Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[stromboli]

Read 4-5 different articles by historians and others that pretty specifically state that the Gospels were NOT written by eyewitness accounts. There is also pretty strong evidence that at least a couple of the Gospels are forgeries

http://news.discovery.com/history/bible-new-testament-forgery-110518.htm

According to the biblical scholar, at least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries, while only seven of the 13 epistles attributed to Paul were probably written by him.

"Virtually all scholars agree that seven of the Pauline letters are authentic: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon," says Ehrman.

Individuals claiming to be Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians, he adds.

Contradictory views, discrepancies in the language and the choice of words among the books attributed to Paul are all evidence of this forgery, the author asserts.

For example, Ehrman’s analysis of the book of Ephesians shows that the text, filled with long Greek sentences, doesn’t match with Paul’s peculiar Greek writing style, made of short sentences.

Moreover, the content of what the author says "stands at odds with Paul’s own thought, but is in line with the Ephesians," writes Ehrman.

The biblical scholar, who also challenges the authenticity of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John, disputes the assumption that the Apostle Peter wrote the Epistles of Peter or anything else.

That is, btw, Randy's boy Ehrman- a former Evangelical preacher.

Also contradictions
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id2.html      (Long article.)

The fraudulent nature of the New Testament is readily apparent to anyone who studies it objectively. The gospels have been shown to be fiction pure and simple while many of the so-called epistles of Paul are obvious counterfeits as are those of Peter and John. (See Who Wrote the New Testament? by Burton L. Mack.) In fact, forgery was so rampant throughout the early Christian establishment that Paul taught his followers to recognize his handwriting in an attempt to insure authenticity2. So to point out a few forgeries in this book of forgeries is like prosecuting a serial rapist for jay walking. However, the following stories are among those deserving special attention because they are often presented as factual history, particularly to the young.

In the following I deal almost exclusively with the gospels. Forgeries are rampant, however, throughout the entire New Testament, especially among the so-called epistles of Paul. For more information on this subject see, "The Pauline Epistles," "The First Bible" and "Are the Gospels True?".

The Virgin Birth - With the development in the last half of the twentieth century of the twin medical techniques, in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination, it became possible for a "virgin," a woman who had never had sexual intercourse with a man, to conceive and bear a child. But, could such a thing have happened two thousand years ago? No way!

In the gospels of Matthew and Luke, whose authors remain unknown, we are told at the beginning of the birth narratives that a young Jewish woman who had never had normal sex relations with a man did in fact become pregnant and after term she delivered a healthy baby boy. It is known euphemistically as "The Virgin Birth." Many Christians take it literally. Ask them why and they will in all probability say it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, Isaiah 7:14 to be exact. Is their interpretation of the prophecy in question valid, or is it not? What follows is derived in part from the writings of Samuel Golding of the Jerusalem Institute of Biblical Polemics, Jerusalem, Israel.

Throughout all of Christendom the New Testament is considered to be the divinely inspired word of God. Therefore, its message is accepted without question. Messianic Jews have been taught by Christian missionaries that it is the fulfillment of the Tanach (Hebrew Bible). In short, the Old Testament prophets are supposed to have spoken about Jesus thus confirming his claim to be the long awaited Jewish messiah. One of the many "proofs" of this astounding claim comes from a misinterpretation of Isaiah 7.14 (KJV) which reads, Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Emmanuel.

The verse which mentions a virgin can only be found in the KJV which is incorrectly translated. Other Bibles such as the NEB, RSV and the Jerusalem Bible (Catholic Version) do not give credence to the belief in a virgin birth. There are a few points worth noting as we compare the original Hebrew with the English translation of the KJV.

     a] In Hebrew the verse reads in the present tense, "is with child" and not the future tense as recorded in Christian Bibles (KJV.) In Hebrew it states she is pregnant, not will become pregnant. In fact, the Catholic Bible, Isaiah 7.14 reads as follows: "The maiden is with child and will soon give birth to a son." Jesus was not born until seven hundred years after this sign was given, which certainly could not be described as "soon." The text reads 'is with child', therefore how could this woman be kept pregnant for seven hundred years until Jesus arrived?

