Seattle Dave -
I just wanted to give you a heads up that I'm an Old Earther (I don't believe that the world was created in 7 24-hour days). The word that is translated in Genesis as days is used everywhere else in the bible as "Age" or "ages".
I just don't want to have you wasting any time arguing with me about something I already believe.

 

but can you even prove those authors actually existed?

they're ghost writers, which probably were all priests anyway.

people who actually study literature, have come to the conclusion that the first 5 books of the bible were not written by 1 person(moses), but 4-5 (one of them most likely being ezra, or ezra's author) written much later.

It's totally ok to believe what authors write, and when multiple authors who don't have any connection write about the same events, it does make it seem much more plausible. But you don't even know if john wrote john, or mark wrote mark, do you? It could all have been one guy, or 50 priests in one room, making it all up. yes or no?

 

LOL! I like taco...he's the comic relief to EVERY thread!

you're entitled to be bitter but "I STICK BAH MAH STORRREH!"

Sorry...

 

Thank you Tito....But im trying to learn in this Thread...and am really trying not to be funny in here...Its not working

 

Well they were all written so they have authors. So they must have existed.
The questions are of which Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote them. We just don't know which one of 3 people named Mark actually ended up being the true author.

 

haha...I have a sensitive sense of humor...so I may find things funny that are not meant to be....from time to time...haha..."it's not working"...you crack me up...once again.

 

Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

Epistle of James: Although the epistle identifies a James as the letter writer, but which James? Many claim him as the gospel disciple but the gospels mention several different James. Which one? Or maybe this James has nothing to do with any of the gospel James. Perhaps this writer comes from any one of innumerable James outside the gospels. James served as a common name in the first centuries and we simply have no way to tell who this James refers to. More to the point, the Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

Epistles of John: The epistles of John, the Gospel of John, and Revelation appear so different in style and content that they could hardly have the same author. Some suggest that these writings of John come from the work of a group of scholars in Asia Minor who followed a "John" or they came from the work of church fathers who aimed to further the interests of the Church. Or they could have simply come from people also named John (a very common name). No one knows. Also note that nowhere in the body of the three epistles of "John" does it mention a John. In any case, the epistles of John say nothing about seeing an earthly Jesus. Not only do we not know who wrote these epistles, they can only serve as hearsay accounts.

Epistles of Peter: Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery (for some examples, see the introduction to 2 Peter in the full edition of The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985, and [3]). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an unknown author also named Peter (a common name) or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church.

Of the remaining books and letters in the Bible, there occurs no other stretched claims or eyewitness accounts for a historical Jesus and needs no mention of them here for this deliberation.

As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionalbe originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have got written more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth. [Schonfield]

 

Dave already addressed this by asking if you can prove that a group of priests didn't just get together and write the scriptures themselves and then give the works author names reflecting disciples.

 

The editing and formation of the Bible came from members of the early Christian Church. Since the fathers of the Church possessed the texts and determined what would appear in the Bible, there occurred plenty of opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves.

Take, for example, Eusebius who served as an ecclesiastical church historian and bishop. He had great influence in the early Church and he openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church [Remsberg]. The first mention of Jesus by Josephus came from Eusebius (none of the earlier church fathers mention Josephus' Jesus). It comes to no surprise why many scholars think that Eusebius interpolated his writings. In his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32).

 

And so as to not just copy what Dave says...
If you are saying that what makes the bible credible are it's multiple authors and you can't prove that any of those multiple authors existed or even that there were multiple authors then doesn't the merit of the bible go out the window?

 

PERFECT

I'll give u a little project. read genesis 1:20-30, which are just days 4&5 of creation. It's super short. Now according to those verses, which are supposed to be the direct word of god as handed to moses, list out what order the bible says these animals were created in.

Pigeon, Turkey, Whale, Stegosaurus, Worm, Cochroach.

if you actually do it, it'll surprise you (& please reply with your order if u do).

Having something like a canary exist a day, a year or a billion years before a Stegosaurus, Worm, or Cochroach is wrong in so many ways. The bible says is the order of creation explictly...the first page of the book that the entire religion is based on, says something that is beyond logic, common sense, biology, evolution and most peoples home-grown creationlism(christians dont really read the bible so they just make stuff up as they go thinking they're in line with the bible cus "it feels right").

 

I Have Proof!

 

As far as I know, the bible doesn't say anywhere that the first 4-5 books were written by one guy. It was always just an assumption. If I'm wrong please tell me.

Well I'm just curious as to what the early christians had to gain from writing lies into a book. I mean the one's that were around during the time that these books were written were hunted down, tortured, and killed. I could see that someone would lie, but I just can't see what the motivation would be.

 

HAHAHAHAHA!

again...you weren't trying to be funny...but that was the funniest post on this thread! ACCIDENTALLY!

nevermind...I just checked and you were trying to be funny....

but cummon. "stealing bandwidth makes baby jesus cry"? That's funnier than what was on that sign.

 

Eusebius who served as an ecclesiastical church historian and bishop. He had great influence in the early Church and he openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church [Remsberg]. The first mention of Jesus by Josephus came from Eusebius (none of the earlier church fathers mention Josephus' Jesus). It comes to no surprise why many scholars think that Eusebius interpolated his writings. In his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32).

 

Wow. Getting hit from quite a few directions here guys.
If I don't answer right away its because I'm trying to read each one of your guys comments.

Man, trying to carry on a few conversations on here is hard as anything! hahaha

 

usually it's multiple christians versus 1 or 2 atheists. if you ever get a chance to go back and read this thread, or the abortion one, you'll see

 

thats why I used it...I was looking at dumb crap for the TJ thread and saw the stealing bandwidth and thought..I know where I can use that!

 

yeah, I think most of the christians go tired of arguing. Also, the thread usually goes in circles with the same things being posted by people not reading the entire thread.

 

Very true..I joined in late myself, But am reading the old and following with the new posts.