Intention of the gospel writers

ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Intention of the gospel writers

I would to know what the intentions of the writers of the gospels and epistles were if this stuff wasnt real than why is it written the way it is.

I dont beileve its true but i cant imagine how people could make this stuff up. Are the books we have know the way they were always written and why are they written the way they are like when jesus does miracles and the priests say he is a devil. Obviously it didnt happen so what was the stories purpose.

Also is the story of lazarus a complete fabrication it has to be people dont come back from the dead so who made it up and when.

Im also suspcious of pauls vision that has to be a fabrication to because if he hated christians then why would he have a visoin of jesus obvioulsy he didnt know what he looked like was paul really making this all up with some self serving purpose in mind.

This stuff really frustrates me because i want to know how these stuff can be made up it doesnt happen today anymore.

Ive also read The Evolutionof god and find it really interested but hard to follow.

Basically I want to know what it looked like say when someone was writting the book of exodus for example how could someone write this if it didnt happen and what was the intention.

Also i realize my writing struture is horrible.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:I cant

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

I cant stand it when people say that jesus was trying to show religion was a bad thing.

Can someone explain to me why christians think this it obvisouly has to do with him disagreeing with the scribes and pharisees.

Like not keeping the sabbath and not stoning that person.

What is a more rational explanation then there cherry picking.

It seems like he was more insterested in a cult.

If Jesus existed, he probably wasn't that interested in forming a cult. He had no problem with being Jewish. Nor did his apostles.

Paul, on the other hand, really wanted to build a religion with himself as its head. Yes, Paul made Jesus an object of worship but he wanted to make sure that he was the only source of understanding the faith.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
when I say jesus i mean the

when I say jesus i mean the words written about him in the bible not rather he was real or not.

Does someone know a good site where i can get a good idea the order the books of the bible were written and what the objective was at the time.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:when I

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

when I say jesus i mean the words written about him in the bible not rather he was real or not.

Does someone know a good site where i can get a good idea the order the books of the bible were written and what the objective was at the time.

I understand what you're saying but that's the crux of the problem.

Theists believe Jesus is real and is the son of God based on the words of the Bible.

I and others dispute the existence and godhood of Jesus based on those same words.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:when I

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

when I say jesus i mean the words written about him in the bible not rather he was real or not.

Does someone know a good site where i can get a good idea the order the books of the bible were written and what the objective was at the time.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Im guessing the book of job

Im guessing the book of job is entirely fiction obviously


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
If you want my own thoughts

If you want my own thoughts as to why they did what they did and why they chose to use some books and avoid others, it's complicated but I'll go with what I can. One thing to remember is that it has been many years since Jesus allegedly walked the earth and so many of the documents were secondhand. There were also issues where apocrypha could cause confusion or argument. Some texts talked about Jesus as a child, others focused on things like gnostic belief and seemed closer to mystery religions. Some things were quite popular at the time, even being referenced directly and indirectly by the new testament, but were considered to be inappropriate for adding because they reasoned that if they were truly meant to be a part of the doctrines that they would be set among them, not considered 'apocrypha' the most common example of course being the good ol' book of Enoch. The reason for a general use text could be anything from trying to create a 'pure' religion and avoid misinterpretations to a method of consolidating power. The thing is this, even at the meetings they basically decided what books were meant to be used by a show of hands. That might sound fine, but please consider here, if this is literally supposed to be the 'inerrant word of the living God' deciding by vote seems a bit off. Why not ask for signs? I mean this book was supposed to be the method of guidance for all peoples so one would think that an almighty all loving being might do something noticeable.


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Hey has anyone heard about

Hey has anyone heard about Assumption of Moses a book that jude mentions in the new testament I find it odd because in going with the view that new testament contradicts the old testeament by changing the theology why does it mention moses and the devil?


Tadgh
atheist
Tadgh's picture
Posts: 125
Joined: 2010-08-29
User is offlineOffline
I have no proof or evidence,

I have no proof or evidence, but I have always suspected that people who write Mythologies meant to be believe by large groups of people usually write them for political reasons.

To unify their respective nations under a particular type of Theological banner.

