Posted by rpcman on August 20, 1999 at 19:12:27:
In Reply to: RE: G W posted by Rusty Lee on August 20, 1999 at 17:16:29:
: So the rules are such that the claims about Jesus and the claims he made of himself are inadmissable, that is, all the documentation we have available to us.
We have no claims made by Jesus himself.
: I'm not convinced the letters written by G W are his.
So you are selectively skeptical? You aren't the first.
: I've never seen one.
Have you tried?
: Is there some indisputable proof they are his?
Signatures and contemporary responses are pretty good proof.
: Certainly something like that could be faked, though I beleve we haven't been given good reason to believe that.
And that is the key point. Without a reason to think they are all fake and that the contemporary accounts are all a bunch of fabricated, conspiritical lies there isn't much reason to doubt.
: As far as contemporaries are concerned, the writings we have of Jesus are of his contemporaries, those who actually lived with him and those who knew the people that lived with him. By what criteria are G W's contemporaries writings admissable and the "synoptic gospels" less as proof?
The gospels weren't written by contemporaries. There is ample evidence that Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and that Mark wasn't written until after 70AD. There is even evidence that they relied on Paul's letters--meaning that Paul, a man who himself admits he never met Jesus, was a source for the accounts that were written to try and make is seem like contemporary accounts exist. The gospels are 40+ years after-the-fact hearsays at best.