This is really a question for Christians, but since it doesn't assume the validity of the Bible, I think it belongs here rather than in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma section.
There have been multiple canons of Scripture. Books have been accepted and rejected for various reasons throughout Christian history. Books have lied about their authorship. Passages have been added and removed. Books were written in different times and different places by different authors and for different reasons.
So how can I have confidence in any particular verse, chapter, or book, that what I am reading is the inspired work of the Holy Spirit, and not the work of a man, no matter how pious?
What method ought I use to reliably determine what is and is not the Word of God? Has someone already done this for me, and if so, how can I tell if they didn't make a mistake?
How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 10260
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 1452 times
- Been thanked: 1757 times
Re: How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?
Post #211You are a member of the great ape family, not Primates Cercopithecidae. When you speak, it is close to a monkey speaking, but still not quite accurate.followthelamb wrote:Me speaking to u is like a monkey speaking...
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
-
Tired of the Nonsense
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 5680
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
- Location: USA
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #212
[Replying to Korah]
Papias had this to say about the author of Gospel Mark.
"And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html
Trying to make the case that the author of Gospel Mark was the John Mark mentioned in Acts based on no evidence other then a name in common usage, and that John Mark was an eyewitness to the events detailed by the Gospels, puts you on the wrong side of the historical evidence I am afraid. You can believe anything you prefer to believe yourself of course, but you can make no ACTUAL COMPELLING CASE to others, because your blatant assumption of facts is immediately overturned by THE ACTUAL HISTORICAL FACTS AT HAND. You are attempting to float a theory that has a huge and fatal hole in it.
Matt.9:
[9] And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
The author of Gospel Matthew does not identify himself in the fore mentioned passage AT ALL, but mentions, in the third person, an individual named Matthew. That Jesus had an apostle named Matthew is not in question.
ALL FOUR GOSPELS WERE AUTHORED ANONYMOUSLY. The names of the authors have been assigned to the works simply as a matter of Christian tradition. In truth we know almost nothing about the authors. Here are the "facts" concerning what we do know. And first of all is should be noted that all four Gospels are written in pure common or Koine Greek.
Koine Greek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Koine Greek (from "common"), also known as Alexandrian dialect, common Attic or Hellenistic Greek) was the common supra-regional form of Greek spoken and written during Hellenistic and Roman antiquity. It developed through the spread of Greek following the conquests of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, and served as the common lingua franca of much of the Mediterranean region and the Middle East during the following centuries. It was based mainly on Attic and related Ionic speech forms, with various admixtures brought about through dialect leveling with other varieties."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_greek
Although the Gospel of Matthew is the first Gospel chronologically in the NT, because the early Catholic church believe it to have been written first , it is now almost universally accepted that the Gospel of Mark was actually written first. The reason for this change in opinion is actually quite solid. Virtually the ENTIRE Gospel of Mark is contained in Gospel Matthew. Gospel Matthew essentially is the Gospel of Mark, with additional information woven in. Since the author of Gospel Matthew could not have used Gospel Mark as the foundation for his narrative if Gospel Mark had yet to be written we are eft with two options. The first and most obvious is that Gospel Mark was actually written first. The second is that Gospel Mark is nothing more then an abridged version of Gospel Matthew. But the historical evidence for the independent authorship of Mark is actually the best and strongest of the four.
Papias along with his good friend Polycarp, in the second century, indicated that the apostle Matthew undertook to write a Gospel of Jesus Christ during the period in which Peter and Paul were supposed to be attempting to found a Christian church in Rome. This is given to be the period shortly before the great fire in Rome, which occurred in 64. Since it was known that the Gospel of Mark, as well as the other Gospels, was written sometime after 70, the Catholic Church, which only came into being in the fourth century, traditionally placed the Gospel of Matthew as the first book of the Gospels, Mark second, then Luke, with Gospel John clearly the last to be written. One problem though for a book written some few years prior to the Gospel of Mark. The canonical Gospel of Matthew (canonical, found in all modern copies of the NT) contains within it virtually the entire Gospel of Mark, excluding mainly the "long ending" of Gospel Mark, verses 28:9-20, which are not found in the oldest manuscripts of Gospel Mark. How could the Gospel of Matthew contain the entire Gospel of Mark if the Gospel of Matthew was written PRIOR to the writing of Gospel Mark? And why would the apostle, an eyewitness, rely on the work of an individual, Mark, who clearly never even met Jesus?
Another and even greater problem with the authorship of Gospel Matthew occurs however. Papias also wrote:
"For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able."
As you have already pointed out, the Gospel that was attributed to the apostle Matthew was reported to have been written in Aramaic. Papais, Polycarp and Eusebius confirmed in their own writings that the apostle Matthew wrote his gospel "in the language of the Jews." In other words in the Hebrew language, Aramaic. And that's a serious problem for determining the authorship of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, which was written in pure KOINE GREEK. All FOUR canonical Gospels are in fact written in pure Koine Greek, the common language of that time, and show no signs of translation. Pure unaltered Greek in pure Greek verse and idiom, with no indication of adjustments from the vastly more completed Aramaic. As I already [pointed out, the majority of the canonical Gospel Matthew taken directly from Gospel Mark, also written in pure Koine Greek. There WAS an early document well known at the time to have been written in Aramaic known as the Gospel of the Hebrews, but all mention of that document abruptly disappeared about the time of the formation of the Catholic Church in the fourth century. Only some few fragments of it remain today to verify it's existence. The canonical Gospel of Matthew so well known to modern Christians WAS NOT originally written in Aramaic and cannot be a direct translation FROM Aramaic. It is NOT therefore the gospel which the early Christian writers attribute to the apostle Matthew.
So who wrote the Gospel According to Matthew contained in your Bible? NO ONE KNOWS! What is clear today is that it was written AFTER Gospel Mark. Gospel Matthew IS essentially Gospel Mark, with some material original to Matthew woven in. Gospel Luke contains elements of both Gospels Mark and Matthew, and was clearly written third.