Power... and money. Pretty much says it all.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:Hey has

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Hey has anyone heard about Assumption of Moses a book that jude mentions in the new testament I find it odd because in going with the view that new testament contradicts the old testeament by changing the theology why does it mention moses and the devil?

I wasn't aware of any view that the NT contradicts the OT, in any consistent way.

The general view is that there are definitely inconsistencies between the two, maybe some explicit contradictions, depending on interpretation, but no-one would be surprised that there are many, many things that are quite consistent.

Where did you get the impression that anyone held the strange view that you would NOT expect to see any such agreements??

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Hey has anyone heard about Assumption of Moses a book that jude mentions in the new testament I find it odd because in going with the view that new testament contradicts the old testeament by changing the theology why does it mention moses and the devil?

I wasn't aware of any view that the NT contradicts the OT, in any consistent way.

The general view is that there are definitely inconsistencies between the two, maybe some explicit contradictions, depending on interpretation, but no-one would be surprised that there are many, many things that are quite consistent.

Where did you get the impression that anyone held the strange view that you would NOT expect to see any such agreements??

Because they were written by different people at different times so they had there agendas.

For example notice how hell isnt in the old testament punishments were death and also in the old there is no talk of being persucuted as long as your keep the commandments god will protect you but in the new testament it says it is good to be presucated for jesus sake.

the devil is a tool in christianity like the whole temptation thing but this isnt apart of old testament theology not that all of the old testament is consistent.

So I was hoping someone could debunk what im talking about or maybe The book of jude is mistaken.


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:ymalmsteen887

TGBaker wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

when I say jesus i mean the words written about him in the bible not rather he was real or not.

Does someone know a good site where i can get a good idea the order the books of the bible were written and what the objective was at the time.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

 

Is their any bais in the links you gave me.

From what I read it seems like its trying not to offend believers I want something that shows it for what it is superstition

The zietgiest movie about christianity I cant tell whats fact and what seems to be speculation.


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
This is why I started this

This is why I started this thread Im trying to figure out how to picture the events realisticly for example you know the Tomb of Joshua" at kifl hares was joshua real and he obvisouly didnt have god helping him out so how much of these stories is true from what I can tell almost none of it.

I would like to know which stories are grounded in reality and which are pure fiction e.g. the sotry of samson and his hair,  joseph being king of egypt ,abraham existing, daniel in the lions den, david and goliath, david having that solider killed and taking his wife and then god killing the kid she would have, and all the prophets at the end of the old testament.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Hey has anyone heard about Assumption of Moses a book that jude mentions in the new testament I find it odd because in going with the view that new testament contradicts the old testeament by changing the theology why does it mention moses and the devil?

I wasn't aware of any view that the NT contradicts the OT, in any consistent way.

The general view is that there are definitely inconsistencies between the two, maybe some explicit contradictions, depending on interpretation, but no-one would be surprised that there are many, many things that are quite consistent.

Where did you get the impression that anyone held the strange view that you would NOT expect to see any such agreements??

Because they were written by different people at different times so they had there agendas.

For example notice how hell isnt in the old testament punishments were death and also in the old there is no talk of being persucuted as long as your keep the commandments god will protect you but in the new testament it says it is good to be presucated for jesus sake.

the devil is a tool in christianity like the whole temptation thing but this isnt apart of old testament theology not that all of the old testament is consistent.

So I was hoping someone could debunk what im talking about or maybe The book of jude is mistaken.

They were written by different authors, but the writers of the NT had the OT available to them, and would have been expected to make their writings reasonably consistent with it. They of course added a lot of stuff, and changed stuff, but there was nothing to stop the writers referring to something in the OT if it suited their 'agenda'. I don't see any problem here.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Hey has anyone heard about Assumption of Moses a book that jude mentions in the new testament I find it odd because in going with the view that new testament contradicts the old testeament by changing the theology why does it mention moses and the devil?

I wasn't aware of any view that the NT contradicts the OT, in any consistent way.

The general view is that there are definitely inconsistencies between the two, maybe some explicit contradictions, depending on interpretation, but no-one would be surprised that there are many, many things that are quite consistent.

Where did you get the impression that anyone held the strange view that you would NOT expect to see any such agreements??

