Who wrote the gospels? Does it matter?

[nobspeople]

There's a thread speaking to, in part, wrote the gospels.
Does this even matter?
Let's say we find out, beyond any doubt, humanity discovers who wrote the gospels and when.

For discussion:

Bob wrote them.
Fred wrote one while Betty wrote the others.
Does it matter who wrote them? Yes or no. And why?*


* Your opinion, of course, even if others find it wrong or distasteful. That doesn't mean it can't be challenged, however.

[nobspeople]

There's a thread speaking to, in part, wrote the gospels.
Does this even matter?
Let's say we find out, beyond any doubt, humanity discovers who wrote the gospels and when.

For discussion:

Bob wrote them.
Fred wrote one while Betty wrote the others.
Does it matter who wrote them? Yes or no. And why?*


* Your opinion, of course, even if others find it wrong or distasteful. That doesn't mean it can't be challenged, however.

It's irrelevant if we have eye-witness testimony or bogus 2hand, 3hand, … testimony.

Q: Because if many/multiple first hand eye-witness proved nothing in case of the Fatima supposed miracle or Sai Baba supposed miracles how can the same evidence but from much distant past(2000years old) prove something in the case of Christianity?

“Sai Baba's believers credited him with miracles such as materialisations of vibhuti (holy ash) and other small objects such as rings, necklaces, and watches, along with reports of miraculous healings, resurrections, clairvoyance, bilocation, and was allegedly omnipotent and omniscient.
These events culminated in an event where he apparently healed himself in front of the thousands of people gathered in Prashanthi Nilayam who were then praying for his recovery.[7] “

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-devotee-of- ... their-life
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-mira ... -your-life
http://saibaba.ws/miracles.htm

“Various claims have been made as to what actually happened during the event. According to many witnesses, after a period of rain, the dark clouds broke and the Sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky. It was said to be significantly duller than normal, and to cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds. The Sun was then reported to have careened towards the Earth before zig-zagging back to its normal position.[18][19] Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling".”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Those that say its relevant who wrote them are either oblivious of reality or are off course biased and apply a double standard for the same kind of evidence: testimonial evidence for miracles and personal unfalsifiable anecdotal experiences.

That's a good point, that, well, points (see what I did there?!? thank you I'll be here all week, be sure to tip your server!) to a greater issue: eyewitness accounts and how reliable they are(n't). And this doesn't even touch the issue of what actually happened, being passed down (and changed) over generations and generations, over cultures and more cultures.
Thus, the bible can't be taken as the word of god (assuming god does exist) because of how humanity passes down information.
Going further, the issue with personal bias and trust hasn't even entered the equation yet!
So ultimately, the bible can only be seen as 'the real word of god' by faith, which the bible (as well as common sense) teaches is required. But these are issue altogether for another thread I suppose, but still worth mentioning at this time.

To the tread topic, is seems, for some it matters somewhat (ie trust issues) while for others, it doesn't (inability to trust the accounts).

[benchwarmer]

There's a thread speaking to, in part, wrote the gospels.
Does this even matter?

It only matters if you want to ascertain their reliability and understand what Christians are really using as their source material.

In other words, as soon as someone says "Well, the Bible says ... !!!" it then becomes an exercise in determining if what the Bible says holds any weight.

Let's say we find out, beyond any doubt, humanity discovers who wrote the gospels and when.

For discussion:

Bob wrote them.

In this example, who is Bob? Should we care what Bob says? Why?

I personally don't know anything about Bob at this point, so anything he says can be ignored until such time as it can be shown to matter somehow. Either via corroborating evidence that what Bob says is true and/or important to me or further verifiable information on Bob that would cause me to pay attention to his words.

Fred wrote one while Betty wrote the others.

Did Betty copy some of what Fred wrote word for word? If so, one has to wonder why Betty is palgerizing Fred and for what purpose. Perhaps to push her own agenda?

Does it matter who wrote them? Yes or no. And why?*

In general, to me, yes. The answer to this and other information about Christianity has led to my deconversion. Once you see the puppet master, the puppet show becomes less real and more show.

