The was no census of the whole Roman Empire at that time. It's not a credible claim. In fact there was no census where you were required to go back to your ancestral home. It defeats the purpose of a census. Luke was just flat wrong.
Were the gospels eyewitnesses?
20,277 Views |
316 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by AstroAg17
Agreed there was no census of the entire Roman Empire all at once. There were regional census taken, there were regional oaths of loyalty that were sworn. No one disputes this. Luke does not say census but decree (leaves more options open).Aggrad08 said:
The was no census of the whole Roman Empire at that time. It's not a credible claim. In fact there was no census where you were required to go back to your ancestral home. It defeats the purpose of a census. Luke was just flat wrong.
We have no early historical information other than Luke and Tertullian that a census of the Roman world took place in 3/2 B.C.E., Augustus, with his own hand, composed an account of major events in his life. He wrote of the official censuses in 28 B.C.E., 8 B.C.E., and C.E. 14, but nothing in our year of discussion.
"When therefore the whole Jewish nation TOOK AN OATH to be faithful to Caesar and to the interests of the king [Herod] ... above six thousand Pharisees refused to swear." -Josephus comments
Speculation, oath during Augustus 25th anniversary. It should be remembered that back in 27 B.C.E. Augustus was given complete and absolute allegiance by the Senate and people of Rome. Would there not have been a renewal of their loyalty to Augustus in the Jubilee year?
So to be clear Lukes claim of oath or census is not Crazy, it happened. These happened on a large scale and a small regional scale. The only issue is timing.
No. The issues are far more. Yes the timing is wrong. But so is the specific scale. The decree in Luke called for a census of the Empire. This didn't happen. Breaking it down into a regional census only makes sense if every other region also conducted one. That didn't happen.
Further, the entire census was a contrivance by Luke to get Joseph into Bethlehem. This would not have happened for any Roman census at any time. To go to your ancestral home defeats the purpose of a census and was never required for obvious reasons.
Further, the entire census was a contrivance by Luke to get Joseph into Bethlehem. This would not have happened for any Roman census at any time. To go to your ancestral home defeats the purpose of a census and was never required for obvious reasons.
1)As noted before worldwide decree helps Luke show the power of Caesar in contrast to Jesus- symbolism. As I see it the Christians do not have to show a worldwide oath that occurs all at once. We only have to show it plausible that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem in roughly 2-3 BC- RegionalAggrad08 said:
No. The issues are far more. Yes the timing is wrong. But so is the specific scale. The decree in Luke called for a census of the Empire. This didn't happen. Breaking it down into a regional census only makes sense if every other region also conducted one. That didn't happen.
Further, the entire census was a contrivance by Luke to get Joseph into Bethlehem. This would not have happened for any Roman census at any time. To go to your ancestral home defeats the purpose of a census and was never required for obvious reasons.
We agree- literally there was no worldwide decree, no one was in the South Pole. Thus Luke is a liar and you are correct- sarcasim. We both agree Luke's goal was to show them in Bethlehem.
2) What say you about Oath that Josephus speaks of? " Jewish Historian Josephus recounts that during the last years of Herod's rule, Judea was required to swear an oath of loyality to Caesar. Archeological evidence confirms that this same type of oath was sworn elsewhere in the empire around 3 BC".
So Aggrad- we show Oaths we show census are happening. This is not debatable. This is Fact. The only issue is timing,when they happened.
The vague bible verse from Luke, leaves us many plausible options.
The vague bible verse from Luke, leaves us many plausible options.
Off to the lake, enjoy time with family.
He is Risen! Can't have Easter Sunday without Good Friday!
He is Risen! Can't have Easter Sunday without Good Friday!
Aggrad- try reading this book- the Case for Jesus - Dr. Brant Pitre (Notre Dame)- it addresses many of Ehrman comments, he provides you all the details that Ehrman did not know of he forgot to mention .Case for Jesus- Dr. Brant Pitre
Let me know what you think.
Let me know what you think.
