It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Greetings all,

Some believers here claim the Gospels are eye-witness accounts.

Well,
scholars do not agree - here is an essay summarising the reasons why the Gospels are NOT considered eye-witness accounts.


The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts


by Diogenes the Cynic (from Internet Infidels)
www.iidb.org...


Only two of the canonical Gospels, Matthew and John, are alleged by tradition to have been written by eywitnesses but I'm going to address Mark and Luke as well because I feel like wrecking those authorship traditions just to be thorough.


First of all, I should say that none of the four canonical Gospels names its own author, none of them claim to be eywitness accounts or even to have spoken to eyewitness of Jesus. All are written in the third person and none of the authors tell us anything about themselves. All of the traditional ascriptions of authorship Flukecome from 2nd century tradition.


See link for details.







[edit on 3-3-2005 by RANT]




posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 03:16 AM
link   
My friend, and i mean this in all seriousness, did some Christian do something to harm you, and i mean no offense by this, i am just wondering why you choose to hate something with so much passion, when all it preaches is peace? Just curious, and i dont mean that as an insult or anything it's just that is obvious that you have some built up resentment towards the religion for whatever reason. Again, sorry if i offended you, it wasn' t my intentions, i just want to know why you hate Christianity so much?



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   
I dont see any hate in this topic. I simply see a person who is putting forth information about the bible that is often glossed over or ignored.

on the choice of this topic!



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Interesting post, although in all honesty I never did think they were eye witness accounts. In fact the bible we read today is very different to the original writings.

Don't see any hate there either.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
...I feel like wrecking those authorship traditions just to be thorough.

No hate? Come on! I am all for the open exchange of information and ideas, but we must not hide our biases.
Now on topic. From what little I know of the Bible, it seems to me that the author of that article has made many assumptions. The dates given to the Gospels can in no way be ascertained. Also, it is not really possible to know which author copied which author.
What are your opinions about those Gospels not traditionally canon? Some of them were attributed to have been written by contemporaries of Jesus.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Ok, your information for this is from a forum? Is this your post in another forum, or someone elses?

Basic tradition in scriptural writing in the scriptures is based off the scribes who sighned it. With each new copy, the scribe would add his name to the bottom of the list, so you could follow who did what all the way back. Some books are obviously written by one person or another. Others, I think one or 2 of the Pauline epistles, we aren't sure of where they came from.


First, Mark does not say that he knew Peter, talked to Peter, ever met Peter or got any information from any eyewitness.

The book of acts shows that there was a Grecian Jew named Mark, who was a young man who trailed behind Paul....and there's accounts within Acts that suppostr the meeting of MArk and Peter, very frequently, in fact (look at my referenced source)

(6) Mark is again with Peter in Rome in c. 65 CE (1 Peter 5:13). One certainly gets the impression that Mark returned to Rome at Paul’s request (64), and was still there when Peter penned his first letter. However, there is more. The fact that Peter calls him “my son” indicates that their relationship had not been hit-or-miss, but was an ongoing one for some time.

(7) The outline of Mark’s gospel corresponds to the Petrine kerygma recorded in Acts 10:36-41.13 The salient features are: (1) John the Baptist heralds the coming of the Messiah; (2) Jesus is baptized by John; (3) Jesus performs miracles, showing that his authority was from God; (4) he went to Jerusalem; (5) he was crucified; (6) he was raised from the dead on the third day. This suggests not only that Mark may have gotten the individual stories about Jesus from Peter, but that he also got a framework for the life and ministry of Jesus from Peter.
8) Further, Peter takes it on the chin in this gospel. Not only does Jesus rebuke him for wanting a Messiah without the cross, but if the gospel ends at 16:8, Peter does not see the resurrected Christ. These two points belong together, but for now suffice it to say that either Mark’s gospel is actually hostile to Peter and the other disciples,14 or else it picks up the self-effacing attitude of Peter himself. The latter has fewer problems with it—and in fact argues implicitly that Mark not only got much of his message from Peter, but that he recorded it faithfully.
In sum, Mark had an ongoing and close relationship with Peter for at least ten or twenty years before he penned his gospel. At the same time, he had an ongoing and close relationship with Paul and Barnabas. This double association placed him in a unique position for writing a gospel to Gentiles (motivated by Paul’s mission) based on the teaching of Peter.
for a taste......
It would be highly unlikely that Mark did not know Peter.
IT is he that is accounted for writing not only John, but Mark as well. And he was an eye witness, and did not need to talk to Peter about his feelings, or to Paul either. If he depicts the apostles as being dense, and he is one of the apostles, then he has every right to. first. Second, the apostles, for the most part, were unlearned men, i.e. they really knew nothing about the prophecies of the comming messiah. They were GOING to be dense. This confirms consistancy in the text.