    b] This is not a prophecy for some future date, it is a 'ot' (sign ). Whenever 'ot' is used in Hebrew it means something which will come to pass immediately. 'Ot' is used elsewhere in the Bible: This shall be a sign unto thee from the Lord (Isaiah 38.7-8), and "If they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign" (Ex 4.8-9). In each case the sign comes to pass immediately, not seven hundred years later.

    c] The name of the child was Emmanuel. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find that Jesus is called Emmanuel. The angel informs Joseph in a dream that Mary will give birth to a son and that he should be called Jesus (Matt. 1:20-21, Luke 2;21.) All the evidence indicates that we are dealing with two different individuals here, Emmanuel and Jesus.

     d] The text specifically says, 'the young woman' -'alma' whereas KJV changes the translation to 'a virgin '. The definite article is changed to the indefinite article, whereas the original text is evidently referring to the young woman known to both Isaiah and Ahaz, and not to some unknown person living far in the future. Here the prophet Isaiah is simply relating to the fact that the young woman is having a baby and that will be a sign to king Ahaz.

Apologetics doesn't apparently include comparative research from either neutral or opposing sources.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is my first thread covering WHO wrote the gospels, and I have presented more information on this topic here than I have posted elsewhere.

Enjoy!

It's just another bullshit thread which you will abandon when you've had your ass handed to you repeatedly.

[stromboli]

It's just another bullshit thread which you will abandon when you've had your ass handed to you repeatedly.

Lol. The derp is strong in our boy Randy.

[SGOS]

Apologetics isn't some intellectual branch of investigation independent of a specific religion's tall tales and fallacious reasoning.  It is the religion itself.  It is nothing more than an attempt at a rehash, an opportunity to present for a second time all of the religion's tall tales and fallacious reasoning used in the original introduction.

The satirical sarcasm of the quip, "Move on.  Nothing to see here," is never more appropriate than when people get sucked into religious apologetics.  There may be a reordering of words, and change of tone, but the same bullshit is repackaged and regurgitated over and over using the same fallacious mental process that created the original compilation of unsupported myth in the first place.  "Nothing to see here, folks."  The words may be reordered, but the mental process behind them is exactly the same.

It's like watching creation science be debunked as religion and NOT science, only to have the charlatans repackage the whole sham as "Intelligent Design", and present the same bullshit to the public a second time.  The words have changed, but the fallacious reasoning behind the stupid has not.

And why they label this tool of evangelical indoctrination "apologetics" has always made me wonder.  If you do something so stupid that it requires an apology, then before you even bother with the apology, you need to stop doing the stupid first.  Otherwise, you just keep repeating the mistake and apologizing for it, like a drunk or drug addict keeps apologizing to his wife and kids for his ongoing failure.  The behavior doesn't change, nor does the stupid, and those two things are the crux of the problem to begin with.  The tactic of apologetics doesn't apologize, it simply repeats the unsupported claims of magic and myth.

[Randy Carson]

There's virtually no evidence of anything thing you just said. Actually there is much historical evidence that none of it happened and no such person as jesus existed. Jesus was a legend of the time and some one decided to make him a prophet/god. Extensive records were kept by Rome and not a single word was written about said events. That sounds a lot like a legend that never happened to me.

Stop believing every stupid thing the catholic church tells you to believe and look for the evidence on you're own. You'll find out there is none.

I got the information I posted on these four points from Protestant authors and scholars.

Now, my question to you would be this: If there is NO evidence, how do you respond to each of the points I have posted in the OP's?

You are encouraging me to look for the evidence because you believe I'll find none.

I encourage you to look for the evidence because I believe you will find a lot! And many atheists are becoming believers when they come to that realization.

Rather than simply taking what

Good luck!

