Who Wrote the Gospels and When?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Who Wrote the Gospels and When?

Post #1

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

.

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

1. The universe and cosmology

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

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

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

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

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

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

Post #41

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Difflugia wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:50 am So far, the entirety of your argument for traditional authorship is that Eusebius said that Papias said so.
Yeah, and both Eusebius and Papias offers the same take on the subject matter, and I believe them BOTH.
Within that context, I'm pretty sure that "subjective" isn't quite the sick burn you think it is.
Yeah, it is all about as subjective as the opinions of people living 2000 years later who think they know more about subjects than those living during those times did.
The question is if that says more about Papias or those he influenced.
Well, since I believe Eusebius was wrong here, it says more about Eusebius.

Perhaps someone should have tossed him a copy of the book of Revelations or read it to him.
I GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE!
:lol:
To say that it's not an argument at all is obvious hyperbole, but you're more-or-less right and it's not a particularly strong one.
To call it an argument is to give it more credit than it actually deserves.
A better argument is that Papias didn't quote the gospels he was discussing, so we don't really have any way of knowing if they were the four in our Bible.
Well here is what we do know, that according to both, all four (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) had Gospels.

There aren't any other competing Gospels to those that we have, and the ones that we have were always the ones that were in circulation.

And besides, as I will keep emphasizing; I doubt that even if we had what you say we dont have, that you would become a believer.

So at that point, what we have/dont have becomes irrelevant as the only thing that would change is the angle of your skepticism.
Irenaeus said they were, but the descriptions Papias gave don't really seem to match the documents we have. For all we know, the documents Papias had actually were genuine gospels by Matthew and Mark, but the ones Irenaeus had were by third-rate nobodies.
What are the descriptions that Papias gives?
Eusebius calling Papias an idiot is funny, but it'd be even funnier if Papias had genuine gospels that were lost and we can now only speculate about their contents.
Im rolling with Papias.
That's alright. I'll risk the embarrassment of you shutting me down.
"Those men I killed (your men), I gave them a chance...and they made their decision" -The Equalizer

Catch my drift?
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

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

Post #42

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am
It was a typo. Don’t be so glad. 😊)))
I miss write. I meant "Matthew could not have been written WHEN Mark was written (60-70AD.
You have nothing.
Probably one of the few times in the history of mankind when a person corrects himself, and is STILL wrong, even with the correction.

:lol:
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am My explanation with the prophecy is mine. I gave it as an alternative. Something that is originally mine.
Sir Jesus said: “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
The above equals “Destruction of the temple will happen.“
Apostles asked “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
The above equals “when the destruction of the temple will happen?”

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

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

Question:
Mark: “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
There is no separation sir. We have “these” and “they” coupled together.
Hmm. Looks like you are still appealing to Mark, while dismissing Matthew, where the additional question of "...and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”. was asked.

I've already addressed your point, but you'd rather repeat prior points than address mines.

Moving on.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am I just pointed it as an observation. Non need to assume red herrings.
Perhaps you can point out the relevance, because as far as I can tell, there is none.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am
But it might as well be literal. It’s a matter of subjective interpretation sir.
So, Jesus' body and the temple are the same physical thing? Makes no sense.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am But it might as well as they thought and I did not happen because Jesus was a mere human akin to other cult leaders having grandiose beliefs about himself. It’s a matter of subjective interpretation sir.
People believe what they want to believe. Even unbelievers :D
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Already debunk this. The gospel evolved as the language evolution tree and biological evolution tree. There is no straight line. But common ancestry.
Mark and Paul evolved from a common ancestor and then Matthew and Luke evolved from Mark(dependence-copying-inspiration).
Sooo, according to you, Mark and Paul evolved from a common ancestor, yet the later account (Mark) doesn't have the phantasmagorical stuff, but the earlier account (Paul) does?

That is reverse-evolution, if anything.

Makes no sense.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Here we go again:
Sir in one ending we have just claims of possible resurrection(belief) and possible future encounters(belief) and an empty tomb.
In the added ending we have actual encounters(women, apostles) with the risen Jesus and an ascension to Heaven.
The added ending is more magical, phantasmagorical.
That’s obvious.
There is a clear difference between beliefs and potentiality and actuality sir.
The problem is, again...the actual encounters were part of the narrative in earlier accounts of the same event, according to Paul and 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

That problem isn't going anywhere...and if this argument of yours is swimming in the middle of the ocean, then 1 Corinth 15:3-7 is the brick that is tied to its ankles.

:lol:
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Lets remake the analogy:
Analogy:
I have two endings to a short story book.
In one we have claims/beliefs of people believing one dead man will “revive” as a vampire and they will meet him again later.
In the other we have actual encounters of people with the vampire.
Off course the second one is more phantasmagorical.
Enjoy!
No analogy can help you here, sir.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am
Q document is not relevant to my argument of embellishment.
Then your mention of it was about as useless as a no-mouthed dog in a frisbee contest.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Everything is speculation sir.
Is just educated speculation sir. 😊))
Oh, is that what you call it? I couldn't tell.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Its funny how you ignore: “Origen to complain in the 3rd century that "the differences among manuscripts have become great, ... [because copyists] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed,” which cast doubt to the reliability of the texts.

Sir it says clearly “the contradictions and discrepancies between these three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable”.
Q: Are you really unable to read?
Well, that would mean that the alleged copyists were so naïve and incompetent in their doings, that they did not compare their new work with the source material that they had right in front of them.

I don't for one second believe this...so I will disagree with you, Origen, and whoever else when it comes to that hypothesis.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Matthew and Luke copied from Mark -> one tradition.
John -> one tradition.
I did not said John copied from the synoptics.
John maybe comes from a different branch on the gospel evolution tree.
We all have our theories, don't we?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am I already debunked this nonsense.
When one plagiarize something you will find something different.
The different things does not negate the existence of the plagiarism.
And you can't dismiss something just because of alleged plagiarism. Just for the record, I do not believe that Matthew plagiarized Mark.

Plagiarized is a strong word here, and it need not be applied to Matthew or Luke.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Sir we talk here of the Christology of the gospels.
And that is what Paul was talking about too.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am About Matthew and John having higher Christology and Mark and Luke less-developed Christology.
Please stay on subject, point.
About your Paul argument we talked on another point.
LOL. I will bring Paul on board as I see fit, if appealing to him will help out my argumentation.

So in other words, this more Christology/less Christology in the Gospels is irrelevant if we have earlier accounts of HIGH CHRISTOLOGY from Paul.

You are continuing to push this "things developed more over time" narrative, and I simply won't let you push that false narrative.

Whenever you bring it up, then out comes Paul.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Assuming things that one cannot know.
Have you ever seen an biological evolution tree or language evolution tree.
Please look it up. There is no straight line.
Mark has clearly a less developed Christology then Paul. Mark original account is less phantasmagorical.
You can’t just ignore this.
Then you just made my point for me...if Paul has MORE developed Christology than Mark, and Paul is BEFORE Mark, then your argument that the Christology developed more over time is destroyed.

If Mark has less developed Christology, then that would mean that the Christology is developing LESS.

So your argument is flat out destroyed, sir.

I will no longer address it. No need to beat on a dead horse.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Sir this: “Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism” with and I quote: “(whatever that even means) lol.” Happened before you corrected your ignorance. 😊)
You are hopeless.
OBVIOUSLY, which is why I demonstrated the fact that I researched it and became informed, and STILL was able to stand by my original pont.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am This is not long:

A personal God that care of humans and well being and wants everyone to believe in him, a Holy Spirit that guides humans is not compatible with all this past and current confusion, mutually exclusive claims and genuine disbelief in him.
The situation is only compatible with a deist God or a non-existent God.
Red herring. I fail to see what any of that has to do with the subject of this thread.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am So Paul witnessed the resurrected Jesus together with 12 apostles and the women but then persecuted the disciples and later changed his mind again.
Q: How is that making sense?
It doesn't make sense, which is why that wasn't my point...and how you butchered that with your understanding is beyond me.

Anyways..
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am
Q: If they(the romans) wouldn’t believe why would John believe such a thing: that they would and avoid writing in third(“most loved apostle”)?
Q: Are you arguing John is a moron
I still do not follow.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am
Sir but we have in John both first person, third person and “most loved apostle” which in your position is written by the same person.
Q:How is that a good argument then?
Where in the Gospel of John is John writing in the first person?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am My point was that if third person was enough doesn’t make sense to hide even third person and use “most loved apostle”
You have both third person and “most loved apostle”.
"It doesn't make sense to hide" <---I do not follow.

