Science standards under threat in Arizona

[BilliardsBall]

I used these names as matter of convenience, so I can distinguish one gospel from the others, but nevertheless, the names were later attributes from the 2nd century, not the actual authors.

No one really know who wrote these gospels, since no names were applied to them, no signatures. You are terribly uneducated in biblical scholarship and biblical history, if you don’t understand that.

I understand both parts of your message. You may have forgotten I also have a Bachelor's focusing on NT studies, from a secular university. I just wish I knew why you are so closed to hearing more about the wonderful Bible.

 

[gnostic]

I understand both parts of your message. You may have forgotten I also have a Bachelor's focusing on NT studies, from a secular university. I just wish I knew why you are so closed to hearing more about the wonderful Bible.

Whether it be from a secular university or some “Christian” universities, the current NT scholarship, even among Christian scholars are that no one know who wrote these gospels, and while the gospel that are attributed to Mark, may be written the earliest somewhere in the 60s or 70s, this gospel never included any birth story of Jesus.

The gospels containing this episode about Jesus’ life, attributed to Matthew and Luke, but not actually written by these people, there is a consensus among most scholars that these two anonymous gospels were composed after Mark (attributed, not authorship) and between 80 and 95 CE.

It is highly unlikely those who wrote these 2 gospels were eyewitnesses to Mary’s pregnancy and Jesus’ birth.

The gospel that has been traditionally associated with Matthew, never disclosed the name of the 3 kings or magi, the so-called eyewitnesses to the star that led them from the east to baby Jesus.

And the gospel that has been traditionally associated with Luke being author, never named any of shepherds from Bethlehem, who supposedly eyewitnessed the host of angels.

For these 2 gospels with nameless eyewitnesses, how would the authors in the late 1st century tracked down and interviewed these witnesses from a time before Herod’s death in 4 BCE.

You talk of eyewitnesses, but you cannot account for any of their names, not even the names of gospel authors. How would you find these nameless eyewitnesses or that they were even alive to give testimonies of what they supposedly witnessed?

If you have studied of this regarding to the NT gospels, you would and should already know that the gospels were 2 to 3 generations after Jesus’ birth and Herod’s death, therefore tracking them down and writing what the eyewitnesses say they saw, would be nearly impossible.

And considering neither Matthew, nor Luke agreed with others in the tiny details, which conflicted with each other stories, the only thing they do agree with each other, is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The rest of the details seemed to be fabricated and invented by the nameless authors, including inventing the witnesses.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Whether it be from a secular university or some “Christian” universities, the current NT scholarship, even among Christian scholars are that no one know who wrote these gospels, and while the gospel that are attributed to Mark, may be written the earliest somewhere in the 60s or 70s, this gospel never included any birth story of Jesus.

The gospels containing this episode about Jesus’ life, attributed to Matthew and Luke, but not actually written by these people, there is a consensus among most scholars that these two anonymous gospels were composed after Mark (attributed, not authorship) and between 80 and 95 CE.

It is highly unlikely those who wrote these 2 gospels were eyewitnesses to Mary’s pregnancy and Jesus’ birth.

The gospel that has been traditionally associated with Matthew, never disclosed the name of the 3 kings or magi, the so-called eyewitnesses to the star that led them from the east to baby Jesus.

And the gospel that has been traditionally associated with Luke being author, never named any of shepherds from Bethlehem, who supposedly eyewitnessed the host of angels.

For these 2 gospels with nameless eyewitnesses, how would the authors in the late 1st century tracked down and interviewed these witnesses from a time before Herod’s death in 4 BCE.

You talk of eyewitnesses, but you cannot account for any of their names, not even the names of gospel authors. How would you find these nameless eyewitnesses or that they were even alive to give testimonies of what they supposedly witnessed?

If you have studied of this regarding to the NT gospels, you would and should already know that the gospels were 2 to 3 generations after Jesus’ birth and Herod’s death, therefore tracking them down and writing what the eyewitnesses say they saw, would be nearly impossible.

