Who wrote the gospels?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-08-2015, 08:39 PM
RE: Who wrote the gospels?
(10-08-2015 04:45 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 02:04 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  It is amazing to watch how many will defend the bible's veracity to their last breath. It's pretty well known that there was rampant pious fraud back when the bible was assembled. There was no concern whatsoever for any truth, any idiot could say that Jesus or Paul said such and such and would be believed.

I suppose if you are pursuing the scholarship of this time period, you do need to know the major players, but many of them have left their marks on ancient documents to prove their religious beliefs. (The Josephus interpolations citing Jesus for example)

As a layman, I'm fully willing to reject just about anything from this era's religious. They were contemptible charlatans and considering them anything but that is ultimately a waste of time. Any document from that era can be considered part of this rampant pious fraud until proven otherwise.

Fraud in the bible

I certainly hope you are not referring to me.

Having read Josephus I reject his mentioning Jesus and believe it likely to have been the work of Eusebius.

I am only referring to the early fragments from the later 100 CE and later.

Although we cannot prove that anyone ever interpolated Josephus, I side with the majority of scholars who believe that the first mention of Jesus was at least partially interpolated.

But I cannot make a positive claim about interpolation, and neither can anyone else, not even the world's best scholars can make that claim. There's no evidence of interpolation, and to look at the text, and then use the text itself as evidence against itself is no different than circular reasoning.

It certainly looks like an interpolation of some sort, but unfortunately we simply do not have any hard evidence to substantiate it.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2015, 08:45 PM
RE: Who wrote the gospels?
(10-08-2015 08:23 PM)Free Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 08:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  But that in no way means they were at that point yet assembled in gospels, and it certainly doesn't say anything about whether they were actually spoken by him. all it proves is that someone can copy something.

What it does is disproves that anything in the gospels were not cited until late 2nd century.

It doesn't really matter if the gospels were in written form or not, for the point is we still have a citation of what we know to be in them.

Agreed?

No. There are all kinds of things in the gospels that came from far earlier than 95 CE. The fact that something from earlier was cited, (not knowing the actual origin) is basically irrelevant. Just because something can be dated to ''at least" 95, doesn't mean it came from 95. It could be from an earlier myth circulating in 95.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2015, 08:52 PM
RE: Who wrote the gospels?
(10-08-2015 08:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 08:23 PM)Free Wrote:  What it does is disproves that anything in the gospels were not cited until late 2nd century.

It doesn't really matter if the gospels were in written form or not, for the point is we still have a citation of what we know to be in them.

Agreed?

No. There are all kinds of things in the gospels that came from far earlier than 95 CE. The fact that something from earlier was cited, (not knowing the actual origin) is basically irrelevant.

Bucky, there is no doubt Clement quotes Jesus by both name, and quotation. There is no doubt that Clement is quoting what we know to be in the written Gospels.

And finally, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Clement is making a citation attributed to Jesus which is currently found in the Gospels, and this completely refutes any assertions that nothing found in the Gospels was cited until the late 2nd century.

Bottom line: In circa AD 95, Clement cites Jesus from what is attributed to Jesus in the Gospel records.

It isn't about whether or not the gospels were assembled or not. It's only about anyone citing what we know to be in them.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:28 AM
RE: Who wrote the gospels?
(10-08-2015 08:23 PM)Free Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 08:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  But that in no way means they were at that point yet assembled in gospels, and it certainly doesn't say anything about whether they were actually spoken by him. all it proves is that someone can copy something.

What it does is disproves that anything in the gospels were not cited until late 2nd century.

It doesn't really matter if the gospels were in written form or not, for the point is we still have a citation of what we know to be in them.

Agreed?
There is the possibility that Clement was not citing the gospels but that his writing was a source of the gospels, or that Clement and the gospels have a common source. No way to be sure, really. But, if so, then the gospels could have been written after 100 C.E.

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:59 AM
RE: Who wrote the gospels?
(11-08-2015 03:28 AM)f stop Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 08:23 PM)Free Wrote:  What it does is disproves that anything in the gospels were not cited until late 2nd century.

It doesn't really matter if the gospels were in written form or not, for the point is we still have a citation of what we know to be in them.

Agreed?
There is the possibility that Clement was not citing the gospels but that his writing was a source of the gospels, or that Clement and the gospels have a common source. No way to be sure, really. But, if so, then the gospels could have been written after 100 C.E.


But don't we have an earlier fragment, p45 or something? I cannot remember now.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 07:40 AM
RE: Who wrote the gospels?
(11-08-2015 03:59 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 03:28 AM)f stop Wrote:  There is the possibility that Clement was not citing the gospels but that his writing was a source of the gospels, or that Clement and the gospels have a common source. No way to be sure, really. But, if so, then the gospels could have been written after 100 C.E.


But don't we have an earlier fragment, p45 or something? I cannot remember now.

Yes we do.

Rylands Library Papyrus P52 is dated AD 125

Also, there is excellent evidence of a Gospel of Mark fragment dating prior to AD 90.

Mummy Mask Fragment

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 07:53 AM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2015 08:07 AM by Free.)
RE: Who wrote the gospels?
(11-08-2015 03:28 AM)f stop Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 08:23 PM)Free Wrote:  What it does is disproves that anything in the gospels were not cited until late 2nd century.

