Warrior General Games

As a christian, and a little bit of a historian, I can tell you that #3 and #5 aren't factual. The people who wrote the gospels, aren't exactly known. The traditional view is mathew, mark, luke, and john, but we don't know for sure. In fact most historians believe there is another gospel in which the 4 original gospels take quite a bit of their information from. They call it the Q Gospel.

But I get what you are saying.

lol

Originally posted by fletch03
As a christian, and a little bit of a historian, I can tell you that #3 and #5 aren't factual. The people who wrote the gospels, aren't exactly known. The traditional view is mathew, mark, luke, and john, but we don't know for sure. In fact most historians believe there is another gospel in which the 4 original gospels take quite a bit of their information from. They call it the Q Gospel.

But I get what you are saying.

Thanks for any corrections. It is my understanding that there is enough evidence to believe that it is highly likely that they are the authors and yeah i know there is a disputed gospel. I thought it was called the Gospel of Thomas. The Q Gospel or Q Document I just looked up and it is a theoretical text. No one is really sure if it existed or not, they just are guessing that there may have been one.

I get what you are saying as well

Originally posted by joe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Q1zKDqngE&feature=related

Propaganda, it's cool though that you missed the point.

Honestly no one cares what I believe when it comes to religion or you or any of us for that matter posting. I just try to stay out the religious aspect here. This thread isn't really about religion it was about history and mentioned that these people existed on the earth, but nothing of their beliefs.

But Spaghetti Monster away if you want.

Originally posted by robelder
Originally posted by fletch03

As a christian, and a little bit of a historian, I can tell you that #3 and #5 aren't factual. The people who wrote the gospels, aren't exactly known. The traditional view is mathew, mark, luke, and john, but we don't know for sure. In fact most historians believe there is another gospel in which the 4 original gospels take quite a bit of their information from. They call it the Q Gospel.

But I get what you are saying.

Thanks for any corrections. It is my understanding that there is enough evidence to believe that it is highly likely that they are the authors and yeah i know there is a disputed gospel. I thought it was called the Gospel of Thomas. The Q Gospel or Q Document I just looked up and it is a theoretical text. No one is really sure if it existed or not, they just are guessing that there may have been one.

I get what you are saying as well

This is my take as well. The gospels weren't written until well after Jesus's death.. and the attribution of who wrote the Gospels.. and which parts of those books came direct from the mouths/thoughts of those authors... and those authors alone..is not known

To me, a firsthand account would be someone who was an eye-witness and wrote down the events as they happened while they happened or shortly thereafter. But oral traditions being passed down for 40-100 years before being committed to print have a way of changing and becoming imbued with the agendas of those who wrote them. And we cannot be absolutely certain that the four books were written by the authors who they are named for... it's not like they were signed by them either. I mean, who would call his own book 'the Gospel according to Me'. That's seems a little brash, considering the purported humility of those who they are named for. More likely is that the disciples went around telling their stories about Jesus and then skilled (at least literate) writers came along and committed them to print, attributing the words to the person who was telling the story. That would be secondhand

Thus they cannot be considered firsthand accounts, imo, and your assertion that 'all historians agree that these were the authors of the gospels' ... is also false

in the context of the 'Q' gospel.. or any preceding document -- IF, just for the sake of argument, the 'Q gospel' was the firsthand account -- then the 4 gospels we know today would be considered secondary accounts.. if not tertiary.. etc. Regardless, there is not consensus among all historians that the four gospels we know today are direct firsthand accounts.

Hey sulf can you change topic and bring up some 9/11 stuff please

Originally posted by Doug_Plank


This is my take as well. The gospels weren't written until well after Jesus's death.. and the attribution of who wrote the Gospels.. and which parts of those books came direct from the mouths/thoughts of those authors... and those authors alone..is not known

To me, a firsthand account would be someone who was an eye-witness and wrote down the events as they happened while they happened or shortly thereafter. But oral traditions being passed down for 40-100 years before being committed to print have a way of changing and becoming imbued with the agendas of those who wrote them. And we cannot be absolutely certain that the four books were written by the authors who they named for... it's not like they were signed by them either.

Thus they cannot be considered firsthand accounts, imo, and your assertion that 'all historians agree that these were the authors of the gospels' ... is also false

in the context of the 'Q' gospels -- IF, just for the sake of argument, the 'Q gospel' was the firsthand account -- then the 4 gospels we know today would be considered secondary accounts etc. Regardless, there is not consensus among all historians that the four gospels we know today are direct firsthand accounts



Well, actually we aren't exactly sure when they were written either. There are estimates that 2 of the books were written right after the death, but there are estimates that they were written 40-70 years later as well. But if we go with the traditional view of the authors, then we can assume that 2 of the books were first hand accounts. But, just like much of history we don't know for sure.

