Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!

[oldbadger]

The gospel accounts don't agree with each other, or so it seems to me.

For example: Why did the Gospel of Mark tell of the 'Temple clearance' happening in the last week of his mission when the Gospel of John tells us that it happened in the first weeks? ........most strange.

...............and more to come.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #120]

Well, let me put it to you this way; if the Gospels agree on every little detail, much to your desire, would you be any closer to accepting Christ as Lord and Savior?

Probably not.

If the books are damned if they do, damned if they don't..then pointing out and/or arguing particulars is irrelevant.

Not to mention the fact that your accessments of the books are wrong anyway...but that aside.

You raise an interesting point in which I would like to expand upon. (i.e.):

A) If the Gospels agreed 100%, the skeptic could state they all copied one-another.

B) If the Gospels conflict, we can deem them all untrustworthy.

So yes, "damned" either way.

I'm going to disagree here, but of course it depends on what you mean by "100%".

We know with a high degree of certainty that gospel writers were coping each other based on the Synoptic Problem. Word for word cut and paste is a sign of plagiarism. This clearly renders disconnected witnesses as false.

These same writers are also clearly changing some aspects of what they are copying from. This creates the contradictions as they try to spin the story to fit their desired theoology.

If we had real, disconnected, separate witnesses we would expect the story to be generally the same with no major contradictions. However, they would all be using different words to describe the same story. That's not what we have.

What the gospel writers have done is 'damn' themselves by copying some of it word for word, but at the same time purposely changing some details to be completely different.

To summarize:

If the gospels:

1) Copied each other word for word 100%, then we would clearly know they are just the same original author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing.

2) Copied some of it word for word, but changed certain details that create contradictions. We would have a high degree of certainty they originate from a single source author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. These are what we have in the Bible with the synoptic gospels.

3) Did NOT copy word for word any previous/other accounts, but had wildly different stories that contradicted. Although we could be fairly certain they were different authors (assuming textual analysis didn't betray them), we would not know which story to believe. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. We have some of this in the Bible to a degree with some authors other than the synoptic gospels.

4) Did NOT copy word for word any previous/other accounts and there were only minor details that were different that didn't effect the overall story. This is exactly what we expect to see if we have true separate witness accounts. This WOULD lend support to the stories being true. The more disconnected sources that are generally telling the same story the better. This is NOT what we have with the Bible and the reason we can discount the stories pretty easily. While the Bible provides an interesting look at what people thought at the time, what we have is not very convincing to those not already tied to a faith position.

[POI]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #120]

Well, let me put it to you this way; if the Gospels agree on every little detail, much to your desire, would you be any closer to accepting Christ as Lord and Savior?

Probably not.

If the books are damned if they do, damned if they don't..then pointing out and/or arguing particulars is irrelevant.

Not to mention the fact that your accessments of the books are wrong anyway...but that aside.

You raise an interesting point in which I would like to expand upon. (i.e.):

A) If the Gospels agreed 100%, the skeptic could state they all copied one-another.

B) If the Gospels conflict, we can deem them all untrustworthy.

So yes, "damned" either way.

I'm going to disagree here, but of course it depends on what you mean by "100%".

We know with a high degree of certainty that gospel writers were coping each other based on the Synoptic Problem. Word for word cut and paste is a sign of plagiarism. This clearly renders disconnected witnesses as false.

These same writers are also clearly changing some aspects of what they are copying from. This creates the contradictions as they try to spin the story to fit their desired theoology.

If we had real, disconnected, separate witnesses we would expect the story to be generally the same with no major contradictions. However, they would all be using different words to describe the same story. That's not what we have.

What the gospel writers have done is 'damn' themselves by copying some of it word for word, but at the same time purposely changing some details to be completely different.

To summarize:

If the gospels:

1) Copied each other word for word 100%, then we would clearly know they are just the same original author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing.

2) Copied some of it word for word, but changed certain details that create contradictions. We would have a high degree of certainty they originate from a single source author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. These are what we have in the Bible with the synoptic gospels.