And the use of "move loved apostle" was probably used to give the readers a hint as to who it was.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am 1. He was super worried he hide even the third person although he had no reason according to you. Then not so super worried he wrote in third. Then not at all. He kept changing like the weather and this makes perfect sense. You crank me up.

2. That does not follow from that verse.

That verse John 21:24 sounds like an oral tradition about John: ”We know”.
Again, I do not follow.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Persecution argument is your argument not mine.
I am aware of that.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am We have evidence that people wrote in first person when they spoke of their experience.
Paul and John the Elder from Patmos.
There is no reason to assume just silly things that make no sense just to say: gospels are either written by eye testimonies or originated in eye-witnesses.
Hey, you don't have to buy it. It makes sense to me.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am 1. Look what silly game you play: John was super worried he hide even the third person although he had no reason according to you.
Sir, I CLEARLY stated the reason why I would THINK that John would write in third person...yet here you are saying that "although he had no reason according to you (me)?"

Am I in the twilight zone?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Then not so super worried he wrote in third. Then not at all writing in first person. Just to have eye-witness testimonial.
So hearsay is not that fair game.
I do not follow. For some reason, you seem to be out of touch with what is going on here...and instead of wasting brain energy trying to figure some of your stuff out...I will just move along.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am 2. Reality tells us that its not reliable(legal courts, humans beliefs).
See the below point with Papias. (you would have not lied if hearsay was fair game)
Oh, please. We use hearsay all of the time in our everyday lives.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Highly doubt your numbers.
Sir, I gave you 1500 out of 2000, and that STILL isn't good enough, huh?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am From my point is not just 60 sir but 80 or 90 even.
Are those the ages, or the decades?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am You keep straw-manning.
I never said it could not have happened.
But just that is highly unlikely.
Q: Can you give an example of 5 friends not related living extremely long(unusual) lives?
Tell me the age ranges, and I am sure I can dig up something.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Then I will dismiss your claims: “I have my sources”, “Depending on who you talk to” and “and all the scholars on my side appeal to it” as mere assertions and possible lies.
LOL. So in your many quotes about where the consensus is; doesn't it say "majority of scholars" believe X?

Well, the "majority" doesn't mean everyone, does it? Therefore, as I said, it depends on who you talk to...doesn't it?

And as I keep stressing, I need to know the reasons behind the later dates, and so far, you've offered nothing besides some irrelevant formative Judaism nonsense.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Sir but you lied, saying things like “Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel” which is far from the truth.
When in reality Eusebius said that Papias, stated that John the Presbyter said that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote something.
Um, I stated that we get our knowledge on the authorship of the Gospels from the early church fathers...I've said that many times, speaking in a general sense.

And I've also said that specifically, we get the authorship of Mark and Matthew from Papias....which we do, according to Eusebius.

Since I don't believe Eusebius is lying, I cut out the middle man and attribute it to Papias.

I mean, take it how you want to take it.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am It is a very big difference.
How much of a "big difference"? Ohhh, I get it; if we find Papias' lost books and in the books everything is confirmed, just as Eusebius stated, I guess you would become a believer, huh?

No, you wouldn't. There is no "big difference", this entire discussion is all about "how can I keep my skepticism sharp".

That is all it is.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am So one of your evidence that Mark was written by a friend of Peter is someone said that someone said that someone said that Peter wrote something.
I will repeat what I've been maintaining; that according to the early church, the Gospels were written by either disciples, or friends of the disciples.

Point blank, PERIOD.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am There was a tradition of writer of Mark supposedly being a friend of Peter.
Yup, thus; "friends of the disciples".
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am And the first someone was very critic of the second someone.
Yeah because you see, sometimes, us Christians can be critical of each other.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Does not sound very credible.
The evidence got even more incredibly weak.
It is credible to me.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am You talk of context and not lead readers astray when you blatantly lied “Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel” which is far from the truth.
The audacity. :shock:
"Early Church Fathers".
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Sir I never said Papias was necessarily a moron. Don’t straw man.
I said what Diffugia said that Eusebio thought Papias was of low intelligence-low understanding.
You are being disingenuous. I never implied that you said Papias was a moron. You appealed to what Diffugia said about what Eusebius thought of Papias, and I simply responded to it.

If you didn't want me to respond to it, then you shouldn't have appealed to it.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Pleas make the distinction between saying : “Someone said alex is Romanian” and “alex is Romanian”.
My point was that Eusebio questioned his credibility as being a reliable source of inspiration.
And my point was, that is his subjective opinion. We are talking about Gospel authorship and personal opinions means nothing.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am Reading Papias only strengthens once opinion that Christianity is false amid even more confusion that is revealed in those texts. More quarrel among Christians of who knows what is real what is not.
Fueling even more the argument from confusion, contrariety.
1. Christianity is confusing
2. Therefore, Christianity is false

Non sequitur.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:14 am The important point is that we only have a hearsay.
The point about whether Papias was a moron or not its irrelevant.
Then it shouldn't have been mentioned. You/Diffugia were the ones who brought it up, not me.

You bring it up and then when I shut it down, all of a sudden "it is not irrelevant".

Well, if it was relevant enough for you to bring it up, then it was relevant enough for me to respond to it.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

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

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

Post #43

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm Probably one of the few times in the history of mankind when a person corrects himself, and is STILL wrong, even with the correction.
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.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm Hmm. Looks like you are still appealing to Mark, while dismissing Matthew, where the additional question of "...and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”. was asked.

I've already addressed your point, but you'd rather repeat prior points than address mines.

Moving on.
Sir my point was writer of Matthew looking at Mark where he copied from and seeing the prophecy not being fulfilled.
Off course I analysed Mark like would have the writer of Matthew.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm Perhaps you can point out the relevance, because as far as I can tell, there is none.
I pointed the subjective mechanism of interpretation.
What means for you it does not mean the same for others.
Christians subjectively interpreted in opposition with Paul and believed akin to “Amen I say to you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. “=Jesus will come/came back in their generation. Which tells us that there was an oral tradition similar to the gospel's prophecy dating before Paul epistles.
“not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.”
I bet some Christians believed after the destruction of the temple that they are living in the end days.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm So, Jesus' body and the temple are the same physical thing? Makes no sense.
No sir that’s just your interpretation sir to escape the obvious problem. I meant literal interpretation.
“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’”
Jesus boasted of this grandiose statement like many cult leaders have done.
And because he was just a mere mortal the temple was not destroyed in three days and build again in three days by him. He was long gone and dead by the time the siege of the city began which culminated with the destruction of the city.



We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm Sooo, according to you, Mark and Paul evolved from a common ancestor, yet the later account (Mark) doesn't have the phantasmagorical stuff, but the earlier account (Paul) does?

That is reverse-evolution, if anything.

Makes no sense.

Common ancestor did not have as much phantasmagorical stuff as Paul.
That would explain Mark being different then Paul in a backwards sense.

Image

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm The problem is, again...the actual encounters were part of the narrative in earlier accounts of the same event, according to Paul and 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

That problem isn't going anywhere...and if this argument of yours is swimming in the middle of the ocean, then 1 Corinth 15:3-7 is the brick that is tied to its ankles.

The problem is, again...the actual encounters were part of the narrative in earlier accounts of the same event, according to Paul and 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

That problem isn't going anywhere...and if this argument of yours is swimming in the middle of the ocean, then 1 Corinth 15:3-7 is the brick that is tied to its ankles.
Q: Why keep changing the subject sir? We were talking of something else.
Marks ending.
Please lets stay on point.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm Well, that would mean that the alleged copyists were so naïve and incompetent in their doings, that they did not compare their new work with the source material that they had right in front of them.

I don't for one second believe this...so I will disagree with you, Origen, and whoever else when it comes to that hypothesis.
“Origen to complain in the 3rd century that "the differences among manuscripts have become great, ... [because copyists] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed,”
It’s not a hypothesis. He saw the differences existing already. LOL.
Another bullet hitting the already dead corpse of the reliability of the gospels.



We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm
And you can't dismiss something just because of alleged plagiarism. Just for the record, I do not believe that Matthew plagiarized Mark.

