• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Were the gospel writers present during the time of Jesus?

RAMOSS said:
Ponit one. Most liberals are Christians. Point 2. I never had an atheist come to my door trying to convert me to atheism. SO, this is a false claim, to the point of being a lie.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, have you ever had other than LDS or JWs come to your door to proselytize?
 
Logicman said:
Bull.

But you apparently have no answer for how strongly Metzger values the New Testament documents
Click to expand...
Prof Metzger, though one of the premier scholars in biblical studies was a life-long believer, an ordained minister.

"...the four gospels in the New Testament were readily accepted with remarkable unanimity as being authentic in the story they told." - Bruce Metzger - The Case for Christ, pg. 71
Click to expand...
Yet, one may find multiple instances which appear to contradict each other. Perhaps the good professor was stating his belief in the doctrinal statements being provided. Nothing is said about the authors of the texts - which is supposed to be the topic.

"I have studied this (the minutiae of the New Testament texts) thoroughly, and today I know with confidence that my trust in Jesus has been well placed." - Metzger, ibid, pg. 75
Click to expand...
The professor has nothing to say about the authors and only reaffirms his faith and says nothing about scholarly analysis of the Bible.

How's do you like Metzger now??
Click to expand...
 
RAMOSS said:
Ponit one. Most liberals are Christians. Point 2. I never had an atheist come to my door trying to convert me to atheism. SO, this is a false claim, to the point of being a lie.
Click to expand...

But if Jesus was on the earth today, he would come to your door...
 
marke said:
God inspired the writing of the Bible. Unbelievers get themselves in trouble with God for challenging that fact.
Click to expand...

So why are there so many mistakes and contradictions.

And why did the writers of the gospels not identify themselves ?
 
nota bene said:
Just out of curiosity, have you ever had other than LDS or JWs come to your door to proselytize?
Click to expand...

Yes... I had Crusaders for Christ come to my door, once, many years ago.
 
Elvira said:
But if Jesus was on the earth today, he would come to your door...
Click to expand...

I do not see any evidence that is true. Of course, Jesus, if he actually existed, is long dead, and is not coming back.
 
RAMOSS said:
I do not see any evidence that is true. Of course, Jesus, if he actually existed, is long dead, and is not coming back.
Click to expand...

The evidence is in the scriptures...Jesus said...

"...For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth....” John 18:37

By what means...

"Shortly afterward he traveled from city to city and from village to village, preaching and declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God. And the Twelve were with him." Luke 8:1

"...while I did not hold back from telling you any of the things that were profitable nor from teaching you publicly and from house to house." Acts 20:20
 
Elvira said:
The evidence is in the scriptures...Jesus said...

"...For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth....” John 18:37

By what means...

"Shortly afterward he traveled from city to city and from village to village, preaching and declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God. And the Twelve were with him." Luke 8:1

"...while I did not hold back from telling you any of the things that were profitable nor from teaching you publicly and from house to house." Acts 20:20
Click to expand...

That is what a couple of people writing 50 to 70 years after the event said.. but that does nt meant it's true.
 
A few more of my words arguing for "non-eyewitness" authors for the Gospels.

Those non-evangelical academic types, whether Christian or not, generally look for both internal and external evidence as they look for the author of an ancient text. Internal evidence consists of whatever evidence found within a given text. This self-identification by the author, mentioning persons and events that he witnessed. A more controversial method is using a particular writing style that has been verified as that used by a specific person'

The external evidence consists of whatever evidence we may have outside of the work being examined. This can include another author quoting the work, what we know about the biography of the person to whom the work is attributed, and non-textual references found in monuments and coinage from the period of the text.

Unlike the majority of ancient texts that we have today, the Gospels never name the supposed author.
While most New Testament letters bear the names of their (purported) authors (James, Jude, Paul, Peter, or at least “the Elder”) the authors of the historical books [the Gospels and Acts] do not reveal their names. The superscriptions that include personal names (“Gospel according to Matthew” etc.) are clearly secondary. -- Armin Baum (“The Anonymity of the New Testament History Books”
Click to expand...
Baum does argue that the anonymity is due to ancient Near Eastern and OT traditiions.
Unlike the Greek or Roman historian who, among other things, wanted to earn praise and glory for his literary achievements from both his contemporaries and posterity, the history writer in the Ancient Near East sought to disappear as much as possible behind the material he presented and to become its invisible mouthpiece.
Click to expand...
The counter argument against Baum's position has to do with the fact the books were written in Greek by educated persons who quoted the Septuagint and not the Hebrew Tanakh. In other words the authors were educated in Greco-Roman culture and not "ancient Near-Eastern"
 
Somerville said:
Prof Metzger, though one of the premier scholars in biblical studies was a life-long believer, an ordained minister.

