Why did the gospels take over a century to be written after the death of Jesus!?

They didn't. Don't get your documentary history of Scripture and textual criticism from PBS. That's rule #1. Matthew was written in the very early 40s. All of the Gospels were completed by AD 65.

Last Edited by anastasis888 on 12/29/2018 01:35 PM

Roman leaders spent the entire 290+ years between Christ's death and Constantine's supposed vision in 312 AD persecuting and killing Christians.

They had NO control etc...of the network of Christian churches that had been in existence since the apostles had begun establishing them after Christ's ascension.

Rome merely assimilated them, beginning with the Council of Nicea.

And just because the RCC LISTS popes before then....

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

....does NOT mean they were actually true Roman Catholic popes. Funny how pretty much ALL the supposed popes PRIOR to the proclamation of the Edict of Milan in 313 were killed.

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Killed by WHO?

Roman leaders.

Polycarp was an old man, 86, when he was martyred around 160A.D., and the last surviving person to have known an apostle, St. John. "Since you are vainly urgent as you say, I should swear by the fortune of Caesar, and pretend not to know who and what I am, hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian!" The Christian History Institute website has more information about Polycarp.

ever tried to read a bunch of stones on the toilet?

Acts of the Apostles was the latest of the Lukan histical narratives of the life of Christ. Luke ends with Paul's imprisonment in AD 65. Paul was beheaded and martyred under orders of Nero in AD 68. Therefore, all of the Gospels were completed by AD 65. John had already been banished to Patmos after the fire at Circus Maximus in the summer of 64.

The idea that the Gospels were written a century after the historical Jesus is pure leftist revisionist history and propaganda designed to undermine the four witnesses. It's total garbage and just the sort of flakey, leftist blather that would make PBS all tingley.

What makes you think they did?

You cite non-believers to justify not believing.



Which one of the Gospels mentions the destruction of the Temple and Israel and the Jews by the Romans in 70 ad?

That's right. Not one of them.

Don't you think someone would have mentioned that

unless they were all written well-before that...



even though you don't have any 2000 year-old paper copies remaining.

Duh.


You seek only to justify your own refusal to believe.

Last Edited by shoeshy on 12/29/2018 01:48 PM

OP had to remember that not everyone can read and write in the old days. It is the few rich nobles who can read and write.

Most of the New Testament writers never met or saw Jesus in their lives. They lived many years after Jesus left the Earth. They wouldn’t have known Jesus of Nazareth if they walked into him on the street.

But...

The Bible writers were great believers and great historians. They took the stories which had been passed down to them and to their friends by others— elders—from elder to elder, until finally a written record was made. And not everything of the Bible authors was included in the final document. Already “churches” had sprung up around the teachings of Jesus—and, as happens whenever and wherever people gather in groups around a powerful idea, there were certain individuals within these churches, or enclaves, who determined what parts of the Jesus Story were going to be told—and how. This process of selecting and editing continued throughout the gathering, writing, and publishing of the gospels, and the Bible. Even several centuries after the original scriptures were committed to writing, a High Council of the Church determined yet one more time which doctrines and truths were to be included in the then-official Bible—and which would be “unhealthy” or “premature” to reveal to the masses. And there have been other holy scriptures as well—each placed in writing in moments of inspiration by otherwise ordinary men, none of whom were any more crazy than you.

<1% Conversations With God, Vol 1

Some have asked why Luke never wrote a third part to his historical narrative of 1st century church history. It's because he never got the chance. A great persecution broke out in Rome and Nero went mad, having burnt down half of Rome and blaiming it on the Christians. John was banished to Patmos and Paul was locked in a Roman dungeon with chains. Luke had been with the church of Rome to see to Paul and help send out the last of his letters to Timothy and Titas. But in AD 65 there was a great shift. The church at Jerusalem had to make the great flight into Pela shortly before Jerusalem had become completely surrounded at Passover of AD 67. Titas Vespasian was sent to muster his legions in the winter of 66.

Luke never got the chance to write a third part to his narrative, for he himself fled Rome and was martyred not too long after.

Last Edited by anastasis888 on 12/29/2018 01:58 PM

Any decent Historian will agree that Jesus existed.
His existence is better documented that of the Roman emperors or other notable persons of that era. Most of which evidence is more than 100 years removed from the time in which they supposedly lived, but who questions that? No one!