3) Did NOT copy word for word any previous/other accounts, but had wildly different stories that contradicted. Although we could be fairly certain they were different authors (assuming textual analysis didn't betray them), we would not know which story to believe. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. We have some of this in the Bible to a degree with some authors other than the synoptic gospels.

4) Did NOT copy word for word any previous/other accounts and there were only minor details that were different that didn't effect the overall story. This is exactly what we expect to see if we have true separate witness accounts. This WOULD lend support to the stories being true. The more disconnected sources that are generally telling the same story the better. This is NOT what we have with the Bible and the reason we can discount the stories pretty easily. While the Bible provides an interesting look at what people thought at the time, what we have is not very convincing to those not already tied to a faith position.

Thank you for this response and I would agree. I was speaking to his argument above, in which (s)he states "would you be any closer to accepting Christ as Lord and Savior?". For myself, even if option (4) was the reality, I think my answer would still be "no". Why? well, the claim is quite "extraordinary". Much like why I do not buy 'independent similar stories' of haunted houses, etc, I guess. I saw no dog in that fight and cared not to elaborate. But yes, you do raise excellent points which can also be used to evaluate the topic of his/hers use of (critical thinking vs spin).

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #120]

Well, let me put it to you this way; if the Gospels agree on every little detail, much to your desire, would you be any closer to accepting Christ as Lord and Savior?

Probably not.

If the books are damned if they do, damned if they don't..then pointing out and/or arguing particulars is irrelevant.

Not to mention the fact that your accessments of the books are wrong anyway...but that aside.

You raise an interesting point in which I would like to expand upon. (i.e.):

A) If the Gospels agreed 100%, the skeptic could state they all copied one-another.

B) If the Gospels conflict, we can deem them all untrustworthy.

So yes, "damned" either way.

I'm going to disagree here, but of course it depends on what you mean by "100%".

We know with a high degree of certainty that gospel writers were coping each other based on the Synoptic Problem. Word for word cut and paste is a sign of plagiarism. This clearly renders disconnected witnesses as false.

These same writers are also clearly changing some aspects of what they are copying from. This creates the contradictions as they try to spin the story to fit their desired theoology.

If we had real, disconnected, separate witnesses we would expect the story to be generally the same with no major contradictions. However, they would all be using different words to describe the same story. That's not what we have.

What the gospel writers have done is 'damn' themselves by copying some of it word for word, but at the same time purposely changing some details to be completely different.

To summarize:

If the gospels:

1) Copied each other word for word 100%, then we would clearly know they are just the same original author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing.

2) Copied some of it word for word, but changed certain details that create contradictions. We would have a high degree of certainty they originate from a single source author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. These are what we have in the Bible with the synoptic gospels.

3) Did NOT copy word for word any previous/other accounts, but had wildly different stories that contradicted. Although we could be fairly certain they were different authors (assuming textual analysis didn't betray them), we would not know which story to believe. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. We have some of this in the Bible to a degree with some authors other than the synoptic gospels.

4) Did NOT copy word for word any previous/other accounts and there were only minor details that were different that didn't effect the overall story. This is exactly what we expect to see if we have true separate witness accounts. This WOULD lend support to the stories being true. The more disconnected sources that are generally telling the same story the better. This is NOT what we have with the Bible and the reason we can discount the stories pretty easily. While the Bible provides an interesting look at what people thought at the time, what we have is not very convincing to those not already tied to a faith position.

Thank you for this response and I would agree. I was speaking to his argument above, in which (s)he states "would you be any closer to accepting Christ as Lord and Savior?". For myself, even if option (4) was the reality, I think my answer would still be "no". Why? well, the claim is quite "extraordinary". Much like why I do not buy 'independent similar stories' of haunted houses, etc, I guess. I saw no dog in that fight and cared not to elaborate. But yes, you do raise excellent points which can also be used to evaluate the topic of his/hers use of (critical thinking vs spin).

