Jesus died 2,000 years ago.

[sojourner]

Based on what? scholars who have studied the historicity of the Gospels and Epistles believe them to be legitimate works of ancient history. The evidence and consensus support the authenticy of authorship unlike the Gnostic books. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. Sounds anecdotal to me.

We don't have any real good idea who the authors were, outside of Paul.

 

[blueman]

We don't have any real good idea who the authors were, outside of Paul.

Sojourner, I think there are many scholars who attest that there was a good chance these authors were authentic, unlike the Gnostics that were written much later during the 2nd Century. The fact that there is consensus that Paul wrote the Epistles earlier than the Gospels provides another credible attestation to the Christian doctrine as it relates to Jesus Christ.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you don't believe that a supernatural God can intervene in a natural world, you will never believe. I happen to believe He has intervened throughout history.

Why would God intentionally set up the earth and evidence to mislead us though? There is nothing to indicate a global flood ever happened. There is nothing that shows the exodus of the Jews from Egypt ever happened. When we look at the earth, it doesn't even show a short 6 - 10 thousand year age and everything created as is, but rather the earth shows us it is billions of years old and that life evolved.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, I think there are many scholars who attest that there was a good chance these authors were authentic, unlike the Gnostics that were written much later during the 2nd Century. The fact that there is consensus that Paul wrote the Epistles earlier than the Gospels provides another credible attestation to the Christian doctrine as it relates to Jesus Christ.

There are more who admit that we just don't know, but that apostolic authorship is contraindicated for a number of reasons.

 

[fallingblood]

Why not? They were living at the time of Christ, correct? Secondly, you did not mention Paul's epistles which many were written around AD 40-50. The Gospel were written well within a generation. Not enough time for legend to evolve that could not be disputed. Neither the virgin birth or the resurrection were myths. These stories were attested throughout scripture. Myths do not have staying power and certainly do not impact the world the way Christianity does.

Whether or not they were living during the time that the Gospels were written is debatable. We know that at by the 60's C.E., many of Jesus's original followers were dead. Jesus's own brother was dead, Peter was dead, and Paul was dead for sure. The other disciples we really don't here about, but the chances that they were still living is quite slim. John was most definitely dead.

There is a reason I didn't mention Paul's epistles though. They had nothing to do with the discussion. Yes, Paul was alive during the same time. However, he never met Jesus. So I don't know what your point is.

Also, you show a complete lack of understanding of the culture of that time, as well as of oral tradition. During the life of Augustus, myth had arisen that he was born of a virgin and that he was literally the son of a god. This was during the same time that Jesus was living. The fact that Augustus could be considered a son of a god, as well as born of a virgin, and live during the time of Jesus shows exactly how fast a myth could spring up. More so, if you're going to believe the virgin birth of Jesus, it is only logical to believe the virgin birth of Augustus. Dismissing one and excepting the other is illogical.

More so, there is no reason for Jesus to be born of a virgin. The fact that the birth narratives cite a prophecy that has nothing to do with being born of a virgin, or even to do with the messiah show that he wasn't born of a virgin.

As for the resurrection, there is no evidence of that. An event such as that would have been recorded outside of the Bible. However, the Bible can't even agree on the events surrounding the resurrection anyway.

Some myths do have staying power. The myth of creation (according to the Bible) and the global flood are both myths that have staying power. The myth that there are different races of man has had a massive impact, and has staying power. Just those two example are good enough to show that you are incorrect.

 

[fallingblood]

Sojourner, I think there are many scholars who attest that there was a good chance these authors were authentic, unlike the Gnostics that were written much later during the 2nd Century. The fact that there is consensus that Paul wrote the Epistles earlier than the Gospels provides another credible attestation to the Christian doctrine as it relates to Jesus Christ.

Actually, scholars, for the most part, agree that we don't know who wrote the Gospels. We have evidence of the titles and authorship being added at later dates. We have evidence that they were being circulated first as anonymous. Even which John supposedly authored the Gospel of John was debated for quite some time.

Also, scholars are now beginning to think that parts of the Gospel of Thomas, the earliest layers, come from the 60's C.E. This predates the Gospel of Mark. So some of the gnostic texts are being considered somewhat historical, and most are considered important as to understand Christianity and how it developed.

As for Paul, there is a consensus that he wrote some of the Epistles. We know some of the writings accredited to Paul were never written by him. We have 7 authentic letters of Paul. The rest are debated and most are thought to be written by others, probably after Paul's death. However, they don't attest to much. They talk very little about Jesus. They give little detail about the life of Jesus. They mention nothing about a supposed virgin birth or the miracles of Jesus.

They do tell us he had a brother, that he was crucified, and supposedly resurrected. However, there is one catch. Paul stated very clearly that the resurrection of Jesus signified the beginning of the general resurrection (you must understand the eschatological apocalyptic ideas of the Jews during that time). Paul stated that unless the general resurrection happened, the resurrection of Jesus never happened. They both were true or false. If Jesus was resurrected, then the general resurrection had to occur within a short time. If the general resurrection wasn't going on, the Jesus was not resurrected. According to Paul, you couldn't have one without the other. Paul died, the general resurrection never happened, and it gives us less reason to believe Jesus was resurrected.

Just to finish off. The books are only semi-historical. They are under the genre of lives. They contained myths, as was common. At the same time, they contained theological messages that were geared to certain groups. The Gospels don't even agree in all parts, and have historical inaccuracies as apart of them. Thus, scholars, by far, agree that they are not 100% accurate and can not be treated as such.

 

[Blackdog22]

Sojourner, I think there are many scholars who attest that there was a good chance these authors were authentic, unlike the Gnostics that were written much later during the 2nd Century. The fact that there is consensus that Paul wrote the Epistles earlier than the Gospels provides another credible attestation to the Christian doctrine as it relates to Jesus Christ.

You get your information from Lee Strobel don't you. Just so you know he isn't the best source of information.


As far as the rest of your post. I think Falling Blood has this one pretty well under control. I will just say. Check sources that aren't being brought to you from people of your religion. Try to find a non biased source, and base what you think off of them. Continuing the cycle of brainwashing by going to the people doing the brainwashing just leads to more brainwashing.*

 

[ahmed.zafar]

Jesus is not dead he will come back. He will be sent by Allah to finish all the evil from the earth and only Islam will be there in everyone's heart.