Who wrote the Gospels?

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Sat May 12, 2018 3:27 pm

Probably Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John... Peter probably wrote one too... He certainly wrote other Epistles. Likely? That he wrote about his experiences with Jesus in a Gospel? Very likely.

There very may be many more authentic Gospels in existence. We probably dont even know the half of the amount of documents that are written about Jesus.. But there are hundreds... And probably hundreds more...

How likely is it for Mark, Matthew, Luke, actually existing? Like real people? Its very likely....

How likely is it that at least some of these books where in collaboration with eyewitnesses testimony? Very likely

Far as im concerned, the best history we can research is the history of the Church and the Temple. The Jewish Temple all the way down to Jesus, and Jesus all the way up to our church today. Beginning right from its base... Jesus, and the Disciples, all the way up the line. Maybe some of the best history you can research

In fact, im going to Rome, in 3 Weeks, did you know the Church goes back to the First Century? It is the Vatican, it was biult on Peters Grave... It exists

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Tue May 15, 2018 3:00 pm

rikuoamero wrote:
Tart wrote:
Willum wrote: [Replying to post 21 by Tart]

Hmmm... so the Counsil of Nicea didn't exist?
Those quotations didn't come out of the Bible?
Gosh, you are right, I better go study.
What would you recommend as a better path to the truth, Alice in Wonderland? The Iliad? The Epic of Gilgamesh? Spiderman and his Amazing Friends?
No, you can go study any major atheist New Testament scholar (if you dont want an independent source), and they will tell you Paul existed...

Richard Carrier
Bart Ehrman
Robert Price

Do you have anyone who agrees with you Paul is fictional?

Wait...you're invoking CARRIER as an authority? ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚

Do me a favour please and look up what Carrier is well known for.

Oh ya, i have much better resources then Dr. Carrier... In fact, i have discussed with Dr. Carrier his views... We have had conversations on the history of the Bible, and he was never able to answer my one question for him...

But I gave these sources because we are talking about the origin of the Gospels, the First Church and the First Disciples, and everyone agrees, even Dr. Carrier, Paul exist...

Everyone. Id even say that Dr. Price is even more radical then Dr. Carrier.. Fell out of the coo coo's nest... And he even agrees Paul exist..

Apparently, the only person that disagrees that Paul exists is some random dude here on DC website...

It isnt a conversation im interested in continuing... This is about the origins of the New Testament writings, and the historicity of the first century Church... And if you dont believe Paul exist, and you have absolutely no evidence or valid reasoning to say Paul doesnt exist, except to falsely compare the Bible to spider man...

Sorry, you are entailed to you opinions, but im not interested in continuing to debate about it .

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Tue May 15, 2018 3:08 pm

[Replying to post 31 by Tart]

Since you are unable to defend your position, the matter is concluded, the greatest minds cannot prove Paul, then no one can.

Apparently people have been assuming Paul existed, based on rumor.
Paul, the other Apostles and therefore Jesus, are as real as cartoon snow melting on a cartoon road in cartoon July, in a cartoon Jerusalem.

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Tue May 15, 2018 3:11 pm

Ok willum, you can go ahead and think that..

Actually i think this is a good example of the radical irrationality that goes into denying God... We cant even establish truth, this word "proof" has been degraded to meaninglessness.. (2 Thessalonians 2:11)...

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Tue May 15, 2018 3:31 pm

[Replying to post 33 by Tart]

Do not demean what I know by declaring it is what I "think."
I know that the original gospels were claimed to be destroyed by the Council of Nicea, but I know that there is no proof they even existed previously.

There never can be...

I know that the terrestrial applications of the New Testament are injunctions to abandon Judaic Law, and particularly Judaic enforcement of law, and replace it with Hellenic law: Don't stone adulterers, revere Rome's gods (the Caesars) and pagan government.

I know that nothing else has any application.

Prove otherwise, so that I may know something different.

Now what I believe is derived from the above.

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Tue May 15, 2018 6:02 pm

Tart wrote:
rikuoamero wrote:
Tart wrote:
Willum wrote: [Replying to post 21 by Tart]

Hmmm... so the Counsil of Nicea didn't exist?
Those quotations didn't come out of the Bible?
Gosh, you are right, I better go study.
What would you recommend as a better path to the truth, Alice in Wonderland? The Iliad? The Epic of Gilgamesh? Spiderman and his Amazing Friends?
No, you can go study any major atheist New Testament scholar (if you dont want an independent source), and they will tell you Paul existed...

Richard Carrier
Bart Ehrman
Robert Price

Do you have anyone who agrees with you Paul is fictional?

Wait...you're invoking CARRIER as an authority? ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚

Do me a favour please and look up what Carrier is well known for.
Oh ya, i have much better resources then Dr. Carrier... In fact, i have discussed with Dr. Carrier his views... We have had conversations on the history of the Bible, and he was never able to answer my one question for him...

But I gave these sources because we are talking about the origin of the Gospels, the First Church and the First Disciples, and everyone agrees, even Dr. Carrier, Paul exist...

Everyone. Id even say that Dr. Price is even more radical then Dr. Carrier.. Fell out of the coo coo's nest... And he even agrees Paul exist..