And as I demonstrated above it isn't plausible. You simply ignore counterarguments booboo. It's tiresome. Try, at least try to directly address all the points. You are merely repeating the same vapid thing. It is not plausible that Mary and Joseph would have to go to bethelehem because in NO census are you required to go to your ancestral home. It's self defeating. I've Now stated this several times and you continually ignore it. At least be honest and address the most glaring issue- Even if there was a census (there wasn't), mary and joseph would have no reason to leave Nazareth.booboo91 said:
1)As noted before worldwide decree helps Luke show the power of Caesar in contrast to Jesus- symbolism. As I see it the Christians do not have to show a worldwide oath that occurs all at once. We only have to show it plausible that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem in roughly 2-3 BC- Regional
Your exaggeration is a very obvious attempt to obfuscate the obvious issue. NO ONE, is claiming the verse intended the "Whole World", but anyone honestly reading that passage can understand that it was intended to convey the entire roman empire. It's simply dishonest to claim otherwise. There is no reason to suspect that such a decree would apply only to Judea. There is no evidence of such a census t the time required even though we have evidence at other times of similar ones done.Quote:
We agree- literally there was no worldwide decree, no one was in the South Pole. Thus Luke is a liar and you are correct- sarcasim. We both agree Luke's goal was to show them in Bethlehem.
I would say this does nothing, absolutely nothing to strengthen your argument. Of course oaths of loyalty would be required throughout the entire empire. That's not lukes claim. Taken of census information would also be used throughout the empire for tax purposes. This still does nothing to support your claim. The census described in luke did not occur, in fact no roman census in history was of such a type as to require mary and joseph to return to an ancestral home.Quote:
2) What say you about Oath that Josephus speaks of? " Jewish Historian Josephus recounts that during the last years of Herod's rule, Judea was required to swear an oath of loyality to Caesar. Archeological evidence confirms that this same type of oath was sworn elsewhere in the empire around 3 BC".
Quote:
And as I demonstrated above it isn't plausible. You simply ignore counterarguments booboo. It's tiresome. Try, at least try to directly address all the points. You are merely repeating the same vapid thing. It is not plausible that Mary and Joseph would have to go to bethelehem because in NO census are you required to go to your ancestral home. It's self defeating. I've Now stated this several times and you continually ignore it. At least be honest and address the most glaring issue- Even if there was a census (there wasn't), mary and joseph would have no reason to leave Nazareth.
Sorry I missed that concrete evidence you provided that it absoluately did not happen (plausible). Please provide it again.
1) Please tell me the details about the tribe and family of Mary and Joseph, where did they live? From bible We see Joseph and Mary traveling to the temple at least twice, when Jesus was a youth. Nazareth to Jerusalem is roughly 65 miles. Bethlehem to Jerusalem is less than 5 miles.
We see Mary go visit her cousin Elizabeth- her husband was a priest in the temple. Tradition has Joseph as older widower, maybe had step kids to Jesus. My point is we see Holy Family traveling in the region. Joke- maybe Joseph cosigned on a home loan and had to go help pay the propery taxes.Today I travel great distances to assist family, help my mom with her taxes. My dad passed away and I now run the estate.
To be clear, I am ignorant on the family/tribe structure at the time of Jesus. would like to read more up on it.
2) Please show us all the details of the logistics of the local census in the region and also the Oath that Josephus speaks up. Who showed up, where did they travel from? My point- you/we don't have any the details, we have vague general statements with no details.
Catholic Answers- Details on Nativity- details
Quote:
Your exaggeration is a very obvious attempt to obfuscate the obvious issue. NO ONE, is claiming the verse intended the "Whole World", but anyone honestly reading that passage can understand that it was intended to convey the entire roman empire. It's simply dishonest to claim otherwise. There is no reason to suspect that such a decree would apply only to Judea. There is no evidence of such a census t the time required even though we have evidence at other times of similar ones done.
1) As I said earlier got to give gospel writers a bit of leeway. It is not a history book. They use lots of symbolism comments can have multiple meanings. the main purpose of Luke writing this passage is to show Mary and Joseph fulfill the OT prophesy. The worldwide comment shows the power of Caesar in stark contrast to weak poor infant Jesus born in manger.
2) Also Speculation based on logic there was a Jubilee 25 year oath from August Caesar (no physical evidence exists on this). We see Oath of Jospheus in region by the Jews.
Funny I posted this several times, so you can't blame me for reposting over and over. You might be as bad a listener or ignoring things as I do!Aggrad08 said:Quote:
I would say this does nothing, absolutely nothing to strengthen your argument. Of course oaths of loyalty would be required throughout the entire empire. That's not lukes claim. Taken of census information would also be used throughout the empire for tax purposes. This still does nothing to support your claim. The census described in luke did not occur, in fact no roman census in history was of such a type as to require mary and joseph to return to an ancestral home.
