Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You're certainly entitled to believe this and any other odd, unsupported thing you like, but not to state it as fact and retain any credibility. As I say, no mainstream historian believes this.
How do you know it's a copy, if it's the oldest scrap in existence?
I respect that it's your right to believe any weird stuff you want to. I don't in general respect beliefs without any evidentiary support, no. I think it's dangerous, immoral and generally not a good plan.
How would we know? We don't have a single word written by a disciple, only a report of a rumor recorded decades after the purported events described.
How do you know what they say? They didn't write it down, nor did anyone who spoke to them.
What historic evidence might that be?
Oh, I'm sure they saw something, but how does that advance the discussion? Schizophrenics see things too, so what?
Really? Which? I'm not getting that from a report of a TV show in which someone says she believes they saw something.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. I don't have a problem with your assertion that at least some of the gospels were recorded by 140 C.E. I don't think that's controversial. You realize that's over a century after the events described, right?
More could be said concerning this uninformed view but let me simply point out what should be the obvious. You acknowledge (rightly I might add) that Mark was a disciple of Peter and that Luke was a disciple of Paul. Uh...forgive me, but both Peter and Paul claimed to be eyewitnesses themselves. So at the very least what you acknowledge here is that both Mark and Luke were written by disciples of some of the first claimed eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus.
- Note as well that you just completely undercut your own previous claim that the "first known gospel was written at least 2 generations after the death of Jesus." Uh...no...according to even you, at least 2 of them were written by contemporaries of Jesus and the first generation of disciples of Jesus! So, thank you for disproving your own argument.
not sure what you were trying to show me here, but thank you for another reference showing my point.
A reference that says that Paul never laid eyes on Jesus somehow supports your point that he did? Sorry, not following you again. PAUL DID NOT KNOW THE HISTORICAL JESUS. Never saw Him. Never met Him. Didn't know the man. Certainly was not there when He died. How again does this support your point? Maybe I'm not understanding your point.um...ok...from the note 83 you linked to and what follows:
"Additionally, biblical scholars believes that relatively early material regarding the historical Jesus is found in the Gospel According to John.[83]
[edit] Pauline epistles
Paul, 1410s (Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow)
The composition of the letters of Paul of Tarsus is generally dated between 50 and 64 CE, some two to three decades after the conventional date given for Jesus's death. Paul did not know the historical Jesus. He only claims he had seen him, 'as of one born out of due time', i.e., as the 'risen' Jesus.[84][85]
Many biblical scholars turn to Paul's letters (epistles) to support their arguments for an historical Jesus..."
not sure what you were trying to show me here, but thank you for another reference showing my point.
Why? In what way? One of us is having a serious reading comprehension problem. (and frankly, I suspect it's you.)read page 10 before you stick your foot in your mouth again.