Next, show this hostility. Get proof form the text source itself, don't just say, oooo, it's hostile, like it's supposed to prove something. Major lack of scolarship upon the shoulders of one who needs to prove something?

Now let's deal with the language everything was written in. If you go back to the quotes from OT sources throughout the 4 Gospels, especially the quotes Christ himself made, you'd find that they are ALL from the septuagent. The septuagent was a Greek copy of the old testament scriptures, an it was the universal Jewish language at that point, beisdes their own hebrew and Aramaic. Perceive this: Right before the NT was written, before Rome had Irael in captivity, the Greeks had Israel in captivity. (Which is confirmed in greek documents and the book of Macabees I & II, not to mention the book of Daniel's prophecies (the ONLY book in the whole bible to be written partially in Aramaic. The OT was written in hebrew (excluding some of Daniel), the NT was ALL in greek. Why would that be? First, they were in captivity by the Greeks, then went right into captivity under the Romans, who used Greek as the universal language. Why? Because most of their ruled area spoke Greek because it was originally Greek territory. To not write in Greek is to exclude not only the whole rest of the world, but to also cut off the Grecian (called Hellenistic) Jews (Mark was a Hellenistic Jew; he may not have known ANY Hebrew or Aramaic). There is no sign of ANY of the NT works being written in Aramaic, THEN being translated to the Greek. That shows consistancy throughout the whole of the NT.

Now, I'm not going to even bother to read the rest of what you wrote for right now. If I can find so many problems with what you wrote only 3-4 short paragraphs into your writing, then looking at the rest right now, without giving you some text to read that is DOCUMENTED (giving you a chance to re-edit your opinion for accuracy), is a waste of everyone's time, including yours.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Look, forget all that evidence you provided for your thoughts. Christians don't care. You don't need it anyways.

The gospels hardly agree on any specifics. They only agree on a fundamental level, and nearly everything else contradicts itself. If they were all eyewitness accounts, then things like....JESUS" LAST WORDS ON THE CROSS WOULD BE CONSISTENT FROM GOSPEL TO GOSPEL. They don't even agree as to how he reesurrected from the dead let alone insignificant things.

The gospels do not match one another. Already, there is something wrong. The evidence you provide only further proves this. Fortuneatly if you are a christian, you can just ignore truth and facts because you don't really want to have knowledge.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   
When you take away the divine power of God, and the guidance of the Holy spirit it is easy to disprove the works of the bible, and on just mear assumptions.

God gave us the Scriptures through men whom he chose, using language they knew and the style of writing they had. He used Moses and the prophets to write the Old Testament in Hebrew (some portions in Aramaic) and the evangelists and apostles to write the New Testament in Greek.

God did not record the words on tape for them to listen to and write down. But every word these men expressed was given to them by inspiration of the Holy Spirit as they wrote. The Holy Spirit was always guiding them. We cannot explain the miraculous process. The cohesivenessof the message and the accuracy and agreement of thousands of years show God's divine hand in the writing of his Word.


2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,


In a sense they are eyewitness accounts, but the eyewitnesses are not the authors, but instead God and the Holy spirit



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Jos,


You say:

"When you take away the divine power of God, and the guidance of the Holy spirit it is easy to disprove the works of the bible, and on just mear assumptions."

Tel me what God was thinking when he told the writers of Jesus' last words on the cross. Why don't you take the time to tell us all difinitively what his last words were?