Where does it say census? It says decree and enrolled. It may be a census or it could be an oath. It is vague- which gives us more possible options.
Luke 2 1-4...11 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town. And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. ...For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord.
That maybe true, that in other areas of Rome the census/oath did not require great travel for census. But I think it is important to know how things were done in that specific region of the world (Israel). Other nations did not have their 12 tribes and that culture. Speculation- Maybe Rome was able to use order of tribes/ temple to their advantage?
You seem to not know the difference between plausible and possible. That's not what plausible means and hence not what I said. Either way I already explain a census where you have to return to you ancestral home has no evidence and is literally self defeating. I can't show you non-existent evidence, that's not how negatives work. I can show you normal census procedure. Quit quibbling for one whole minute and think it through-what possible reason would you have for taking a census of people by their ancestral home?booboo91 said:
Sorry I missed that concrete evidence you provided that it absoluately did not happen (plausible). Please provide it again.
Quote:
1) Please tell me the details about the tribe and family of Mary and Joseph, where did they live?
According to the bible the consistent answer is Nazareth. Luke uses the census as an excuse for why they must travel to the city of david.
This does nothing to strengthen your point or defend paul's assertion.Quote:
My point is we see Holy Family traveling in the region. Joke- maybe Joseph cosigned on a home loan and had to go help pay the propery taxes.
We actually have quite a lot. It's how we can know luke missed the timing and the scope of the census. Basic logic can tell you about travelling to be counted in a different place, but we have no record of that.Quote:
2) Please show us all the details of the logistics of the local census in the region and also the Oath that Josephus speaks up. Who showed up, where did they travel from? My point- you/we don't have any the details, we have vague general statements with no details.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor
You are assuming we don't have details. We do, and luke is flat wrong on multiple counts.
I ignored it out of charity because it's not even a legitimate point.Quote:
Funny I posted this several times, so you can't blame me for reposting over and over. You might be as bad a listener or ignoring things as I do!
That's literally what a census is. Call it an enrollment of you like. We know of roman enrollments, in fact we know of the very one that happened while Quirinius was governor of syria. There is no distinction that you are trying to make.Quote:
Where does it say census? It says decree and enrolled. It may be a census or it could be an oath. It is vague- which gives us more possible options.
Again, it literally defeats the purpose of a census booboo.Quote:
That maybe true, that in other areas of Rome the census/oath did not require great travel for census. But I think it is important to know how things were done in that specific region of the world (Israel). Other nations did not have their 12 tribes and that culture. Speculation- Maybe Rome was able to use order/ temple to their advantage?
Please show me normal census/oath procedure for the times, especially if you have something for israel. would like to read it.Quote:
You seem to not know the difference between plausible and possible. That's not what plausible means and hence not what I said. Either way I already explain a census where you have to return to you ancestral home has no evidence and is literally self defeating. I can't show you non-existent evidence, that's not how negatives work. I can show you normal census procedure. Quit quibbling for one whole minute and think it through-what possible reason would you have for taking a census of people by their ancestral home?
Speculation Reasons for traveling home: Records of families were per tribe. Family Tree. Example- Catholic church records (Baptism, Confirmation) are kept in your home church. So short answer it is a good place to start. You have the tribes responsible for gathering up the people. So Romans perform less work,
A son would travel back home if he was the oldest son, leader/ representative of the family.
Family reunion, gathering of tribal leadership.
Quote:This does nothing to strengthen your point or defend paul's assertion.Quote:
My point is we see Holy Family traveling in the region. Joke- maybe Joseph cosigned on a home loan and had to go help pay the propery taxes.
It actually does, it shows the holy family in the region and also their willingness to travel. It is baby steps:
1) We see Census and Oaths did happen
2) we see Mary and Joseph traveling in the region. Traveling 5 or 65 miles is not an issue.
Aggrad,
You keep dodging the Oath? we have it written down by Josephus.
You keep dodging the Oath? we have it written down by Josephus.
Yep intent of author, use of symbolism not important, when we are looking at what he wrote and analyzing every little word written.Quote:
I ignored it out of charity because it's not even a legitimate point.
You don't think God is plausible, you don't think a man rose 2000 years ago. My 2 cents you narrowly look at things, legalistally. You don't want to give author Luke an wiggle room.