I have to add;

If the 4 gospels were like 4) it would still not only be the "extraordinary claim" that would not let people to "accept Christ as Lord and Savior (Sic)" !

Though, the like 4) gospels would be a great help to establish Jesus as a historical person and also would logically lend more credibility even to the extraordinary events.

But the other reason for still not "accept Christ as your Lord and Savior (Sic)" is; Why follow the theological denomination (evangelicals) of a religion (christianity) in raping out of the gospels what they need for the dogma of todays evangelical churches?

Or in other words; Prove The Resurrection and we have that and no more.

Still I concur that 4) gospels or some proven Resurrection would lend enough credibility to any religion sprung from it for that a lot more people would join than do now with the contradictory gospels and a Resurrection that narratively sounds like a joke.

So from an evangelical perspective its NOT "damn if you do, damn if you dont", but better gospels would guarantee better recruitment for their churches!

[SiNcE_1985]

POI I think you missed my actual point(s). The best the lawyer has is to depose later story writers, who gathered, at best, stories from circulating hearsay.

No, the point was; your lawyer example had an inaccuracy that I took delight in correcting.

And what-more, we do not know who these (4) authors were? Which then makes one ask... Since we do not know who they were, we have no idea of their motivations for their publications?

Yeah, just like we don't know who wrote anything in antiquity.

And I doubt you go as hard with anything else in history (as it relates to alleged authorship) as you do with the Gospels.

Which is the taxicab fallacy at it's best.

1) I would agree that scholarly consensus is the Gospels do not contain eyewitness testimony.

Opinions are across the spectrum on this one.

Without deposed and/or verified eyewitnesses to a said 'extraordinary event', the case for a "resurrection" is off to a shaky start.

Even if we had verified witnesses (not my position) of the resurrection, skeptics and unbelievers will still find a way to move the goalpost and weasel themselves out of belief.

Even as old badger admitted in his case.

The stuff that we do have isn't enough, but even if we had what the skeptic claims we dont have, there would be an entirely different slew of objections/reasons why those reasons to believe aren't good enough.

2) You do not agree that the claim of (a human rising from his grave and speaking to people) is not an "extraordinary event"?

Yeah, and I also believe/agree that life arising from nonliving material is an "extraordinary" event.

And if you take away the "G" word, that is exactly what you are left with.

Yet, the atheist seems to have no problem accepting the latter.

1) What year(s) do you believe "Matthew" and "John" were written?

All Gospels and Paul's Epistles were written before 70AD...as the best evidence supports..according to what I gather.

2) Was "John" literate?

Irrelevant. Because it isn't necessarily "the Gospel written by John".

But more like, "the Gospel according to John".

Doesn't matter if he hand-wrote it or not..nevertheless, source of the information comes from the Apostle John.

3) Is it possible we do not know of the actual 4 authors?

Is it possible that we do?

If not, why not? If so, then the above question remains <unanswered> eternally... (i.e.) What was their motivation(s)? Maybe to start a religion?

This is the genetic fallacy.

I fail to see what us not knowing the actual authors have to do with their motivations.

I see no correlation.

POI You find enough 'truthiness' in the 4 Gospels to stand?

Yes.

[POI]

1985 No, the point was; your lawyer example had an inaccuracy that I took delight in correcting.

POI Curious... If you admit "Opinions are across the spectrum on this one", then you have no basis to take delight.

1985 Yeah, just like we don't know who wrote anything in antiquity. And I doubt you go as hard with anything else in history (as it relates to alleged authorship) as you do with the Gospels. Which is the taxicab fallacy at it's best.

POI My observation is not merely one of convenience. If the claim was that Jesus lived, worked as a carpenter, preached, was killed for heresy, and people opted to adopt his worldviews after he died, I doubt I would scrutinize the claim too much. When added claims of 'magic' and the like get added, yes, I'm then going to expect a little more.

1985 Opinions are across the spectrum on this one.

POI I guess the next questions then becomes, what is the source(s) and/or basis for these opinions?

