Most scholars believe that Matthew, Luke and John were NOT eyewitnesses.
Scholars believe that Mark could have been an eyewitness for some of his gospel, and almost certainly had some of the information passed to him who saw it first hand; overall, it is considered one of the most reliable primary sources of information of the canonical gospels.
Well I suppose that is a common argument around about the Gospels, so it's hardly surprising if a BBC presenter uses them. The constestant made a fair job of defending the Christian position.
Hardly an attack. He just questioned them. Are christians so sensitive they call a few questions an attack? What are they so scared of? Reason is always the enemy of religion, it's just theists are used to being able to to burn people who dare even question them.
"lestai" is the word thought of in the bible to describe the "thieves", the crucified prisoners next to JC, but the word is a Roman translated word into Greek, and it means "Rebel". Crucifixion is the traditional punishment for rebellion.
The gospels are a totally fictitious account of the execution of people rebellious to the Rule of Roman law.
Stoning would have been used by the local Jews as punishment for thieves and heretics.
stoning was used. Jesus was stoned for claiming to be God. Romans were the law of the land so crucifiction was used instead. why is that so ficticious
forzaitalia2Yes, the Romans could have any one killed for any reason, this was a police state & you would not even get a trial. That trial was a description of a Plebeians in Rome. They wouldn't give a flying fck if some one said they were god (gods) people did it all the time. Only if JC was some one calling for the over throw of the Roman state would the Romans be interested. They let the Jews get on with stuff.
Heresy was not a crime in Roman law, especially if it was to a foriegn God.
How did she 'own' him, exactly? She asks why one shouldn't believe all four different eyewitness accounts of the same event. Perhaps, Catherine, because they're different?! "It was a cat" - "It was a dog" - "I believe it was both".
And Humphreys is right; Luke would say that, wouldn't he? I've just discovered that you, forzaitalia2, have stolen £1000 from me. I have, of course, investigated it very carefully, and I'm a very thorough historian.
they are different accounts of the same event because they are from different people. there is no 'Jesus walked to the left' - 'Jesus walked to the right' - 'Jesus didnt walk' if they are from differnt people...its natural thing are going to be described differently
I'm not contesting what was written in the Gospels. I'm taking issue with Catherine's logic. She didn't say 'separate' accounts. You can have separate accounts that are in consensus. She said 'different' accounts.
@forzaitalia2 Yes there are. There were two angels at the tomb. There was only one angel at the tomb. Jesus said nothing, not a word, at his trial. But another account tells us he said, "For this cause came I into the world." The color of Jesus' sash change depending on the account. Judas hanged himself, but another account tells us he threw himself off a cliff. Tell us, how many angels were there at the empty tomb? Please set the record straight.
@Brainbuster1000 thanks for coment. yes your right, mathew & mark account for 1 angel. luke and John for 2 angels. however your point concludes that the bible scriptures have not been changed otherwise they would have fixed that little oversight. why did Jesus say nothing at his trial? what verse? i have John 18:33-38. Mathew 27:3-8 tells HOW judas died. acts 1:16-19 tells only tells us that he fell but not the means of his death. he died by hanging
And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marveled greatly.
Matthew wrote "Matthew" & was one of the 12, a direct eye witness. History links John Mark to "Mark" though the gospel does not bear his name. Mark was regarded by Peter as his son, 1 Peter 5v13 and it seems Peter dictated his gospel to Mark. Mark took a long time over checking out the facts, approx 60 years; he clearly wanted to be accurate and must have interviewed a great many others. Marks gospel can be considered a collection of direct eyewitness accounts which he merely administrated.
2 Luke was a close associate of Paul in his ministry, Acts 16v10. The language and structure of Luke reveal a man of excellent education with a Greek world view and superb literary ability. He is referred to in Colossians 4 v 14 as a doctor and he takes a keen interest in many medical miracles in his writing.
3 He probably wrote his gospel as a result of investigating the accounts of eyewitnesses and realising they had not been recorded in an orderly account Luke 1 v 3, as much of the Bible is not. Luke 1 v 3 says It seemed good and desirable to me, [and so I have determined] also after having searched out diligently and followed all things closely and traced accurately the course from the highest to the minutest detail from the very first, ...