The unknown author of the canonical Gospel Matthew has NO claim to have had personal eyewitness information surrounding the life and death of Jesus.
Bottom line, all of the Gospels were written anonymously decades after the fact, and NONE of them can be shown to have been first hand accounts for what they are describing. Except in Christian tradition and mythology of course. It's so because that's what we choose to believe does not represent factual history.
Again, there is absolutely nothing to connect the John Mark mentioned in Acts to the authorship of The Gospel According to Mark, other than the commonly used name, Mark. As we can see from the confusing profusion of Marys in the Gospels, popular names were frequently used. Mary the mother of Jesus had a sister named Mary Salome for Pete's sake. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salome_(disciple) Acts mentions about 120 of the loyal followers of Jesus congregating together immediately before the day of Pentecost. Most of these individuals were unnamed, but statistically at least a dozen and probably more of them would have had the name Mark, with that number rising as the number of converts grew. Attempting to make a case that the author of gospel Mark and the individual John Mark are the same person based on nothing more then a sharing of the common name Mark is nothing but assumption fueled by convenience and represents Christian tradition and mythology at it's finest.Korah wrote: As for the Gospel of Mark, conservative scholars continue to accept tradition that John Mark wrote down what Peter told him. My own source-analysis (see the 4th and 5th of my posts listed in my #155) accepts that much of it came from Peter, but that tradition is also correct that Matthew wrote a gospel in Aramaic that shows up in the looser parallels between the gospels of Mark and Matthew (more technically, Q1 and the Twelve-Source). As previously stated, John Mark was an eyewitness to the Passion. so Mark 14 to 16:8 includes his personal witness in addition to Peter's and Matthew'
Papias had this to say about the author of Gospel Mark.
"And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html
Trying to make the case that the author of Gospel Mark was the John Mark mentioned in Acts based on no evidence other then a name in common usage, and that John Mark was an eyewitness to the events detailed by the Gospels, puts you on the wrong side of the historical evidence I am afraid. You can believe anything you prefer to believe yourself of course, but you can make no ACTUAL COMPELLING CASE to others, because your blatant assumption of facts is immediately overturned by THE ACTUAL HISTORICAL FACTS AT HAND. You are attempting to float a theory that has a huge and fatal hole in it.
Denying the evidence at hand certainly DOES free you up to subscribe to such evidence as pleases you, of course.Korah wrote: I don't derive the gospel authors from "Christian mythology" nor even the external testimony of Papias, but from internal criticism of the gospels. Matthew (or "Levi") identifies himself at Mk. 2:14-15 and Mt. 9:9 and Peter at various places such as Lk 12:41 (indicating we can attribute Q2 to him, in addition to half of Mark).
Matt.9:
[9] And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
The author of Gospel Matthew does not identify himself in the fore mentioned passage AT ALL, but mentions, in the third person, an individual named Matthew. That Jesus had an apostle named Matthew is not in question.
ALL FOUR GOSPELS WERE AUTHORED ANONYMOUSLY. The names of the authors have been assigned to the works simply as a matter of Christian tradition. In truth we know almost nothing about the authors. Here are the "facts" concerning what we do know. And first of all is should be noted that all four Gospels are written in pure common or Koine Greek.
Koine Greek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Koine Greek (from "common"), also known as Alexandrian dialect, common Attic or Hellenistic Greek) was the common supra-regional form of Greek spoken and written during Hellenistic and Roman antiquity. It developed through the spread of Greek following the conquests of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, and served as the common lingua franca of much of the Mediterranean region and the Middle East during the following centuries. It was based mainly on Attic and related Ionic speech forms, with various admixtures brought about through dialect leveling with other varieties."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_greek
Although the Gospel of Matthew is the first Gospel chronologically in the NT, because the early Catholic church believe it to have been written first , it is now almost universally accepted that the Gospel of Mark was actually written first. The reason for this change in opinion is actually quite solid. Virtually the ENTIRE Gospel of Mark is contained in Gospel Matthew. Gospel Matthew essentially is the Gospel of Mark, with additional information woven in. Since the author of Gospel Matthew could not have used Gospel Mark as the foundation for his narrative if Gospel Mark had yet to be written we are eft with two options. The first and most obvious is that Gospel Mark was actually written first. The second is that Gospel Mark is nothing more then an abridged version of Gospel Matthew. But the historical evidence for the independent authorship of Mark is actually the best and strongest of the four.
Papias along with his good friend Polycarp, in the second century, indicated that the apostle Matthew undertook to write a Gospel of Jesus Christ during the period in which Peter and Paul were supposed to be attempting to found a Christian church in Rome. This is given to be the period shortly before the great fire in Rome, which occurred in 64. Since it was known that the Gospel of Mark, as well as the other Gospels, was written sometime after 70, the Catholic Church, which only came into being in the fourth century, traditionally placed the Gospel of Matthew as the first book of the Gospels, Mark second, then Luke, with Gospel John clearly the last to be written. One problem though for a book written some few years prior to the Gospel of Mark. The canonical Gospel of Matthew (canonical, found in all modern copies of the NT) contains within it virtually the entire Gospel of Mark, excluding mainly the "long ending" of Gospel Mark, verses 28:9-20, which are not found in the oldest manuscripts of Gospel Mark. How could the Gospel of Matthew contain the entire Gospel of Mark if the Gospel of Matthew was written PRIOR to the writing of Gospel Mark? And why would the apostle, an eyewitness, rely on the work of an individual, Mark, who clearly never even met Jesus?
Another and even greater problem with the authorship of Gospel Matthew occurs however. Papias also wrote:
"For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able."