Apparently, the only person that disagrees that Paul exists is some random dude here on DC website...

It isnt a conversation im interested in continuing... This is about the origins of the New Testament writings, and the historicity of the first century Church... And if you dont believe Paul exist, and you have absolutely no evidence or valid reasoning to say Paul doesnt exist, except to falsely compare the Bible to spider man...

Sorry, you are entailed to you opinions, but im not interested in continuing to debate about it .

For reader's consideration - In this discussion, at this part of the discussion, the topic turned to the question of whether or not Paul existed.
Tart, to bolster his claim that Paul existed, named Richard Carrier, as an appeal to authority.
Normally, this would be okay, I myself wouldn't have a problem with it...except that either Tart is completely unaware or is trying to pretend that there isn't one major problem with citing Carrier as an authority for Paul's existence...
namely, that Carrier is famous for saying that there never was a historical Jesus Christ.

Mithrae · Post by **Mithrae** » Wed May 16, 2018 6:45 am

Tart wrote: No, you can go study any major atheist New Testament scholar (if you dont want an independent source), and they will tell you Paul existed...

Richard Carrier
Bart Ehrman
Robert Price

Do you have anyone who agrees with you Paul is fictional?

rikuoamero wrote:For reader's consideration - In this discussion, at this part of the discussion, the topic turned to the question of whether or not Paul existed.
Tart, to bolster his claim that Paul existed, named Richard Carrier, as an appeal to authority.
Normally, this would be okay, I myself wouldn't have a problem with it...except that either Tart is completely unaware or is trying to pretend that there isn't one major problem with citing Carrier as an authority for Paul's existence...
namely, that Carrier is famous for saying that there never was a historical Jesus Christ.

Tart cited a New Testament scholar well-known as an agnostic (Ehrman) and two others well-known as proponents of the Jesus myth theory (Carrier and Price). Perhaps you were completely unaware of Price's views and hence the major problem of trying to highlight Carrier as a fault or anomaly of Tart's citation

As he pretty clearly stated, he was deliberately choosing some 'hostile witnesses': It would be pretty unconvincing to cite a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical scholar about Paul's existence after all, but if Ehrman and even Carrier and Price acknowledge Paul's existence, it pretty strongly shows just how far-fetched Willum's private theories are.

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Wed May 16, 2018 7:34 am

H[Replying to post 36 by Mithrae]

It would be pretty unconvincing to cite a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical scholar about Paul's existence after all, but if Ehrman and even Carrier and Price acknowledge Paul's existence, it pretty strongly shows just how far-fetched Willum's private theories are.

I myself have no dog in the race when it comes to a debate about Paul's existence.

However, it seems as if you don't understand my point.

In this little mini-debate, Tart name dropped Carrier as an authority, when he (Tart) is saying a certain man existed.
However, for Tart, name dropping Carrier is extremely problematic because it looks to me to be incredibly hypocritical (or ignorant). Why point to Carrier as an authority on Paul's existence, when Carrier is very vocal about a mythical Jesus, something Tart does not himself agree on?

It would be one thing if Tart had given us research of his own to back up Paul's existence, and then Jesus's existence.
But he didn't do that.
Instead, he name dropped. Argument from Authority. He can't name drop someone as an argument from authority and then (what he would presumably have done later) ignore what else that authority says.

Mithrae · Post by **Mithrae** » Wed May 16, 2018 9:19 am

rikuoamero wrote: Instead, he name dropped. Argument from Authority. He can't name drop someone as an argument from authority and then (what he would presumably have done later) ignore what else that authority says.

No, he cited a consensus which even the more radical/fringe scholars concur to; that the evangelism and letters which played such an influential role in early Christianity and the eventual NT canon were indeed originated by a fellow called Paul, as stated in those letters and by other early Christian sources. Did you carefully read what Tart originally wrote before jumping on Carrier as a name you recognized?

He said
"you can go study any major atheist New Testament scholar (if you dont want an independent source), and they will tell you Paul existed..."
and then he cited one agnostic scholar and two proponents of the Jesus myth theory to illustrate how broad that consensus is.

Perhaps you did not know that Price also promotes the myth hypothesis, which would explain why you thought that Carrier was some kind of oopsie on Tart's part. However Tart did clarify in his response to you that "Id even say that Dr. Price is even more radical then Dr. Carrier." So since you kindly brought this to the readers' consideration - and since I happened to be popping by in my currently-infrequent glances at the forum - I think it's only fair to let you know that you seem to be pretty far off base here

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Wed May 16, 2018 4:51 pm

Thank you Mithrae...

This is simply me trying to establish a foundation for the existence of Christianity... I want to know where it came from, how it got here, and who wrote it. the Epistles and the Googles and the Book of Acts. Back to topic... Who wrote it?

Well, we have here Paul... We have names, like Peter, James, John, Luke, Mark, Timothy, Jude, etc..... We have references to all these people in Paul's Epistles. that indicate all these people existed...

Why coudnt they have written the Gospels.. Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John?

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Wed May 16, 2018 6:35 pm

Lets just take a look at this list...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Christianity

This is exactly what im talking about when I say we can trace Christianity back to its origin...

If you disagree, at what point would anyone drawing the line on this time line?