In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but no one in the ancient world questioned whether or not Jesus lived.

We have 3 major religions that all believe in his existence.
Judaism, who says he was a heretic and that they crucified him
Christianity that says he is the Son of God.
Islam that believes he was a Prophet of God.
We have all of their writings

We Have 3 Roman sources, Josephus, Pliny ans Tacitus, that all talk of his existence.
He is also mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud.
Then there are tons of Archaeological finds that supplement and verify the above sources, in relation to the existence of Jesus.

So if there is any fakery or mental illness, it is on your part, in not believing in his existence.
Not in dis-believing the Religious claims about him, that is a matter of Faith, which you do not have and can not be blamed for.
Yet in disparaging other peoples beliefs in him is another matter.

Last Edited by The Dr. on 12/29/2018 02:08 PM

The question is not whether he existed or not, it's whether the 4th century empire's newly crafted state run religion legitimately represented what Christ was about, said religion being the one we have today in various forms.

"never met or saw Jesus"?

No PROOF. Pure speculation.

Stop worshiping Bart Ehrman

"Conversations With God"?

Utter nonsense.

Why did it take 200 years to write down the "prophecies" and life story of the desert robber called Mohammed? Because it was politically expedient, that's why.

If there were no question, there would not be so many denominations of Christianity.

My point is that the NT is missing a lot of material ;)

Denomination's are due to different interpretations of its meaning or just false regions loosely based upon the New Testament.
And NO, the New Testament is not missing a lot of material.

The major difference here is in belief:
If There is a God and he chose to reveal himself to mankind, then mankind would not be allowed to obliterate the original message.(one can not stop or defy a true "God" or go against his will, if you could then he would not be a "God".)
People could make other versions of it, but the main, original message would remain and be the most common version. Which indeed it is. His message is clear, we are sinners, in need of a Savior. Which is found in Jesus, His son.

Since the New Testament message today both aligns with and confirms the Old Testament message, then to believers that is all the proof that is needed.
Yet to those that do not believe, even the personal appearance of God himself to them personally, verifying the message, would not persuade them to believe in him or the Bible.

However those individuals denying the historical evidence and facts that can be humanly verified, about the texts accuracy and the historical fact of Jesus' existence, is just foolishness.

Your word against the Holy One?.

And you mean Neale Donald Walsch?.

Acts 2:38

If Bible God appeared and said he was still in charge and planned to start enforcing everything in the Bible, I’d ask to be transferred to another planet, or go into hiding.

What if Allah and Mohammed appeared to you, would you then believe in and follow the Koran?

Oh I don't know, since allah is just arabic for God, and that religion is an offshoot of christianity/judaism, I can only assume that said god is the same god, eh? I mean to think otherwise would be pretty stupid, right?

Watch, I shall make them all appear to you:

God is not a man, therefore any man telling you he is God should not be believed.

1st century image of Jesus?
[link to i.imgur.com (secure)]

[link to i.imgur.com (secure)]

Ever heard of Moses? (peace be unto him). And God do communicate by thought.


You are, as Moses was, an earnest seeker. Moses too, as do you now, stood before Me, begging for answers. “Oh, God of My Fathers,” he called. “God of my God, deign to show me. Give me a sign, that I may tell my people! How can we know that we are chosen?” And I came to Moses, even as I have come to you now, with a divine covenant—an everlasting promise—a sure and certain commitment. “How can I be sure?” Moses asked plaintively. “Because I have told you so,” I said. “You have the Word of God.” And the Word of God was not a commandment, but a covenant.

<1% Conversations With God, Vol 1

Bullshit.
Internal evidence in the text of Matthew indicates it was written before 70 AD, that of Mark is probably even earlier.
Luke was probably written soon after the destruction of the Temple, and Johns Gospel during the reign of Domitian.

Any decent Historian will agree that Jesus existed.
His existence is better documented that of the Roman emperors or other notable persons of that era. Most of which evidence is more than 100 years removed from the time in which they supposedly lived, but who questions that? No one!

In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but no one in the ancient world questioned whether or not Jesus lived.

We have 3 major religions that all believe in his existence.
Judaism, who says he was a heretic and that they crucified him
Christianity that says he is the Son of God.
Islam that believes he was a Prophet of God.
We have all of their writings

We Have 3 Roman sources, Josephus, Pliny ans Tacitus, that all talk of his existence.
He is also mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud.
Then there are tons of Archaeological finds that supplement and verify the above sources, in relation to the existence of Jesus.