1985 Even if we had verified witnesses (not my position) of the resurrection, skeptics and unbelievers will still find a way to move the goalpost and weasel themselves out of belief. Even as old badger admitted in his case. The stuff that we do have isn't enough, but even if we had what the skeptic claims we dont have, there would be an entirely different slew of objections/reasons why those reasons to believe aren't good enough.

POI I do not disagree. As I told another, we have direct eyewitnesses to "haunted houses" and I'm still leery. But, in this case, we may be dealing with a non-starter regardless. Hence, we may not even HAVE deposed and/or vetted eyewitnesses to begin with..?.

1985 Yeah,

POI Great, then I take 'delight' in demonstrating that I did not present a strawman argument.

1985 I also believe/agree that life arising from nonliving material is an "extraordinary" event. And if you take away the "G" word, that is exactly what you are left with. Yet, the atheist seems to have no problem accepting the latter.

POI Thanks for the redirect. But, EVEN IF deism is demonstrated, how does it follow that we should believe Jesus rose form his grave and went on a resurrection tour, as told by 4 irreconcilably conflicting accounts?

1985 All Gospels and Paul's Epistles were written before 70AD...as the best evidence supports..according to what I gather.

POI 'Best evidence'? What evidence suggests all 4 Gospels were written by 70AD" I'm quite intrigued to know your source(s)?

1985 Irrelevant. Because it isn't necessarily "the Gospel written by John". But more like, "the Gospel according to John". Doesn't matter if he hand-wrote it or not..nevertheless, source of the information comes from the Apostle John.

POI aah... "John" rubberstamped the original, and preserved it, which is what we have today?

1985 Is it possible that we do?

POI Your lack in answering the simple question is quite telling.

1985 This is the genetic fallacy. I fail to see what us not knowing the actual authors have to do with their motivations. I see no correlation.

POI This is another false association. Because you do not immediately get the provided direct correlation, does not mean you get to instead rubberstamp with another 'fallacy'. When we have conflicting accounts of the claimed "supernatural", we must ask what was the motivation, being the storyline does not line up? We have no starting point to evaluate the authors of this extraordinary claim. As I stated above, it's not like it is the claim of a homeless peaceful preacher who was killed for the charges of blasphemy. The claim is also that he rose and spoke to many.

1985 Yes.

POI Why?

[oldbadger]

,............
All Gospels and Paul's Epistles were written before 70AD...as the best evidence supports..according to what I gather.
...............

What 'best evidence' showed that John BarZebedee wrote G-John before 70AD?

What 'best evidence' shows that he wrote any of it?

[TRANSPONDER]

POI I think you missed my actual point(s). The best the lawyer has is to depose later story writers, who gathered, at best, stories from circulating hearsay.

No, the point was; your lawyer example had an inaccuracy that I took delight in correcting.

And what-more, we do not know who these (4) authors were? Which then makes one ask... Since we do not know who they were, we have no idea of their motivations for their publications?

Yeah, just like we don't know who wrote anything in antiquity.

And I doubt you go as hard with anything else in history (as it relates to alleged authorship) as you do with the Gospels.

Which is the taxicab fallacy at it's best.

1) I would agree that scholarly consensus is the Gospels do not contain eyewitness testimony.

Opinions are across the spectrum on this one.

Without deposed and/or verified eyewitnesses to a said 'extraordinary event', the case for a "resurrection" is off to a shaky start.

Even if we had verified witnesses (not my position) of the resurrection, skeptics and unbelievers will still find a way to move the goalpost and weasel themselves out of belief.

Even as old badger admitted in his case.

The stuff that we do have isn't enough, but even if we had what the skeptic claims we dont have, there would be an entirely different slew of objections/reasons why those reasons to believe aren't good enough.

2) You do not agree that the claim of (a human rising from his grave and speaking to people) is not an "extraordinary event"?

Yeah, and I also believe/agree that life arising from nonliving material is an "extraordinary" event.

