Who Wrote the Gospels and When?

[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...

[alexxcJRO]

Well, let me put it to you this way, sir...I do not buy the notion that 30-35 years old was the average age of life expectancy for that time period.

Your entire premise is based on something that I do not accept.

So, based on that alone, this entire conversation about that could have been deaded days ago, but I went ahead and humored you with it..and I will no longer continue to do so.

Off course you will ignore the evidence.

I provided personal experience and do not need to appeal to claims "outside myself".

Its still just claims.
No evidence outside your self, your words.
I for example have provided evidence outside myself, outside my claims.

Oh, my bad. I didn't know that my sister had to have a endemic, superior brain/memory to say "Mom said to call her".

You love your straw mans.
I never said one needs to have endemic, superior brain/memory to say "Mom said to call her".
That was an ironic remark in respect to your family and Christians who are somewhat special when it comes to rumor, hearsay, oral transmission and don’t suffer from well known psychological deficiencies all humans do.

I go where the evidence takes me...and it took me to Christianity.

It didn't take you there...and doesn't take Muslims there, Hindus, or Mormons there.

Cool.

Let everyone believe their truths...because I believe mines.

There is only one truth. You cannot have multiple mutually exclusive claims all being true.

Just say you don't have a reason and be honest.

First off, I said "I (we, Christians) BELIEVE".

Keyword: Believe.

"Believe" is not a statement of knowledge, so I don't have to prove anything because I don't claim that I know.

So ultimately its just faith: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
You have no rational basis for believing the choosing was reliable and God was involved.
You just have faith and hope its was.
Nice.

Red herring and borderline strawman. I never said nor implied that he was lying...so why you are asking the question, I don't know.

I asked you something sir.
I did not claimed you implied. Big difference.
Asking is not claiming. No need to conjure non-existent red herrings, straw-mans.

Then it is:
Eusebio talked of already existing subjective mechanisms of choice among Christians which included parts that are already in the bible.
That subjective mechanisms of choice among Christians which included parts that are already in the bible existed outside Eusebio. Eusebio not existing would not make the existing subjective mechanisms of choice among Christians go away.

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

*Fat fingers on the "thanks" tip*

Its still just claims.
No evidence outside your self, your words.
I for example have provided evidence outside myself, outside my claims.

Syllogism test.

1. You haven't provided sources outside yourself.

2. Therefore, your testimony from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE is not valid.

Non sequitur.

This is a failure of sound/valid logical reasoning.

On top of that..

1. Hearsay testimony is not permissible in the court system.

2. Therefore, hearsay is not permissible in the personal, everyday life system.

Non sequitur, and also a failure in sound logical reasoning.

And third, when the court system states "hearsay is not reliable testimony", that is also a "claim", which is also a claim that is not made "outside of itself".

So what we have here is faulty and inconsistent reasoning from at least 3 different aspects...which is a crying shame.

You love your straw mans.
I never said one needs to have endemic, superior brain/memory to say "Mom said to call her".

That was an ironic remark in respect to your family and Christians who are somewhat special when it comes to rumor, hearsay, oral transmission and don’t suffer from well known psychological deficiencies all humans do.

Again, you are using a concept of generalizing and applying it to individuals..which defies sound logical reasoning.

Fallacious.

There is only one truth. You cannot have multiple mutually exclusive claims all being true.

Just say you don't have a reason and be honest.

Again, the keyword I used is "believe", which implies that everyone believes what they THINK is true.

No claims of knowledge and/or certainty is being made and it leaves the door open.

This is one of the typical tactics of skeptics, is to pit all religious against each other, i.e "X religion says this, but your religion says that. What do you have to say about that?"

As if we are in high school and a fight is being instigated.

Let them (other religions) do what they do..and let us (Christians) do what we do.

And let atheists/agnostics do what they do...which is NOTHING.

So ultimately its just faith: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
You have no rational basis for believing the choosing was reliable and God was involved.
You just have faith and hope its was.
Nice.

Faith? Sure, reasonable faith, absolutely.

I asked you something sir.
I did not claimed you implied. Big difference.
Asking is not claiming. No need to conjure non-existent red herrings, straw-mans.

Yeah, you asked am I implying that he was lying...the question insinuates that I implied that he is lying.

The word is embedded in the question!!