Yet, one may find multiple instances which appear to contradict each other. Perhaps the good professor was stating his belief in the doctrinal statements being provided. Nothing is said about the authors of the texts - which is supposed to be the topic.

The professor has nothing to say about the authors and only reaffirms his faith and says nothing about scholarly analysis of the Bible.
Click to expand...

Logicman appears to confuse what Metzger might say in an anecdotal interview with someone probing for the answers they want, with what Metzger actually writes in any of his scholarly textbooks. Logicman also appears to read things into Metzger's quotes from that interview that just aren't there. Metzger was a great NT textual critic scholar even though his work was still influenced by his conservative religious beliefs. I would never call Metzger a lying hack like I would pop-apologists like McDowell, Geisler, Slick etc. I have great respect for him.

I also note Logicman did not respond to my post below. Probably because he has never read this textbook by Metzger, long used in most Theology degree courses.

Quaestio said:
From: The Text of the New Testament -Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Fourth Edition - Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman


"The manuscripts of the New Testament preserve traces of two kinds of dogmatic alteration: those that involve the elimination or alteration of what was regarded as doctrinally unacceptable or inconvenient and those that introduce into the Scriptures "proof for a favorite theological tenet or practice." - pg 266

"It is a striking feature of our textual record that the earliest copies we have of the various books that became the New Testament vary from one another far more widely than do the later copies, which were made under more controlled circumstances in the Middle Ages" pg 275

How do you like Metzger now?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Rich2018 said:
By who ?
Click to expand...

Somerville said:
You should also ask -- When?
Click to expand...

By "early church leaders" "within the first two centuries". That was the context of the Metzger quote from the Strobel interview that Logicman conveniently left out.

Logicman used a partial quote in answer to Strobel's question "How did the early church leaders determine which books would be
considered authoritative and which would be discarded?"
 
Last edited:
Somerville said:
Prof Metzger, though one of the premier scholars in biblical studies was a life-long believer, an ordained minister.

Yet, one may find multiple instances which appear to contradict each other. Perhaps the good professor was stating his belief in the doctrinal statements being provided. Nothing is said about the authors of the texts - which is supposed to be the topic.

The professor has nothing to say about the authors and only reaffirms his faith and says nothing about scholarly analysis of the Bible.
Click to expand...

Were any of you Christ-mockers able to come up with even one significant person, place, or event in the Gospels that has proven to be false?

You guys remind me of a passage from Matthew 11:

“To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:

17 “‘We played the pipe for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not mourn.’

18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”
 
Logicman said:
Were any of you Christ-mockers able to come up with even one significant person, place, or event in the Gospels that has proven to be false?

You guys remind me of a passage from Matthew 11:

“To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:

17 “‘We played the pipe for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not mourn.’

18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”
Click to expand...

The concluding sentence in Logicman's post -- But wisdom is proved right by her deeds is seen by some as a bit of evidence showing the diversity of beliefs in the early Church, a fragment of gnosticism. "Wisdom" is often personified as Sophia, not quite a goddess but more of a physical aspect of a desired attribute. Sophia came from Platonic philosophy and was apparently part of the knowledge the Gnostics believed was only known to the initiate.

There is somewhat more than just a 'reference' to Sophia in Proverbs.
Proverbs 8:22-36 King James Version (KJV)
22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

32 Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.

33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

34 Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.

35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.

36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
Click to expand...

The Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria taught that the Divine Origin (Yahweh) had created Sophia first and then Logos (the Word) as a balancing companion. He envisioned these two working together in shaping creation: Sophia, the feminine or creating vessel, and Logos, the masculine or active doer.

There are two reasons seen for the erasure of Sophia from the early church beliefs: Increasing patriachy (1 Corinthians 14:34) and what was seen as too close connections to various female goddesses (Isis).
 
Rich2018 said:
...The gospels are written in the third person. None starts any sentence with the word "I..."...
Click to expand...
Basic composition, no matter the language:

  • The third person is used to tell of someone other than oneself because it places focus on the actor, not the writer. One writes autobiographies in the first person; one writes biographies and novellas in the third person. The gospels aren't biographies in the modern sense because there's too much of Jesus' life on which they're silent; consequently, they are best thought of as abridged biographical novellas...Biographical in their compositional structure and because they relate tales about a person who lived, abridged due to their incompleteness with regard to Jesus' life, or and novellas due to their incongruence in the depiction of events. In any case, the Gospels are Jesus'/God's stories, not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John's stories.