Because they were written by different people at different times so they had there agendas.

For example notice how hell isnt in the old testament punishments were death and also in the old there is no talk of being persucuted as long as your keep the commandments god will protect you but in the new testament it says it is good to be presucated for jesus sake.

the devil is a tool in christianity like the whole temptation thing but this isnt apart of old testament theology not that all of the old testament is consistent.

So I was hoping someone could debunk what im talking about or maybe The book of jude is mistaken.

They were written by different authors, but the writers of the NT had the OT available to them, and would have been expected to make their writings reasonably consistent with it. They of course added a lot of stuff, and changed stuff, but there was nothing to stop the writers referring to something in the OT if it suited their 'agenda'. I don't see any problem here.

Its kinda like how the OT prohecies dont really portrrait jesus or the entire idea of the gospels in general.

The book Im talking about mentions something new that happened in moses time and apparently this is a real book but that make sense considering that christian theology didnt exist yet.

Im sure you know that the trinity is nowhere to be found in the old testament so if paul said moses was guided by the holy spirit he would be making it up since that would be a fairly recent idea.


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Basicly they didnt bother to

Basicly they didnt bother to retcon the old testament to better fit the new testament just like there are inconsistentcies between the star wars trilogies because lucas got new ideas that werent in the forst movies but couldnt change them so you jsut have to imagine them when you watch the old ones.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:This is

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

This is why I started this thread Im trying to figure out how to picture the events realisticly for example you know the Tomb of Joshua" at kifl hares was joshua real and he obvisouly didnt have god helping him out so how much of these stories is true from what I can tell almost none of it.

I would like to know which stories are grounded in reality and which are pure fiction e.g. the sotry of samson and his hair,  joseph being king of egypt ,abraham existing, daniel in the lions den, david and goliath, david having that solider killed and taking his wife and then god killing the kid she would have, and all the prophets at the end of the old testament.

 

Samson - fiction

Joseph as king of Egypt - fiction

Abraham - don't know, no existing records of one particular nomadic goat herder from the era he supposedly lived in

Daniel and lions - fiction

David and Goliath - fiction

David taking someone else's wife - don't know.  We only have one historical reference to David other than the bible - a pottery shard that has the words "King David" on it but no other information about this king from any other non-biblical source.  But wife stealing was pretty common, so it is probably safe to say somebody who lived in that area at that time stole someone's wife.  And we can also say some infant probably died - infants died at a rate of 90% in the first year of life during medieval times, so they most likely died near as often for those nomadic goat herders during the bronze/iron age.

There has been a lot of writing on the historicity of the bible - OT and NT.  Because a lot of people want to justify their religious beliefs.  It is difficult to find someone who is unbiased.  Start with Israel Finkelstein.  I have referenced his books before.  He is an archeologist and he has done a lot of research but not from the viewpoint of justifying any faith.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Not

jcgadfly wrote:
Not necessarily but it does cast doubt on the event when the only people writing about an event had no contact with these eyewitnesses.

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and ministry and Mark got his information from Simon Peter who was one of the 12 disciples. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:
Your dates are wrong. From wikipedia:

  • Mark: c. 68–73,[100] c 65-70[3]
  • Matthew: c. 70–100.[100] c 80-85.[3]
  • Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[100] c 80-85[3]
  • John: c 90-100,[3] c. 90–110,[101] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition

I know that John AT Robinson likes to date them before the fall of Jerusalem but facts and textual criticism don't bear that out.

There are many others who date them before 70 A.D. as well. Actually the evidence points to them all being written before the fall. Liberal theologians have argued for a latter dating in an attempt to discredit and cast doubt upon the content and authenticity of the Gospels. 