As you have already pointed out, the Gospel that was attributed to the apostle Matthew was reported to have been written in Aramaic. Papais, Polycarp and Eusebius confirmed in their own writings that the apostle Matthew wrote his gospel "in the language of the Jews." In other words in the Hebrew language, Aramaic. And that's a serious problem for determining the authorship of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, which was written in pure KOINE GREEK. All FOUR canonical Gospels are in fact written in pure Koine Greek, the common language of that time, and show no signs of translation. Pure unaltered Greek in pure Greek verse and idiom, with no indication of adjustments from the vastly more completed Aramaic. As I already [pointed out, the majority of the canonical Gospel Matthew taken directly from Gospel Mark, also written in pure Koine Greek. There WAS an early document well known at the time to have been written in Aramaic known as the Gospel of the Hebrews, but all mention of that document abruptly disappeared about the time of the formation of the Catholic Church in the fourth century. Only some few fragments of it remain today to verify it's existence. The canonical Gospel of Matthew so well known to modern Christians WAS NOT originally written in Aramaic and cannot be a direct translation FROM Aramaic. It is NOT therefore the gospel which the early Christian writers attribute to the apostle Matthew.
So who wrote the Gospel According to Matthew contained in your Bible? NO ONE KNOWS! What is clear today is that it was written AFTER Gospel Mark. Gospel Matthew IS essentially Gospel Mark, with some material original to Matthew woven in. Gospel Luke contains elements of both Gospels Mark and Matthew, and was clearly written third.
The unknown author of the canonical Gospel Matthew has NO claim to have had personal eyewitness information surrounding the life and death of Jesus.
Bottom line, all of the Gospels were written anonymously decades after the fact, and NONE of them can be shown to have been first hand accounts for what they are describing. Except in Christian tradition and mythology of course. It's so because that's what we choose to believe does not represent factual history.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.Post #213
[Replying to post 211 by Tired of the Nonsense]
I appreciate your diligence in gathering such a long response, but in spite of so many errors and misunderstandings in it, a detailed refutation would run too lengthy.
For starters, you (and everyone else) continue to fail to address any of the seven posts I list at my #155. You describe your opinions as established facts in evidence. Worst of all you fail to distinguish between written sources and the final canonical gospels--some of the sources were in Aramaic even though all final versions are in Greek. Even for the latter you claim we know nothing about the authors, when actually lots of 2nd century tradition backs the conventional view--and you even quote them! (And John Mark is even in the Bible multiple times.) True, the conventional views on Matthew and Mark do not apply to the finished versions: Matthew was in an earlier Aramaic version, and Mark is so similar to Matthew that both must hark back to an earlier Greek Proto-Matthew (which in turn goes back to sources that my posts have identified as eyewitnesses).
You dogmatically assert that Mark was written after 70 AD, but that is NOT a fact in evidence. Even if it were it would not establish later dates for the other two Synoptics, because all three share a proto-gospel that was utilized by each. (Evidently Luke was first because 20% of Mark is not in Luke, and the many detailed differences between them show that at least one of the sources they share was in Aramaic or the source was still partly Aramaic and partly Greek which is my proto-gospel view.)
Thus my Thesis, though clearly not the Consensus view, remains the Synoptic Default because no one has been able to address it over the three years I have been presenting it. I am not aware of anyone besides Canon Nineham in 1951 who claims to prove that there was no eyewitness testimony--and took all of nine pages to do it!
I appreciate your diligence in gathering such a long response, but in spite of so many errors and misunderstandings in it, a detailed refutation would run too lengthy.
For starters, you (and everyone else) continue to fail to address any of the seven posts I list at my #155. You describe your opinions as established facts in evidence. Worst of all you fail to distinguish between written sources and the final canonical gospels--some of the sources were in Aramaic even though all final versions are in Greek. Even for the latter you claim we know nothing about the authors, when actually lots of 2nd century tradition backs the conventional view--and you even quote them! (And John Mark is even in the Bible multiple times.) True, the conventional views on Matthew and Mark do not apply to the finished versions: Matthew was in an earlier Aramaic version, and Mark is so similar to Matthew that both must hark back to an earlier Greek Proto-Matthew (which in turn goes back to sources that my posts have identified as eyewitnesses).
You dogmatically assert that Mark was written after 70 AD, but that is NOT a fact in evidence. Even if it were it would not establish later dates for the other two Synoptics, because all three share a proto-gospel that was utilized by each. (Evidently Luke was first because 20% of Mark is not in Luke, and the many detailed differences between them show that at least one of the sources they share was in Aramaic or the source was still partly Aramaic and partly Greek which is my proto-gospel view.)
Thus my Thesis, though clearly not the Consensus view, remains the Synoptic Default because no one has been able to address it over the three years I have been presenting it. I am not aware of anyone besides Canon Nineham in 1951 who claims to prove that there was no eyewitness testimony--and took all of nine pages to do it!
-
Tired of the Nonsense
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 5680
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
- Location: USA
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #214
[Replying to Korah]
I provided for you a direct quote from a well known Christian source taken from the first half of the second century. Please show any factual evidence AT ALL that serves to link the individual John Mark to the author of the Gospel of Mark. I happen to share a first name with a 20th century president. According to your standards of proof, you must now be conversing with a former president. And while that could be true, the odds against it are actually quite long.Korah wrote: I appreciate your diligence in gathering such a long response, but in spite of so many errors and misunderstandings in it, a detailed refutation would run too lengthy.
For starters, you (and everyone else) continue to fail to address any of the seven posts I list at my #155. You describe your opinions as established facts in evidence.
Please provide examples for this claim. Bring them forth!Korah wrote: Worst of all you fail to distinguish between written sources and the final canonical gospels--some of the sources were in Aramaic even though all final versions are in Greek.
Again, please provide the examples for the truth of this claim. I suspect you are referring to the famous, or infamous, Quelle document which was first HYPOTHISIZED by Christian theologians in the year 1900, but whose physical existence cannot be established to be anything more than unfounded assumption. No such document exists now. No evidence that any such document EVER existed can be established. This is Christian make believe at it's finest, since the existence of the so called Q document is entirely MADE UP!Korah wrote: Even for the latter you claim we know nothing about the authors, when actually lots of 2nd century tradition backs the conventional view--and you even quote them! (And John Mark is even in the Bible multiple times.) True, the conventional views on Matthew and Mark do not apply to the finished versions: Matthew was in an earlier Aramaic version, and Mark is so similar to Matthew that both must hark back to an earlier Greek Proto-Matthew (which in turn goes back to sources that my posts have identified as eyewitnesses).