Plagiarized is a strong word here, and it need not be applied to Matthew or Luke.

You keep changing back and forth after I debunked something. So funny.
plagiarism
/ˈpleɪdʒərɪz(ə)m/

Learn to pronounce

noun
1. the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

According to the definition is indeed.
Matthew took Mark’s work and copied from him and embellished, modified a bit and passed it as its own.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm And that is what Paul was talking about too.
Q: Why is so hard to keep on point?
You change the subject so often.
This is not an honest way of debate.
Stay on point.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm LOL. I will bring Paul on board as I see fit, if appealing to him will help out my argumentation.
You are continuing to push this "things developed more over time" narrative, and I simply won't let you push that false narrative.

So in other words, this more Christology/less Christology in the Gospels is irrelevant if we have earlier accounts of HIGH CHRISTOLOGY from Paul.

I have an argument for that sir.
You mentioned that already there.
Here we talked of the mechanism of embellishment in respect to the gospels and Christology of the gospels (of the gospel branch)which does not disappear because of Paul epistles(Paul’s branch).
Q: Why is it so hard?

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm Then you just made my point for me...if Paul has MORE developed Christology than Mark, and Paul is BEFORE Mark, then your argument that the Christology developed more over time is destroyed.

If Mark has less developed Christology, then that would mean that the Christology is developing LESS.

So your argument is flat out destroyed, sir.

I will no longer address it. No need to beat on a dead horse.

No sir Mark allows me to make the evolution tree argument because of it. LOL.:))
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm OBVIOUSLY, which is why I demonstrated the fact that I researched it and became informed, and STILL was able to stand by my original pont.
But you indeed dismissed it while being ignorant.
And then later when I pointed the irrational dismissal you informed yourself.
That does disappeared. In in the past sir. You cannot change it.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm Where in the Gospel of John is John writing in the first person?

According to you same person John the apostle wrote Revelation.
So again:
Sir but we have in John both first person, third person and “most loved apostle”.

Q: How is that a good argument(being afraid of persecution) then?

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm I still do not follow.

"It doesn't make sense to hide" <---I do not follow.

And the use of "move loved apostle" was probably used to give the readers a hint as to who it was.

Again, I do not follow.
Sir, I CLEARLY stated the reason why I would THINK that John would write in third person...yet here you are saying that "although he had no reason according to you (me)?"

Am I in the twilight zone?
Sir I asked before: “Q: Why would John avoid persecuting by not mentioning his name(John)?”

And you said: “Because professing Jesus was a death sentence during that time.
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?”


Q: If they(the romans) wouldn’t believe and concluded from third person of writing of the gospel that the writer is John why would John believed this and avoid to write in third person?
Q: Are you arguing John is a moron?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm Are those the ages, or the decades?

Tell me the age ranges, and I am sure I can dig up something.
5 friends(not related) getting to 60-90 years old that lived in the ancient Roman time and were not nobility but average citizens.
Waiting.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm Oh, please. We use hearsay all of the time in our everyday lives.
Sir you lied to hide a hearsay and made it as first hand testimony.
In courts hearsay is not valued but first hand testimony is.
Christians not wanting to let go of the first hand testimony in respect to the gospel.
All the above prove hearsay is not valued as good evidence for it that was the case the above would not happen.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm
LOL. So in your many quotes about where the consensus is; doesn't it say "majority of scholars" believe X?

Well, the "majority" doesn't mean everyone, does it? Therefore, as I said, it depends on who you talk to...doesn't it?

And as I keep stressing, I need to know the reasons behind the later dates, and so far, you've offered nothing besides some irrelevant formative Judaism nonsense.

I provided sources outside my claims that used as reference New Testament Scholars work.
Q: Do you have problems? :))
Q: What kind of debate form is this? :?

You said: “I have my sources”, “Depending on who you talk to” and “and all the scholars on my side appeal to it”.
You said clearly that you have these scholars as sources.
I asked for evidence for you claim.
Q: Who are these scholars?

Please present them.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm Um, I stated that we get our knowledge on the authorship of the Gospels from the early church fathers...I've said that many times, speaking in a general sense.

And I've also said that specifically, we get the authorship of Mark and Matthew from Papias....which we do, according to Eusebius.

Since I don't believe Eusebius is lying, I cut out the middle man and attribute it to Papias.

I mean, take it how you want to take it.

Sir You lied: “Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel”.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm How much of a "big difference"?
Alex said: “We_Are_VENOM has very poor debate form”.
Someone said Alex said someone said “We_Are_VENOM has very poor debate form”.
First hand testimony vs double hearsay.
Big difference.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm
alexxcJRO:Reading Papias only strengthens once opinion that Christianity is false amid even more confusion that is revealed in those texts. More quarrel among Christians of who knows what is real what is not.
Fueling even more the argument from confusion, contrariety.
1. Christianity is confusing
2. Therefore, Christianity is false

Non sequitur.
Straw man as usual.
Argument from confusion, contrariety leads to most likely that Christianity is not true.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm "Early Church Fathers".
Your early Church Father quarreled on what gospels are genuine and fueling even more the argument from confusion and contrariety.

"This, too, shall be similarly illustrated
by quotations from the ancients at the proper time.
XXV. At this point it seems reasonable to sum-
marize the writings of the New Testament which
have been quoted. In the first place should be
put the holy tetrad of the Gospels. To them follows
the writing of the Acts of the Apostles. After this
should be reckoned the Epistles of Paul. Following
them the Epistle of J ohn called the first, and in the
same way should be recognized the Epistle of Peter.
In addition to these should be put, if it seem desir-
able, the Revelation of John, the arguments concern:
ing which we will expound at the proper time.
These belong to the Recognized Books. Of the
Disputed Books which are nevertheless known to
most are the Epistle called of James, that of Jude,
the second Epistle of Peter, and the so-called second
and third Epistles of John
which may be the work
of the evangelist or of some other with the same
name. Among the books which are not genuine
must be reckoned the Acts of Paul, the work entitled
the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, and in
addition to them the letter called of Barnabas and the
so-called Teachings of the Apostles
. 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. These would all belong to
the disputed books,"
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm that according to the early church, the Gospels were written by either disciples, or friends of the disciples.
There was an oral tradition: "that Mark was interpreter of Peter". Oral tradition presupposes oral transmission which is off course 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.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:16 pm Then it shouldn't have been mentioned. You/Diffugia were the ones who brought it up, not me.

You bring it up and then when I shut it down, all of a sudden "it is not irrelevant".

Well, if it was relevant enough for you to bring it up, then it was relevant enough for me to respond to it.
The damaging thing is already done. You lied and we only have double hearsay. 8-)
Last edited by alexxcJRO on Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:50 am, edited 3 times in total.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2315
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1882 times
Been thanked: 1380 times

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

Post #44

Post by Difflugia »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:34 amYeah, and both Eusebius and Papias offers the same take on the subject matter, and I believe them BOTH.
Papias didn't actually tell us which gospels he had, only that two were by Matthew and Mark.

Eusebius actually agreed with Irenaeus, who seems to have misunderstood (or misrepresented) Papias.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:34 amYeah, it is all about as subjective as the opinions of people living 2000 years later who think they know more about subjects than those living during those times did.
If dismissing all modern biblical scholarship as "subjective" is important to your argument, it would probably be much more at home in Theology & Doctrine.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:34 amWell, since I believe Eusebius was wrong here, it says more about Eusebius.

Perhaps someone should have tossed him a copy of the book of Revelations or read it to him.
He had a copy. That's how he was able to recognize that it wasn't written by the Apostle John.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:34 amWell here is what we do know, that according to both, all four (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) had Gospels.
Papias didn't mention Luke or John.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:34 amThere aren't any other competing Gospels to those that we have, and the ones that we have were always the ones that were in circulation.
That's patently false. Considering your reliance on the Church Fathers, I'd expect you to know that. Eusebius himself mentioned several.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:34 amAnd besides, as I will keep emphasizing; I doubt that even if we had what you say we dont have, that you would become a believer.
What we don't have is good evidence. I'd be happy to be convinced by good evidence.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:34 amSo at that point, what we have/dont have becomes irrelevant as the only thing that would change is the angle of your skepticism.
You think that I wouldn't be convinced by good evidence, so bad evidence is good enough? I don't follow.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:34 am
Irenaeus said they were, but the descriptions Papias gave don't really seem to match the documents we have. For all we know, the documents Papias had actually were genuine gospels by Matthew and Mark, but the ones Irenaeus had were by third-rate nobodies.
What are the descriptions that Papias gives?
The ones we've been talking about:
Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them.
Our Mark is a story about the ministry of Jesus with no indication that it's presented out of chronological order. The gospel that Papias attributes to Mark is an unordered list of deeds and sayings by Jesus as recounted by Peter, written down "as [Mark] remembered them."
Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.
Like Mark, our Matthew is a story of Jesus' ministry, rather than a collection of sayings or oracles. It was composed in Greek and shows no sign of being a translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, or any other language. In fact, Matthew includes a large amount of text from Mark in Greek.