So if there is any fakery or mental illness, it is on your part, in not believing in his existence.
Not in dis-believing the Religious claims about him, that is a matter of Faith, which you do not have and can not be blamed for.
Yet in disparaging other peoples beliefs in him is another matter.
[/quote


Jesus seems to be a real human, just as we all are. He may be the very best human to have ever lived--he taught us how to love. Four Gospel writers, who never met Jesus, decided they needed to make a human into a God in order to start their own new religion.

John 1:18

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

How does this even make sense!?

Exodus 33:11 King James Version (KJV)
11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

So one of them is not telling the truth. The great Moses or the unknown John!? I know who id trust first.

Last Edited by Warrior Spirit on 12/29/2018 05:01 PM

where does it say that?

Exodus not truthful. You must remember that Exodus was taken from the book of Moses.

The Lord spake unto Moses by thought.

Here another:

The story of Moses was well-known and important to Suddi since he was a master and a teacher of the Torah, which contained the Laws of Moses. I obtained many pieces of this story during three different sessions. I have combined them together and they fit very well. They contain more strange differences than any other Bible story that I received from Suddi, different yet quite plausible. Even from the beginning it was not like our Biblical version. We have been taught from Sunday School the story of the baby Moses being born of a Hebrew woman and hidden in the basket in the bulrushes until the daughter of Pharaoh found him and raised him as her own child in the palace. The following is the story as Suddi told it.

S: His mother was princess in Egypt.
D: We have heard the story that he was born to a Hebrew woman.
S: No! He was born to a Hebrew father. (His voice showed aggravation.) This was the story that was circulated around in later years, to protect her from a Hebrew child and a Hebrew father. Moses was the son of the daughter of Pharaoh.
D: Why was this something they had to cover up?
S: Because at that time the Hebrews were all slaves in Egypt. Though Moses was of noble descent, 'tis said that he was of the House of Joseph, (pronounced: Yoseph) he was again of a Hebrew slave in Egypt. I think the story was for her protection, that it was said thatthe child was found. It was said that he was found from the river in aboat of rushes. It is not the truth.
D: He was raised in the house of Pharaoh? Did anything happen later that made him leave? According to the Bible story, after he was grown he accidentally became a murderer. When the Pharaoh discovered this, he wanted to slay Moses, but Moses fled into the wilderness to escape his wrath. Again Suddi's version disagreed.
S: He was not made to leave. He discovered that his father was a slave. And his father being a slave, he also was slave. And said that he would live with his people. It was part of the training that was to stand him to good, so that he would be able to withstand what was to face him.
D: Our stories seem to be a little different. We've heard that he went out into the wilderness.
S: He was sent into the wilderness for daring to love princess Neferteri, who was to be the wife of Pharaoh. For this he was sent into the wilderness. This was after he decided to become a slave. If he was still Prince Moses, he would not have been sent into the wilderness. Rameses knew that Neferteri loved Moses and was jealous. Therefore he decided that to send one into the desert was to kill one. Therefore he believed he had done away with Moses. He did not know that the hand of Yahweh was on him.
D: How did he learn of his destiny if he was in the wilderness? (I was thinking of our story of God speaking to him from the burning bush.)
S: I do not know! I was not there! I have heard that he was visited by angels. I have heard that he just opened himself up to his inner being. There are many stories. I believe a lot of it had to do with... he just could not stand it. He was free and happy and his people were slaves in Egypt.
D:Our story says something about a burning bush.
S: I have heard of this one saying that God visited him as a burning bush. (sigh) It sounds rather strange to me. Why would God burn one of his own bushes in order to gain attention of a mere mortal? Would he not just say, "I am Yahweh, you will listen to me?" I believe that He spoke to Moses' soul and Moses listened. Some people have it very difficult believing that someone can hear God inside. They must have some outward expression to say, "Yes, God has spoken to me". To hear God one must just open the heart and He is there, in every breath and every moment. One must just listen.

<1% Jesus And The Essenes - Dolores Cannon

And here another wisdom: Burning Bush.

Everything is said to be a fake or forgery nowadays, that pertains to Jesus etc, but are they??? Who really knows?

[link to i.imgur.com (secure)]
[link to i.imgur.com (secure)]

Last Edited by ChorleyCake on 12/29/2018 06:22 PM