"There are scholars who believe the Gospel of Matthew was written as early as ten to twelve years after the death of Christ. Those who hold to this earlier dating of Matthew believe he first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and then it was later translated into Greek. One of the evidences of this earlier dating of Matthew’s Gospel is that early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius recorded that Matthew first wrote his gospel for Jewish believers while he was still in Palestine. In fact Eusebius, (a bishop of Caesarea and known as the father of church history), reported that Matthew wrote his Gospel before he left Palestine to preach in other lands, which Eusebius says happened about 12 years after the death of Christ. Some scholars believe that this would place the writing of Matthew as early as A.D. 40-45 and as late as A.D. 55. " 

 

The bottom line is this—whether the Gospels were written soon after the death of Christ, or not until 30 years after his death, does not really matter, because their accuracy and authority does not rest on when they were written but on what they are.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
Written by or under the direction of eyewitnesses? In a language that none of the eyewitnesses spoke or understood? The Gospels were written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic.

All the gospel writers spoke and understood Greek. Were is your evidence that they didn't.

I guess you just want to discount the Hellenistic Jews and that they even existed?

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Not necessarily but it does cast doubt on the event when the only people writing about an event had no contact with these eyewitnesses.

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and ministry and Mark got his information from Simon Peter who was one of the 12 disciples. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:
Your dates are wrong. From wikipedia:

  • Mark: c. 68–73,[100] c 65-70[3]
  • Matthew: c. 70–100.[100] c 80-85.[3]
  • Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[100] c 80-85[3]
  • John: c 90-100,[3] c. 90–110,[101] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition

I know that John AT Robinson likes to date them before the fall of Jerusalem but facts and textual criticism don't bear that out.

There are many others who date them before 70 A.D. as well. Actually the evidence points to them all being written before the fall. Liberal theologians have argued for a latter dating in an attempt to discredit and cast doubt upon the content and authenticity of the Gospels. 

"There are scholars who believe the Gospel of Matthew was written as early as ten to twelve years after the death of Christ. Those who hold to this earlier dating of Matthew believe he first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and then it was later translated into Greek. One of the evidences of this earlier dating of Matthew’s Gospel is that early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius recorded that Matthew first wrote his gospel for Jewish believers while he was still in Palestine. In fact Eusebius, (a bishop of Caesarea and known as the father of church history), reported that Matthew wrote his Gospel before he left Palestine to preach in other lands, which Eusebius says happened about 12 years after the death of Christ. Some scholars believe that this would place the writing of Matthew as early as A.D. 40-45 and as late as A.D. 55. " 

 

The bottom line is this—whether the Gospels were written soon after the death of Christ, or not until 30 years after his death, does not really matter, because their accuracy and authority does not rest on when they were written but on what they are.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
Written by or under the direction of eyewitnesses? In a language that none of the eyewitnesses spoke or understood? The Gospels were written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic.

All the gospel writers spoke and understood Greek. Were is your evidence that they didn't.

I guess you just want to discount the Hellenistic Jews and that they even existed?

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm

Indeed the gospel writers wrote and understood Greek. The problem that you have is that the guys who wrote the gospels were not the disciples who traveled with Jesus. They were completely different people. The Bible itself also stands against the disciples knowing Greek because they made such a big deal about them being uneducated men. What else can you do when your own holy book calls you a liar?

I don't want to discount the Hellenistic Jews - none of them traveled with Jesus so they don't help you either.

The liberal theologians want to discredit and cast doubt upon the content and authenticity of the Gospels? You mean the way they bring up that nasty evidence and textual criticism that you and your conservative theologians don't bother to bring. Never mind the Jewish theologians and scholars that see no basis for the Godhood of Jesus that was bestowed upon him by Paul. Most of them also look at scripture and note that Jesus doesn't match the Messiah claims the gospel writers (again, converts of Paul and not disciples of Jesus) wrote.

While I agree that some of the scholars date the Gospels earlier they are neither the consensus nor do they have evidence to support them. I'd like to see a link for your quote also.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Not necessarily but it does cast doubt on the event when the only people writing about an event had no contact with these eyewitnesses.

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and ministry and Mark got his information from Simon Peter who was one of the 12 disciples. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:
Your dates are wrong. From wikipedia:

  • Mark: c. 68–73,[100] c 65-70[3]
  • Matthew: c. 70–100.[100] c 80-85.[3]
  • Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[100] c 80-85[3]
  • John: c 90-100,[3] c. 90–110,[101] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition

I know that John AT Robinson likes to date them before the fall of Jerusalem but facts and textual criticism don't bear that out.