[TRANSPONDER]

“Various claims have been made as to what actually happened during the event. According to many witnesses, after a period of rain, the dark clouds broke and the Sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky. It was said to be significantly duller than normal, and to cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds. The Sun was then reported to have careened towards the Earth before zig-zagging back to its normal position.[18][19] Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling".”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

A study was done on this (on my previous forum) and the above account doesn't represent what actually happened, from what I could research out. Evidence is often picked to fit the case being presented and Fatima never got an overview of all the evidence from first to last.

From what I could discover, the weather on the day of the sighting was dull and somewhat overcast. Perhaps even some drizzle, but the newspaper photo presented as earlier that day (showing umbrellas) appears to be from an earlier (rainy) day when nothing was seen. The sun was visible through the overcast (and it was the sun, not some disc below the clouds) and another photo I recall showing some people kneeling and praying also shows others with their cameras, not paying any attention. The praying is in anticipation, not at the actual event. The Event was prompted by the girl visionary (as I recall) claiming to see the holy family in the sun and calling out for people to look. I won't say whether she actually thought that she saw that or was set up to prompt the crowd, but in fact nobody saw that. Some people said they saw nothing particular, but some staring at the sun saw it become a rotating coloured wheel. This is a known optical illusion which was observed in more recent years at a similar miracle event at Knock Castle (q.v) where people staring at the sun saw it 'dance' in the same way, while others can attest that it did nothing special. And I have observed the effect myself, as a schoolboy, looking at the sun through darkened glass.

This is nothing more than an optical illusion and was neither a miracle nor a UFO (sorry ), and the miracle of the drying clothes seems to be a conflation of two different days, one rainy and the other one not.

To relate it to the Gospels, it is worth noting how what appears to be a reliable account of a miracle can be terribly mangled by those determined to make the evidence fit the belief. And I argue that IF there is an actual historical Jesus - basis to the gospel story, it is of a Jewish Pharisee zealot trying to start a revolt against pagan occupation, with faked miracles to impress the followers and the messianic effort failing, and if one credits the empty tomb, the evidence points more to Pilate (whom the gospels tell us was persuaded of Jesus' innocence anyway) co -operating with Arimathea in a plan to save Jesus while satisfying those wanting to see him dead. That's what the story actually indicates as a conclusion.

But whether there is any basis to that or it is an unintended story coincidentally appearing from a lot of invented elements, what it is not is a reliable eyewitness account of what happened. Provably not the Nativities and demonstrably not the resurrections. And when those tall tales go down the tube, they take with them the death of Judas, the declaration in the synagogue, Sinking Simon, the Transfiguration (oh yes indeed ) the sermon, the Decapolis material, the wrangles in the Temple Matth 21-24 inclusive...

and most (as they say) of the rest of the Book.

Incidentally, it is ...or rather still is and was, exciting to crack the identity of Barabbas. Some saw him as a son of some Jewish notable or even of Jesus himself as 'Bar- Abbas' means 'son of the master'. And an ingenious story of why Jesus sacrificed himself to save his own Son was presented.

Well you can see what's coming It is known that there is no Passover release custom, so it is a plot device to get the insurrectionist released and Jesus crucified (excusing Rome and blaming the Jews). So whether Barabbas really existed or is just a story based on histories of insurrections and crucified zealots, it's clear what Barabbas is; 'Robber' (lestes) means 'Bandit', and that means a zealot insurrectionist.

So, when it becomes clear that Jesus and Barabbas are the same person 'Jesus bar abba - 'Son of the Father' the non existent Passover release becomes an invention to split Jesus into Jewish zealot and Christian divinity and the Jews opt for the rebel (and get what they deserve in the destruction of the Temple - a message that permeates the Gospels like adverts on the internet) and Christians opt for Christian Jesus and are saved. It fits like greased fingers in a leather glove. Whether a real person or an invented one.

That's academic but what isn't is that the Gospel account is not to be taken as reliable, no more than the Fatima event as really being a reliable account of either a miracle or a flying saucer. (Sorry again but it's better out than in).