re: Does anyone actually believe this

Yeah I read where you posted that earlier and meh. What is the point in trying to change your mind? I can't do it because your mind is already made up. Call it a platitude if you wish but it's not worth my time. Oh and btw you aren't going to change mine either.

quote:

---

Yeah I read where you posted that earlier and meh.

---

An understandable response.

quote:

---

What is the point in trying to change your mind? I can't do it because your mind is already made up.

---

It's inconclusive, although I think the evidence is lacking. If the best shot anyone can take is: "Well we'd have to discount other historical figures", I think that's appropriate for the son of God.

quote:

---

Call it a platitude if you wish but it's not worth my time. Oh and btw you aren't going to change mine either.

---

I was told my mind is already made up and then stumble upon this little highlighted gem.

The difference is I believe in what I've seen work in my life and I have evidence to my satisfaction that while I may not understand it there is something to it. Maybe I could have stated it better but I don't write well so sue me.

quote:

---

The only writer that's historical is Peter, The rest are anonymous

---

Do you actually think the rest of the writers of the Bible, other than Peter, were anonymous? This is the sort of thing that makes talking to you not worth someone's time.

quote:

---

The only writer that's historical is Edit: Paul (Sorry), I think (And that one is a long shot).

---

You are correct, I used the wrong word, repudiate. I shouldn't type in a hurry.

There are several authors included in the Bible, as well as writing from others during the 1st century.

Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, and the Babylonian Talmud all speak of the evidence and teachings of Jesus, and they were not Christians. But they did know the Truth.

As far as showing you something of merit, there is plenty of physical evidence around today of Jesus existence and the world during His day. It really all boils down to what you or I choose to believe, doesn't it?

quote:

---

Do you actually think the rest of the writers of the Bible, other than Peter, were anonymous? This is the sort of thing that makes talking to you not worth someone's time.

---

I mistakenly put Peter but it's Paul who has most of the support.

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle.

The Gospel According to Mark (Greek: t? ?at? ?????? e?a???????, to kata Markon euangelion), the second book of the New Testament, is one of the four canonical gospels and the three synoptic gospels. It was traditionally thought to be an epitome (summary) of Matthew, which accounts for its place as the second gospel in the Bible, but most contemporary scholars now regard it as the earliest of the gospels. Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

The author is traditionally identified as Luke the Evangelist. Modern scholarship generally rejects the view that Luke was the original author,[8] with the most that could be said being that Lukan authorship is "not impossible".

The authorship of the Johannine works (the Gospel of John, Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation) has been debated by scholars since at least the 2nd century AD. The main debate centers on who authored the writings, and which of the writings, if any, can be ascribed to a common author.
Many modern scholars conclude that the apostle John wrote none of these works.

This is the sort of thing that makes talking to you not worth my time.

quote:

---

The only writer that's historical is Edit: Paul (Sorry), I think (And that one is a long shot). The rest are anonymous and appeared to have somewhat copied each other. Hardly historical.

---

I see you've edited it but, in the same, do you actually think the rest of the writers of the Bible, other than now Paul, were anonymous? This is mind-boggling to me.

quote:

---

The only writer that's historical is Edit: Paul (Sorry), I think (And that one is a long shot). The rest are anonymous and appeared to have somewhat copied each other.

---

You realize the canon of the bible is made up of much more than the 6 books you've just cited, right? Of the 66 books of the bible, there are 39 identified authors. Geez dude, at least try to not say something completely wrong. shite!

quote:

---

Read above, I just showed you that at least four of them.

---

You just showed me that at least four of them what? Finish your sentence. And citing "Modern scholars" doesn't mean the consensus thought of who authored the gospels is wrong. Especially when you don't even mention by name any modern scholars. Judging from the citation number, I'd say you quoted Wikipedia once again.

quote:

---

You realize the canon of the bible is made up of much more than the 6 books you've just cited, right? Of the 66 books of the bible, there are 39 identified authors. Geez dude, at least try to not say something completely wrong. shite!

---

Alright, I'll go ahead and go through the rest if you wish. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are just the, you know.

The Gospels. Which talk about Jesus

While the precise identity of the author is debated, the consensus is that this work was composed by a (Koine) Greek-speaking Gentile writing for an audience of Gentile Christians. -- Luke-Acts

Colossians, Ephesians, Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews are all in dispute.

The author of First Timothy has been traditionally identified as the Apostle Paul. He is named as the author of the letter in the text (1:1). Nineteenth and twentieth century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not original to Paul, but rather an unknown Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd century. Many scholars now affirm this view.

Most modern critical scholars argue that 2 Timothy was not written by Paul but by an anonymous follower, after Paul's death in the First Century.

Scholars are not unanimous about the authenticity of the pastoral epistles. Titus is usually one of the three Pastoral epistles attributed to Paul. Titus has a very close affinity with 1 Timothy, sharing similar phrases and expressions and similar subject matter. While these epistles are traditionally attributed to Paul the Apostle, there are a few scholars who consider them pseudepigraphical. (Disputed)

The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is unknown. Traditionally, Paul the Apostle was thought to be the author, but most modern scholars generally agree that it was not written by him.

There are four views concerning the Epistle of James:

that the letter was written by James before the Pauline Epistles,
that the letter was written by James after the Pauline Epistles,
that the letter is pseudonymous,
that the letter comprises material originally from James but reworked by a later editor. -- Protip: No one knows for sure.

The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1). Although the text identifies Peter as its author the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter has led many scholars to conclude that this letter is pseudonymous. Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author of this letter because the author had to have a formal education in rhetoric/philosophy and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language.

(Second Epistle of Peter)Raymond E Brown and Bart Ehrman, among others, state that most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, and consider the epistle pseudepigraphical. Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.

The debate has continued over the author's identity as the apostle, the brother of Jesus, both, or neither. Some scholars have argued that since the author of that letter has not identified himself as an apostle and actually refers to the apostles as a third party, he cannot be identified with the Jude who is listed as one of the Twelve. (Jude)

More recent methods of scholarship, such as textual criticism, have been influential in suggesting that John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos were three separate individuals. Differences in style, theological content, and familiarity with Greek between the Gospel of John, the epistles of John, and the Revelation are seen by some scholars as indicating three separate authors. (Revelation)

If I missed some, let me know.

Edit: For the copy and paste remark, would you have just accepted it on face value if I said they didn't have authors?

Holy frick, you didn't?

Come on, Stacked, get off my dick.