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
Look, forget all that evidence you provided for your thoughts. Christians don't care. You don't need it anyways.


It that's the case, why do we debate/argue so much? For our health? Because we're just mean spirited people? Oh those apathetic Christians...



Originally posted by Seapeople
Fortuneatly if you are a christian, you can just ignore truth and facts because you don't really want to have knowledge.


Are not my responses (and others') proof that I do not ignore what's being presented? Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt your carpet bombing, claiming the ignorace of millions of people who you obviously know privately.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
Interesting post, although in all honesty I never did think they were eye witness accounts. In fact the bible we read today is very different to the original writings.


The problem is that many people refuse to accept that information. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the original bible was written, through the hand of man, by the christian god. If the bible today is still god's version of the bible then why are there different versions? Does god keep changing its mind?



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
Tel me what God was thinking when he told the writers of Jesus' last words on the cross. Why don't you take the time to tell us all difinitively what his last words were?


Matthew 27:46 (consistant with Luke) included Jesus saying "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" which is a Psalm. Jesus was sing Psalm 22:1 (a song of David about hope, trust and faith if anyone takes the time to read it past this first line), which had significant meaning to some of the people there. One person said, "He's calling Elijah." Ding! Bingo, he's doing God's work. They then got a sponge, put it on a stick and gave him something to drink.

Now on to Luke 23:46: "Jesus called out with a loud voice, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.' When he said this, he breathed his last breath."

This had a separate significance to some other person/people there.

Next is John 19:30 - "When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'it is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

This had yet another significance to another person/group of people there.

What did he say? I think he said all three. What was heard was the one thing that had a special meaning to them. If you hear a great speech and talk to everyone afterwards, asking what the most important thing that was said I can assure you they'll all say something different. Who then is right? The answer is all of them. Each gospel is a piece of the puzzle. By putting together you get a wonderfully unique perspective from 4 different angles. Can one gospel stand on its own? Sure. Is it better because there are four? Absolutely.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna
If the bible today is still god's version of the bible then why are there different versions?


Do you like the word 'Thee' or the word 'You'? For me, the King James Version, translated around that king's time is a bear to tackle with our modern english (not the band) so I went with the New International Version, where over 200 biblical scholars got together to review original text and translate it. Saves me from having to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Should I learn these three languages? Sure, but like most Americans, I want it now!
The other versions that came out try to build a similar comfort level. Do they all say the same thing? Yep. Pretty much. Some phrases read like "God will comfort you" instead of "God will be with you" but with as screwed up as our language is, I'd say that's close. The meaning is the same between all versions. Don't understand something? Close the Book and talk to God. You'll get your answer one way or another. Why to I trust 200+ biblical scholars? Because I've heard the same words from those who are not that can read those original languages. My church will compare 2 or 3 different translations when reading verses. It's cool, but they don't say nuttin' different. There's no mistranslation, just a refusal to accept what's written.


Originally posted by Jonna
Does god keep changing its mind?


Nope. Though, it's well documented He is able to do so per the Old Testament. As for Christ it was prophesy, it happened, and the promise holds true.

Pray, train, study.
God bless.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Iasion, The ancient texts at our disposal from 70 to 150 years after Christ died, shows the church fathers basically knew diddly about the four gospels themselves, relying on the OT as their basis for belief. The irony of which is that as the gospels and epistles surfaced, the OT was being thrown to the wolves by the denunciation of the Jews.

What is puzzling is how those disputing you use presumption as fact and show just how devoid of factual information is their repertoire.

jlc163…..IT is he that is accounted for writing not only John, but Mark as well. And he was an eye witness, and did not need to talk to Peter about his feelings, or to Paul either. If he depicts the apostles as being dense, and he is one of the apostles, then he has every right to. first. Second, the apostles, for the most part, were unlearned men,..


How a tax collector, and a physician can be unlearned men is a paradox only Christians must understand.