We also have Syriac copies of the Gospels that date to the second century that were translated from Greek. Aramaic and Syriac are similar enough (Syriac is technically a dialect of Aramaic) that if the Hebrew/Aramaic copies mentioned by Papias still existed at that point, there would have been no need to start with a Greek version for the translation.

Papias is also quoted elsewhere on Judas' death:
Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.
If Papias had Matthew's Gospel as we know it, he can't have thought much of it. Otherwise, I'd expect Papias to have written something about Judas hanging himself .
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:34 am"Those men I killed (your men), I gave them a chance...and they made their decision" -The Equalizer

Catch my drift?
I rarely catch your drift.
My preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

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

Post #45

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am
Sir my point was writer of Matthew looking at Mark where he copied from and seeing the prophecy not being fulfilled.
Off course I analysed Mark like would have the writer of Matthew.
If there was any prophecy that wasn't fulfilled, then he obviously wouldn't write about it...but the prophecy concerning the temple WAS fulfilled, and he didn't write about it.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am I pointed the subjective mechanism of interpretation.
What means for you it does not mean the same for others.
Christians subjectively interpreted in opposition with Paul and believed akin to “Amen I say to you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. “=Jesus will come/came back in their generation. Which tells us that there was an oral tradition similar to the gospel's prophecy dating before Paul epistles.
“not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.”
I bet some Christians believed after the destruction of the temple that they are living in the end days.
What some Christians "believed" in this context is irrelevant. If Jesus said that this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened, yet these things happened, yet the generation did not pass away...that only means that our understanding of what Jesus meant by "this generation" is flawed.

Jesus had previously said that the Gospel must be preached to all nations, and THEN the end will come (vs).

And it is apparent he wasn't implying that the "end would come 40 years from now, with the destruction of this temple".
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am No sir that’s just your interpretation sir to escape the obvious problem. I meant literal interpretation.
“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’”
Jesus boasted of this grandiose statement like many cult leaders have done.
First off, that is not what Jesus said...his accusers were either lying on him or they simply misheard him. It seems as if they misheard him and therefore had his words twisted.

What is remarkable is the fact that, if we did not have the book of John attesting to what Jesus actually said, then we wouldn't know what Jesus' accusers was even talking about...but John fills in the blanks.

This is one of those off-the-cuff harmonizations of the Gospels that genuine truth-seekers have come to love.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am And because he was just a mere mortal the temple was not destroyed in three days and build again in three days by him. He was long gone and dead by the time the siege of the city began which culminated with the destruction of the city.
I don't know what you are talking about here. It clearly states what Jesus meant by what he said, and no extra-curricular interpretations by either skeptics nor believers is needed.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am Common ancestor did not have as much phantasmagorical stuff as Paul.
That would explain Mark being different then Paul in a backwards sense.
Nonsense. The common ancestors here are the actual apostles, some of which Paul knew and was acquainted.

This is the link..

Jesus <----original apostles <------Paul, Luke, Mark <----early church fathers

So, as you can see, there are no missing links between the original apostles and Paul, and the information Paul did receive (outside of what he received from Christ, according to his own testimony), was from the original apostles, of which included those same phantasmagorical tales that you originally claimed began with Mark's gospel.

I can assure you, this will be the last time I address this point.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am Q: Why keep changing the subject sir? We were talking of something else.
Marks ending.
Please lets stay on point.
Yeah, you seem mighty fascinated with Mark's ending for some strange reason. Whats that all about?
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am You keep changing back and forth after I debunked something. So funny.
plagiarism
/ˈpleɪdʒərɪz(ə)m/

Learn to pronounce

noun
1. the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

According to the definition is indeed.
Matthew took Mark’s work and copied from him and embellished, modified a bit and passed it as its own.
Hmm...I smell a fallacy here. Lets see the above claim passes the syllogism test, shall we?

1. Matthew took Mark's work

2. Therefore, Matthew embellished, modified, and passed off Mark's work as his own.

FAILED. Non sequitur.

You do not know whether Matthew embellished Mark's work and passed it off as his own.

Now, you are certainly entitled to your opinion...and so am I, which is that Matthew took Mark's work, and added his own supplementary material to it. Nothing more, nothing less.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am But you indeed dismissed it while being ignorant.
And then later when I pointed the irrational dismissal you informed yourself.
That does disappeared. In in the past sir. You cannot change it.
I had first dismissed it while being ignorant...and then I dismissed it after being informed.

So, whether ignorant or informed, I would up making the right decision.

To give an analogy, lets say you woke up one morning and had a strange feeling about going to school. Something just didn't feel right, so you didn't go.

And 2 hours later, you watch on the news that there is a school shooting-hostage situation at your school.

So now, you have good reason why you shouldn't be a school, right?

Same thing here.

:lol:
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am According to you same person John the apostle wrote Revelation.
So again:
Sir but we have in John both first person, third person and “most loved apostle”.

Q: How is that a good argument(being afraid of persecution) then?
Didn't I address this already?
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am
Q: If they(the romans) wouldn’t believe and concluded from third person of writing of the gospel that the writer is John why would John believed this and avoid to write in third person?
Q: Are you arguing John is a moron?
I am sorry, but I still do not follow.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am 5 friends(not related) getting to 60-90 years old that lived in the ancient Roman time and were not nobility but average citizens.
Waiting.
Out of those 2,000 skeletons, you tell me which ones were friends, living in ancient Rome, and were not nobility but average citizens?
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am
Sir you lied to hide a hearsay and made it as first hand testimony.
No, I said Papias stated who wrote X gospel...and that is what I believe, so I said what I believe.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am In courts hearsay is not valued but first hand testimony is.
Well, I am not in court so I don't play by court rules.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am Christians not wanting to let go of the first hand testimony in respect to the gospel.
All the above prove hearsay is not valued as good evidence for it that was the case the above would not happen.
Hearsay works for me.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am I provided sources outside my claims that used as reference New Testament Scholars work.
Q: Do you have problems? :))
Q: What kind of debate form is this? :?

You said: “I have my sources”, “Depending on who you talk to” and “and all the scholars on my side appeal to it”.
You said clearly that you have these scholars as sources.
I asked for evidence for you claim.
Q: Who are these scholars?

Please present them.
I already retracted that statement to get you back to trying to offer a valid/sound argument AGAINST my case of authorship dating pre 70AD.

I have no desire to play games of my scholars vs your scholars.

And I really don't care what scholars have to say about any of this, because I have my own brain and can assess the same information they assess and draw my own conclusions.

I invite you to try to think independently and not appeal to authority or consensus.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am Sir You lied: “Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel”.
Sir, I said "according to the early church fathers, all gospels were written by either apostles, or friends of the apostles."

Whichever early church father or leader it came from, that is where it came from...and I believe it.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am Alex said: “We_Are_VENOM has very poor debate form”.
Someone said Alex said someone said “We_Are_VENOM has very poor debate form”.
First hand testimony vs double hearsay.
Big difference.
Well, did this "someone" say it or not?

If it is true, then it has the same effect it would have as if Alex said it himself.

Again, if you sister told you "Mother said to call her". Would you call your mother? Or would you not call her because it is based on hearsay that your mother wants you to call her?

I think you would call her, which means that, depending on the circumstances, you would rely on hearsay testimony.

But of course, we have to be extra-skeptical when it comes to the Bible, don't we.

This is a double standard.

alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am Straw man as usual.
Argument from confusion, contrariety leads to most likely that Christianity is not true.
Argument from confusion :lol:

What is/isn't confusion is subjective. Speak for yourself. It isn't confusing to me.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am
Your early Church Father quarreled on what gospels are genuine and fueling even more the argument from confusion and contrariety.

