Authorship of the Gospels

[VeganIncubus]

anonymous attributes

The scriptures are the author of the Holy Spirit.

Other way around.
But, what?

How do you prove this?

[anonymous attributes]

AngryVeganQueer

anonymous attributes

The scriptures are the author of the Holy Spirit.

Other way around.
But, what?

How do you prove this?

How do you, AngryVeganQuee, disprove it?

[VeganIncubus]

anonymous attributes

How do you, AngryVeganQuee, disprove it?

Well, how do you disprove that they were not written by Satan instead? Or that the 'authors' were actually influenced by extraterrestrial beings from Alpha Centauri.

I am going with the explanation that raises the least number of questions. If we say that the Holy Spirit authored the Gospels, if he is non-corporeal or whatever, how can they write? Also, if they are divinely-authored, why do they contain such disparities and have been edited more than a fair amount of times?
Wouldn't a perfect being like God and the Holy Spirit produced something that would remain unchanged and flawless?



For example, take the resurrection.

Would a perfect being tell the events in a different order with time and place disparities? It reads like a bad fanfic or an X-Men sequel.

[anonymous attributes]

AngryVeganQueer

anonymous attributes

How do you, AngryVeganQuee, disprove it?

Well, how do you disprove that they were not written by Satan instead? Or that the 'authors' were actually influenced by extraterrestrial beings from Alpha Centauri.

I am going with the explanation that raises the least number of questions. If we say that the Holy Spirit authored the Gospels, if he is non-corporeal or whatever, how can they write? Also, if they are divinely-authored, why do they contain such disparities and have been edited more than a fair amount of times?
Wouldn't a perfect being like God and the Holy Spirit produced something that would remain unchanged and flawless?



For example, take the resurrection.

Would a perfect being tell the events in a different order with time and place disparities? It reads like a bad fanfic or an X-Men sequel.

Your challenge is a lack of understanding and a lack of wanting to understand. Knowing this, there is a close.

Whether the originals were perfect or not, I do not know, but as far as copies, of course not. Ive seen a typo in my own Bible.

But as far as your challenge about the resurrection, I do not have the memory to recall for you since I do not teach on the text, but I have read and studied the answer to your question, and I have no doubts in my own mind.

That is all I can tell you, knowing you come from an opposite point of view and could care less to really know or understand.

[VeganIncubus]

anonymous attributes

Your challenge is a lack of understanding and a lack of wanting to understand. Knowing this, there is a close.

Whether the originals were perfect or not, I do not know, but as far as copies, of course not. Ive seen a typo in my own Bible.

But as far as your challenge about the resurrection, I do not have the memory to recall for you since I do not teach on the text, but I have read and studied the answer to your question, and I have no doubts in my own mind.

That is all I can tell you, knowing you come from an opposite point of view and could care less to really know or understand.

What is there to understand? That the Gospels were, without a doubt authored by God and the Holy Spirit? How should I understand something that is so very unlikely?

A typo is understandable. Contradictory accounts of an event or even getting the events so wrong isn't understandable. Either all of the authors were privy to the same information or they were playing a game of telephone, so that the person writing the new Gospel only knew a tiny little bit of the correct information. I am trying to understand how claims of divine authorship can be reconciled with this blatant disregard for continuity in the story.
You may have no doubts because your belief does not falter, and at one point I may have envied that. But if the story is wrong and the facts are wrong, what does the faith rely upon if not half-truths and information that crumbles under the weight of critical inquiry.
If the Bible, a Holy Book cannot withstand scrutiny, there is not much to be said concerning its value. If it claims to be flawless and to be the work of God, either God is a terrible writer, or he did not author the book at all.

You can't have it both ways. Either we treat it as another piece of literature describing fictional events, parables and made-up whatevers, or if it claims to be historically and factually sound, we must dismantle it and examine it, which many people have, and it fails to impress.
It has little value, other than a few teachings and maxims here and there. But the characters are not credible, the behaviour of God isn't that of a divine being but that of a petty ruler. The ending is shoddy and anti-climactic.
In short, the Gospels and the whole of the story are unimaginative and not sources of morality and truth.

[anonymous attributes]

AngryVeganQueer

anonymous attributes

Your challenge is a lack of understanding and a lack of wanting to understand. Knowing this, there is a close.

Whether the originals were perfect or not, I do not know, but as far as copies, of course not. Ive seen a typo in my own Bible.