And if you take away the "G" word, that is exactly what you are left with.

Yet, the atheist seems to have no problem accepting the latter.

1) What year(s) do you believe "Matthew" and "John" were written?

All Gospels and Paul's Epistles were written before 70AD...as the best evidence supports..according to what I gather.

2) Was "John" literate?

Irrelevant. Because it isn't necessarily "the Gospel written by John".

But more like, "the Gospel according to John".

Doesn't matter if he hand-wrote it or not..nevertheless, source of the information comes from the Apostle John.

3) Is it possible we do not know of the actual 4 authors?

Is it possible that we do?

If not, why not? If so, then the above question remains <unanswered> eternally... (i.e.) What was their motivation(s)? Maybe to start a religion?

This is the genetic fallacy.

I fail to see what us not knowing the actual authors have to do with their motivations.

I see no correlation.

POI You find enough 'truthiness' in the 4 Gospels to stand?

Yes.

There looks to me to be a lot of wriggling here. We have fallacies thrown at us, though they are not explained. The Taxicab seems the usual attempt to use Bayes' theorem to excuse the contradictions as 'eyewitness error'. Indeed that is used as an argument for gospel validity as they make a few mistakes instead of copying each other,

But they do copy each other in the synoptics, or at least it very much looks like there there was one original synoptic gospel, which means the different stuff had to be added. Where Matthew and Mark have additional stuff and Luke doesn't (the 'Great Omission' as though that explained anything), that implies material those two used, as Mathew and Luke use material (the sermon) that Mark doesn't have, and use it differently. That (or so I argue as nobody else seems to) suggests a extra Biblical document (I call "Q") that they both added to the gospels in different ways. We already know the Nativities can't both be right (1) and one is invented and the taxicab or Bayes can't make it excusable eyewitness error.

That is why the 'Biggies' debunk the gospels, not the minor details the apologists like to use like one angel or two. That could be a slip of memory, but not whether the women had no idea what happened to Jesus or had actually met him. Just like the nativities, one has to be wrong, and the taxicab won't drive that one away.

Nor do the bias accusations matter. The Bible apologists are biased, too. So what? The validity of the argument on either side matters, not their bias. The you too fallacy also obtains here. That atheists believe in life from nothing does not do a thing to validate the magical events in the gospels.

Finally since the genetic fallacy is tossed at us without explanation, I'll have to try to work out what was meant..... Uh - huh.... .

The genetic fallacy is the act of rejecting or accepting an argument on the basis of its origin rather than its content. Under the genetic fallacy, we judge a claim by paying too much attention to its source or history, even though this criticism is irrelevant to the truth of the claim. As a result, we fail to present a case for why the argument itself lacks merit and to examine the reasons offered for it.

I don't know what that was supposed to be but I guess it is the 'bias' accusation. as a reverse genetic 'because it is the Gospels errors are given more weight than any other book. But as I suggested above, because it is the Bible, credibility is given more weight by the believers than any other book. Perhaps an explanation of how the Genetic fallacy applies might clarify the point. I suggest the 'biggies' contradictions undermine gospel credibility, and bias either way, for or against the source is irrelevant.

But so far it just seems to be wriggling and excuses to avoid the valid argument - the significant errors and contradictions undermine the credibility of the gospels.

(1) as I recall otseng was the only one to have the guts to debate that one and I think he conceded as I recall he dismissed it as 'doesn't affect doctrine, even if it is false' Sure, but it establishes the principle of gospel falsification.

[SiNcE_1985]

POI Curious... If you admit "Opinions are across the spectrum on this one", then you have no basis to take delight.

I do, because the point that I laid out to you had a specific place on the spectrum.

That place? The place which pinpoints what believers believe...as it pertains to Gospel authorship.

POI My observation is not merely one of convenience. If the claim was that Jesus lived, worked as a carpenter, preached, was killed for heresy, and people opted to adopt his worldviews after he died, I doubt I would scrutinize the claim too much. When added claims of 'magic' and the like get added, yes, I'm then going to expect a little more.

