₦airaland Forum

The Jesus story should be grouped with works like that of Shakespeare, as it's just a comedy.
Because the Jesus story is now very clear to be fiction mixed with the Torah to make it feel real.

God Almighty of the Original Jewish Torah is the only True God.

sonmvayina:
because they are many genres in literature......
so for all i know the author was writing a theological fiction for a stage play...

You are still saying the same thing. I respect your opinion, but it is based on your emotions and not rooted in academics or critical analysis.
The big question you should ask yourself is, what critical method would you use in deciding historic facts from friction.
If you dont have a method, you will continue to depend on raw emotions.
Ask yourself: how can you tell that the character of Jesus is friction while Pharaoh Tutankhamun isn't?
If you dont have a useful method, there wouldn't be a need to keep up with this discussion.

tctrills:
You are still saying the same thing. I respect your opinion, but it is based on your emotions and not rooted in academics or critical analysis.
The big question you should ask yourself is, what critical method would you use in deciding historic facts from friction.
If you dont have a method, you will continue to depend on raw emotions.
Ask yourself: how can you tell that the character of Jesus is friction while Pharaoh Tutankhamun isn't?
If you dont have a useful method, there wouldn't be a need to keep up with this discussion.

hahahahahahaaa,
method 1: if the author is an eye witness to the story he is telling...and is affected by it...
method 2 if the person knows someone who is involved and personally interviews the person......



not stories with NO SOURCE, WRITTEN IN THE THIRD PERON , BY UNKNOWN AUTHORS....

If they were written by people who are connected to the gospel, they would tell us how the story affected them, and sign their name. but none is present....
the people who wrote it are far far removed from the gospel....

Ken4Christ:
Christ is still the dividing line. It's just a change of name. It's to please haters of Christ

No brother, did you not get the memo?

they have discovered that Jesus never existed. so why pretend otherwise....

sonmvayina:
hahahahahahaaa,
method 1: if the author is an eye witness to the story he is telling...and is affected by it...
method 2 if the person knows someone who is involved and personally interviews the person......



not stories with NO SOURCE, WRITTEN IN THE THIRD PERON , BY UNKNOWN AUTHORS....

If they were written by people who are connected to the gospel, they would tell us how the story affected them, and sign their name. but none is present....
the people who wrote it are far far removed from the gospel....

I actually love this argument because it sounds very smart on the surface, but it completely falls apart the second you look at how people actually wrote or recorded history back then. You are basically looking at a 2,000-year-old book and complaining that it isn't written like a modern true-crime blog or a personal diary!
So let me break it down to you

1. The "Third-Person" Trap

You say: "Real eyewitnesses would say 'I saw this,' not 'He did that.'"
The reality: Back in ancient times, writing in the third person was actually the ultimate way to show you were being serious and official. Think of Julius Caesar. He wrote a massive, famous book about his own military victories, but he never once wrote "I conquered France." He wrote, "Caesar marched his troops into France." If we throw out books just because they are written in the third person, we have to throw out Julius Caesar's own diary.

2. The "No Signature" Flaw

You say: "If they actually wrote it, they would have signed their name at the bottom!"
The reality: Nobody "signed" biographies back then. It was considered bad manners because the book was supposed to be about the famous person (Jesus), not about the author's ego. Plutarch, who is widely considered the absolute greatest biographer of the ancient world, wrote over 60 massive biographies about kings and emperors. He never signed his name to a single one. If you want to throw out the Gospels for being anonymous, they have to throw out almost all of ancient Greek and Roman history with them.

3. The "Where are the feelings?" Mistake

You say: "They would tell us how the story personally affected them!"
The reality: If an ancient writer filled a history book with their own emotional rants and personal feelings, real historians back then would have laughed them out of the room. They didn't want a diary entry; they wanted a record of what happened. Keeping your feelings out of it was the ancient way of trying to be an objective reporter.

4. The "Far, Far Removed" Myth

You say: "The writers were way too far removed from the timeline."
The reality: Jesus died around AD 30, and the first Gospels were written around AD 70. That is a 40-year gap. In ancient history, a 40-year gap is incredibly fast! To put it in perspective: the absolute best books we have about Alexander the Great were written 450 years after he died. A 40-year gap means the authors were writing while people who actually saw Jesus were still alive and walking around to fact-check them.
Plus, the author of Luke literally starts his book by saying he used "Method 2"; he explicitly writes that he went out, interviewed the firsthand eyewitnesses, and investigated everything closely before putting pen to paper.