I on the other hand am a firm believer and will give great leeway. Especially with vague quotes and lack of physical evidence.
$$$ was the purpose. how hard is it to collect taxes or take oath and then write down where folks are from. Again, let the tribes/families do the work (speculation). Did a high percentage of Jewish people move away from home town? Or was it like rural America several decades ago where the families stayed together and farmed?Quote:
Again, it literally defeats the purpose of a census booboo.
Would like to see logistics of how census/oaths were conducted. How many agents, did they hire local tax collectrors, would they travel far, did they go knock door to door? Did the Jewish people move away from home? Is it like rural America with farmers
I already did. It's included in the wiki links I provided that you didn't read.booboo91 said:
Please show me normal census/oath procedure for the times, especially if you have something for israel. would like to read it.
Gathering by tribe is fine (within each city) this makes sense. To your ancestral home it does nothing for you, and in fact undermines you.Quote:
Speculation Reasons for traveling home: Records of families were per tribe. Family Tree. Example- Catholic church records (Baptism, Confirmation) are kept in your home church. So short answer it is a good place to start. You have the tribes responsible for gathering up the people. So Romans perform less work,
Willingness to travel is not the issue. The issue is it ruins the census. Seriously do you not see that?Quote:
It actually does, it shows the holy family in the region and also their willingness to travel. It is baby steps:
1) We see Census and Oaths did happen
2) we see Mary and Joseph traveling in the region. Traveling 5 or 65 miles is not an issue.
No I didn't I addressed it the first time. I do not disagree that oaths were made. I do not disagree that many a census occured. In fact josephus' own writings work against you since he at least gets the timing right. I really don't see how it helps you discover a census that didn't happen that was unlike any other in roman history.
That's not what I said. You are being dishonest here. You tried to make a distinction where none exists. Enrollement and census speak of the same thing.booboo91 said:
Yep intent of author, use of symbolism not important, when we are looking at what he wrote and analyzing every little word written.
You are putting words in my mouth, jumping to conclusions, ignoring argument, evidence and history. The opposite is happening. You refuse to acknowledge the possibility that luke could be wrong so you are dancing through hoola hoops desperately looking for something to cling to. I'm not giving luke any more or less leeway than any other figure. He's just flat wrong on multiple counts. To give luke the "wriggle" room you are asking for is to make his statements devoid of meaning.Quote:
You don't think God is plausible, you don't think a man rose 2000 years ago. My 2 cents you narrowly look at things, legalistally. You don't want to give author Luke an wiggle room.
We have fairly precise quotes and good evidence in this matter. Also basic common sense, which you've yet to address.Quote:
I on the other hand am a firm believer and will give great leeway. Especially with vague quotes and lack of physical evidence.
Pretty damn hard if you make them travel to their ancestral home who knows how far away and hope they don't lie. You tally people where they are. Each local tax collector would be expected to collect a certain amount based on the number of people within his area.Quote:
$$$ was the purpose. how hard is it to collect taxes or take oath and then write down where folks are from.
It literally wouldn't matter. As it makes no sense to use an ancestral home. You can use tribes all you want. In fact I'm sure they did. Just like we use last names and families. But traveling to ancestral homes is not required or rational for that. Nor do we have any evidence of it.Quote:
Again, let the tribes/families do the work (speculation). Did a high percentage of Jewish people move away from home town? Or was it like rural America several decades ago where the families stayed together and farmed?
You say you would like to see info. I gave you two wiki links. One goes into decent detail with a number of sources.
This whole line of argumentation by booboo is funny given it's in response to a post that objected to calling Luke a "meticulous historian". Census? It wasn't a census, it was an oath... And Joseph was really there because he was running an estate for his family. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Aggrad08 said:
I already did. It's included in the wiki links I provided that you didn't read.
Gathering by tribe is fine (within each city) this makes sense. To your ancestral home it does nothing for you, and in fact undermines you.Willingness to travel is not the issue. The issue is it ruins the census. Seriously do you not see that?Quote:
.
1) Ok- will read link later don't have time at moment.
2)Agreed it depends where the information is located. If your ancestral home is the only place for the records and most Jews already live in their ancestral city (did not travel) makes sense to start there. More efficient to target family instead of individuals. Same example- my local catholic church had my early records.