But as far as your challenge about the resurrection, I do not have the memory to recall for you since I do not teach on the text, but I have read and studied the answer to your question, and I have no doubts in my own mind.

That is all I can tell you, knowing you come from an opposite point of view and could care less to really know or understand.

What is there to understand? That the Gospels were, without a doubt authored by God and the Holy Spirit? How should I understand something that is so very unlikely?

A typo is understandable. Contradictory accounts of an event or even getting the events so wrong isn't understandable. Either all of the authors were privy to the same information or they were playing a game of telephone, so that the person writing the new Gospel only knew a tiny little bit of the correct information. I am trying to understand how claims of divine authorship can be reconciled with this blatant disregard for continuity in the story.
You may have no doubts because your belief does not falter, and at one point I may have envied that. But if the story is wrong and the facts are wrong, what does the faith rely upon if not half-truths and information that crumbles under the weight of critical inquiry.
If the Bible, a Holy Book cannot withstand scrutiny, there is not much to be said concerning its value. If it claims to be flawless and to be the work of God, either God is a terrible writer, or he did not author the book at all.

You can't have it both ways. Either we treat it as another piece of literature describing fictional events, parables and made-up whatevers, or if it claims to be historically and factually sound, we must dismantle it and examine it, which many people have, and it fails to impress.
It has little value, other than a few teachings and maxims here and there. But the characters are not credible, the behaviour of God isn't that of a divine being but that of a petty ruler. The ending is shoddy and anti-climactic.
In short, the Gospels and the whole of the story are unimaginative and not sources of morality and truth.

Says the biased satanist, which was part of my point.

[VeganIncubus]

anonymous attributes

Says the biased satanist, which was part of my point.

If as a Satanist I am biased, let me inform you that as a Christian or whatever you are, you are also biased, perhaps even more so.
I grew up Catholic, I know my Bible.

But it also made me an atheist.

[anonymous attributes]

AngryVeganQueer

anonymous attributes

Says the biased satanist, which was part of my point.

If as a Satanist I am biased, let me inform you that as a Christian or whatever you are, you are also biased, perhaps even more so.
I grew up Catholic, I know my Bible.

But it also made me an atheist.

Of course I am biased.

And Catholicism is not Christianity, that religion has fornicated with the state government and have become joined as one in marriage.

[Arcoon Effox]

AngryVeganQueer

AVQ, don't rise to that asinine ******** bait. He's clueless for starters, and is just falling back on fallacies rather than refuting anything you say.

anonymous attributes

AngryVeganQueer

anonymous attributes

The scriptures are the author of the Holy Spirit.

How do you prove this?

How do you, AngryVeganQuee, disprove it?

Russel's Teapot. He made the claim and therefore the Burden of Proof is on him, yet he's challenging you to prove something that's unfalsifiable instead of honoring his obligation. All throughout my encounters with that clown, that was all he ever did.

anonymous attributes

...Says the biased satanist, which was part of my point.

Ad Hominem. Dude isn't taking what you're saying seriously because of his bias against you no matter what you say, even if you somehow make the most profound point in the universe.

Seriously, dude, he's not worth arguing with, because you couldn't fill a thimble with the amount of intellectual integrity he has.

(...and then there's the part where he Necro'd a thread that hadn't been posted in since the middle of September, which I'm pretty sure is against T&C.)

[VeganIncubus]

Arcoon Effox

I'll take your advice. Thanks.

[VulcanRaven]

Bogotanian

Blood Valkyrie

In order to prove that the people who wrote the Gospels knew Jesus, you must prove that Jesus existed. There's still reasonable debate over that.

Homer.

When has anyone ever said that Homer was for sure a real person? I've always heard that his existence was speculative at best by every source I've seen

[SharkxAngel]

I am a scholarly believer. I don't claim to be a Christian, and I am not religious. I simply believe in God and I believe in Jesus as Messiah and have relationship with God, who plays the roles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as trinity.

This is the very thing I am looking into myself. I am first learning about the history of this religion and how it came to be and I am looking into the life of Jesus and his disciples and how the Bible was written and put together. I'm happy you posted this because I will follow and ask my own questions as they come. This is my favorite forum. What a great place to debate these issues.

Truly though, I do believe that the stories are real in the Bible, although we have to realize that some stories are parables. I am still needing to find out which stories are parables, and which are supposed to be real accounts of real events.

But that's another topic for another time. We are focusing on the writers of the Bible. Thank you to all who are replying to this post.