospels was recorded for many decades is mere misdirection. Even if the lack of written (gospel) material before 120 AD COULD be taken as evidence that no gospel was written before that date, Paul's works predate the fall of Jerusalem. Luke claimed to have personally met Paul - even if his works, The Gospel according to Luke and The Acts of the Apostles was written after Paul's death, the fact remains that Luke met with and obtained material from first generation Christians.
There is no valid reason to doubt Luke's claim to have done as he claimed. Nor is there any valid reason to doubt his claim that other chroniclers were concurrently engaged in assembling gospel material gained from people who had personally met Christ. The argument that nothing was written during the first few decades of Christianity is false - Paul did write within that time frame. The argument that nothing of the gospel records was written during the first few decades of Christianity barely meets the standard of argument from silence.

[Tassman]

According to the best information available, the apostle Paul was born between AD 5 and 10, and died some time before AD 70, with early to mid 60s being the most accepted time frame. Accordingly, a substantial proportion of the New Testament - Paul's epistles - was written within a few decades of Christ's own death, reasonably estimated to be around AD 33. In short, Paul was a contemporary of the first generation apostles and other disciples, and did in fact meet with them. It is also certain that the first of Paul's epistles (Romans) was written some years before his death. It would be a safe call to say that Romans would have been written no later than AD 50.

The claim that none of the gospels was recorded for many decades is mere misdirection. Even if the lack of written (gospel) material before 120 AD COULD be taken as evidence that no gospel was written before that date, Paul's works predate the fall of Jerusalem. Luke claimed to have personally met Paul - even if his works, The Gospel according to Luke and The Acts of the Apostles was written after Paul's death, the fact remains that Luke met with and obtained material from first generation Christians.

There is no valid reason to doubt Luke's claim to have done as he claimed. Nor is there any valid reason to doubt his claim that other chroniclers were concurrently engaged in assembling gospel material gained from people who had personally met Christ. The argument that nothing was written during the first few decades of Christianity is false - Paul did write within that time frame. The argument that nothing of the gospel records was written during the first few decades of Christianity barely meets the standard of argument from silence.

ALL the gospels are late and based upon embellished oral tradition, not eyewitness reportage.

[Kbertsche]

Nonsense. Where is your evidence that Paul was not "aware of" any details about the historical Jesus, as opposed to being aware of but simply not mentioning these details very frequently?

Note that Jesus DOES mention some of the "historical stuff". He was aware of the Last Supper and of what was said there:

He was aware of the crucifixion and resurrection:

Even the Corinthians 'Little Creed' can be understood spiritually!

Yes, and "black" can be understood to be "white". Everything can be wrongly understood. So what?

one word: CONTEXT. Read this passage in the context of the chapter and book. Paul is stressing that the gospel that he preaches has not been "contaminated" by any human misunderstandings. He is NOT saying that it has no connection to earthly things. His 1 Cor quotes above say the opposite: the gospel that he preaches IS connected to earthly things.

[Tassman]

one word: CONTEXT. Read this passage in the context of the chapter and book. Paul is stressing that the gospel that he preaches has not been "contaminated" by any human misunderstandings. He is NOT saying that it has no connection to earthly things. His 1 Cor quotes above say the opposite: the gospel that he preaches IS connected to earthly things.

That passage IS

[Kbertsche]

That passage IS the "context",

No, it's only the immediate context. To get what Paul,is driving at, you need to read the whole book. Have you done so? Do you see how these verses fit into the context of the book?

I wouldn't say "grounding", but "source".

(Gal. 1:11-12). This is the source of Paul's 'Jesus story'.

He calls it his "gospel", not his "Jesus story". Gospel means "good news".

I assume that you mean 1Cor 15:3-5? This is both historical and a creed. It's a set of historical claims set into a very early creed. This is something that Paul DID receive directly from others, not directly from God, and that he claims to pass on faithfully. He probably heard it from Peter three years after Paul's conversion (Gal. 1:18); this is about 5 years after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The creed would have been formulated earlier, by the early disciples and apostles.

This creed thus dates to within 5 years of the events. This provides important historical evidence of what the very early Christians believed. They believed that Jesus actually died and was resurrected bodily, as recorded later in the gospels. This is the predominant view of leading NT historians of all stripes, including Bart Ehrman.