[SGOS]

I encourage you to look for the evidence because I believe you will find a lot! And many atheists are becoming believers

Big Whoop!  Many theists are becoming atheists, because they see how weak that same evidence is.  If you want a statistical pissing contest, you've come to the wrong place.  Prove your case or stop jacking off.

[Mike Cl]

Apologetics=making shit up and then lying about it.  But being sincere about it; and stating belief and faith as FACT.  Hypocrite=apologetics; pure and simple.

[Randy Carson]

Well, since this is the gospel thread

It is.

Do you have a question about the identity of the authors of the gospels at this point?

[Randy Carson]

Well, it was an eyewitness account.  An eyewitness account of magic by someone who may or may not have actually been there.  I'm sure the courts would be just fine with that.

Has the author, J.K. Rowling, indicated that she was writing actual history in any way?

Does anyone of sound mind believe that she was?

I covered the differences between the claims for Jesus and the claims for Peter Pan in another post.

[reasonist]

The oldest manuscript of the NT in existence (currently displayed at the U of Manchester) is a papyrus fragment which has been dated to ca. 140 CE. It's possible that it was written (not before) 120 CE. That is at least 90 years after the alleged death of the alleged Jesus. So of course it is ludicrous to talk about eye witnesses of any events during the time of Jesus. Now lets see some of the would be headlines in today's paper about events 90-110 years ago.

"Armundsen discovers North Pole!"
"Radio receiver invented!"
"Wright brothers build first airplane."
"The first talking motion picture in theaters!"

That was already a time of wire communication, printed press and libraries!! Now imagine 1,900 years ago. Primitive desert dwellers who thought the earth was flat "and for whom the wheelbarrow would have been a breath taking example of emerging technology" (S. Harris), wrote about oral tradition from centuries past. To rely on such documents as the basis for our world view today, is to reject 2,000 years of civilizing insights that we achieved through secular politics and scientific progress. It would be equivalent to giving medical students today text books from 1906!

"The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people rather than see them as individuals. Abrahamic religion gives strong sanction to both-and mixes explosively with both. Only the willfully blind could fail to implicate the divisive force of religion in most, if not all of the violent crimes in the world today. Without a doubt it is the prime aggravator of the Middle East (and many other places.sic) Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for this dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out. Things are different now. All is changed, changed utterly."
R.Dawkins

[Randy Carson]

Read 4-5 different articles by historians and others that pretty specifically state that the Gospels were NOT written by eyewitness accounts. There is also pretty strong evidence that at least a couple of the Gospels are forgeries

http://news.discovery.com/history/bible-new-testament-forgery-110518.htm


That is, btw, Randy's boy Ehrman- a former Evangelical preacher.

Yes, and Ehrman's work needs to be combed through carefully.

SOME of what Ehrman says it spot on. For example, I have "Did Jesus Exist?" here on my desk...with lots of passages highlighted in yellow by me. Yes, Jesus did exist.

But he also makes some mistakes...draws some bad conclusions, overlooks or discounts some information while placing too much emphasis on other data.

He's NOT a believer for a REASON (or reasons).

Ehrman has stellar academic credentials (which is why he thinks mythicism is a joke, btw), but Misquoting Jesus and How Jesus Became God must be approached in the same way. Some good, some bad.

Book Review of Bart D. Ehrman’s Forged: Writing in the Name of Godâ€"Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/07/book-review-of-bart-d-ehrman%E2%80%99s-forged-writing-in-the-name-of-god%E2%80%94why-the-bible%E2%80%99s-authors-are-not-who-we-think-they-are/

Is the New Testament Forged?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/is-the-new-testament-forged-49605/

It looks to me like an atheist is making a boatload of money selling bad books to folks who want someone to tell them what they want to hear.

Apologetics doesn't apparently include comparative research from either neutral or opposing sources.

Have you READ a lot of books by Christian apologists? There are enough books of this type to fill a library and more than enough YouTube videos to occupy your evenings indefinitely. I'd be willing to bet that for every book by Hitchens or Dawkins or Carrier, half a dozen or more have been written in response.