3) How does it ruin the census. Romans would want money and head count. At some point they roll up the numbers per region, I presume . Maybe it is (2) step process. Have the tribes gather data (do most of the work and have the jews travel instead of Romans), and then go see the few who did not show?
1) Gotta check your facts- That wasn't me who said meticulous historian. In fact I went out of way to explain have to give authors leeway, they are trying to tell a story with purpose- use lots of dual meaning, symbolism and do not always follow chronological author.schmendeler said:
This whole line of argumentation by booboo is funny given it's in response to a post that objected to calling Luke a "meticulous historian". Census? It wasn't a census, it was an oath... And Joseph was really there because he was running an estate for his family. Yeah, that's the ticket.
That being said Luke is a masterpiece, connecting all the dots from OT. It is not an accident power of Caesar and weakness of infant Jesus.
2) My purpose on family estate was a joke (even said joke), it was to show plausible explanation on why they would travel to his home town.
Quote:
$$$ was the purpose. how hard is it to collect taxes or take oath and then write down where folks are from. Again, let the tribes/families do the work (speculation). Did a high percentage of Jewish people move away from home town? Or was it like rural America several decades ago where the families stayed together and farmed?
There was a high level of movement is Roman Palestine due to a number of factors, especially over generations. Land seizure, crop failure, population growth + limited quality land, high taxes, war, changing rulers and empires, ect... Your answer here shows that, again, you aren't familiar with the literature. You form conclusions and you don't know what you're talking about. Please, please, please stop doing this.
Almost the entire region of what we know today as northern Israel, traces their ancestry to Judea. The Bible shows us that the people there were conquered by the Assyrians and the tribes were "lost". In the later Greek period and into the time of the Maccabees, families from the south move north as more land was open to be cultivated. Archaeological evidence shows this definitively with many new settlements appearing in the north in the same period with traditional Jewish markers. If all families had to travel to their ancestral home, almost everyone would leave Galilee. This obviously didn't happen.
Not only would a census never make a family travel to a region in which they don't live, and not only would such a census make it nearly impossible to figure out how much a region owed in taxes, and not only would it be impossible given that nearly everyone from the north traces their roots back to the south, and not only would such a practice be counter productive given that while traveling for months, the farmers couldn't farm, but even if you could account for all that, there's no way in hell the people would do it. They would stay and farm. Galileans would never leave their homes.
Your attempt to use Luke to construct verifiable history doesn't work. It doesn't come close to fitting what we know happened in the region. It's not just implausible. It's impossible. You reject all evidence against you and readily accept anything that might advance your agenda. How you can go from criticizing Ehrman in the manner you did to your display here is incredible.
The larger point here is that even if the writer of Luke did fudge some things, none of the historical inaccuracies are serious enough to be fatal to Christianity as a religion or the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. So we know Lukes census never happened. Thats fine. Conceed the point, Christians, and go about your business as usual. You dont need to bend over backwards to concoct this ridiculous and untenable argument that Lukes census literally happened; no one is buying it. But it is really ok.
Marco Esquandolas said:
The larger point here is that even if the writer of Luke did fudge some things, none of the historical inaccuracies are serious enough to be fatal to Christianity as a religion or the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. So we know Lukes census never happened. Thats fine. Conceed the point, Christians, and go about your business as usual. It is really ok.
The point relevant to the debate is that Luke cannot be automatically trusted as a meticulous historian writing within a few years of the crucifixion.
.Dr. Watson said:Marco Esquandolas said:
The larger point here is that even if the writer of Luke did fudge some things, none of the historical inaccuracies are serious enough to be fatal to Christianity as a religion or the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. So we know Lukes census never happened. Thats fine. Conceed the point, Christians, and go about your business as usual. It is really ok.
The point relevant to the debate is that Luke cannot be automatically trusted as a meticulous historian writing within a few years of the crucifixion.
Ok, so why not?
i see you've skipped the last 2 pages of thread.DryFly said:.Dr. Watson said:Marco Esquandolas said:
The larger point here is that even if the writer of Luke did fudge some things, none of the historical inaccuracies are serious enough to be fatal to Christianity as a religion or the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. So we know Lukes census never happened. Thats fine. Conceed the point, Christians, and go about your business as usual. It is really ok.
The point relevant to the debate is that Luke cannot be automatically trusted as a meticulous historian writing within a few years of the crucifixion.
Ok, so why not?