So, are you sticking to your 2 methods, or will you pivot to other methods?

sonmvayina:
No brother, did you not get the memo?

they have discovered that Jesus never existed. so why pretend otherwise....

Even Satan will laugh at you for intentionality rejecting the truth.

You are rejecting the one who created you.

Jesus is the Prince of Life.

Tell me anything that has a name that doesn't exist

Ken4Christ:
Even Satan will laugh at you for intentionality rejecting the truth.

You are rejecting the one who created you.

Jesus is the Prince of Life.

Tell me anything that has a name that doesn't exist

lol....Jesus is a roman creation, much like Spiderman or superman
they are created for entertainment and in the case of Jesus to control people with no sense., because
if you have 2% sense, you will easily know that a woman can never become pregnant without the input of a man.

God the creator of heaven and earth has got nothing to do with Jesus. he does not even know him. it was never his plan...so what truth are you talking about..


jesus was created to control poor people and people with zero sense, which group do you belong to?

tctrills:
I actually love this argument because it sounds very smart on the surface, but it completely falls apart the second you look at how people actually wrote or recorded history back then. You are basically looking at a 2,000-year-old book and complaining that it isn't written like a modern true-crime blog or a personal diary!
So let me break it down to you

1. The "Third-Person" Trap

You say: "Real eyewitnesses would say 'I saw this,' not 'He did that.'"
The reality: Back in ancient times, writing in the third person was actually the ultimate way to show you were being serious and official. Think of Julius Caesar. He wrote a massive, famous book about his own military victories, but he never once wrote "I conquered France." He wrote, "Caesar marched his troops into France." If we throw out books just because they are written in the third person, we have to throw out Julius Caesar's own diary.

2. The "No Signature" Flaw

You say: "If they actually wrote it, they would have signed their name at the bottom!"
The reality: Nobody "signed" biographies back then. It was considered bad manners because the book was supposed to be about the famous person (Jesus), not about the author's ego. Plutarch, who is widely considered the absolute greatest biographer of the ancient world, wrote over 60 massive biographies about kings and emperors. He never signed his name to a single one. If you want to throw out the Gospels for being anonymous, they have to throw out almost all of ancient Greek and Roman history with them.

3. The "Where are the feelings?" Mistake

You say: "They would tell us how the story personally affected them!"
The reality: If an ancient writer filled a history book with their own emotional rants and personal feelings, real historians back then would have laughed them out of the room. They didn't want a diary entry; they wanted a record of what happened. Keeping your feelings out of it was the ancient way of trying to be an objective reporter.

4. The "Far, Far Removed" Myth

You say: "The writers were way too far removed from the timeline."
The reality: Jesus died around AD 30, and the first Gospels were written around AD 70. That is a 40-year gap. In ancient history, a 40-year gap is incredibly fast! To put it in perspective: the absolute best books we have about Alexander the Great were written 450 years after he died. A 40-year gap means the authors were writing while people who actually saw Jesus were still alive and walking around to fact-check them.
Plus, the author of Luke literally starts his book by saying he used "Method 2"; he explicitly writes that he went out, interviewed the firsthand eyewitnesses, and investigated everything closely before putting pen to paper.



So, are you sticking to your 2 methods, or will you pivot to other methods?

Most critical biblical scholars conclude that the canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were not written by direct eyewitnesses or the apostles traditionally assigned to them, but are instead anonymous literary compositions written decades later.

Why Scholars Think the Gospels Are Not Eyewitness Accounts

• Anonymity of the Original Texts: None of the four Gospels name their authors within the text itself. They do not use first-person narration ("I" or "we" to claim direct involvement in the events. The familiar titles ("According to Matthew", etc.) were added by the church later in the 2nd century.

• Late Dating: The Gospels were written roughly 40 to 60 years after the death of Jesus (Mark around 70 CE, Matthew and Luke around 80–90 CE, and John around 90–100 CE). This timeline exceeds the normal human lifespan of first-century Palestine, meaning the authors wrote long after the generation of direct participants had passed away.

• Literary Dependency (The Synoptic Problem): Scholars analyze how Matthew, Mark, and Luke relate to one another and notice extensive copying. Matthew and Luke both copy roughly 90% of Mark’s Greek text, often word-for-word, alongside a separate shared hypothetical source called Q. Eyewitnesses describing their own unique memories do not independently produce verbatim textual copies of a predecessor's written narrative.

• Language and Culture Mismatches: The Gospels are written in sophisticated, fluent Hellenistic Greek, whereas Jesus and his inner disciples were Aramaic-speaking peasants from rural Galilee. Furthermore, the texts occasionally contain geographical or cultural misunderstandings of 1st-century Judea and Galilee.