"This, too, shall be similarly illustrated
by quotations from the ancients at the proper time.
XXV. At this point it seems reasonable to sum-
marize the writings of the New Testament which
have been quoted. In the first place should be
put the holy tetrad of the Gospels. To them follows
the writing of the Acts of the Apostles. After this
should be reckoned the Epistles of Paul. Following
them the Epistle of J ohn called the first, and in the
same way should be recognized the Epistle of Peter.
In addition to these should be put, if it seem desir-
able, the Revelation of John, the arguments concern:
ing which we will expound at the proper time.
These belong to the Recognized Books. Of the
Disputed Books which are nevertheless known to
most are the Epistle called of James, that of Jude,
the second Epistle of Peter, and the so-called second
and third Epistles of John
which may be the work
of the evangelist or of some other with the same
name. Among the books which are not genuine
must be reckoned the Acts of Paul, the work entitled
the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, and in
addition to them the letter called of Barnabas and the
so-called Teachings of the Apostles
. 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. These would all belong to
the disputed books,"
Hmmm. In the quote above, the Gospels (the four) were called "holy".

Now, those OTHER books mentioned were a different story...but it is clear as to where the four Gospels stood, and stand.

So, please.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am There was an oral tradition: "that Mark was interpreter of Peter". Oral tradition presupposes oral transmission which is off course 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.
Sure, go with all that.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 am The damaging thing is already done. You lied and we only have double hearsay. 8-)
SMH. Sure, go with that, too.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

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

Post #46

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Difflugia wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:14 am Papias didn't actually tell us which gospels he had, only that two were by Matthew and Mark.
Well, it is obvious to me that the gospels he had were those of Matthew and Mark. :lol:
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:14 am If dismissing all modern biblical scholarship as "subjective" is important to your argument, it would probably be much more at home in Theology & Doctrine.
I reserve every right to disagree with ANYONE of whom I disagree with, scholar or otherwise.

Which is not to say that I don't have scholars of whom shares my opinion.
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:14 am He had a copy. That's how he was able to recognize that it wasn't written by the Apostle John.
Well, if he had a copy, all the more reason why he shouldn't have questioned Papias.
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:14 am Papias didn't mention Luke or John.
I stand corrected.
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:14 am That's patently false. Considering your reliance on the Church Fathers, I'd expect you to know that. Eusebius himself
First of all, I was referring to the four Gospels (canon) in response to you saying..

"A better argument is that Papias didn't quote the gospels he was discussing, so we don't really have any way of knowing if they were the four in our Bible."

And my point is, there wasn't any competing Gospels of the same names, so it is apparent that that the four he was speaking of are the same four that are in the Bible.
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:14 am What we don't have is good evidence. I'd be happy to be convinced by good evidence. You think that I wouldn't be convinced by good evidence, so bad evidence is good enough? I don't follow.
What would constitute as "good evidence" for you to become a believer in Christianity? Please provide specifics.
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:14 am
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:14 am The ones we've been talking about:

"Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them."
When I read that, I see all honesty, and sincerity. Very off the cuff...very genuine.
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:14 am Our Mark is a story about the ministry of Jesus with no indication that it's presented out of chronological order. The gospel that Papias attributes to Mark is an unordered list of deeds and sayings by Jesus as recounted by Peter, written down "as [Mark] remembered them."
Sure, the whole "unordered list of deeds and sayings by Jesus"....harmonizes well with it all being "written down as [Mark] remembered them".

If Mark wrote it down as he "remembered" them, then it would make sense that some things he wrote wouldn't necessarily BE IN ORDER.

So what he wrote probably was initially unordered, but he (or someone) probably revised it later and gave a more orderly account...and when you read the actual Gospel, that is exactly how it looks as if it came together.
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:14 am Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.

Like Mark, our Matthew is a story of Jesus' ministry, rather than a collection of sayings or oracles.
First of all, just because Papias stated that Matthew collected oracles in the Hebrew language, doesn't mean that it was just limited to oracles.

Eusebius stated.. Ecc 3.24:5b

"Nevertheless, of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity.

So taken together collected oracles AND wrote a written memorial (and in vs 6 stated Matthew wrote a Gospel).
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:14 am It was composed in Greek and shows no sign of being a translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, or any other language. In fact, Matthew includes a large amount of text from Mark in Greek.

We also have Syriac copies of the Gospels that date to the second century that were translated from Greek. Aramaic and Syriac are similar enough (Syriac is technically a dialect of Aramaic) that if the Hebrew/Aramaic copies mentioned by Papias still existed at that point, there would have been no need to start with a Greek version for the translation.
See, this is where things tend to get a bit...flaky. I see your point, but the early church fathers clearly stated that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew.

So, at that point, I will go with the testimony of folks who lived much closer during the times of the writings as opposed to scholars who are trying to piece together stuff that happened 2,000 years prior.

There may be an original lost version of Matthew's Gospel, which was written in Hebrew, that so called scholars know NOTHING about and to say that this isn't (or can't be) the case is simply an argument from ignorance.
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:14 am If Papias had Matthew's Gospel as we know it, he can't have thought much of it. Otherwise, I'd expect Papias to have written something about Judas hanging himself .
Great point. I have to look more into this. :approve:
Difflugia wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:14 am I rarely catch your drift.
I aint mad atcha.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

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

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

Post #47

Post by alexxcJRO »

Please don’t avoid:
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".
It’s irrelevant when will therefore Matthew be dated.
You have to address "Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism) formative Judaism" and "Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism) formative Judaism developed into an identifiable entity many decades after the Jewish revolt".
Ignoring looks rather weak.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:39 pm If there was any prophecy that wasn't fulfilled, then he obviously wouldn't write about it...but the prophecy concerning the temple WAS fulfilled, and he didn't write about it.
Sir my point was writer of Matthew looking at Mark where he copied from and seeing the prophecy not being fulfilled.
Q: Are you arguing Mark isn’t reliable?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:39 pm If Jesus said that this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened, yet these things happened, yet the generation did not pass away...that only means that our understanding of what Jesus meant by "this generation" is flawed.
According to your subjective interpretation is flawed, to Christians in first century that believed this, was not flawed.
Interpretation of biblical or other religious text(KORAN, VEDA) is based on opinion and is subjective.
That’s why we have such many religious denominations.

The three main branches of Christianity are Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestant. Some regard Anglicanism as a fourth branch that fits in none of these categories, while others categorize it as Protestant.

Denominations today are many and varied. The original mainline denominations mentioned above have spawned numerous offshoots such as Assemblies of God, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Nazarenes, Evangelical Free, independent Bible churches, and others.

There seems to be at least one major problems with denominationalism. Nowhere in Scripture is there a mandate for denominationalism; to the contrary the mandate is for union and connectivity.
Concept of hell lead to 4 major theological views: Augustinians, Arminians, Universalists, Annihilationists.
Christians argue about whether salvation can be lost or not.
The Young Creationist versus Old Creationists.
Truscot said for example : "We chose to be with God or not before we are born .
So at the moment of birth we are either saved or not saved .
Everyone by their own free will chose to be either YHWH's family (elect, under the promise of salvation from sin) or HIS eternal enemy, rejecting HIS promise of salvation from any sin and unable to save themselves from sin to become righteous. After this choice, all sinners are born as humans."


If you make combinations of all possible scenarios you get as many as Christians beliefs as many people.
This confusing mess fuels greatly the argument from contrariety and confusion.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:39 pm First off, that is not what Jesus said...his accusers were either lying on him or they simply misheard him. It seems as if they misheard him and therefore had his words twisted.

What is remarkable is the fact that, if we did not have the book of John attesting to what Jesus actually said, then we wouldn't know what Jesus' accusers was even talking about...but John fills in the blanks.

This is one of those off-the-cuff harmonizations of the Gospels that genuine truth-seekers have come to love.

I don't know what you are talking about here. It clearly states what Jesus meant by what he said, and no extra-curricular interpretations by either skeptics nor believers is needed.
On one time you say Jesus did not boasted to destroy temple and raised it again in three day and another time you say he said.
Q: Which one is it? :?

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:39 pm
Nonsense. The common ancestors here are the actual apostles, some of which Paul knew and was acquainted.

This is the link..

Jesus <----original apostles <------Paul, Luke, Mark <----early church fathers

So, as you can see, there are no missing links between the original apostles and Paul, and the information Paul did receive (outside of what he received from Christ, according to his own testimony), was from the original apostles, of which included those same phantasmagorical tales that you originally claimed began with Mark's gospel.

