Why were the Gospels written down?

[angellous_evangellous]

Heh... in two years, I've spent more repairing my van than I paid for it in the first place.

hahaha

In ten years I spent about $5k on it in repairs. But I've owned it free and clear for more than ten years. Not bad.

 

[dogsgod]

A rough guess is 35,000 biblical scholars. Half of them are atheist.

A colleague of mine - an atheist - is publishing a history of the NT that will provide him $10k a year for the rest of his life. Not much, but that's just one book, and he has a lot more in him.

Good luck. Gospels are found in the mythology section.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Good luck. Gospels are found in the mythology section.

Only in your library.

Try going to a university library and looking at the BL, BR, and BT section. Or you can browse through these sections in the Library of Congress.

[hint: Myth is clear on the other side of the library - N and PA]

 

[linwood]

I doubt that the Gospels were ever an oral tradition....

Why do you say this Terry?

Is it simply a matter of time, as in there wasn`t much between Jesus and the written gospels?

 

[dogsgod]

Why do you say this Terry?

Is it simply a matter of time, as in their wasn`t much between Jesus and the written gospels?

Jesus' time is assumed to be supposedly true by reading the gospels. Now are we to assume there was an oral tradition from the supposed time of Jesus until that story was written? That would be an assumption built upon the assumption that the story is in some way factual.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Jesus' time is assumed to be supposedly true by reading the gospels. Now are we to assume there was an oral tradition from the supposed time of Jesus until that story was written? That would be an assumption built upon the assumption that the story is in some way factual.

[no one thinks that the apostles followed Jesus around with a pencil and a notepad, recording everything that they saw...]

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why do you say this Terry?

Is it simply a matter of time, as in there wasn`t much between Jesus and the written gospels?

No, For the Gospels to be part of an oral tradition they would have to be recited and memorised as complete.
I will grant that the individual stories in them would have been Passed on as an oral tradition.
The Gospels certainly had a common source, But I would suppose, that that was from an even earlier document that was to became one of their number. Mark perhaps....

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well scholars have determined the authorship dates of the gospels, or pretty well close to it, so if the gospels weren't a tradition first then they were just plain made up.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, For the Gospels to be part of an oral tradition they would have to be recited and memorised as complete.
I will grant that the individual stories in them would have been Passed on as an oral tradition.
The Gospels certainly had a common source, But I would suppose, that that was from an even earlier document that was to became one of their number. Mark perhaps....

There you go.

 

[linwood]

No, For the Gospels to be part of an oral tradition they would have to be recited and memorised as complete.
I will grant that the individual stories in them would have been Passed on as an oral tradition.
The Gospels certainly had a common source, But I would suppose, that that was from an even earlier document that was to became one of their number. Mark perhaps....

Thank you Terry.

Your answer echos my own thoughts.

 

[logician]

well scholars have determined the authorship dates of the gospels, or pretty well close to it, so if the gospels weren't a tradition first then they were just plain made up.

bingo!

 

[dogsgod]

No, For the Gospels to be part of an oral tradition they would have to be recited and memorised as complete.
I will grant that the individual stories in them would have been Passed on as an oral tradition.
The Gospels certainly had a common source, But I would suppose, that that was from an even earlier document that was to became one of their number. Mark perhaps....

No doubt Mark's gospel consisted of some individual stories that circulated orally, and the other gospel writers copied him and embellished upon his work. Lot's of authors draw from stories when writing fiction, nothing new here. What's down right hysterical is the notion that these stories add up to an historical account of actual events. Most people were told at a very young age that a man named Jesus lived two thousand years ago and that this is his true story, it all really happened, and they believed it. Most people view the gospels as evidence to support that belief.

 

[dogsgod]

Only in your library.

Try going to a university library and looking at the BL, BR, and BT section. Or you can browse through these sections in the Library of Congress.

[hint: Myth is clear on the other side of the library - N and PA]

Considering what most Americans believe, I can believe that.

 

[logician]

The idea that Christianity is factually based, and all other religions are myth based, is ludicrous.

 

[dogsgod]

Faith will do that to people, as well as a case of misplaced skepticism.

 

[Autodidact]

I think the history of the NT as a book (or books) is fascinating and surprising, and it's appalling how little the average Christian knows about it.

There's a tendency in some circles to lie about it, so they're not able to celebrate the truth, which is pretty amazing and worth celebrating.

I came at it as a Jew turned atheist. Most of what I've learned about it has been since becoming an atheist.

So I had some vague preconceived notions.

When I learned that the first bits we have now are thought to have been written down within a few decades of Jesus' death, I was flabbergasted. I had to change my entire world-view. That's amazing! Christians should be broadcasting and celebrating this! It should be commemorated and marked as a holiday.

But since some pastors are going around telling their congregations that the gospels were written by eye-witnesses right after Jesus' death, they can't celebrate this truth.

