Did the gospel writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John meet Jesus?

I know the Jesus that we atheists know is most likely just a myth but I would like to find out if, and only if, Jesus did exist (the man, not the god that did miracles) would these gospel writers have actually met him? I saw a youtube video (not entirely sure which one it was) that was showing someone from the Islamic religion debunking the Christian religion. He said that none of them had ever met Jesus as they only wrote the gospel 40-80 years after Jesus' supposed death.

Can anyone verify this for me, it would be an interesting point to make when arguing with a christian.

Views: 25597

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I like that chart!

There is also the interesting fact that NO outside contemporary sources exist for major events such as the trial and crucifiction, the sermon on the mount, or any of the "healing" miracles.

There were many literate Romans and Jews living, and writing detailed histories, in Palestine during those 30+ critical years, who don't mention Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua at all.  Not even a scrap of a note to the "folks back home."  Anyone joining Julius Caesar's Legions was either already literate or taught to read and write before they left winter camp.  I don't know whether Augustus and/or Tiberius kept that up or not, but the Romans were a chatty culture, and they did "write home."

There is NO mention of a massive earthquake powerful enough to open graves.....it would have had to have a seven-pointer at least, and would have leveled Jerusalem and nearby towns COMPLETELY. Somebody should have noticed.  I live in SoCal; and we bloody well felt the Loma Prieta quake near San Francisco.  We certainly felt the 1994 Northridge quake that cost us several large sections of concrete-and-steel freeway bridges in our distant back yard.  And so on.

NO mention of a solar eclipse taking place at that time....it would have been physically impossible if the "last supper" was a Seder.  Passover/Easter takes place during a full moon, and when the moon is full it's on the opposite side of the earth from the sun. Ergo no eclipse would have been possible.

Turning water into wine and walking on Lake Galilee are circus tricks to fool the marks.

And so on......

Turning water into wine and walking on Lake Galilee are circus tricks to fool the marks. 

And, the stories of these cheap tricks are still fooling the marks to this day.

And the carnies keep coming up with new (improved!) versions.

L. Ron Hubbard (or Elron) spoke to many of his contemporaries about the "Path to Megabucks" was to invent you own religion years before he started Dianetics.  They got in trouble for practicing psychiatry without a license, so he turned it into a "church," 

There was another parasite named Tony Alamo who tried to do the same thing in the Los Angeles area..Got thrown out of his own compound and moved his group to either Nevada or Arizona.

"There were many literate Romans and Jews living, and writing detailed histories, in Palestine during those 30+ critical years"

Sorry dude, but that's bullshit.

We have a few texts of a few writers during the relevant decades. Sadly, almost none of them amount to detailed histories: most mention a few relevant events at best.

The only work that could qualify as a detailed history of the period, are Flavius Josephus' works "Antiquities" and the "Jewish War". When it comes to most characters of the era and preachers similar to Jesus (like the Egyptian prophet or Theudas), Josephus is basically the only person who writes about them.

Not surprisingly, he also mentions Jesus. Twice, though one reference has clearly been tampered with. Jesus Myth enthusiasts do a lot of work to get around this, but the fact is that there's only one historian who should have mentioned Jesus, and that's Josephus.

I don't know whether Augustus and/or Tiberius kept that up or not, but the Romans were a chatty culture, and they did "write home."

Maybe. Maybe not. But barely any of those letters have survived to us, so doesn't really matter either way. And it can't be used as an argument.

Also the earthquake and the solar eclipse are clearly literary additions to the story, and are something entirely different from whether there was a historical Jesus or not.

I'm NOT a "dude"!  Thankyouveddymuch.

Good for you. Rather hard to guess from the cat picture either way.

Also doesn't change how what you said was wrong, thank you very much.

The problems presented by Biblical criticism are enormous—no original manuscripts exist, only copies of copies, and there are over 5000 manuscripts of New Testament texts. Some of the earliest texts were written by the apostle Paul, who had more influence over Christianity than Christ himself, but who never saw Christ or heard a word he preached.

The canon of the New Testament was not decided until the fourth century. There is little mention of the gospels by other authors until late in the second century. The whole thing is a gigantic mess, which makes profitable work for scholars, but does not provide any clear theology. Many early Christologies were later ruled heretical—showing that the problem of correctly interpreting manuscripts has persisted since ancient times. In addition scholars and theologians have invented explanations for all the anomalies.

It is generally considered that the distilled essence of Jesus's teaching is contained in the Sermon on the Mount, occupying over a hundred verses in Matthew, less than thirty in Luke, and not appearing in Mark at all. What's more, Luke has it taking place on a plain, not on a mount. The customary answer to these variations is that the gospels were written for different purposes and that the writers consequently chose different items to illustrate their purpose.

There's the same type of problem with the Qur'an; written entirely in Arabic, with no vowels, diacritical marks, or punctuation.

Sorta like the title of one of my favorite liittle reference books:

I used to be called Wombat.

Because a wombat:

Eats, Roots & Leaves!

If you know what to root means in Australia, you'll get it.

:-D~

Not to be confused with "rutting" I take it. Remember the Ruttles?

LOL

Rutting?

Isn't that foreplay with inanimate objects?

:-D~

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service