I can assure you, this will be the last time I address this point.
Sir you assuming the thing you are trying to prove. We are debating if the gospels originated in the apostles.
I was trying to show the mechanism is possible.
You kept saying its not possible.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:39 pm Yeah, you seem mighty fascinated with Mark's ending for some strange reason. Whats that all about?
Q: You really don’t know after all that exchange?
Forgery of Marks ending coupled with other points I have made points to the unreliability of the gospels which points to the most likeliness that Christianity is not true.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:39 pm 1. Matthew took Mark's work

2. Therefore, Matthew embellished, modified, and passed off Mark's work as his own.

FAILED. Non sequitur.

You do not know whether Matthew embellished Mark's work and passed it off as his own.

Now, you are certainly entitled to your opinion...and so am I, which is that Matthew took Mark's work, and added his own supplementary material to it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Straw-man as usual.
Writer of Matthew used Mark work(copied) and then passed the work as his own. Ergo plagiarism.
The degree of verbatim agreement or the sequential agreement in the arrangement of episodes and sayings is so strong one cannot but suspect copycat and plagiarism.
John does not have this problem. That’s why it’s called the synoptic problem.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:39 pm I had first dismissed it while being ignorant...and then I dismissed it after being informed.

So, whether ignorant or informed, I would up making the right decision.

To give an analogy, lets say you woke up one morning and had a strange feeling about going to school. Something just didn't feel right, so you didn't go.

And 2 hours later, you watch on the news that there is a school shooting-hostage situation at your school.

So now, you have good reason why you shouldn't be a school, right?

Same thing here.
We are debating if you made the right choice to dismiss something. That is not a given. Presupposing things again.
Dismissing something without understanding that something is irrational and illogical sir.
You did that. It is in the past. One cannot change the past.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:39 pm Didn't I address this already?
I am sorry, but I still do not follow.
No sir. You were all over the place.
Let’s recap:
According to you John the apostle wrote the gospel and revelations.
Sir I asked before: “Q: Why would John avoid persecuting by not mentioning his name(John)?”

And you said: “Because professing Jesus was a death sentence during that time.
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?”

You also said: “are you talking about Revelations? Sure, John wrote in first person in Revelation, but guess what, Revelations was a VISION, which is just like having a dream.

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

“And the use of "move loved apostle" was probably used to give the readers a hint as to who it was.”

According to your logic: Sir if the romans would look for prominent religious leader like the writers of the gospels: the apostles, Paul because they wrote in first person it does not matter the subject. They would still say aha John the apostle, Paul wrote this.
We have both first person and third person/”most beloved apostle” for John and first person for Paul.
So the argument does not work.
Making your argument kind of silly and nonsensical.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:39 pm Out of those 2,000 skeletons, you tell me which ones were friends, living in ancient Rome, and were not nobility but average citizens?
Give me an example of 5 friends(not related) getting to 60-90 years old that lived in the ancient Roman time and were not nobility but average citizens.
Waiting.
Observation: Let’s not forget the persecution you seem to love so much makes the thing even more unlikely.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:39 pm No, I said Papias stated who wrote X gospel...and that is what I believe, so I said what I believe.
Sir, I said "according to the early church fathers, all gospels were written by either apostles, or friends of the apostles."

Whichever early church father or leader it came from, that is where it came from...and I believe it.

Don’t lie some more sir. You are only fueling the argument against Christianity: born again Christian keeps lying.
You said in post 2 of this thread: “I stated that early Church Father, Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel”.
But Papias did not stated this but John the presbyter. (“traditions of John the presbyter”).
We have a double hearsay not first hand testimony.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:39 pm Well, I am not in court so I don't play by court rules.

Its about the logic and reason for why the courts find hearsay inadmissible. Hearsay is not reliable as evidence.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:39 pm Hearsay works for me.
Q: Then why you lied about the double hearsay if it works, huh?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:39 pm I have no desire to play games of my scholars vs your scholars.

And I really don't care what scholars have to say about any of this, because I have my own brain and can assess the same information they assess and draw my own conclusions.

I invite you to try to think independently and not appeal to authority or consensus.
Ok I will dismiss your claims as mere assertions and possible lies(we already have a precedent).
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:39 pm
Well, did this "someone" say it or not?

If it is true, then it has the same effect it would have as if Alex said it himself.

Again, if you sister told you "Mother said to call her". Would you call your mother? Or would you not call her because it is based on hearsay that your mother wants you to call her?

I think you would call her, which means that, depending on the circumstances, you would rely on hearsay testimony.

But of course, we have to be extra-skeptical when it comes to the Bible, don't we.

This is a double standard.
Bad analogy.
Again playing it down from double hearsay to first hand testimony.
Together with lying about it and making it first hand testimony in the first place shows how bad you yourself think of hearsay.
Its more akin to someone said someone said my sister said:” your mother called you”.
The more people are in the chain the more opportunity for the message to get skewed. That’s why oral transmission has this effect much more compounded because presupposes much more people in the chain. 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.
That’s why it’s a big difference. 8-)
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:39 pm Argument from confusion

What is/isn't confusion is subjective. Speak for yourself. It isn't confusing to me.
The argument is about confusion, contrariety existing. That’s not debatable.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:39 pm Hmmm. In the quote above, the Gospels (the four) were called "holy".

Now, those OTHER books mentioned were a different story...but it is clear as to where the four Gospels stood, and stand.

So, please.


Sir it clearly states:” 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.

Which again fuels greatly the argument from confusion, contrariety. Making Christianity unlikely as being true together with the other problems I pointed. 8-)
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

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

Post #48

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am According to your subjective interpretation is flawed, to Christians in first century that believed this, was not flawed.
Interpretation of biblical or other religious text(KORAN, VEDA) is based on opinion and is subjective.
That’s why we have such many religious denominations.
Whether or not Christianity is true, in GENERAL...is based on opinion...so is whether or not it isn't true.

So tell me something I don't know.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am The three main branches of Christianity are Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestant. Some regard Anglicanism as a fourth branch that fits in none of these categories, while others categorize it as Protestant.

Denominations today are many and varied. The original mainline denominations mentioned above have spawned numerous offshoots such as Assemblies of God, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Nazarenes, Evangelical Free, independent Bible churches, and others.

There seems to be at least one major problems with denominationalism. Nowhere in Scripture is there a mandate for denominationalism; to the contrary the mandate is for union and connectivity.
Concept of hell lead to 4 major theological views: Augustinians, Arminians, Universalists, Annihilationists.
Christians argue about whether salvation can be lost or not.
The Young Creationist versus Old Creationists.
Truscot said for example : "We chose to be with God or not before we are born .
So at the moment of birth we are either saved or not saved .
Everyone by their own free will chose to be either YHWH's family (elect, under the promise of salvation from sin) or HIS eternal enemy, rejecting HIS promise of salvation from any sin and unable to save themselves from sin to become righteous. After this choice, all sinners are born as humans."


If you make combinations of all possible scenarios you get as many as Christians beliefs as many people.
This confusing mess fuels greatly the argument from contrariety and confusion.
In a perfect world, everyone would believe everything that is true, and they won't believe nothing that isn't true.

But we don't live in a perfect world, do we?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am On one time you say Jesus did not boasted to destroy temple and raised it again in three day and another time you say he said.
Q: Which one is it? :?
I made my point clear as to "which one is it". Moving on.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Sir you assuming the thing you are trying to prove. We are debating if the gospels originated in the apostles.
I was trying to show the mechanism is possible.
You kept saying its not possible.
1 Corin 15:3-7, the earliest "written" origination. Moving along.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Q: You really don’t know after all that exchange?
Forgery of Marks ending coupled with other points I have made points to the unreliability of the gospels which points to the most likeliness that Christianity is not true.
Lets conduct a syllogism test, shall we?

