Why do Protestants believe in the Bible (not a troll)

[Odin]

So that is why Diplo is a Creationist, he believes the bible literally. As a Athiest I see Jesus as simply a reformer who was executed by the jewish orthodoxy for his beliefs, no some supernatural being.

[Jon Miller]

the only gospel I think may have been written by eyewitnesses is John

the rest most assuredly were not (and not even tradition suggests that Luke was)

Jon Miller

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Well, IIRC we don't have any copies of the Canonical Gospels that date back as far as the time of Christ, so we don't really know that. Would you trust Boswell's Life of Johnson as an accurate life of Samuel Johnson (1704-1784) if we didn't have any copies of the text from before 1993?

That is not a good analogy. We have canonical proof that the 4 Gospels were written between 50 and 70 AD by their true authors.

[gunkulator]

Curious, Jon M, since the gospel of John is typically given the latest creation date. In fact the beginning chapter of John is a rewriting of the creation story that attempts to be an answer to the gnostic interpretation. Clearly this part, at least, was an add on.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The gnostic gospels are unchristian because they completely distort what Jesus taught. That is fact!

Sounds more like they simply present a view of Jesus that Christians find uncomfortable. In order to prove that the gnostic gospels are factually incorrect you'd have to at least prove that the canonical gospels are accurate.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet Sounds more like they simply present a view of Jesus that Christians find uncomfortable. In order to prove that the gnostic gospels are factually incorrect you'd have to at least prove that the canonical gospels are accurate.

Again, the canonical gospels were written by eye witnesses. The gnostic gospels were not. So, it makes sense to me that the eye witness accounts would be more trustworthy.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Simon Peter said to them [the disciples]: 'Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life.' Jesus said, 'I myself shall lead her, in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male win enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Speaking of distortion, TD leaves out the next sentence. "Strange as it sounds, this simply states what religious rhetoric assumes: that the men form the legitimate body of the community, while women are allowed to participate only when they assimilate themselves to men."

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Speaking of distortion, TD leaves out the next sentence. "Strange as it sounds, this simply states what religious rhetoric assumes: that the men form the legitimate body of the community, while women are allowed to participate only when they assimilate themselves to men."

I left it out because it is interpretation of the gnostic verse, not part of the actual gnostic text.

Interpretation is up for debate. This person takes a non-literal interpretation of that gnostic passage. Others could read it very differently.

The bottom line is that the passage is completely antithetical to the canonical Gospels.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Again, the canonical gospels were written by eye witnesses.

Weren't the canonical gospels written a couple of hundred years after the events?

[JCG]

The Protestants (of that time) just thought they should be better Fundies than Catholics ever were, basically.

No reason to be "revisionist" if your main goal is to be as conservative and traditionalist as you can be, by showing your beliefs as superior to all the extra-biblical crap the Catholics were doing back then. You know, being closer to the "Divine Truths".

Modern Protestants are increasingly radical and revisionist, but they're offshoots from the main branch(es) of Protestantism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Again, the canonical gospels were written by eye witnesses. The gnostic gospels were not.

Sez who?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
Weren't the canonical gospels written a couple of hundred years after the events?

No, the 4 Gospels were written between 50 and 70 AD.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Sez who?

Mark, John, Luke and Matthew were among the 12 disciples that followed Jesus. They would have seen what Jesus said and did.

[Wernazuma III]

The diplomat: On what are your assumptions based? I have a table, where John's evangelium is dated around 100AD

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Mark, John, Luke and Matthew were among the 12 disciples that followed Jesus. They would have seen what Jesus said and did.

Who sez they wrote them?