The Gospel of Mark makes a reference to the stone by stone destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Mark 13:2), an event which occurred at a known date, 70 AD. Dating historical documents by comparing the events they describe with well known historical dates is the common manner in which all historical documents are dated. Make believe and unfounded assumption not withstanding, there is no valid reason why the NT should not be subjected to the same standards of fact, reason and logic as any other historical document.Korah wrote: You dogmatically assert that Mark was written after 70 AD, but that is NOT a fact in evidence. Even if it were it would not establish later dates for the other two Synoptics, because all three share a proto-gospel that was utilized by each. (Evidently Luke was first because 20% of Mark is not in Luke, and the many detailed differences between them show that at least one of the sources they share was in Aramaic or the source was still partly Aramaic and partly Greek which is my proto-gospel view.)
Your "thesis" is based on the rejection of historical evidence that does not conform to your thesis, and the assumption of facts which simply are not in evidence. This is in fact exactly how Christian make believe operates.Korah wrote: Thus my Thesis, though clearly not the Consensus view, remains the Synoptic Default because no one has been able to address it over the three years I have been presenting it. I am not aware of anyone besides Canon Nineham in 1951 who claims to prove that there was no eyewitness testimony--and took all of nine pages to do it!
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.Post #215
[Replying to post 213 by Tired of the Nonsense]
You continue to assert that facts in evidence support you and disprove me. Such "facts" are just your assertions or willful disregard of my plea to you to distinguish our gospels from their sources. You seem to share with Fundamentalists the conviction that our gospels came to us full-grown in their current form! You refuse to deal with any of the seven sources that I say were written by eyewitnesses of Jesus.
I agree with you that Q never existed as the neat entity that John Kloppenborg presents in his critical edition. Q as such was defined 100 years ago as the overlap between Matthew and Luke that is absent from Mark. The top new scholars (such as Dennis R. MacDonald) have now established that any such document also included passages that are found also in Mark. Don't be confused by the fact that I use the terms Q1 and Q2 to divide the old definition Q overlap. Q1 is simply the Double Tradition that shows parallels between Matthew and Luke too close to be oral tradition but too inexact to be from a shared Greed original. Q2 is the remainder that does display the long series of shared words that indicates a Greek original.
You seem to deny the possibility of sources. Well, I displayed seven, and we can't even talk if you don't admit the possibility. Again I point out to you that your reasoning as to Mark being after 70 AD if the underlying eyewitness source did not include your cited verse. Not to mention that the verse could have been (as stated) a prediction.
You continue to assert that facts in evidence support you and disprove me. Such "facts" are just your assertions or willful disregard of my plea to you to distinguish our gospels from their sources. You seem to share with Fundamentalists the conviction that our gospels came to us full-grown in their current form! You refuse to deal with any of the seven sources that I say were written by eyewitnesses of Jesus.
I agree with you that Q never existed as the neat entity that John Kloppenborg presents in his critical edition. Q as such was defined 100 years ago as the overlap between Matthew and Luke that is absent from Mark. The top new scholars (such as Dennis R. MacDonald) have now established that any such document also included passages that are found also in Mark. Don't be confused by the fact that I use the terms Q1 and Q2 to divide the old definition Q overlap. Q1 is simply the Double Tradition that shows parallels between Matthew and Luke too close to be oral tradition but too inexact to be from a shared Greed original. Q2 is the remainder that does display the long series of shared words that indicates a Greek original.
You seem to deny the possibility of sources. Well, I displayed seven, and we can't even talk if you don't admit the possibility. Again I point out to you that your reasoning as to Mark being after 70 AD if the underlying eyewitness source did not include your cited verse. Not to mention that the verse could have been (as stated) a prediction.
-
Tired of the Nonsense
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 5680
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
- Location: USA
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #216
[Replying to post 214 by Korah]
Of course in your mind Jesus, having recourse to magic, that is, perfect foreknowledge of the future, would have had no problem predicting that the temple would one day be brought down in just such a manner. And so the evidence for the truth of your beliefs is to be found in your unshakable belief that your beliefs are true and therefore represent evidence. Perfect circular reasoning. However, my original statement, "there is no valid reason why the NT should not be subjected to the same standards of fact, reason and logic as any other historical document," still holds true. Gospel Mark makes a reference to an event which occurred at a known date. Therefore reason, logic AND THE EVIDENCE dictates that Gospel Mark was written AFTER the event occurred, and not prior to it. All appeals to make believe notwithstanding.
Your "seven sources" are constructed on a foundation of assumption. The assumption that the individual John Mark mentioned in Acts and the Mark reputedly responsible for writting the Gospel are one in the same person is a perfect example. This is actually a dispute of long standing which you have taking upon yourself to state unequivocally as if your version of events were a well established fact, when in actual fact nothing could be further from the truth.
****
John Mark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Identification
It was common for Jews of the period to bear both a Semitic name such as John and a Greco-Roman name such as Mark.[3] But since John was one of the most common names among Palestinian Jews, and Mark was the most common in the Roman world,caution is warranted in identifying John Mark with any other John or Mark.
Ancient sources in fact consistently distinguish John Mark from the other Marks of the New Testament and style him Bishop of Byblos. Nor was John Mark identified in antiquity with any other John, apart from rare and explicit speculation.
Medieval sources, on the other hand, increasingly regarded all New Testament references to Mark as Mark the Evangelist, and many modern scholars have agreed in seeing a single Mark. The very fact that various writings could refer simply to Mark without further qualification has been seen as pointing to a single Mark.