Then it is:
Eusebio talked of already existing subjective mechanisms of choice among Christians which included parts that are already in the bible.
That subjective mechanisms of choice among Christians which included parts that are already in the bible existed outside Eusebio. Eusebio not existing would not make the existing subjective mechanisms of choice among Christians go away.

Call it what you want to call it.

[alexxcJRO]

2. Therefore, your testimony from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE is not valid.

Non sequitur.

This is a failure of sound/valid logical reasoning.

On top of that..

1. Hearsay testimony is not permissible in the court system.

2. Therefore, hearsay is not permissible in the personal, everyday life system.

Non sequitur, and also a failure in sound logical reasoning.

And third, when the court system states "hearsay is not reliable testimony", that is also a "claim", which is also a claim that is not made "outside of itself".

So what we have here is faulty and inconsistent reasoning from at least 3 different aspects...which is a crying shame.

1. You only have claims of hearsay being reliable within your family.
Claims does not equal truth.
That’s why I gave evidence outside myself, outside my claim: hearsay being unreliable even with trusted sources: family. Else I would have only an assertion.
2. Hearsay its not permitted because its not a reliable form of evidence sir. Even eye-witness testimony has its real problems. See below.
3. I gave evidence supporting hearsay, rumor, oral transmission its unreliable:
 
“Oral communication, as a means of sending messages, is known of its notoriety in distorting or exaggerating a message or messages. Like in business, some businesses have collapsed because of giving the wrong information, either from superior to the sub-ordinates or from the sub-ordinates to the superior. Because of such dangerous mistakes, several businesses have opted to modern devices such as computers, telefax and fax to communicate. In social life, friends and families have become slaves of rumors, which have split their friendship and relationship to pieces without knowing the source or cause of the rumor.”
https://www.grin.com/document/279757

4. I provided evidence sir for my claim that memory is unreliable, humans psyche is a weak thing prone to psychological deficiencies.
That humans in general have most of the enumerated psychological deficiencies because all have similar brains and similar functioning memory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory
"If we consider the ability to recognize well-defined and recurrent structures in the observed objects (pattern recognition), it turns out that our mind has a performance far better than any machine. At least, so far. For the sake of completeness, this ability of humans is also the cause of many problems, as it often leads to identify patterns or links between objects that actually do not exist (and, yes, this is an example of cognitive biases)"

https://badnarik.org/why-tribal-mentality-is-bad/
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... rse-091313
“21% of U.S. adults experienced mental illness in 2020 (52.9 million people). This represents 1 in 5 adults.
”https://www.nami.org/mhstats


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... ble-memory
“Nothing brings this home better than the memories of witnesses in trials, one of the cornerstones of our legal system. All too many people have been put behind bars on the testimony of witnesses, who when challenged by more objective data have been later proved to be misremembering.”


"Broadly speaking, eyewitness misidentifications can be characterized as failures of visual perception or memory, the former being seeing things inaccurately, the latter being loss of accuracy or precision in the storage, maintenance, and recall of what was seen."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5544328/
“Memory [edit]
In psychology and cognitive science, a memory bias is a cognitive bias that either enhances or impairs the recall of a memory (either the chances that the memory will be recalled at all, or the amount of time it takes for it to be recalled, or both), or that alters the content of a reported memory. There are many types of memory bias, including:
Misattribution of memory[edit]
Main article: Misattribution of memory
In psychology, the misattribution of memory or source misattribution is the misidentification of the origin of a memory by the person making the memory recall. Misattribution is likely to occur when individuals are unable to monitor and control the influence of their attitudes, toward their judgments, at the time of retrieval.[134] Misattribution is divided into three components: cryptomnesia, false memories, and source confusion. It was originally noted as one of Daniel Schacter's seven sins of memory.[135]
The misattributions include:
• Cryptomnesia, where a memory is mistaken for novel thought or imagination, because there is no subjective experience of it being a memory.[136]
• False memory, where imagination is mistaken for a memory.
• Social cryptomnesia, a failure by people and society in general to remember the origin of a change, in which people know that a change has occurred in society, but forget how this change occurred; that is, the steps that were taken to bring this change about, and who took these steps. This has led to reduced social credit towards the minorities who made major sacrifices that led to the change in societal values.[137]
• Source confusion - confusing episodic memories with other information, creating distorted memories.[138]
• Suggestibility, where ideas suggested by a questioner are mistaken for memory.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Again, the keyword I used is "believe", which implies that everyone believes what they THINK is true.

No claims of knowledge and/or certainty is being made and it leaves the door open.

This is one of the typical tactics of skeptics, is to pit all religious against each other, i.e "X religion says this, but your religion says that. What do you have to say about that?"

As if we are in high school and a fight is being instigated.

Let them (other religions) do what they do..and let us (Christians) do what we do.

And let atheists/agnostics do what they do...which is NOTHING.

Faith? Sure, reasonable faith, absolutely.

Its not reasonable if you dismiss the other religions/sects miracles evidence =testimonial/testimonials with no reason other that you believe-have faith your religion/sect is right and the others are false.
Its not reasonable to assume things one has not shown to be truth first.
Its just wishful thinking.

Yeah, you asked am I implying that he was lying...the question insinuates that I implied that he is lying.

The word is embedded in the question!!

I asked sir. Why so sensible sir? No need to exaggerate.
If your not saying he lied then it is like this:

Eusebio talked of already existing subjective mechanisms of choice among Christians which included parts that are already in the bible.
That subjective mechanisms of choice among Christians which included parts that are already in the bible existed outside Eusebio. Eusebio not existing would not make the existing subjective mechanisms of choice among Christians go away.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #63]

You can have the last word, sir.

Now, go to your own thread, knowing that this thread belongs to VENOM.

[TRANSPONDER]

We shall have to see about that, as I doubt that this will be the last comment on the subject and I see no reason why you having, evidently, failed to come up with anything, then expect the victor to quit the field leaving you to claim that you won.

[Sherlock Holmes]

This thread sounded promising but I'm not really clear on what the specific topic is, what specifically is the thesis being defended/attacked here?

[benchwarmer]

We shall have to see about that, as I doubt that this will be the last comment on the subject and I see no reason why you having, evidently, failed to come up with anything, then expect the victor to quit the field leaving you to claim that you won.

Haven't you heard? Simply claiming the victory for yourself means you won! Though if that's how this all works, one has to wonder what was the point of the thread.

I think some debaters fail to understand how claiming a victory themselves actually hurts their position. A confident debater simply gives their best arguments and evidence and let's the readers/listeners decide for themselves who 'won'.

Every time I see someone self claim a victory, I just immediately assume they've actually lost. If they really had a strong case they would just drop it on the table and it would be evident. No need to prance around high fiving yourself.

Oh well, maybe some people haven't got all the way through their Bibles yet:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
Luke 14:11

11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

[Clownboat]

Your only disagreement with my dates was "I disagree. No later than 70AD." which is the only point I was addressing.

Yeah, I said I disagree because I DISAGREE.

And why I disagree with any post-70AD timeframe was already laid out in a prior post.

All five of my resources put the latest date at AD 100 or more, and all your above comments are just so much irrelevant backpedaling.

Yeah, and I simply disagree with your sources in light of my sources.

Of course you don't because it puts luff in your sail;

Actually, it doesn't. I don't for ONE SECOND believe that the average lifespan was 35. But even if I did, my case is STILL solid..because there are always exceptions to the average.

however, here are two sources that confirm my statement---I won't bother to cite anymore because you seem oblivious to the judgment of others. AND PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE ARE AVERAGES. IF YOU KNOW THE WRITERS OF THE GOSPELS WERE OLDER THAN THE AVERAGE THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH EVIDENCE. WHAT YA GOT?

That is nonsense. Again, you can't apply aggregated data to individuals. It is fallacious. This is like saying..

1. The average 3 point shooting percentage for an NBA player is 32%

2. Stephen Curry plays in the NBA

3. Therefore, Stephen Curry shoots 32% from 3 point range.

It is a non sequitur. It simply does not follow and it is therefore fallacious.

And since you challenge me to come up with evidence that the Gospel writers lived higher than the average age of life expectancy, then I challenge you to come up with evidence that they did NOT exceed the average age of life expectancy.

What ya got?

And six hand selected examples are suppose to negate an average?

If there were 6, then there were more...and I will give you 4 more hand selected examples...

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

So make that a total of 10, on a growing list.

But none of this "proves" my "premise" is false. Want to try again?

Reading comprehension. I conceded the point that the information was handed down...first orally, and then in print.

Want to try reading what I said again?

And you know this is exactly what happened. because what? You had a divine communication from god? You read it in a comic book? You got it from a ouija board?

No, I got it from the early Church Fathers.

You see, they were more close to the scene in both time and geographical location, unlike skeptics living some 2,000 years later debating religion on online religious forums.

You have your own special edition of the New Testament that makes such a statement in the Book of Venom?

No, but I have the edition of the New Testament which states that "whoever does not believe in him (Christ) will not have eternal life".

That is the only edition I need.

And there we have it, scare tactics. I would think a god would do better than terrorists, but alas...

When I was a child, the threats of hellfire from those who loved me were very convincing. Then I grew up and had children of my own and discovered that I could have convince them that I hung the moon, but I didn't.

Religions do best when they get you when your young and scaring children into believing by telling them they will burn in hellfire for eternity or miss out on eternal life or what have you is a very effective means to keep children in the flock, but it is nothing more than scare tactics. A shame really!

[Tcg]

And there we have it, scare tactics. I would think a god would do better than terrorists, but alas...

When I was a child, the threats of hellfire from those who loved me were very convincing. Then I grew up and had children of my own and discovered that I could have convince them that I hung the moon, but I didn't.

Religions do best when they get you when your young and scaring children into believing by telling them they will burn in hellfire for eternity or miss out on eternal life or what have you is a very effective means to keep children in the flock, but it is nothing more than scare tactics. A shame really!

I might add that they are empty scare tactics. Those who employ them fail to provide verifiable evidence that there is a possibility that eternal life is attainable. They threaten that some will lose that which can't be verified is a reality. As you say, most children are likely to overlook this failure. Some of us who are a bit past childhood notice it and marvel how many overlook this fact.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

This thread sounded promising but I'm not really clear on what the specific topic is, what specifically is the thesis being defended/attacked here?

Going by the topic -title I would have said the authorship and date of the gospels. That's a hard one to pin down. But , going by the evidence we may come to some conclusions;

There is a basic story. Very basic. It can be found by noting the common elements in John and the synoptic story. It is shockingly sparse - there is nothing of the Galilee material between the 'healing at a distance' and the Bethany events (loaves and fishes'. Just we get none of the sermons in John or the wrangles with the 'Jews'.(1) Christian apologetics get around this by dubbing John 'Jerusalem material' and the Synoptics 'Galilee material' which is supposed to explain something. But of course John does have Galilee material - the healing of the palsied man, but set in Jerusalem, not Capernaum.

The synoptics are obviously based on a lost original, and the oft - repeated claim that Mark (the Original) is around 50 AD must be rejected, not only because that Gospel is shot full of predictions of the Jewish war (no, I have seen too many fiddled 'prophecies' to credit those as true prophecies) and so had to have been written after 80 AD (which is early enough) but Mark is not the original, but itself is an editing of a lost original. But it is closer than either Matthew or Luke as it has no Nativity or resurrection -appearances, one of which was added for doctrinal reasons and the other because a bald resurrection - claim wasn't good enough; Jesus himself has to appear, wounds and all, and that ought to be enough to convince later doubters, as John argues, with his silly tale of doubting Thomas, which Luke roundly refutes. .

Yet John himself is quite early, despite a pretty advanced deifying of the Messiah. John knows that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, but knows that he should have been. And the Rylands fragment is dated to the 2nd c AD, so at least 100 to 200 AD. And Luke and Matthew are editings of the Synoptic story even later than John. And Peter must be even later, as it seems to incorporate elements of Luke and Matthew, just as the (late) freer logion addition to Mark since the need was sorely felt to have Jesus appear.
,
I won't (again) go into who I think the writers were. It should be obvious by now, but I'll just say they were not eyewitnesses, or even reliable reporters of eyewitnesses, but Greek Christians building on Pauline teachings and going even further, in their turning Jesus into a god and their detestation of Jews. That's something else that has proved as strong and resilient as the religion itself.

(1) though I suspect that the healing of the Blind man may match blind Bar- Timaeus, and the raising of Lazarus may be a reworking of the son of the woman of Nain, the only men Jesus raised from the dead.