The Fallacy that Jesus said what is written in the gospels

[Quagmire]

Nooo, we're talking a span of 20 to 26 years. And he was still writing in 63 CE.

Where do you come up with those numbers,?

 

[KerimF]

Trinity is never mentioned in the Bible.

On my side, if Jesus (or the writer of Jesus character) didn't say: "I and my Father are one", the image of God would be of a one-of-his-kind being who has no choice but to act like a powerful selfish earthly king. While the image of one-being God may be good to many people, it can't exist in my reality.

You were kind and gave me many references about loving others. But do these references also reject what is usually called as God's Judgment? Jesus also says clearly: "Don't judge". You may say but Jesus talked about God's judgment as well. On this I agree with you because 'not all sayings that are referred to Jesus on the Gospel are necessary his'. It is like in data transmissions, the received signal is usually filtered to restore the original sent data (corrupted by noise and interference). I personally used doing the same anytime I read a book, scientific or spiritual.

While almost all humans do the filtering process as I do, their results are different because the result that a human gets after filtering should be suitable, to a certain level, his personal nature and his priorities in life.

Conclusion:
While the Gospel is real on the hands of all humans, its importance for each of them may vary from 0 to 100%.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Where do you come up with those numbers,?

Jesus crucified 30 CE. kerim said Paul writing 50 to 56 CE. Simple math.

 

[1213]

Sure they did. They were trying to turn Jesus from a spiritual dying/rising god into a real live flesh and bone one who lived and died on earth, so they had to have words to put into his mouth. With no written sources from which to draw they had to make it up. What else could they do. They were selling Christianity to pagans, remember.

But why?

Also, by what the Bible tells, Jesus is not the God. Jesus himself says there is only one true God that is greater than him.

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

 

[Quagmire]

Jesus crucified 30 CE. kerim said Paul writing 50 to 56 CE.

Don't know why you're so definite about 30 CE.

As I said my position is that 36 is the most likely date.
(Here's a tip: in a debate, just because you disagree with someone's position doesn't mean you get to ignore it. Ignoring it without addressing it just makes your own position look weak. Not to mention that it's rude)

But hey, I got you to knock down your estimate from 25 - 35 years to 20 - 26. Any progress is better than none.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can explain, in many New Testament Bibles the worlds of Jesus are emboldened in red.

Let me help:

... in many New Testament Bibles the words attributed to Jesus are emboldened in red.​

Good talk ...

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Don't know why you're so definite about 30 CE.

As I said my position is that 36 is the most likely date.
(Here's a tip: in a debate, just because you disagree with someone's position doesn't mean you get to ignore it. Ignoring it without addressing it just makes your own position look weak. Not to mention that it's rude)

But hey, I got you to knock down your estimate from 25 - 35 years to 20 - 26. Any progress is better than none.

I was being polite. I don't think Paul was even real. History doesn't record a single word about him. Roman records don't mention him which is odd for someone who was placed on trial by the Romans. Some historian of the time would have noticed him. I think Marcion wrote most of his stuff and anonymous writers wrote the rest.

 

[Quagmire]

I was being polite. I don't think Paul was even real. History doesn't record a single word about him. Roman records don't mention him which is odd for someone who was placed on trial by the Romans. Some historian of the time would have noticed him. I think Marcion wrote most of his stuff and anonymous writers wrote the rest.

Then why even use him as a reference point?

 

[Neuropteron]

The gospels were not written by Matthew Mark Luke and John. All secular scholars have concluded the were written anonymously. Here's my proof:

The gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[9][10][11] All four were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses,

Gospel - Wikipedia[/QUOTE
Hi,
Obviously there is nothing more to add since you've consulted with "all scholars" and the ultimate Bible authority "Wikipedia".

All the best.

 

[Colt]

Let me help:

... in many New Testament Bibles the words attributed to Jesus are emboldened in red.​

Good talk ...

It’s an interesting thought, why hasn’t anyone emboldened direct quotes from God in the Old Testament in red? Like before he made Adam, who was there quoting Yahweh?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Then why even use him as a reference point?

Because historians generally use him as a reference point and I have to go with the majority even though I cannot find any definitive historic references to him.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Hi,
Obviously there is nothing more to add since you've consulted with "all scholars" and the ultimate Bible authority "Wikipedia".

All the best.

If you feel you can make a good case for the gospels NOT being anonymous, by all means please present your evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi,
Obviously there is nothing more to add since you've consulted with "all scholars" and the ultimate Bible authority "Wikipedia".

All the best.

Do you realize that Wikipedia articles have to be supported by experts in the field? You can check the claims in the references. It can be difficult to find reliable sources on the internet since there is so much pollution by apologists, AKA Liars for Jesus. Apologists are not scholars. They are only interested in defending their own interpretation of the Bible, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. There is a general consensus among biblical scholars that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. Mark may have been written by John Mark, but he was not an eyewitness. Neither was Luke, So even if he wrote Luke he was not an eyewitness. You can read more about the authorship of the Gospels here by an actual Bible scholar:


Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels

 

[Fallen Prophet]

It was supposed to be the start of a conversation but the Christian never responded.

I wonder why.

Here's the gist of what I said:

The Greek scholars who wrote the gospels, far as we know, didn't have any sources--notes or documents from which to draw on when writing down Jesus' words in the gospels. Here's a statistic:

The Synoptic Gospels , once you exclude the duplications of Jesus' speeches in the four gospels, the total number of words spoken by Jesus is 31,426.