Similarly, the history of the reconstruction of the early Greek manuscripts is riveting. But since some pastors are going around saying that the "original manuscript" contains "no errors," (there is no original manuscript.),` they can't really talk about this fascinating history, which IMO supports their religion, if anything. They've taken away from themselves the powerful weapon of the truth, in favor of inaccurate stories from centuries ago.

The earliest scrap of NT manuscript we have is called P52, and was discovered about 50 years ago. It's a small papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John (18:31-33 on the front; 18:37-38 on the back), and it has been dated to about 125 AD. Isn't that amazing? Isn't that earth-shattering? It's somewhere in the Princeton University Library. Is there a huge shrine? Can Christians come and venerate it and stare at it in wonder? No. If this were a Jewish scrap, it would be the holiest object for the world's Jews. Very few Christians even know it exists.

Christians! You're short-changing yourselves! As usual, reality is much more exciting and amazing than the lies your preachers are feeding you!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only in your library.

Try going to a university library and looking at the BL, BR, and BT section. Or you can browse through these sections in the Library of Congress.

[hint: Myth is clear on the other side of the library - N and PA]

And history is off in D, E and F.

 

[logician]

I think the history of the NT as a book (or books) is fascinating and surprising, and it's appalling how little the average Christian knows about it.

There's a tendency in some circles to lie about it, so they're not able to celebrate the truth, which is pretty amazing and worth celebrating.

I came at it as a Jew turned atheist. Most of what I've learned about it has been since becoming an atheist.

So I had some vague preconceived notions.

When I learned that the first bits we have now are thought to have been written down within a few decades of Jesus' death, I was flabbergasted. I had to change my entire world-view. That's amazing! Christians should be broadcasting and celebrating this! It should be commemorated and marked as a holiday.

But since some pastors are going around telling their congregations that the gospels were written by eye-witnesses right after Jesus' death, they can't celebrate this truth.

Similarly, the history of the reconstruction of the early Greek manuscripts is riveting. But since some pastors are going around saying that the "original manuscript" contains "no errors," (there is no original manuscript.),` they can't really talk about this fascinating history, which IMO supports their religion, if anything. They've taken away from themselves the powerful weapon of the truth, in favor of inaccurate stories from centuries ago.

The earliest scrap of NT manuscript we have is called P52, and was discovered about 50 years ago. It's a small papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John (18:31-33 on the front; 18:37-38 on the back), and it has been dated to about 125 AD. Isn't that amazing? Isn't that earth-shattering? It's somewhere in the Princeton University Library. Is there a huge shrine? Can Christians come and venerate it and stare at it in wonder? No. If this were a Jewish scrap, it would be the holiest object for the world's Jews. Very few Christians even know it exists.

Christians! You're short-changing yourselves! As usual, reality is much more exciting and amazing than the lies your preachers are feeding you!

I was a Christian for quite a number of years when I was younger, and I would bet 95+ percent of Christians haven't the faintest idea the true history of their religion, all they know is the propaganda handed out in Sunday school, and from the pulpit every week.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And history is off in D, E and F.

... as well as N, PA, and Q...

How delightful.

 

[dogsgod]

I think the history of the NT as a book (or books) is fascinating and surprising, and it's appalling how little the average Christian knows about it.

There's a tendency in some circles to lie about it, so they're not able to celebrate the truth, which is pretty amazing and worth celebrating.

I came at it as a Jew turned atheist. Most of what I've learned about it has been since becoming an atheist.

So I had some vague preconceived notions.

When I learned that the first bits we have now are thought to have been written down within a few decades of Jesus' death, I was flabbergasted. I had to change my entire world-view. That's amazing! Christians should be broadcasting and celebrating this! It should be commemorated and marked as a holiday.

But since some pastors are going around telling their congregations that the gospels were written by eye-witnesses right after Jesus' death, they can't celebrate this truth.

Similarly, the history of the reconstruction of the early Greek manuscripts is riveting. But since some pastors are going around saying that the "original manuscript" contains "no errors," (there is no original manuscript.),` they can't really talk about this fascinating history, which IMO supports their religion, if anything. They've taken away from themselves the powerful weapon of the truth, in favor of inaccurate stories from centuries ago.

The earliest scrap of NT manuscript we have is called P52, and was discovered about 50 years ago. It's a small papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John (18:31-33 on the front; 18:37-38 on the back), and it has been dated to about 125 AD. Isn't that amazing? Isn't that earth-shattering? It's somewhere in the Princeton University Library. Is there a huge shrine? Can Christians come and venerate it and stare at it in wonder? No. If this were a Jewish scrap, it would be the holiest object for the world's Jews. Very few Christians even know it exists.

Christians! You're short-changing yourselves! As usual, reality is much more exciting and amazing than the lies your preachers are feeding you!

Christians desperately want to believe that their gospels are historical accounts of actual events. They need their Jesus to be historical to the point that they are unable to read the gospels for the mythology that they are. It's pitiful. Why it matters that Jesus has to be historical is beyond me.