First, there is Mark the cousin of Barnabas, mentioned by Paul as a "fellow worker" in the closings of three Pauline epistles. In antiquity he was regarded as a distinct Mark, Bishop of Apollonia. If, on the other hand, these two Marks are to be identified, the fact that these epistles (if authentic) were written after the departure of John Mark with Barnabas in Acts must suppose some later reconciliation. But a majority of scholars, noting the close association of both Marks with Paul and Barnabas, indeed regard them as likely the same person.
Mark the Evangelist, however, is known only from the patristic tradition, which associates him only with Peter and makes no mention of Paul. Jerome alone suggests that the Mark of whom Paul speaks may be the Evangelist. But modern scholars have noted that as Peter fled to the house of John Mark's mother, the two men may have had a longstanding association.
Several scholars have argued, on the other hand, for identifying John the Evangelist and/or John the Elder with John Mark; there is, in fact, a great deal of controversy surrounding the various New Testament people named John.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mark
And you continue to assert claims for which you will provide no evidence.Korah wrote: You continue to assert that facts in evidence support you and disprove me. Such "facts" are just your assertions or willful disregard of my plea to you to distinguish our gospels from their sources. You seem to share with Fundamentalists the conviction that our gospels came to us full-grown in their current form! You refuse to deal with any of the seven sources that I say were written by eyewitnesses of Jesus.
Korah wrote: I appreciate your diligence in gathering such a long response, but in spite of so many errors and misunderstandings in it, a detailed refutation would run too lengthy.
For starters, you (and everyone else) continue to fail to address any of the seven posts I list at my #155. You describe your opinions as established facts in evidence.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: I provided for you a direct quote from a well known Christian source taken from the first half of the second century. Please show any factual evidence AT ALL that serves to link the individual John Mark to the author of the Gospel of Mark.
Korah wrote: Worst of all you fail to distinguish between written sources and the final canonical gospels--some of the sources were in Aramaic even though all final versions are in Greek.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Please provide examples for this claim. Bring them forth!
Please provide evidence that any of these documents that you are referring to ever existed as anything other then the theoritical constructs of later generations of Christian theologians.Korah wrote: I agree with you that Q never existed as the neat entity that John Kloppenborg presents in his critical edition. Q as such was defined 100 years ago as the overlap between Matthew and Luke that is absent from Mark. The top new scholars (such as Dennis R. MacDonald) have now established that any such document also included passages that are found also in Mark. Don't be confused by the fact that I use the terms Q1 and Q2 to divide the old definition Q overlap. Q1 is simply the Double Tradition that shows parallels between Matthew and Luke too close to be oral tradition but too inexact to be from a shared Greed original. Q2 is the remainder that does display the long series of shared words that indicates a Greek original.
What believing Jew would have possibly predicted the unthinkable; that the great temple, the source of all Jewish faith and the literal physical residence of God, could possibly be ransacked and completely destroyed by "heathens." Prior to that very thing actually occurring I mean? Surely God would never allow such an affront and blasphemy to occur in His very presence?. Unfortunately for the Jewish population of Jerusalem, as He so often does, God acted EXACTLY like a god who never existed in the first place and did not lift a finger to stop the unthinkable from occurring.Korah wrote: You seem to deny the possibility of sources. Well, I displayed seven, and we can't even talk if you don't admit the possibility. Again I point out to you that your reasoning as to Mark being after 70 AD if the underlying eyewitness source did not include your cited verse. Not to mention that the verse could have been (as stated) a prediction.
Of course in your mind Jesus, having recourse to magic, that is, perfect foreknowledge of the future, would have had no problem predicting that the temple would one day be brought down in just such a manner. And so the evidence for the truth of your beliefs is to be found in your unshakable belief that your beliefs are true and therefore represent evidence. Perfect circular reasoning. However, my original statement, "there is no valid reason why the NT should not be subjected to the same standards of fact, reason and logic as any other historical document," still holds true. Gospel Mark makes a reference to an event which occurred at a known date. Therefore reason, logic AND THE EVIDENCE dictates that Gospel Mark was written AFTER the event occurred, and not prior to it. All appeals to make believe notwithstanding.
Your "seven sources" are constructed on a foundation of assumption. The assumption that the individual John Mark mentioned in Acts and the Mark reputedly responsible for writting the Gospel are one in the same person is a perfect example. This is actually a dispute of long standing which you have taking upon yourself to state unequivocally as if your version of events were a well established fact, when in actual fact nothing could be further from the truth.
****
John Mark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Identification
It was common for Jews of the period to bear both a Semitic name such as John and a Greco-Roman name such as Mark.[3] But since John was one of the most common names among Palestinian Jews, and Mark was the most common in the Roman world,caution is warranted in identifying John Mark with any other John or Mark.
Ancient sources in fact consistently distinguish John Mark from the other Marks of the New Testament and style him Bishop of Byblos. Nor was John Mark identified in antiquity with any other John, apart from rare and explicit speculation.
Medieval sources, on the other hand, increasingly regarded all New Testament references to Mark as Mark the Evangelist, and many modern scholars have agreed in seeing a single Mark. The very fact that various writings could refer simply to Mark without further qualification has been seen as pointing to a single Mark.
First, there is Mark the cousin of Barnabas, mentioned by Paul as a "fellow worker" in the closings of three Pauline epistles. In antiquity he was regarded as a distinct Mark, Bishop of Apollonia. If, on the other hand, these two Marks are to be identified, the fact that these epistles (if authentic) were written after the departure of John Mark with Barnabas in Acts must suppose some later reconciliation. But a majority of scholars, noting the close association of both Marks with Paul and Barnabas, indeed regard them as likely the same person.
Mark the Evangelist, however, is known only from the patristic tradition, which associates him only with Peter and makes no mention of Paul. Jerome alone suggests that the Mark of whom Paul speaks may be the Evangelist. But modern scholars have noted that as Peter fled to the house of John Mark's mother, the two men may have had a longstanding association.