• Omniscient Storytelling and Contradictions: The authors regularly narrate private scenes, secret prayers, and internal psychological thoughts (such as Jesus alone in the Gethsemane garden or private dialogues with Pilate) in the style of third-person historical-biographical or novelistic literature rather than firsthand testimony, and the accounts frequently contradict each other on major details (such as the birth narratives or the chronology of the resurrection).

What Methods Scholars Use to Reach This Conclusion

Biblical and historical scholars apply historical-critical methods to evaluate the texts:
• Source Criticism: Analyzing the structural and linguistic relationships between the Gospels to map out literary dependencies (such as the dominance of the Gospel of Mark as a primary source for Matthew and Luke).

• Form Criticism (Formgeschichte): Isolating smaller units of oral tradition (parables, healing stories, pronouncement stories) to study how early Christian communities shaped, modified, and preserved these stories orally before they were ever committed to writing.

• Redaction Criticism: Examining the specific editorial and theological changes each author made to their sources. Scholars look at how Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John alter stories to fit their distinct theological agendas (e.g., Matthew emphasizing Jewish fulfillment, Luke addressing a Gentile audience, John emphasizing high Christology).

• External and Internal Dating / Historical Plausibility: Comparing the internal timeline and historical markers of the texts against secular Roman and Jewish historians (like Josephus or Tacitus) and tracking the earliest external attestations from 2nd-century church fathers like Papias.

sonmvayina:
lol....Jesus is a roman creation, much like Spiderman or superman
they are created for entertainment and in the case of Jesus to control people with no sense., because
if you have 2% sense, you will easily know that a woman can never become pregnant without the input of a man.

God the creator of heaven and earth has got nothing to do with Jesus. he does not even know him. it was never his plan...so what truth are you talking about..


jesus was created to control poor people and people with zero sense, which group do you belong to?

After all your ranting, you will still be judged by him.

sonmvayina:
Most critical biblical scholars conclude that the canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were not written by direct eyewitnesses or the apostles traditionally assigned to them, but are instead anonymous literary compositions written decades later.

Why Scholars Think the Gospels Are Not Eyewitness Accounts

• Anonymity of the Original Texts: None of the four Gospels name their authors within the text itself. They do not use first-person narration ("I" or "we" to claim direct involvement in the events. The familiar titles ("According to Matthew", etc.) were added by the church later in the 2nd century.

• Late Dating: The Gospels were written roughly 40 to 60 years after the death of Jesus (Mark around 70 CE, Matthew and Luke around 80–90 CE, and John around 90–100 CE). This timeline exceeds the normal human lifespan of first-century Palestine, meaning the authors wrote long after the generation of direct participants had passed away.

• Literary Dependency (The Synoptic Problem): Scholars analyze how Matthew, Mark, and Luke relate to one another and notice extensive copying. Matthew and Luke both copy roughly 90% of Mark’s Greek text, often word-for-word, alongside a separate shared hypothetical source called Q. Eyewitnesses describing their own unique memories do not independently produce verbatim textual copies of a predecessor's written narrative.

• Language and Culture Mismatches: The Gospels are written in sophisticated, fluent Hellenistic Greek, whereas Jesus and his inner disciples were Aramaic-speaking peasants from rural Galilee. Furthermore, the texts occasionally contain geographical or cultural misunderstandings of 1st-century Judea and Galilee.

• Omniscient Storytelling and Contradictions: The authors regularly narrate private scenes, secret prayers, and internal psychological thoughts (such as Jesus alone in the Gethsemane garden or private dialogues with Pilate) in the style of third-person historical-biographical or novelistic literature rather than firsthand testimony, and the accounts frequently contradict each other on major details (such as the birth narratives or the chronology of the resurrection).

What Methods Scholars Use to Reach This Conclusion

Biblical and historical scholars apply historical-critical methods to evaluate the texts:
• Source Criticism: Analyzing the structural and linguistic relationships between the Gospels to map out literary dependencies (such as the dominance of the Gospel of Mark as a primary source for Matthew and Luke).

• Form Criticism (Formgeschichte): Isolating smaller units of oral tradition (parables, healing stories, pronouncement stories) to study how early Christian communities shaped, modified, and preserved these stories orally before they were ever committed to writing.

• Redaction Criticism: Examining the specific editorial and theological changes each author made to their sources. Scholars look at how Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John alter stories to fit their distinct theological agendas (e.g., Matthew emphasizing Jewish fulfillment, Luke addressing a Gentile audience, John emphasizing high Christology).

