Quote:
Originally Posted by kindlekitten
it's been exhaustively proven by NUMEROUS scholars over the years that the NT was NOT written by people who knew and/or around when the historical jesus walked the earth. indeed... most of the Gnostic scriptures (those that were tossed out) have more historically correct, and actual real time accounts are more realistic and accurate than those that show up in the NT. WT has, I believe provided several non-wiki links. have you looked at them?
|
You've just walked into the Fallacy of the Most (or in this case "numerous"). Who are these "numerous" scholars? And I would also admonish you to look up the difference between "evidence" and "proof." Now, which gnostic texts are you referring to specifically? What parts are "more correct" historically? (What does that even mean?) And what are "actual real time accounts," and how do we know these are more realistic and "accurate."
Your post is rife with terminology, but not a single citation to back it up.
As a counter, Matthew's gospel was cited by Ignatius, who
died around 107 AD (meaning the gospel existed prior to that and could easily have been an eyewitness account). The fall of the Temple is not mentioned in any gospel, something that would have bolstered accounts of Jesus' prophesy of that very event. This suggest that the gospels pre-dated 70AD. This is
evidence that these texts were written by either eye-witnesses, or people like Luke who likely documented the events from other eye-witnesses.
WT cited Ehrman, which I had read, and counter-cited Ehrman's mentor.
Crap, I said I didn't want to go down this road. My intent had been to illustrated that the Koran did not continue the tradition of Christianity. Talk about lost in the shuffle.
-Pie