It seems whenever we plant this information in front of their eyes, sudden blindness sets in, for they ignore it or go about their way coming back later on with the same uneducated and unsupported rhetoric to attack the truth. Nonetheless as often as they attempt to override the truth, the truth should be plunked in front of their faces:

Clement to Theodore On Mark wrote: As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge.

This proves that Mark knew Peter only and does not discount either as an eyewitness, but I shall return to Clement who claims to have been a student of Paul.

What truths are in the gospel exactly when we are led to believe that jesus was crucified at aged 33 when we have Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses arguing that after having had discussion with John that Jesus lived to be a ripe old age into his fifties, and John himself during the time of Trajan, who from what can be ascertained of him was born circa AD30 and ruled between 98&117. this bit of information certainly is one of those things that makes you go hmmm. For if John must have been approaching 100 years old to have died in Trajan’s time.

but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.


That the gospels are a huge piece of propaganda there is no doubt, for the above Irenaeus quote and the below are only two which prove this, the latter being the continuation of Clement’s letter on Mark’s writings:

Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected… and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries…
To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after ,"And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem," and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise," the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:
"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."
After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him," and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

Someone asked rather disdainfully why discredit the gospels, but the better question is; why perpetuate a lie and push it as truth? To do so is to pursue a religion built on falsehoods, to teach it and believe in it is paganism, sacrilege and heresy, and to attempt to hide the historic accounts which is no longer possible anyway, is to suggest that it is quite all right to pander to myth all in the name of one’s desire to believe what they want to believe. Small wonder fundamentalists and the Vatican are showing signs of apoplexy by flooding the world with their apocalyptic tripe and stories of saints and prophetic hocus pocus, such is an attempt to kill knowledge and the truth behind their 2000 year old mind corruption control practices.

Like all other dead religions, so too will this one become.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
How a tax collector, and a physician can be unlearned men is a paradox only Christians must understand.


Christians don't believe them to be 'unlearned men'. People such as yourself do and yes, I think that it is paradoxal to think that.


Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Someone asked rather disdainfully why discredit the gospels, but the better question is; why perpetuate a lie and push it as truth? To do so is to pursue a religion built on falsehoods, to teach it and believe in it is paganism, sacrilege and heresy, and to attempt to hide the historic accounts which is no longer possible anyway, is to suggest that it is quite all right to pander to myth all in the name of one’s desire to believe what they want to believe. Small wonder fundamentalists and the Vatican are showing signs of apoplexy by flooding the world with their apocalyptic tripe and stories of saints and prophetic hocus pocus, such is an attempt to kill knowledge and the truth behind their 2000 year old mind corruption control practices.


...but you're not bitter
. So ah, what kind of harm did all this talk of peace and Heaven do to you?


Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Like all other dead religions, so too will this one become.


Wishful thinking my friend.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Christians don't believe them to be 'unlearned men'. People such as yourself do and yes, I think that it is paradoxal to think that.
Have you polled all 1.1 billion of them? what about jlc who made the claim, did you first poll him to be sure he was not a Christian? And as for me, did you poll me to find out whether or not I think the apostles are unlearned men? Why no you did not, did you? So what is with this fabrication of yours then? I won't outright call it a lie since you're a Christian and all, but I will tell you that you have sinned. For the record, I do not believe the 4 authors were unlearned men, first I am not convinced they were all men, and I believe they, along with the other second century gospel forgers were ignorant and lacking in intelligence. So please do not ever speak for me again until you get the correct adjectives first.



...but you're not bitter
. So ah, what kind of harm did all this talk of peace and Heaven do to you?
Correct, I am not bitter, and it does no harm to speak of heaven and peace, or have your eyes been deceiving you when I speak of wholeheartedly believing in that, or is they i read something else?



Wishful thinking my friend.
I'm sure there were Egyptians, Greeks and Romans who thought like you.

By the way, why did you not address truthfully the question posed about what Jesus did or did not say on the cross or for that matter, all of the questions?



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by saint4God
Christians don't believe them to be 'unlearned men'. People such as yourself do and yes, I think that it is paradoxal to think that.
Have you polled all 1.1 billion of them?