1. Because A is forged and unreliable

2. Therefore, B is also forged and unreliable

Non sequitur

Syllogism (logic) test: FAILED.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Straw-man as usual.
Writer of Matthew used Mark work(copied) and then passed the work as his own. Ergo plagiarism.
How do you know he passed it off as his own?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am
The degree of verbatim agreement or the sequential agreement in the arrangement of episodes and sayings is so strong one cannot but suspect copycat and plagiarism.
John does not have this problem. That’s why it’s called the synoptic problem.
One cannot but suspect copied material, not plagiarized material. Until you can prove that he passed it off as his own, then all you have is a skeptical opinion. One which differs from mines.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am We are debating if you made the right choice to dismiss something. That is not a given. Presupposing things again.
Dismissing something without understanding that something is irrational and illogical sir.
You did that. It is in the past. One cannot change the past.
Are we debating if I made the right choice by dismissing it after understanding it? I would hope not, because that is also what I did, which is also in the past...and which is also something that one cannot change.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am No sir. You were all over the place.
Let’s recap:
According to you John the apostle wrote the gospel and revelations.
Sir I asked before: “Q: Why would John avoid persecuting by not mentioning his name(John)?”

And you said: “Because professing Jesus was a death sentence during that time.
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?”

You also said: “are you talking about Revelations? Sure, John wrote in first person in Revelation, but guess what, Revelations was a VISION, which is just like having a dream.

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

“And the use of "move loved apostle" was probably used to give the readers a hint as to who it was.”

According to your logic: Sir if the romans would look for prominent religious leader like the writers of the gospels: the apostles, Paul because they wrote in first person it does not matter the subject. They would still say aha John the apostle, Paul wrote this.
We have both first person and third person/”most beloved apostle” for John and first person for Paul.
So the argument does not work.
Making your argument kind of silly and nonsensical.
I already addressed this. I said that for all Paul assumed the risk by writing in first person...and for all we know, that could have been part of the reason why he was executed (according to tradition) in the first place; writing and influencing Christianity.

And I also stated that the reason John wrote in first person could have been because he wrote a vision...which would be a foolish reason to execute anyone...even by Roman standards.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Give me an example of 5 friends(not related) getting to 60-90 years old that lived in the ancient Roman time and were not nobility but average citizens.
Waiting.
Observation: Let’s not forget the persecution you seem to love so much makes the thing even more unlikely.
Well first of all, your challenge is bogus, because there is no way you can look at a person's skeleton remains and are therefore able to conclude the persons social status.

That, followed by the fact that again, you cannot apply aggregated data to individuals. It is fallacious.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Don’t lie some more sir. You are only fueling the argument against Christianity: born again Christian keeps lying.
You said in post 2 of this thread: “I stated that early Church Father, Papias, stated that Mark, a friend of Peter, wrote a Gospel”.
But Papias did not stated this but John the presbyter. (“traditions of John the presbyter”).
We have a double hearsay not first hand testimony.
I said numerous times "according to the early Church fathers"...and if it wasn't an early church father, it was an early church leader in some capacity.

So, according to them, Matthew and Mark wrote Gospels.

"According to the early church fathers" or leader applies to ANY one of them, Papias or otherwise.

I may have been mistaken Papias as the person the info originally came from, but it indirectly came from Papias.

My argument isn't based on any particular early church father/leader, as long as history shows that it came from one of them.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Its about the logic and reason for why the courts find hearsay inadmissible. Hearsay is not reliable as evidence.
Hearsay is not reliable as evidence, in the courtroom.

Is this the courtroom?

No, it isn't.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am
Q: Then why you lied about the double hearsay if it works, huh?
Sir, calm your nerves. I did not lie about anything nor do I need to. I was mistaken. I am human.

But still, my point is still valid, because all we've done is simply switched the names around, and absolutely nothing changes.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am
Ok I will dismiss your claims as mere assertions and possible lies(we already have a precedent).
I made my case; pre 70AD.

Whatever you decide to do after that is on you.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Bad analogy.
Again playing it down from double hearsay to first hand testimony.
Together with lying about it and making it first hand testimony in the first place shows how bad you yourself think of hearsay.
Again, no one is lying to you, sir. There has been NOTHING that you've said to make me conclude "Ohhh, snaps, his point are so good, that I need to come up with a lie".

Please.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Its more akin to someone said someone said my sister said:” your mother called you”.
Ohh, so if your grandmother said "Your sister told me to tell you that your mother wants you to call her".

I guess you will say "Sorry grandmother, but that is double hearsay. I can't believe either my sister or my mother said anything, unless I hear from them first".

Would you say that? No, you wouldn't.

But again, only when it comes to the Bible is it time to get super-duper skeptical.

Like I said, a double standard.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am The more people are in the chain the more opportunity for the message to get skewed. That’s why oral transmission has this effect much more compounded because presupposes much more people in the chain. 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.
That’s why it’s a big difference. 8-)
Nonsense..

"bad memory recollection, false memories, bias, mental illness, psychological suggestibility with know mechanisms like cognitive dissonance, peer pressure, peer affirmation and so one."

So, for every one person you give me with those characteristics..^

I will match you one person with these characteristics...

"strong human psyche, good memory recollection, true memories, unbiases, no mental illness, and overall psychologically fine."

So, kill that noise.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am
The argument is about confusion, contrariety existing. That’s not debatable.
Which only shows varying opinions, and that says nothing about truth value.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Sir it clearly states:” 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.

Which again fuels greatly the argument from confusion, contrariety. Making Christianity unlikely as being true together with the other problems I pointed. 8-)
Um, Sir...do you not understand that Jesus could have risen from the dead DESPITE certain individuals views on which books should be "accepted".

What Eusebius said has NOTHING to do with the truth value of Christianity.

Your reasoning is fallacious, is what I am trying to say :D
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

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

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

Post #49

Post by alexxcJRO »

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.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:24 pm 1 Corin 15:3-7, the earliest "written" origination. Moving along.
My mechanism included oral transmission (even competing oral transmissions) which existed prior to written texts according to “1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter” , “not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.”

Moving along.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:24 pm Lets conduct a syllogism test, shall we?

1. Because A is forged and unreliable

2. Therefore, B is also forged and unreliable

Non sequitur

Syllogism (logic) test: FAILED.
Let’s not conduct a straw-man.
I clearly said the forgery coupled with all the things I highlighted point to the gospels being unreliable.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:24 pm How do you know he passed it off as his own?

One cannot but suspect copied material, not plagiarized material. Until you can prove that he passed it off as his own, then all you have is a skeptical opinion. One which differs from mines.
Because simpletons like early Christians believed gospel of Matthew was separate from Mark when in fact it was a modified Mark.
Its not important if I use the word plagiarize or just copycat or copied or used the text. The important thing is we don't have three independent testimonials but 3 interdependent testimonials(Luke and Matthew dependent on Mark).
The so striking similarities, the degree of verbatim agreement or the sequential agreement in the arrangement of episodes and sayings is so strong one cannot conclude but he plagiarize/copycat/used/copied from Mark. (supported by New Testament scholars)


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:24 pm Are we debating if I made the right choice by dismissing it after understanding it? I would hope not, because that is also what I did, which is also in the past...and which is also something that one cannot change.
It’s the right choice if you are right. But here sir we are debating that.
Dismissing something without understanding that something is always irrational and illogical sir

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:24 pm I already addressed this. I said that for all Paul assumed the risk by writing in first person...and for all we know, that could have been part of the reason why he was executed (according to tradition) in the first place; writing and influencing Christianity.

And I also stated that the reason John wrote in first person could have been because he wrote a vision...which would be a foolish reason to execute anyone...even by Roman standards.

Romans according to your logic would figure it out who the writer is by being first person instead of three person. Therefore it follows that it does not matter the content for the romans would say the same: first person ergo lets look for the writer.
Also this 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.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:24 pm Well first of all, your challenge is bogus, because there is no way you can look at a person's skeleton remains and are therefore able to conclude the persons social status.

That, followed by the fact that again, you cannot apply aggregated data to individuals. It is fallacious.

You can just how archeologists do it. They don’t only look at remains.
One can extrapolate and infer things.
Is is highly unlikely that if we find 5 skeletons of 5 friends(proximity) that are not genetically closely related in Palestine all coincidently lived very long(unusual) lives- above 60-90 considering the times when the evidence shows that just few did (“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.” )and considering they were persecuted by the Roman empire.
You said you will give me an example.
So please give me an example.
Waiting.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:24 pm
I said numerous times "according to the early Church fathers"...and if it wasn't an early church father, it was an early church leader in some capacity.

So, according to them, Matthew and Mark wrote Gospels.

"According to the early church fathers" or leader applies to ANY one of them, Papias or otherwise.

