Is the Bible trustworthy

@whodey said
Scholars also seem to conclude that the author was anonymous, but given the time frame seems reasonable that the author could have easily been an eye witness.

"Could have easily been an eye witness"? Yeah, right.

@whodey said
Moreover, why do they seem to agree as closely as they do while not attempting to duplicate one another?

And this is supposed to be evidence of the writers being "eyewitnesses"?

@fmf said
"Could have easily been an eye witness"? Yeah, right.

What would motivate someone to write the gospel accounts?

Since you reject them, I assume you have a theory.

@whodey said
Lee Stroebal in his book "Case for Christ" is one man's attempt at analyzing the facts surrounding the resurrection, and through much study and reasoning, concluded that it occurred and was converted.

Christians converting to Islam and Muslims converting to Christianity is not evidence of either [1] writers of scriptures being eyewitnesses or [2] their writing being divinely inspired.

@kellyjay said
Have you watched her speak in the video?

No, but maybe later

@whodey said
What would motivate someone to write the gospel accounts?

Establishing a new religion that drew upon pagan beliefs, Hebrew beliefs and supposed prophecy, and on thoroughly Chinese-whispered-mythology surrounding someone who'd died several decades before.

@whodey said
No, but maybe later

You should she brings out a lot things about the historical and supernatural that I no idea about, very well thought out! I doubt those you are talking to will watch it they (many here) tend to shy away from things that may challenge them, with one or two exceptions.

@fmf said
Christians converting to Islam and Muslims converting to Christianity is not evidence of either [1] writers of scriptures being eyewitnesses or [2] their writing being divinely inspired.

Which account of the life of Jesus is more believable? Is it the book of Mark written 30 to 40 years after the death of Christ that could have been written by an eye witness, or a man named Mohammad that came some 500 years later that we all know could not have been there and with no other corroboration to it's accuracy like we have with the other gospels written by other people?

That is for you to decide.

@whodey said
Which account of the life of Jesus is more believable? Is it the book of Mark written 30 to 40 years after the death of Christ that could have been written by an eye witness, or a man named Mohammad that came some 500 years later that we all know could not have been there and with no other corroboration to it's accuracy like we have with the other gospels written by other people?

Mohammed's story and inspiration is no more or less convincing than Paul's. Neither of them is any more or less convincing than whoever it might have been who had the dream/vision that resulted in Revelation. I find no reason to believe any of them.

@kellyjay said
I doubt those you are talking to will watch it they (many here) tend to shy away from things that may challenge them, with one or two exceptions.

Yeah, sure KellyJay, like some of us here only started thinking about this issue 36 hours ago and thank goodness you found out that there is a YouTube clip about it.

@whodey said
What would motivate someone to write the gospel accounts?

Decades of 'Chinese whispers' passed on by all manner of people and groups, and sub-groups, all in many respects in competition with each other; dozens of other supposedly 'eye witness accounts' rejected; nothing completely finalized until literally hundreds of years later, when corporate Christianity had finally finessed its fastidiously assembled text.

I have no doubt that all manner of emotions and motivations and elements were in play: earnestness, hysteria, ambition, good-intentions, fervour, imagination, conjecture, melodrama, faulty memory, errors, omissions, assumptions, embellishments, fascination, zealotry, creativity and, yes, most likely deceit as well.

Countless people, over many,many years.

What's the upshot of 'survival of the fittest' when accounts of magical things are competing for the hearts and minds of potential subscribers?

@fmf said
Establishing a new religion that drew upon pagan beliefs, Hebrew beliefs and supposed prophecy, and on thoroughly Chinese-whispered-mythology surrounding someone who'd died several decades before.

Supposed prophecy? No, there is prophecy about a coming Messiah dated centuries prior. This is a fact. This is the basis of the faith.

The only question becomes, does Jesus fit the bill?

I started digging myself regarding the prophecies about Jesus. I first googled the term "Messiah" in the Bible, and surprisingly came up with very few hits, but one that did come up was Daniel 9:24-27. It is a calendar for the coming Messiah.

Upon further study I learned that rabbis who rejected Jesus as Messiah likewise concluded that this was a calendar for the coming Messiah and calculated it to point to the time of Christ. But since they rejected him, they concluded that the Messiah had simply decided to delay his coming. In the Talmud, they then also forbade laymen to calculate the date least they be deceived into believing Jesus as Messiah. In fact, one such rabbi, Leopold Cohn, was told to recite things as a rabbi, one of which was regarding the Messiah "tarrying" in his return. Out of curiosity, he asked what this meant and was directed to Daniel 9:24 but was told to not ask any more questions or he might be forced to give up his profession. But he did not relent and ended up forsaking everything he had in favor of the truth, and even moved to the US.

https://www.jewishtestimonies.com/en/leopold-cohn-the-quest-of-a-young-rabbi/

So to conclude, either the gospels were written to match the prophetic time frame that points to Jesus, it was just all made up, or the prophesy is correct.

I assume you would say it was all made up.

@fmf said
Decades of 'Chinese whispers' passed on by all manner of people and groups, and sub-groups, all in many respects in competition with each other; dozens of other supposedly 'eye witness accounts' rejected; nothing completely finalized until literally hundreds of years later, when corporate Christianity had finally finessed its fastidiously assembled text.

I have no doubt that ...[text shortened]... st' when accounts of magical things are competing for the hearts and minds of potential subscribers?

Let me ask you something, if Jesus were in front of you and raising people from the dead or healing them, would you believe in him or just assume it was all a ruse?

@fmf said
Mohammed's story and inspiration is no more or less convincing than Paul's. Neither of them is any more or less convincing than whoever it might have been who had the dream/vision that resulted in Revelation. I find no reason to believe any of them.

So a text that was written a few decades after the fact by a possible eye witness and corroborated by other texts written by other possible eye witnesses is no more believable than a text written by only one man 500 years after the fact?

Really?

@whodey said
Supposed prophecy?

Its incorporation is evidence of the very concoction I am talking about.