Restored Topic

[Cogitoergosum]

Achiles had asked people to explain the rise of christianity. I don't know if it was supposed to prove that christianity was somehow special because of the way it rose, but how is that different than the rise of islam? Can you explain to me why you believe christianity to be better?

How do u explain the rise of christianity?

How do u explain the rise of islam?

1) The Gospels being written by at least the following dates
Mark 65-70 CE
Matthew 70-80 CE
Luke 80-85 CE

1) the koran being written about 700 C.E.

2) The letters of Paul and his writings on the subjects, specifically the parts where he refers to Jesus as a human, any of Jesus actions, and beliefs of himself and those he speaks about.

2) the "hadith" written as an add on to the kuran and the "ijtihad" written by imams that corroborate the divine message of mohammad and confirm his status as a prophet.

3) The writings of Josephus

referr to 2

4) The Historical account presented in the Talmud

The historical account in the Talmud of jesus is sketchy at best. Yeshua there is only a rabbi no magical powers, different set of parents than jesus, no disciples...
the historical account present in history books about mohammad and neighboring nations

5) The fact that the geography of the Gospels (especially Luke) is almost exact.

the geography in the history of islam and mohammad is accurate

6) The fact that Archeology has not uncovered anything that contradicts a Gospel, or acts, or Pauline letter account.

Archeology has not unproved anything in the koran

7) The beliefs of the very first Christians (Nazarenes).

the beliefs of the very first moslims

8) The accounts of history such as Caesar’s declaration around 60CE that bodies were never to be taken out of the graves, punishable by death, right near Nazareth.

I don't know what evidence that is, supposedly jesus's body is in heaven and not around nazareth. Multiple historical accounts confirm the existence of mohammad.

9) Later archeology and history such as Pliny's letters.

same as previous arguments

10) The conversion of Paul

the conversion of thousands of jews and christians of the time to islam.

11) The conversion of the early Jews, constituting the Council of Jerusalem
same as above

12) The Martyrdom of James

somebody killed him, so what?

13) The conversion of James

same as above

14) The martyrdom of the first apostles. ( I Know that there isn't solid evidence supporting these men being martyrs. However explain why the early church fathers would write about the details of their deaths, if something close to that did actually happen.)

martyrdom of the thousands of moslims while conquering lands and spreading islam.

so how exactly are these proofs of a divine religion?

[Cogitoergosum]

Maybe you missed the book of first John in all your reading, but in first John, it does mention that the Son of God was "Made flesh." Since Paul was told only the story of His life, it would be premature to assume automatically that he would tell of the virgin birth.

Maybe you have missed what i wrote

Pauls says that jesus was the son of god made man and he was resurrected but not once did he mention virgin birth or miracles made

As for the claim that the hadith is a supporting source to the Koran, I can throw some extreme doubt on it by telling you that it was written three or four generations AFTER the death of Muhammed, while the gospels were written within only a generation of the person they were about, and were written by people who were either present at the events, or closely tied to people who knew of the events. Plus, with four accounts being so intricately similar, while still written by four people who were seperated by both space and time, it is more likely that they are more accurate than the hadith.

you can compare the koran to the gospel, the koran was written less than a century after mohammad's death.

[dthmstr254]

...while the gospels were written within only a generation of the person they were about, and were written by people who were either present at the events, or closely tied to people who knew of the events. Plus, with four accounts being so intricately similar, while still written by four people who were seperated by both space and time, it is more likely that they are more accurate than the hadith.

Within a generation? You have some figures to back this up? Four 'intricately similar' versions? Can you show that there was not just one and the subsequent ones copies?

The gospels were written by different people at different times. Here is a demographic of them:

Mark, the earliest written gospel, was written by John Mark, a follower of Paul. Not only was he with Paul for a significant part of his life, but he was also possibly one of Jesus's disciples from outside of the twelve. This is possible because he is the only one of the four gospels who mentions a young man at the Garden scene running off after the arrest. It is likely from only 15 years after the death of Jesus, which means it was written just after the book of Hebrews and before the book of Romans. This book was written in the northern part of Israel, in a location I can't correctly recall.

Matthew is the second oldest of the four books. It was written in the city of Jerusalem, where he worked in the church there. It was likely written around the early 60s.

The book of Luke is ascribed to Luke, Paul's "good physician." Luke was their time's equivalent to a historian. He investigated things thoroughly and knew the medical sciences in intricated detail. He is the only one who mentions the water AND the blood coming forth because he knew that water would collect around the heart when a person was biologically dead. That ruled out a common argument that Jesus was not truly dead when he came down off the cross. It was likely written in Crete, although I may be changing that claim when I talk to my source. It was written around AD 70

The book of John, which is one of the most unique gospels, is the only one which has any real argument as to the writer. The reason for this is that Papias, one of the main resources for ascribing authorship of the gospels, mentions two different Johns in his commentaries. This, along with the fact that there is a distinct literary style change at one point in the book, makes it possible that two different writers were involved. This book portrays Jesus more as the Son of God than the other three gospels. It also is treated traditionally as a supplement to the other gospels. It was written around 90-100 AD, near the end of John's life. It was likely written in Caesarea, which is in modern day Turkey, I believe.

From these figures, I can see it as impossible for them to be copies. The fact that the only one who had much of a chance to copy wrote something very uniquely different as a supplement is compelling in the direction of similarity. Another reason I find it impossible to think they were copying is the fact that it would mean that they went through the tortures they went through for naught, which I don't think there are that many humans willing to do that.

These figures are supported by early second century writer Papias, and are approximations from Dr David Kemp at Tennessee Temple University and Dr Howard Owens at Tennessee Temple Baptist Seminary. Papias's time was given at Wikipedia. The demographics are from the first chapter of Lee Strobell's book Case for Christ. And of course, the last paragraph is mostly my independent thought.

[Cogitoergosum]

From these figures, I can see it as impossible for them to be copies. The fact that the only one who had much of a chance to copy wrote something very uniquely different as a supplement is compelling in the direction of similarity.

Really? the catholic church considers that matthew and luke used mark to write their gospels, are they lying?

Another reason I find it impossible to think they were copying is the fact that it would mean that they went through the tortures they went through for naught, which I don't think there are that many humans willing to do that.

Moslims did that, davidians did that for david koresh, temple of the people followers did that and lots and lots more. your point does not stand.

[bernee51]

Within a generation? You have some figures to back this up? Four 'intricately similar' versions? Can you show that there was not just one and the subsequent ones copies?

The gospels were written by different people at different times. Here is a demographic of them:

Mark, the earliest written gospel, was written by John Mark, a follower of Paul. Not only was he with Paul for a significant part of his life, but he was also possibly one of Jesus's disciples from outside of the twelve. This is possible because he is the only one of the four gospels who mentions a young man at the Garden scene running off after the arrest. It is likely from only 15 years after the death of Jesus, which means it was written just after the book of Hebrews and before the book of Romans. This book was written in the northern part of Israel, in a location I can't correctly recall.

Matthew is the second oldest of the four books. It was written in the city of Jerusalem, where he worked in the church there. It was likely written around the early 60s.

So one of the books - Mark - may have been written within a generation. This is slightly different from your original claim.

[
From these figures, I can see it as impossible for them to be copies.

From these figures it can just as easily be seen they are copies. In fact many gospel scholars agree that mark was the basis for both Matthew and Luke.

Another reason I find it impossible to think they were copying is the fact that it would mean that they went through the tortures they went through for naught, which I don't think there are that many humans willing to do that.

Tell that to the victims of suicide bombers.

The demographics are from the first chapter of Lee Strobell's book Case for Christ. And of course, the last paragraph is mostly my independent thought.

Independent thought is good. Repeating the dubious opinions of apologists is another issue.

[Goat]

...while the gospels were written within only a generation of the person they were about, and were written by people who were either present at the events, or closely tied to people who knew of the events. Plus, with four accounts being so intricately similar, while still written by four people who were seperated by both space and time, it is more likely that they are more accurate than the hadith.

Within a generation? You have some figures to back this up? Four 'intricately similar' versions? Can you show that there was not just one and the subsequent ones copies?

The gospels were written by different people at different times. Here is a demographic of them:

Mark, the earliest written gospel, was written by John Mark, a follower of Paul. Not only was he with Paul for a significant part of his life, but he was also possibly one of Jesus's disciples from outside of the twelve. This is possible because he is the only one of the four gospels who mentions a young man at the Garden scene running off after the arrest. It is likely from only 15 years after the death of Jesus, which means it was written just after the book of Hebrews and before the book of Romans. This book was written in the northern part of Israel, in a location I can't correctly recall.

That is the tradition. It is, however, unsigned. We have no direct evidence that the tradition is reality.

Matthew is the second oldest of the four books. It was written in the city of Jerusalem, where he worked in the church there. It was likely written around the early 60s.

Most scholars believe that Matthew was written after Mark. According to Iraenaus, the Gospel of Mark was written after Peter' death, which happened in 65 c.e.

This would push Matthew back past 70.. which would make sense, since he refers to the destruction of the temple.

The book of Luke is ascribed to Luke, Paul's "good physician." Luke was their time's equivalent to a historian. He investigated things thoroughly and knew the medical sciences in intricated detail. He is the only one who mentions the water AND the blood coming forth because he knew that water would collect around the heart when a person was biologically dead. That ruled out a common argument that Jesus was not truly dead when he came down off the cross. It was likely written in Crete, although I may be changing that claim when I talk to my source. It was written around AD 70

The general consensus of scholars that do not say that the bible is inerrent is that Luke was written between 80 to 100, with some people putting it as late as 120.
Since practically all historical details in Luke are mentioned in Jospehus, it is quite possible that Luke used Josephus as a source, which puts it back past 95.

The book of John, which is one of the most unique gospels, is the only one which has any real argument as to the writer. The reason for this is that Papias, one of the main resources for ascribing authorship of the gospels, mentions two different Johns in his commentaries. This, along with the fact that there is a distinct literary style change at one point in the book, makes it possible that two different writers were involved. This book portrays Jesus more as the Son of God than the other three gospels. It also is treated traditionally as a supplement to the other gospels. It was written around 90-100 AD, near the end of John's life. It was likely written in Caesarea, which is in modern day Turkey, I believe.

Yes, it is unique. Eurubuis claimed it was written as a counter to Gnostic teachings and one of his near contempoariays claims it was written BY a gnostic. fun stuf when the early church fathers can't even get their opinions straight on that.

From these figures, I can see it as impossible for them to be copies. The fact that the only one who had much of a chance to copy wrote something very uniquely different as a supplement is compelling in the direction of similarity. Another reason I find it impossible to think they were copying is the fact that it would mean that they went through the tortures they went through for naught, which I don't think there are that many humans willing to do that.

These figures are supported by early second century writer Papias, and are approximations from Dr David Kemp at Tennessee Temple University and Dr Howard Owens at Tennessee Temple Baptist Seminary. Papias's time was given at Wikipedia. The demographics are from the first chapter of Lee Strobell's book Case for Christ. And of course, the last paragraph is mostly my independent thought.

As expected, both the Tennessee Temple University and th Tennisey Temple Baptist Seminary have statements of faith declaring the Bible infallible. THat is the
exact statement that immedately makes me discount their scholarship.

[Easyrider]

Most scholars believe that Matthew was written after Mark. According to Iraenaus, the Gospel of Mark was written after Peter' death, which happened in 65 c.e. This would push Matthew back past 70.

Were you familiar with Eusebius (who quotes Origen), you would know that "the first (Gospel) was written by Matthew...and was prepared for the converts from Judaism" (Ecclesiastical History, 6:25). There is also additional evidence that it was originally written in Hebrew. Eusebius quotes Papias as stating, “"Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." Irenaeus wrote, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

which would make sense, since he refers to the destruction of the temple.

No way. That's a major stretch and distortment of anything Matthew wrote.

Since practically all historical details in Luke are mentioned in Jospehus, it is quite possible that Luke used Josephus as a source, which puts it back past 95.

Another reach. Not only is that not true, but more likely Josephus referenced Matthew.

[dthmstr254]

So one of the books - Mark - may have been written within a generation. This is slightly different from your original claim.

A generation then was around seventy years. Jesus ascended in AD 33. This means that a generation included all years up to AD 103, which is when the disciple John died on the Isle of Patmos.

From these figures it can just as easily be seen they are copies. In fact many gospel scholars agree that mark was the basis for both Matthew and Luke.

Proof of similarities is not the only thing needed for proof of copies. a copy changes something only a little. What you are implying would necessitate entire passages of the books that were identical. Nowhere can that be found. It would be like saying that four seperately written accounts of 9/11 were copies of eachother simply because they are similar. This is a logical fallacy called jumping to conclusions.

Tell that to the victims of suicide bombers.

Ok, explain how a suicide bomber goes through more pain than a crucifixion, boiling in oil, burning at the stake, a Roman scourging, and all the other things the apostles faced.

Independent thought is good. Repeating the dubious opinions of apologists is another issue.

And simply because I draw conclusions based on the same evidence means that I am a parrot? FYI, my conclusions are the same because they are drawn from all the evidence that has been put forward. The way I go through life is figuring out how people think. I don't know many people that would go through so much torture for a lie. For that matter, I don't know ANY people that would. If you have never researched what happens in a Roman scourging, go ahead and do so. Research what kind of condition the victims were left in at the end. Imagine what it would feel like to go through hypovolemic shock and to have your skin, muscles, tendons, and nerves literally ripped completely off the bone. By the time they were finished, the person was in so much pain that his brain started to shut down to protect itself. The tortures they went through are far worse than being blown up. A person is broken to the point that truth is all that is important. That is why I draw my conclusions.

[bernee51]

A generation then was around seventy years.

That's news to me. Traditionally a generation is 25 years. Are you just making this up?

Proof of similarities is not the only thing needed for proof of copies. a copy changes something only a little. What you are implying would necessitate entire passages of the books that were identical.

Many scholars, christian and otherwise, accept that Luke at least was based on Mark.

This is a logical fallacy called jumping to conclusions.

Only if there is no evidence.

Ok, explain how a suicide bomber goes through more pain than a crucifixion, boiling in oil, burning at the stake, a Roman scourging, and all the other things the apostles faced.

Can you provide evidence that the apostles actually existed and were indeed subjected to these tortures.

Independent thought is good. Repeating the dubious opinions of apologists is another issue.

And simply because I draw conclusions based on the same evidence means that I am a parrot?

Yes, Why? See you next sentence.

...FYI, my conclusions are the same because they are drawn from all the evidence that has been put forward....

The way I go through life is figuring out how people think. I don't know many people that would go through so much torture for a lie.

I don't know they existed, let alone went through such torture. Where's the evidence?

FYI. I do not consider the bible to be evidence, To claim it as such is a circularity.

[Goat]

Most scholars believe that Matthew was written after Mark. According to Iraenaus, the Gospel of Mark was written after Peter' death, which happened in 65 c.e. This would push Matthew back past 70.

Were you familiar with Eusebius (who quotes Origen), you would know that "the first (Gospel) was written by Matthew...and was prepared for the converts from Judaism" (Ecclesiastical History, 6:25). There is also additional evidence that it was originally written in Hebrew. Eusebius quotes Papias as stating, “"Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." Irenaeus wrote, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

which would make sense, since he refers to the destruction of the temple.

No way. That's a major stretch and distortment of anything Matthew wrote.

Since practically all historical details in Luke are mentioned in Jospehus, it is quite possible that Luke used Josephus as a source, which puts it back past 95.

Another reach. Not only is that not true, but more likely Josephus referenced Matthew.

What is your evidence that "Jospehus referenced Matthew", and what does that have to do with Luke at all?

If you had mistyped, and you meant Jospehus referenced Luke, the problem with that is that Josphus was much more detailed, was writing a history about the Jews, and would not have referenced the RELIGIOUS writings of another cult to do so, and had many more histoircal items that Luke.

Luke was writing a religious thesis, and wanted to include some historical details. It is not as detailed as Jospehus.

[dthmstr254]

That's news to me. Traditionally a generation is 25 years. Are you just making this up?

A generation is the measurement of how long a group of people that could witness a certain event would live afterwards. Assuming that the disciples were in their twenties at Christ's death, that would put a generation at 70 some odd years. I am talking about Jesus's generation. By your belief, everyone who was alive during Christ's life died just after the book of Mark was written. Generations don't just up and dissappear, otherwise, everyone around would be 25 or younger.

Proof of similarities is not the only thing needed for proof of copies. a copy changes something only a little. What you are implying would necessitate entire passages of the books that were identical.

Many scholars, christian and otherwise, accept that Luke at least was based on Mark.[/quote]

It is likely that there were similarities simply because they both had the same source. Namely, Peter. If you notice, those two gospels and the book of John are the only ones who talk of the transfiguration. This is because the source was someone who was there, namely, Peter, James and John. Since James never wrote a book, and John is so unique in writing style, it is likely that Peter is the main source.

Only if there is no evidence.

Jumping to conclusions means making decisions based on insufficient evidence, not a lack of evidence. that is called blind faith. If I went and shot someone because some random guy said that person was Osama Bin Ladin, that would be classified as jumping to conclusions.

Can you provide evidence that the apostles actually existed and were indeed subjected to these tortures.

Papias, the independent writings of many second century and late first century churches. Commentaries from early Christians, A little bit of Josephus where it seems relevant. Tacitus for Paul. Oh, and of course, the works of these people proves their existence. Don't forget that the Jews never said that the apostles or Jesus never existed until recent years. That in and of itself is evidence enough that they existed. If Jesus and His apostles never existed, why didn't the Pharisees who were accused of killing him in the Bible ask, "Who is Jesus and how did we crucify him?"

Independent thought is good. Repeating the dubious opinions of apologists is another issue.

I wasn't repeating opinions. Just because I say that killing someone is wrong, does that mean I am parroting someone?

And simply because I draw conclusions based on the same evidence means that I am a parrot?

Yes, Why? See you next sentence.

...FYI, my conclusions are the same because they are drawn from all the evidence that has been put forward....

You know, you might want to note that my own sources are much more diverse than just Christians. I use the internet a whole lot. I also talk to people who are authorities in areas such as history, philosophy, and other fields of study. Once again, what you are implying here is that whatever is blue is the same, although a blue sea and the blue sky are definitely different.

FYI. I do not consider the bible to be evidence, To claim it as such is a circularity.

Then you might want to just back up, learn how to examine documents, and start over, because even if you don't accept it as history, you have to ask yourself why so many archaeological discoveries have backed up its stories. The Hittites are one prime example of the Bible being right when the scholars weren't.