Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[Tassman]

I love how you like to use the bible as long as you think you can make a point with it, but as soon as we tell you how wrong you are, you go "well it's all made up anyway!"

[mossrose]

What is your source for your claim that the writers of the gospels were not eye-witnesses, and that the gospels are anecdotal, embellished hearsay?

If you have provided them earlier in this thread, please tell me, as I haven't read the entire thing.

[Doug Shaver]

What is your source for your claim that the writers of the gospels were not eye-witnesses

I won't try to guess Tassman's response, but I'm not sure why I would need a source. Is eyewitness authorship supposed to be some kind of default supposition?

[mossrose]

I won't try to guess Tassman's response, but I'm not sure why I would need a source. Is eyewitness authorship supposed to be some kind of default supposition?

Tassy says the gospel writers weren't eyewitnesses.

I want to know why he thinks that. He must have some overwhelming proof for us poor Christians who say he's wrong.

Simple question, should be a simple answer.

I mean, he's got to have something to counter the millennia of biblical scholars who say otherwise.

[JimL]

Tassy says the gospel writers weren't eyewitnesses.

I want to know why he thinks that. He must have some overwhelming proof for us poor Christians who say he's wrong.

Simple question, should be a simple answer.

I mean, he's got to have something to counter the millennia of biblical scholars who say otherwise.

Because it is agreed to by most all biblical scholars that the Gospels were written 40 to 60 years after the supposed events therein written took place. They weren't there, they were simply retelling in book form the oral tradition passed on to them.

[37818]

Because it is agreed to by most all biblical scholars that the Gospels were written 40 to 60 years after the supposed events therein written took place. They weren't there, they were simply retelling in book form the oral tradition passed on to them.

What is the proof for Matthew or Mark or Luke that a said scholar (give name and argument) argues on one of those was written after 70AD?

[mossrose]

Because it is agreed to by most all biblical scholars that the Gospels were written 40 to 60 years after the supposed events therein written took place. They weren't there, they were simply retelling in book form the oral tradition passed on to them.

I can write a book about stuff that happened in my life 50 or so years ago. I was there, I can write about it.Why does it matter how long after the events happened an account is written? How does that make it anecdotal, embellished hearsay?

It seems to me that a person who witnessed what Jesus did, who lived with Him for 3 years, would never forget the events. Especially if He is who He said He is.

And what scholars are you referring to?

[rogue06]

Because it is agreed to by most all biblical scholars that the Gospels were written 40 to 60 years after the supposed events therein written took place.

Just so I understand you correctly, you're saying that because the authors didn't write things down until 40 to 60 years later that the accounts ought to be disregarded?

If so, then anyone writing about their experiences during the Vietnam War, or the Korean War, is just writing fiction.

Anyone writing about their experiences growing up during the 50s is just telling tales.

Anyone telling you about watched the moon landing can simply be discounted as unreliable.

Do you really want to go there?

They weren't there, they were simply retelling in book form the oral tradition passed on to them.

Oh really?

I'll give you that Luke wasn't likely an eyewitness to what he recounts in his Gospel but he was for much of its continuation (Acts of the Apostles).

Mark, OTOH, is a different matter. There is an extremely early tradition that identifies him with John Mark, Barnabas' cousin and is thought to number among the 70 disciples mentioned in Luke 10 that were sent out to spread the Gospel message. But the one thing that nobody disputed was that he acted as Peter's secretary/scribe and probably can be regarded as the hand/pen of Peter. Here is a man who quite possibly was an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry and even if not traveled with the disciple that perhaps knew Him the best, hearing Peter preach on what was likely a daily basis for years on end.

Matthew is Levi as the parallel passages in Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27 reveal. A publican/tax collector who became one of the 12 Apostles. That he is known by more than one name hardly is unprecedented in the New Testament among the first Christians with Simon/Cephas/Peter and Saul/Paul being the clearest examples.

John is also a direct eyewitness being one of the 12 Apostles, one of the sons of Zebedee. With Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, they headed the Jerusalem Church and who recognized the legitimacy of Paul's mission (Galatians 2:9). IIRC tradition dating back at least as far as the 2nd cent. says he was the last Apostle to die and was very old.

[Tassman]

What is your source for your claim that the writers of the gospels were not eye-witnesses, and that the gospels are anecdotal, embellished hearsay?

If you have provided them earlier in this thread, please tell me, as I haven't read the entire thing.

There are many sources that say this, Bart Ehrman for one and Raymond E Brown, who is considered one of the greatest New Testament scholars of our time, is another.

https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wor...f-the-gospels/

[Doug Shaver]

Tassy says the gospel writers weren't eyewitnesses.

It wouldn't be the first time I've disagreed with him. We skeptics aren't all singing from the same hymnal.

[37818]

https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wor...f-the-gospels/

The lost are still lost, no matter what works of faith they place their trust in. This former professing Christian who cites a Roman Catholic scholar and priest states the basis of his faith (which happens to be in the heresy of prayer regeneration, a common error among Baptists who reject the heresy of baptismal regeneration). "I grew up in a fundamentalist Baptist family. I prayed to Jesus to be my Lord and Savior and to forgive me of all my sins at the age of nine. . . ."

(Nothing wrong with the works of faith, baptism [Acts 2:38], prayer [Romans 10:13], confession [Romans 10:9-10]. They just are not the basis of salvation. The heresy is trusting in doing the work [Matthew 7:21-23])

[Tassman]

The lost are still lost, no matter what works of faith they place their trust in. This former professing Christian who cites a Roman Catholic scholar and priest states the basis of his faith (which happens to be in the heresy of prayer regeneration, a common error among Baptists who reject the heresy of baptismal regeneration). "I grew up in a fundamentalist Baptist family. I prayed to Jesus to be my Lord and Savior and to forgive me of all my sins at the age of nine. . . ."

Lost? Such an assertion requites a lot of unsubstantiated baggage in things like supernatural deities etc, to make sense.

(Nothing wrong with the works of faith, baptism [Acts 2:38], prayer [Romans 10:13], confession [Romans 10:9-10]. They just are not the basis of salvation. The heresy is trusting in doing the work [Matthew 7:21-23])

You persist in quoting scripture as though it was authoritative and had converting power. It is not and does not.

[Tassman]

Tassy says the gospel writers weren't eyewitnesses.

I want to know why he thinks that. He must have some overwhelming proof for us poor Christians who say he's wrong.

Simple question, should be a simple answer.

I mean, he's got to have something to counter the millennia of biblical scholars who say otherwise.

Why don't you answer Doug's question: "Is eyewitness authorship supposed to be some kind of default supposition?"

[37818]

Lost? Such an assertion requites a lot of unsubstantiated baggage in things like supernatural deities etc, to make sense.

Only one deity. Not deities. Can you definitively show that there is not only one actual/real deity?

You persist in quoting scripture as though it was authoritative and had converting power. It is not and does not.

Yes. And what they say prove true. You cannot prove uncaused Existence is not the identity of God. You have only proven to me, for one, that you do not understand the Christian good news of the unmerited favor God offers do to your refusal to do so. Yeah, so you know a story of a death, burial and claimed resurrection. But you do not understand how that story is true or why or how it is good news nor the unmerited favor.

[Sparko]