I see your point.

So, I am gonna try minimalistic approach with you..and if that doesn't work, then crank up the temp with another approach.

The minimalistic approach is this..

First, do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth, the man (not the Lord, Savior, and risen Messiah) existed?

Yes or no?

That is the basic, fundamental question that sets the foundation for everything that will be discussed from here.

POI I guess the next questions then becomes, what is the source(s) and/or basis for these opinions?

The bulk of all the evidence comes from early Church fathers, beginning with Papias.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm

I know scholars from the left have a lot to say about Papias..

But I'm rocking with Papias.

POI I do not disagree. As I told another, we have direct eyewitnesses to "haunted houses" and I'm still leery. But, in this case, we may be dealing with a non-starter regardless. Hence, we may not even HAVE deposed and/or vetted eyewitnesses to begin with..?

I mean, Luke gave an off-the-cuff account in the preface of his Gospel, alluding to the fact that there were eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-3) of Jesus from whom the information came from and was handed down from.

Luke also stated that his book is an account of his own, just as many before him had given, which IMPLIES that the information in his book will be similar to those who had already given their own accounts.

So, take it from Luke; the original source of the material in his book came from eyewitnesses.

But I predict, of course, that won't be good enough for you.

POI Great, then I take 'delight' in demonstrating that I did not present a strawman argument.

POI Thanks for the redirect. But, EVEN IF deism is demonstrated, how does it follow that we should believe Jesus rose form his grave and went on a resurrection tour, as told by 4 irreconcilably conflicting accounts?

A resurrection tour.

It doesn't.

I was just raising the point that if we are in states of unbelief based on "extraordinary events", then let's not forget to invite abiogenesis to the party.

POI 'Best evidence'? What evidence suggests all 4 Gospels were written by 70AD" I'm quite intrigued to know your source(s)?

Oldbadger asks the same question. I will address this on his post and tag you.

POI aah... "John" rubberstamped the original, and preserved it, which is what we have today?

He probably couldn't read/write, but had a scribe and/or disciple write it on his behalf.

As Charles Barkley once humorously stated..

"I don't have a college degree, but the people that work for me do ".

POI Your lack in answering the simple question is quite telling.

The point was; sure, it is possible that we don't.

Just like it is possible that we do.

Both do/don't possibilities cancels each other out.

It is where the evidence stands...that is where the scale is tipped to one side or the other.

POI This is another false association. Because you do not immediately get the provided direct correlation, does not mean you get to instead rubberstamp with another 'fallacy'.

It was correctly labeled as such..and I say that despite understanding where you are coming from.

But still.

When we have conflicting accounts of the claimed "supernatural", we must ask what was the motivation, being the storyline does not line up?

You wanna know what really doesn't add up?

1. They copied from each other.

2. Their stories don't add up.

Talk about conflicting.

Doesn't get any more conflicting than that.

We have no starting point to evaluate the authors of this extraordinary claim.

"We" who?

"We" believers do.

As I stated above, it's not like it is the claim of a homeless peaceful preacher who was killed for the charges of blasphemy. The claim is also that he rose and spoke to many.

The claim is also that inanimate matter began to come alive, and developed the ability to "speak" to many...and other independent pieces of inanimate matter did the same thing, and began to speak to it.

POI Why?

Remember that Earth Wind & Fire Song: Reasons?

You ask "why".

The reasons, the reasons that we're here...the reasons that we feel our Savior rose...from the graveeee. Ohhh.

You have to be familiar with the song to know what I did there lol.

[POI]

1985 The place which pinpoints what believers believe...as it pertains to Gospel authorship.

POI

1985 I see your point. So, I am gonna try minimalistic approach with you..and if that doesn't work, then crank up the temp with another approach. The minimalistic approach is this.. First, do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth, the man (not the Lord, Savior, and risen Messiah) existed?
Yes or no?

POI Yes.