4 ... from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus Amplified Bible. Therefore, Luke, like Mark, collected eyewitness accounts, carefully cross referencing them and checking them and both gospels are therefore eyewitness accounts, not from 2 witnesses but from a great many and thoroughly checked out.
John was a direct eye witness to Christs ministry, and referred to himself as being especially close to Him in John 13v23. Mark 1 v 19 tells us that John was the brother of James and he was a fisherman by trade. John was probably the nephew of Mary the mother of Jesus Matthew 27 v 56. While on the cross, Jesus committed his mother, Mary into the care of John and vice versa, John 19 v 25-27.
6 LOL. Historians record that John settled near Ephesus in modern day Turkey at Selcuk where the remnants of St Johns Basilica endure. Mary is buried nearby. This gives evidence to John having the benefit of recoding all that Mary knew of Christ prior to his birth; her miraculous conception, John the Baptist etc and John the friend of Andrew was probably a disciple of John the Baptist also.
7 Two matters are especially outstanding about the gospels.
1.That Jesus predicted the sacking of Jerusalem with incredible accuracy and that the gospels were written before this event took place. Wikkipedia provides an excellent account of this.
2.That Matthews gospel should be the first in the New Testament canon, opening with the phrase The book of the ancestry or genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Compare with Genesis 5 v 1 This is the book (the written record, the history) of the generations of the offspring of Adam. There is much more to say of this but insufficient time here.
Wow, John, does that mean that mean that the next time a contestant comes on to answer on the Works of Shakespeare, you'll ask if the contestant really believes He wrote them all ? Would Magnas have done this sort of thing? What a way to un-nerve an contestant before they start!
There is actually controversy about whether Shakespeare did write all the plays credited to him. But in any case no-one has ever created a religion based on his works.
True. They are plays and don't attempt to be anything else. But there are also other great works which are taken as History. The works of Plato, The Annals of Julias Ceaser. But there is 100's of years between the actual events and the oldest copies in existantance. But there is no question that they are History. But The Bible? In some cases it's not even decades but the consensious is they can't be trusted to be accurate copies! Still as a quiz master, does he have the place to comment?
Oh, come on, that's hardly an attack. It was a valid question put to the woman who is supposedly an expert in the Gospels (she must be if she's on Mastermind). She said they were eyewitness statements but then went on to say that only Matthew might have seen some of it (as Humphries suggested), Mark transcribed what Peter had preached.
He also did not slate the Gospels he asked a pertinent question.
It does seem that any comment about the Bible is an attack. It isn't.
Did anyone see John Humphries introduce a debate at Oxford Univeristy with an American Evangelist (first name Lane I think?). He was so completely biased towards the atheist it was funny!
Stop whining...
Simpleton450 2 months ago
70% of mankind are not christian, so it follows that 70% of scholars would reject the gospels in favour of their own religious texts.
ArchhereticK 5 months ago
Most scholars believe that Matthew, Luke and John were NOT eyewitnesses.
Scholars believe that Mark could have been an eyewitness for some of his gospel, and almost certainly had some of the information passed to him who saw it first hand; overall, it is considered one of the most reliable primary sources of information of the canonical gospels.
Does this woman REALLY know her stuff?
ziggydamaestro 5 months ago
Well I suppose that is a common argument around about the Gospels, so it's hardly surprising if a BBC presenter uses them. The constestant made a fair job of defending the Christian position.
thelyniezian 9 months ago
Mary Whitehouse tried her best to change the bbc but they are bised and theres a youtube channel about bbc bias!
nettieheartful 1 year ago
Well it was better with magnus magnusun and the bbc programmes have gone downhill over the years!
nettieheartful 1 year ago
She didn't Pass...
Iain1962 1 year ago
And why not believe all the gospels, then? How do Christians go about determining the four ones are right?
That's hardly an attack, in any case.
TurveLieju 1 year ago
Humprhys had better start watching his tongue if he wants it to stay in his mouth
PandaDelight 1 year ago
@PandaDelight
Is that to be taken literally or is it a metaphor?
weavehole 1 year ago
I don't mind religious people, but I do get annoyed when they argue over which version of KingSpaceMonkey we ought to pray to.