Several scholars have argued, on the other hand, for identifying John the Evangelist and/or John the Elder with John Mark; there is, in fact, a great deal of controversy surrounding the various New Testament people named John.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mark
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.Post #217
[Replying to post 215 by Tired of the Nonsense]
You continue to act as if source-analysis of the gospels has always been an apologetic trick by Christian believers. In fact the investigation into sources beneath the gospels has been hated by many Christians as Higher Criticism they despise. The seven sources I highlight (and there are others) were mostly identified by scholars hostile to Christianity. Thus you need to deal with them better than waving them off by your presuppositions.
You cite no scholarly sources (in contrast to the four I found in the Gospel of John alone, using the research of the atheist Howard Teeple), instead quoting Wikipedia for the irrelevant issue of whether John Mark wrote any of our canonical gospels (whether Mark or John). For my purposes I use John Mark as the writer of the Passion Diary that I identify from Teeple's analysis of John (18 to 21). (And it may be that "the disciple known to the high priest" was not John Mark--he's just the most likely name identification.) It does not matter for my analysis whether John Mark had any further role in drawing together the eyewitness accounts in Mark preceding the Passion. I attribute two further eyewitness accounts in Mark to the apostles Matthew and Peter. It happens that I do believe that John Mark did have a further role, but my Eyewitness Default does not depend upon this nor whether he must have (by your presuppositions) written after 70 AD. Even by your presuppositions only a few verses would have to be written after 70 AD.
Like everyone else, you continue to ignore all the seven posts I listed at my #155. The sources are identifiable on purely scholarly evidence, not wishful thinking, so I'll call this the Eyewitness Default until someone can provide evidence against the texts as being most likely just what they appear to be.
Edited to add:
It's relevant to add here that goodwithoutgod has not posted for basically three weeks, even though he was sure he could refute me, even that he would already have his postings that had refuted me in advance (as he was sure he had already seen all the Christian arguments). No one else makes the arguments I make. I would email him, but he left no address. (We corresponded on several threads, but I could never lure him to come over here where I present my arguments.)
You continue to act as if source-analysis of the gospels has always been an apologetic trick by Christian believers. In fact the investigation into sources beneath the gospels has been hated by many Christians as Higher Criticism they despise. The seven sources I highlight (and there are others) were mostly identified by scholars hostile to Christianity. Thus you need to deal with them better than waving them off by your presuppositions.
You cite no scholarly sources (in contrast to the four I found in the Gospel of John alone, using the research of the atheist Howard Teeple), instead quoting Wikipedia for the irrelevant issue of whether John Mark wrote any of our canonical gospels (whether Mark or John). For my purposes I use John Mark as the writer of the Passion Diary that I identify from Teeple's analysis of John (18 to 21). (And it may be that "the disciple known to the high priest" was not John Mark--he's just the most likely name identification.) It does not matter for my analysis whether John Mark had any further role in drawing together the eyewitness accounts in Mark preceding the Passion. I attribute two further eyewitness accounts in Mark to the apostles Matthew and Peter. It happens that I do believe that John Mark did have a further role, but my Eyewitness Default does not depend upon this nor whether he must have (by your presuppositions) written after 70 AD. Even by your presuppositions only a few verses would have to be written after 70 AD.
Like everyone else, you continue to ignore all the seven posts I listed at my #155. The sources are identifiable on purely scholarly evidence, not wishful thinking, so I'll call this the Eyewitness Default until someone can provide evidence against the texts as being most likely just what they appear to be.
Edited to add:
It's relevant to add here that goodwithoutgod has not posted for basically three weeks, even though he was sure he could refute me, even that he would already have his postings that had refuted me in advance (as he was sure he had already seen all the Christian arguments). No one else makes the arguments I make. I would email him, but he left no address. (We corresponded on several threads, but I could never lure him to come over here where I present my arguments.)
-
Student
- Sage
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:10 pm
- Location: UK - currently dusting shelves 220 - 229, in the John Rylands Library
Post #218
[Replying to Korah]
Korah, in a previous post you graciously acknowledged that I had read all of the posts that constitute your proposition. However, less charitably, you falsely attributed my rejection of your claims to my adherence to academic consensus. This is entirely untrue.
I rejected your proposition simply because your posts, although numerous and lengthy, perhaps excessively so, fail to include any evidence in support of your claims. All I discovered was argument by assertion.
To demonstrate my point, lets dissect part of the post in which you reveal your first "eye-witness, John-Mark: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 419#669419
In the absence of any evidence to support this claim it stands as no more than an expression of your opinion. It may suit your chosen hypothesis but it is not a proven statement of fact, and to suggest that it is, is pure arrogance.
The hypothesis of a Passion Narrative pre-dating the gospels is simply conjecture. It may be learned conjecture but in the final analysis that is all that it is, conjecture, not a proven fact.
If the existence of a Passion Narrative is unproven, then a logic predicated upon the premise of the certainty of its pre-existence is conjecture underpinned by speculation i.e. wishful thinking.
Why is it most likely John Mark? You present no evidence that even hints that John Mark might be anything more than a literary invention let alone a source for an eye-witness account. It is simply a guess, a wild shot in the dark.
Assertion 3: [John Mark] was most likely the disciple know to the high priest
Again, not the slightest attempt to provide evidence supporting this claim. (As for what the verb [phile ~ have affection for, like, consider someone a friend] rather than the noun - [agap" ~ esteem, affection, regard, love], has to do with establishing the identity of a supposed eyewitness, you fail to explain)
This is no more than unsubstantiated speculation, which, without further elaboration you subsequently treat as established fact underpinning ever more outlandish claims e.g.:
I do not wish to be unkind, but your output lacks the necessary structure or clarity to qualify as a thesis. You fail to set out a methodology by which you test your proposition, but rather you meander between presupposition and conclusion with no intervening analysis or discussion of your supposed findings.
When challenged you simply ignore the demand for evidence whilst regurgitating the same incoherent and largely incomprehensible material over and over again, i.e. argumentum ad nauseam, the classic stratagem of filibuster.
In short, you fail to provide any evidence what-so-ever. Consequently your outpourings, both here and elsewhere are either ignored, or treated less charitably.
