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]

Not all modifications are negative...some modifications are improvements.

Forgery has negative connotations questioning the reliability of something that is written.

proceed to use the words.

SMH.

Anyways, Matthew is a modified, more "in depth" version of Mark. I like the word "modified" here.

Its not important which word I use.

Are we?

Yes sir we are debating the <70 AD dating.

Again, I understand it...and it is STILL dismissed.

Without any logical, rational reason. Just ignoring one argument.

Please don’t ignore:
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.

It does depend on the content.

If the romans want to look for the writer of the gospel because of first person(“because would imply the person who write it was talking of himself). It does not matter the content.

Everything involving the preaching of Christianity was risky. The Bible reports on this, and history in general (not including the bible) purports this.

Ignoring my point.
The argument is silly because why would the romans only look at written text and no look for the prominent religious leaders at Christian gatherings to find them. They the prominent religious leaders would have to abstain from preaching to gatherings too or else it does not make sense to hide the first person. Its more risky to preach at religious gatherings then writing in first person.
So avoiding the low risk while not avoiding big risk does not make sense.

1. Paul
2. Peter
3. Clement of Rome
4. Philo of Alexandria
5. Josephus

Sir I said give other example(different then Paul and Peter) of 5 skeletons of 5 friends(proximity) that are not genetically closely related in Palestine all coincidently lived very long(unusual) lives- above 60-90.
Also you have to prove they lived very long(unusual) lives- above 60-90 and were close friends and not related.

Yeah, so I posted a link that would clearly contradict what I said? Makes no sense.

Yes. You stated Papius stated something.
And then posted a link after so many request from me where it says Eusebio said something.
If you were honest you should have said : Geee I was wrong. But you said nothing.

That is your opinion, and I disagree.

Q: What is you reasoning for disagreement?
Saying so does not make it so.

Lets see if this passes the syllogism test, shall we.

1. Because it happens to me

2. Therefore, it happened to them

Non sequitur.

Syllogism test: FAIL

That was just an example. It never happen to you? Common.)
I also said: Oral transmission is not reliable cuz' human psyche is weak thing prone to bad memory recollection, false memories, bias, mental illness, psychological suggestibility with know mechanisms like cognitive dissonance, peer pressure, peer affirmation and so one.
The above(psychological deficiencies) are well known and documented.

But it is still hearsay, nevertheless.

First, you made it seem as if hearsay was completely out of the question as you deemed in unreliable testimony.

Then I give a real life example, something that happens every single day of our lives where hearsay is the norm, and now all of a sudden, you are open to making an exception to your once "hearsay is unacceptable" stance.

Tsk tsk tsk.
I don't know them either, but I trust them.

I only pointed the analogy is not equivalent sir. It does not follow I said hearsay its reliable.
I gave example from my experience to support this: hearsay it’s not reliable.
I pointed that the courts don't find hearsay reliable.
I also pointed the psychological deficiencies that humans have as the mechanism behind the fact that hearsay/double hearsay/oral transmission is not reliable.

Bad analogy because: My family, close relation. Trustful. I can contact them and confirm.
Dead People from 2000 years ago that probably did not knew each other personally, similar to close family relations. I don't know them and not trust them.

Jesus lived, was crucified, was buried, raised from the dead, and seen alive by his followers and a few skeptics.

That part of the story has always been consistent, hasn't it?

Not really. In genuine Mark we don’t have that ”seen alive by his followers”.
Only an empty tomb and claims of possible future encounters.

Yeah, there is a "big difference" in humans who have those bad strings of psyche, and those who don't.

Yup. Big difference.

Q: Are you arguing the Early Christians had no psychological deficiencies?
Q: They could not have hallucinated and/or having false memories and/or having bias and/or psychological suggestibility and/or bad memory recollection and/or bad logical reasoning and could have not been influenced/affected by cognitive dissonance and/or peer pressure and/or peer affirmation?
Q: On what bases you say this?

Sure, no one can know with 100% confidence that any particular religion is true. I agree...but that in itself isn't enough to conclude that any particular religion is false.
Irrelevant to the subject matter of thread.

Don’t straw man.
I said with confidence. That does not imply 100%.

Q: On what rational bases one dismisses other peoples anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experiences and testimonials for miracles from other sect or religion when they all have the same evidence?

What subjective, popularity mechanism?

Eusebio(Early Church Father):” And in addition, as I said, the Revelation of John, if this view prevail. For, as I said, some reject it, but others count it among the Recognized Books. Some have also counted the Gospel according to the Hebrews in which those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ take a special pleasure. "

Eusebio points to the subjective, popularity mechanism of choice: some considered Revelation of John, 2 Peter, Gospel according to the Hebrews, Epistle called of James, that of Jude, second and third Epistles of John genuine and some not.
Both 2 Peter and Revelation of John are in the bible sir.

Did I say that? No, I didn't.
I was speaking in terms of the CONTEXT, which was about which of those books should have been in the canon.

You say “Eusebius(Early church father) said has NOTHING to do with the truth value of Christianity” but other time you say you believe in the truth value of the proposition “gospels originated in apostles” because of what Early Church fathers said ergo supporting the truth value of Christianity.

1. There was quarrel and confusion among early Christians

2. Therefore, Christianity is false.

Again, yet another non sequitur.

A personal God(Yahweh-Jeus) that care for humans and for the well being of them 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]

Forgery has negative connotations questioning the reliability of something that is written.

I agree, but since I don't believe that is what Matthew is doing, then I can't rock with you on that one.

Its not important which word I use.

It may not be important, but it is a good way to describe what took place, in my opinion.

Yes sir we are debating the <70 AD dating.

Well, as far as I can tell, you've offered no good defeater of my case so we can move past that.

Without any logical, rational reason. Just ignoring one argument.

Oh, my reasoning wasn't logical?

If the romans want to look for the writer of the gospel because of first person(“because would imply the person who write it was talking of himself). It does not matter the content.

I do not follow.

Ignoring my point.
The argument is silly because why would the romans only look at written text and no look for the prominent religious leaders at Christian gatherings to find them.

And who said they "only" looked at the written text?

They the prominent religious leaders would have to abstain from preaching to gatherings too or else it does not make sense to hide the first person. Its more risky to preach at religious gatherings then writing in first person.
So avoiding the low risk while not avoiding big risk does not make sense.

Great point. Which is why it would have been a combination of...

1. Romans: "Which one of you are writing this nonsense?" (written text)

2. Romans: "Which one of you are going around saying this nonsense" (preaching at gatherings)

Sir I said give other example(different then Paul and Peter) of 5 skeletons of 5 friends(proximity) that are not genetically closely related in Palestine all coincidently lived very long(unusual) lives- above 60-90.
Also you have to prove they lived very long(unusual) lives- above 60-90 and were close friends and not related.

Well first of all, the criteria for them having to be friends is bogus.

It doesn't matter if they were friends or not, the point is; did X person live to be 60-90 years of age during the first century in Palestine?

I don't know why Paul and Peter are excluded from the list...but ok, lets continue playing this little game.

1. Papias
2. James

You have your 5, sir. Now, watch the goalpost be moved..

In 5....4...3...2...

Yes. You stated Papius stated something.
And then posted a link after so many request from me where it says Eusebio said something.
If you were honest you should have said : Geee I was wrong. But you said nothing.

I said I was wrong when it was determined (by myself) that I was wrong.

Q: What is you reasoning for disagreement?
Saying so does not make it so.

I am positive that you were informed on every single occasion that I disagreed with you, and also given a reason as to why.

That was just an example. It never happen to you? Common.)

Are there exceptions, is the question?

I also said: Oral transmission is not reliable cuz' human psyche is weak thing prone to bad memory recollection, false memories, bias, mental illness, psychological suggestibility with know mechanisms like cognitive dissonance, peer pressure, peer affirmation and so one.
The above(psychological deficiencies) are well known and documented.

You said "I also said" as if I didn't address what you said.

It was already addressed, sir.

I only pointed the analogy is not equivalent sir. It does not follow I said hearsay its reliable.
I gave example from my experience to support this: hearsay it’s not reliable.
I pointed that the courts don't find hearsay reliable.
I also pointed the psychological deficiencies that humans have as the mechanism behind the fact that hearsay/double hearsay/oral transmission is not reliable.

Well first of all, to say "hearsay is not reliable" is false. Not all hearsay is false, and not all hearsay is true.

It is a case by case basis thing.

And what courts find reliable is irrelevant outside of the courtroom.

Bad analogy because: My family, close relation. Trustful. I can contact them and confirm.
Dead People from 2000 years ago that probably did not knew each other personally, similar to close family relations. I don't know them and not trust them.

That's funny, because you just proved my point.

You just said that your family/close relation, you can trust them and you will find their (double) hearsay testimony reliable.

Yet, the courts wouldn't find it reliable, now would they? You would, but the courts wouldn't.

So, you've just debunked your own argument, while at the same time proving my point.

Gracious.

Not really. In genuine Mark we don’t have that ”seen alive by his followers”.
Only an empty tomb and claims of possible future encounters.

Well, in genuine 1 Corinthians, we do have that "seen alive by his followers".

Q: Are you arguing the Early Christians had no psychological deficiencies?
Q: They could not have hallucinated and/or having false memories and/or having bias and/or psychological suggestibility and/or bad memory recollection and/or bad logical reasoning and could have not been influenced/affected by cognitive dissonance and/or peer pressure and/or peer affirmation?
Q: On what bases you say this?

Tell ya what. Pick one...and lets discuss each one...one by one.

Don’t straw man.
I said with confidence. That does not imply 100%.

It is obvious that believers are confident and saying with confidence what they believe.

Q: On what rational bases one dismisses other peoples anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experiences and testimonials for miracles from other sect or religion when they all have the same evidence?

What same evidence?

Eusebio(Early Church Father):” And in addition, as I said, the Revelation of John, if this view prevail. For, as I said, some reject it, but others count it among the Recognized Books. Some have also counted the Gospel according to the Hebrews in which those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ take a special pleasure. "

Eusebio points to the subjective, popularity mechanism of choice: some considered Revelation of John, 2 Peter, Gospel according to the Hebrews, Epistle called of James, that of Jude, second and third Epistles of John genuine and some not.
Both 2 Peter and Revelation of John are in the bible sir.

We (believers) accept by faith that the books God wanted to be included in the canon...were included in the canon.

As subjective as it may be to YOU, God orchestrated the entire affair.

You say “Eusebius(Early church father) said has NOTHING to do with the truth value of Christianity” but other time you say you believe in the truth value of the proposition “gospels originated in apostles” because of what Early Church fathers said ergo supporting the truth value of Christianity.

Sir, you are conflating two separate things.

When I said "Eusebius said has NOTHING to do with the truth value of Christianity" (and you clearly left out the "what" in the beginning of the quote)...I was referring to you quoting him as it pertains to the "subjective mechanism" of selecting which books were considered inspired.

And my point was; the truth value of Christianity has nothing to do with that.

And that, has nothing to do with my appealing to the early church fathers as it pertains to the actual authorship of the Gospels.

So yeah, two different things.

A personal God(Yahweh-Jeus) that care for humans and for the well being of them 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.

I can see how one would feel that way...but then again (as I stated elsewhere), here is what isn't confusing..

Jesus died for the sins of mankind and by believing in him, one has eternal life.

That isn't confusing, is it? You understand that part of it, correct?

Now, are you gonna believe, or not?

If no, then it isn't a matter of confusion, is it? It is more so a matter of rejecting what is plain and simple.

[alexxcJRO]

I agree, but since I don't believe that is what Matthew is doing, then I can't rock with you on that one.

We were talking of Mark’s ending.

Well, as far as I can tell, you've offered no good defeater of my case so we can move past that
Oh, my reasoning wasn't logical?

Off course when you keep ignoring this:
1. 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.
2. My Mark analysis of the prophecy which makes redundant the question: “why the writer of Matthew did not mention a prophecy of the destruction of the temple”. The prophecy refers to the apocalypse.

I do not follow.

First person writing would imply the person who wrote it was talking of himself.
Romans would look for the person writing the gospel.
If an apostle writes in first person the Romans would look for the writer(himself) no matter the content(talking of encounters with Jesus in flesh or in visions).
Paul also writes all kinds of events in his letters not only about the supposed vision of Jesus.

Great point. Which is why it would have been a combination of...

1. Romans: "Which one of you are writing this nonsense?" (written text)

2. Romans: "Which one of you are going around saying this nonsense" (preaching at gatherings)

But according to you they were afraid to write in first person and avoided it.
They did not avoided religious gatherings.
Its more risky to go and preach at a religious gathering often in different places then written a text in first person once.
It does not make sense to avoid a smaller risk while not giving a rats ass about preaching at a religious gathering which is a more substantial risk.
They were not afraid of dying and of being found preaching at a religious gathering but they were so afraid to write in first person.
Silly.

Well first of all, the criteria for them having to be friends is bogus.

It doesn't matter if they were friends or not, the point is; did X person live to be 60-90 years of age during the first century in Palestine?

I don't know why Paul and Peter are excluded from the list...but ok, lets continue playing this little game.

1. Papias
2. James

You have your 5, sir. Now, watch the goalpost be moved..

In 5....4...3...2...

Sir my argument is that is unlikely to have 5 average people living very long unusual lives(60-90) in first century while being friends, close proximity and not related gentically while being persecuted by roman empire in a time when this meant high probability of death.
Don’t straw man.
I did not said there were no 5 example of people living 60-90 in first century that were average people.

I said I was wrong when it was determined (by myself) that I was wrong.

So you posted information showing you were wrong but somehow you did not knew this. And this after so many requests from me. And this after your repeated avoidance.
Sir I was not born yesterday.

I am positive that you were informed on every single occasion that I disagreed with you, and also given a reason as to why.

Q: What is you reasoning for disagreement, “that hearsay its not reliable” outside the claim that it is?

Well first of all, to say "hearsay is not reliable" is false. Not all hearsay is false, and not all hearsay is true.

It is a case by case basis thing.

And what courts find reliable is irrelevant outside of the courtroom.

I gave example from my experience to support this: hearsay it’s not reliable.
I pointed that the courts don't find hearsay reliable.
I also pointed the psychological deficiencies that humans have as the mechanism behind the fact that hearsay/double hearsay/oral transmission is not reliable.
All the 3 from above supports: “Hearsay its not reliable.
You have nothing to support the opposite only your claim that it is.
Just saying so does not make it so.

That's funny, because you just proved my point.

You just said that your family/close relation, you can trust them and you will find their (double) hearsay testimony reliable.

Yet, the courts wouldn't find it reliable, now would they? You would, but the courts wouldn't.

So, you've just debunked your own argument, while at the same time proving my point.

Gracious.

It does not follow that because I trust my family therefore hearsay is reliable.
It happen to me (I gave it as an example) where hearsay from family members was unreliable. Propagated false information.
This happens quite often. In news too(TV, internet). In internet articles on various topics.

Well, in genuine 1 Corinthians, we do have that "seen alive by his followers".

Q: Genuine 1 Corinthians as in there is a part that is added? More forgery?

You said: “Jesus lived, was crucified, was buried, raised from the dead, and seen alive by his followers and a few skeptics.
That part of the story has always been consistent, hasn't it?”

In genuine Mark we don’t have that ”seen alive by his followers”. Therefore no consistency you spoke about.

Tell ya what. Pick one...and lets discuss each one...one by one.

Answer the questions:
Q: Are you arguing the Early Christians had no psychological deficiencies?
Q: They could not have hallucinated and/or having false memories and/or having bias and/or psychological suggestibility and/or bad memory recollection and/or bad logical reasoning and could have not been influenced/affected by cognitive dissonance and/or peer pressure and/or peer affirmation?
Q: On what bases you say this?

What same evidence?

Most sect, religions have anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experiences and testimonials for miracles as purposed as evidence for the truth of their religion. Ex: Mormons, Islam, Sathya Say Baba-reincarnation, sects that were opposed to Paul, Christian sects.
Q: On what rational bases one(YOU) dismisses other peoples anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experiences and testimonials for miracles from other sect or religion when they all(including your religion) have the same evidence?

We (believers) accept by faith that the books God wanted to be included in the canon...were included in the canon.

As subjective as it may be to YOU, God orchestrated the entire affair.

You can't use God to prove the choosing of the gospels was reliable. An then say this give credence to the truth of Christianity.

Presupposing God in order to prove God.
Circular reasoning.

Sir, you are conflating two separate things.

When I said "Eusebius said has NOTHING to do with the truth value of Christianity" (and you clearly left out the "what" in the beginning of the quote)...I was referring to you quoting him as it pertains to the "subjective mechanism" of selecting which books were considered inspired.

And my point was; the truth value of Christianity has nothing to do with that.

And that, has nothing to do with my appealing to the early church fathers as it pertains to the actual authorship of the Gospels.

So yeah, two different things.

1. Sir you appeal to Early Church Fathers fathers to give credence the gospels originated in eye-witness.
You believe in the truth of Christianity partially because of 1.
Then you say "Eusebius(Early Church Father) said has NOTHING to do with the truth value of Christianity".

I can see how one would feel that way...but then again (as I stated elsewhere), here is what isn't confusing..

Jesus died for the sins of mankind and by believing in him, one has eternal life.

That isn't confusing, is it? You understand that part of it, correct?

Now, are you gonna believe, or not?

If no, then it isn't a matter of confusion, is it? It is more so a matter of rejecting what is plain and simple.

A personal God(Yahweh-Jeus) that cares for humans and for the well being of them and wants everyone to believe in him, a Holy Spirit that guides humans would make it clear for all if he wants it.
Yet we see confused people quarrelling on what is truth, what gods want, what is the nature of god; making mutually exclusive claims; we see massive killing, torture and suffering in the name of God, religion on both side of two mutually exclusive claims; we see genuine disbelief in such a god.
If one its rational can only conclude that is most likely that a personal God(Yahweh-Jeus) that care for humans and for the well being of them and wants everyone to believe in him, a Holy Spirit that guides humans does not exist.

[We_Are_VENOM]

We were talking of Mark’s ending.

Yeah, I understand that you just can't seem to let that part go.

Perhaps an intervention is in essence?

First person writing would imply the person who wrote it was talking of himself.
Romans would look for the person writing the gospel.
If an apostle writes in first person the Romans would look for the writer(himself) no matter the content(talking of encounters with Jesus in flesh or in visions).
Paul also writes all kinds of events in his letters not only about the supposed vision of Jesus.

Um, I addressed both points before and I will do so again, one final time...

1. I am of the opinion that the Romans would less likely persecute a man who wrote about a vision/dream that he had, than if the man wrote about what he believed to have occurred in verifiable reality.

So, yes the distinction between a vision/reality is necessary.

2. Even if someone (a Christian) wrote in first person, the person assumed the risk of persecution, and just because some folks assumed the risk doesn't mean that others did also.

But according to you they were afraid to write in first person and avoided it.
They did not avoided religious gatherings.
Its more risky to go and preach at a religious gathering often in different places then written a text in first person once.
It does not make sense to avoid a smaller risk while not giving a rats ass about preaching at a religious gathering which is a more substantial risk.
They were not afraid of dying and of being found preaching at a religious gathering but they were so afraid to write in first person.
Silly.

Good point, but the risk is there, regardless. You lower the risks where you can (writing), and where you can't (gathering), you take it as it comes.

Sir my argument is that is unlikely to have 5 average people living very long unusual lives(60-90) in first century while being friends, close proximity and not related gentically while being persecuted by roman empire in a time when this meant high probability of death.
Don’t straw man.

Then we simply disagree on the likelihood.

So you posted information showing you were wrong but somehow you did not knew this. And this after so many requests from me. And this after your repeated avoidance.
Sir I was not born yesterday.

Why would I knowingly post information that I KNOW is contradictory to my claims? Makes no sense.

Q: What is you reasoning for disagreement, “that hearsay its not reliable” outside the claim that it is?

Because the example I gave about "Mother said to call her" (from my sister) is actually a real life example of hearsay being reliable, that is my reasoning.

I gave example from my experience to support this: hearsay it’s not reliable.

Hearsay wasn't reliable in YOUR case. But that is YOUR case. You can't logically use your case and apply it generally, to every case.

To do so is fallacious; hasty generalization fallacy.

I pointed that the courts don't find hearsay reliable.

The courts don't decide whether I should accept hearsay testimony.

They (those involved in court proceedings) decide whether THEY should accept hearsay testimony.

And I am not appealing to them, so their opinion on this is irrelevant.

I also pointed the psychological deficiencies that humans have as the mechanism behind the fact that hearsay/double hearsay/oral transmission is not reliable.

This is another over-generalization....fallacious.

All the 3 from above supports: “Hearsay its not reliable.
You have nothing to support the opposite only your claim that it is.
Just saying so does not make it so.

I responded in kind.

It does not follow that because I trust my family therefore hearsay is reliable.
It happen to me (I gave it as an example) where hearsay from family members was unreliable. Propagated false information.
This happens quite often. In news too(TV, internet). In internet articles on various topics.

The hearsay from your family members was unreliable? Well, the hearsay from my family members was reliable.

So as I said prior, whether or not hearsay is reliable is to be judged on a case by case basis.

Q: Genuine 1 Corinthians as in there is a part that is added? More forgery?

No, genuine as in; AUTHENTIC.

In genuine Mark we don’t have that ”seen alive by his followers”. Therefore no consistency you spoke about.

But we have the "seen alive by his followers" account in 1 Corinthians, which precedes Mark.

Its funny, because you keep mentioning Mark's "forgery", because you are comparing the "forgery" to the "genuine" Mark, and in the "genuine" Mark, the "forgery" isn't there.

So in essence, when you appeal to the "genuine" Mark, all you are doing is appealing to the "earlier" narrative/account.

So, if the earlier account is more "genuine", then an even earlier account is even MORE genuine..and we have that earlier account with 1 Corinthians.

From now on, every time you mention Mark's "forgery", I will response by simply saying "1 Corinthians".

Answer the questions:
Q: Are you arguing the Early Christians had no psychological deficiencies?

Are you arguing that they did?

Q: They could not have hallucinated and/or having false memories and/or having bias and/or psychological suggestibility and/or bad memory recollection and/or bad logical reasoning and could have not been influenced/affected by cognitive dissonance and/or peer pressure and/or peer affirmation?
Q: On what bases you say this?

I said pick one.

Most sect, religions have anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experiences and testimonials for miracles as purposed as evidence for the truth of their religion. Ex: Mormons, Islam, Sathya Say Baba-reincarnation, sects that were opposed to Paul, Christian sects.
Q: On what rational bases one(YOU) dismisses other peoples anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experiences and testimonials for miracles from other sect or religion when they all(including your religion) have the same evidence?

To answer this question, I will quote POTUS Joe Biden...he made this statement while running for president in 08...he was asked about a policy that he held, which differed from his democratic colleagues.

He was asked "Why are they're wrong, and you are right"?

His response: "I'm not gonna tell you why they are wrong, but I will tell you why I'm right".

That is my response to your question. And in my case, "they" are other religions.

Why I'm right: The evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And no, I'm not presenting any evidence for the Resurrection on this thread.

You can't use God to prove the choosing of the gospels was reliable. An then say this give credence to the truth of Christianity.

Presupposing God in order to prove God.
Circular reasoning.

Um, no. This is not circular reasoning because I am using God based on inference; the background information that I ALREADY HAVE that Christianity is true.

1. Sir you appeal to Early Church Fathers fathers to give credence the gospels originated in eye-witness.
You believe in the truth of Christianity partially because of 1.
Then you say "Eusebius(Early Church Father) said has NOTHING to do with the truth value of Christianity".

Um, no. On the very basic, fundamental level, I appeal to the Early Church Fathers to give credence to the authorship of the Gospels.

So, to say that Matthew wrote a Gospel says nothing about whether Christianity is true...it is just to say that MATTHEW WROTE A GOSPEL.

So, even if Christianity was false, that has no bearing on whether or not Matthew wrote a Gospel, regardless of whether the content of the book is false or not.

A personal God(Yahweh-Jeus) that cares for humans and for the well being of them and wants everyone to believe in him, a Holy Spirit that guides humans would make it clear for all if he wants it.
Yet we see confused people quarrelling on what is truth, what gods want, what is the nature of god; making mutually exclusive claims; we see massive killing, torture and suffering in the name of God, religion on both side of two mutually exclusive claims; we see genuine disbelief in such a god.
If one its rational can only conclude that is most likely that a personal God(Yahweh-Jeus) that care for humans and for the well being of them and wants everyone to believe in him, a Holy Spirit that guides humans does not exist.

Lets see if this passes the syllogism test, shall we...

1. My sister and I quarreled over the confusing instructions that our parents gave us before they went out one late night.

2. Therefore, our parents don't exist.

Non sequitur.

Test: Failed.

[alexxcJRO]

Let’s not ignore:

1. 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".

2. My Mark analysis of the prophecy which makes redundant the question: “why the writer of Matthew did not mention a prophecy of the destruction of the temple”. The prophecy refers to the apocalypse.

Good point, but the risk is there, regardless. You lower the risks where you can (writing), and where you can't (gathering), you take it as it comes.

But if they preached and ignored a higher risk because they considered was important for fellow Christians to hear from their mouth why would not be important to leave in writing a first eye witness testimony so later Christians to hear from “their mouth” as well while ignoring a lower risk.
Still does not make sense. Sorry.
Paul felt compelled enough to write in first person for this reason.

Then we simply disagree on the likelihood.

No sir.
You avoided to give an example for you have none.
Have no basis for disagreement outside the claim that you do.

Why would I knowingly post information that I KNOW is contradictory to my claims? Makes no sense.

It explains why you avoided so much. You knew you lied and I caught you.

Because the example I gave about "Mother said to call her" (from my sister) is actually a real life example of hearsay being reliable, that is my reasoning.
The hearsay from your family members was unreliable? Well, the hearsay from my family members was reliable.

So as I said prior, whether or not hearsay is reliable is to be judged on a case by case basis.

You inferred only from your bad example that was not even hearsay but eye witness testimony.

The courts don't decide whether I should accept hearsay testimony.

They (those involved in court proceedings) decide whether THEY should accept hearsay testimony.

And I am not appealing to them, so their opinion on this is irrelevant.

I provided evidence outside my self to support the claim that hearsay its not reliable.

Hearsay wasn't reliable in YOUR case. But that is YOUR case. You can't logically use your case and apply it generally, to every case.

To do so is fallacious; hasty generalization fallacy.
This is another over-generalization....fallacious.

My case was just an example that hearsay can be unreliable with close trusted sources.
I don’t believe it happens only too me. Your distorting reality.

“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

In respect to the psychological deficiencies its well known that these happen.
All humans suffer from most of the psychological deficiencies I enumerated like bias, bad memory recollection-memory is unreliable, peer pressure, peer affirmation, cognitive dissonance, false memories, psychological suggestibility, tribal mentality, pattern recognition( identify patterns or links between objects that actually do not exist).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

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

Are you arguing that they did?

I said pick one.

Yes all humans suffer from most those deficiencies because all of them have brains, memory.

To answer this question, I will quote POTUS Joe Biden...he made this statement while running for president in 08...he was asked about a policy that he held, which differed from his democratic colleagues.

He was asked "Why are they're wrong, and you are right"?

His response: "I'm not gonna tell you why they are wrong, but I will tell you why I'm right".

That is my response to your question. And in my case, "they" are other religions.

Why I'm right: The evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And no, I'm not presenting any evidence for the Resurrection on this thread.

The problem does not go away.

The evidence for the Resurrection is testimonial evidence.

My point remains:
Most sect, religions have anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experiences and testimonials for miracles as purposed as evidence for the truth of their religion. Ex: Mormons, Islam, Sathya Say Baba-reincarnation, sects that were opposed to Paul, Christian sects.

Q: On what rational bases one(YOU) dismisses other peoples anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experiences and testimonials for miracles from other sect or religion when they all(including your religion: testimonials for resurrection) have the same evidence?

Um, no. This is not circular reasoning because I am using God based on inference; the background information that I ALREADY HAVE that Christianity is true.

You cannot presuppose God and say the choosing was reliable for that is not a given. You have to prove this.

You prove God exists and was involved in the choosing and then you can say the choosing was reliable.

Um, no. On the very basic, fundamental level, I appeal to the Early Church Fathers to give credence to the authorship of the Gospels.

So, to say that Matthew wrote a Gospel says nothing about whether Christianity is true...it is just to say that MATTHEW WROTE A GOSPEL.

So, even if Christianity was false, that has no bearing on whether or not Matthew wrote a Gospel, regardless of whether the content of the book is false or not.

1. Sir you appeal to Early Church Fathers to give credence the gospels originated in eye-witness.
Q: You believe in the truth of Christianity partially because of 1, no?

Q: Why do you believe Yahweh-Jesus exist?

Give me the reasons.

Lets see if this passes the syllogism test, shall we...

1. My sister and I quarreled over the confusing instructions that our parents gave us before they went out one late night.

2. Therefore, our parents don't exist.

Non sequitur.

Test: Failed.

Bad, failed analogy.
You parents exist.
There is no disbelief in the existence of your parents in respect to your sister and you.
Also your parents are flawed human beings not perfect beings.

[We_Are_VENOM]

But if they preached and ignored a higher risk because they considered was important for fellow Christians to hear from their mouth why would not be important to leave in writing a first eye witness testimony so later Christians to hear from “their mouth” as well while ignoring a lower risk.
Still does not make sense. Sorry.
Paul felt compelled enough to write in first person for this reason.

As I previously stated; some folks are riskier than others...and you lower the risks whenever you can.

No sir.
You avoided to give an example for you have none.
Have no basis for disagreement outside the claim that you do.

You wanted 5 examples, and you were given 5 examples.

Don't know what else I can provide...the point is; there are/were exceptions to your "age 35 average" clause.

All of the other mumbo is a red herring.

It explains why you avoided so much. You knew you lied and I caught you.

A lie is when someone makes a claim that they KNOW to be false, which doesn't apply to me. I made a statement that I BELIEVED to be true.

Second, sir...trust and believe this; you've offered no argumentation that was so strong that I need to lie or be deceitful about ANYTHING.

So please, don't flatter yourself.

Third, although I was mistaken about my specific claim (about Papias), my general claim remains true; we get the authorship of the Gospels from the early church fathers and/or leaders.

And I draw my conclusions based on their testimony, as opposed to the conclusions drawn by that of skeptics who are living 2,000 years later on religious forums or other platforms.

You inferred only from your bad example that was not even hearsay but eye witness testimony.

"Mother said to call her", said sister.

That is hearsay, sir.

I provided evidence outside my self to support the claim that hearsay its not reliable.

And your evidence is sufficient under the court system, but insufficient under the normal, everyday life system.

You said yourself that you will rely on hearsay under certain circumstances...so obviously you don't care about what the courts have to say under those circumstances, correct?

Well, neither do I.

This is the taxi cab fallacy.

My case was just an example that hearsay can be unreliable with close trusted sources.
I don’t believe it happens only too me. Your distorting reality.

Regardless of what happens in YOUR reality...my reality is, I can and will rely on hearsay testimony, depending on the source.

“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

In respect to the psychological deficiencies its well known that these happen.
All humans suffer from most of the psychological deficiencies I enumerated like bias, bad memory recollection-memory is unreliable, peer pressure, peer affirmation, cognitive dissonance, false memories, psychological suggestibility, tribal mentality, pattern recognition( identify patterns or links between objects that actually do not exist).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

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

You are giving generalizations. You would have to prove that all of that applies to THIS PARTICULAR CASE (as it relates to the topic at hand).

Which you cannot do. So at that point, it is a matter of belief. Either you believe the testimony cannot be trusted, or you do.

You don't. I do.

Yes all humans suffer from most those deficiencies because all of them have brains, memory.

So, lets take your argument here, and apply it to ANY claim, written or orally transmitted, and apply it to EVERY claim in history....because according to you, nothing can be trusted based on bad memories, deficiencies (and the plethora of other stuff you mentioned).

Hey, if you will apply that to any and EVERYTHING related to historicity, and NOT just that of the Biblical/Christian nature...then you will have my respect (if it is worth anything )

But I doubt that you do...and this is simply the taxi cab fallacy.

The problem does not go away.

The evidence for the Resurrection is testimonial evidence.

90% of all historical claims are testimonial evidence, in some capacity.

My point remains:
Most sect, religions have anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experiences and testimonials for miracles as purposed as evidence for the truth of their religion. Ex: Mormons, Islam, Sathya Say Baba-reincarnation, sects that were opposed to Paul, Christian sects.

Q: On what rational bases one(YOU) dismisses other peoples anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experiences and testimonials for miracles from other sect or religion when they all(including your religion: testimonials for resurrection) have the same evidence?

Um, I answered that.

My point was, the fact that I have evidence that my religion is right, then that is enough to conclude that other religions are wrong.

So I don't need to prove that they are wrong...the fact that my religion is right (according to the evidence), in itself makes all other religions wrong.

That is my final answer to this question.

You cannot presuppose God and say the choosing was reliable for that is not a given. You have to prove this.

You prove God exists and was involved in the choosing and then you can say the choosing was reliable.

Well first of all, we are talking about the authorship and dating of the new testament...which has nothing to do with proving that God exists.

Debate for another thread/day.

1. Sir you appeal to Early Church Fathers to give credence the gospels originated in eye-witness.
Q: You believe in the truth of Christianity partially because of 1, no?

Sure, ultimately yes. But even if I didn't, that has no bearing on whether the early church fathers attest to the authorship of the Gospels.

Q: Why do you believe Yahweh-Jesus exist?

Give me the reasons.

Tell you what. Create a thread on the subject, and I will meet you there.

Bad, failed analogy.
You parents exist.
There is no disbelief in the existence of your parents in respect to your sister and you.

Um, the point is; the confusion of the instructions has no bearing on whether or not X "thing" exists.

Also your parents are flawed human beings not perfect beings.

Irrelevant to imperfect beings misunderstanding the instructions of the perfect being.

[alexxcJRO]

Let’s not ignore:

1. 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".

2. My Mark analysis of the prophecy which makes redundant the question: “why the writer of Matthew did not mention a prophecy of the destruction of the temple”. The prophecy refers to the apocalypse.

You wanted 5 examples, and you were given 5 examples.

Don't know what else I can provide...the point is; there are/were exceptions to your "age 35 average" clause.

All of the other mumbo is a red herring.

Don’t lie again.
Sir my argument is that is unlikely to have 5 average people living very long unusual lives(60-90) in first century while being friends, close proximity and not related genetically while being persecuted by roman empire in a time when this meant high probability of death.

You straw-manned.
You did not give an example 5 average people living very long unusual lives(60-90) in first century while being friends, close proximity and not related gentically while being persecuted by roman empire in a time when this meant high probability of death.

As I previously stated; some folks are riskier than others...and you lower the risks whenever you can.

Your ignoring my point:
Q: But if they preached and ignored a higher risk because they considered was important for fellow Christians to hear from their mouth why would not be important to leave in writing a first eye witness testimony so later Christians to hear from “their mouth” as well while ignoring a lower risk?

A lie is when someone makes a claim that they KNOW to be false, which doesn't apply to me. I made a statement that I BELIEVED to be true.

Sir you avoided so much. I keep requested for evidence over and over add nauseam.
You avoided so much because you knew your claim was false and you lied.
If you did not have lied you would have presented the evidence for your claim and shut my mouth.
But you didn’t cuz’ you knew. Common. I was not born yesterday.

"Mother said to call her", said sister.

That is hearsay, sir.

Yes. My bad.
But its not double hearsay. Still bad analogy.
Still not equivalent for we have double hearsay in our case with Papias.
Its an example about me. An analogy.
You cannot infer nothing from that alone example for was just an exercise of imagination about me and my family.

And your evidence is sufficient under the court system, but insufficient under the normal, everyday life system.

You said yourself that you will rely on hearsay under certain circumstances...so obviously you don't care about what the courts have to say under those circumstances, correct?

Well, neither do I.

This is the taxi cab fallacy.

No sir. I never said hearsay its reliable under certain circumstances.
My claim is: “hearsay its not reliable source of evidence”.
I gave example that even one has trusted sources like family(mine) hearsay its still not reliable.
I gave as evidence for my claim that courts don’t find hearsay reliable.
I gave as evidence the fact the human psyche is a weak thing having many psychological deficiencies which support my claim.
I gave the example: “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

You are giving generalizations. You would have to prove that all of that applies to THIS PARTICULAR CASE (as it relates to the topic at hand).

Which you cannot do. So at that point, it is a matter of belief. Either you believe the testimony cannot be trusted, or you do.

You don't. I do.

I provided evidence sir for my claim that memory is unreliable, humans psyche is a weak thing prone to psychological deficiencies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

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

So, lets take your argument here, and apply it to ANY claim, written or orally transmitted, and apply it to EVERY claim in history....because according to you, nothing can be trusted based on bad memories, deficiencies (and the plethora of other stuff you mentioned).

Hey, if you will apply that to any and EVERYTHING related to historicity, and NOT just that of the Biblical/Christian nature...then you will have my respect (if it is worth anything )

But I doubt that you do...and this is simply the taxi cab fallacy.

Don’t straw-man.
I was talking of oral transmission, hearsay, rumors.
I said its unreliable when one has oral transmission, hearsay, rumors because human memory is unreliable, humans psyche is a weak thing prone to psychological deficiencies.

90% of all historical claims are testimonial evidence, in some capacity.

Q: So?

King Arthur most likely did not had a magical wizard Merlin at his disposal.
Saint George most likely did not killed a dragon.
Jesus most likely did not rised from the dead.
Prophet Muhammed most likely did not flew on a horse.
Sathya Say Bab most likely did not healed a crippled boy and others using vibhuthi.

Um, I answered that.

My point was, the fact that I have evidence that my religion is right, then that is enough to conclude that other religions are wrong.

So I don't need to prove that they are wrong...the fact that my religion is right (according to the evidence), in itself makes all other religions wrong.

That is my final answer to this question.

Sir it’s the same evidence anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experiences and testimonials for miracles.
Your evidence its no more special.
Q: So what is the reason for dismissal of other people testimonial evidence?

Well first of all, we are talking about the authorship and dating of the new testament...which has nothing to do with proving that God exists.

Debate for another thread/day.

Next time don’t presupposes things that you haven’t showed to exist first.
Its illogical.

Sure, ultimately yes. But even if I didn't, that has no bearing on whether the early church fathers attest to the authorship of the Gospels.

Then you cannot say: "Eusebius said has NOTHING to do with the truth value of Christianity"
You cannot pick and choose what suits you from what Early Church Fathers say.
When you don’t like what they say you ignore it and only look at what support your belief.
That’s biased and illogical and plays right into cognitive dissonance.

Um, the point is; the confusion of the instructions has no bearing on whether or not X "thing" exists.

It does when that being its perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and cares for the well being of humans and wants everyone to believe in him, a Holy Spirit that guides humans.
The indifference is striking when we have the quarrel and confusion of what is god, what it wants, genuine disbelief and all the conflict, suffering and pain, mass killings the results from that. Christians committing genocides in the bible in the name of god, Christians holy wars(crusades), mass killing of women-“witches”-Christian inquisition, Islam holly war, Islamists killing in the name of Allah and saying Allahu Akbar: Allah is great, gay intolerance and other kinds of intolerances “because of what god said”.

Irrelevant to imperfect beings misunderstanding the instructions of the perfect being.

Q: The below are the instructions of a perfect being(omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) ? Really?
Q: Who can believe such nonsense?

1.Kill Witches
“You should not let a sorceress live.�(Exodus 22:17)

2. Kill Homosexuals
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.� (Leviticus 20:13)

3. Kill Fortunetellers
“A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.� (Leviticus 20:27)

4. Death for Adultery
“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.� (Leviticus 20:10)

5. Death for Fornication
“A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.� (Leviticus 21:9)


6. Kill Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle
“For the LORD had said to Moses, ‘Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites. You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment. They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it. Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again. Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.’�(Numbers 1:48-51)

7. Kill People for Working on the Sabbath
“The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: ‘Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.’�(Exodus 31:12-15)

9. Killed by a Lion
“Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, “Strike me!� But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me.� And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.�(1 Kings 20:35-36)

10. Kill Sons of Sinners
“Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.�(Isaiah 14:21)

11. Mass Murder
“This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’ “(1 Samuel 15:2-3)

12. More Rape and Baby Killing
“Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.�(Isaiah 13:15-18)


13. God Kills an Extended Family
“You have done more evil than all who lived before you. You have made other gods and have made me furious with your gold calves. And since you have turned your back on me, I will bring disaster on your dynasty and kill all your sons, slave or free alike. I will burn up your royal dynasty as one burns up trash until it is all gone. I, the LORD, vow that the members of your family who die in the city will be eaten by dogs, and those who die in the field will be eaten by vultures.'� Then Ahijah said to Jeroboam’s wife, “Go on home, and when you enter the city, the child will die. All Israel will mourn for him and bury him. He is the only member of your family who will have a proper burial, for this child is the only good thing that the LORD, the God of Israel, sees in the entire family of Jeroboam. And the LORD will raise up a king over Israel who will destroy the family of Jeroboam. This will happen today, even now! Then the LORD will shake Israel like a reed whipped about in a stream. He will uproot the people of Israel from this good land that he gave their ancestors and will scatter them beyond the Euphrates River, for they have angered the LORD by worshiping Asherah poles. He will abandon Israel because Jeroboam sinned and made all of Israel sin along with him.� (1 Kings 14:9-16)

14. God Promises More Killing
“I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD.�(Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT)
How the Hebrew slaves are to be treated
“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.� (Exodus 21:2-6)

15. Sex slave
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.�(Exodus 21:7-11)

16. Beating your slave to death
“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.� (Exodus 21:20-21 )

17. Slaves as property
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.� (Leviticus 25:44-46)

18. Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites
“They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?� he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.� (Numbers 31:7-18)

19. More Murder Rape and Pillage
“As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.�(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

20. Laws of Rape
“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.�(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

21. Death to the Rape Victim
“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.� (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

22. Rape of Female Captives
“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.� (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

[We_Are_VENOM]

Don’t lie again.
Sir my argument is that is unlikely to have 5 average people living very long unusual lives(60-90) in first century while being friends, close proximity and not related genetically while being persecuted by roman empire in a time when this meant high probability of death.

I understand your "argument", and I disagree with it.

Moving along.

You straw-manned.
You did not give an example 5 average people living very long unusual lives(60-90) in first century while being friends, close proximity and not related gentically while being persecuted by roman empire in a time when this meant high probability of death.

You are of the opinion that the examples I gave isn't adequate....and I disagree.

Moving along.

Your ignoring my point:
Q: But if they preached and ignored a higher risk because they considered was important for fellow Christians to hear from their mouth why would not be important to leave in writing a first eye witness testimony so later Christians to hear from “their mouth” as well while ignoring a lower risk?

I stand by what I said.

Asking the same question in a different way or repeating the same question will not change my answer.

Moving along.

Sir you avoided so much.

Yeah, but the avoidance wasn't due to a lie.

I keep requested for evidence over and over add nauseam.
You avoided so much because you knew your claim was false and you lied. If you did not have lied you would have presented the evidence for your claim and shut my mouth.
But you didn’t cuz’ you knew.

If I knew my claim was false and a lie, it would have been all the more reason for me to continue avoiding it.

That, followed by the fact that even if I was lying, all you would need to do is do your research and discover the "truth" on your own...and then you could have exposed my "lie" yourself.

All that nonsense aside, again, I certainly don't need to "lie" to you about anything.

Your arguments aren't that strong, sir, for me to go through such extremes.

It ain't that serious.

Now certainly, you can keep pushing this false "lie" agenda around...but I won't be addressing it any longer.

Yes. My bad.

So perhaps I should accuse you of lying about what hearsay means to make your point.

But I won't, because I know the difference between an honest mistake and a lie.

And apparently, you don't.

Which is a crying shame.

But its not double hearsay. Still bad analogy.
Still not equivalent for we have double hearsay in our case with Papias.
Its an example about me. An analogy.
You cannot infer nothing from that alone example for was just an exercise of imagination about me and my family.

Um, regardless of whatever point you are trying to make here...I am rocking with Papias and the early church fathers.

No sir. I never said hearsay its reliable under certain circumstances.
My claim is: “hearsay its not reliable source of evidence”.
I gave example that even one has trusted sources like family(mine) hearsay its still not reliable.

Well apparently, your family (so called "trusted" sources) aren't reliable. That says nothing about my family, who are trusted sources and thus reliable.

Just because you can't rely on your families testimony says nothing about me being relying on mines.

Moving along.

I gave as evidence for my claim that courts don’t find hearsay reliable.

I can care less what "courts" find reliable as it pertains to my personal experiences where hearsay is reliable.

I gave as evidence the fact the human psyche is a weak thing having many psychological deficiencies which support my claim.

Which is fallacious...hasty generalization fallacy.

I provided evidence sir for my claim that memory is unreliable, humans psyche is a weak thing prone to psychological deficiencies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

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

Lets see if this passes the syllogism test, shall we?

1. Most people living in first century Palestine could not read or write.

2. Ben and Jerry lived in first century Palestine.

3. Therefore, Ben and Jerry could not read or write.

Your logic simply DOES NOT FOLLOW, as you can not "apply aggregated data to individuals".

You continue to appeal to this faulty logic, time and time again...and you don't seem to understand your folly.

So I won't be addressing this again.

Don’t straw-man.
I was talking of oral transmission, hearsay, rumors.
I said its unreliable when one has oral transmission, hearsay, rumors because human memory is unreliable, humans psyche is a weak thing prone to psychological deficiencies.

Um, no. It "can" be unreliable.

It does not follow that just because it "can" be unreliable, that therefore, it is unreliable.

Because, here is a newsflash; hearsay/rumors could actually be true.

It is a crying shame that you are either unable or unwilling to accept this obvious fact.

Q: So?

"So"? Then don't imply that it is a strike against Christendom testimonial claims.

King Arthur most likely did not had a magical wizard Merlin at his disposal.
Saint George most likely did not killed a dragon.
Jesus most likely did not rised from the dead.
Prophet Muhammed most likely did not flew on a horse.
Sathya Say Bab most likely did not healed a crippled boy and others using vibhuthi.

Maybe, maybe not.

Moving along.

Sir it’s the same evidence anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experiences and testimonials for miracles.
Your evidence its no more special.

That is subjective, because if you ask me; my evidence is more special.

Q: So what is the reason for dismissal of other people testimonial evidence?

Because my evidence is more special, valid, convincing, persuasive, and any other synonymn you want to throw in there.

And no, I am not proving any such evidence on this thread.

Next time don’t presupposes things that you haven’t showed to exist first.
Its illogical.

No, what is illogical is asking a Bible believing Christian not to "presuppose" God in a debate pertaining to the Authorship and Dating of the New Testament.

Then you cannot say: "Eusebius said has NOTHING to do with the truth value of Christianity"
You cannot pick and choose what suits you from what Early Church Fathers say.
When you don’t like what they say you ignore it and only look at what support your belief.
That’s biased and illogical and plays right into cognitive dissonance.

I will repeat what I said...because you are basically making the same contention you made before, which I already addressed..

"When I said "Eusebius said has NOTHING to do with the truth value of Christianity" (and you clearly left out the "what" in the beginning of the quote)...I was referring to you quoting him as it pertains to the "subjective mechanism" of selecting which books were considered inspired.

And my point was; the truth value of Christianity has nothing to do with that."

Christ could be the Messiah despite what Eusebius' thought on any subjective mechanisms of how any alleged "holy books" were selected.

This is simply the fact of the matter, and I don't know what part of that you ain't understanding.

It does when that being its perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and cares for the well being of humans and wants everyone to believe in him, a Holy Spirit that guides humans.
The indifference is striking when we have the quarrel and confusion of what is god, what it wants, genuine disbelief and all the conflict, suffering and pain, mass killings the results from that. Christians committing genocides in the bible in the name of god, Christians holy wars(crusades), mass killing of women-“witches”-Christian inquisition, Islam holly war, Islamists killing in the name of Allah and saying Allahu Akbar: Allah is great, gay intolerance and other kinds of intolerances “because of what god said”.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Q: The below are the instructions of a perfect being(omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) ? Really?
Q: Who can believe such nonsense?

Christians can.

1.Kill Witches
“You should not let a sorceress live.�(Exodus 22:17)

2. Kill Homosexuals
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.� (Leviticus 20:13)

3. Kill Fortunetellers
“A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.� (Leviticus 20:27)

4. Death for Adultery
“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.� (Leviticus 20:10)

5. Death for Fornication
“A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.� (Leviticus 21:9)


6. Kill Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle
“For the LORD had said to Moses, ‘Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites. You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment. They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it. Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again. Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.’�(Numbers 1:48-51)

7. Kill People for Working on the Sabbath
“The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: ‘Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.’�(Exodus 31:12-15)

9. Killed by a Lion
“Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, “Strike me!� But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me.� And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.�(1 Kings 20:35-36)

10. Kill Sons of Sinners
“Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.�(Isaiah 14:21)

11. Mass Murder
“This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’ “(1 Samuel 15:2-3)

12. More Rape and Baby Killing
“Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.�(Isaiah 13:15-18)


13. God Kills an Extended Family
“You have done more evil than all who lived before you. You have made other gods and have made me furious with your gold calves. And since you have turned your back on me, I will bring disaster on your dynasty and kill all your sons, slave or free alike. I will burn up your royal dynasty as one burns up trash until it is all gone. I, the LORD, vow that the members of your family who die in the city will be eaten by dogs, and those who die in the field will be eaten by vultures.'� Then Ahijah said to Jeroboam’s wife, “Go on home, and when you enter the city, the child will die. All Israel will mourn for him and bury him. He is the only member of your family who will have a proper burial, for this child is the only good thing that the LORD, the God of Israel, sees in the entire family of Jeroboam. And the LORD will raise up a king over Israel who will destroy the family of Jeroboam. This will happen today, even now! Then the LORD will shake Israel like a reed whipped about in a stream. He will uproot the people of Israel from this good land that he gave their ancestors and will scatter them beyond the Euphrates River, for they have angered the LORD by worshiping Asherah poles. He will abandon Israel because Jeroboam sinned and made all of Israel sin along with him.� (1 Kings 14:9-16)

14. God Promises More Killing
“I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD.�(Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT)
How the Hebrew slaves are to be treated
“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.� (Exodus 21:2-6)

15. Sex slave
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.�(Exodus 21:7-11)

16. Beating your slave to death
“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.� (Exodus 21:20-21 )

17. Slaves as property
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.� (Leviticus 25:44-46)

18. Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites
“They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?� he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.� (Numbers 31:7-18)

19. More Murder Rape and Pillage
“As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.�(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

20. Laws of Rape
“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.�(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

21. Death to the Rape Victim
“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.� (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

22. Rape of Female Captives
“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.� (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

Syllogism test..

1. I don't agree with God's laws

2. Therefore, God does not exist

Non sequitur.

Test; Failed.

[alexxcJRO]

Let’s not ignore:

1. 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".

2. My Mark analysis of the prophecy which makes redundant the question: “why the writer of Matthew did not mention a prophecy of the destruction of the temple”. The prophecy refers to the apocalypse.

You are of the opinion that the examples I gave isn't adequate....and I disagree.

Moving along.

Sir its not matter of opinion. You did not give an example 5 average people living very long unusual lives(60-90) in first century while being friends, close proximity and not related genetically while being persecuted by roman empire in a time when this meant high probability of death.
You gave example of people from first century that were not friends, close proximity.
You did not showed they lived very long unusual lives(60-90).
You did not showed they were persecuted by roman empire or equivalent.

I stand by what I said.

Asking the same question in a different way or repeating the same question will not change my answer.

Moving along.

You said: “As I previously stated; some folks are riskier than others...and you lower the risks whenever you can.”
That does not answers my question.
So please answer it:
Q: But if they preached and ignored a higher risk because they considered was important for fellow Christians to hear from their mouth why would not be important to leave in writing a first eye witness testimony so later Christians to hear from “their mouth” as well while ignoring a lower risk?

If I knew my claim was false and a lie, it would have been all the more reason for me to continue avoiding it.

That, followed by the fact that even if I was lying, all you would need to do is do your research and discover the "truth" on your own...and then you could have exposed my "lie" yourself.

All that nonsense aside, again, I certainly don't need to "lie" to you about anything.

Your arguments aren't that strong, sir, for me to go through such extremes.

It ain't that serious.

Now certainly, you can keep pushing this false "lie" agenda around...but I won't be addressing it any longer.

Readers will determine if your repeated avoidance prove your dishonesty or not.

Well apparently, your family (so called "trusted" sources) aren't reliable. That says nothing about my family, who are trusted sources and thus reliable.

Just because you can't rely on your families testimony says nothing about me being relying on mines.

Moving along.

Off course your family and early Christians are people with endemic memory, super objective(don’t have biases), have a superior brain, super intelligent while we normal humans suffer from psychological deficiencies.

I can care less what "courts" find reliable as it pertains to my personal experiences where hearsay is reliable.

I provided evidence outside myself.
You only have your claims.

Which is fallacious...hasty generalization fallacy.
Lets see if this passes the syllogism test, shall we?

1. Most people living in first century Palestine could not read or write.

2. Ben and Jerry lived in first century Palestine.

3. Therefore, Ben and Jerry could not read or write.

Your logic simply DOES NOT FOLLOW, as you can not "apply aggregated data to individuals".

You continue to appeal to this faulty logic, time and time again...and you don't seem to understand your folly.

So I won't be addressing this again.

Straw man. Over simplification. False analogy.
I said all human have most of the enumerated psychological deficiencies because all have similar brains and similar functioning memory. We are not talking of normal humans versus some evolved bioengineered humans with super intelligent, endemic memory, zero biases, zero capability of mental illness and false memories.
The evidence I posted talks of humans in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

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.”

“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

“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


I gave evidence for this.
Please address the evidence sir:
Claiming so does not make it so.

Um, no. It "can" be unreliable.

It does not follow that just because it "can" be unreliable, that therefore, it is unreliable.

Because, here is a newsflash; hearsay/rumors could actually be true.

It is a crying shame that you are either unable or unwilling to accept this obvious fact.

All evidence points to rumor, hearsay as being unreliable.
You haven’t provided evidence outside your claims that it is reliable.
Assertions don’t make truth.

Maybe, maybe not.

Moving along.

Let’s not.
King Arthur most likely did not had a magical wizard Merlin at his disposal.
Saint George most likely did not killed a dragon.
Jesus most likely did not rose from the dead.
Prophet Muhammed most likely did not flew on a horse.
Sathya Say Bab most likely did not healed a crippled boy and others using vibhuthi.
You believe Jesus rose from the dead.
Q: Do you believe King Arthur had a magical wizard Merlin at his disposal?
Q: Do you believe Saint George killed a dragon?
Q: Do you believe Prophet Muhammed flew on a horse?
Q: Do you believe Sathya Say Baba healed a crippled boy and others using vibhuthi?

That is subjective, because if you ask me; my evidence is more special.
Because my evidence is more special, valid, convincing, persuasive, and any other synonymn you want to throw in there.

And no, I am not proving any such evidence on this thread.

Q: Special pleading?
It’s the same testimonial evidence.
Q: How is it different?
We have supposed testimonial/ testimonials for the supposed resurrection of Jesus. (Chirstianity)
We have supposed testimonial/ testimonials for the supposed flight on a horse of Prophet Muhammed. (Islam)
We have supposed testimonial/ testimonials for the supposed healings of crippled boy and others using vibhuthi by Sathya Say Baba.(Hinduism-Reincarnation)
We have supposed testimonial/ testimonials for the supposed healings of Angeline Works, Elsa, the wife of John Johnson, Woodruff Wilford, Brigham Young, Elijah Fordham, and Joseph B by Joseph Smith.(Mormonism)

No, what is illogical is asking a Bible believing Christian not to "presuppose" God in a debate pertaining to the Authorship and Dating of the New Testament.

You cannot say “God orchestrated the entire affair” and say the choosing was reliable without proving God exists and he was involved first.

Christ could be the Messiah despite what Eusebius' thought on any subjective mechanisms of how any alleged "holy books" were selected.

This is simply the fact of the matter, and I don't know what part of that you ain't understanding.

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.
Unless he was lying off course.
Q: Are you implying he was lying?

You are entitled to your opinion.
Christians can.
Syllogism test..

1. I don't agree with God's laws

2. Therefore, God does not exist

Non sequitur.

Test; Failed.

Imagine believing a perfect being(omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent), that cares for the well being of humans equally, wants everyone to believe in him and have a relationship with him based on love really said:
kills gays just for being gays,
kill a fortuneteller just for practicing fortunetelling,
kill the sons for the sins of the fathers,
“Go, now but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses”( infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses being non-moral agents)
“I will stir up the Medes against Babylon… They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.”
“when a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property”
“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her”

Sir its logically impossible for a perfect being(omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent), that cares for the well being of humans, wants everyone to believe in him, and have a relationship with him based on love, a Holy Spirit that guides humans to coexist
->with gratuitous/natural evils that affect indiscriminately non-moral agents(infants, non-human animals, severely mentally impaired); with some of this gratuitous/natural evils evil existing even before there were any Homo Sapiens Sapiens roaming the planet.
->with genuine disbelief
->with the quarrel and confusion of what is god, what it wants and all the conflict, suffering and pain, mass killings the results from that. Christians committing genocides in the bible in the name of god, Christians holy wars(crusades), mass killing of women-“witches”-Christian inquisition, Islam holly war, Islamists killing in the name of Allah and saying Allahu Akbar: Allah is great, gay intolerance and other kinds of intolerances “because of what god said”.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Sir its not matter of opinion. You did not give an example 5 average people living very long unusual lives(60-90) in first century while being friends, close proximity and not related genetically while being persecuted by roman empire in a time when this meant high probability of death.
You gave example of people from first century that were not friends, close proximity.
You did not showed they lived very long unusual lives(60-90).
You did not showed they were persecuted by roman empire or equivalent.

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.

Readers will determine if your repeated avoidance prove your dishonesty or not.

Off course your family and early Christians are people with endemic memory, super objective(don’t have biases), have a superior brain, super intelligent while we normal humans suffer from psychological deficiencies.

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".

I provided evidence outside myself.
You only have your claims.

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

Q: Special pleading?
It’s the same testimonial evidence.
Q: How is it different?
We have supposed testimonial/ testimonials for the supposed resurrection of Jesus. (Chirstianity)
We have supposed testimonial/ testimonials for the supposed flight on a horse of Prophet Muhammed. (Islam)
We have supposed testimonial/ testimonials for the supposed healings of crippled boy and others using vibhuthi by Sathya Say Baba.(Hinduism-Reincarnation)
We have supposed testimonial/ testimonials for the supposed healings of Angeline Works, Elsa, the wife of John Johnson, Woodruff Wilford, Brigham Young, Elijah Fordham, and Joseph B by Joseph Smith.(Mormonism)

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.

You cannot say “God orchestrated the entire affair” and say the choosing was reliable without proving God exists and he was involved first.

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.

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.
Unless he was lying off course.
Q: Are you implying he was lying?

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.