Widmerpool99 1 year ago 3
typical religious nutjobs looking to be offended
joemufc2 1 year ago 5
Hardly an attack. He just questioned them. Are christians so sensitive they call a few questions an attack? What are they so scared of? Reason is always the enemy of religion, it's just theists are used to being able to to burn people who dare even question them.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago 4
eyewitness accounts in the bible amount to eyewitness accounts of a whale in moby dick
espyd21c 1 year ago
The BBC would not treat a Muslim in the same way and would defiantly not try to ridicule the reliability of the Quran.
WinstonSmith46 1 year ago
@WinstonSmith46 Oh, grow up.
Brainbuster1000 1 year ago
@WinstonSmith46
Perhaps the Quran SHOULD be questioned?
I hardly think a pertinent question can be considered as ridicule...
ziggydamaestro 5 months ago
"lestai" is the word thought of in the bible to describe the "thieves", the crucified prisoners next to JC, but the word is a Roman translated word into Greek, and it means "Rebel". Crucifixion is the traditional punishment for rebellion.
The gospels are a totally fictitious account of the execution of people rebellious to the Rule of Roman law.
Stoning would have been used by the local Jews as punishment for thieves and heretics.
LouisPlume 2 years ago
@LouisPlume
stoning was used. Jesus was stoned for claiming to be God. Romans were the law of the land so crucifiction was used instead. why is that so ficticious
forzaitalia2 2 years ago
forzaitalia2Yes, the Romans could have any one killed for any reason, this was a police state & you would not even get a trial. That trial was a description of a Plebeians in Rome. They wouldn't give a flying fck if some one said they were god (gods) people did it all the time. Only if JC was some one calling for the over throw of the Roman state would the Romans be interested. They let the Jews get on with stuff.
Heresy was not a crime in Roman law, especially if it was to a foriegn God.
LouisPlume 2 years ago
superb Catherine. owned him big time. all he could repy is ' well he would say that wouldnt he '
forzaitalia2 2 years ago
@forzaitalia2
How did she 'own' him, exactly? She asks why one shouldn't believe all four different eyewitness accounts of the same event. Perhaps, Catherine, because they're different?! "It was a cat" - "It was a dog" - "I believe it was both".
And Humphreys is right; Luke would say that, wouldn't he? I've just discovered that you, forzaitalia2, have stolen £1000 from me. I have, of course, investigated it very carefully, and I'm a very thorough historian.
constablejohn 2 years ago
@constablejohn
they are different accounts of the same event because they are from different people. there is no 'Jesus walked to the left' - 'Jesus walked to the right' - 'Jesus didnt walk' if they are from differnt people...its natural thing are going to be described differently
forzaitalia2 2 years ago
@forzaitalia2
I'm not contesting what was written in the Gospels. I'm taking issue with Catherine's logic. She didn't say 'separate' accounts. You can have separate accounts that are in consensus. She said 'different' accounts.
constablejohn 2 years ago
@forzaitalia2 Yes there are. There were two angels at the tomb. There was only one angel at the tomb. Jesus said nothing, not a word, at his trial. But another account tells us he said, "For this cause came I into the world." The color of Jesus' sash change depending on the account. Judas hanged himself, but another account tells us he threw himself off a cliff. Tell us, how many angels were there at the empty tomb? Please set the record straight.
Brainbuster1000 1 year ago
@Brainbuster1000 thanks for coment. yes your right, mathew & mark account for 1 angel. luke and John for 2 angels. however your point concludes that the bible scriptures have not been changed otherwise they would have fixed that little oversight. why did Jesus say nothing at his trial? what verse? i have John 18:33-38. Mathew 27:3-8 tells HOW judas died. acts 1:16-19 tells only tells us that he fell but not the means of his death. he died by hanging
forzaitalia2 1 year ago
@forzaitalia2 Matthew 27:12-14
And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marveled greatly.
