The Gospels and Eyewitness Testimony

You believe the gospels are not eyewitness accounts?

Again, God speaking life into being is different than scientists created it.

My first interpretation of what Genesis 1 was saying. My view of Genesis 3:22. Previously unscientific views about how the age of the earth was calculated.

Ok. Where is this? Have scientists built a protocell from this sequence?

I think you and I have different definitions of what hearsay is. And if I am obeying the Lord in all things, I will be making decisions based on His word and not on hearsay. That’s how I interpret the passage.

Have they done anything besides putting molecules together? Which parts of what they have done check off the necessary requirements of life?

The overwhelming consensus of Biblical scholars is that they are not eyewitness accounts. That includes scholars who are Christian. There are a few who believe otherwise. They are radical outliers, in the same category as those scholars who believe Jesus never existed at all.

2 Likes

OK. I really need to see evidence for this assertion :slight_smile:

1 Like

I have already provided it to you. I see no reason to repeat myself.

But I will again post the link to the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, for anyone who missed our previous discussion. Clicking on the name of each of the books of the Gospel will take you to an introductory page that summarizes the current scholarship on the origin of the texts:

1 Like

I’ll consider your assertion invalid. You have not provided me such evidence. If you have, feel free to find your quote.

I suggest you take that up with the Catholic Church. I know you aren’t Catholic, but I wonder how you can explain their acceptance that the Gospels are not eyewitness reports if the evidence for this was not compelling. What would be in it for them to misrepresent evidence in such a way to make Christianity less likely to be true?

2 Likes

I’ve never read a bibilcal scholar who didn’t say they weren’t eyewitness accounts and were written decades after the events being described.

But please note, that doesn’t make them
unreliable in my eyes.

I recall that we discussed this a while ago with @jongarvey, and recall that this summary is misleadingly incomplete.

1 Like

Agree with the first part, disagree with the second.
There is biblical scholar who argues that the first gospel is written within 10 years of Jesus death after reading all of the church fathers in their original languages. Why Four Gospels? - Kindle edition by Black, David Alan. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

There’s one guy, Richard Bauckham. I’m sure there are others.

Consensus does not require unanimity.

Again, I am not claiming to be aware of and able to evaluate the evidence for myself. I am just reporting what the consensus is of those who supposedly are able to do so.

1 Like

Huh? Haven’t you been arguing just the opposite point with me?

But you just made it clear to @Faizal_Ali you do not accept this and were demanding evidence for his claim that biblical scholars claim they aren’t eyewitness accounts… you’re confusing

1 Like

I don’t follow “overwhelming consensus Bible scholars” because majority does not indicate correctness about a matter.

I carefully pick and choose qualified men and women who love God and uphold his Testaments as written.

One individual I have found I can trust thus far is Dr. Gary Habermas. His work is ongoing in this very field. He is worth reading, and citing often to help keep one’s faith solid in the reliability of the early gospel writings.

Ah, very good. So you accept what that article is claiming.

At a recent Engage Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico, keynote speaker and Liberty University professor, Dr. Gary Habermas, stated that a specialist in paleology (expert in antiques) dated a fragment of the Gospel of Mark between 80-110 AD. Dr. Habermas said a friend of his — a Ph.D. in semiotics (the study of language) — confirmed that the test was completed and the date as presented by the paleographer was affirmed.

If this date holds (and caution was given by Dr. Habermas not to jump to firm conclusions before more research was conducted), it would be the oldest extent Gospel of Mark fragment by over a hundred years. As noted manuscript and Greek scholar Dr. Daniel Wallace states, “Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years” [1]

Are you sure you actually read that article before linking it?

1 Like

Christians compromise all the time. Nothing new. We are prone to sin and temptations from the evil one.

You can evaluate it for yourself. It’s really not hard.

You do know that fragment ended up not being 1st century right?

1 Like

It ended up being dated to late 2nd century/early 3rd century. Daniel Wallace actually had to apologize for it. Because he announced it as a gotcha moment in a debate against Bart Erhman

3 Likes

Okay. And? Doesn’t change anything I said.

1 Like

I know the enemies of gospel purity are strong and I would not be so naive as to think that this fragment should be exempted from the onslaught.

What you think you have found is but one side of the issue. And unsurprisingly, you have chosen the contentious side. Just know that there is a completely different angle to this thing and that there are scholars who have good reason to hold to first century.

Just because there is a debate does not infer that the dissenting side automatically wins.