You can attempt to harmonise Paul with the gospels all you want. The fact remains that there are no references to a virgin born, miracle-working, baptised historical Jesus until the gospels written decades after Jesus' death. Maybe Paul forgot, or didn't think they were necessary, or they're simply fabricated later embellishments.

Or maybe they simply weren't important for what Paul was trying to say. If you look at the theme and purpose of each of his letters, you should see that this is the case.

After Luke wrote his gospel letter, he wrote the book of Acts. Acts harmonizes quite well with Paul's letters. Do you think Luke added all sorts of embellishments to his gospel, but not to Acts? Does this make sense?

But the fact is they are not there. The view of most historical-critical scholars is that ALL the gospels are late and based upon embellished oral tradition, not eyewitness reportage.

Can you please present your evidence that "most historical-critical scholars" see it this way?

[37818]

Yes there is. You just do not acknowledge any.


You are assuming that the writings are merely that of men. Not comprehending nor accepting those writings coming from God through men of God.

[JimL]

Yes there is. You just do not acknowledge any.


You are assuming that the writings are merely that of men. Not comprehending nor accepting those writings coming from God through men of God.

No, actually we know those writings came from men, there is no assumption in that, but you on the other hand are making an assumption, i.e. that a god did it. So where does that assumption come from, from the very book, and men, that tells you thus.

[Tassman]

Yes there is. You just do not acknowledge any.

Your mere assertion does not make it so.

You are assuming that the writings are merely that of men. Not comprehending nor accepting those writings coming from God through men of God.

Yes I'm assuming that the writings "are merely that of men".

[Tassman]

No, it's only the immediate context. To get what Paul,is driving at, you need to read the whole book. Have you done so? Do you see how these verses fit into the context of the book?

(Gal. 1:11-12).

I assume that you mean 1Cor 15:3-5? This is both historical and a creed. It's a set of historical claims set into a very early creed. This is something that Paul DID receive directly from others, not directly from God, and that he claims to pass on faithfully. He probably heard it from Peter three years after Paul's conversion (Gal. 1:18); this is about 5 years after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The creed would have been formulated earlier, by the early disciples and apostles.

This creed thus dates to within 5 years of the events. This provides important historical evidence of what the very early Christians believed. They believed that Jesus actually died and was resurrected bodily, as recorded later in the gospels. This is the predominant view of leading NT historians of all stripes, including Bart Ehrman.

Or maybe they simply weren't important for what Paul was trying to say. If you look at the theme and purpose of each of his letters, you should see that this is the case.

After Luke wrote his gospel letter, he wrote the book of Acts. Acts harmonizes quite well with Paul's letters. Do you think Luke added all sorts of embellishments to his gospel, but not to Acts? Does this make sense?

Can you please present your evidence that "most historical-critical scholars" see it this way?

[Kbertsche]

No, it's only the immediate context. To get what Paul,is driving at, you need to read the whole book. Have you done so? Do you see how these verses fit into the context of the book?

(Gal. 1:11-12).

This doesn't answer my questions. Have you read the whole book of Galatians? Do you see how these verses fit into the context of the book?

Have you read Bart Ehrman on this? I would not call him a "literalist", and he does not seem to accept the resurrection. But he makes strong arguments that the creed dates to within 5 years of the events and that it can only describe a physical resurrection.

Again you have not answered my question. As a reminder, here is your earlier claim and my question:

The view of most historical-critical scholars is that ALL the gospels are late and based upon embellished oral tradition, not eyewitness reportage.

Can you please present your evidence that "most historical-critical scholars" see it this way?

I'm not asking for your own view, or for a plausibility argument. I'm asking for actual evidence that the majority of historical-critical scholars believe 1) that "ALL the gospels are late", and 2) that they are "based upon embellished oral tradition, not eyewitness reportage".

[Tassman]

This doesn't answer my questions. Have you read the whole book of Galatians? Do you see how these verses fit into the context of the book?

Have you read Bart Ehrman on this? I would not call him a "literalist", and he does not seem to accept the resurrection. But he makes strong arguments that the creed dates to within 5 years of the events and that it can only describe a physical resurrection.

I'm not asking for your own view, or for a plausibility argument. I'm asking for actual evidence that the majority of historical-critical scholars believe 1) that "ALL the gospels are late",

and 2) that they are "based upon embellished oral tradition, not eyewitness reportage".