Brainbuster1000 1 year ago
@forzaitalia2 Actually most religious scholars believe that Judas disembowelled himself in "The Field Of Blood".
ziggydamaestro 5 months ago
Lol she 0wned him
redmattuk 2 years ago
Comment removed
pigsbishop99 2 years ago
Matthew wrote "Matthew" & was one of the 12, a direct eye witness. History links John Mark to "Mark" though the gospel does not bear his name. Mark was regarded by Peter as his son, 1 Peter 5v13 and it seems Peter dictated his gospel to Mark. Mark took a long time over checking out the facts, approx 60 years; he clearly wanted to be accurate and must have interviewed a great many others. Marks gospel can be considered a collection of direct eyewitness accounts which he merely administrated.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
2 Luke was a close associate of Paul in his ministry, Acts 16v10. The language and structure of Luke reveal a man of excellent education with a Greek world view and superb literary ability. He is referred to in Colossians 4 v 14 as a doctor and he takes a keen interest in many medical miracles in his writing.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
3 He probably wrote his gospel as a result of investigating the accounts of eyewitnesses and realising they had not been recorded in an orderly account Luke 1 v 3, as much of the Bible is not. Luke 1 v 3 says It seemed good and desirable to me, [and so I have determined] also after having searched out diligently and followed all things closely and traced accurately the course from the highest to the minutest detail from the very first, ...
davemakesawave 2 years ago
4 ... from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus Amplified Bible. Therefore, Luke, like Mark, collected eyewitness accounts, carefully cross referencing them and checking them and both gospels are therefore eyewitness accounts, not from 2 witnesses but from a great many and thoroughly checked out.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
John was a direct eye witness to Christs ministry, and referred to himself as being especially close to Him in John 13v23. Mark 1 v 19 tells us that John was the brother of James and he was a fisherman by trade. John was probably the nephew of Mary the mother of Jesus Matthew 27 v 56. While on the cross, Jesus committed his mother, Mary into the care of John and vice versa, John 19 v 25-27.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
6 LOL. Historians record that John settled near Ephesus in modern day Turkey at Selcuk where the remnants of St Johns Basilica endure. Mary is buried nearby. This gives evidence to John having the benefit of recoding all that Mary knew of Christ prior to his birth; her miraculous conception, John the Baptist etc and John the friend of Andrew was probably a disciple of John the Baptist also.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
7 Two matters are especially outstanding about the gospels.
1.That Jesus predicted the sacking of Jerusalem with incredible accuracy and that the gospels were written before this event took place. Wikkipedia provides an excellent account of this.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
8
2.That Matthews gospel should be the first in the New Testament canon, opening with the phrase The book of the ancestry or genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Compare with Genesis 5 v 1 This is the book (the written record, the history) of the generations of the offspring of Adam. There is much more to say of this but insufficient time here.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
Wow, John, does that mean that mean that the next time a contestant comes on to answer on the Works of Shakespeare, you'll ask if the contestant really believes He wrote them all ? Would Magnas have done this sort of thing? What a way to un-nerve an contestant before they start!
REVPIPSTER 3 years ago
There is actually controversy about whether Shakespeare did write all the plays credited to him. But in any case no-one has ever created a religion based on his works.
kisbie 2 years ago 7
True. They are plays and don't attempt to be anything else. But there are also other great works which are taken as History. The works of Plato, The Annals of Julias Ceaser. But there is 100's of years between the actual events and the oldest copies in existantance. But there is no question that they are History. But The Bible? In some cases it's not even decades but the consensious is they can't be trusted to be accurate copies! Still as a quiz master, does he have the place to comment?
REVPIPSTER 2 years ago 2
LOL. Humphries doesn't know what he is talking about. Just ask the questions John, if you want to preach, open a YouTube account.
davemakesawave 3 years ago
Let's be fair, everything Humphrys is saying here is true isn't it? It's hardly slating, he's just pointing out the facts.
lamplighteyes 3 years ago 3
I'm sure John Humphries wouldn't be critical about the Koran. He wouldn't dare.
KingOwnian 3 years ago
Oh, come on, that's hardly an attack. It was a valid question put to the woman who is supposedly an expert in the Gospels (she must be if she's on Mastermind). She said they were eyewitness statements but then went on to say that only Matthew might have seen some of it (as Humphries suggested), Mark transcribed what Peter had preached.
He also did not slate the Gospels he asked a pertinent question.
It does seem that any comment about the Bible is an attack. It isn't.
Alfsterino 3 years ago 25
@Alfsterino Agree,not an attack he just put her right,its a shame that more people on tv dont do the same.Good on you John Humpries.
TheTomtuffy 1 month ago
Did anyone see John Humphries introduce a debate at Oxford Univeristy with an American Evangelist (first name Lane I think?). He was so completely biased towards the atheist it was funny!
iusedtobesadsac 3 years ago