1985 The bulk of all the evidence comes from early Church fathers, beginning with Papias. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm I know scholars from the left have a lot to say about Papias.. But I'm rocking with Papias.

POI Is it possible that here lies your problem? Talk about motivation. See below, when I mention the video you skipped. Further, I'm curious what the 'left' says about Papias?

1985 I mean, Luke gave an off-the-cuff account in the preface of his Gospel, alluding to the fact that there were eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-3) of Jesus from whom the information came from and was handed down from. Luke also stated that his book is an account of his own, just as many before him had given, which IMPLIES that the information in his book will be similar to those who had already given their own accounts. So, take it from Luke; the original source of the material in his book came from eyewitnesses. But I predict, of course, that won't be good enough for you.

POI "Luke's" account, however, is an untrustworthy account, which then renders "Luke's" account a non-starter. I know you do not like videos. But there was a specific reason why I furnished it for you. And that reason was to provide you with the many listed irreconcilable differences, in a nice and neat 15-minute package, without having to spend way more time trying to re-locate all of them myself. But, as I mentioned prior, as you now predict "it won't be good enough for POI", I predict what I stated prior. Which is, the term critical thinking will be used in place of the real term, which is spin. But, we shall see?

1985 A resurrection tour.

POI I know, right? Some educated and grown adults still believing a man floated around and spoke to people for a bit, after rotting in a grave for a couple of days.... It is quite comical. But I guess we all harbor cognitive dissonances. I, myself for instance, should be a vegan, but I like meat too much. But I digress.

1985 I was just raising the point that if we are in states of unbelief based on "extraordinary events", then let's not forget to invite abiogenesis to the party.

POI Are you then saying it is only rational to reject the claim(s) for a risen Jesus if they also reject the claims for abiogenesis and evolutionary biology?

1985 Oldbadger asks the same question. I will address this on his post and tag you.

POI I asked before him. I guess I'll be waiting for 'evidence' which suggests the 4 Gospels were published before the said "eyewitnesses", who could be around to verify their authorship, died...

1985 He probably couldn't read/write, but had a scribe and/or disciple write it on his behalf.

POI Did this scribe write it before or after "John" was long gone, and/or dead? My point being, how do we know this scribe got his info from a direct witness(es)? The author is anonymous, and the date is not secured. Is it merely because the book says so?

1985 The point was; sure, it is possible that we don't. Just like it is possible that we do. Both do/don't possibilities cancels each other out.

POI You act as if both positions stand upon equal footing. They don't. Does the 'evidence' more-so suggest direct deposed eyewitnesses to this claim of the "extraordinary", or not? Like I stated prior, with haunted house claims, without eyewitnesses, in which we can depose, the claim then has no legs. It has no real starting point. Why? Such sightings are based solely upon a one-time claimed event which leaves little else behind for verification. If no one really saw it first-hand, but merely report, through circulating oral tradition alone, that such an event took place, then why should any logical and reasonable human decide to apply faith to such a collection of claims, manufactured from hearsay? My vote is then for indoctrination leading to specific conformation bias, and/or cognitive dissonance, and/or evolutionary processes which propel humans to apply possible type 1 errors.

1985 It is where the evidence stands...that is where the scale is tipped to one side or the other.

POI What 'evidence'?

1985 You wanna know what really doesn't add up? 1. They copied from each other. 2. Their stories don't add up. Talk about conflicting. Doesn't get any more conflicting than that.

POI Ironically enough, the video addresses this. I'm also going to attach a response from benchwarmer (post 131):

To summarize:

If the gospels:

1) Copied each other word for word 100%, then we would clearly know they are just the same original author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing.

2) Copied some of it word for word, but changed certain details that create contradictions. We would have a high degree of certainty they originate from a single source author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. These are what we have in the Bible with the synoptic gospels.

3) Did NOT copy word for word any previous/other accounts, but had wildly different stories that contradicted. Although we could be fairly certain they were different authors (assuming textual analysis didn't betray them), we would not know which story to believe. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. We have some of this in the Bible to a degree with some authors other than the synoptic gospels.