Korah, in a previous post you graciously acknowledged that I had read all of the posts that constitute your proposition. However, less charitably, you falsely attributed my rejection of your claims to my adherence to academic consensus. This is entirely untrue.
I rejected your proposition simply because your posts, although numerous and lengthy, perhaps excessively so, fail to include any evidence in support of your claims. All I discovered was argument by assertion.
To demonstrate my point, lets dissect part of the post in which you reveal your first "eye-witness, John-Mark: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 419#669419
Assertion 1: the logic starts better with the Passion Narrative.Tracing sources of the gospels would seem to start with the earliest written documents, but the logic starts better with the foundation upon which the other sources and additions were built. This source is the Passion Narrative, the largest part of the material common to both John and the Synoptics.
In the absence of any evidence to support this claim it stands as no more than an expression of your opinion. It may suit your chosen hypothesis but it is not a proven statement of fact, and to suggest that it is, is pure arrogance.
The hypothesis of a Passion Narrative pre-dating the gospels is simply conjecture. It may be learned conjecture but in the final analysis that is all that it is, conjecture, not a proven fact.
If the existence of a Passion Narrative is unproven, then a logic predicated upon the premise of the certainty of its pre-existence is conjecture underpinned by speculation i.e. wishful thinking.
Assertion 2: The source for the information in it is most likely John MarkThe source for the information in it is most likely John Mark, who was the most likely disciple known to the high priest. (See John 18:15-16, 20:2-9, in which in John 20:2 the English word love is phileo in the Greek, not agape as in John 13. In John 18-19 we get events and direct quotes that Peter would not have witnessed.)
Why is it most likely John Mark? You present no evidence that even hints that John Mark might be anything more than a literary invention let alone a source for an eye-witness account. It is simply a guess, a wild shot in the dark.
Assertion 3: [John Mark] was most likely the disciple know to the high priest
Again, not the slightest attempt to provide evidence supporting this claim. (As for what the verb [phile ~ have affection for, like, consider someone a friend] rather than the noun - [agap" ~ esteem, affection, regard, love], has to do with establishing the identity of a supposed eyewitness, you fail to explain)
This is no more than unsubstantiated speculation, which, without further elaboration you subsequently treat as established fact underpinning ever more outlandish claims e.g.:
I could go on, but that would be to labour the point, namely, you consistently and systematically fail to provide any evidence supporting speculation which you subsequently assert to be fact.This foundation source from John Mark is the following
These provide additional evidence that the person providing this "earliest gospel" was indeed John Mark, as most of these additional verses apparently took place in his house when he was a teenager.
I do not wish to be unkind, but your output lacks the necessary structure or clarity to qualify as a thesis. You fail to set out a methodology by which you test your proposition, but rather you meander between presupposition and conclusion with no intervening analysis or discussion of your supposed findings.
When challenged you simply ignore the demand for evidence whilst regurgitating the same incoherent and largely incomprehensible material over and over again, i.e. argumentum ad nauseam, the classic stratagem of filibuster.
In short, you fail to provide any evidence what-so-ever. Consequently your outpourings, both here and elsewhere are either ignored, or treated less charitably.
-
Tired of the Nonsense
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 5680
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
- Location: USA
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #219
[Replying to Korah]
Turning to your first example, John 1:35-51, I immediately notice:
[35] Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
[36] And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
Once again I see you quoting the author of Gospel John as if he were referring to himself when in fact the narrative is clearly referring to a third party individual who is distinct from the narrator. And this is a baseless assumption which in fact pervades virtually ALL of Christian mythology. You did the very same thing earlier when referencing a passage from Gospel Matthew.
The rest of the passage from John 1 that you cited reads:
[37] And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
[38] Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
[39] He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
[40] One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
[41] He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
[42] And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
[43] The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
[44] Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
[45] Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
[46] And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
[47] Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
[48] Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
[49] Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
[50] Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
[51] And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
And in this is revealed what you have referred to as "eyewitness touches." In other words, elements of the story as provided by the the original tellers of the story. Those early followers clearly depicted has being responsible for spreading the rumor of the "risen" Jesus beginning on the day of Pentecost, as described in Acts chapter 1. The individuals who were busily spreading the story of how the risen corpse of Jesus flew off up into the clouds and disappeared. The individuals who represented the ONLY possible source for this claim. The very individuals who Gospel Matthew indicated the chief priests and Pharisees believed intended to hide the body of Jesus "and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first." (Matt.27:63) And I agree. At least conditionally. These MAY closely represent actual "eyewitness touches." Because for a story to be told and spread about, SOMEONE must have originally begun doing the telling and spreading. And that would be the loyal early followers of Jesus, beginning six weeks after the execution of Jesus. The very individuals who had the means, motive and opportunity to have moved the corpse of Jesus and spread the SO OBVIOUSLY FALSE RUMOR that Jesus rose from the dead and ultimately flew off up into the sky. The earliest followers of Jesus who are the obvious suspects in spreading such a false rumor, and for providing the "eyewitness touches" that you are referring to. And unless you can clearly discount the early followers of Jesus as being responsible for fabricating what is by all reason and logic a perfectly frivolous and unrealistic story, then we have no reason to suppose that your "eyewitness touches" were anything other than tall tales and make believe from the very beginning.
I should also point out that portions of the story, those portions which DO NOT contradict reason, logic and natural law, MAY in fact have some actual relationship to actual events. Much, not all, of the story concerning the ministry of Jesus prior to his execution is plausible, and COULD be factual. It's the unbelievable portions which we have every reason to discount.
Yes, I do.Korah wrote: You continue to act as if source-analysis of the gospels has always been an apologetic trick by Christian believers.
And this difference of opinion concerning "true" Christianity fully explains the three major divisions of Christianity and the hundreds of sub divisions (denominations) which exist under the banner of "Christianity," does it not?Korah wrote: In fact the investigation into sources beneath the gospels has been hated by many Christians as Higher Criticism they despise. The seven sources I highlight (and there are others) were mostly identified by scholars hostile to Christianity. Thus you need to deal with them better than waving them off by your presuppositions.
