Originally posted by BillClintonsCigar
I imagine if (Peter) was witness on the mount, then he would have written more. ... If this is true then I think it would show in the language. Have a look at the writing style (sentence structure etc.) However the Bible has been edited slightly and re-written and such structures could have changed over time.
_______
I attended a seminar at a Lutheran Church where an elderly Swedish woman claimed she had done a computer analysis of the frequency of certain words in the Gospels, to discover whether they were all written by the same person. When I asked her to explain how the program worked, she started crying. She had no idea what she was talking about...
And that holds true for so many of the so-called "experts" in this field, including Pat Robertson and Billy Graham. Pat has a new book out titled "Bring It On" where he explains what demonic spirits are and how Christians can avoid being possessed by them... total drivel, but HE thinks he's an authority because he runs the 700 Club.
My point is this: Jesus may or may not have been a real person.
The stories about Jesus in the NT, however, were written by men running an End of the World cult in the year ~60 Ad, about thirty years after Jesus died on the cross, and there is no reason to think that any of the words or sermons attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are "real."
Once you realize that the stories come from Peter and other sources, and that Peter had an "agenda" of convincing his victims that Jesus had performed miracles and those miracles proved that the Kingdom of God was approaching and the world was about to end... once you get the theory right, then all the mysteries and inconsistencies disappear.