.schmendeler said:i see you've skipped the last 2 pages of thread.DryFly said:.Dr. Watson said:Marco Esquandolas said:
The larger point here is that even if the writer of Luke did fudge some things, none of the historical inaccuracies are serious enough to be fatal to Christianity as a religion or the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. So we know Lukes census never happened. Thats fine. Conceed the point, Christians, and go about your business as usual. It is really ok.
The point relevant to the debate is that Luke cannot be automatically trusted as a meticulous historian writing within a few years of the crucifixion.
Ok, so why not?
Well, yeah.
It's first argument isn't much of one but a blind appeal. The second one is laughable and does nothing to address the logistical and practical nightmare that would have occurred trying to make people travel back to ancestral homes. The Egyptian example isn't at all the same since its the act of taking possession of a fathers home, not some distant ancestral home.
DryFly said:.schmendeler said:i see you've skipped the last 2 pages of thread.DryFly said:.Dr. Watson said:Marco Esquandolas said:
The larger point here is that even if the writer of Luke did fudge some things, none of the historical inaccuracies are serious enough to be fatal to Christianity as a religion or the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. So we know Lukes census never happened. Thats fine. Conceed the point, Christians, and go about your business as usual. It is really ok.
The point relevant to the debate is that Luke cannot be automatically trusted as a meticulous historian writing within a few years of the crucifixion.
Ok, so why not?
Well, yeah.
I was reading this atheist website today and it has several articles about the contradictions in the Easter story:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/
In about 10 minutes of reading I read three times that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. This is casually stated as fact which is common in atheist circles.
This doesn't mean it is true (or not). That is why I started this thread to see if we could come to an agreement. From the back and forth, my guess is consensus isn't going to be reached.
Personally, I don't care either way. I just like to follow the facts/logic to the best probability of the truth (as opposed to starting with a position and then cherry picking facts to support that position).
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/
In about 10 minutes of reading I read three times that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. This is casually stated as fact which is common in atheist circles.
This doesn't mean it is true (or not). That is why I started this thread to see if we could come to an agreement. From the back and forth, my guess is consensus isn't going to be reached.
Personally, I don't care either way. I just like to follow the facts/logic to the best probability of the truth (as opposed to starting with a position and then cherry picking facts to support that position).
To sum it all up, people are going to believe what they want to believe.lespaul said:
I was reading this atheist website today and it has several articles about the contradictions in the Easter story:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/
In about 10 minutes of reading I read three times that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. This is casually stated as fact which is common in atheist circles.
This doesn't mean it is true (or not). That is why I started this thread to see if we could come to an agreement. From the back and forth, my guess is consensus isn't going to be reached.
Personally, I don't care either way. I just like to follow the facts/logic to the best probability of the truth (as opposed to starting with a position and then cherry picking facts to support that position).
DryFly said:To sum it all up, people are going to believe what they want to believe.lespaul said:
I was reading this atheist website today and it has several articles about the contradictions in the Easter story:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/
In about 10 minutes of reading I read three times that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. This is casually stated as fact which is common in atheist circles.
This doesn't mean it is true (or not). That is why I started this thread to see if we could come to an agreement. From the back and forth, my guess is consensus isn't going to be reached.
Personally, I don't care either way. I just like to follow the facts/logic to the best probability of the truth (as opposed to starting with a position and then cherry picking facts to support that position).
There is some truth to this,but there are conclusions that can be drawn with the best information avilable.
While it may not set well with many, it is a reasonable conclusion that they were not written by eyewitnesses. Sure, it can not be called fact, depending on how you want to define that word, but given the context, it is the most reasonable position.
On the flip side, the comment above about believing what you want to believe is appropriate by those that want to defend them being written by eyewitnesses when there is a great deal of evidence that leads scholars to think otherwise.
Featured Stories
See All
31:49
1h ago
1.7k
17:57
3h ago
4.8k
Jim Schlossnagle discusses Texas A&M's weekend in Baton Rouge
by Ryan Brauninger
8:30
18h ago
6.9k
6:48
20h ago
6.1k
8:45
19h ago
5.3k
Rapid Reaction: Offense explodes as A&M staves off sweep at Alex Box
by David Sandhop
ReelAg6
To: Kendall Rogers, Brauny and the cliff jumpers (TLDR Warning)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
44
Kpag92
To: Kendall Rogers, Brauny and the cliff jumpers (TLDR Warning)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
44