Where exactly is the sacrifice in the death of Jesus?

[blueman]

No doubt, but do some biblical scholars claim that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses?

There are a number of NT scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) who have cited the authenticity and historical accuracy of the NT Gospels and Pauline Epistles. The scholars on the other side of this issue are in the minority. That's a statement of fact.

 

[Alien]

If it becomes true that humanity are not God's only children, then the concept of humanity will have to be expanded to include this "life on other planets." If that's the case, then the avatar of the "Savior of Humanity" will, likewise have to be expanded to include the ones of this "life on other planets."

We "expand" to include newly discovered findings so what it said about Jesus can be relevant? If we expand the concept, and the avatar, all we're doing is fabricating a working equation to reach our preferable answer/solution. We would have to be the ones to expand the concept, not god, not jesus...but us. Expanding the concept is what's been going on for thousands of years, by man. If thats the case in another thousand years or so we'll be reading stories of how Jesus aligned the planets, because again, this is how we'll reach relevance...by "expanding" the concept.

 

[blueman]

I wouldn't doubt that some biblical scholars support blueman's claims. He might be doing the research for all we know. What exactly is the scholarly consensus?

Here is a link that provides some pespective:

Evidence That the Gospels Are Authentic

 

[dogsgod]

Here is a link that provides some pespective:

Evidence That the Gospels Are Authentic

Thank you. No doubt biblical scholars support what you have provided, while some will disagree.

 

[Tristesse]

No doubt, but do some biblical scholars claim that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses?

Well, they shouldn't. Because even the gospel writers claim to not be eyewitnesses. Anyone who says they were written by eyewitnesses, is either trying to be dishonest or they just don't know any better.

 

[Tristesse]

absolutely false since many of the manuscripts (copies of the original) are dated back to the latter part of the 1st and early part of the 2nd century. Another falsehood on your part.

No, we don't even have copies of the originals. We have copies of copies of copies etc... Of the originals. Really, I suggest you do some homework. I;m telling you, this is really basic biblical knowledge. They teach this stuff in seminary.

 

[dogsgod]

Well, they shouldn't. Because even the gospel writers claim to not be eyewitnesses. Anyone who says they were written by eyewitnesses, is either trying to be dishonest or they just don't know any better.

OK, but blueman provided a source and it's of a traditional view that some biblical scholars support, so your work is cut out for you.

 

[Tristesse]

Here is a link that provides some pespective:

Evidence That the Gospels Are Authentic

I'm not claiming that the gospels aren't authentic, you're misrepresenting my position. I;m saying that if you think the names of the gospel writers was matthew, mark, luke and john you're sorely mistaken. I mean even some bibles come with a disclaimer, stating that matthew, mark, luke and john were names added to the texts later.

 

[dogsgod]

I'm not claiming that the gospels aren't authentic, you're misrepresenting my position. I;m saying that if you think the names of the gospel writers was matthew, mark, luke and john you're sorely mistaken. I mean even some bibles come with a disclaimer, stating that matthew, mark, luke and john were names added to the texts later.

Read a little further down the page.

 

[Tristesse]

OK, but blueman provided a source and it's of a traditional view that some biblical scholars support, so your work is cut out for you.

My only position is that, matthew, mark, luke and john were not the gospel writers names, we don't know who they actually were. And that none of the authors ever met jesus. These are my only two points. And if blueman thinks he can refute it, he's more than welcome. But of course they're going to have to change the way they teach seminary, if blueman is correct.

 

[dogsgod]

My only position is that, matthew, mark, luke and john were not the gospel writers names, we don't know who they actually were. And that none of the authors ever met jesus. These are my only two points. And if blueman thinks he can refute it, he's more than welcome. But of course they're going to have to change the way they teach seminary, if blueman is correct.

All I'm saying is that blueman's source is what you're up against. From reading it one can see where blueman is coming from. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying.

 

[fallingblood]

There is no historical basis for your argument regarding the NT Gospel writers not being the actual author, nor Paul being the author of the majority of the 13 NT books he wrote.

Have you read any work on the subject? I will refer you to L. Michael White on the issue of the Pauline Epistles. Even wikipedia has an accurate article on it. There is no doubt that some of the Epistles were written after Paul died. There is no doubt some of them were not written by Paul, and this can be seen by how they were written. Here is some preliminary reading that will help you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles


As for the Gospels, they never suggest who they were written by. The Titles were added at a later date, which we know because the earliest references we have to them do not have the titles. We have the records showing just how the titles came about. We even have debates on who the authors truly are, such as in the case of the Gospel of John. History shows that we do not know who wrote the Gospels.

Your explanation regarding the impact of the resurrection is weak, at best. Christianity would have never taken off in Jeruselum, Rome and other parts of the world if people realized that Christ's body was either stolen, ravaged by dogs or buried in another tomb. It's just not plausible in light of the history

Actually it is very plausible. They were in a very different time period. They did not have communication such as we do today. Plus, Jesus really wasn't that important during that time. He was just one more failed messiah. So it was not a stretch to assume that a myth sprouted up about Jesus (one that a population was already predisposed to believe) and that no one could really check.

Jesus was dead, so they had to create an explanation for that. The Messiah was never suppose to be resurrected. As soon as he died he was a failure. So his followers made an explanation of why he didn't fail.

I've already communicated. The whole theory of hallucination is an old argument that has already been disputed by psychologists who have studied this issue. Over 500 people were documented to encounter Jesus over a period of a number of days (I Corinthians 15). The likelihood that all of these folks were hallucinating due to grief is ridiculous. As I've stated before, even skeptics are running out of arguments and beginning to accept the authenticity and historical basis for the New Testament. You're on the wrong side of history in your assessment.

Can you say exaggeration? And I'm not talking about hallucinations. I'm talking about a phenomenon that is highly attested to. One that people still see occur today.

The fact is, the majority of scholars accept that the New Testament is not historically accurate. I have no idea who you've been reading, but you are not familiar with the majority of the scholarship going on.

 

[fallingblood]

Another claim that has been promulgated by skeptics, is a claim that the Jesus narrative was taken from ancient mythology, which was debunked years ago:

Scholars do not accept this. As far as I know, no scholars have really accepted this. So your point is completely moot.

And even the skeptics who do claim this idea was only accepted by a small minority. You're making a pointless argument here.

Why you bring this up is completely pointless.

 

[fallingblood]

I wouldn't doubt that some biblical scholars support blueman's claims. He might be doing the research for all we know. What exactly is the scholarly consensus?

The scholarly consensus is the exact opposite. Even mainstream seminaries teach the exact opposite. From what sources he's getting is information, it is guaranteed it is not from credible scholarship.

 

[fallingblood]

absolutely false since many of the manuscripts (copies of the original) are dated back to the latter part of the 1st and early part of the 2nd century. Another falsehood on your part.

Show this to be true. We do not have the originals. All we have are copies of the copies. And even then, we just have fragments of many of those.

 

[fallingblood]

There are a number of NT scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) who have cited the authenticity and historical accuracy of the NT Gospels and Pauline Epistles. The scholars on the other side of this issue are in the minority. That's a statement of fact.

That is not a statement of fact. That is a statement of ignorance. The majority of scholars agree that the NT is not historically accurate or authentic. You might as well start providing some evidence right now.

 

[fallingblood]

Here is a link that provides some pespective:

Evidence That the Gospels Are Authentic

So you provide an apologetic website that is far from the consensus? I can find whatever I want on the internet, that in no way shows that it is the general consensus. All you've provided is evidence that you haven't done credible research on this subject.

 

[blueman]

The scholarly consensus is the exact opposite. Even mainstream seminaries teach the exact opposite. From what sources he's getting is information, it is guaranteed it is not from credible scholarship.

I would say your mainstream liberal scholars are actually in the minority. Dr. William Lane Craig, Roberth H. Stein, Gary Habermas, Daniel B. Wallace and Ben Witherington III would probably disagree with your consensus.

 

[fallingblood]

I would say your mainstream liberal scholars are actually in the minority. Dr. William Lane Craig, Roberth H. Stein, Gary Habermas, Daniel B. Wallace and Ben Witherington III would probably disagree with your consensus.

Okay, I can do that too. Marcus Borg, L. Michael White, John D. Crossan, Bart D Ehrman, and J.P Meier would all disagree with you. So I guess we are tied here. Five against five.

 

[blueman]

That is not a statement of fact. That is a statement of ignorance. The majority of scholars agree that the NT is not historically accurate or authentic. You might as well start providing some evidence right now.

If those scholars who arbitrarilly discount the historical accuracy of the NT because of the reference to the supernatural, they are no more credible than the folks from the Jesus Seminar. Those who have seriously vetted the issue tend to fall on the side of it's authenticity, than it being a fairy tale or legend. You don't even have to believe it to be the authoratative word of God to see that compared to any other work of antiquity, the NT is second to none in it's historical accuracy, attestation and the short period of time between the copies (manuscripts) being circulated and the original text.