It doesn't really matter if the gospels were in written form or not, for the point is we still have a citation of what we know to be in them.

Agreed?
There is the possibility that Clement was not citing the gospels but that his writing was a source of the gospels, or that Clement and the gospels have a common source. No way to be sure, really. But, if so, then the gospels could have been written after 100 C.E.

One of the big problems with that is that within the Gospels we see that the 2nd Temple is still standing, with no mention of its destruction. The temple was destroyed in AD 70.

Paul, in his 1st letter to the Corinthians, also cites Jesus almost verbatim to what we see in the Gospels:

1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of Me."
1Co 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supping, saying, "This cup is the New Covenant in My blood; as often as you drink it, do this in remembrance of Me."


This had to be mid 1st century. But, within that text there is something hidden that Jesus Mythicists would love to see. Let's see if they detect it. Smile

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 08:10 AM
RE: Who wrote the gospels?
(10-08-2015 08:52 PM)Free Wrote:  Bucky, there is no doubt Clement quotes Jesus by both name, and quotation. There is no doubt that Clement is quoting what we know to be in the written Gospels.

Saying "there is no doubt" is not evidence. We don't know what Jesus he was quoting, or whether Jesus ever said anything even similar. You have simply reasserted your same assertion with nothing new. If there was a "content element" (the content of the quote), it could have been made up and repeated, and that's how it ended up in the gospel. We simply have no idea. He may have thought he was quoting something authentic, , OR he may have been (as MANY OTHERS DID), just been committing "pious fraud" as he thought that was what was best for "the flock". I dod not credit him with "good faith". Pious fraud was the name of the game at that time.


(10-08-2015 08:52 PM)Free Wrote:  And finally, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Clement is making a citation attributed to Jesus which is currently found in the Gospels, and this completely refutes any assertions that nothing found in the Gospels was cited until the late 2nd century.

You have nothing to base those assumptions on, or at least have not provided any.

(10-08-2015 08:52 PM)Free Wrote:  Bottom line: In circa AD 95, Clement cites Jesus from what is attributed to Jesus in the Gospel records.

So you assume with no evidence.

(10-08-2015 08:52 PM)Free Wrote:  It isn't about whether or not the gospels were assembled or not. It's only about anyone citing what we know to be in them.

What was found to be them later. You have no evidence where Clemet really got the (so-called) quote from, or whether it was an authentic "saying".
You're giving FAR too much credit to the party line.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 08:44 AM
RE: Who wrote the gospels?
(11-08-2015 08:10 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 08:52 PM)Free Wrote:  Bucky, there is no doubt Clement quotes Jesus by both name, and quotation. There is no doubt that Clement is quoting what we know to be in the written Gospels.

Saying "there is no doubt" is not evidence. We don't know what Jesus he was quoting, or whether Jesus ever said anything even similar. You have simply reasserted your same assertion with nothing new. If there was a "content element" (the content of the quote), it could have been made up and repeated, and that's how it ended up in the gospel. We simply have no idea. He may have thought he was quoting something authentic, , OR he may have been (as MANY OTHERS DID), just been committing "pious fraud" as he thought that was what was best for "the flock". I dod not credit him with "good faith". Pious fraud was the name of the game at that time.


(10-08-2015 08:52 PM)Free Wrote:  And finally, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Clement is making a citation attributed to Jesus which is currently found in the Gospels, and this completely refutes any assertions that nothing found in the Gospels was cited until the late 2nd century.

You have nothing to base those assumptions on, or at least have not provided any.

(10-08-2015 08:52 PM)Free Wrote:  Bottom line: In circa AD 95, Clement cites Jesus from what is attributed to Jesus in the Gospel records.

So you assume with no evidence.

(10-08-2015 08:52 PM)Free Wrote:  It isn't about whether or not the gospels were assembled or not. It's only about anyone citing what we know to be in them.

What was found to be them later. You have no evidence where Clemet really got the (so-called) quote from, or whether it was an authentic "saying".
You're giving FAR too much credit to the party line.

Meh, we are not going to have this conversation for the umpteenth time on this forum, for all I need to do is say one thing:

Do you have any actual evidence to support any of your claims above?

No?

Okay, we are done here.

Moving along ...

Big Grin

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 09:37 AM
RE: Who wrote the gospels?
(11-08-2015 08:44 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 08:10 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Saying "there is no doubt" is not evidence. We don't know what Jesus he was quoting, or whether Jesus ever said anything even similar. You have simply reasserted your same assertion with nothing new. If there was a "content element" (the content of the quote), it could have been made up and repeated, and that's how it ended up in the gospel. We simply have no idea. He may have thought he was quoting something authentic, , OR he may have been (as MANY OTHERS DID), just been committing "pious fraud" as he thought that was what was best for "the flock". I dod not credit him with "good faith". Pious fraud was the name of the game at that time.



You have nothing to base those assumptions on, or at least have not provided any.


So you assume with no evidence.


What was found to be them later. You have no evidence where Clemet really got the (so-called) quote from, or whether it was an authentic "saying".
You're giving FAR too much credit to the party line.

Meh, we are not going to have this conversation for the umpteenth time on this forum, for all I need to do is say one thing:

Do you have any actual evidence to support any of your claims above?

No?

Okay, we are done here.

Moving along ...

Big Grin

No, and obviously neither do you. You position has nothing to support it any more than mine. I am a skeptic.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: