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...

[We_Are_VENOM]

Which are??? You will note that I provided five of mine and you've provided nada. Nothing. None.

My source is based on the siege of Jerusalem (look it up), which is a historical event which took place in 70AD.

Your sources is based on he said/she said mumbo with no presented reasoning behind it, just; "they said X date, so it is probably X date"...which is a borderline argument from authority.

Then all you have to do is prove the writers of the gospels are four of the exceptions. . . . . . . . We all await.

Then all you have to do is prove the writers of the gospels weren't four of the exceptions.

This doesn't even make sense. Truthfully, I don't believe you know what a fallacious argument is.

You've got nothing. You are defeated, sir. You can have the last word.

[Miles]

Interesting. Just where could I get ahold of these early Church Fathers, or at least their writings?

WikiSource or CCEL. There are also good scans of various editions at Internet Archive.

Apologists are fond of quoting the Church Fathers as "early evidence" that some church tradition or other is based on something substantial. The argument is usually something to the effect that these learned men wouldn't have trusted an unsubstantiated rumor that they heard from some rando. On the other hand, the Church Fathers weren't any better at documenting their sources than modern apologists and their writings include such gems as this masterpiece of logic from Irenaeus:

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, “Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth.” For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, [as the Scripture] says, “The first living creature was like a lion,” symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but “the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,”—an evident description of His advent as a human being; “the fourth was like a flying eagle,” pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated.

Not bothering to search through the writings--- thanks for providing the links ---to see if they said "while the apostles were alive and spreading the Gospel throughout empire, they were doing so orally. Before they died, they apparently made sure their testimonies were put in print so that and that their testimonies would precede when they were no longer here to spread the message." as Venom claimed, I too wouldn't put any more trust in their veracity as I do any of the bibles on the market.
And poor Irenaeus, a true logician of the Christian stripe, who deserves a seat next to the four gospel writers who were so befuddled by the resurrection of Jesus they completely failed to get their stories straight.


..........................


Of course, because "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." this is just the kind of silly confusion god dotes on---just the joker in him would be my guess.




.

[Miles]

Which are??? You will note that I provided five of mine and you've provided nada. Nothing. None.

My source is based on the siege of Jerusalem (look it up), which is a historical event which took place in 70AD.

Your sources is based on he said/she said mumbo with no presented reasoning behind it, just; "they said X date, so it is probably X date"...which is a borderline argument from authority.

At least I was courteous enough to provide quoted material and a link to it all. Your mere assertion here counts as just that: Mere Assertion.

Then all you have to do is prove the writers of the gospels are four of the exceptions. . . . . . . . We all await.

Then all you have to do is prove the writers of the gospels weren't four of the exceptions.

Really. Please look up Burden Of Proof. It isn't that difficult to understand and might prevent you from making the mistake you have here.

This doesn't even make sense. Truthfully, I don't believe you know what a fallacious argument is.

You've got nothing. You are defeated, sir. You can have the last word.

Why thank you.


.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #16]

It would be nice if, for a CHANGE, you guys find a way to police each other up from time to time instead of this "atheist united" stuff you have going on.

Me thinks you blew that way out of proportion. I was simply responding to your comment about not believing life expectancy numbers with a couple of links to clarify what that term describes. And they actually supported YOUR argument that there are likely people in the population that might be considerably older than this average. It had nothing to do with atheists vs. theists ... just a simple comment on the various meanings of the term "life expectancy."

[alexxcJRO]

I am not sure exactly what you are talking about here. We both acknowledge that the books are anonymous. I cannot conclusively say who wrote what.

But what I can do is draw a conclusion based on other evidences that I am presented with, which is what is being done.

Q: If you cannot follow things in a debate why debate, huh?
Again.
Please answer the question:
Q: Does the “authors of those sacred writings” mean literal writers of the books? (Yes/No)

With all due respect, sir; you are being disingenuous.

That is exactly what you are implying...you threw out a weak hypothesis, offering a counter-argument to my "destruction of Jerusalem" thing by postulating "well, perhaps the reason the destruction of Jerusalem wasn't mentioned is because the authors were writing decades after the fact in far away lands", which implies that because of those reasons, they did not know about what happened in Jerusalem in 70ad.

You are indeed implying that they (authors) were stopped from knowing due to their ignorance.

The counter-argument is weak anyway, and is more of an insult to me by even responding to it.
I just completely disagree...if anything, the Gospel of John has the most "developed" Christology than any of the other Gospels.

Q: Quote mining?

Here is the text:
“One answer is perhaps tied up with the Gospel’s location. If Matthew was written in Antioch or another location that was well away from the war zone, then we can understand the evangelist’s lack of specific focus on the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem. This is one reason why we should be cautious about locating this Gospel in Galilee. We would expect a Galilean Matthew who lived through the horrors of the conflict to have referenced it in more detail in his Gospel. The apocalyptic discourse in chapters 24-25 afforded such an opportunity, but Matthew chose not to take advantage of this. However, if Matthew wrote well away from the war zone and was not directly involved in it, then a post-70 C.E. dating is consistent with his lack of interest in the Jewish war.
A further factor is how late we date the Gospel. Most scholars date Matthew to the 80s or 90s, within 25 years of the destruction of Jerusalem, but it might well be the case that the evangelist wrote his work some decades later than this. Such a later dating is more consistent with the common scholarly view that the community represented by Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism), which developed into an identifiable entity many decades after the Jewish revolt. Based on this dating the war would not have been an event of the recent past, and it would be understandable that Matthew did not focus on it in his Gospel.
Thus the more distance that can be put between the destruction of Jerusalem and the writing of Matthew, either geographical distance or temporal distance (or both), the more easily we can explain why this Christian Jewish author did not refer more concretely to the calamity of the Jewish War.”
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/a ... ew-written

The readers can see that the New Testament scholar does not says the writer does not know of the destruction of the temple and give reason for why the later dating.

Straw man, because that wasn't the point being made.

The point was; you were claiming that the legend of Jesus (particularly, his divinity) was something that developed later and I mentioned that this is false because Paul believed Jesus was divine, and his writings predate the Gospels, which is contrary to the "later" argument that you present.

Don’t straw man.
Sir I said the stories of Jesus got more magical/divine as the time progressed with new embellishments(Mark added ending, Mathew making clear of Jesus divinity). Not that they were non-magical before Mark or in Mark gospel.
More magical presupposes less magical, phantasmagorical elements previously and not non-existence.
In the Gospel of Mark, the author does not make it clear of Jesus' divinity. In fact, while there are all sorts of signs that Jesus is God, like his forgiving of sins, Jesus generally does not publicly declare himself to be God.
In Mathew on the other hand the difference is obvious.

Paul and Mark have a low, less developed Christology and Matthew and John have a more developed, high Christology.
Trinitarians have an even more high Christology Yahweh=Jesus=Holy Spirit.
Paul did not believe that Jesus was divine the same sense Christian believe today. Paul believed that Jesus was a divine in some sense, but did not believe that Jesus was equal to God.

Philippians 2:5–11:

“Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,

who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.

Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.”

“The divine nature of Jesus was a major issue for the Matthaean community, the crucial element separating the early Christians from their Jewish neighbors; while Mark begins with Jesus' baptism and temptations, Matthew goes back to Jesus' origins, showing him as the Son of God from his birth, the fulfillment of messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.[5] The title Son of David identifies Jesus as the healing and miracle-working Messiah of Israel (it is used exclusively in relation to miracles), sent to Israel alone.[6] As Son of Man he will return to judge the world, an expectation which his disciples recognize but of which his enemies are unaware.[7] As Son of God, God is revealing himself through his son, and Jesus proving his sonship through his obedience and example.[8]
Most scholars believe the gospel was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110; a pre-70 date remains a minority view.[9][10] The work does not identify its author, and the early tradition attributing it to the apostle Matthew is rejected by modern scholars.[11][12] He was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[13] Writing in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek", he drew on the Gospel of Mark as a source, plus the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source (material shared with Luke but not with Mark) and material unique to his own community, called the M source or "Special Matthew".[14][15]
“
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Which once again, goes back to my point of Paul dispelling false teachings, the ones that were BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION.

Do you remember when I said that?

"the ones that were brought to his attention".

False teachings according to Paul. Like many sects dispel other sects teaching as false.
According to the other sect there were not false teachings sir. Look at all the different Christian sects and denomination today.
The clash of equally credible testimonies yields a "he said, she said" situation.
The above does not refute the argument from contrariety.

I am sorry.
What you said above does not make away with the point of there being mutually exclusive claims, being an oral tradition which contradicts Paul belief/theology/doctrine; with people claiming to have had their own personal spiritual experience same as Paul.

Again:
The argument from contrariety, first developed by David Hume in his mid-18th-century Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, notes that the contrary claims of competing religions(in our case competing sects of Christianity) are mutually exclusive and thus cannot all be true. Moreover, the testimonial "evidence"-personal experience for the truth of any one religion-sect (whether understood as testimony for the occurrence of public miracles or private religious experiences) is on an equal footing with the contrary testimonial evidence for any other religion-sect (such that the clash of equally credible testimonies yields a "he said, she said" situation). Since there are a multitude of competing religions-sects, and thus a multitude of (absent anything better than testimony) equally credible yet contrary testimonies, the probability that any given religion is true--and thus that any religion at all is true--is extraordinarily low. Consequently, it is highly probable that all religions are false. Although an argument from contrariety can be combined with an argument from religious confusion to demonstrate the probable nonexistence of God, it does not have to be; an argument from contrariety stands on its own as a strong argument for the falsity of all religions-sects.

So we have Paul personal anecdotal, experience, theology versus other sect personal anecdotal, experience, theology.

Either address the argument of contrariety or else don’t bore with irrelevant nonsense.

What embellishment?

As I previously said, as long as the original disciples were around during the time in question, it would have been difficult for any false teachers/teachings to stick...because any questionable teachings that were being pushed into the church, church leaders would say..

"Well, lets see what Paul has to say about this." And Paul would speak on the matter.

Mark added ending. Mathew taking Mark gospel, altering and making it clear of Jesus divinity.
Although Jesus healed the sick(in Mark) the same did Old Testament prophets.

Jesus was probable viewed a mere prophet by some Christians like Elijah, Isaiah, Moses and so on.

As I stated before, if Mark and Matthew were both tasked with giving an account of Jesus' 3 year earthly ministry, then there is only so much you they can say before the stories overlap.

Second, perhaps the reason Matthew copied from Mark is because he viewed Mark as a reliable source (so did Luke)...and obviously, since Mark was a friend of Peter, that would make Mark a reliable source, considering Mark's source was Peter, who was one of Jesus' right hand man.

But then you don’t have multiple independent corroborating testimonials but just one(mark story).
Which weakens greatly the case which supports a miracle.
You have more independent corroborating testimonial for the miracle of Fatima where supposedly the sun zigzagged across the sky. Which off course did not happened.
You have maybe just one source.
Islamists have one source too the Muhammad- last in a chain of prophets(Jesus, or Isa another prophet in the chain) sent by God.

Based on what?

See the above point about Matthew gospel.

Based on what?

The above point with Matthew’s gospel and the added part in Mark.

Sorry, but that just makes no sense whatsoever, and is in fact a non sequitur.

Empty tomb and claims of resurrections, followed by actual encounters.

How does it then follow that therefore, "this mechanism may have been at work before".

Makes no sense.

We have proof of embellishment (Mark ending, Matthew copying Mark and embellishing by making Jesus clearly divine as Son of God-god himself as opposed to maybe being just a mere prophet)
There we have a precedent and can make a case for the mechanism.
It happened with two Gospels. Therefore one can suspect that it happened before.

And this is the second time you've mentioned an ascension in the Gospels, when there is no ascension in the Gospels. SMH.

“The Ascension of Jesus (anglicized from the Vulgate Latin: ascensio Iesu, lit. 'ascent of Jesus') is the Christian teaching that Christ physically departed from Earth by rising into Heaven, in the presence of eleven of his apostles.[1] According to the New Testament narrative, the Ascension occurred on the fortieth day counting from the resurrection.[1] “

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

First off, the reason Mark and Luke write in third person is because they were writing on behalf of the eyewitnesses.

And the reason Matthew and John writes in third person was probably because of persecution..James, Peter, and Paul all were allegedly executed in the 60's AD...and history tells us that 60-70AD was a bad time for Christians, as the persecution was stronger than it had ever been since 33AD.

The spread of Christianity had apparently reached the highest office in the land (the Emperor Nero)...and the heat on Christians had increased.

So therefore, it wouldn't have been wise to attach your name to a Christian book during that decade, which is why it was probably written in the third person.

Heck, look at John's Gospel, he identifies himself as the "disciple that Jesus loved" and doesn't even mention his own name...that is how bad the persecution must have been.

That seems like a reasonable explanation as to why they were written in third person. Now you certainly disagree, but then again..

1. The books were written in third person

2. Therefore, the books were not written by eyewitnesses

is a non sequitur in itself.

Don’t straw-man.
I did not said “The books were written in third person. Therefore, the books were not written by eyewitnesses”.
I said its most likely that when a person writes in third person about a certain Matthew person the writer its not Matthew himself.

In the overwhelmingly majority of cases when a person writes in third person its because he/she writes of other persons, not of himself.
Most likely leaves room for doubt.

It would have been a non-sequitur if I was certain and did not said “most likely”.
You have to make many assumption you don’t have evidence for and have to take always the most unlikely case(third person point, life expectancy point, majority of scholars work on authorship point and dating, apocryphal gospels point, the argument from contrariety point, anecdotal personal experiences point and so one).
This unlikeliness accumulates as one needs to always take the unlikely path.

This is another non sequitur. Just because Mark as an added 12 verses in the end, doesn't mean that you throw away the entire 16 chapters of the book, deeming it as unreliable.

This is another non sequitur. Just because Mark as an added 12 verses in the end, doesn't mean that you throw away the entire 16 chapters of the book, deeming it as unreliable.

?
I fail to see the point here.

Which presents no problem whatsoever to the reliability of the Gospels, or to my case that they were originally written much earlier.

Of whose existence is so irrelevant, the fact that they are even mentioned in this discussion is a mystery.

The failure of dismissal of the problems is comical indeed as seen above.
We have a complicated mess of failure to comprehend, of straw mans, quote mining, contradictions.
The issue is the cumulation of problems that make the whole thing unlikely considering we have independent eyewitness testimonial for the miracle of Fatima(which of course did not happened-Sun did not zig-zag across the sky) and miracles of Sathya Say Baba(mutually exclusive claim -reincarnation).
Imagine how weak Bible evidence becomes in comparison. Bogus 2hand, 3hand, … testimonial(Mark) or testimonials.

Genetic fallacy.
Who has lied here?

Q: Have I lost you completely?
I was making an analogy and pointing out the mechanism called cognitive dissonance which take place when one devalues and discard conflicting knowledge.
Q: What genetic fallacy?

Well first of all, the belief didn't come until they saw the risen Jesus. So you are simply wrong here.

That much, is clear.

Sir the text says: “4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. “
No mention of the young actually seeing Jesus(actual encounter) just the proclamation that he has risen, off empty tomb thus the belief of the young man that Jesus has risen.

Don't know what you are talking about here.

Saying there is a possible explanation does not equate with claiming the possible explanation is the reality.

I already gave reasons why Matthew may have found it best to write in third person.

You gave un unlikely scenario. That was my point.

Also a clarification.
Q: Why would John avoid persecuting by not mentioning his name?

Would romans read the gospel and say: Aha. There is a mention of a John therefore was written by John. Common.

Q: How is that making any sense?

According to Christian logic they the apostles were willing to die for their belief.
Why would they be afraid if they knew they would go to another dimension with Jesus.
Your scenario does not go with this. I am sorry.
In fact by writing in first person would have a bigger impact (proven by by reality(most Christians not wanting to let go of eye-witness testimonial hypothesis) )
The gospels saying :" I saw this" has a much bigger impact then "He saw this".

Oh did you? I must of missed that. I disagree with the notion that John is dated early 2nd century.

Off course you do.

Again, I do not hold to that late date of John's Gospel. So your point is moot. I cannot adequately answer a question based on what I believe to be a false premise.

I already prove you were wrong by saying centuries later.

Even if take the path of late first century(90AD). Its still decades in diference between late first century and early 2d century.
Q: Why was their perspective(early 2d century apocryphal gospel) not included if John (end of first century) was? Why did they were not to inspired?

Please don’t avoid this question: How did they choose the maximum point by which one gospel is eligible and one not?

Well first of all, oral tradition of what, exactly?

Early traditions of alleged Gospel authorship? Or early traditions of the belief in Jesus' resurrection?

I don't believe the latter was based off of early tradition, but the former, most certainly.

Sir you said “no oral traditions pre 70AD”. You did not specify anything.
Q: When I say “there is no apples in the basket” I mean there are certain apples in the basket?(rhetorical question)
No apples in the basket means zero apples. LOL.)

Second, you are conflating oral transmission with oral tradition, when they don't mean the same thing.

“Oral tradition, or oral lore, is a form of human communication wherein knowledge, art, ideas and cultural material is received, preserved, and transmitted orally from one generation to another.[1][2][3] The transmission is through speech or song and may include folktales, ballads, chants, prose or verses. In this way, it is possible for a society to transmit oral history, oral literature, oral law and other knowledge across generations without a writing system, or in parallel to a writing system. Religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism,[4] and Jainism, for example, have used an oral tradition, in parallel to a writing system, to transmit their canonical scriptures, rituals, hymns and mythologies from one generation to the next.[5][6][7]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_tradition

Oral tradition presupposes oral transmission.
You cannot have oral tradition without oral transmission.
Just admit you were contradicting your self.
This dance is pathetic indeed.

I fail to see the point made here.

One personal anecdotal, experience is not more special then other personal anecdotal, experience. There are on the same equal footing.
One cannot say my religion is true because of some supposed miracle and personal anecdotal, experience and the other sects religion is false when they have the same evidence(supposed miracle and personal anecdotal, experience).
And because there are mutually exclusive claims one cannot say the two religion are true for there cannot be truth that Jesus is both God and not God, that both reincarnation and Christian final judgment are true and so one.

So I will ask again, for the third time. These "most" scholars that you appeal to...what are their reasons for giving later authorship dates for the Gospels?

Appealing to them is simply not enough.

Present the case; WHY? This the third time that I've asked you to present the case as to why the later dates are more viable than the early timeframe that I made a case for.

You are either unable or unwilling to do so.

I already showed one example with the scholar from Australia. Why the later date for Matthew.

Well maybe it isn't better for them...but I've yet to see a case being made as to why they draw such conclusions...which is what I am asking for.

So now maybe it isn't better for them.
You keep changing like the weather.

Sure, when you provide me what I am asking for.

I already provided. See above.
So can you show them please.
I am waiting.

Again, you say "...making it even more unlikely of all them living very long lives". You straw manned the first time you said this, which I pointed out...and then you straw man again by saying the same thing.

Last time...

I never said "all of them". I clearly stated (for the second time) that there were exceptions then as it is now.

Not to mention that I just simply don't buy the average age thing anyway. But even if I did, there were exceptions.

You straw manned because you said:” someone saying that X person “ alluding to me.
X person means singular.
I meant plural. X persons.
Q: Why it is so hard, huh ?

Ok, so take those 2,000...and lets say of those 2,000 skeletons, around 5 lived to be past the age of 60?

Seems realistic, doesn't it? Ok, and those 5 skeletons represent Peter, Matthew, John, and Paul. Like I said, exceptions.

Your proving my point. That all 5 are exceptions.
That is unlikely.
I never said impossible.
Also we are not talking of 40 years old (10 years above 30) but 60 or more. Which is double or more above.
That’s why the unlikeliness. Plus the persecution makes it even more unlikely.(please don’t avoid this point)

How was he not?

Paul was not eye-witness to the event: resurrection of Christ like supposedly were the apostles. He was not with the apostles.
Q: How is this even debated?
I don’t understand.

I am asking for a case to be made to support the consensus view. Are you going to present the case, or not?

This is my postion:
My argument is that is most likely that the consensus of the scholars points to the truth.
Most likely leaves room for doubt.
I admit the consensus maybe be wrong.
Trying to force me into a position desired by you is rather comical indeed.

Or, instead of flooding the post with irrelevant material, perhaps you can simply provide actual stuff that is relevant to what I am asking.

You had problems with the information from Wikipedia.
So I provided references if you want to object to the information.
Q: Do you object that the info from Wikipedia is reliable?
If yes that is a claim and you need to prove this or retract the claim.

Negative.

I've had the daunting task of straining my eyes, trying to weed through all of the pasted mumbo you've been providing, most of which have been irrelevant to the discussion.

Now, I am simply asking you to give me stuff that I can actually use, and you refuse to do so.

When you give me what I ask, I will give you what you ask.

Its so funny how you want to avoid this. You make me laugh. )
Q: Why bore me with irrelevant nonsense?
Ohh its so hard to debate. Why debate if its to hard for you. Go play with toys if its too hard.
Sir as per forum rules: ”Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. “
You made two claims: “ Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel....and early Church traditional has always attributed the Gospel of Mark to Mark, friend of Peter.”
Please provide the evidence.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Me thinks you blew that way out of proportion. I was simply responding to your comment about not believing life expectancy numbers with a couple of links to clarify what that term describes. And they actually supported YOUR argument that there are likely people in the population that might be considerably older than this average. It had nothing to do with atheists vs. theists ... just a simple comment on the various meanings of the term "life expectancy."

Um, no I didn't blow it out of proportion and with all due respect, I don't think you understood the point that I made.

The point is; if the link you provided supports MY position, then why not just respond to the opponent (Alex) of my position by offering him the link, instead of me?

Which touches on my further point; you guys (unbelievers) do a POOR job of correcting each other on this forum...but you are quick to correct or argue with the theist.

That is the point.

You could have just as easily replied to Alex by saying..

"You may be incorrect here. Because according to this (link), there are likely people in the population that might be considerably older than this average"

Now what would have been so difficult about that?

Instead, you provide the link to me, a person of whom the link supports...instead of providing the link to the person of whose opinion isn't supported by the data.

And this is supposed to be a debate forum? What kind of sense does that make?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #26]

Instead, you provide the link to me, a person of whom the link supports...instead of providing the link to the person of whose opinion isn't supported by the data.

It was actually Miles in post 8, not AlexxcJRO, who made the comment that you replied to in post 11 ("First of all, I simply don't believe that 30-35 was the average life expectancy thing. I just don't. ") to which I responded in post 12 with some links on the definition of life expectancy. Nothing more than that, prompted by your comment that you didn't believe that 30-35 was the average life expectancy in question which I attempted to clarify. It never occurred to me that it would be interpreted as some collusion among atheists against theists on this forum. It wasn't.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #26]

Instead, you provide the link to me, a person of whom the link supports...instead of providing the link to the person of whose opinion isn't supported by the data.

It was actually Miles in post 8, not AlexxcJRO, who made the comment that you replied to in post 11 ("First of all, I simply don't believe that 30-35 was the average life expectancy thing. I just don't. ") to which I responded in post 12 with some links on the definition of life expectancy. Nothing more than that, prompted by your comment that you didn't believe that 30-35 was the average life expectancy in question which I attempted to clarify. It never occurred to me that it would be interpreted as some collusion among atheists against theists on this forum. It wasn't.

My argument was not that is impossible for a human in ancient Rome to live to 60 or 80 or 90. Off course Roman, Jewish nobility and the more influent and wealthy people probably lived longer because of their status and wealth.
My point was that was highly unlikely that all the people that might have been eyewitnesses(apostles) lived long enough to reach 70AD-110AD considering the hard life of an average citizen during the roman empire, lack of the today’s medicine breakthroughs, technology and the evidence that show that a high number of average roman people did not go past 30 years of age.
Even so when such supposed Christian prominent figures(the apostles) were persecuted and hunted by the romans. Probably ate poorly being on the run and so on.
“The average age of death was 30, and that wasn’t a mere statistical quirk: a high number of the skeletons were around that age. Many showed the effects of trauma from hard labour, as well as diseases we would associate with later ages, like arthritis.”
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2018 ... -longevity

It's funny how instead of replying to my last post he choose to complain: the poor Christian is persecuted by the atheists.
Off course another straw man and another example of lack of comprehension.
Playing the professional victim card only shows impotence and defeat.

How boring.

[We_Are_VENOM]

It was actually Miles in post 8, not AlexxcJRO, who made the comment that you replied to in post 11 ("First of all, I simply don't believe that 30-35 was the average life expectancy thing. I just don't. ") to which I responded in post 12 with some links on the definition of life expectancy. Nothing more than that, prompted by your comment that you didn't believe that 30-35 was the average life expectancy in question which I attempted to clarify. It never occurred to me that it would be interpreted as some collusion among atheists against theists on this forum. It wasn't.

Yeah it was Miles, wasn't it.

Well, you should have given it to Miles then.

Alex is on currently on my hit list, that is the reason he crossed my mind.

Anyways, I will bet my mortgage payment that had it been a theist who had taken Miles' position, your provided links would have been directed towards the theist.

Just my opinion. But that is just a testament to the ongoing pattern of this "I am not gonna correct you, my fellow atheist" thing that has been going on here.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Q: If you cannot follow things in a debate why debate, huh?
Again.
Please answer the question:
Q: Does the “authors of those sacred writings” mean literal writers of the books? (Yes/No)

You are asking the fundamental question as it pertains to the subject of this thread...a question that I answered numerous times in various ways and refuse to do so again.

Q: Quote mining?

Here is the text:
“One answer is perhaps tied up with the Gospel’s location. If Matthew was written in Antioch or another location that was well away from the war zone, then we can understand the evangelist’s lack of specific focus on the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem.

"lack of specific focus on the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem".

Laughable.

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

1. a war which involves their persecution

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

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

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

If that is the best you (or anyone) can do...lol.

This is one reason why we should be cautious about locating this Gospel in Galilee. We would expect a Galilean Matthew who lived through the horrors of the conflict to have referenced it in more detail in his Gospel. The apocalyptic discourse in chapters 24-25 afforded such an opportunity, but Matthew chose not to take advantage of this. However, if Matthew wrote well away from the war zone and was not directly involved in it, then a post-70 C.E. dating is consistent with his lack of interest in the Jewish war.
A further factor is how late we date the Gospel. Most scholars date Matthew to the 80s or 90s, within 25 years of the destruction of Jerusalem, but it might well be the case that the evangelist wrote his work some decades later than this. Such a later dating is more consistent with the common scholarly view that the community represented by Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism), which developed into an identifiable entity many decades after the Jewish revolt. Based on this dating the war would not have been an event of the recent past, and it would be understandable that Matthew did not focus on it in his Gospel.
Thus the more distance that can be put between the destruction of Jerusalem and the writing of Matthew, either geographical distance or temporal distance (or both), the more easily we can explain why this Christian Jewish author did not refer more concretely to the calamity of the Jewish War.”[/i]
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/a ... ew-written

Again, as I stated before; Matthew was hyping Jesus up to be this great prophecy fulfiller...and to leave out one of the most blatantly obvious fulfillment of a prophecy would NOT be consistent with the intended purpose of the book itself.

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

No way.

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

The readers can see that the New Testament scholar does not says the writer does not know of the destruction of the temple and give reason for why the later dating.

The New Testament scholar can say what he wants...me and the scholar is looking at the same information, and I am not buying his assessment. Point blank, period.

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

Pre-70AD.

Don’t straw man.
Sir I said the stories of Jesus got more magical/divine as the time progressed with new embellishments(Mark added ending

Then I just simply disagree. There is nothing special or "new" about the later additions of Mark.

, Mathew making clear of Jesus divinity). Not that they were non-magical before Mark or in Mark gospel.
More magical presupposes less magical, phantasmagorical elements previously and not non-existence.
In the Gospel of Mark, the author does not make it clear of Jesus' divinity. In fact, while there are all sorts of signs that Jesus is God, like his forgiving of sins, Jesus generally does not publicly declare himself to be God.
In Mathew on the other hand the difference is obvious.

Paul and Mark have a low, less developed Christology and Matthew and John have a more developed, high Christology.

Again, I simply disagree. If anything, John has more of a developed, high Christology...not Matthew.

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

Trinitarians have an even more high Christology Yahweh=Jesus=Holy Spirit.
Paul did not believe that Jesus was divine the same sense Christian believe today. Paul believed that Jesus was a divine in some sense, but did not believe that Jesus was equal to God.

Philippians 2:5–11:

“Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,

who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.

Phil 2:5-9 is, in my opinion, a "Trinity Proof" text...contrary to what you say here. That is a conversation for another day, though.

Most scholars believe the gospel was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110; a pre-70 date remains a minority view.[9][10] The work does not identify its author, and the early tradition attributing it to the apostle Matthew is rejected by modern scholars.[11][12] He was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[13] Writing in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek", he drew on the Gospel of Mark as a source, plus the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source (material shared with Luke but not with Mark) and material unique to his own community, called the M source or "Special Matthew".[14][15]
“[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

I really don't care what scholars have to say, if I am not provided with a case for why they are saying it.

False teachings according to Paul. Like many sects dispel other sects teaching as false.
According to the other sect there were not false teachings sir. Look at all the different Christian sects and denomination today.
The clash of equally credible testimonies yields a "he said, she said" situation.
The above does not refute the argument from contrariety.

Jesus himself was dispelling false teachings...and the Bible is clear that Satan is deceiving many.

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

So tell me something I don't know.

I am sorry.
What you said above does not make away with the point of there being mutually exclusive claims, being an oral tradition which contradicts Paul belief/theology/doctrine; with people claiming to have had their own personal spiritual experience same as Paul.

I do not follow.

Again:
The argument from contrariety, first developed by David Hume in his mid-18th-century Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, notes that the contrary claims of competing religions(in our case competing sects of Christianity) are mutually exclusive and thus cannot all be true. Moreover, the testimonial "evidence"-personal experience for the truth of any one religion-sect (whether understood as testimony for the occurrence of public miracles or private religious experiences) is on an equal footing with the contrary testimonial evidence for any other religion-sect (such that the clash of equally credible testimonies yields a "he said, she said" situation). Since there are a multitude of competing religions-sects, and thus a multitude of (absent anything better than testimony) equally credible yet contrary testimonies, the probability that any given religion is true--and thus that any religion at all is true--is extraordinarily low. Consequently, it is highly probable that all religions are false. Although an argument from contrariety can be combined with an argument from religious confusion to demonstrate the probable nonexistence of God, it does not have to be; an argument from contrariety stands on its own as a strong argument for the falsity of all religions-sects.

So we have Paul personal anecdotal, experience, theology versus other sect personal anecdotal, experience, theology.

Either address the argument of contrariety or else don’t bore with irrelevant nonsense.

I've already addressed this, and refuse to do so again.

Mark added ending. Mathew taking Mark gospel, altering and making it clear of Jesus divinity.

I disagree for reasons already mentioned.

Although Jesus healed the sick(in Mark) the same did Old Testament prophets.

Of course he did.

Jesus was probable viewed a mere prophet by some Christians like Elijah, Isaiah, Moses and so on.

According to you...not according to history. You cannot rewrite history. Let it speak for itself.

But then you don’t have multiple independent corroborating testimonials but just one(mark story).

If you subtract what Matthew/Mark have in common, you are left with at least 12 chapters left in Matthew...so those 12 chapters is enough to be considered independent...as you can't say Matthew plagiarized Mark at that point, can you? No, you can't.

Which weakens greatly the case which supports a miracle.
You have more independent corroborating testimonial for the miracle of Fatima where supposedly the sun zigzagged across the sky. Which off course did not happened.
You have maybe just one source.
Islamists have one source too the Muhammad- last in a chain of prophets(Jesus, or Isa another prophet in the chain) sent by God.

Supports a miracle? That is Islamic thought, not Christianity.

We have proof of embellishment (Mark ending, Matthew copying Mark and embellishing by making Jesus clearly divine as Son of God-god himself as opposed to maybe being just a mere prophet)
There we have a precedent and can make a case for the mechanism.
It happened with two Gospels. Therefore one can suspect that it happened before.

Responded to this.

“The Ascension of Jesus (anglicized from the Vulgate Latin: ascensio Iesu, lit. 'ascent of Jesus') is the Christian teaching that Christ physically departed from Earth by rising into Heaven, in the presence of eleven of his apostles.[1] According to the New Testament narrative, the Ascension occurred on the fortieth day counting from the resurrection.[1] “

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

Disingenuous. No one is denying that Jesus ascended into Heaven...I was just pointing out that you incorrectly stated that the ascension is recorded in the Gospels, which it isn't.

So there you go again, copy/pasting stuff that has very little to do with the point that was made.

Don’t straw-man.
I did not said “The books were written in third person. Therefore, the books were not written by eyewitnesses”.
I said its most likely that when a person writes in third person about a certain Matthew person the writer its not Matthew himself.

Ok, fine. But be as it may, what I said still applies to your correction, and as far as I'm concerned, it still stands.

In the overwhelmingly majority of cases when a person writes in third person its because he/she writes of other persons, not of himself.
Most likely leaves room for doubt.

You made the same point (back to back) and it was already addressed.

It would have been a non-sequitur if I was certain and did not said “most likely”.
You have to make many assumption you don’t have evidence for and have to take always the most unlikely case(third person point, life expectancy point, majority of scholars work on authorship point and dating, apocryphal gospels point, the argument from contrariety point, anecdotal personal experiences point and so one).
This unlikeliness accumulates as one needs to always take the unlikely path.

It is fine to make reasonable assumptions...we do it all the time in our daily lives and this is no difference.

The failure of dismissal of the problems is comical indeed as seen above.
We have a complicated mess of failure to comprehend, of straw mans, quote mining, contradictions.

Trust me, besides the couple times that I failed to understand whatever point you were trying to make...nothing you've said thus far has been so complex that my miniature brain has failed to comprehend.

Q: Have I lost you completely?
I was making an analogy and pointing out the mechanism called cognitive dissonance which take place when one devalues and discard conflicting knowledge.
Q: What genetic fallacy?

Just...never mind, sir.

Sir the text says: “4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. “
No mention of the young actually seeing Jesus(actual encounter) just the proclamation that he has risen, off empty tomb thus the belief of the young man that Jesus has risen.

Wowwww. Ok. I'm not even gonna entertain this one. SMH.

Saying there is a possible explanation does not equate with claiming the possible explanation is the reality.

I agree.

You gave un unlikely scenario. That was my point.

Subjective.

Also a clarification.
Q: Why would John avoid persecuting by not mentioning his name?

Because professing Jesus was a death sentence during that time.

Would romans read the gospel and say: Aha. There is a mention of a John therefore was written by John. Common.

Q: How is that making any sense?

Ok, so why wouldn't the author of the book mention the person who is identified as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" instead of simply naming the disciple?

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

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

According to Christian logic they the apostles were willing to die for their belief.

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

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

No.

Why would they be afraid if they knew they would go to another dimension with Jesus.
Your scenario does not go with this. I am sorry.

Um, Paul answers this question directly...

Phil 1:22-24

For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.

In fact by writing in first person would have a bigger impact (proven by by reality(most Christians not wanting to let go of eye-witness testimonial hypothesis) )
The gospels saying :" I saw this" has a much bigger impact then "He saw this".

Bigger impact? Hmm. So if each Gospel was written in first person view, would you be a Christian today?

I doubt it. Probably not. So much for a "bigger impact", when you are dealing with people who is hell bent on refusing to believe, no matter the case is.

Off course you do.

Yeah, I do for previously mentioned reasons...reasons of which you've yet to offer a sound defeater of.

I already prove you were wrong by saying centuries later.

You've done no such thing, sir.

Even if take the path of late first century(90AD). Its still decades in diference between late first century and early 2d century.

No serious consideration can be given to any time period after 70AD. The whole temple/destruction/Jerusalem thing isn't going anywhere.

Q: Why was their perspective(early 2d century apocryphal gospel) not included if John (end of first century) was? Why did they were not to inspired?

Well again, because, even if the late 90AD timeframe has any credence, the reason John was considered more credible was because he was considered an EYEWITNESS, while the originators of the apocryphal gospels weren't considered as such.

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

Third, we may have a solid foundation as to not even dating John so late in the first century.

So, either...

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

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

3. John's Gospel was written pre 70AD like the rest of them, making #1 and #2 irrelevant.

Please don’t avoid this question: How did they choose the maximum point by which one gospel is eligible and one not?

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

Sir you said “no oral traditions pre 70AD”. You did not specify anything.
Q: When I say “there is no apples in the basket” I mean there are certain apples in the basket?(rhetorical question)
No apples in the basket means zero apples. LOL.)

I don't remember what context you were using oral tradition in.

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

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

“Oral tradition, or oral lore, is a form of human communication wherein knowledge, art, ideas and cultural material is received, preserved, and transmitted orally from one generation to another.[1][2][3] The transmission is through speech or song and may include folktales, ballads, chants, prose or verses. In this way, it is possible for a society to transmit oral history, oral literature, oral law and other knowledge across generations without a writing system, or in parallel to a writing system. Religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism,[4] and Jainism, for example, have used an oral tradition, in parallel to a writing system, to transmit their canonical scriptures, rituals, hymns and mythologies from one generation to the next.[5][6][7]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_tradition

Oral tradition presupposes oral transmission.
You cannot have oral tradition without oral transmission.
Just admit you were contradicting your self.
This dance is pathetic indeed.

Hmm. Something smells fallacious here.

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

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

Fallacious, indeed.

One personal anecdotal, experience is not more special then other personal anecdotal, experience. There are on the same equal footing.
One cannot say my religion is true because of some supposed miracle and personal anecdotal, experience and the other sects religion is false when they have the same evidence(supposed miracle and personal anecdotal, experience).
And because there are mutually exclusive claims one cannot say the two religion are true for there cannot be truth that Jesus is both God and not God, that both reincarnation and Christian final judgment are true and so one.

Gotcha. Short and Sweet always prevails over muddled and fuddled.

I actually agree with you here.

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

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

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

I already showed one example with the scholar from Australia. Why the later date for Matthew.

And the example is bogus.

So now maybe it isn't better for them.
You keep changing like the weather.

Yeah, but the thing about it is; I am able to retract my original statement without the case for my position being in jeapardy.

I already provided. See above.
So can you show them please.
I am waiting.

The case was weak. But nevertheless, it is a known historical fact that Jerusalem/the temple was destroyed in 70AD.

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

You straw manned because you said:” someone saying that X person “ alluding to me.
X person means singular.
I meant plural. X persons.
Q: Why it is so hard, huh ?

I do not follow.

Your proving my point. That all 5 are exceptions.
That is unlikely.
I never said impossible.
Also we are not talking of 40 years old (10 years above 30) but 60 or more. Which is double or more above.
That’s why the unlikeliness. Plus the persecution makes it even more unlikely.(please don’t avoid this point)

Wait a minute, so are you saying that out of 2,000 skeletons, it is unlikely that 5 of them would have been over the age of 60 when they died???

Paul was not eye-witness to the event: resurrection of Christ like supposedly were the apostles. He was not with the apostles.
Q: How is this even debated?
I don’t understand.

Paul stated at least twice that he was an eyewitness to the Resurrected Jesus. He also stated that he was an apostle.

So believe it or not, that is what the man said, and that is what I am going off of.

This is my postion:
My argument is that is most likely that the consensus of the scholars points to the truth.
Most likely leaves room for doubt.
I admit the consensus maybe be wrong.
Trying to force me into a position desired by you is rather comical indeed.

Then we simply disagree, sir.

You had problems with the information from Wikipedia.
So I provided references if you want to object to the information.
Q: Do you object that the info from Wikipedia is reliable?

What was the information about. I forgot.

If yes that is a claim and you need to prove this or retract the claim.

LOL.

Its so funny how you want to avoid this. You make me laugh. )
Q: Why bore me with irrelevant nonsense?
Ohh its so hard to debate. Why debate if its to hard for you. Go play with toys if its too hard.
Sir as per forum rules: ”Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. “
You made two claims: “ Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel....and early Church traditional has always attributed the Gospel of Mark to Mark, friend of Peter.”
Please provide the evidence.

Ok, I will support my assertions with providing you info of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

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

And the source is even from your beloved Wikipedia.

There, satisfied?