Could God reincarnate humans if he wanted to?

[37818]

https://vridar.org/2009/05/07/how-th...dated-and-why/

Of course there are reasons. The fact there are reasons does not make the reasons in and of themselves correct. Now if you know of a definitive case we can discuss it. [There were reasons Hebrews had for long time been attributed to Paul, yet it is understood today based on Hebrews 2:3 that Paul did not write it.]

[shunyadragon]

Of course there are reasons. The fact there are reasons does not make the reasons in and of themselves correct. Now if you know of a definitive case we can discuss it. [There were reasons Hebrews had for long time been attributed to Paul, yet it is understood today based on Hebrews 2:3 that Paul did not write it.]

The definitive case is documented by the majority of the Biblical scholars and recognized without controversy today.

[37818]

The definitive case is documented by the majority of the Biblical scholars and recognized without controversy today.

Unbelieving Bible scholars are typically wrong. And your general statement is not definitive and does not present any specifics to justify anything. The historic evidence for the four gospel accounts is that they were written by whose names are associated with them.

[shunyadragon]

Unbelieving Bible scholars are typically wrong. And your general statement is not definitive and does not present any specifics to justify anything. The historic evidence for the four gospel accounts is that they were written by whose names are associated with them.

The Bible scholars are not just unbelievers unless you are considering only the Bible scholars that agree with you as believers.

What historical evidence outside the gospels supports the original authorship of the gospels?

The International Bible Society supports the academic view of the order of the synoptic gospels.

[37818]

The Bible scholars are not just unbelievers unless you are considering only the Bible scholars that agree with you as believers.

What historical evidence outside the gospels supports the original authorship of the gospels?

The International Bible Society supports the academic view of the order of the synoptic gospels.

From the view point that Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture, it was Holy Scripture when it was written. Theories of those who do not believe those scriptures are Holy Scripture has not change that perspective.

[shunyadragon]

From the view point that Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture, it was Holy Scripture when it was written. Theories of those who do not believe those scriptures are Holy Scripture has not change that perspective.

You did not answer the question nor address the source that involves believers, which is the International Bible Society.

[37818]

You did not answer the question nor address the source that involves believers, which is the International Bible Society.

The following link is to a pdf which addresses your question:
• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: CP

This is called 'argument by weblink', though the link contains a PDF - you can't just post a link without at least giving a summary of what it is going to address or prove. You might want to give a summary, then include your link.

And PLEASE take note of the notice below about arguing moderation in the thread.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[shunyadragon]

The following link is to a pdf which addresses your question:
• Edited by a Moderator •

The reference relies only on internal evidence and circular selfish reason to justify an agenda, and totally reject the more reliable historical external evidence.

[Tassman]

The following link is to a pdf which addresses your question:
• Edited by a Moderator •

Nevertheless, the mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant places, after a substantial time lapse, by unknown persons who compiled redacted, and embellished various traditions in order to provide a narrative of Jesus that would confirm and enhance the faith of their communities. In short, the Gospels are works of oral tradition, i.e. collections of anonymous traditions passed down through many iterations between the actual witnesses and the unknown writers of the Gospels.

[37818]

Nevertheless, the mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant places, after a substantial time lapse, by unknown persons who compiled redacted, and embellished various traditions in order to provide a narrative of Jesus that would confirm and enhance the faith of their communities. In short, the Gospels are works of oral tradition, i.e. collections of anonymous traditions passed down through many iterations between the actual witnesses and the unknown writers of the Gospels.

The argument of anonymous is based on the fact that the known associated human author did not sign his name, as such, in the document. There is no other evidence of being anonymous beyond that omission in regard to the four gospel accounts. The writer of Acts refers to himself as a participant in some of its events. The manuscript evidence, is the fact, that titles are known to accompany the copies of gospel accounts. The pdf presents the manuscripts and the titles which came with them.

[37818]

The reference relies only on internal evidence and circular selfish reason to justify an agenda, and totally reject the more reliable historical external evidence.

The evidence is cited in the pdf.

[shunyadragon]

The evidence is cited in the pdf.

The reference relies only on internal evidence and circular selfish reason to justify an agenda, and totally reject the more reliable historical external evidence.

[Tassman]

The argument of anonymous is based on the fact that the known associated human author did not sign his name, as such, in the document. There is no other evidence of being anonymous beyond that omission in regard to the four gospel accounts. The writer of Acts refers to himself as a participant in some of its events. The manuscript evidence, is the fact, that titles are known to accompany the copies of gospel accounts. The pdf presents the manuscripts and the titles which came with them.

It's the argument you want to hear, i.e. 'confirmation bias', but this does not reflect the mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works based upon oral tradition passed down through many iterations between the actual witnesses and the unknown writers of the gospels.

[37818]

It's the argument you want to hear, i.e. 'confirmation bias', but this does not reflect the mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works based upon oral tradition passed down through many iterations between the actual witnesses and the unknown writers of the gospels.

Oral tradition? What is physical evidence and dating of this oral tradition? Says who?

[37818]

The reference relies only on internal evidence and circular selfish reason to justify an agenda, and totally reject the more reliable historical external evidence.

There are real NT documents with author idenity attached to them. No real evidence to the contrary.