4) Did NOT copy word for word any previous/other accounts and there were only minor details that were different that didn't effect the overall story. This is exactly what we expect to see if we have true separate witness accounts. This WOULD lend support to the stories being true. The more disconnected sources that are generally telling the same story the better. This is NOT what we have with the Bible and the reason we can discount the stories pretty easily. While the Bible provides an interesting look at what people thought at the time, what we have is not very convincing to those not already tied to a faith position.

1985 "We" who? "We" believers do.

POI Scholarly consensus. They are deemed anonymous. This becomes more relevant when one is to rely upon claims of the 'extraordinary.' Not instead events in which we have many other means to verify. Identification and eyewitness attestation carry more weight in specific claims.

1985 The claim is also that inanimate matter began to come alive, and developed the ability to "speak" to many...and other independent pieces of inanimate matter did the same thing, and began to speak to it.

POI You keep bringing up abiogenesis. Again, am I only consistent to reject the claims of a rising Jesus IF I also reject 'abiogenesis'? I have not studied abiogenesis enough to plant my flag there and present a position for or against it. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with why I do not trust the 4 Gospels. Kapeesh?

1985 You ask "why".

POI It is your right not to answer the simple question.

[SiNcE_1985]

What 'best evidence' showed that John BarZebedee wrote G-John before 70AD?

What 'best evidence' shows that he wrote any of it?

Two separate questions. Let's deal with the dating of the book(s) first.

POI 'Best evidence'? What evidence suggests all 4 Gospels were written by 70AD" I'm quite intrigued to know your source(s)?

I'm glad you guys asked this question because it allows me to break down an elegant case as to the dating of, not only the Gospels, but Paul's Epistles as well.

To make the case, well use evidence based on..

1. An historical event.
2. Internal Biblical evidence (1)
3. Internal Biblical evidence (2)

Let's begin..

1. Historical event: The destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple.

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

This occured in 70AD.

So, 70AD makes as a placeholder, a time stamp as we piece together everything else.

This brings me to my next piece of evidence..

2. Internal Biblical evidence (1): Jesus prophesized that Jerusalem and the the Temple will be destroyed (during his end times prophecy in Mark 13 and also in Matthew & Luke).

Had the book been written after 70AD, the books would have mentioned this fulfillment of prophecy, as they did (particularly, Matthew) in the many other cases when Jesus fulfilled a prophecy.

The books did not mention the destruction of Jerusalem/Temple simply because they were written before those events had taken place.

And to further back up this point..

3. Internal Biblical evidence (2): We were speaking of John in particular...check out John 5:2..

2 Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda[a] and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.

"Now there is in Jerusalem.."

Keyword: Is.

Present tense.

A statement that wouldn't be true after 70AD.

Which means, it was written prior to 70AD.
.....

So now, you can just work backwards from 70AD.

Paul died in 67AD.

We know Paul is apparently still alive when Acts was written, as Acts doesn't mention the death of Paul.

Moot point?

Well, the death of Stephen is mentioned (Acts 7), so why not Paul?

It doesn't even mention his trial, because he was in the process of appealing to Caesar (Acts 28:19).

So, if it makes sense to date the book of Acts prior to Paul's death in 67AD, then we would have to date Luke's Gospel even earlier, since Luke is a prequel to Acts.

So, both Luke and Acts must have been written between 60-65AD.

Which means that Mark would have to be written between 55-60AD..since Luke allegedly used Mark as a source.

Matthew also allegedly used Mark as a source, so Matthew must have been written between 60-65AD.

John's Gospel is traditionally looked at as the lastest Gospel written, but no matter how late, it cannot said with good reason to have been written prior to 70AD.

And of course Paul's Epistles predate ALL the Gospels so his books must have been written between 45-55AD.

That is the case.
.....

Also, I am certainly aware of the extensive, yet interesting commentaries of Mark 13 as it involves interpretation of end times prophecy and such.

Opinions vary, I know.