I have no reason to suppose that the reference in Gospel Mark to an event that occurred at a known date is not sufficient to date the entire work to sometime AFTER the event occurred.Korah wrote: You cite no scholarly sources (in contrast to the four I found in the Gospel of John alone, using the research of the atheist Howard Teeple), instead quoting Wikipedia for the irrelevant issue of whether John Mark wrote any of our canonical gospels (whether Mark or John). For my purposes I use John Mark as the writer of the Passion Diary that I identify from Teeple's analysis of John (18 to 21). (And it may be that "the disciple known to the high priest" was not John Mark--he's just the most likely name identification.) It does not matter for my analysis whether John Mark had any further role in drawing together the eyewitness accounts in Mark preceding the Passion. I attribute two further eyewitness accounts in Mark to the apostles Matthew and Peter. It happens that I do believe that John Mark did have a further role, but my Eyewitness Default does not depend upon this nor whether he must have (by your presuppositions) written after 70 AD. Even by your presuppositions only a few verses would have to be written after 70 AD.
Here's the sort of thing I run into when I reference the seven posts that you refer to.Korah wrote: Like everyone else, you continue to ignore all the seven posts I listed at my #155. The sources are identifiable on purely scholarly evidence, not wishful thinking, so I'll call this the Eyewitness Default until someone can provide evidence against the texts as being most likely just what they appear to be.
Quote Korah: Taken from post 62 of this subject
The Signs Source according to W. Nicol is John 1:35-51;xx. 2:1-11;xx. 4:1-9,x. 16-19,v. 27-30,x. 40,ii. 43-54;x. 5:1-9;x. 6:16-25;xv. 9:1-2,iv. 6-7;vii. 11:1-6,vii. 11-17,vii. 33-44;xv. 12:1-8,xii. 12-15.v. [The Roman numerals indicate the number of times I see eyewitness touches in that set of verses.]
Turning to your first example, John 1:35-51, I immediately notice:
[35] Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
[36] And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
Once again I see you quoting the author of Gospel John as if he were referring to himself when in fact the narrative is clearly referring to a third party individual who is distinct from the narrator. And this is a baseless assumption which in fact pervades virtually ALL of Christian mythology. You did the very same thing earlier when referencing a passage from Gospel Matthew.
The rest of the passage from John 1 that you cited reads:
[37] And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
[38] Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
[39] He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
[40] One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
[41] He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
[42] And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
[43] The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
[44] Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
[45] Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
[46] And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
[47] Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
[48] Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
[49] Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
[50] Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
[51] And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
And in this is revealed what you have referred to as "eyewitness touches." In other words, elements of the story as provided by the the original tellers of the story. Those early followers clearly depicted has being responsible for spreading the rumor of the "risen" Jesus beginning on the day of Pentecost, as described in Acts chapter 1. The individuals who were busily spreading the story of how the risen corpse of Jesus flew off up into the clouds and disappeared. The individuals who represented the ONLY possible source for this claim. The very individuals who Gospel Matthew indicated the chief priests and Pharisees believed intended to hide the body of Jesus "and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first." (Matt.27:63) And I agree. At least conditionally. These MAY closely represent actual "eyewitness touches." Because for a story to be told and spread about, SOMEONE must have originally begun doing the telling and spreading. And that would be the loyal early followers of Jesus, beginning six weeks after the execution of Jesus. The very individuals who had the means, motive and opportunity to have moved the corpse of Jesus and spread the SO OBVIOUSLY FALSE RUMOR that Jesus rose from the dead and ultimately flew off up into the sky. The earliest followers of Jesus who are the obvious suspects in spreading such a false rumor, and for providing the "eyewitness touches" that you are referring to. And unless you can clearly discount the early followers of Jesus as being responsible for fabricating what is by all reason and logic a perfectly frivolous and unrealistic story, then we have no reason to suppose that your "eyewitness touches" were anything other than tall tales and make believe from the very beginning.
I should also point out that portions of the story, those portions which DO NOT contradict reason, logic and natural law, MAY in fact have some actual relationship to actual events. Much, not all, of the story concerning the ministry of Jesus prior to his execution is plausible, and COULD be factual. It's the unbelievable portions which we have every reason to discount.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.Post #220
[Replying to post 218 by Tired of the Nonsense]
Some of your positions (particularly at the start) are so extreme or irrelevant that I don't know quite how to respond to them.
At other points you say things I'm not sure I understand. You seem to be saying that(as) anything written in the third person cannot be eyewitness testimony and (b0 anything written by the early Christians necessarily has to be false (false testimony even though by an eyewitness). Any eyewitnesses of Jesus would not count as eyewitnesses. Looks like you're the one waving things away and just making assertions. And as the writer of the Signs Source (Andrew in my opinion) is not the final author of John, the final version would have to be in the third person.
My post you cite is from the Signs Gospel that most of the source-critics acknowledge. In my Thesis it's not the earliest source not in Aramaic, so disbelieving in it as apologetic material would not dismiss earlier sources in Aramaic, particularly those that don't violate your presupposition against the supernatural. Fortunately, you acknowledge this in your close.
Some of your positions (particularly at the start) are so extreme or irrelevant that I don't know quite how to respond to them.
At other points you say things I'm not sure I understand. You seem to be saying that(as) anything written in the third person cannot be eyewitness testimony and (b0 anything written by the early Christians necessarily has to be false (false testimony even though by an eyewitness). Any eyewitnesses of Jesus would not count as eyewitnesses. Looks like you're the one waving things away and just making assertions. And as the writer of the Signs Source (Andrew in my opinion) is not the final author of John, the final version would have to be in the third person.
My post you cite is from the Signs Gospel that most of the source-critics acknowledge. In my Thesis it's not the earliest source not in Aramaic, so disbelieving in it as apologetic material would not dismiss earlier sources in Aramaic, particularly those that don't violate your presupposition against the supernatural. Fortunately, you acknowledge this in your close.