And there are plenty of online debates between believers and Carrier, Ehrman, Krauss and all your heroes. I think that Christians have more than held their own in these contests. Clearly, the theists had done their homework.

Bart Ehrman's "Forged": fanciful and faulty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUIPWJfPSkY

Maybe the New Atheists got the jump on us initially, but the Christian Church is responding BIG TIME with a flood of new apologetics initiatives.

[Randy Carson]

It's just another bullshit thread which you will abandon when you've had your ass handed to you repeatedly.

Not by you.

[Randy Carson]

Big Whoop!  Many theists are becoming atheists, because they see how weak that same evidence is.  If you want a statistical pissing contest, you've come to the wrong place.  Prove your case or stop jacking off.

Some believers lose their faith in God because the evidence that does exist has not been explained to them adequately. This is the fault of the Church.

Other believers lose their faith in God because they have been hurt by other Christians or scandalized by hypocrisy. This, too, is the fault of the Church.

But others lose their faith in God because they would rather enjoy their sins than obey God's law. This is the fault of the atheist.

As for proving my case, see the OP.

[stromboli]

Some believers lose their faith in God because the evidence that does exist has not been explained to them adequately. This is the fault of the Church.

Other believers lose their faith in God because they have been hurt by other Christians or scandalized by hypocrisy. This, too, is the fault of the Church.

But others lose their faith in God because they would rather enjoy their sins than obey God's law. This is the fault of the atheist.

As for proving my case, see the OP.

Personally I'm more inclined to believe somebody like Richard Carrier who has a doctorate from Cambridge, but if you want to present yourself as some kind of final authority, have at it. Carrier maintains Jesus never existed and is a myth. The mere fact that there is an ongoing discussion between historians whether Jesus existed at all ought to be a clue, but apparently not. There is a considerable body of evidence to contradict everything you are saying- which again ought to be a clue, but apparently not.

The advent of Jesus should have been the biggest event in history. Yet is somehow managed to happen so far under the radar that nothing was mentioned until decades later. Regardless of what you maintain about any of this, your sources are mostly apologists with an agenda, which we tend to discount exactly for that reason. You are also an apologist with an agenda. And that is why we don't take you seriously.

[SGOS]

Some believers lose their faith in God because the evidence that does exist has not been explained to them adequately. This is the fault of the Church.

Other believers lose their faith in God because they have been hurt by other Christians or scandalized by hypocrisy. This, too, is the fault of the Church.

But others lose their faith in God because they would rather enjoy their sins than obey God's law. This is the fault of the atheist.

As for proving my case, see the OP.

1.  Most atheists would tell you that the evidence isn't convincing enough to instill a belief in them, but go ahead and make up other reasons that please you more.  It would seem that the evidence in favor of God is only convincing to those who believe it.  Then it becomes second nature to see evidence where none exists.  Your own arguments continually demonstrate this psychological quirk of your own confirmation bias.

2.  The hypocrisy of believers, while it does exist, is neither here nor there.  Such hypocrisy plays a minor role at best, it only begins the questioning process.  The only thing that counts in the end is evidence.

3.  That people would turn against God so that they can enjoy sin, is what theists would do.  For atheists it's irrelevant, and silly beyond reason.

See, you start with a belief in God as the default.  Then all of what you consider to be reasoning proceeds from that premise.  Some of it is actually logical if you already accept the unsupported premise.  Atheists don't start there.  We don't believe in God and need evidence of his existence just to begin any constructive reasoning.  Until that becomes self evident or proven to us, you will have to continue to make up reasons why we don't believe you, your church, or your apologists.  Everything in your ideology depends on that first premise.  Atheists don't take that leap of faith.  We could if God could be demonstrated, but then it wouldn't be a leap of faith.

All of your posting exhorts us to reason backwards from your belief in a Holy Father to knowing he exists.  That defies logic, but you can never admit to that.