We do however know that "Luke" was a great historian and much of what he has written in his gospel has helped scholars and archaeologist such as dates, names of governors and other officials, names of cities, etc.

Originally posted by robelder
Originally posted by joe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Q1zKDqngE&feature=related

Propaganda, it's cool though that you missed the point.

Honestly no one cares what I believe when it comes to religion or you or any of us for that matter posting. I just try to stay out the religious aspect here. This thread isn't really about religion it was about history and mentioned that these people existed on the earth, but nothing of their beliefs.

But Spaghetti Monster away if you want.

Yes huge propaganda there... The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is meant solely to ridicule the stupidity of some religions and their base facts. The fact that you brought in Religion as your example makes this thread about religion. You say this thread is about firsthand accounts, but you only made it because you essentially killed your own thread with talks of the history of the Christianity.

Let me clear it up if others havent yet.

Firsthand account : obtained by, coming from, or being direct personal observation or experience

Since there is no way of proving that these accounts came directly from the actual Apostles they cannot be considered firsthand accounts. Argument done.

Originally posted by ShotPutNC


Since there is no way of proving that these accounts came directly from the actual Apostles they cannot be considered firsthand accounts. Argument done.

We should throw out everything we "know" about Dinosaurs and other extinct creatures as well.

Just a quick question, how do we know that ANYTHING in our history books is correct or a 'direct personal observation'? I mean believing anything in a history book of any kind about ANYTHING is an act of faith. In fact believing anything that you didn't personally observe is an act of faith, and even when you see something personally there is always the chance that it wasn't what you thought it appeared to be.

Originally posted by DubsOnD
Just a quick question, how do we know that ANYTHING in our history books is correct or a 'direct personal observation'? I mean believing anything in a history book of any kind about ANYTHING is an act of faith. In fact believing anything that you didn't personally observe is an act of faith, and even when you see something personally there is always the chance that it wasn't what you thought it appeared to be.

History is written by the victors of wars. Much in our history books isn't necessarily false, but they don't show both points of view or both sides of the story. A good example of this is the Civil War.

Originally posted by fletch03


Well, actually we aren't exactly sure when they were written either. There are estimates that 2 of the books were written right after the death, but there are estimates that they were written 40-70 years later as well. But if we go with the traditional view of the authors, then we can assume that 2 of the books were first hand accounts.


At this point, argumentativeness is giving way to curiosity, since you clearly seem to know more about this subject than the others who have posted.

Q: Who has the "oldest known book of gospels"? literally, like in their possession right now - and when was it 'dated' -- im assuming it has been carbon -dated

Originally posted by Doug_Plank

This is my take as well. The gospels weren't written until well after Jesus's death.. and the attribution of who wrote the Gospels.. and which parts of those books came direct from the mouths/thoughts of those authors... and those authors alone..is not known

To me, a firsthand account would be someone who was an eye-witness and wrote down the events as they happened while they happened or shortly thereafter. But oral traditions being passed down for 40-100 years before being committed to print have a way of changing and becoming imbued with the agendas of those who wrote them. And we cannot be absolutely certain that the four books were written by the authors who they are named for... it's not like they were signed by them either. I mean, who would call his own book 'the Gospel according to Me'. That's seems a little brash, considering the purported humility of those who they are named for. More likely is that the disciples went around telling their stories about Jesus and then skilled (at least literate) writers came along and committed them to print, attributing the words to the person who was telling the story. That would be secondhand

Thus they cannot be considered firsthand accounts, imo, and your assertion that 'all historians agree that these were the authors of the gospels' ... is also false

in the context of the 'Q' gospel.. or any preceding document -- IF, just for the sake of argument, the 'Q gospel' was the firsthand account -- then the 4 gospels we know today would be considered secondary accounts.. if not tertiary.. etc. Regardless, there is not consensus among all historians that the four gospels we know today are direct firsthand accounts.



Good post, thanks for responding.

I will agree to disagree on these reasons, but i see where you are coming from:
These books were actually letters and they were titled by their name often. It was a culture thing that is different from today.
These men did exist and may have used a Q document, but they were actually there when the events happened so whether they used quotes or not to reference, what they said about Jesus they stood behind as being witnesses of these events. Reliability could be an issue but it is a first hand account. It is their "testimony" of events that happened.

But like I said, I see where you are coming from.