I may have been mistaken Papias as the person the info originally came from, but it indirectly came from Papias.

My argument isn't based on any particular early church father/leader, as long as history shows that it came from one of them.

Sir, calm your nerves. I did not lie about anything nor do I need to. I was mistaken. I am human.

But still, my point is still valid, because all we've done is simply switched the names around, and absolutely nothing changes.

You posted the link were it was clear Eusebio said something and you did not corrected your self. “Off I was wrong.” So the dishonesty.

The evidence becomes more weaker when we have double hearsay. Its important.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:24 pm Hearsay is not reliable as evidence, in the courtroom.

Is this the courtroom?

No, it isn't.
But the reason its important sir not where it happens.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:24 pm Ohh, so if your grandmother said "Your sister told me to tell you that your mother wants you to call her".
I guess you will say "Sorry grandmother, but that is double hearsay. I can't believe either my sister or my mother said anything, unless I hear from them first".

Would you say that? No, you wouldn't.

But again, only when it comes to the Bible is it time to get super-duper skeptical.

Like I said, a double standard.

Your playing it down again.
Its your aunt(Eusebio) said your grandmother(Papias) said your sister(John the presbyter) said: “your mother wants you to call her”.
Also the analogy is wrong.
For all the people from your analogy I know them, are alive and I can call them to confirm.
Here we have people from 2000 years ago that probably did not knew each other personally, similar to close family relations. I don't know them and trust them. Eusebio is criticizing Papias. Also you have the confusion and contrariety going one.
Messages get changed after double hearsay or single hearsay even today. Happens to me all time where someone 1 tells me someone 2 else said something and when I talk to someone 2 I see someone 1 said it all wrong. The message got skewed.
The problem is compounded even more with double hearsay or oral traditions which presupposes even more people in the chain.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:24 pm Nonsense..

"bad memory recollection, false memories, bias, mental illness, psychological suggestibility with know mechanisms like cognitive dissonance, peer pressure, peer affirmation and so one."

So, for every one person you give me with those characteristics..^

I will match you one person with these characteristics...

"strong human psyche, good memory recollection, true memories, unbiases, no mental illness, and overall psychologically fine."

So, kill that noise.
Don’t straw-man. I never said all people have all characteristics.
I said: “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.”
Big difference.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:24 pm Which only shows varying opinions, and that says nothing about truth value.

In a perfect world, everyone would believe everything that is true, and they won't believe nothing that isn't true.

But we don't live in a perfect world, do we?

But when we have mutually excusive claims not all claims can be true.
So one cannot know with confidence if he is right because all religions have the same evidence anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experiences and testimonials for miracles.
One cannot dismiss rationally other sects, religions beliefs when one has the same evidence and its using the same subjective mechanism of interpretation of texts(bible, gospels, veda, koran).

Also a personal God that care of humans and 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 wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:24 pm Um, Sir...do you not understand that Jesus could have risen from the dead DESPITE certain individuals views on which books should be "accepted".

What Eusebius said has NOTHING to do with the truth value of Christianity.

Your reasoning is fallacious, is what I am trying to say
Its not Eusebio opinion sir.
The subjective, popularity mechanism of choice was already happening among early Christians.
Its funny how you used what Eusebio said when he talked of the four gospels but when he talks of Revelation of John, 2 Peter which are already in the Bible he is wrong.

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.

Q: So are Early church fathers reliable in supporting the truth value of Christianity or not?

I contest is not because of the existing quarrel, confusion, the subjective, popularity mechanism of choice of the gospels was already happening among early Christians. 8-)
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

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

Post #50

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:51 am
Let’s not conduct a straw-man.
I clearly said the forgery coupled with all the things I highlighted point to the gospels being unreliable.
And I stated why I disagree with ALL of those things. Moving along.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Because simpletons like early Christians believed gospel of Matthew was separate from Mark when in fact it was a modified Mark.
Not all modifications are negative...some modifications are improvements.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Its not important if I use the word plagiarize or just copycat or copied or used the text. The important thing is we don't have three independent testimonials but 3 interdependent testimonials(Luke and Matthew dependent on Mark).
Cool. If that's what you believe, by all means. I stated what I had to say on the matter. Moving along.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am The so striking similarities, the degree of verbatim agreement or the sequential agreement in the arrangement of episodes and sayings is so strong one cannot conclude but he plagiarize/copycat/used/copied from Mark. (supported by New Testament scholars)
You just said "its not important if I use the word plagiarize or just copycat or copied", and then you proceed to use the words.

SMH.

Anyways, Matthew is a modified, more "in depth" version of Mark. I like the word "modified" here.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am It’s the right choice if you are right. But here sir we are debating that.
Are we?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Dismissing something without understanding that something is always irrational and illogical sir
Again, I understand it...and it is STILL dismissed.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Romans according to your logic would figure it out who the writer is by being first person instead of three person. Therefore it follows that it does not matter the content for the romans would say the same: first person ergo lets look for the writer.
It does depend on the content.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Also this 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.
Everything involving the preaching of Christianity was risky. The Bible reports on this, and history in general (not including the bible) purports this.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am
You can just how archeologists do it. They don’t only look at remains.
Well, all you said was skeletons.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am One can extrapolate and infer things.
Is is highly unlikely that if we find 5 skeletons of 5 friends(proximity) that are not genetically closely related in Palestine all coincidently lived very long(unusual) lives- above 60-90 considering the times when the evidence shows that just few did (“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.” )and considering they were persecuted by the Roman empire.
You said you will give me an example.
So please give me an example.
Waiting.
1. Paul
2. Peter
3. Clement of Rome
4. Philo of Alexandria
5. Josephus

Moving along.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am You posted the link were it was clear Eusebio said something and you did not corrected your self. “Off I was wrong.” So the dishonesty.
Yeah, so I posted a link that would clearly contradict what I said? Makes no sense.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am The evidence becomes more weaker when we have double hearsay. Its important.
That is your opinion, and I disagree.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am
But the reason its important sir not where it happens.
Then you shouldn't be appealing to a place, which is what "court" is; a place.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Your playing it down again.
Its your aunt(Eusebio) said your grandmother(Papias) said your sister(John the presbyter) said: “your mother wants you to call her”.
Also the analogy is wrong.
For all the people from your analogy I know them, are alive and I can call them to confirm.
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.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Here we have people from 2000 years ago that probably did not knew each other personally, similar to close family relations. I don't know them and trust them.
I don't know them either, but I trust them.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Eusebio is criticizing Papias.
Eusebius criticized Papias on an issue unrelated to the subject in question, which is the authorship of the Gospels.

And for you to keep attempting to make that point is dishonest. This was pointed out to you, yet you keep doing it.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Also you have the confusion and contrariety going one.
Messages get changed after double hearsay or single hearsay even today. Happens to me all time where someone 1 tells me someone 2 else said something and when I talk to someone 2 I see someone 1 said it all wrong. The message got skewed.
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
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am The problem is compounded even more with double hearsay or oral traditions which presupposes even more people in the chain.
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?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Don’t straw-man. I never said all people have all characteristics.
I said: “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.”
Big difference.
Yeah, there is a "big difference" in humans who have those bad strings of psyche, and those who don't.

Yup. Big difference.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am But when we have mutually excusive claims not all claims can be true.
So one cannot know with confidence if he is right because all religions have the same evidence anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experiences and testimonials for miracles.
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.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am One cannot dismiss rationally other sects, religions beliefs when one has the same evidence and its using the same subjective mechanism of interpretation of texts(bible, gospels, veda, koran).

Also a personal God that care of humans and 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.
Irrelevant to the subject matter of thread.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Its not Eusebio opinion sir.
The subjective, popularity mechanism of choice was already happening among early Christians.
What subjective, popularity mechanism?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am Its funny how you used what Eusebio said when he talked of the four gospels but when he talks of Revelation of John, 2 Peter which are already in the Bible he is wrong.
Did I say that? No, I didn't.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am 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.

Q: So are Early church fathers reliable in supporting the truth value of Christianity or not?
I was speaking in terms of the CONTEXT, which was about which of those books should have been in the canon.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:08 am I contest is not because of the existing quarrel, confusion, the subjective, popularity mechanism of choice of the gospels was already happening among early Christians. 8-)
1. There was quarrel and confusion among early Christians

2. Therefore, Christianity is false.

Again, yet another non sequitur.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Post Reply