The gospels are books of literature, not history!

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: As much as some christians argue that the gospels are stories from history, the truth is that they are not historical but serve only as literary work, in fact, mostly theatrical and histrionic.

 

[Lawdog]

They are not literary, the Hebrews did not have a literary tradition of eye-witness accounts. They are sacred texts.

 

[Provita]

That doesnt necessarily prove them to be "sacred"

These "eye-witness accounts" happened 70 + years before the gospels were written. For how long people lived then... and even today... im sure most, if not all, eye-witnesses had died off.

These "eye-witness accounts" could have been fabricated, or atleast some, in order to gain more followers, to make people believe, so that Christianity wouldnt be destroyed but would rather gain fellowship and grow to the ends of the Earth.

They could have been added later on, for we see the earliest texts found do not contain miracle stories.

Jesus could have existed. He could have also not existed. The stories could (keep in mind anything is possible, no matter how unlikely) be true, but they could also be fabricated, added on later, literary work, or etc.

The only thing that has named them sacred is the followers of the people who wrote them. Redundant. Biased. So there is acctually no *proof* that ANY "sacred" texts are sacred, including the Bible and its many, many translations.

 

[Lawdog]

They are sacred to the religious people who preserved them, are they not?

 

[Provita]

Touche!

 

[Cris]

But they are seen by many now as just literature, and we know they have little if any historical value. For some they are deemed sacred, and that is their perogative, but that wasn't the topic of the thread.

 

[Lawdog]

Why can they not be both sacred and historical, in your opinion?

 

[Cris]

One can call anything sacred if so desired, I have no issue with that, it is the historical voracity that I question.

 

[Lawdog]

So sacred cannot be historic?

 

[Cris]

I don't care. It's up to religious people what they call sacred, be it historical or not.

 

[stefan]

whether it's sacred literature, or just literature, is irrelevent. it's whether the gospel literature has evidence to verify it's history, as it has none, it can only be deemed historic, in that the stories, there in are old, and are just stories, literature.
they can only be likened to any other ancient literature, such as the illad, odessy, beowulf, aesops fables, myths and legend etc etc.....
that I think is M*W point.

 

[Lawdog]

I don't care. It's up to religious people what they call sacred, be it historical or not.

Then why do the eye-witness gospels not count as historical evidence?

 

[Cris]

There are no eye-witness gospels.

 

[Lawdog]

Please explain this novel position.

 

[stefan]

lawdog

the gospels were written sometime between 70 and 100AD, a full 40+years after jesus'es aledged death. this makes it extremely doubtful that the writers were eyewitnesses. and even if they were eyewitnesses, the time passed would make us question their recollection.
also, by the time the gospels were distributed, no eyewitnesses would have still been alive, making it absolutely impossible for anyone to verify them.

there is also the fact the writers, contradict each other, they also conflict with known history, and they are more often, then not, implausible
these facts, and the late date, gives us reason to doubt the gospels historicity and truth.

 

[Lawdog]

lawdog

the gospels were written sometime between 70 and 100AD, a full 40+years after jesus'es aledged death. this makes it extremely doubtful that the writers were eyewitnesses. and even if they were eyewitnesses, the time passed would make us question their recollection.
also, by the time the gospels were distributed, no eyewitnesses would have still been alive, making it absolutely impossible for anyone to verify them.

Those dates were assigned by protestant scholars, whose motives are questionable, and so the dates can be debated. They could have been re-written in 70 as well.

there is also the fact the writers, contradict each other, they also conflict with known history, and they are more often, then not, implausible
these facts, and the late date, gives us reason to doubt the gospels historicity and truth

The fact that they contradict each other is proof that its an eyewitness account!

 

[Medicine*Woman]

lawdog

Those dates were assigned by protestant scholars, whose motives are questionable, and so the dates can be debated. They could have been re-written in 70 as well.

The fact that they contradict each other is proof that its an eyewitness account!

*************
M*W: Then whose eyewitness was it? Can you provide verifiable evidence to the eyewitnesses? Not even Paul who wrote most of the NT ever knew Jesus. Please prove your statement.

 

[Lawdog]

The four Gospel writers, whose names are given, Scholarship to the contrary is all merely specualtive. tradition is more trustworthy.

If Paul did not know Jesus, then how did he recognize him on the way to Damscus?

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

The four Gospel writers, whose names are given,

Oh dear your ignorance is astonishing about this area that you should know better than this. There is no doubt that the gospels were written by countless authors and all are unknown. The names have no relation to any author.

tradition is more trustworthy.

LOL - verbal tales told and retold and re-interpretaed and altered at every stage - you have to be joking, right?

If Paul did not know Jesus, then how did he recognize him on the way to Damscus?

To Paul the Christ was a spiritual concept and the idea to him that a god man would have come in the flesh was not his view of a savior. His claims/hallucinations are as he imagined them - there was no meeting. Notice that Paul does not reference any of the key messages found in the gospels. That's because all these texts were written independently of each other from different imaginary sources.

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

The Q research, probably the most comprehensive on the history of the gospels, puts the first gospel, Mark at around 85CE, Mathew at about 95CE, John at about 105CE, and Luke at around 125CE. Mark was the simpler and the original, while Mathew, Luke and John primarily copied Mark and added more imaginary enhancements.