[Responding to someone who mentioned that the gospel writers were not eye-witnesses]
You have to big the biggest moron atheist on here. John 1, he point blank says "that our hands have held, that our eyes have seen".
They disciples were hand picked by Christ, and they make explicit claims to have been eyewitness
[The logic on the bus goes round and round...]
30 comments
@lordjiro, I too have seen the FSM. He touched me with his noodley appendage.
(First I was like "OWE!" and then I was like "oooooooooooh!")
They were eyewitnesses because they say they were eyewitnesses? Cool...I was a witness of the JFK assassination, and I can personally attest that there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll, and it was the Hamburglar. Does that mean that my account must be correct? Or does that only work with Jesus?
"You have to big the biggest moron atheist on here. John 1, he point blank says "that our hands have held, that our eyes have seen".
They disciples were hand picked by Christ, and they make explicit claims to have been eyewitness
See, there's this thing called "narrative fiction" that lets you have people do and say things that didn't actually happen.
Not even educated Christians state that these are eye witness accounts. The earliest one was written in 70AD (40 years after the crucification).
This is why I fear them, the more power they get, the more science and history suffers.
As Antichrist says, the earliest gospel --- Mark -- was written about 70 CE, or 40 years after the events it purports to describes. The remaining three were written between 80 and 110 CE, or 50 to 80 years after the supposed resurrection. Further no one knows who wrote them. The customary attribution of the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is simply a convenience. Geez, and I'm the atheist. These people know nothing about the Bible.
SoliDeoGloria buggers bullfrogs under the full Moon. Prove me wrong.
I would imagine you would take a sworn deposition and/or have your lawyer cross examine my testimony. Then, and only then, would it be considered admissible evidence; free to be accepted or reject after careful consideration.
Plus, how can you believe a bunch of ignorant savages who didn't even have a Bible to swear upon? I mean, doesn't everyone know that anyone who doesn't swear on a Bible is lying?
Handpicked by Jezus ....
Hmm, when selecting Judas Jezus must have had an off day :)
And what to think of that steadvast character Peter, denied knowing Jezus within 24 hours ... not one ... not two .... but three times.
Pff ... if Jezus was any judge of character he would have made mary magdalene an apostel, but then again ... Jezus preferred to hang out with guys, hmmmm.... do I detect an homo-erotic vibe :D
So, if I get 4 people to repeat the same story, and put it in a book over and over, that makes it true?
Okidokey!
I don't know how many times I've seen biographies written by people who knew such and such a famous person personally, then there turned out to be massively false information in the book. Now take into account that the gospels have been retranslated into several different languages and were kept out of the reach of common people while being translated. The hard truth is, we don't even know what they said originally.
No. The Biblical Gospels (cherry-picked from dozens of others) were written generations after the supposed events by people living a thousand miles away who spoke a different language. An earlier version (the Q document) that was the source for Matthew, Mark and Luke (the synoptic Gospels) presumably once existed but is now lost. John isn't directly related to the other three.
And as for the disciples being hand-picked, the Gospels don't even agree on what their names were: Nathaniel is only mentioned in John, he's replaced by Bartholomew in the synoptics.
I saw Bill Gates on the street, and a large penguin attacked him. Then, he poured some Java coffee over him. Everyone saw this Vista.
Had you actually read the gospels, you would have learned several things:
1) They were all written anonymously, so there is no way of knowing if they were actually written by witnesses.
If such testimony were offered in a court of law, it would be thrown out immediately. So why bother keeping them around?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