Rich2018 said:
The gospels contradict each other.
Click to expand...
They absolutely do. One must understand the the times, the synoptic nature of Matt, Mark and Luke and consider the intended audiences of each author.

It's recognized that Mark's gospel was the first, and as go literal details likely is the most accurate. Mark's gospel may be taken as a "baseline" of sorts. Matt and Luke were obviously proselytists who had clear rhetorical purposes:
  • Matt wrote his gospel to convince Jews of the verity of Jesus' divinity and status as the Savior for whom Jews awaited. (Jews today still await their savior.) Accordingly, Matt's gospel is rife with symbology that would have "clicked" in Jews' minds and helped them see that Jesus is the savior/messiah the Old Testament prophesied. One can call Matt's the gospel for Jews.
  • Luke, on the other hand, aimed rhetorically to convince gentiles that Jesus was divine and the Savior. Thus Luke imbued his gospel with imagery that held meaning for gentiles. Luke's is the gospel for everyone.

There is also the matter of translation. Jesus likely spoke Aramaic; the gospels we have today are written in Greek. Taking Matt, and, for simple illustrative purposes, assuming he wrote his gospel in Greek (he well may not have, but that's yet another confounding aspect of the matter) who was an apostle and thus spoke both Aramaic and Greek, it's highly likely, indeed normal, that he was more literate in one or the other of those languages; moreover, the languages likely don't have direct equivalents. For instance:
  • I speak English, halting French, some Spanish and halting Mandarin, and on DP I write in English. One who wanted to translate my DP posts to any Romance language would have a relatively easy time directly translating the Latinate words I use; however, s/he'd have to be careful to capture in the foreign language the American English connotation as well as the denotation, and doing so may not allow for direct translation.

    To wit, "prevaricate" and "prevaricar" (Spanish) are equivalent words denotationally; however, they may not be connotational equivalents. (I don't know whether they are.) To the extent they aren't thus equal, something literally will be lost in translation.

    I have no idea what be the French term for prevaricate;however, online translators cite "tergiverser," but that term's definition is "hem and haw, procrastinate, or equivocate" all of which carry the connotation of "prevaricate," yet none conveys (more than tangentially) the core denotation of untruthfulness. Because of the "flip flop" in denotation and connotation, a writer/speaker of French and English would need to be equally fluent in both languages and thus include additional verbiage in the target language if s/he's to be 100% successful at conveying the full meaning of the source language.
The point of the above is to illustrate how translation itself constitutes a writer's dictional interpretation of both the source and target languages. The more translators, translations from one to the next language, the more interpretation and the more readers of the last translation are subject to the quality of each prior translator. One can see the same effect here on DP when one member paraphrases another's posts by writing, "so in other words,...." And that's poor expression/interpretation by supposedly fully fluent users of one language.

Other natural retelling factors contribute to the disparities among the synotics. In total or alone, however, the mere existence of inconsistencies doesn't compromise a story's general veracity; rather they show a tale's telling is some mix of incomplete and/or embellished.

Somerville said:
Were the Gospel writers present during the "time of Jesus"? Simple answer -- NO.
Click to expand...

You realize that Matthew was one of the 12 Apostles, right?
 
Xelor said:
(cut for my response)

Originally Posted by Somerville
Were the Gospel writers present during the "time of Jesus"? Simple answer -- NO.
Click to expand...

You realize that Matthew was one of the 12 Apostles, right?
Click to expand...

Matthew may have been one of the 12 Apostles, that does not mean he is the author of the Gospel According to Matthew. The earliest reference to the title is found in the writings of Irenaeus in the final years of the 2nd Century.
 
Somerville said:
Matthew may have been one of the 12 Apostles, that does not mean he is the author of the Gospel According to Matthew. The earliest reference to the title is found in the writings of Irenaeus in the final years of the 2nd Century.
Click to expand...
Red:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
  • Fragments of Papias (of Hierapolis)
    Our knowledge of Papias' remarks comes by way of Irenaeus.
    • "If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,—what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to begot from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice."
    • "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language..."
 
Elvira said:
Click to expand...


During the time of Jesus there was no government backed education so a select few were versed in writing like professionals, those in established religion and those in government. Jesus wasn't a professional, wasn't a part of the government (was trying to overthrow it) and wasn't in established religion. Those groups wanted to ignore Jesus. Those groups wanted Jesus killed. When the common Palestinian turned their backs on Jesus, Jesus was crucified.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
  • Fragments of Papias (of Hierapolis)
    Our knowledge of Papias' remarks comes by way of Irenaeus.
    • "If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,—what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to begot from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice."
    • "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language..."
Click to expand...

An, the Gospel of Matthew as we know it today was written in Greek, not in the Hebrew Language. QED.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom