Who Wrote the Gospels and When?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Who Wrote the Gospels and When?

Post #1

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

.

I am creating this thread because I believe it deserves its own space. Two wars (debates) were fought on the "Why Do You Really Believe" thread created by POI. The two wars..

1. The universe and cosmology

2. The Authorship and Dating of the New Testament (main focus; the Gospels)

Now, I am all for one conversation leading to another, but it seemed as if the two topics were getting convoluted and there needed to be a place for both topics to thrive.

Let me also point out that history has always been my favorite subject, and even more so as it pertains to my faith (Christianity). So I am always delighted to discuss history, dating, and just in general trying to decipher and unpack events of the past...especially if it involves apologetics.

This thread focuses on #2, as I respond to post #124 from AlexxcJRO...
Last edited by We_Are_VENOM on Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: The Authorship and Dating of the New Testament (main focus; The Gospels)

Post #31

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm You are asking the fundamental question as it pertains to the subject of this thread...a question that I answered numerous times in various ways and refuse to do so again.
Sir the question is relating to what Catholics think. That's the reason for this point of debate.
You said you agree with following “the first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. “ in post 107 thread: “WHY Do You REALLY Believe?”.

The above means: the Catholics are saying the gospels are anonymous and were not written by Mark, Luke, Matthew and John.
You do love your dancing.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm "lack of specific focus on the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem".

Laughable.

First of all, to say that any devout Jew, especially during those times, would have a lack of focus on either..

1. a war which involves their persecution

2. a war which involves the destruction of their most holy city

3. and a war which involves the destruction of their most Holy building...is complete and utter NONSENSE.

And notice your source is giving an average joe opinion, something that any person off of the street can do. There is nothing scholarly about that assessment and it is bogus to even consider such an idea.

If that is the best you (or anyone) can do...lol.
Again, as I stated before; Matthew was hyping Jesus up to be this great prophecy fulfiller...and to leave out one of the most blatantly obvious fulfillment of a prophecy would NOT be consistent with the intended purpose of the book itself.

There is no way the author is leaving out the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, AFTER Jesus made a prophecy pertaining to it.

No way.
The New Testament scholar can say what he wants...me and the scholar is looking at the same information, and I am not buying his assessment. Point blank, period.

If the writer knew about it, then he would have written about it...and it is obvious that he didn't write about it, then he didn't know about it? Why? Because it hadn't happened yet.

Pre-70AD.


The argument for a post-70AD timeframe is ridiculous, is what I am trying to say.

Its funny how I keep correcting you and you keep changing like the weather.
So the scholar did not said the author did not know about the destruction.
Its good to see the wake up to reality.

I don’t know if it’s the best. Was the first thing I found after I search on google. It took me 1 min.

Q: Nothing scholarly?

A New Testament scholar explains something. Therefore that entails scholarly stuff.

“Such a later dating is more consistent with the common scholarly view that the community represented by Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism), which developed into an identifiable entity many decades after the Jewish revolt. Based on this dating the war would not have been an event of the recent past, and it would be understandable that Matthew did not focus on it in his Gospel.
Thus the more distance that can be put between the destruction of Jerusalem and the writing of Matthew, either geographical distance or temporal distance (or both), the more easily we can explain why this Christian Jewish author did not refer more concretely to the calamity of the Jewish War.”


He says a later dating is more consistent with the common scholarly view(therefore not average joe)
that Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism which developed after Jewish-Roman war.

Plus we have the whole Matthew copying from Mark(60-70AD).
Therefore dating after 70AD.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm Then I just simply disagree. There is nothing special or "new" about the later additions of Mark.
Sir in one ending we have just claims of resurrection and an empty tomb.
In the added ending we have actual encounters(women, apostles) with the risen Jesus and an ascension to Heaven.
The added ending is more magical, phantasmagorical.
That’s obvious.

Analogy:
I have two endings to a short story book.
In one we have claims of people seeing a vampire/strigoi(this happens often in my country for example).
In the other we have actual encounter of people with a vampire/strigoi.
Off course the second on is more phantasmagorical.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm
Again, I simply disagree. If anything, John has more of a developed, high Christology...not Matthew.

That being said, I will admit that John's gospel makes Jesus look as if he took steroids. But hey, there may be reasons for that as well.

Phil 2:5-9 is, in my opinion, a "Trinity Proof" text...contrary to what you say here. That is a conversation for another day, though.
Paul and Mark have low Christology and Matthew has a more developed Christology then Paul and Mark. And John has an even more developed Christology.
There is a progress in Christology which go with the dating too.
Paul and Mark are dated earlier then Matthew and John is later then all.
It makes sense.

The below does not sound trinitarian:
Image
Clearly says: “no something to be grasped considered to be equal with god.“
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm
I really don't care what scholars have to say, if I am not provided with a case for why they are saying it.
Off course you don’t. So arrogant. Dismissing so easy the work of people who studied and worked for so many years.
Christians always seem to know better then scientists, historian scholars, doctors, psychologists.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm Jesus himself was dispelling false teachings...and the Bible is clear that Satan is deceiving many.

Jesus did it.
Paul did it
I am doing it.

So tell me something I don't know.

1. Here we talk of sects contradicting each other after Jesus disappeared from the picture. Everybody interpreting what Jesus said.
2. You cannot appeal to Satan for here we are debating whether the premise that the gospel testimonial are evidence for the divine(Satan, God) or not.
One cannot prove Satan is real by presupposing Satan real.
Circular logic and all. 8-)



We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm I do not follow.
I've already addressed this, and refuse to do so again.
You said:
“Paul dispelling false teachings, the ones that were BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION.”
“As I previously said, as long as the original disciples were around during the time in question, it would have been difficult for any false teachers/teachings to stick...because any questionable teachings that were being pushed into the church, church leaders would say..
"Well, lets see what Paul has to say about this." And Paul would speak on the matter.”


This presupposes that thing you are trying to prove.
Paul claimed his teachings are correct as the other sect did (which maybe did not consider Paul as their leader or would maybe simply disagree(that his teaching are correct) and schism). There are plenty of example of such schisms and disagreements in history and present day(huge number of denominations).

We have two mutually exclusive claims and quarrel among the early Christians.
This confusion comes as argument against Christianity.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm I disagree for reasons already mentioned.

Of course he did.


If you subtract what Matthew/Mark have in common, you are left with at least 12 chapters left in Matthew...so those 12 chapters is enough to be considered independent...as you can't say Matthew plagiarized Mark at that point, can you? No, you can't.
According to you...not according to history. You cannot rewrite history. Let it speak for itself.
Sir we already have evidence of copying and plagiarized of Mark by the writer of Luke and the writer of Matthew and the forgery of ending of Mark(actual encounter of Jesus and ascension). It’s clear of Matthew embellishment making Jesus clearly divine as opposed to Mark which without the forged ending only has Jesus healing the sick which was no more special then what the prophets did in the old testament stories.

The rest is supposed been copying from a Q source.
“In the two-source hypothesis, the three-source hypothesis and the Q+/Papias hypothesis, Matthew and Luke both used Mark and Q as sources. “
“However, Matthew and Luke also share large sections of text not found in Mark. They suggested that neither Gospel drew upon the other, but upon a second common source, termed Q.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm Supports a miracle? That is Islamic thought, not Christianity.
Sir if we don’t longer have multiple independent eye-witness accounts that weakens greatly the case for the Christian miracle because we have one testimonial for the miracle of Quran and have more independent corroborating testimonial for the miracle of Fatima where supposedly the sun zigzagged across the sky. Which off course did not happened.
Imagine if many/multiple first hand eye-witness proved nothing in case of the Fatima supposed miracle how can the weak/bogus first/second/third/ … testimonials(gospels) prove something in the case of Christianity.
Simply ignoring my points looks rather bad. So please don’t.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm Disingenuous. No one is denying that Jesus ascended into Heaven...I was just pointing out that you incorrectly stated that the ascension is recorded in the Gospels, which it isn't.

So there you go again, copy/pasting stuff that has very little to do with the point that was made.
Verses from the bible:
“The Ascension of Jesus
“50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
"19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm It is fine to make reasonable assumptions...we do it all the time in our daily lives and this is no difference.

Its not reasonable to take a cumulative path of unlikely scenarios which leads to gospels originated in eye witness and claim it rational and reasonable while ignoring that thousands of eye witness testimonial for the miracle of Fatima(where supposedly the sun zigzagged across the sky) did not prove anything.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm Wowwww. Ok. I'm not even gonna entertain this one. SMH.
Q: So you acknowledge I was not wrong here?
Therefore the mechanism of embellishment exists: you have an empty tomb and claims of resurrection and then you have actual encounters and ascension in future gospels that copied from Mark and in the forged ending of Mark?

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm Because professing Jesus was a death sentence during that time.
Q: Sir I said why would John avoid persecuting by not mentioning his name(John), not Jesus?

Q: Sir I said why would John avoid persecuting by saying "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and not “the disciple: John whom Jesus loved”?

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm
Ok, so why wouldn't the author of the book mention the person who is identified as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" instead of simply naming the disciple?

Obviously, there had to be a reason and while answers may vary, that is my take on it...yes, I am speculating, but guess what, the scholars that you appeal to, they speculate as well, don't they?

Well, if it is good for them, it is great for me.



Yeah, willing to die in the sense that if it came to that, then so be it. But it isn't as if they are going out in the streets shouting...

"I profess Jesus Christ as Savior, come, kill me now!!!"

No.
Um, Paul answers this question directly...

Phil 1:22-24

For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.
Bigger impact? Hmm. So if each Gospel was written in first person view, would you be a Christian today?

I doubt it. Probably not. So much for a "bigger impact", when you are dealing with people who is hell bent on refusing to believe, no matter the case is.
Firstly,
Q: How is rational to think that John would think that romans would read the gospel and say: “Aha. there is a mention of a John therefore was written by John” and that he needs to hide his name too? How is that makes sense in your head?


Secondly,
So they were willing to die. Not afraid.
Q: Why was necessary to not only avoid mentioning himself in first person but also avoid naming himself in third person?
Like writing in third person was not enough.
Q: How is compatible this much fear and this exaggerated care with they were willing to die, not afraid-knew for sure of a dimension where they would go after death?

If there were a more simple carefulness I would agree with you.
But this exaggeration does not make sense.

Thirdly,
I would not believe for I don’t believe in the miracle of Fatima either. Logically consistent sir. And for good reason.

But for most people first person testimonial have a bigger impact as proven by reality(most Christians not wanting to let go of eye-witness testimonial hypothesis).

In court for example eye-witness testimony has value while hearsay does not have value.

Paul verses you provided supports my conclusion too for the future generations would not be able to meet John or Paul and writing in first person has a bigger impact for the future generations. And if they were the writers they would had written like Paul in first person.

Also Paul writes in first person. So your argument falls short.

It is most likely that the first person is not present because as opposed to epistles who were most likely written by Paul the gospels are not written by Mark, Luke, John(apostle) and Matthew(apostle).


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm You've done no such thing, sir.
Here:
Image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm No serious consideration can be given to any time period after 70AD. The whole temple/destruction/Jerusalem thing isn't going anywhere.
Third, we may have a solid foundation as to not even dating John so late in the first century.

So, either...

1. John lived to be a very old man, and wrote it (with a disciple finishing it, according to last chapter).

2. John lived to be a very old man and before his dying day, ensured that a disciple write it on his behalf.

3. John's Gospel was written pre 70AD like the rest of them, making #1 and #2 irrelevant
“for example, the gospel is written in good Greek and displays sophisticated theology, and is therefore unlikely to have been the work of a simple fisherman.[15] These verses imply rather that the core of the gospel relies on the testimony (perhaps written) of the "disciple who is testifying", as collected, preserved and reshaped by a community of followers (the "we" of the passage), and that a single follower (the "I") rearranged this material and perhaps added the final chapter and other passages to produce the final gospel.[9] Most scholars estimate the final form of the text to be around AD 90–110.[5] Given its complex history there may have been more than one place of composition, and while the author was familiar with Jewish customs and traditions, his frequent clarification of these implies that he wrote for a mixed Jewish/Gentile or Jewish context outside Palestine.[citation needed]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm Well again, because, even if the late 90AD timeframe has any credence, the reason John was considered more credible was because he was considered an EYEWITNESS, while the originators of the apocryphal gospels weren't considered as such.

Second, I tend to gravitate towards the whole "The Gospel according to X" sort of thing, which means that John may not have necessarily WROTE the Gospel, but it is the Gospel according to him...perhaps one of his disciples wrote it for him on his behalf.



As the story goes, Gospels were chosen by a selective process...and one of the criterias was that the story had to have been originated by an eyewitness. That was the MAIN criteria and obviously anything written in the 2nd century would not meet this criteria.
Image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Mary are according to Wikipedia dating to early second century.
Peter and Mary were eye-witness in the story.
Q: So why their gospels were not included?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm I don't remember what context you were using oral tradition in.

My position has been VERY clear, clear and consistent...that no Gospel (including John) was written after 70AD.

Now, however you want to fit "oral tradition" in the context of my very clear position since this dialogue began, be my guest.


Hmm. Something smells fallacious here.

Obviously, it follows that in order to have an oral tradition, there must be an oral transmission of information.

However, it does not follow that just because something is orally transmitted, that there is a oral tradition pertaining to it.

Fallacious, indeed.

The only thing that smells fallacious is your broken logic.
You cannot escape logic sir.

You said: “No oral tradition before 70AD.“
You said: “in order to have an oral tradition, there must be an oral transmission of information.”(=existence of oral tradition presupposes the existence of oral transmission)

C1:Therefore it follows logically that you are saying that there were no oral transmission before 70 AD.

But in other post you said: “the book of Acts highlights the early preaching of the Gospel. Obviously, this was via oral transmission.” which was in response to “1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:1–2)

2 Thessalonians is dated before 70 AD.

C2:Therefore it follows logically that you are saying there were oral transmission before 70 AD.

C1 and C2 are mutually exclusive claims. Therefore contradiction.

Enjoy! 8-)
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm Gotcha. Short and Sweet always prevails over muddled and fuddled.

I actually agree with you here.

My response to that is to simply say that when all things are considered, I find Christianity to be the most convincing of all other religions.

I cannot prove 100% that all other religions are false...and I can't even prove with 100% certainty that my religion is true.

However, based on all of the evidence that has presented to me thus far, I know where I am placing my chips at on the table, and that is with Jesus Christ.

Q: But if the evidence is the same testimonials of miracles(Jesus miracles, Muhammad miracles, Sathya Say Baba miracles, Joseph Smith miracles) and personal unfalsifiable anecdotal experiences how can one claim superiority?
They are on equal footing.

Off course a Christian(protestant) would special plead that his miracle and personal anecdotal experience are more special.
Off course a Islamist would special plead that his miracle and personal anecdotal experience are more special.
Off course a Hindu would special plead that his miracle and personal anecdotal experience are more special.
Off course a Mormon would special plead that his miracle and personal anecdotal experience are more special.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm Yeah, but the thing about it is; I am able to retract my original statement without the case for my position being in jeapardy.
Changing like the weather does not look good for one credibility.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm
The case was weak. But nevertheless, it is a known historical fact that Jerusalem/the temple was destroyed in 70AD.

If you haven't noticed, my case is based on that.

But you said you had your own sources.

Q: Were you lying? :?

If not please present the sources.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm Wait a minute, so are you saying that out of 2,000 skeletons, it is unlikely that 5 of them would have been over the age of 60 when they died???
No.

First from my side is not just 60 but more. (80-90AD for Mathew and Luke) (90-110 for John)

It is not unlikely that 5 of them would have been over the age of 60, 70, 80, 90 when they died.
It is unlikely that if we found 5 skeletons of 60, 70, 80, 90 they all would belong to the apostles.
Hope its clear now.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm Paul stated at least twice that he was an eyewitness to the Resurrected Jesus. He also stated that he was an apostle.

So believe it or not, that is what the man said, and that is what I am going off of.
According to definition apostle means each of the twelve chief disciples of Jesus Christ: Peter, James, John, Andrew, Bartholomew, James, Judas, Jude, Matthew, Philip, Simon, Thomas.

apostle
/əˈpɒs(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1. each of the twelve chief disciples of Jesus Christ.
https://www.google.com/search?q=apostle ... nt=gws-wiz

Q: So Paul was with Jesus like Peter and John and Judas?

I thought Paul was no where near Jesus when he preached and no where near Jesus after he supposedly resurrected and met with the women and the apostles.

Confused. :?


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm What was the information about. I forgot.

LOL.
Q: Am I to do your work for you? No way. So please don’t bore me.

Q: Do you object that the info from Wikipedia(together with the references) is reliable?
If yes that is a claim and you need to prove this or retract the claim.
If you agree the information is reliable just say you go against the consensus of the scholars and don’t agree.

Also present your sources please.
You kept saying you have your sources.
Present them or else I might think your imagining things and these sources you keep mentioning don’t exist.
Waiting.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:20 pm Ok, I will support my assertions with providing you info of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... em_(70_CE)

And the source is even from your beloved Wikipedia.

There, satisfied?

Straw-man. :x

The two claims were: “ Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel....and early Church traditional has always attributed the Gospel of Mark to Mark, friend of Peter.”
Please provide the evidence for this two claims and not for the straw-man claim.
I am waiting.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: The Authorship and Dating of the New Testament (main focus; The Gospels)

Post #32

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am
Sir the question is relating to what Catholics think. That's the reason for this point of debate.
Really? Oh, my bad.

I wasn't under the impression that I am supposed to care what Catholics think.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am You said you agree with following “the first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. “ in post 107 thread: “WHY Do You REALLY Believe?”.

If I said that, perhaps I was confused. My position has been very clear; all four Gospels originated from either apostles, or friends of the apostles.

Or have I not been clear enough?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am The above means: the Catholics are saying the gospels are anonymous and were not written by Mark, Luke, Matthew and John.
You do love your dancing.
1. The Gospels are anonymous

2. Therefore, the Gospels were not written by Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John

Text book example of a non sequitur if I've ever seen one.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Its funny how I keep correcting you and you keep changing like the weather.
So the scholar did not said the author did not know about the destruction.
Its good to see the wake up to reality.
Pre 70AD, and if there is an valid/sound argument to be made for post 70AD, then I haven't seen it yet.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am I don’t know if it’s the best. Was the first thing I found after I search on google. It took me 1 min.

Q: Nothing scholarly?

A New Testament scholar explains something. Therefore that entails scholarly stuff.

“Such a later dating is more consistent with the common scholarly view that the community represented by Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism),
Nonsense. First of all, that is an opinion (and a very weak one, at that), and one that I don't particularly share.

"Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism" (whatever that even means) lol.

And not that I am even buying that mumbo, but to draw a parallel, Jesus was in conflict with whatever the Pharisees were saying...so WHAT??
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am which developed into an identifiable entity many decades after the Jewish revolt. Based on this dating the war would not have been an event of the recent past, and it would be understandable that Matthew did not focus on it in his Gospel.
No, it would be understandable for Matthew to mention the fulfillment of a prophecy that Jesus accurately predicted...just like Matthew mentioned many other prophecies that Jesus fulfilled..but somehow he lost focused on arguably the most significant one that would have directly effected the lives of all Jews living at the time.

Nonsense. Not buying it.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Thus the more distance that can be put between the destruction of Jerusalem and the writing of Matthew, either geographical distance or temporal distance (or both), the more easily we can explain why this Christian Jewish author did not refer more concretely to the calamity of the Jewish War.”

He says a later dating is more consistent with the common scholarly view(therefore not average joe)
that Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism which developed after Jewish-Roman war.

Plus we have the whole Matthew copying from Mark(60-70AD).
Therefore dating after 70AD.
Any conclusion drawn from faulty premises, is a faulty conclusion. I have no reason to put any distance between the destruction of Jerusalem and the writing of Matthew...and I reject this weak attempt by any scholar to do so.

All of the other prophecies that were fulfilled and referenced, but all of a sudden when it comes to this particular one, it becomes in conflict with conflict with formative Judaism and was therefore a lack of focus.

HA.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Sir in one ending we have just claims of resurrection and an empty tomb.
In the added ending we have actual encounters(women, apostles) with the risen Jesus and an ascension to Heaven.
The added ending is more magical, phantasmagorical.
That’s obvious.

Analogy:
I have two endings to a short story book.
In one we have claims of people seeing a vampire/strigoi(this happens often in my country for example).
In the other we have actual encounter of people with a vampire/strigoi.
Off course the second on is more phantasmagorical.
Hmm, but what if the stories of the actual encounters of the risen Jesus was there from the very beginning??

1 Corin 15:3-7

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Guess what, the writings of 1Corinthians predates Mark, and there you have Paul testifying to the appearances of the risen Jesus...so you can't logically say that the risen stories about Jesus in Mark became more phantasmagorical by the time Matthew began writing, when you have Paul referencing the post-mortem appearances even before Mark.

Wow, this is probably the best "gotcha" movement I've ever had since I began on this great forum.

And it feels good, too :D

alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am
Paul and Mark have low Christology and Matthew has a more developed Christology then Paul and Mark. And John has an even more developed Christology.
Again, I disagree. If the actual post-mortem appearances of Jesus is all you have to go on, then again, I simply point out that Paul was aware of this "appearance" Christology...so it looks like the stuff was developed before the biographies of Jesus even began.

:D
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am The below does not sound trinitarian:
Clearly says: “no something to be grasped considered to be equal with god.“
Conversation for another day.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am
Off course you don’t. So arrogant. Dismissing so easy the work of people who studied and worked for so many years.
Christians always seem to know better then scientists, historian scholars, doctors, psychologists.
Last I checked, all of those guys are human beings, and human beings can be flawed in their logical reasoning.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am 1. Here we talk of sects contradicting each other after Jesus disappeared from the picture. Everybody interpreting what Jesus said.
Pretty much, yeah.

I would like to live in a perfect world where everyone just agreed on everything. Wouldn't you?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am 2. You cannot appeal to Satan for here we are debating whether the premise that the gospel testimonial are evidence for the divine(Satan, God) or not.
One cannot prove Satan is real by presupposing Satan real.
Circular logic and all. 8-)
Yeah, but it sounds like you are presupposing that it isn't real...you do not believe it, do you? Well then.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am You said:
“Paul dispelling false teachings, the ones that were BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION.”
“As I previously said, as long as the original disciples were around during the time in question, it would have been difficult for any false teachers/teachings to stick...because any questionable teachings that were being pushed into the church, church leaders would say..
"Well, lets see what Paul has to say about this." And Paul would speak on the matter.”


This presupposes that thing you are trying to prove.

I don't need to presuppose when I have New Testament record of Paul dispelling false teachings...or do you not know enough about Paul's writings to know that??

Or, do you only pick up the Bible and read it when you have in mind to find something to be skeptical about, and Paul dispelling false religions/teachings never was something to be skeptical about...until maybe now?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Paul claimed his teachings are correct as the other sect did (which maybe did not consider Paul as their leader or would maybe simply disagree(that his teaching are correct) and schism). There are plenty of example of such schisms and disagreements in history and present day(huge number of denominations).
Yeah, and Jesus claimed his teachings were correct and the Pharisees claimed that theirs were correct. Point?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am We have two mutually exclusive claims and quarrel among the early Christians.
This confusion comes as argument against Christianity.
So, lets see if this reasoning passes the syllogism test...

1. There was a quarrel among the early Christians

2. Those quarrels caused confusion amongst believers

3. Therefore, Christianity isn't true

NOPE. Failed.

Another text book example of a non sequitur.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Sir we already have evidence of copying and plagiarized of Mark by the writer of Luke and the writer of Matthew and the forgery of ending of Mark(actual encounter of Jesus and ascension). It’s clear of Matthew embellishment making Jesus clearly divine as opposed to Mark which without the forged ending only has Jesus healing the sick which was no more special then what the prophets did in the old testament stories.
Already addressed this.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am The rest is supposed been copying from a Q source.
“In the two-source hypothesis, the three-source hypothesis and the Q+/Papias hypothesis, Matthew and Luke both used Mark and Q as sources. “
“However, Matthew and Luke also share large sections of text not found in Mark. They suggested that neither Gospel drew upon the other, but upon a second common source, termed Q.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
The alleged Q source is all speculative and does not undermine any of my argumentation.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Sir if we don’t longer have multiple independent eye-witness accounts that weakens greatly the case for the Christian miracle because we have one testimonial for the miracle of Quran and have more independent corroborating testimonial for the miracle of Fatima where supposedly the sun zigzagged across the sky. Which off course did not happened.
Imagine if many/multiple first hand eye-witness proved nothing in case of the Fatima supposed miracle how can the weak/bogus first/second/third/ … testimonials(gospels) prove something in the case of Christianity.
Simply ignoring my points looks rather bad. So please don’t.
Ohhh, so what is the magic number for how many eye-witnesses is needed for a story to be considered credible?

What is the magic number for it to be considered "multiple"?

5 accounts? Oh, so 4 wouldn't work? 12? So, 11 wouldn't work? 20, so 19 wouldn't work?

Whatever answer you give, you are giving YOUR opinion...and who said that your opinion is the standard.

My opinion is simple, we can only have ONE account, and as long as this one account is from a trustworthy source, then I can view this one account as credible.

So tell me, what is the threshold; the magic number?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am
Verses from the bible:
“The Ascension of Jesus
“50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
"19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
Gotcha moment: Successful!!

:approve:
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Its not reasonable to take a cumulative path of unlikely scenarios which leads to gospels originated in eye witness and claim it rational and reasonable while ignoring that thousands of eye witness testimonial for the miracle of Fatima(where supposedly the sun zigzagged across the sky) did not prove anything.
Well first of all, I believe in miracles, and I believe in the supernatural. The Bible is clear that God sends out spirits to deceive people, people that were already deceiving themselves...and any alleged miracles or supernatural (pertaining to other religions) could be a result of that.

I don't know
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am
Q: So you acknowledge I was not wrong here?
Therefore the mechanism of embellishment exists: you have an empty tomb and claims of resurrection and then you have actual encounters and ascension in future gospels that copied from Mark and in the forged ending of Mark?
Again, Paul. :D
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Q: Sir I said why would John avoid persecuting by not mentioning his name(John), not Jesus?
I answered your question sir. Can you explain to me why my answer isn't sufficient?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Q: Sir I said why would John avoid persecuting by saying "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and not “the disciple: John whom Jesus loved”?
Because it would be hard to arrest a suspect if you are unable to decipher who the suspect is.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Firstly,
Q: How is rational to think that John would think that romans would read the gospel and say: “Aha. there is a mention of a John therefore was written by John” and that he needs to hide his name too? How is that makes sense in your head?
Is it that difficult to imagine??

*If John began his Gospel by writing..*

John: I, John, brother of James, apostle of Jesus of Nazareth, am writing a biography of Jesus Christ. May he forever be praised and worshipped as the Messiah that he is.

*The books is written and it goes out, sells like hotcakes, and many followers flock to the Christian movement upon reading John's Gospel*

*Roman authorities are frustrated and began to investigate the root of all of this, and due to good intelligence (and simply reading the book), they find out it was John and find out where he resides*

*Roman authorities knocks on John's door*

Authorities: Sir, are you John, brother of James, apostle of Jesus of Nazareth?

John (unwilling to lie): Yes, I am. Is there a problem?

Authorities: This book (Gospel of John) is a problem. Did you write it?

John (unwilling to lie): Yes. I did. Again, is there a problem?

Authorities: A problem for us? No. A problem for you? Yes. Arrest him!!

And there you have it. The persecution of Christians was REAL.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Secondly,
So they were willing to die. Not afraid.
Maybe they were afraid...afraid, yet willing.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Q: Why was necessary to not only avoid mentioning himself in first person but also avoid naming himself in third person?
Like writing in third person was not enough.
I repeat, the persecution of Christians was REAL.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Q: How is compatible this much fear and this exaggerated care with they were willing to die, not afraid-knew for sure of a dimension where they would go after death?
I do not follow.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am If there were a more simple carefulness I would agree with you.
But this exaggeration does not make sense.
Makes sense to me.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Thirdly,
I would not believe for I don’t believe in the miracle of Fatima either. Logically consistent sir. And for good reason.
You are gonna run this Fatima thing into the ground, aren't you?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am But for most people first person testimonial have a bigger impact as proven by reality(most Christians not wanting to let go of eye-witness testimonial hypothesis).
Bigger impact? Most people don't even know anything about the miracle of Fatima. But Jesus Christ, on the other hand..
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am In court for example eye-witness testimony has value while hearsay does not have value.
Well, Luke apparently knew about eyewitnesses, and so did Paul.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Paul verses you provided supports my conclusion too for the future generations would not be able to meet John or Paul and writing in first person has a bigger impact for the future generations. And if they were the writers they would had written like Paul in first person.
Um, no. Christianity became the biggest religion in the world (and still is), and this was DESPITE the four biographies of Jesus NOT being written in the first person.

So, you criteria on what you believe it takes to make a bigger/better impact falls short when it got to where it needed to be without having met your standard of approval on what it takes.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Also Paul writes in first person. So your argument falls short.
That is Paul. That is not Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am It is most likely that the first person is not present because as opposed to epistles who were most likely written by Paul the gospels are not written by Mark, Luke, John(apostle) and Matthew(apostle).
Um, how many biographies do you know of that are written in first person?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am
Here:
Image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
Point?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am “for example, the gospel is written in good Greek and displays sophisticated theology, and is therefore unlikely to have been the work of a simple fisherman.[15] These verses imply rather that the core of the gospel relies on the testimony (perhaps written) of the "disciple who is testifying", as collected, preserved and reshaped by a community of followers (the "we" of the passage), and that a single follower (the "I") rearranged this material and perhaps added the final chapter and other passages to produce the final gospel.[9] Most scholars estimate the final form of the text to be around AD 90–110.[5] Given its complex history there may have been more than one place of composition, and while the author was familiar with Jewish customs and traditions, his frequent clarification of these implies that he wrote for a mixed Jewish/Gentile or Jewish context outside Palestine.[citation needed]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
I already postulated that John may have had a disciple write a Gospel on his behalf, which is not uncommon. And John can also be said to have been written pre 70AD.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am
Image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Mary are according to Wikipedia dating to early second century.
Peter and Mary were eye-witness in the story.
Q: So why their gospels were not included?
Um, not only did you make my point, but you answered your own question.

Early second century is too late to be considered an eyewitness account, when the events in question had taken place in the 30sAD, involving those of adult age.

Its funny, because if the Gospels of Peter and Mary had been placed in the canon, the fact that they were written late would be part of the critique from skeptics as to why they COULDN'T have been credible eyewitnesses.

And now, since that is the reason given as to why those books WEREN'T included, now the skeptic is trying to downplay "written too late" reason, as here you are making it seem as if the "written too late" explanation isn't a good reason...which is why you keep asking the question.

See, and that is my point. Nothing is ever good enough, because it isn't about believing, it is about need to move the goal posts, and remain skeptical at all costs.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am The only thing that smells fallacious is your broken logic.
You cannot escape logic sir.

You said: “No oral tradition before 70AD.“
You said: “in order to have an oral tradition, there must be an oral transmission of information.”(=existence of oral tradition presupposes the existence of oral transmission)

C1:Therefore it follows logically that you are saying that there were no oral transmission before 70 AD.

But in other post you said: “the book of Acts highlights the early preaching of the Gospel. Obviously, this was via oral transmission.” which was in response to “1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:1–2)

2 Thessalonians is dated before 70 AD.

C2:Therefore it follows logically that you are saying there were oral transmission before 70 AD.

C1 and C2 are mutually exclusive claims. Therefore contradiction.

Enjoy! 8-)
You are wrong, sir.

Sure, the existence of oral tradition presupposes the existence of oral transmission, but the existence of oral transmission does not presuppose the existence of oral tradition.

It does not NECESSARILY follow, although it may, depending on the context.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Q: But if the evidence is the same testimonials of miracles(Jesus miracles, Muhammad miracles, Sathya Say Baba miracles, Joseph Smith miracles) and personal unfalsifiable anecdotal experiences how can one claim superiority?
They are on equal footing.
Off course a Christian(protestant) would special plead that his miracle and personal anecdotal experience are more special.
Off course a Islamist would special plead that his miracle and personal anecdotal experience are more special.
Off course a Hindu would special plead that his miracle and personal anecdotal experience are more special.
Off course a Mormon would special plead that his miracle and personal anecdotal experience are more special.
When I find solid evidence for those other religions, they will be considered..until then, Christianity it is.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Changing like the weather does not look good for one credibility.
Oh yeah, and neither does one unwilling to change their position once he/she has been proven wrong.

alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am
But you said you had your own sources.

Q: Were you lying? :?

If not please present the sources.
No need to lie, when the truth works so much better. The destruction of Jerusalem is my source..and all the scholars on my side appeal to it...and if you don't believe me, then just accept the fact that I AM appealing to it.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am
No.

First from my side is not just 60 but more. (80-90AD for Mathew and Luke) (90-110 for John)

It is not unlikely that 5 of them would have been over the age of 60, 70, 80, 90 when they died.
It is unlikely that if we found 5 skeletons of 60, 70, 80, 90 they all would belong to the apostles.
Hope its clear now.
Sure, but take the ENTIRE population who lived at any given time during the decade of 60's, in Palestine, and found out how many would have lived over the age of 60, and it isn't irrational to conclude that at least 5 of those people would have been the apostles.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am According to definition apostle means each of the twelve chief disciples of Jesus Christ: Peter, James, John, Andrew, Bartholomew, James, Judas, Jude, Matthew, Philip, Simon, Thomas.

apostle
/əˈpɒs(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1. each of the twelve chief disciples of Jesus Christ.
https://www.google.com/search?q=apostle ... nt=gws-wiz
From your beloved wikipedia..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle

The term derives from the Greek of the New Testament and was used for Jesus's original Twelve Apostles (including Peter, James, and John), as well as a wider group of early Christian figures, including Paul, Barnabas, and Junia. Some other religions use the term for comparable figures in their history.

Obviously, the term refers to Jesus' original 12 disciples, but it WASN'T limited to just the 12.

Paul would have certainly looked like a fool by claiming he was an apostle as he wrote to those who would have known that he wasn't.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Q: So Paul was with Jesus like Peter and John and Judas?
He was certainly with him when he "appeared" to him.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am I thought Paul was no where near Jesus when he preached and no where near Jesus after he supposedly resurrected and met with the women and the apostles.

Confused. :?
Says who?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am
Q: Am I to do your work for you? No way. So please don’t bore me.
You are apparently good at digging up stuff from past posts...don't stop now.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Q: Do you object that the info from Wikipedia(together with the references) is reliable?
If yes that is a claim and you need to prove this or retract the claim.
If you agree the information is reliable just say you go against the consensus of the scholars and don’t agree.
Let me make this very clear...I disagree with ANYONE, Christian or nonChristian, who dates the Gospels past 70AD. If any Christian disagrees with me, then this is just one of many disagreements that I have with fellow Christians, and the list grows longer every day.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am Also present your sources please.
You kept saying you have your sources.
Present them or else I might think your imagining things and these sources you keep mentioning don’t exist.
Waiting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... em_(70_CE)

It isn't about he said/she said, because the events that took place above is independent of what X person says.

alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:40 am
Straw-man. :x

The two claims were: “ Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel....and early Church traditional has always attributed the Gospel of Mark to Mark, friend of Peter.”
Please provide the evidence for this two claims and not for the straw-man claim.
I am waiting.
Wait a minute, so let me ask you this...are you implying that you are unaware of the fact that we get the authorship of the Gospels from the testimony of early Church figures? And everything that I've said pertaining to this is completely foreign to you?

I thought that this was common knowledge.

And let me ask you another question, if you answer yes to that question, then I am curious as to where do you think we got the names from? After all, it is obvious that the Gospels are anonymous, so where do you think the names came from??
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: The Authorship and Dating of the New Testament (main focus; The Gospels)

Post #33

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm Really? Oh, my bad.

I wasn't under the impression that I am supposed to care what Catholics think.
If I said that, perhaps I was confused. My position has been very clear; all four Gospels originated from either apostles, or friends of the apostles.

Or have I not been clear enough?
1. The Gospels are anonymous

2. Therefore, the Gospels were not written by Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John

Text book example of a non sequitur if I've ever seen one.
Firstly,
Q: Are you seriously obtuse or are you doing this on purpose?
I never said “The Gospels are anonymous. Therefore, the Gospels were not written by Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John”.
Again with the straw-man.
My argument was that the Catholics are saying that the gospels were not written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. That “the first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings.“ means the gospels were not written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

Secondly,
Q: So you don’t agree with Catholics?
or
Q: That “do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. “ means the gospels were not written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John?
Q: Can we advance this point or you are going to be stuck in a forever time bubble of misunderstanding?
Is just ridiculous how hard such simple thing can be.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm Nonsense. First of all, that is an opinion (and a very weak one, at that), and one that I don't particularly share.

"Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism" (whatever that even means) lol.

And not that I am even buying that mumbo, but to draw a parallel, Jesus was in conflict with whatever the Pharisees were saying...so WHAT??
No, it would be understandable for Matthew to mention the fulfillment of a prophecy that Jesus accurately predicted...just like Matthew mentioned many other prophecies that Jesus fulfilled..but somehow he lost focused on arguably the most significant one that would have directly effected the lives of all Jews living at the time.

Nonsense. Not buying it.
Any conclusion drawn from faulty premises, is a faulty conclusion. I have no reason to put any distance between the destruction of Jerusalem and the writing of Matthew...and I reject this weak attempt by any scholar to do so.

All of the other prophecies that were fulfilled and referenced, but all of a sudden when it comes to this particular one, it becomes in conflict with conflict with formative Judaism and was therefore a lack of focus.

HA.
Q: What is this: "Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism" (whatever that even means) lol?
Q: If you don’t understand it how can you just dismiss it?
Q: How is that logical?

Please address my point: “Such a later dating is more consistent with the common scholarly view that the community represented by Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism), which developed into an identifiable entity many decades after the Jewish revolt. Based on this dating the war would not have been an event of the recent past, and it would be understandable that Matthew did not focus on it in his Gospel.
Thus the more distance that can be put between the destruction of Jerusalem and the writing of Matthew, either geographical distance or temporal distance (or both), the more easily we can explain why this Christian Jewish author did not refer more concretely to the calamity of the Jewish War.”

1.Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism).
Prerabbinic Judaism according to the scholar developed into an identifiable entity many decades after the Jewish revolt.
2. Matthew copied from Mark. Mark was dated to 60-70AD.
3. Mathew had a developed Christology.
Therefore Matthew was written after 70AD.

Now to your point:

Sir Mark 13 which include “2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” “ for example talks about the apocalypse. Off course writer of Matthew would know Jesus refers to the apocalypse. Therefore would know that destruction of the temple is not a fulfilment of Mark 13 because it does not make sense. The apocalypse did not came.

“Mark 13
New International Version
The Destruction of the Temple and Signs of the End Times
13 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”
2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
5 Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.
9 “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
12 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’[a] standing where it[b does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.
20 “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. 21 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
24 “But in those days, following that distress,
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[c]
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.”
We have also: “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” where Jesus says he will destroy the temple and build it in three days(without the use of hands)”.
Off course this not happened. Jesus was long gone by that time.
“The siege of the city began on 14 April 70 CE, three days before the beginning of Passover that year. The Jews enjoyed some minor victories, one highpoint being when sappers from Adiabene managed to tunnel under the city and set bitumen fires in the tunnels, which collapsed with the Roman siege engines falling into the crevices.[6]
The siege lasted for about five months; it ended in August 70 CE on Tisha B'Av with the burning and destruction of the Second Temple.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... em_(70_CE)


You have only two options:

Either the destruction of the temple coincides with the coming of the apocalypse(this was believed by some of the early Christians) and thus the prophecy is a failed prophecy or it does not refer to the destruction of the temple so the whole does not make sense and boom your point vanishes.
Either Jesus destroyed the temple and build it in three days(no hands) and thus the prophecy is a failed prophecy or it does not refer to the destruction of the temple but it was just a bold, arrogant claim/threat not a prophecy.
Either we have two failed prophecies which disproves your hypothesis or your point vanishes.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm

Hmm, but what if the stories of the actual encounters of the risen Jesus was there from the very beginning??

1 Corin 15:3-7

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Guess what, the writings of 1Corinthians predates Mark, and there you have Paul testifying to the appearances of the risen Jesus...so you can't logically say that the risen stories about Jesus in Mark became more phantasmagorical by the time Matthew began writing, when you have Paul referencing the post-mortem appearances even before Mark.

Wow, this is probably the best "gotcha" movement I've ever had since I began on this great forum.

And it feels good, too
Its good that you finally acknowledged writer of Mark ending is more phantasmagorical.
But writer of Mark did not copied from Paul.
Writer of Matthew did(copied from Mark) and embellished so Jesus would look more divine.
Mark has a forged ending to include something so Jesus would look more divine, that he actually resurrected.
It may be that the story was already in some parts as phantasmagorical in some parts as Matthew but writer of Mark proves it was not the same. The story evolved differently on multiple fronts. (like the language evolution tree, biological evolution tree).
There is clear need in Mathew to make Jesus look more divine, phantasmagorical.
That does not disappear because Paul write something more phantasmagorical then writer of Mark.
There is clearly an evident need to make the story look more consistent, more divine and to include an appearance of the resurrected Jesus. Of people tempering with the story, plagiarism and so one.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm Again, I disagree. If the actual post-mortem appearances of Jesus is all you have to go on, then again, I simply point out that Paul was aware of this "appearance" Christology...so it looks like the stuff was developed before the biographies of Jesus even began.
Christology is the sense of Jesus divinity. Exalted prophet/Demigod/Actual God/Equal to Yahweh.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm Conversation for another day.
But it shows Paul had a low, less developed Christology then Matthew and John.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm Last I checked, all of those guys are human beings, and human beings can be flawed in their logical reasoning.

Yes. But when an average Joe claims arrogantly he knows better then heavily schooled, trained and experienced historian scholars looks rather bad.

Usually Christians-average Joes claim arrogantly claim like you did, to know better then biologists, geologists, paleontologists, geneticists, historian scholars, psychiatrists, cosmologists, physicists.

"Earth and universe is a few thousand years old. "
"There was a global flood. "
"Psychopaths are not born this way. Gays are not born this way. They are just sinners."
"Evolution did not happen. "
"Modern Homo sapiens(humans) are not from 160,000 years ago. "
"Carnivores, diseases and entropy did not exist before the existence of humans. "
"Global warming-climate change(which will probably lead to the extinction of the human specie) is not caused by humans. "


A huge number of very smart people (much smarter then me and you) have spend decades of their lives dedicated to a field. They deserve a bit of respect and much careful taught then boring dismissal born out of ignorance like: “(whatever that even means) lol.”

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm Yeah, but it sounds like you are presupposing that it isn't real...you do not believe it, do you? Well then.
Being skeptical is not presupposing something is not.
Not believing something is not equal to believing not.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm I don't need to presuppose when I have New Testament record of Paul dispelling false teachings...or do you not know enough about Paul's writings to know that??

Or, do you only pick up the Bible and read it when you have in mind to find something to be skeptical about, and Paul dispelling false religions/teachings never was something to be skeptical about...until maybe now?
Yeah, and Jesus claimed his teachings were correct and the Pharisees claimed that theirs were correct. Point?
You cannot say false teaching sir. That presupposes the thing you are trying to show.
Paul believed they were false teaching as did the other sect.
Paul dispelled what he taught as false teaching not Paul dispelling false teachings.
What is false or not is just subjective interpretation of what Jesus said.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm So, lets see if this reasoning passes the syllogism test...

1. There was a quarrel among the early Christians

2. Those quarrels caused confusion amongst believers

3. Therefore, Christianity isn't true

NOPE. Failed.

Another text book example of a non sequitur.
Since there are a multitude of competing religions-sects, and thus a multitude of (absent anything better than testimony) equally credible yet contrary testimonies, the probability that any given religion is true--and thus that any religion at all is true--is extraordinarily low. Consequently, it is highly probable that all religions are false. Although an argument from contrariety can be combined with an argument from religious confusion to demonstrate the probable nonexistence of God, it does not have to be; an argument from contrariety stands on its own as a strong argument for the falsity of all religions-sect.
The huge confusion, contrariety that existed before and now todays is not compatible with a personal God (that supposedly intervened often in the past). Maybe with a deist(indifferent one).
This whole thing that happened back then and now days can only point to a non-existence to a rational mind.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm Ohhh, so what is the magic number for how many eye-witnesses is needed for a story to be considered credible?

What is the magic number for it to be considered "multiple"?

5 accounts? Oh, so 4 wouldn't work? 12? So, 11 wouldn't work? 20, so 19 wouldn't work?

Whatever answer you give, you are giving YOUR opinion...and who said that your opinion is the standard.

My opinion is simple, we can only have ONE account, and as long as this one account is from a trustworthy source, then I can view this one account as credible.

So tell me, what is the threshold; the magic number?
I never said there is need of a number. Its irrelevant of the number.
I just made an observation and a rational.
I just pointed that: If many/multiple first hand eye-witness proved nothing in case of the Fatima supposed miracle or Sai Baba supposed miracles how can the weak/bogus first/second/third/ … testimonials(gospels) from 2000 years ago prove something in the case of Christianity?
“Sai Baba's believers credited him with miracles such as materialisations of vibhuti (holy ash) and other small objects such as rings, necklaces, and watches, along with reports of miraculous healings, resurrections, clairvoyance, bilocation, and was allegedly omnipotent and omniscient.
These events culminated in an event where he apparently healed himself in front of the thousands of people gathered in Prashanthi Nilayam who were then praying for his recovery.[7] “


"Miracle 1.

Me and my brother went to Puttaparthi to write sssihl entrance exam to get our seat in Swami's collage. So , we reached on 19 April 2019. Since it was very hot then most of the times we just stayed outside our room by going for a walk or something during evening times. So, one bliss full evening when we were having our dinner at Swami's south indian canteen , there were lots and lots of people along with us some of them are parents, students and every one was there to have their bellies filled .

After our dinner I was just looking for an opportunity to do some service of giving water to the elders who needs it while eating .suddenly an 8 years old boy from an upper middle class background was just feeling difficult to take his breath , my brother noticed that and we went there to see the situation .still I remember, his face has become red , he closed his both eyes , he was just suffering like fish out from water . I stood there in shock and every one gathered there. He was running very high temperature through out his body. Some secounds later few people started calling ambulance and few people said “ he is going to die .”I just saw his father's face , he was crying and holding his child . After that situation became worst and every one was worried ,eventually childs body became so cool and he stopped his breath. We just checked his pulse and that's no more.He stopped responding and stoped moving . He fell at his father's hand like a corpse.

Then suddenly one volunteer from southindian canteen came to us with vibhuthi and told his father “ This is the place where God has walked , so don't worry , it's normal thing for us ” he began to apply that vibuthi all over boys body , then after few secounds he just started crying which made most of us in happy tears , immediately ambulance came and boy was taken to hospital.

When ever I recall that situation I will get goosebumps . Thank u Sairam."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-devotee-of- ... their-life
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-mira ... -your-life
http://saibaba.ws/miracles.htm

“Various claims have been made as to what actually happened during the event. According to many witnesses, after a period of rain, the dark clouds broke and the Sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky. It was said to be significantly duller than normal, and to cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds. The Sun was then reported to have careened towards the Earth before zig-zagging back to its normal position.[18][19] Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling".”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm Well first of all, I believe in miracles, and I believe in the supernatural. The Bible is clear that God sends out spirits to deceive people, people that were already deceiving themselves...and any alleged miracles or supernatural (pertaining to other religions) could be a result of that.

I don't know
Q: God is trying to deceive people? So is creating the confusion? Why?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm From your beloved wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle

The term derives from the Greek of the New Testament and was used for Jesus's original Twelve Apostles (including Peter, James, and John), as well as a wider group of early Christian figures, including Paul, Barnabas, and Junia. Some other religions use the term for comparable figures in their history.

Obviously, the term refers to Jesus' original 12 disciples, but it WASN'T limited to just the 12.

Paul would have certainly looked like a fool by claiming he was an apostle as he wrote to those who would have known that he wasn't.
He was certainly with him when he "appeared" to him.

Says who?
“According to the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles, Paul was a Pharisee; he participated in the persecution of early disciples of Jesus,”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle

He was not a disciple of Jesus while Jesus was alive. He was not in the story with the other 12 disciples whey they met with Jesus after the supposed resurrection .
What’s the logic: he was with them, then later he participated in the persecution of early disciples of Jesus, then become an apostle again. Does not make sense.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm I answered your question sir. Can you explain to me why my answer isn't sufficient?

Because it would be hard to arrest a suspect if you are unable to decipher who the suspect is.

Is it that difficult to imagine??

*If John began his Gospel by writing..*

John: I, John, brother of James, apostle of Jesus of Nazareth, am writing a biography of Jesus Christ. May he forever be praised and worshipped as the Messiah that he is.

*The books is written and it goes out, sells like hotcakes, and many followers flock to the Christian movement upon reading John's Gospel*

*Roman authorities are frustrated and began to investigate the root of all of this, and due to good intelligence (and simply reading the book), they find out it was John and find out where he resides*

*Roman authorities knocks on John's door*

Authorities: Sir, are you John, brother of James, apostle of Jesus of Nazareth?

John (unwilling to lie): Yes, I am. Is there a problem?

Authorities: This book (Gospel of John) is a problem. Did you write it?

John (unwilling to lie): Yes. I did. Again, is there a problem?

Authorities: A problem for us? No. A problem for you? Yes. Arrest him!!

And there you have it. The persecution of Christians was REAL.
I repeat, the persecution of Christians was REAL.
That is Paul. That is not Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
1. I am talking not of first person but why third person was not enough.
Q: Why would the romans conclude the writer is John if John writes in third person?
It’s a non-sequitur.
Most people when they read something in third person(“Alex did x”) they don’t believe it was written by Alex.
2. In Revelation writer of John writes in first person. So whole argument falls short.
3. Paul writes in first person. Here suddenly for no reason the argument “of persecution” its not needed. So whole argument falls short.



We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm Maybe they were afraid...afraid, yet willing.
I do not follow.
Makes sense to me.
I am afraid this much fear and this exaggerated care is not compatible with they were willing to die, not afraid-knew for sure of a dimension where they would go after death.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm Bigger impact? Most people don't even know anything about the miracle of Fatima. But Jesus Christ, on the other hand.
Um, no. Christianity became the biggest religion in the world (and still is), and this was DESPITE the four biographies of Jesus NOT being written in the first person.

So, you criteria on what you believe it takes to make a bigger/better impact falls short when it got to where it needed to be without having met your standard of approval on what it takes.
Reality tells us that “most Christians do not want to let go of eye-witness testimonial hypothesis” which proves my point.
Its funny how a Christian says eye witness testimony would not have a big impact while desperately trying to prove Gospels are written by either the apostles or friends of the apostle which would suggest eye-witness testimonial is important.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm Um, how many biographies do you know of that are written in first person?
This is true of professional biographies so one does not sound like bragging.
We are talking of testimonials here. When one writes a testimony in court he does not write in third person.
Sir Paul is written in first person. Same as Revelation first person narration.
You argument is not consistent. Its all over the place.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm Point?
You said the apocryphal gospels were written centuries later.
I showed links to Wiki showing otherwise.

I said: “I already prove you were wrong by saying centuries later.”
Then you said: “You've done no such thing, sir.”
So I put the pic for you showing apocryphal gospels being dated to early 2d century.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm Early second century is too late to be considered an eyewitness account, when the events in question had taken place in the 30sAD, involving those of adult age.

Its funny, because if the Gospels of Peter and Mary had been placed in the canon, the fact that they were written late would be part of the critique from skeptics as to why they COULDN'T have been credible eyewitnesses.

And now, since that is the reason given as to why those books WEREN'T included, now the skeptic is trying to downplay "written too late" reason, as here you are making it seem as if the "written too late" explanation isn't a good reason...which is why you keep asking the question.

See, and that is my point. Nothing is ever good enough, because it isn't about believing, it is about need to move the goal posts, and remain skeptical at all costs.
Sir you said: “Well again, because, even if the late 90AD timeframe has any credence, the reason John was considered more credible was because he was considered an EYEWITNESS, “
So you said John gospel (supposedly written by the apostle) was selected because he(John the apostle) was considered more credible was because he was considered an EYEWITNESS.
So too Peter according to the story would be credible and EYEWITNESS.
Q: Why was gospel of Peter not selected?
John too (90AD) its pretty late. It might as well be 110AD according to the scholars. So pretty close in gospels terms to the gospel of Peter.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm You are wrong, sir.

Sure, the existence of oral tradition presupposes the existence of oral transmission, but the existence of oral transmission does not presuppose the existence of oral tradition.

It does not NECESSARILY follow, although it may, depending on the context.
Sir when you said: “No oral tradition before 70AD.“
Q: Does this mean you said no oral transmission before 70 AD?(Yes/No)


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm When I find solid evidence for those other religions, they will be considered..until then, Christianity it is.

Sir the evidence is the same for all religions in my example: testimonials of miracles and personal unfalsifiable anecdotal experiences.
Q: Why is Christianity in a superior position when the same testimonials of miracles and personal unfalsifiable anecdotal experiences are offered as evidence?

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm Sure, but take the ENTIRE population who lived at any given time during the decade of 60's, in Palestine, and found out how many would have lived over the age of 60, and it isn't irrational to conclude that at least 5 of those people would have been the apostles.

Please don’t keep saying just 60. From my argumentation perspective is 60-90.

If you had 5 friends and you claimed in a book that they lived all to 100-120 years old.
In the future people read your book.
It is truth that there are many people on the planet that lived to 100-120 in 20-21century but its highly unlikely to find 5 of them all being 100-120 is such close vicinity: 5 friends.
Hope its clear now.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm He was certainly with him when he "appeared" to him.


Paul would have certainly looked like a fool by claiming he was an apostle as he wrote to those who would have known that he wasn't.
Says who?


You are apparently good at digging up stuff from past posts...don't stop now.
I did for my replies. I will no dig for your replies.
Q: Are you lazy?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm
Let me make this very clear...I disagree with ANYONE, Christian or nonChristian, who dates the Gospels past 70AD. If any Christian disagrees with me, then this is just one of many disagreements that I have with fellow Christians, and the list grows longer every day.

Just answer the question:

Q: Do you object that the info from Wikipedia(together with the references) is reliable?

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm No need to lie, when the truth works so much better. The destruction of Jerusalem is my source..and all the scholars on my side appeal to it...and if you don't believe me, then just accept the fact that I AM appealing to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... em_(70_CE)

It isn't about he said/she said, because the events that took place above is independent of what X person says.


Sir we were talking of scholars.
You said: “Depending on who you talk to” and “and all the scholars on my side appeal to it”
So please provide these sources. These scholars on your side.
Q: Who are them?
Or me and the readers might think you lied.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 pm Wait a minute, so let me ask you this...are you implying that you are unaware of the fact that we get the authorship of the Gospels from the testimony of early Church figures? And everything that I've said pertaining to this is completely foreign to you?

I thought that this was common knowledge.

And let me ask you another question, if you answer yes to that question, then I am curious as to where do you think we got the names from? After all, it is obvious that the Gospels are anonymous, so where do you think the names came from??
Apologists are known for quote mining, misrepresenting things or lying. Look how you misrepresent what the new testament Australian scholar said: that the writer of Mathew did not knew of the destruction for the temple.

So please don’t bore me with irrelevant nonsense.
You made two claims and as per forum rules you need to provide the evidence.
You will not escape from the lion jaws no matter how much you squirm. 8-)

Please provide the evidence for these two positive claims: Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel....and early Church traditional has always attributed the Gospel of Mark to Mark, friend of Peter.”
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: The Authorship and Dating of the New Testament (main focus; The Gospels)

Post #34

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am
Firstly,
Q: Are you seriously obtuse or are you doing this on purpose?
I never said “The Gospels are anonymous. Therefore, the Gospels were not written by Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John”.

My argument was that the Catholics are saying that the gospels were not written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
Well first of all, there is no denying that the Gospels are anonymous and I already acknowledged this fact...and the fact that you continue to drive home that point is becoming disingenuous.

Second, again, in case I didn't make this point clear the first time; I do not CARE what the Catholics think about the authorship of the Gospels.

Or, is this still not clear enough?
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am That “the first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings.“ means the gospels were not written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Secondly,
Q: So you don’t agree with Catholics?
or
Q: That “do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. “ means the gospels were not written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John?
Q: Can we advance this point or you are going to be stuck in a forever time bubble of misunderstanding?
Is just ridiculous how hard such simple thing can be.
My position has been clear, and consistent. Consistent, and clear.

The Gospels, according to the data that has been presented to me, was written and/or originated from either the apostles, friends of the apostles...all before 70AD.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Q: What is this: "Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism" (whatever that even means) lol?
Q: If you don’t understand it how can you just dismiss it?
Q: How is that logical?
Ok, lets see...what is formative Judaism after all??

"Formative Judaism refers to the original state of the Rabbinic Judaism from the late second century C.E. to the early seventh century."

https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA ... 7Ebfe50065

Ok, so now I know what formative Judaism is...and based on this new information which was brought to my attention, I stand by what I said.

I have all Gospels being written prior to 70AD, which makes anything from the late second century C.E to the early seventh century too late, and irrelevant.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Please address my point: “Such a later dating is more consistent with the common scholarly view that the community represented by Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism), which developed into an identifiable entity many decades after the Jewish revolt. Based on this dating the war would not have been an event of the recent past, and it would be understandable that Matthew did not focus on it in his Gospel.
Thus the more distance that can be put between the destruction of Jerusalem and the writing of Matthew, either geographical distance or temporal distance (or both), the more easily we can explain why this Christian Jewish author did not refer more concretely to the calamity of the Jewish War.”

1.Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism).
Prerabbinic Judaism according to the scholar developed into an identifiable entity many decades after the Jewish revolt.
2. Matthew copied from Mark. Mark was dated to 60-70AD.
3. Mathew had a developed Christology.
Therefore Matthew was written after 70AD.
Even if Matthew was written in the 2nd century AD or above, it is inexcusable as to why Matthew would STILL not mention the fulfilment of the prophecy, when he mentioned the fulfilment of other prophecies that were ALL not have been based on "events of the recent past"

So your reasoning is..

1. He didn't write about X prophecy because it was not an event of recent past.

Problem: He writes about other prophecies which were also not events of the recent past.

Makes no sense. A very weak argument, and not consistent with the book in context.

If Jesus was a prophecy fulfiller, and part of Matthew's aim was to write about Jesus' fulfilled prophecy, then you DON'T leave out the prophecy of Jesus' prediction of Jerusalem, the temple, and both of their destructions.

With all due respect, I will not be addressing your counter-argument again. If you have something else to throw at me, then by all means.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Now to your point:

Sir Mark 13 which include “2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” “ for example talks about the apocalypse. Off course writer of Matthew would know Jesus refers to the apocalypse. Therefore would know that destruction of the temple is not a fulfilment of Mark 13 because it does not make sense. The apocalypse did not came.

You have only two options:

Either the destruction of the temple coincides with the coming of the apocalypse(this was believed by some of the early Christians) and thus the prophecy is a failed prophecy or it does not refer to the destruction of the temple so the whole does not make sense and boom your point vanishes.
Um, Scripture is clear; the disciples called Jesus' attention to the buildings and Jesus prophesized their destruction...and then the disciples asked Jesus two questions..

Matthew 24:1-3

1. “Tell us, when will these things be?

2. And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Those are two entirely different questions, sir.

To answer one was not to answer the other.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Either Jesus destroyed the temple and build it in three days(no hands) and thus the prophecy is a failed prophecy or it does not refer to the destruction of the temple but it was just a bold, arrogant claim/threat not a prophecy.
Either we have two failed prophecies which disproves your hypothesis or your point vanishes.
When did Jesus destroy the temple and build it in three days??

Ohh, you must be talking about when Jesus said..

John 2:19

"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up".

Had you kept reading...in verse 21..

'21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body"

And we all know that, according to the narratives, his body (temple) was raised after 3 days.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Its good that you finally acknowledged writer of Mark ending is more phantasmagorical.
When did I do that?
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am But writer of Mark did not copied from Paul.
Who said that he did?
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Writer of Matthew did(copied from Mark) and embellished so Jesus would look more divine.
I disagree for previously given reasons.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Mark has a forged ending to include something so Jesus would look more divine, that he actually resurrected.
It may be that the story was already in some parts as phantasmagorical in some parts as Matthew but writer of Mark proves it was not the same. The story evolved differently on multiple fronts. (like the language evolution tree, biological evolution tree). There is clear need in Mathew to make Jesus look more divine, phantasmagorical.
That is simply not true, sir. Lets take a look at Mark..

Mark 8:31

"31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again."

So, the resurrection was already foretold in Mark 8..and in Mark 16:6..

"6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him."

And if you keep reading the little that is left in Mark, there was an expectation to see the risen Jesus at a later time.

So, this notion that Matthew is more phantasmagorical than Mark is bogus.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am That does not disappear because Paul write something more phantasmagorical then writer of Mark.
Nonsense. Your prior claim was that things got more phantasmagorical over the time period between the writing of Mark and Matthew, which is simply not true, because Paul gives us the earliest testimony of Christian thought, and the phantasmagorical stuff was there from the very beginning...so it wasn't something that developed over time, as you allege.

So, you are simply wrong, sir.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am There is clearly an evident need to make the story look more consistent, more divine and to include an appearance of the resurrected Jesus. Of people tempering with the story, plagiarism and so one.
The resurrection story was there from the very beginning, sir (according to Paul). So please, if you can provide any early historical evidence of stories involving Jesus which did NOT have a Resurrection account, then please, dazzle me.

And I really don't think you will find any historical evidence which predates Paul...so please, drop this nonsense.

:D
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Christology is the sense of Jesus divinity. Exalted prophet/Demigod/Actual God/Equal to Yahweh.
We have some "Trinity Proof" texts from Paul..so again, the divine stuff was there from the very beginning, my friend.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am
But it shows Paul had a low, less developed Christology then Matthew and John.
"Conversation for another day".
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Yes. But when an average Joe claims arrogantly he knows better then heavily schooled, trained and experienced historian scholars looks rather bad.
A heavily schooled, trained and experienced mathematician can't tell me (truthfully) that 2+2=16.

Catch my drift?

And besides, there are some jailhouse/prison lawyers that knows more are more well-versed in the law than some lawyers that graduated law school.

And while I am no expert, I am far from a novice.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Usually Christians-average Joes claim arrogantly claim like you did, to know better then biologists, geologists, paleontologists, geneticists, historian scholars, psychiatrists, cosmologists, physicists.
When you say "know better", that is speaking rather broadly isn't it? Lets just say when it comes to this particular subject, I think they are wrong.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am A huge number of very smart people (much smarter then me and you) have spend decades of their lives dedicated to a field. They deserve a bit of respect and much careful taught then boring dismissal born out of ignorance like: “(whatever that even means) lol.”
I offered more than just boring dismissals...and those decades of studies apparently didn't stop the one scholar from offering such a weak response to my case.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Being skeptical is not presupposing something is not.
Not believing something is not equal to believing not.
Yeah, but the problem is; your skepticism is completely one-sided. You haven't shown any amount of skepticism towards those post-70AD timeframes, have you?

No, you haven't.

So it is clear to any person with half a brain as to what your position is.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am You cannot say false teaching sir. That presupposes the thing you are trying to show.
I am convinced, and I believe...so I speak from the perspective of someone who is convinced, and believe.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Paul believed they were false teaching as did the other sect.
Paul dispelled what he taught as false teaching not Paul dispelling false teachings.
What is false or not is just subjective interpretation of what Jesus said.
I agree...however, I am riding with Paul on this one.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Since there are a multitude of competing religions-sects, and thus a multitude of (absent anything better than testimony) equally credible yet contrary testimonies, the probability that any given religion is true--and thus that any religion at all is true--is extraordinarily low. Consequently, it is highly probable that all religions are false. Although an argument from contrariety can be combined with an argument from religious confusion to demonstrate the probable nonexistence of God, it does not have to be; an argument from contrariety stands on its own as a strong argument for the falsity of all religions-sect.
The huge confusion, contrariety that existed before and now todays is not compatible with a personal God (that supposedly intervened often in the past). Maybe with a deist(indifferent one).
This whole thing that happened back then and now days can only point to a non-existence to a rational mind.
We all have our opinions, don't we.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am I never said there is need of a number. Its irrelevant of the number.
I just made an observation and a rational.
I just pointed that: If many/multiple first hand eye-witness proved nothing in case of the Fatima supposed miracle or Sai Baba supposed miracles how can the weak/bogus first/second/third/ … testimonials(gospels) from 2000 years ago prove something in the case of Christianity?
“Sai Baba's believers credited him with miracles such as materialisations of vibhuti (holy ash) and other small objects such as rings, necklaces, and watches, along with reports of miraculous healings, resurrections, clairvoyance, bilocation, and was allegedly omnipotent and omniscient.
These events culminated in an event where he apparently healed himself in front of the thousands of people gathered in Prashanthi Nilayam who were then praying for his recovery.[7] “


"Miracle 1.

Me and my brother went to Puttaparthi to write sssihl entrance exam to get our seat in Swami's collage. So , we reached on 19 April 2019. Since it was very hot then most of the times we just stayed outside our room by going for a walk or something during evening times. So, one bliss full evening when we were having our dinner at Swami's south indian canteen , there were lots and lots of people along with us some of them are parents, students and every one was there to have their bellies filled .

After our dinner I was just looking for an opportunity to do some service of giving water to the elders who needs it while eating .suddenly an 8 years old boy from an upper middle class background was just feeling difficult to take his breath , my brother noticed that and we went there to see the situation .still I remember, his face has become red , he closed his both eyes , he was just suffering like fish out from water . I stood there in shock and every one gathered there. He was running very high temperature through out his body. Some secounds later few people started calling ambulance and few people said “ he is going to die .”I just saw his father's face , he was crying and holding his child . After that situation became worst and every one was worried ,eventually childs body became so cool and he stopped his breath. We just checked his pulse and that's no more.He stopped responding and stoped moving . He fell at his father's hand like a corpse.

Then suddenly one volunteer from southindian canteen came to us with vibhuthi and told his father “ This is the place where God has walked , so don't worry , it's normal thing for us ” he began to apply that vibuthi all over boys body , then after few secounds he just started crying which made most of us in happy tears , immediately ambulance came and boy was taken to hospital.

When ever I recall that situation I will get goosebumps . Thank u Sairam."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-devotee-of- ... their-life
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-mira ... -your-life
http://saibaba.ws/miracles.htm

“Various claims have been made as to what actually happened during the event. According to many witnesses, after a period of rain, the dark clouds broke and the Sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky. It was said to be significantly duller than normal, and to cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds. The Sun was then reported to have careened towards the Earth before zig-zagging back to its normal position.[18][19] Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling".”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
Too much, and refuse to address.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am
Q: God is trying to deceive people? So is creating the confusion? Why?
God does what he does.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am “According to the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles, Paul was a Pharisee; he participated in the persecution of early disciples of Jesus,”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle

He was not a disciple of Jesus while Jesus was alive. He was not in the story with the other 12 disciples whey they met with Jesus after the supposed resurrection .
What’s the logic: he was with them, then later he participated in the persecution of early disciples of Jesus, then become an apostle again. Does not make sense.
Well, apparently, being a "disciple of Jesus while Jesus was alive, and being with the other 12 disciples when they met Jesus after the supposed resurrection"...

Apparently none of that was a requirement to become an apostle of Jesus.

So, instead of trying to make the Bible's definition of apostle fit YOUR definition, you should be trying to make your definition of apostle fit the Bible's definition.

Because it seems that Paul called himself (and was recognized) as an apostle, regardless of what people living 2,000 years later would think about what being an apostle entails.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am 1. I am talking not of first person but why third person was not enough.
I do not follow.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Q: Why would the romans conclude the writer is John if John writes in third person?
It’s a non-sequitur.
That is kinda my point. They wouldn't.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Most people when they read something in third person(“Alex did x”) they don’t believe it was written by Alex.
There could have been extenuating circumstances, as I previously mentioned...and when there are extenuating circumstances, usually normal protocol are averted.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am 2. In Revelation writer of John writes in first person. So whole argument falls short.
Right, and he could have been writing in first person at his own risk.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am 3. Paul writes in first person. Here suddenly for no reason the argument “of persecution” its not needed. So whole argument falls short.
Yeah, and he was persecuted throughout his ministry and allegedly executed...and I am sure his epistle writing didn't help matters.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am
I am afraid this much fear and this exaggerated care is not compatible with they were willing to die, not afraid-knew for sure of a dimension where they would go after death.
I believe that I will be in Paradise when I die, but that doesn't mean that I am willing to rush to process.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Reality tells us that “most Christians do not want to let go of eye-witness testimonial hypothesis” which proves my point.
We don't want to let it go because we have what we believe to be persuasive evidence for us to draw the "eyewitness testimonial" conclusion.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Its funny how a Christian says eye witness testimony would not have a big impact while desperately trying to prove Gospels are written by either the apostles or friends of the apostle which would suggest eye-witness testimonial is important.
Yeah, but "friends of the apostles" isn't necessarily eyewitness testimonial.

So if Christians were so hell bent on eye witness testimony, why not just say that Mark was written by Peter (at which it would be called "Peter"), and Luke was written by Paul (at which it would be called "Paul").

The answer: because that isn't what the evidence shows, and we are genuinely going where the evidence takes us, and that is where we are.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am This is true of professional biographies so one does not sound like bragging.
We are talking of testimonials here. When one writes a testimony in court he does not write in third person.
Sir Paul is written in first person. Same as Revelation first person narration.
You argument is not consistent. Its all over the place.
Well, first of all, there are only 4 Gospels...and of the 4, two of them are alleged to have been written by friends of the apostles, so that would explain why those two aren't written in first person.

So that only leaves 2 Gospels left, and these two may have been written in third person because..

1. Feared persecution.

2. Because they had disciples/scribes write it on their behalf (which at that point all would be written by friends), but the story obviously ORIGINATED from the eyewitness.

And the stories themselves may not be from a first person view, but surely from an eyewitness' POV.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am
You said the apocryphal gospels were written centuries later.
I showed links to Wiki showing otherwise.

I said: “I already prove you were wrong by saying centuries later.”
Then you said: “You've done no such thing, sir.”
So I put the pic for you showing apocryphal gospels being dated to early 2d century.
Yeah, and early 2nd century is still too late to have been written or originated by an eyewitness.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Sir you said: “Well again, because, even if the late 90AD timeframe has any credence, the reason John was considered more credible was because he was considered an EYEWITNESS, “
So you said John gospel (supposedly written by the apostle) was selected because he(John the apostle) was considered more credible was because he was considered an EYEWITNESS.
So too Peter according to the story would be credible and EYEWITNESS.
Q: Why was gospel of Peter not selected?
John too (90AD) its pretty late. It might as well be 110AD according to the scholars. So pretty close in gospels terms to the gospel of Peter.
Well, that would be a good point, but what I said was conditional: "if the late 90AD has any credence"...which it doesn't.

That, followed by the fact that Peter allegedly died in the 60's AD...so that late 90's+ timeframe is quite BOGUS, even for a scribe to write for him.

I believe that John was also written before 70AD.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Sir when you said: “No oral tradition before 70AD.“
Q: Does this mean you said no oral transmission before 70 AD?(Yes/No)
My answer is no.

I see the point you are making, but I don't buy the notion that the oral transmission which obviously had to have taken place was part of an oral tradition.

That is where context is important here. That is just how I view it. Now, others may believe that the oral transmissions of the message was part of an oral tradition.

Slight disagreement, thats all.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Sir the evidence is the same for all religions in my example: testimonials of miracles and personal unfalsifiable anecdotal experiences. Q: Why is Christianity in a superior position when the same testimonials of miracles and personal unfalsifiable anecdotal experiences are offered as evidence?
Allow me to use an example, lets just take an example from the Bible; the Moses/Pharaoh/Plagues account.

So, Moses appears before Pharaoh, and miraculously (by the power of God), his staff is turned into a snake.

Now, to not be undone/outshined, Pharaoh called upon his sorcerers to have their staffs/sticks also turn into snakes.

So, here we have an account of two miracles (supernatural phenomena).

Long story short..

Moses staff to snake: Power of God

Pharaoh's staff to snake: Power of satan (demonic powers)

Now, Pharaoh may have interpreted his phenomena to mean that it was all done by the power of the Egyptian gods that his staff had turned into a snake, when in reality, everything that occurred during those events were as a result of what God (Yahweh) allowed.

In other words, it had nothing to do with Pharaoh's Gods, but all to do with Yahweh.

So, take that example, and apply it to all of those other experiences pertaining to other supernatural events and religions, and that is how I view it.

No, I do not have any knock-down argument as to "Suppose their religion is the real one, and yours is the false one?"

I do not "know"...but I know where the evidence points.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Please don’t keep saying just 60. From my argumentation perspective is 60-90.
I can't go past 70AD, for previously given reasons...but even if I did, that would mean that there are even more of a sample size to select from, which would give me more men living past your "drop dead" age.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am If you had 5 friends and you claimed in a book that they lived all to 100-120 years old.
In the future people read your book.
It is truth that there are many people on the planet that lived to 100-120 in 20-21century but its highly unlikely to find 5 of them all being 100-120 is such close vicinity: 5 friends.
Hope its clear now.
Are you saying that living to age 60-65 in first century Palenstine is equivalent to living to age 100-105 (in all modesty) today?

If yes, then we simply disagree. If no, then this is a false equivalency.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am
I did for my replies. I will no dig for your replies.
Nonsense. You dug up some of mines, too.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Q: Are you lazy?
When it comes to that, unashamedly.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Just answer the question:

Q: Do you object that the info from Wikipedia(together with the references) is reliable?
Yes.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Sir we were talking of scholars.
You said: “Depending on who you talk to” and “and all the scholars on my side appeal to it”
So please provide these sources. These scholars on your side.
Q: Who are them?
Or me and the readers might think you lied.
Nonsense. Because you are appealing to authority.

If my argument has any merit, then it shouldn't be based upon which scholars agree, but rather on its own merit.

That is why I continue to say that I don't care what anyone says, regardless of their academic credentials.

What you were provided with is evidence for a historical "fact" (Jerusalem), a fact of which my entire case is based from.

I have no desire to play this "hot potato" game of scholars...at least when it comes to this Jerusalem business.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am Apologists are known for quote mining, misrepresenting things or lying. Look how you misrepresent what the new testament Australian scholar said: that the writer of Mathew did not knew of the destruction for the temple.
If the writer of Matthew knew about the destruction of the Temple, that would be all the more reason for him to mention Jesus' fulfillment of the prophecy pertaining to the temple.

The argument was weak, and it is still weak, and will remain weak.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:46 am So please don’t bore me with irrelevant nonsense.
You made two claims and as per forum rules you need to provide the evidence.
You will not escape from the lion jaws no matter how much you squirm. 8-) Please provide the evidence for these two positive claims: Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel....and early Church traditional has always attributed the Gospel of Mark to Mark, friend of Peter.”

Quick excerpt..


Papias (AD 95–120) – Who Wrote the Gospel of Matthew?
Matthew composed the logia in the Hebrew tongue and everyone interpreted them as he was able.

Papias. Cited by Eusebius, HE, iii. 39. 16.

The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai, but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.

Papias. Cited by Eusebius.

https://reformedwiki.com/who-wrote-the- ... of-matthew

Now, let me just point out that before you go Googling in an effort to find disagreeing source material to the implications of any of my sources, that I am and will stand firm with the early church as it pertains to Gospel authorship.

I really don't care what "scholars" who are 2,000 years removed from the scene, have to say about the subject.

I care more what people living very much closer to the scene of the "crime", than naysayers living centuries later.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2290
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1836 times
Been thanked: 1360 times

Re: The Authorship and Dating of the New Testament (main focus; The Gospels)

Post #35

Post by Difflugia »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm Papias (AD 95–120) – Who Wrote the Gospel of Matthew?
Matthew composed the logia in the Hebrew tongue and everyone interpreted them as he was able.

Papias. Cited by Eusebius, HE, iii. 39. 16.
Eusebius also thought Papias was kind of dumb and was annoyed that other Christians were misled by his wrongness. If you read the end of the paragraph (lines 12-13) immediately preceding your quote, you'll find a bit that doesn't get quoted nearly as often by Christian apologists:

Image

If you need more context than that, click the link and read the previous page or two. It's a hoot.
My preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: The Authorship and Dating of the New Testament (main focus; The Gospels)

Post #36

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm Well first of all, there is no denying that the Gospels are anonymous and I already acknowledged this fact...and the fact that you continue to drive home that point is becoming disingenuous.

Second, again, in case I didn't make this point clear the first time; I do not CARE what the Catholics think about the authorship of the Gospels.

Or, is this still not clear enough?
My position has been clear, and consistent. Consistent, and clear.

The Gospels, according to the data that has been presented to me, was written and/or originated from either the apostles, friends of the apostles...all before 70AD.
I said: “Even the Catholics admit the anonymity: Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles..., which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings.""
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

They agree that the traditional titles were a later addition.”


You replied: “I already acknowledged that point. Next..”

If you don’t agree with the Catholics you should have not have said you “already acknowledged that point”.
But “I don’t acknowledged that point for I don’t agree entirely with the Catholics”.
Is so hard to comprehend something so simple. 😊))

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm Ok, lets see...what is formative Judaism after all??

"Formative Judaism refers to the original state of the Rabbinic Judaism from the late second century C.E. to the early seventh century."

https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA ... 7Ebfe50065

Ok, so now I know what formative Judaism is...and based on this new information which was brought to my attention, I stand by what I said.

I have all Gospels being written prior to 70AD, which makes anything from the late second century C.E to the early seventh century too late, and irrelevant.

Sir the above does not refute that Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism) formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism), which developed into an identifiable entity many decades after the Jewish revolt therefore would could not have been written prior to Jewish revolt.
Plus your ignoring Matthew copied from Mark(60-70AD) therefore we could have been written when Mark was written. Therefore post 70 AD.(see below)
Matthew has a more developed Christology. Therefore post 70 AD. (see below)
It’s pretty consistent. The New Testament Scholar from Australia makes a good point.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm Even if Matthew was written in the 2nd century AD or above, it is inexcusable as to why Matthew would STILL not mention the fulfilment of the prophecy, when he mentioned the fulfilment of other prophecies that were ALL not have been based on "events of the recent past"

So your reasoning is..

1. He didn't write about X prophecy because it was not an event of recent past.

Problem: He writes about other prophecies which were also not events of the recent past.

Makes no sense. A very weak argument, and not consistent with the book in context.

If Jesus was a prophecy fulfiller, and part of Matthew's aim was to write about Jesus' fulfilled prophecy, then you DON'T leave out the prophecy of Jesus' prediction of Jerusalem, the temple, and both of their destructions.

With all due respect, I will not be addressing your counter-argument again. If you have something else to throw at me, then by all means.
I already answered why he did not mention it.
The prophecy refers to the apocalypse not only to destruction of the temple in isolation.
It makes sense. Writer of Matthew saw that the apocalypse did not came with the destruction of the temple. Why would he mention a failed prophecy when he tried to make Jesus as God.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm Um, Scripture is clear; the disciples called Jesus' attention to the buildings and Jesus prophesized their destruction...and then the disciples asked Jesus two questions..

Matthew 24:1-3

1. “Tell us, when will these things be?

2. And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Those are two entirely different questions, sir.

To answer one was not to answer the other.
Sir Mark 13 talks of the end times-the apocalypse.
Its right there in the title in the bible: "The Destruction of the Temple and Signs of the End Times"
“3 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”
2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
5 Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.”

Its clear Jesus talks of the apocalypse sir.

Apostles ask him when will these events happen(destruction of the temple) and Jesus says:” Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains. …
24 “But in those days, following that distress,
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[c]
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.”” which refers clearly to the apocalypse.



We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm When did Jesus destroy the temple and build it in three days??

Ohh, you must be talking about when Jesus said..

John 2:19

"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up".

Had you kept reading...in verse 21..

'21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body"

And we all know that, according to the narratives, his body (temple) was raised after 3 days.
Its funny how when a thing contradicts you, it becomes a metaphor which you can make mean whatever you want to fit the narrative.
Christians subjectively interpreted in opposition with Paul and believed akin to “Amen I say to you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. “=Jesus will come/came back in their generation. Which tells us that there was an oral tradition similar to the gospel's prophecy dating before Paul epistles.
“not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.”
I bet some Christians believed after the destruction of the temple that they are living in the end days.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm When did I do that?
Ok. Here we go again:
Sir in one ending we have just claims of resurrection and an empty tomb.
In the added ending we have actual encounters(women, apostles) with the risen Jesus and an ascension to Heaven.
The added ending is more magical, phantasmagorical.
That’s obvious.

Analogy:
I have two endings to a short story book.
In one we have claims of people seeing a vampire/strigoi(this happens often in my country for example).
In the other we have actual encounters of people with a vampire/strigoi.
Off course the second one is more phantasmagorical.
Enjoy!
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm I disagree for previously given reasons.
Who said that he did?
New Testament Scholars-Wikipedia.
“The authors of Matthew and Luke, acting independently, used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, supplementing it with the collection of sayings called the Q document …
The authors and editors of John may have known the synoptics, but did not use them in the way that Matthew and Luke used Mark.”


“The majority view among critical scholars is that the authors of Matthew and Luke have based their narratives on Mark's gospel, editing him to suit their own ends, and the contradictions and discrepancies between these three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable.[11] In addition, the gospels we read today have been edited and corrupted over time, leading Origen to complain in the 3rd century that "the differences among manuscripts have become great, ... [because copyists] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed,”

“Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/a ... ew-written

Mark and Mathew are not independent in the sense they originated in independent sources.
But Matthew is depended on Mark. Writer of Matthew read Mark and used it(copied) for its gospel.



We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm That is simply not true, sir. Lets take a look at Mark..

Mark 8:31

"31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again."

So, the resurrection was already foretold in Mark 8..and in Mark 16:6..

"6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him."

And if you keep reading the little that is left in Mark, there was an expectation to see the risen Jesus at a later time.

So, this notion that Matthew is more phantasmagorical than Mark is bogus.
“The divine nature of Jesus was a major issue for the Matthaean community, the crucial element separating the early Christians from their Jewish neighbors; while Mark begins with Jesus' baptism and temptations, Matthew goes back to Jesus' origins, showing him as the Son of God from his birth, the fulfillment of messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.[5] The title Son of David identifies Jesus as the healing and miracle-working Messiah of Israel (it is used exclusively in relation to miracles), sent to Israel alone.[6] As Son of Man he will return to judge the world, an expectation which his disciples recognize but of which his enemies are unaware.[7] As Son of God, God is revealing himself through his son, and Jesus proving his sonship through his obedience and example.[8]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Jesus resurrected Lazarus. Is Lazarus divine because of this?

Jesus being resurrected does not necessarily make Jesus God.

Mark do not portray Jesus as a pre-existent being who has become incarnate and is and always has been “equal” with God the way Matthew and John does.
There is difference.

We have a low(exaltation)Christology in Mark and Luke:
“ (a) Jesus was understood to have been exalted to a divine status at his baptism, as in Mark and the original form of Luke (which began with ch. 3, before chs. 1-2 were tacked on in a second edition); or
(b) Jesus came into existence as the Son of God because God was the one who made his mother pregnant, as in the second edition of Luke that started with chs. 1-2.

Being adopted or born as the Son of God was a different way of being divine from being a pre-existent divine being made flesh. But it was still a highly exalted state of existence, above the human.”
So we have exalted human to divine status or demigod then a pre-existent divine being.
Low Christology (exalted human/prophet, demigod: Mark, Luke) -> More developed Christology(pre-existent divine being): Matthew and John.
Pre-existent divine being is more divine(more phantasmagorical) then exalted human/prophet, demigod: Mark, Luke.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm Nonsense. Your prior claim was that things got more phantasmagorical over the time period between the writing of Mark and Matthew, which is simply not true, because Paul gives us the earliest testimony of Christian thought, and the phantasmagorical stuff was there from the very beginning...so it wasn't something that developed over time, as you allege.

So, you are simply wrong, sir.
The resurrection story was there from the very beginning, sir (according to Paul). So please, if you can provide any early historical evidence of stories involving Jesus which did NOT have a Resurrection account, then please, dazzle me.

And I really don't think you will find any historical evidence which predates Paul...so please, drop this nonsense.

Like I said: The story evolved differently on multiple fronts. (like the language evolution tree, biological evolution tree).
The three line that contains the gospels has a common ancestor with Paul epistles. There is no straight line sir. Gospels may have evolved from a common ancestor that Paul took as inspiration, independent of Paul epistles.
Also there can be made a case of Paul having a low Christology where Jesus is just an exalted human to divine status and although he was resurrected by God he is not God himself equal to God or part of the trinity.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm We have some "Trinity Proof" texts from Paul..so again, the divine stuff was there from the very beginning, my friend.
But it shows Paul had a low, less developed Christology then Matthew and John.
Sir Paul clearly said: “no something to be grasped considered to be equal with god.“

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm A heavily schooled, trained and experienced mathematician can't tell me (truthfully) that 2+2=16.

Catch my drift?

And besides, there are some jailhouse/prison lawyers that knows more are more well-versed in the law than some lawyers that graduated law school.

And while I am no expert, I am far from a novice.

When you say "know better", that is speaking rather broadly isn't it? Lets just say when it comes to this particular subject, I think they are wrong.
I offered more than just boring dismissals...and those decades of studies apparently didn't stop the one scholar from offering such a weak response to my case.
Sir you dismissed the scholar point of “Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism” with and I quote: “(whatever that even means) lol.”
You dismissed something while being ignorant.
Claiming is weak does equal something is really weak.
Saying so does not make it so.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm Yeah, but the problem is; your skepticism is completely one-sided. You haven't shown any amount of skepticism towards those post-70AD timeframes, have you?

No, you haven't.

So it is clear to any person with half a brain as to what your position is.
But like I said I may be wrong. The scholars too.
I said this already before. Don’t straw man sir.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm We all have our opinions, don't we.
Its not opinion sir there is a whole argument.
Dismissing the argument without addressing look rather weak.
A personal God that care of humans and well being and wants everyone to believe in him, a Holy Spirit that guides humans is not compatible with all this past and current confusion, mutually exclusive claims and genuine disbelief in him.
The situation is only compatible with a deist God or a non-existent God.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm Too much, and refuse to address.
Off course you refuse.
If you refuse you cannot dismiss it by a wave of hand. That's illogical.
Therefore cannot say that your belief is rational while refusing to look at other people evidence.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm God does what he does.
Q: Why would a God that wants people to believe in him and have a relationship with them create confusion of whether he exists or what he wants or what is real or not?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm
Well, apparently, being a "disciple of Jesus while Jesus was alive, and being with the other 12 disciples when they met Jesus after the supposed resurrection"...

Apparently none of that was a requirement to become an apostle of Jesus.

So, instead of trying to make the Bible's definition of apostle fit YOUR definition, you should be trying to make your definition of apostle fit the Bible's definition.

Because it seems that Paul called himself (and was recognized) as an apostle, regardless of what people living 2,000 years later would think about what being an apostle entails.

The exchange was like this:
Me: "The miracle in that QA list is the resurrection of Christ.
Q: How was Paul an eyewitnesses ?"

You: ”How was he not?"
Me: “I thought Paul was no where near Jesus when he preached and no where near Jesus after he supposedly resurrected and met with the women and the apostles.”
You: “Says who?”
So you by saying “says who” did not agreed with “Paul was no where near Jesus when he preached”. That by the contrary, he was with Jesus when he preached.
That’s why I said: “He was with them, then later he participated in the persecution of early disciples of Jesus, then become an apostle again. Does not make sense.”

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm
That is kinda my point. They wouldn't.
Q: If they wouldn’t why would John believe such a thing: that they would and avoid writing in third(“most loved apostle”)?
Q: Are you arguing John is a moron?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm There could have been extenuating circumstances, as I previously mentioned...and when there are extenuating circumstances, usually normal protocol are averted.
Right, and he could have been writing in first person at his own risk.

I believe that I will be in Paradise when I die, but that doesn't mean that I am willing to rush to process.
Yeah, and he was persecuted throughout his ministry and allegedly executed...and I am sure his epistle writing didn't help matters.
Well, first of all, there are only 4 Gospels...and of the 4, two of them are alleged to have been written by friends of the apostles, so that would explain why those two aren't written in first person.

So that only leaves 2 Gospels left, and these two may have been written in third person because..

1. Feared persecution.

2. Because they had disciples/scribes write it on their behalf (which at that point all would be written by friends), but the story obviously ORIGINATED from the eyewitness.

And the stories themselves may not be from a first person view, but surely from an eyewitness' POV.
Q: But why make the argument of fear, of persecution? :?
When we have example from the Bible of writing in first person.

Q: How is does make sense to say John avoided to write in third person because he believed the romans would figured him as the author which you agreed the romans would not do(cuz’ non-squiture) but then he writes in first person and also third person while he so carefully avoiding third person?

I am afraid of being found and I refuse to even mention myself in third person but then I write in first person and also third. Does not make sense.

Q: How is that logically consistent?
Q: Isn’t it more consistent and logical that Paul wrote the epistle that’s why they were in first person?
Q: Isn’t it more consistent and logical that the writer of first part of John is not John the apostle because of the third person and the mention of “disciple whom Jesus loved” and that Revelation is written by another person (ex: the author was probably a Christian from Ephesus known as "John the Elder" from Patmos) in first person because he talked of his experience(visions) like Paul did?

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm We don't want to let it go because we have what we believe to be persuasive evidence for us to draw the "eyewitness testimonial" conclusion.

Yeah, but "friends of the apostles" isn't necessarily eyewitness testimonial.

So if Christians were so hell bent on eye witness testimony, why not just say that Mark was written by Peter (at which it would be called "Peter"), and Luke was written by Paul (at which it would be called "Paul").

The answer: because that isn't what the evidence shows, and we are genuinely going where the evidence takes us, and that is where we are.

1.But you admit that eye-witness testimonial or 2hand testimonial rooted in eye-witness is important for making the leap of belief.

2.Sir the justice system shows that hearsay is not valued while eye-witness testimonial is.

3.I am telling you from experience. I live in heavily Christian country(Romania) where for people believing gospels contains eye-witness testimony is super important.
This is not true:” we are genuinely going where the evidence takes us, and that is where we are”. for most Christians.
Most Romanian Christians for example know less of bible then me. Let alone of scholarly work relating to the bible.
Most Romanian Christian for example have faith that is true, they do not have evidence when you ask them.
They don’t know of arguments for God or other stuff..

So my point still stands that eye-witness testimonial is valued and considered important by Christians and humans in general as opposed to hearsay and second hand, third hand testimonial.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm Yeah, and early 2nd century is still too late to have been written or originated by an eyewitness.

Irrelevant point that has nothing to do with what we argued here.
Whether apocryphal gospels were written centuries later of decades later.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm Well, that would be a good point, but what I said was conditional: "if the late 90AD has any credence"...which it doesn't.

That, followed by the fact that Peter allegedly died in the 60's AD...so that late 90's+ timeframe is quite BOGUS, even for a scribe to write for him.

I believe that John was also written before 70AD.
But you said:” the reason John was considered more credible was because he was considered an EYEWITNESS, “
Now your changing again after you saw that is not a good argument.

“...so that late 90's+ timeframe is quite BOGUS, even for a scribe to write for him.”

This assumes a scribe wrote for him. This is debated.

“Peter allegedly died in the 60's AD”.
This assumes a scribe wrote for him. This is debated.

John had a high Christology compared with Mark as I showed above therefore It was written after Mark. Therefore post 70AD.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm
My answer is no.

I see the point you are making, but I don't buy the notion that the oral transmission which obviously had to have taken place was part of an oral tradition.

That is where context is important here. That is just how I view it. Now, others may believe that the oral transmissions of the message was part of an oral tradition.


Slight disagreement, thats all.

So you admit no oral transmission before 70 AD.

In other post you said: “the book of Acts highlights the early preaching of the Gospel. Obviously, this was via oral transmission.” which was in response to “1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:1–2)

So you said there is oral transmission before 70 AD because in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–2 was written before 70 AD which you agree.
Therefore we have a contradiction. 8-)


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm Allow me to use an example, lets just take an example from the Bible; the Moses/Pharaoh/Plagues account.

So, Moses appears before Pharaoh, and miraculously (by the power of God), his staff is turned into a snake.

Now, to not be undone/outshined, Pharaoh called upon his sorcerers to have their staffs/sticks also turn into snakes.

So, here we have an account of two miracles (supernatural phenomena).

Long story short..

Moses staff to snake: Power of God

Pharaoh's staff to snake: Power of satan (demonic powers)

Now, Pharaoh may have interpreted his phenomena to mean that it was all done by the power of the Egyptian gods that his staff had turned into a snake, when in reality, everything that occurred during those events were as a result of what God (Yahweh) allowed.

In other words, it had nothing to do with Pharaoh's Gods, but all to do with Yahweh.

So, take that example, and apply it to all of those other experiences pertaining to other supernatural events and religions, and that is how I view it.

No, I do not have any knock-down argument as to "Suppose their religion is the real one, and yours is the false one?"

I do not "know"...but I know where the evidence points.
Wrong analogy. The bible presupposes Yahweh, Satan as real in the story. The bible does not portray a story from a confused equal standpoints.
So God is real and argument from confusion, contrariety is false because God is real.

Circular logic.
You Christians crank me up with your logic. :D

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm If you had 5 friends and you claimed in a book that they lived all to 100-120 years old.
In the future people read your book.
It is truth that there are many people on the planet that lived to 100-120 in 20-21century but its highly unlikely to find 5 of them all being 100-120 is such close vicinity: 5 friends.
Hope its clear now.
Are you saying that living to age 60-65 in first century Palenstine is equivalent to living to age 100-105 (in all modesty) today?

If yes, then we simply disagree. If no, then this is a false equivalency.

Sir it is highly unlikely that if we find 5 skeletons of 5 friends in Palestine all lived to above 60-90 when the evidence shows that just few did considering “The average age of death was 30, and that wasn’t a mere statistical quirk: a high number of the skeletons were around that age. Many showed the effects of trauma from hard labour, as well as diseases we would associate with later ages, like arthritis.”.
Its about proximity. People that are not genetically closely related(to say they all inherit very good genes) but very close in relationship all coincidently lived very long lives considering the times.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm alexxcJRO wrote:" Just answer the question:

Q: Do you object that the info from Wikipedia(together with the references) is reliable?"

Yes.
That is a claim. Prove it.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm Nonsense. Because you are appealing to authority.

If my argument has any merit, then it shouldn't be based upon which scholars agree, but rather on its own merit.

That is why I continue to say that I don't care what anyone says, regardless of their academic credentials.

What you were provided with is evidence for a historical "fact" (Jerusalem), a fact of which my entire case is based from.

I have no desire to play this "hot potato" game of scholars...at least when it comes to this Jerusalem business.

Irrelevant nonsense.
I never said I am right because of the consensus.
I said I choose the consensus because that is most likely to lead to the truth.

I requested evidence because you made some claims: “I have my sources”, “Depending on who you talk to” and “and all the scholars on my side appeal to it”.
So please provide these sources. These scholars on your side.
Q: Who are them?
Or me and the readers might think you lied.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:29 pm Quick excerpt..


“Papias (AD 95–120) – Who Wrote the Gospel of Matthew?
Matthew composed the logia in the Hebrew tongue and everyone interpreted them as he was able.

Papias. Cited by Eusebius, HE, iii. 39. 16.

The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai, but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.

Papias. Cited by Eusebius.

https://reformedwiki.com/who-wrote-the- ... of-matthew”
Q: Am I reading this wrong or the evidence you provided says Eusebius says Papias says John the Presbyter says something? :shock:

Ergo hearsay not “Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel” but Eusebius said that Papias, stated that John the Presbyter said that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel”.

Diffugia said Eusebius questioned Papias reliability(that he was low intelligence). The text seems to confirm this.

Eusebius calls Papias interpretations “as perverse reading of the apostolic accounts not realizing that they spoke mystically and symbolically”.
Eusebius says : “And the Presbyter used to say this: ‘Mark became Peter interpreter’s…’.”

Quote mining at its finest.
I knew something was seriously wrong with all your avoidance.

C: This proves again how unreliable these 2000 year old testimonial are and how dishonest apologist are.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: The Authorship and Dating of the New Testament (main focus; The Gospels)

Post #37

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am
I said: “Even the Catholics admit the anonymity: Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles..., which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings.""
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

They agree that the traditional titles were a later addition.”


You replied: “I already acknowledged that point. Next..”

If you don’t agree with the Catholics you should have not have said you “already acknowledged that point”.
But “I don’t acknowledged that point for I don’t agree entirely with the Catholics”.
Is so hard to comprehend something so simple. 😊))


You just don't get it, do you? I won't waste any more brain energy to this apparent incomprehensiveness. Moving on.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Sir the above does not refute that Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism) formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism), which developed into an identifiable entity many decades after the Jewish revolt therefore would could not have been written prior to Jewish revolt.
Of course it doesn't "refute it"...it is being used to justify a second century dating of Matthew, which as I explained, is bogus.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Plus your ignoring Matthew copied from Mark(60-70AD) therefore we could have been written when Mark was written. Therefore post 70 AD.(see below)
You say "Matthew could have been written WHEN Mark was written (60-70AD)"...yet, you claim Matthew was written post 70AD.

Makes no sense.

If Matthew was written post 70AD, then it couldn't have been written when Mark was written (60-70AD).

So, you are contradicting yourself, sir.

A crying shame.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Matthew has a more developed Christology. Therefore post 70 AD. (see below)
It’s pretty consistent. The New Testament Scholar from Australia makes a good point.
I've already addressed this. Moving on.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am
I already answered why he did not mention it.
The prophecy refers to the apocalypse not only to destruction of the temple in isolation.
Right, keyword; "not only"...and as I pointed out to you before, the disciples asked two different questions, and Jesus answered both questions in the same passage.

The fact of the matter is, Jesus correctly stated that the temple would be destroyed, which is a prophecy...and the prophecy was fulfilled, and there is no logical reason why the writer would not mention the fulfillment of the temple prophecy if the author had written the book AFTER the temple was destroyed.

The "argument" you gave is weak. VERY weak.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am It makes sense. Writer of Matthew saw that the apocalypse did not came with the destruction of the temple. Why would he mention a failed prophecy when he tried to make Jesus as God.
First, it was "he didn't mention it because he was far removed in time and geographical location from where the event took place".

So when you saw that that explanation was nonsense, then you turn to..

"He didn't mention it because he saw that the apocalypse did not come with the destruction of the temple" (when the apocalypse wasn't SUPPOSED TO COME with the destruction of the temple, that is your own misunderstanding of the text).

Go ahead, move the goal posts 100 years out, I will nail the ball through the posts at that range, too.

:lol:
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Sir Mark 13 talks of the end times-the apocalypse.
Its right there in the title in the bible: "The Destruction of the Temple and Signs of the End Times"
“3 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”
2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
5 Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.”

Its clear Jesus talks of the apocalypse sir.

Apostles ask him when will these events happen(destruction of the temple) and Jesus says:” Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains. …
24 “But in those days, following that distress,
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[c]
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.”” which refers clearly to the apocalypse.
And if you read Matthew, it is clear that the disciples asked an additional question, particularly one involving Jesus' return...so taken together, at least 3 questions were asked and were answered.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Its funny how when a thing contradicts you, it becomes a metaphor which you can make mean whatever you want to fit the narrative.
Umm, the whole temple/3 days/raised thing, Jesus answered it himself with a metaphor. Don't kill the messenger.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Christians subjectively interpreted in opposition with Paul and believed akin to “Amen I say to you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. “=Jesus will come/came back in their generation. Which tells us that there was an oral tradition similar to the gospel's prophecy dating before Paul epistles.
“not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.”
This is a red herring. Irrelevant to anything related to your blunder about Jesus stating he would raise the temple in three days.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am I bet some Christians believed after the destruction of the temple that they are living in the end days.
Then they would be wrong.

alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am
Ok. Here we go again:
Sir in one ending we have just claims of resurrection and an empty tomb.
In the added ending we have actual encounters(women, apostles) with the risen Jesus and an ascension to Heaven.
The added ending is more magical, phantasmagorical.
That’s obvious.
You are being disingenuous here.

Look, I understand how much you want to hold on to the whole phantasmagorical thing...because that will help put a cherry on the top of whatever point you are trying to make...but it just won't work.

You cannot logically say that things got more phantasmagorical from Mark to Matthew because of the actual encounters of the risen Jesus to his followers (according to Matthew)...when we have earlier testimony from Paul (1 Corinth), where he states that the "Resurrected appearances" narrative was already being pushed...and that was before Mark and Matthew was even written.

So the phantasmagorical stuff was already there, sir. Things BEGAN with the magical stuff, it didn't develop over time as you allege.

And not only that, but even in Mark's account, the appearances were EXPECTED...verse 17..

"Go to Galilee, there you will see him, just as he told you".

So they were expected to see the risen Jesus, even in Mark...and this angle you are pursuing fails.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Analogy:
I have two endings to a short story book.
In one we have claims of people seeing a vampire/strigoi(this happens often in my country for example).
In the other we have actual encounters of people with a vampire/strigoi.
Off course the second one is more phantasmagorical.
Enjoy!
So, in the first story...does this story contain an expected encounter of the vampire by the people? Yes or no.

Be careful how you answer this, because as I am sure you are aware, there is a false equivalency brewing.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am
New Testament Scholars-Wikipedia.
“The authors of Matthew and Luke, acting independently, used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, supplementing it with the collection of sayings called the Q document …
The authors and editors of John may have known the synoptics, but did not use them in the way that Matthew and Luke used Mark.”
The Q document stuff is all speculative with no concrete evidence supporting it. It is nothing more than a hypothesis, thats all.

But, of course, the average reader may not know this so they will just take your little quote above and run with it.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am “The majority view among critical scholars is that the authors of Matthew and Luke have based their narratives on Mark's gospel, editing him to suit their own ends, and the contradictions and discrepancies between these three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable.
Hmmm. So, the authors of Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, "editing them to suit their own ends"...yet, the vast majority of the alleged contradictions of the Gospels that are presented by skeptics all from the synoptics? Of course, John is thrown in there as well...but the synoptics?

So let me get this straight, the authors of Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and edited the books, but they didn't pay enough attention to the "contradictions" that each would have with Mark as they made their edits?

Laughable. Makes no sense.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am In addition, the gospels we read today have been edited and corrupted over time, leading Origen to complain in the 3rd century that "the differences among manuscripts have become great, ... [because copyists] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed,”
Hmmm. So, if you have Mark's Gospel in front of you, and you are copying from it...how would you not know that you are "contradicting" what Mark is saying, when you have the book in front of you and you are plagiarizing it?

Makes no sense.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am “Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/a ... ew-written

Mark and Mathew are not independent in the sense they originated in independent sources.
But Matthew is depended on Mark. Writer of Matthew read Mark and used it(copied) for its gospel.
Again, what makes Matthew's Gospel unique from Mark is the differences, not the similarities.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am “The divine nature of Jesus was a major issue for the Matthaean community, the crucial element separating the early Christians from their Jewish neighbors; while Mark begins with Jesus' baptism and temptations, Matthew goes back to Jesus' origins, showing him as the Son of God from his birth, the fulfillment of messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.[5] The title Son of David identifies Jesus as the healing and miracle-working Messiah of Israel (it is used exclusively in relation to miracles), sent to Israel alone.[6] As Son of Man he will return to judge the world, an expectation which his disciples recognize but of which his enemies are unaware.[7] As Son of God, God is revealing himself through his son, and Jesus proving his sonship through his obedience and example.[8]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Jesus resurrected Lazarus. Is Lazarus divine because of this?

Jesus being resurrected does not necessarily make Jesus God.

Mark do not portray Jesus as a pre-existent being who has become incarnate and is and always has been “equal” with God the way Matthew and John does.
There is difference.
Hmm. "There is difference" yet..

"Matthew plagiarized Mark"..

thus implying "they are the same".

SMH.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am We have a low(exaltation)Christology in Mark and Luke:
“ (a) Jesus was understood to have been exalted to a divine status at his baptism, as in Mark and the original form of Luke (which began with ch. 3, before chs. 1-2 were tacked on in a second edition); or
(b) Jesus came into existence as the Son of God because God was the one who made his mother pregnant, as in the second edition of Luke that started with chs. 1-2.

Being adopted or born as the Son of God was a different way of being divine from being a pre-existent divine being made flesh. But it was still a highly exalted state of existence, above the human.”
So we have exalted human to divine status or demigod then a pre-existent divine being.
Low Christology (exalted human/prophet, demigod: Mark, Luke) -> More developed Christology(pre-existent divine being): Matthew and John.
Pre-existent divine being is more divine(more phantasmagorical) then exalted human/prophet, demigod: Mark, Luke.
Hmm. Paul has Jesus pre-existing and divine..

"15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy."

Again, Paul's epistles predate the Gospels. So, your phantasmagorical stuff fails again.

alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Like I said: The story evolved differently on multiple fronts. (like the language evolution tree, biological evolution tree).
The three line that contains the gospels has a common ancestor with Paul epistles. There is no straight line sir. Gospels may have evolved from a common ancestor that Paul took as inspiration, independent of Paul epistles.
Also there can be made a case of Paul having a low Christology where Jesus is just an exalted human to divine status and although he was resurrected by God he is not God himself equal to God or part of the trinity.
Sorry, but that is simply nonsense.

If the "actual encounters of the risen Jesus" were there from the very beginning, then what evolved? An evolution is a change, and there was no change whatsoever here.

And Paul did have an inspiration, one was that from Christ himself (according to his own testimony), and also from some of the original apostles, one of which includes Peter...and also from James, brother of Jesus (according to his own testimony).

Those are original sources, sir.

There is no evolution of the story. We have accounts external-Gospels accounts of Jesus' appearances/encounters, and also of his divinity.

I had challenged you to provide an earlier historical source, a source which predates Paul's epistles, which does not have an "Resurrected Jesus" narrative to it (or a divine Jesus narrative), which you do not have of either.

Since you do not have this, then you have no case of any evolution regarding the story of Jesus.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am
Sir Paul clearly said: “no something to be grasped considered to be equal with god.“
Conversation for another day.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Sir you dismissed the scholar point of “Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism” with and I quote: “(whatever that even means) lol.”
You dismissed something while being ignorant.
Claiming is weak does equal something is really weak.
Saying so does not make it so.
Hmmm. Let me demonstrate how WRONG you are by quoting myself as I addressed this whole "formative Judaism" business...post 34.

"Ok, lets see...what is formative Judaism after all??

"Formative Judaism refers to the original state of the Rabbinic Judaism from the late second century C.E. to the early seventh century."

https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA ... 7Ebfe50065

Ok, so now I know what formative Judaism is...and based on this new information which was brought to my attention, I stand by what I said.

I have all Gospels being written prior to 70AD, which makes anything from the late second century C.E to the early seventh century too late, and irrelevant."

alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am But like I said I may be wrong. The scholars too.
I said this already before. Don’t straw man sir.
Well, I might be wrong too...so we are all even.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am
Its not opinion sir there is a whole argument.
Dismissing the argument without addressing look rather weak.
Sure, there may have been an argument somewhere in there, but I told you; try keeping things short & sweet.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Off course you refuse.
If you refuse you cannot dismiss it by a wave of hand. That's illogical.
Therefore cannot say that your belief is rational while refusing to look at other people evidence.
Give me the condensed version.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am
Q: Why would a God that wants people to believe in him and have a relationship with them create confusion of whether he exists or what he wants or what is real or not?
Off the subject.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am The exchange was like this:
Me: "The miracle in that QA list is the resurrection of Christ.
Q: How was Paul an eyewitnesses ?"
You: ”How was he not?
Me: “I thought Paul was no where near Jesus when he preached and no where near Jesus after he supposedly resurrected and met with the women and the apostles.”
You: “Says who?”
So you by saying “says who” did not agreed with“Paul was no where near Jesus when he preached”. That by the contrary, he was with Jesus when he preached.
That’s why I said: “He was with them, then later he participated in the persecution of early disciples of Jesus, then become an apostle again. Does not make sense.”
Well first of all..."eyewitness" in this context means an "eyewitness" to the risen Jesus. So it had nothing to do with whether or not Paul was "anywhere near" Jesus when Jesus preached.

Paul stated that Jesus appeared to him, regardless of where/when this appearance occurred, the point is; Jesus appeared to him.

Second, to argue that Paul was "no where near Jesus" when he preached is an argument from ignorance...as we don't know if Paul ever saw Jesus during Jesus' earthly ministry or not.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Q: If they wouldn’t why would John believe such a thing: that they would and avoid writing in third(“most loved apostle”)?
Q: Are you arguing John is a moron?
I do not follow.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Q: But why make the argument of fear, of persecution? :?
When we have example from the Bible of writing in first person.
Just because some people assume the risk, doesn't mean that everyone assumes the risk, does it?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Q: How is does make sense to say John avoided to write in third person because he believed the romans would figured him as the author which you agreed the romans would not do(cuz’ non-squiture) but then he writes in first person and also third person while he so carefully avoiding third person?
Sir, you asked me..

"Why would the romans conclude the writer is John if John writes in third person?"

And I responded, "that is kinda my point, they wouldn't."

If John wrote in third person, no one would have any idea who was the author or the "eyewitness" to the account, in the same way you acknowledge that we don't, even today.

What is so hard to understand here?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am I am afraid of being found and I refuse to even mention myself in third person but then I write in first person and also third. Does not make sense.
Are you talking about Revelations? Sure, John wrote in first person in Revelation, but guess what, Revelations was a VISION, which is just like having a dream.

And John was probably less worried about being persecuted for writing about a vision/dream that he had.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Q: How is that logically consistent?
Q: Isn’t it more consistent and logical that Paul wrote the epistle that’s why they were in first person?
Yeah.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Q: Isn’t it more consistent and logical that the writer of first part of John is not John the apostle because of the third person and the mention of “disciple whom Jesus loved”
Your logic is..

1. John's gospel was written in the third person

2. Therefore, the apostle John did not write the Gospel which bears his name.

While this may be true, it isn't necessarily true...as John could have both been the author AND written it in third person.

As far as the "disciple whom Jesus loved", we have internal evidence which allows us to draw the conclusion that this disciple is John.

What does John 21:24 state?

24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

Why wouldn't the author just say who the disciple was, which would also tell us who wrote the material?

You tell me. It seemed as if the identity was to be kept a secret.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am and that Revelation is written by another person (ex: the author was probably a Christian from Ephesus known as "John the Elder" from Patmos) in first person because he talked of his experience(visions) like Paul did?
Yeah, but then the same persecution argument used for John the apostle would also apply to John the Elder.

But yup, John the Elder is one of the hypothesis' as to who wrote Revelations.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am 1.But you admit that eye-witness testimonial or 2hand testimonial rooted in eye-witness is important for making the leap of belief.
I do not follow, based on what I previously stated.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am 2.Sir the justice system shows that hearsay is not valued while eye-witness testimonial is.
Since this isn't the justice system, then hearsay is fair game.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am 3.I am telling you from experience. I live in heavily Christian country(Romania) where for people believing gospels contains eye-witness testimony is super important.
This is not true:” we are genuinely going where the evidence takes us, and that is where we are”. for most Christians.
Most Romanian Christians for example know less of bible then me. Let alone of scholarly work relating to the bible.
Most Romanian Christian for example have faith that is true, they do not have evidence when you ask them.
They don’t know of arguments for God or other stuff..

So my point still stands that eye-witness testimonial is valued and considered important by Christians and humans in general as opposed to hearsay and second hand, third hand testimonial.
I understand. But we have to be careful, too. Because we also can't logically say..

1. X claim is hearsay

2. Therefore, X claim is false

Hearsay can be true, too.

I trust my sister very much and we are very close. If she called me and said..

"Momma said she want you to call her later today".

Am I to say "You know, I really trust you sis. But your testimony is hearsay. I will have to ask momma directly whether or not she wants me to call her later today."

No. Since I trust my sister, I can trust what she say.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am
Irrelevant point that has nothing to do with what we argued here.
Whether apocryphal gospels were written centuries later of decades later.
What??????
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am But you said:” the reason John was considered more credible was because he was considered an EYEWITNESS, “
Now your changing again after you saw that is not a good argument.
How is that changing the argument when all I did was give a brief hypothetical about how even if I were to grant your point, your argument would STILL FAIL?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am This assumes a scribe wrote for him. This is debated.
Sir, it was a hypothetical. You do understand what a hypothetical situation is, correct?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am
John had a high Christology compared with Mark as I showed above therefore It was written after Mark. Therefore post 70AD.
Not addressing this again.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am
So you admit no oral transmission before 70 AD.
No, I don't.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am In other post you said: “the book of Acts highlights the early preaching of the Gospel. Obviously, this was via oral transmission.” which was in response to “1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:1–2)

So you said there is oral transmission before 70 AD because in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–2 was written before 70 AD which you agree.
Therefore we have a contradiction. 8-)
I've already explained myself here, and will not be addressing this again.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Wrong analogy. The bible presupposes Yahweh, Satan as real in the story.

The bible does not portray a story from a confused equal standpoints.
So God is real and argument from confusion, contrariety is false because God is real.

Circular logic.
You Christians crank me up with your logic. :D
I do not follow, and I really didn't want to address that point anyway but I thought I would give it a go. It is irrelevant to any conversation about Gospel authorship and dating.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Sir it is highly unlikely that if we find 5 skeletons of 5 friends in Palestine all lived to above 60-90 when the evidence shows that just few did considering “The average age of death was 30, and that wasn’t a mere statistical quirk: a high number of the skeletons were around that age. Many showed the effects of trauma from hard labour, as well as diseases we would associate with later ages, like arthritis.”.
Its about proximity. People that are not genetically closely related(to say they all inherit very good genes) but very close in relationship all coincidently lived very long lives considering the times.
Again, you can't take aggregated data and apply it to individuals. So what is a "high number"? Ok, out of 2000, 1500 were an average age of 30...well guess what, 500 left.

100 of the remaining 500 could have made it to 40's

100 of the remaining 400 could have made it to 50's

100 of the remaining 300 could have made it to 60's

And of those 100 who made it to 60's, 5 of them could have been friends.

So your argument has been dismantled.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am
That is a claim. Prove it.
Prove that it is right.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Irrelevant nonsense.
I never said I am right because of the consensus.
I said I choose the consensus because that is most likely to lead to the truth.
Well, that is your opinion. My opinion is different.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am I requested evidence because you made some claims: “I have my sources”, “Depending on who you talk to” and “and all the scholars on my side appeal to it”.
So please provide these sources. These scholars on your side.
Q: Who are them?
Or me and the readers might think you lied.
I already retracted those statements, not because of any dishonesty, but because I refuse to go down this rabbit hole of my scholars vs your scholars.

Instead of going that route, just deal with the argument that I am making...and I already provided source material to THAT.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Q: Am I reading this wrong or the evidence you provided says Eusebius says Papias says John the Presbyter says something? :shock:

Ergo hearsay not “Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel” but Eusebius said that Papias, stated that John the Presbyter said that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel”.
Well, you can certainly reject it has hearsay, but you can't reject it as false based on hearsay.

And if you were modest, you would say something like

"I refuse to rely on hearsay testimony, so as it stands, I cannot deny or confirm whether Papias spoke on the Gospels"

And besides, even if we have Papias' work and can read what he said on the Gospels, you would still find some way to move the goal posts.

So in other words, it wouldn't matter either way. We have what we have, and we don't what we don't.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Diffugia said Eusebius questioned Papias reliability(that he was low intelligence). The text seems to confirm this.
See, when you say things like that without giving proper CONTEXT, it can lead readers astray, because it has much more context to it than just the blanket statement of "Eusebius questioned Papias reliability (that he was low intelligence)."

Eusebius was giving an opinion on Papias' very "limited" understanding as it relates to SCRIPTURE..particularly this..

12. To these belong his (Papias) statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth.957 I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf20 ... xxxix.html

And then he went on to say..

13. For he (Papias) appears to have been of very limited understanding,958 as one can see from his discourses.

So Eusebius is of the opinion that Papias isn't interpreting scripture correctly...which is funny, because Papias' take on scripture is exactly what Revelations 21:4-5 states

"They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)"

And unless I am missing something, I actually agree with Papias here (at least when it comes to the 1000 year reign of Christ).

So things change a lot once you place and KEEP things in context, doesn't it?

Second, Eusebius also stated that apparently, despite Papias' very limited understanding, a lot of folks were influenced by him..

"But it was due to him (Papias) that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.959"

So I guess "many of the Church Fathers" had thought that Papias' understanding was up to par.

Third, as far as the actual dating and authorship of the Gospels are concerned, Eusebius doubled-down on Papias view, which can be seen here..

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf20 ... .xxiv.html
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Eusebius calls Papias interpretations “as perverse reading of the apostolic accounts not realizing that they spoke mystically and symbolically”.
I already addressed this....and as I stated, it is nothing more than a subjective opinion which obviously wasn't held by those who were influenced by Papias' thought.

So please.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:34 am Eusebius says : “And the Presbyter used to say this: ‘Mark became Peter interpreter’s…’.”

Quote mining at its finest.
I knew something was seriously wrong with all your avoidance.

C: This proves again how unreliable these 2000 year old testimonial are and how dishonest apologist are.
Dishonest? What did I say that was dishonest, sir?
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: The Authorship and Dating of the New Testament (main focus; The Gospels)

Post #38

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Difflugia wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 2:42 am Eusebius also thought Papias was kind of dumb and was annoyed that other Christians were misled by his wrongness. If you read the end of the paragraph (lines 12-13) immediately preceding your quote, you'll find a bit that doesn't get quoted nearly as often by Christian apologists:

If you need more context than that, click the link and read the previous page or two. It's a hoot.
First off, like I told Alex...thinking someone is "kind of dumb" is subjective.

Obviously, Papias wasn't dumb to those who were influenced by him...and I am actually on Papias' side when it comes to the subject matter in question (1000 year reign of Christ).

So that in itself isn't an argument against Papias.

If your future points are going to be so easily shut down as this one was, then perhaps you may not want to chime in.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2290
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1836 times
Been thanked: 1360 times

Re: The Authorship and Dating of the New Testament (main focus; The Gospels)

Post #39

Post by Difflugia »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:24 pmFirst off, like I told Alex...thinking someone is "kind of dumb" is subjective.
So far, the entirety of your argument for traditional authorship is that Eusebius said that Papias said so. Within that context, I'm pretty sure that "subjective" isn't quite the sick burn you think it is.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:24 pmObviously, Papias wasn't dumb to those who were influenced by him...
The question is if that says more about Papias or those he influenced.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:24 pmand I am actually on Papias' side when it comes to the subject matter in question (1000 year reign of Christ).
I GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE!
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:24 pmSo that in itself isn't an argument against Papias.
To say that it's not an argument at all is obvious hyperbole, but you're more-or-less right and it's not a particularly strong one. A better argument is that Papias didn't quote the gospels he was discussing, so we don't really have any way of knowing if they were the four in our Bible. Irenaeus said they were, but the descriptions Papias gave don't really seem to match the documents we have. For all we know, the documents Papias had actually were genuine gospels by Matthew and Mark, but the ones Irenaeus had were by third-rate nobodies.

Eusebius calling Papias an idiot is funny, but it'd be even funnier if Papias had genuine gospels that were lost and we can now only speculate about their contents.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:24 pmIf your future points are going to be so easily shut down as this one was, then perhaps you may not want to chime in.
That's alright. I'll risk the embarrassment of you shutting me down.
My preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: The Authorship and Dating of the New Testament (main focus; The Gospels)

Post #40

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm You just don't get it, do you? I won't waste any more brain energy to this apparent incomprehensiveness. Moving on.
You are done, I get it.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Plus your ignoring Matthew copied from Mark(60-70AD) therefore we could have been written when Mark was written. Therefore post 70 AD.(see below)
You say "Matthew could have been written WHEN Mark was written (60-70AD)"...yet, you claim Matthew was written post 70AD.

Makes no sense.

If Matthew was written post 70AD, then it couldn't have been written when Mark was written (60-70AD).

So, you are contradicting yourself, sir.

A crying shame.
It was a typo. Don’t be so glad. 😊)))
I miss write. I meant "Matthew could not have been written WHEN Mark was written (60-70AD.
You have nothing.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Of course it doesn't "refute it"...it is being used to justify a second century dating of Matthew, which as I explained, is bogus.
Sir the New Testament Scholar said:" Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism) formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism), which developed into an identifiable entity many decades after the Jewish revolt".
Its irrelevant when will therefore be dated.
You have to address "Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism) formative Judaism" and "Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism) formative Judaism developed into an identifiable entity many decades after the Jewish revolt".
Ignoring looks rather weak.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Right, keyword; "not only"...and as I pointed out to you before, the disciples asked two different questions, and Jesus answered both questions in the same passage.

The fact of the matter is, Jesus correctly stated that the temple would be destroyed, which is a prophecy...and the prophecy was fulfilled, and there is no logical reason why the writer would not mention the fulfillment of the temple prophecy if the author had written the book AFTER the temple was destroyed.

The "argument" you gave is weak. VERY weak.

First, it was "he didn't mention it because he was far removed in time and geographical location from where the event took place".

So when you saw that that explanation was nonsense, then you turn to..

"He didn't mention it because he saw that the apocalypse did not come with the destruction of the temple" (when the apocalypse wasn't SUPPOSED TO COME with the destruction of the temple, that is your own misunderstanding of the text).

Go ahead, move the goal posts 100 years out, I will nail the ball through the posts at that range, too.
And if you read Matthew, it is clear that the disciples asked an additional question, particularly one involving Jesus' return...so taken together, at least 3 questions were asked and were answered.

And if you read Matthew, it is clear that the disciples asked an additional question, particularly one involving Jesus' return...so taken together, at least 3 questions were asked and were answered.

My explanation with the prophecy is mine. I gave it as an alternative. Something that is originally mine.
Sir Jesus said: “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
The above equals “Destruction of the temple will happen.“
Apostles asked “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
The above equals “when the destruction of the temple will happen?”

And then we have:
“5 Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.
9 “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
12 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’[a] standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.
20 “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. 21 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
24 “But in those days, following that distress,
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’”


The above equals “the apocalypse”.
So lets recap:
Jesus: Destruction of the temple will happen.
Apostles: When will “these”(destruction of the temple) and what sign that “they”(destruction of the temple) are about to be fulfilled?
Jesus: During the Apocalypse

Question:
Mark: “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
There is no separation sir. We have “these” and “they” coupled together.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm This is a red herring. Irrelevant to anything related to your blunder about Jesus stating he would raise the temple in three days.
I just pointed it as an observation. Non need to assume red herrings.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Umm, the whole temple/3 days/raised thing, Jesus answered it himself with a metaphor. Don't kill the messenger.
But it might as well be literal. It’s a matter of subjective interpretation sir.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Then they would be wrong.
But it might as well as they thought and I did not happen because Jesus was a mere human akin to other cult leaders having grandiose beliefs about himself. It’s a matter of subjective interpretation sir.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm You are being disingenuous here.

Look, I understand how much you want to hold on to the whole phantasmagorical thing...because that will help put a cherry on the top of whatever point you are trying to make...but it just won't work.

You cannot logically say that things got more phantasmagorical from Mark to Matthew because of the actual encounters of the risen Jesus to his followers (according to Matthew)...when we have earlier testimony from Paul (1 Corinth), where he states that the "Resurrected appearances" narrative was already being pushed...and that was before Mark and Matthew was even written.

So the phantasmagorical stuff was already there, sir. Things BEGAN with the magical stuff, it didn't develop over time as you allege.

And not only that, but even in Mark's account, the appearances were EXPECTED...verse 17..

"Go to Galilee, there you will see him, just as he told you".

So they were expected to see the risen Jesus, even in Mark...and this angle you are pursuing fails.
o, in the first story...does this story contain an expected encounter of the vampire by the people? Yes or no.

Be careful how you answer this, because as I am sure you are aware, there is a false equivalency brewing.
Already debunk this. The gospel evolved as the language evolution tree and biological evolution tree. There is no straight line. But common ancestry.
Mark and Paul evolved from a common ancestor and then Matthew and Luke evolved from Mark(dependence-copying-inspiration).

Here we go again:
Sir in one ending we have just claims of possible resurrection(belief) and possible future encounters(belief) and an empty tomb.
In the added ending we have actual encounters(women, apostles) with the risen Jesus and an ascension to Heaven.
The added ending is more magical, phantasmagorical.
That’s obvious.
There is a clear difference between beliefs and potentiality and actuality sir.

Lets remake the analogy:
Analogy:
I have two endings to a short story book.
In one we have claims/beliefs of people believing one dead man will “revive” as a vampire and they will meet him again later.
In the other we have actual encounters of people with the vampire.
Off course the second one is more phantasmagorical.
Enjoy!
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm The Q document stuff is all speculative with no concrete evidence supporting it. It is nothing more than a hypothesis, thats all.

But, of course, the average reader may not know this so they will just take your little quote above and run with it.
Q document is not relevant to my argument of embellishment.
Everything is speculation sir.
Is just educated speculation sir. 😊))
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Hmmm. So, the authors of Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, "editing them to suit their own ends"...yet, the vast majority of the alleged contradictions of the Gospels that are presented by skeptics all from the synoptics? Of course, John is thrown in there as well...but the synoptics?

So let me get this straight, the authors of Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and edited the books, but they didn't pay enough attention to the "contradictions" that each would have with Mark as they made their edits?

Laughable. Makes no sense.

Hmmm. So, if you have Mark's Gospel in front of you, and you are copying from it...how would you not know that you are "contradicting" what Mark is saying, when you have the book in front of you and you are plagiarizing it?

Makes no sense.
Its funny how you ignore: “Origen to complain in the 3rd century that "the differences among manuscripts have become great, ... [because copyists] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed,” which cast doubt to the reliability of the texts.

Sir it says clearly “the contradictions and discrepancies between these three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable”.
Q: Are you really unable to read?

Matthew and Luke copied from Mark -> one tradition.

John -> one tradition.
I did not said John copied from the synoptics.
John maybe comes from a different branch on the gospel evolution tree.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Again, what makes Matthew's Gospel unique from Mark is the differences, not the similarities.
Hmm. "There is difference" yet..

"Matthew plagiarized Mark"..

thus implying "they are the same".

SMH.
I already debunked this nonsense.
When one plagiarize something you will find something different.
The different things does not negate the existence of the plagiarism.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Hmm. Paul has Jesus pre-existing and divine..

"15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy."

Again, Paul's epistles predate the Gospels. So, your phantasmagorical stuff fails again.
Sir we talk here of the Christology of the gospels.
About Matthew and John having higher Christology and Mark and Luke less-developed Christology.
Please stay on subject, point.
About your Paul argument we talked on another point.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Sorry, but that is simply nonsense.

If the "actual encounters of the risen Jesus" were there from the very beginning, then what evolved? An evolution is a change, and there was no change whatsoever here.

And Paul did have an inspiration, one was that from Christ himself (according to his own testimony), and also from some of the original apostles, one of which includes Peter...and also from James, brother of Jesus (according to his own testimony).

Those are original sources, sir.

There is no evolution of the story. We have accounts external-Gospels accounts of Jesus' appearances/encounters, and also of his divinity.

I had challenged you to provide an earlier historical source, a source which predates Paul's epistles, which does not have an "Resurrected Jesus" narrative to it (or a divine Jesus narrative), which you do not have of either.

Since you do not have this, then you have no case of any evolution regarding the story of Jesus.
Assuming things that one cannot know.
Have you ever seen an biological evolution tree or language evolution tree.
Please look it up. There is no straight line.
Mark has clearly a less developed Christology then Paul. Mark original account is less phantasmagorical.
You can’t just ignore this.



We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm
Hmmm. Let me demonstrate how WRONG you are by quoting myself as I addressed this whole "formative Judaism" business...post 34.

"Ok, lets see...what is formative Judaism after all??

"Formative Judaism refers to the original state of the Rabbinic Judaism from the late second century C.E. to the early seventh century."

https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA ... 7Ebfe50065

Ok, so now I know what formative Judaism is...and based on this new information which was brought to my attention, I stand by what I said.

I have all Gospels being written prior to 70AD, which makes anything from the late second century C.E to the early seventh century too late, and irrelevant."

Sir this: “Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism” with and I quote: “(whatever that even means) lol.” Happened before you corrected your ignorance. 😊)
You are hopeless.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Sure, there may have been an argument somewhere in there, but I told you; try keeping things short & sweet.
This is not long:

A personal God that care of humans and well being and wants everyone to believe in him, a Holy Spirit that guides humans is not compatible with all this past and current confusion, mutually exclusive claims and genuine disbelief in him.
The situation is only compatible with a deist God or a non-existent God.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Give me the condensed version.
Q: Condensing what?


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Well first of all..."eyewitness" in this context means an "eyewitness" to the risen Jesus. So it had nothing to do with whether or not Paul was "anywhere near" Jesus when Jesus preached.

Paul stated that Jesus appeared to him, regardless of where/when this appearance occurred, the point is; Jesus appeared to him.

Second, to argue that Paul was "no where near Jesus" when he preached is an argument from ignorance...as we don't know if Paul ever saw Jesus during Jesus' earthly ministry or not.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

So Paul witnessed the resurrected Jesus together with 12 apostles and the women but then persecuted the disciples and later changed his mind again.
Q: How is that making sense?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm I do not follow.
Q: If they(the romans) wouldn’t believe why would John believe such a thing: that they would and avoid writing in third(“most loved apostle”)?
Q: Are you arguing John is a moron
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Just because some people assume the risk, doesn't mean that everyone assumes the risk, does it?

Sir but we have in John both first person, third person and “most loved apostle” which in your position is written by the same person.
Q:How is that a good argument then?

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Sir, you asked me..

"Why would the romans conclude the writer is John if John writes in third person?"

And I responded, "that is kinda my point, they wouldn't."

If John wrote in third person, no one would have any idea who was the author or the "eyewitness" to the account, in the same way you acknowledge that we don't, even today.

What is so hard to understand here?

My point was that if third person was enough doesn’t make sense to hide even third person and use “most loved apostle”
You have both third person and “most loved apostle”.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Are you talking about Revelations? Sure, John wrote in first person in Revelation, but guess what, Revelations was a VISION, which is just like having a dream.

And John was probably less worried about being persecuted for writing about a vision/dream that he had.

Your logic is..

1. John's gospel was written in the third person

2. Therefore, the apostle John did not write the Gospel which bears his name.

While this may be true, it isn't necessarily true...as John could have both been the author AND written it in third person.

As far as the "disciple whom Jesus loved", we have internal evidence which allows us to draw the conclusion that this disciple is John.

What does John 21:24 state?

24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

Why wouldn't the author just say who the disciple was, which would also tell us who wrote the material?

You tell me. It seemed as if the identity was to be kept a secret.


1. He was super worried he hide even the third person although he had no reason according to you. Then not so super worried he wrote in third. Then not at all. He kept changing like the weather and this makes perfect sense. You crank me up.

2. That does not follow from that verse.

That verse John 21:24 sounds like an oral tradition about John: ”We know”.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Yeah, but then the same persecution argument used for John the apostle would also apply to John the Elder.

But yup, John the Elder is one of the hypothesis' as to who wrote Revelations.

Persecution argument is your argument not mine.

We have evidence that people wrote in first person when they spoke of their experience.
Paul and John the Elder from Patmos.
There is no reason to assume just silly things that make no sense just to say: gospels are either written by eye testimonies or originated in eye-witnesses.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm I do not follow, based on what I previously stated.
Since this isn't the justice system, then hearsay is fair game.
1. Look what silly game you play: John was super worried he hide even the third person although he had no reason according to you. Then not so super worried he wrote in third. Then not at all writing in first person. Just to have eye-witness testimonial.
So hearsay is not that fair game.

2. Reality tells us that its not reliable(legal courts, humans beliefs).
See the below point with Papias. (you would have not lied if hearsay was fair game)
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm alexxcJRO:So you admit no oral transmission before 70 AD.
No, I don't.

You said “no oral tradition before 70AD”.
Oral tradition presupposes an oral transmission.
Therefore you said no oral transmission before 70AD.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Again, you can't take aggregated data and apply it to individuals. So what is a "high number"? Ok, out of 2000, 1500 were an average age of 30...well guess what, 500 left.

100 of the remaining 500 could have made it to 40's

100 of the remaining 400 could have made it to 50's

100 of the remaining 300 could have made it to 60's

And of those 100 who made it to 60's, 5 of them could have been friends.

So your argument has been dismantled.
Highly doubt your numbers.
From my point is not just 60 sir but 80 or 90 even.
So please don’t bore me.

You keep straw-manning.
I never said it could not have happened.
But just that is highly unlikely.
Q: Can you give an example of 5 friends not related living extremely long(unusual) lives?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Prove that it is right.
You made the claim sir.
Shifting the burden of proof is rather comical.
As per forum rules one has to provide evidence for one claims.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm I already retracted those statements, not because of any dishonesty, but because I refuse to go down this rabbit hole of my scholars vs your scholars.

Instead of going that route, just deal with the argument that I am making...and I already provided source material to THAT.
Then I will dismiss your claims: “I have my sources”, “Depending on who you talk to” and “and all the scholars on my side appeal to it” as mere assertions and possible lies.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm Well, you can certainly reject it has hearsay, but you can't reject it as false based on hearsay.

And if you were modest, you would say something like

"I refuse to rely on hearsay testimony, so as it stands, I cannot deny or confirm whether Papias spoke on the Gospels"

And besides, even if we have Papias' work and can read what he said on the Gospels, you would still find some way to move the goal posts.

So in other words, it wouldn't matter either way. We have what we have, and we don't what we don't.

Sir but you lied, saying things like “Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel” which is far from the truth.
When in reality Eusebius said that Papias, stated that John the Presbyter said that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote something.
It is a very big difference.
So one of your evidence that Mark was written by a friend of Peter is someone said that someone said that someone said that Peter wrote something.
There was a tradition of writer of Mark supposedly being a friend of Peter.
And the first someone was very critic of the second someone.
Does not sound very credible.
The evidence got even more incredibly weak.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm So things change a lot once you place and KEEP things in context, doesn't it?
See, when you say things like that without giving proper CONTEXT, it can lead readers astray, because it has much more context to it than just the blanket
Dishonest? What did I say that was dishonest, sir?
You talk of context and not lead readers astray when you blatantly lied “Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel” which is far from the truth.
The audacity. :shock:

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 pm See, when you say things like that without giving proper CONTEXT, it can lead readers astray, because it has much more context to it than just the blanket statement of "Eusebius questioned Papias reliability (that he was low intelligence)."

Eusebius was giving an opinion on Papias' very "limited" understanding as it relates to SCRIPTURE..particularly this..

12. To these belong his (Papias) statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth.957 I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf20 ... xxxix.html

And then he went on to say..

13. For he (Papias) appears to have been of very limited understanding,958 as one can see from his discourses.

So Eusebius is of the opinion that Papias isn't interpreting scripture correctly...which is funny, because Papias' take on scripture is exactly what Revelations 21:4-5 states

"They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)"

And unless I am missing something, I actually agree with Papias here (at least when it comes to the 1000 year reign of Christ).

So things change a lot once you place and KEEP things in context, doesn't it?

Second, Eusebius also stated that apparently, despite Papias' very limited understanding, a lot of folks were influenced by him..

"But it was due to him (Papias) that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.959"

So I guess "many of the Church Fathers" had thought that Papias' understanding was up to par.

Third, as far as the actual dating and authorship of the Gospels are concerned, Eusebius doubled-down on Papias view, which can be seen here..

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf20 ... .xxiv.html
Sir I never said Papias was necessarily a moron. Don’t straw man.
I said what Diffugia said that Eusebio thought Papias was of low intelligence-low understanding.
Pleas make the distinction between saying : “Someone said alex is Romanian” and “alex is Romanian”.
My point was that Eusebio questioned his credibility as being a reliable source of inspiration.
Reading Papias only strengthens once opinion that Christianity is false amid even more confusion that is revealed in those texts. More quarrel among Christians of who knows what is real what is not.
Fueling even more the argument from confusion, contrariety.

The important point is that we only have a hearsay.
The point about whether Papias was a moron or not its irrelevant.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Post Reply