• External and Internal Dating / Historical Plausibility: Comparing the internal timeline and historical markers of the texts against secular Roman and Jewish historians (like Josephus or Tacitus) and tracking the earliest external attestations from 2nd-century church fathers like Papias.

So let's assume that this school of scholars is correct and that the Gospels were not written by direct eyewitnesses or the apostles; still, I have shown you that this is in line with accepted history. You did not even respond to any of the points I made in the first place.
I did not even argue that the gospel was written by His apostles because that is completely immaterial. Please respond to the points I highlighted. But then, let me answer this your immaterial point once and for all.



1. On "Late Dating and Lifespans"

You say[b] the 40-to-60-year gap means everyone who knew Jesus was already dead.[/b]
In reality, while the average life expectancy back then was low (mostly due to high infant mortality), plenty of people who made it past childhood lived into their 60s, 70s, and 80s (just look at Roman emperors or writers like Josephus).

If Jesus died in 33 CE, someone who was 20 years old at the time would only be 60 when Mark was written (70 CE) and 75 when Matthew/Luke were written (approx. 85 CE). They would be old, but very much alive. The Gospels were written precisely because the firsthand eyewitnesses were getting old and dying off, and the early church realized they needed to write the stories down before that generation completely vanished.


2. On "Literary Dependency" (Copying Mark)

You say, eyewitnesses wouldn't copy someone else's book word-for-word.
You are referring to Matthew copying Mark. It is fair to ask, why would Matthew (an apostle and eyewitness) copy Mark (who wasn't an eyewitness)?

The truth is that, in the ancient world, copying a trusted source wasn't considered lazy or fraudulent; it was a sign of respect. Early church tradition says Mark got his information straight from Peter, the leader of the apostles. If Matthew sat down to write his Gospel and already had access to a written record approved by Peter, it makes perfect sense that he would use Peter’s structure as his backbone and add his own unique eyewitness memories (like the Sermon on the Mount) to it.


3. On "Language and Culture Mismatches"

You argue that Aramaic fishermen couldn't write high-level Greek.
In reality, Galilee wasn't an isolated bubble; it was a bustling, bilingual trade hub. Everyone had to know some Greek to do business with Romans and Gentiles.

Even if the disciples themselves couldn't write beautiful literary Greek, they didn't have to. Ancient figures regularly used scribes (called amanuenses). St. Paul openly admits he used scribes to write his letters. Peter or John could have easily dictated their stories in Aramaic or rough Greek, while a highly educated scribe polished it into the fluent Greek we see today.


4. On "Omniscient Storytelling" (How did they know private scenes?)

You ask how the writers knew what Jesus prayed while alone in the Garden of Gethsemane, or what he said privately to Pontius Pilate.
But you forget that Jesus survived the garden, and Pilate’s trial was a semi-public political event.

This isn't magical omniscience; it's just basic interviewing. After Jesus rose from the dead, he spent 40 days with his disciples; he easily could have told them what he was praying in the garden. As for the private trial with Pilate, Roman trials had court recorders, guards, and officials present. Furthermore, the Gospels explicitly mention high-ranking people connected to the Roman court who became Christians (like Joanna, the wife of Herod’s manager), who would have had direct access to what happened inside the palace.


On "Contradictions"

You argue that differences in the stories (like who went to the tomb first) prove they are unreliable.
But in reality, slight variations in testimony are exactly what historians look for to prove a story isn't a coordinated lie.

If four people witness a car crash, they will give four different accounts. One might focus on the speed, another on the color of the car, and another on the street signs. If their stories matched word-for-word on every tiny detail, the police would immediately suspect they got together to fabricate an alibi. The Gospels agree on the core, massive historical facts (Jesus's life, ministry, crucifixion, and empty tomb), but differ on the peripheral details. To a historian, these "contradictions" actually prove the sources are independent and authentic, rather than a single, tightly controlled piece of corporate propaganda.

So even if we concede that the Gospels were not written by the Apostles or first-hand witnesses, I have earlier proven to you that much of accepted history was not written by eyewitnesses either. So why do you have a problem only with the gospels?


Remember, your 2 methods, right?
method 1: if the author is an eye witness to the story he is telling...and is affected by it...
method 2 if the person knows someone who is involved and personally interviews the person......


You have not been able to show that the writers did not meet Method 2. You should show that the gospels fail both of the standards you set.

Ken4Christ:
After all your ranting, you will still be judged by him.

Lol.....

You will still be judged by Thanos....he has all the infinity stones you know..