How on earth did those scholars, writing 40-100 years after Jesus died, know the 31,426 precise words Jesus was speaking in the gospels?

Even making the astounding assumption John was the writer of the gospel that bears his name (he wasn't the writer according to historians--all the gospels are anonymous) trying to believe John could remember just the 4 chapters of the last supper discourse of Jesus in chapters 14-17 after 60 years when John would have been close to 100 years old is impossible to believe when you look at it from a logical point of view. Could any of us remember word-perfect a debate we watched a month ago and then write it down? And what makes it even more unbelievable you are reading Jesus' words is the fact the writers were not even there when Jesus spoke. It's completely unrealistic to believe the words you are reading are Jesus' when the writers weren't even eyewitnesses to what Jesus said in his last 3 years.

There's only one logical conclusion to reach:

What you are reading in the gospels are not Jesus' words, plain and simple. They had to be fabricated by the writers writing the gospels to give Jesus something to say. There's no other rational conclusion to reach. Why doesn't this simple deduction not occur to people who pin their entire lives on believing in Jesus?

I don't understand and I probably never will understand the illogic.

This analysis ignores the possibilities of direct revelation and the assistance of the Holy Ghost.

"These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:25-26)

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

This analysis ignores the possibilities of direct revelation and the assistance of the Holy Ghost.

"These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:25-26)

I'm sorry. I don't know what this has to do with the topic.

let me re-ask the question: the gospel writers (they were NOT Matthew Mark Luke and John, they were written anonymously) had no sources upon which to draw to get Jesus' words that we know of when they were writing the gospels some 50-100 after the crucifixion. How did they know what dialogue to give Jesus? They weren't there, there were no eyewitnesses who could dictate to the writers every single word Jesus said. How did they do it? They only logical conclusion is that they made it all up. Please don't actually suggest the HS dictated every single word to them. That's absurd.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I'm sorry. I don't know what this has to do with the topic.

let me re-ask the question: the gospel writers (they were NOT Matthew Mark Luke and John, they were written anonymously) had no sources upon which to draw to get Jesus' words that we know of when they were writing the gospels some 50-100 after the crucifixion. How did they know what dialogue to give Jesus? They weren't there, there were no eyewitnesses who could dictate to the writers every single word Jesus said. How did they do it? They only logical conclusion is that they made it all up. Please don't actually suggest the HS dictated every single word to them. That's absurd.

It is not absurd at all.

Moses wasn't present for any of the events in Genesis - but it is possible that he received that information by direct revelation.

Besides - I'm not thoroughly convinced that the Gospels weren't written by eye-witnesses.

 

[Colt]

I was being polite. I don't think Paul was even real. History doesn't record a single word about him. Roman records don't mention him which is odd for someone who was placed on trial by the Romans. Some historian of the time would have noticed him. I think Marcion wrote most of his stuff and anonymous writers wrote the rest.

Good grief! Now Paul didn’t exist at all? The New Testament IS the “history” because the non-Jewish secular world didn’t care enough to take note at the time. Not for a long time!

It’s only the people inside movements who are interested enough to record events, oral histories, keep important documents etc. Later adherents to religious movements become enthusiastic converts and have more interest in the history and teachings of founders. By the time Paul and Christianity gained larger appeal, the founders were long gone!

New religious movements tend to begin around a new personality who rises up from within. Adherents of the old tend to reject the new material and persecute the new break away fringe movement. Jesus and his original Gospel was fringe, Liberal and almost completely rejected in the land of his birth. His followers were treated the same way when their preaching activity again gained the attention of the religious authorities. They were forced into a secretive existence while preaching to perspective converts.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Good grief! Now Paul didn’t exist at all? The New Testament IS the “history” because the non-Jewish secular world didn’t care enough to take note at the time. Not for a long time!

It’s only the people inside movements who are interested enough to record events, oral histories, keep important documents etc. Later adherents to religious movements become enthusiastic converts and have more interest in the history and teachings of founders. By the time Paul and Christianity gained larger appeal, the founders were long gone!

New religious movements tend to begin around a new personality who rises up from within. Adherents of the old tend to reject the new material and persecute the new break away fringe movement. Jesus and his original Gospel was fringe, Liberal and almost completely rejected in the land of his birth. His followers were treated the same way when their preaching activity again gained the attention of the religious authorities. They were forced into a secretive existence while preaching to perspective converts.

I don't say definitively Paul didn't exist. Maybe he did. All I'm saying is I and others don't believe he was real simply because someone stirring up as much trouble as Paul would have caught the eye of someone--ANYONE who would have made a record of some sort mentioning him. Acts is anonymous therefore it could have been written by anyone anytime up until copies start to appear.

Traditionally, the text is believed to have been written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). However, the earliest manuscripts are anonymous, and the traditional view has been challenged by many modern scholars.

Authorship of Luke–Acts - Wikipedia

 

[Colt]

I don't say definitively Paul didn't exist. Maybe he did. All I'm saying is I and others don't believe he was real simply because someone stirring up as much trouble as Paul would have caught the eye of someone--ANYONE who would have made a record of some sort mentioning him. Acts is anonymous therefore it could have been written by anyone anytime up until copies start to appear.

Traditionally, the text is believed to have been written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). However, the earliest manuscripts are anonymous, and the traditional view has been challenged by many modern scholars.

Authorship of Luke–Acts - Wikipedia

Why???? Why would one of many Jews from a tiny fringe group talking about religion catch the attention of Historians?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Why???? Why would one of many Jews from a tiny fringe group talking about religion catch the attention of Historians?

You've got a point, cOLTER.