And considering neither Matthew, nor Luke agreed with others in the tiny details, which conflicted with each other stories, the only thing they do agree with each other, is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The rest of the details seemed to be fabricated and invented by the nameless authors, including inventing the witnesses.

What would be the purpose of 12 NT writers, plus apocryphal writers, all writing to say that they saw events and/or interviewed eyewitnesses, when the reporting of these events:

1) made them eligible for Jewish persecution and excommunication
2) made them eligible for Roman persecution and martyrdom
3) could easily be disproved by living memory, even in 95 CE--"I was alive in 30 in Jerusalem, and no miracle worker went there annually to preach to crowds, perform miracles, etc."

 

[gnostic]

What would be the purpose of 12 NT writers, plus apocryphal writers, all writing to say that they saw events and/or interviewed eyewitnesses, when the reporting of these events:

1) made them eligible for Jewish persecution and excommunication
2) made them eligible for Roman persecution and martyrdom
3) could easily be disproved by living memory, even in 95 CE--"I was alive in 30 in Jerusalem, and no miracle worker went there annually to preach to crowds, perform miracles, etc."

Sorry, but you are making assumptions that eyewitnesses were interviews. Nothing in the gospels or in the letters resembled accounts from interviews, and like I said no names were ever given.

No age were ever given to the magi/astrologers/wise men in Matthew or to the shepherds in Luke. And if the “wise men” were middle-aged men or older, they most likely would have died before Jesus’ ministry. So it is highly doubtful they were ever interviewed.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, but you are making assumptions that eyewitnesses were interviews. Nothing in the gospels or in the letters resembled accounts from interviews, and like I said no names were ever given.

No age were ever given to the magi/astrologers/wise men in Matthew or to the shepherds in Luke. And if the “wise men” were middle-aged men or older, they most likely would have died before Jesus’ ministry. So it is highly doubtful they were ever interviewed.

I understand your perspective, the shepherds, some think, were young ladies, but do you think John, who lived with Mary, or Luke, would have interviewed Mary, who met the shepherds and wise men who praised her Son?

Here is my perspective, because we sometimes need more than "Goddidit" we need logic:

It’s beyond the hundreds of witnesses reported in the Bible. Three times annually, Jews would crowd Jerusalem from across the world for feasts, particularly Passover. Jesus did preaching and miracles annually in Jerusalem, even in the Temple Courts where thousands would be pressed in with thousands more outside and nearby. Paul preached on the adjacent steps, testifying of miracles, and John the Baptist changed rivers to “have more room to baptize”! Jesus even healed people at Bethesda and Siloam just outside the Temple walls, two of the spots I’m visiting in person next month in Israel. The scriptures speak of many thousands of Jews and many Gentiles hearing many of the events of the four gospels.

Skeptics liked to say the gospels were written late, 2nd or 3rd century. I’m grateful archaeological and other records demonstrate earlier dates. Until 100 CE, people were alive who lived in Jerusalem, The Galil, Nazareth, Samaria, Caesarea Philippi, etc., who could refute the gospel. Most of the early believers were Jewish. They risked their lives in the Jewish community and from Rome to believe the four gospels which they could have refuted easily, by their life as an eyewitness.

I’ve tried many times to think through these issues, with an open mind. Although Jesus has blessed me greatly, in some ways life would be easier without God. Many times I’ve thought of the above and thought, “Why would 12 NT writers plus apocryphal writers all write nonsense that any Jew in the 1st century could refute by saying, ‘I lived in Jerusalem "between 25 and 30 CE" and Jesus of Nazareth did NOT perform miracles in the Temple Courts, annually, on Passover and the Feast of Dedication and…!’”

What I’m saying is thousands of negative eyewitnesses could refute any or all of the NT in the 1st century. There are no counter-documents from Jews or Romans.