Date:   8/23/2013 2:27:45 PM ( 12 y ago)
Hits:   2,631
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=2097749

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

You present nothing, absolutely nothing to counter the fact that the gospels are anonymous books. 

The majority of bible scholars and ministers now accept the fact that the gospel authors are anonymous.  They also accept that fact that many of the books attributed to Paul are forgeries.

However, there is that segment who struggle with their belief that the bible is inerrant - even though there are conflicts galore and rules they don't follow, that they have to grasp at straws to maintain their belief.  That the bible is inerrant has been the foundation of the church trying to control everyone else for centuries.

http://hwarmstrong.com/who-wrote-the-gospels.htm

WHO WROTE THE GOSPELS?

Introduction: Who Wrote The Gospels?

No one would trouble to ask such a question if it were not that all four of the biblical gospels are deliberately, even playfully, anonymous in their texts. The Third Gospel for example carefully names its audience, Theophilus ("Friend of God"--Luke 1:3), but never its author; while the last chapter of the Fourth Gospel takes great pains to identify the author of that work as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 21:7, 20), and then never tells us his name! The gospels are so anonymous that their titles, all second-century guesses, are all four wrong. Christians in the second century, possessing anonymous manuscripts and eager to give names to them, fastened upon four historical figures--the Apostles Matthew and John, Luke the "beloved physician" of Paul (Col. 4:14), and John Mark of Jerusalem, the "son" of Peter (Acts 12:12; I Peter 5:13). It's relatively easy to show that these identifications are imaginary and based on wishful thinking, and I will do so below. But that really is not the most amazing part: what still surprises is that, paradoxically, though the four gospels are anonymous they in fact tell us more about their authors than they do about their ostensible subject, the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

If the paragraph above surprises you, welcome to the ongoing debate; biblical scholarship is still chewing on the truly groundbreaking argument of Rudolf Bultmann, propounded some seventy years ago, that any gospel is a primary source for the historical situation out of which it arose, and is only a secondary source for the historical details concerning which it gives information. (Bultmann, 1960, 38)

That the gospels tell us more about the situations of their origin than about their subject is a disturbing idea, and remains controversial. As Robert Funk has recently put it:

Biblical scholars have not been able to make up their minds whether the biblical narratives are about real or fictive events. Or, if they are about both, which is which. The test is a simple one: did the events depicted as having taken place actually take place? Are the gospels essentially fiction or biography? (Funk, 1997, 179)........ (more at the site)

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=2097749