Please tell me how you can 'unlearn' something. Common sense tells me people don't 'unlearn' things. Perhaps a poll is in order to those who don't believe in common sense? Since you weren't using any quote marks and did not cited the source of this borrowed word, it sounded like something from you. If this was incorrect, I apologize.


Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
what about jlc who made the claim, did you first poll him to be sure he was not a Christian?


Sorry, didn't mean to be unfair. So how about it jlc, are you Christian?


Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
And as for me, did you poll me to find out whether or not I think the apostles are unlearned men?


Again, sounded like this is what you were saying. I see below that you've clarified so no need to ask.


Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Why no you did not, did you?


Rectifying now.


Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
So what is with this fabrication of yours then? I won't outright call it a lie
since you're a Christian and all, but I will tell you that you have sinned.


No duh
, did I ever claim otherwise?


Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
For the record, I do not believe the 4 authors were unlearned men,


Thanks.


Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
first I am not convinced they were all men, and I believe they, along with the other second century gospel forgers were ignorant and lacking in intelligence. So please do not ever speak for me again until you get the correct adjectives first.


Ah, second gen's were ignorant and lacking intelligence. I see.


Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

...but you're not bitter
. So ah, what kind of harm did all this talk of peace and Heaven do to you?
Correct, I am not bitter, and it does no harm to speak of heaven and peace, or have your eyes been deceiving you when I speak of wholeheartedly believing in that, or is they i read something else?


Per the previous section I've posted, it looks like you clearly disapprove of Christian teachings (i.e. talk about peace and Heaven).


Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I'm sure there were Egyptians, Greeks and Romans who thought like you.


Time will tell. Just don't expect me to 'siddown and shuddup' when you say my beliefs are dead when certainly, I live.


Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
By the way, why did you not address truthfully the question posed about what Jesus did or did not say on the cross or for that matter, all of the questions?


I used direct quotes and talked to my thoughts on those direct quotes. What makes you believe I'm trying to convey anything but the truth? Also, I didn't realize it was my responsibility to answer all questions posted on the board. I was concerned that people would be tired of hearing me talk and think it unfair to disallow others who have similar answers to post their response. Just because I'm an ATS junkie doesn't give me the right to over-talk others, answer all questions, be an authority for things I'm still considering, or being a 'know it all' in my opinion anyway. If it's alright by everyone here, sure, I'll try to answer all questions ever posted on a thread in this topic. I think to do so would be foolish as....after all...I don't know it all. Only God does


Pray, train, study.
God bless.


[edit on 3-3-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Damn, Somewhereinbetween, I gotta get the info you have!

Once again you have posted some valid info. Too bad no one cares, though.
I wish someone would argue with you and provide actual evidence instead of quoting the Bible as the infallible Word of God. But of course, no one can because without citing that book, they have no argument.

Look, yall, EVERY group of people have based their religion on previous religions with a twist. ADMITTEDLY, Christianity is a spinoff of Judaism. If you can accept that, why can't you accept the Babylonian, Ethiopian, and other influences that the Bible has?

I guess it's better to pretend like you haven't seen this type of info and blindly follow the leader. Even when it's common knowledge that today's Bible is far from the original. Why leave out all those other books? I know, because the people who wanted to control the believers knew that those extras wouldn't work to their advantage. Gotta love mind control.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
First of all the Gospels as most of you know where written after Jesus death, they are only sources of writings that tell about the Semitic Jesus.

They cannot be said to be the biography of Jesus. The deeds of his teachings and works were written first and then the birth, death and resurrection were added later.

Before the Gospels of Matthew and Luke became theological and the base of the Christian believes it was the account of a human Jesus of the village of Galilee, the church scribes when compiling these last Gospels changes the story around and the mythical Christ was born.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Greetings all,

Thanks for your replies :-)

I am encouraged at the number of posters who have checked into it for themselves.

Thanks RANT, sorry if posting the whole essay was not cool - I did ask Diogenes of course, and I had noted that not many people here seem to actually follow the links to check things out :-)

I hope those of you ARE looking to check out the original documents have seen Peter Kirby's site - it's truly a modern masterpice of information and scholarship.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Iasion



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join