There are many others who date them before 70 A.D. as well. Actually the evidence points to them all being written before the fall. Liberal theologians have argued for a latter dating in an attempt to discredit and cast doubt upon the content and authenticity of the Gospels. 

"There are scholars who believe the Gospel of Matthew was written as early as ten to twelve years after the death of Christ. Those who hold to this earlier dating of Matthew believe he first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and then it was later translated into Greek. One of the evidences of this earlier dating of Matthew’s Gospel is that early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius recorded that Matthew first wrote his gospel for Jewish believers while he was still in Palestine. In fact Eusebius, (a bishop of Caesarea and known as the father of church history), reported that Matthew wrote his Gospel before he left Palestine to preach in other lands, which Eusebius says happened about 12 years after the death of Christ. Some scholars believe that this would place the writing of Matthew as early as A.D. 40-45 and as late as A.D. 55. " 

 

The bottom line is this—whether the Gospels were written soon after the death of Christ, or not until 30 years after his death, does not really matter, because their accuracy and authority does not rest on when they were written but on what they are.

 

 

Papias mentions that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew.  The gospel attributed to Matthew was written in Greek and dependent on the Gospel of Mark and copies over 612 of Mark's 662 verses The author of Matthew also used a sayings document ( Q ) something an eyewitness would hardly need have done. Eusibeus is writing in the late third early fourth century.  The early church fathers speak of the Gospel of Hebrews not Matthew. Jerome reflects debate during his period as to whether the apostle Matthew wrote the Greek gospel called Matthew. Jerome translated a gospel called the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites into Greek and stated that many think it was the real Gospel of Matthew. There is NO ACCURACY IN THE GOSPELS to speak.  The contradictions between the synoptics are often intentional doctrinal redactions.. WHAT THEY ARE are non-historical propaganda to recruit people into each gospel's particular version of Christianity.  The later their writing the more lofty the theological and miracle claims.  That is the bottom line.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Lee2216

jcgadfly wrote:
Indeed the gospel writers wrote and understood Greek. The problem that you have is that the guys who wrote the gospels were not the disciples who traveled with Jesus. They were completely different people. The Bible itself also stands against the disciples knowing Greek because they made such a big deal about them being uneducated men.

Jc, I think your theory is falling apart on you bro! In your first sentence you state "Indeed the gospel writers wrote and understood Greek." Then, in your last sentence you state "The Bible itself stands against the disciples knowing Greek."

Which one is it? Your statements are contradictory. The Bible doesn't say they were uneducated in the sense that they didn't know how to read or write. Matthew was a tax collector. There was one skill a tax collector did posses. To be able to read and write. The daily tasks of a Galilean tax collector required him to collect, copy and record information, probably in multiple languages. Luke was a doctor so it would be hard to assume that he were uneducated. Actually all 12 disciples traveled with Jesus (Luke 8:1-2)

 

jcgadfly wrote:
While I agree that some of the scholars date the Gospels earlier they are neither the consensus nor do they have evidence to support them. I'd like to see a link for your quote also.

Consensus has no over-riding factor when it comes to evidence or truth. Consensus is just a majority OPINION. The fact that none of the gospels mentions the fall of Jerusalem is EVIDENCE that they were all completed before 70 A.D.

I gave you a link above about the Hellenistic Jews but you didn't want to look at it. I'm not going to do your research for you so you can make ad hominem's. Do your own research!

 

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Indeed the gospel writers wrote and understood Greek. The problem that you have is that the guys who wrote the gospels were not the disciples who traveled with Jesus. They were completely different people. The Bible itself also stands against the disciples knowing Greek because they made such a big deal about them being uneducated men.

Jc, I think your theory is falling apart on you bro! In your first sentence you state "Indeed the gospel writers wrote and understood Greek." Then, in your last sentence you state "The Bible itself stands against the disciples knowing Greek."

Which one is it? Your statements are contradictory. The Bible doesn't say they were uneducated in the sense that they didn't know how to read or write. Matthew was a tax collector. There was one skill a tax collector did posses. To be able to read and write. The daily tasks of a Galilean tax collector required him to collect, copy and record information, probably in multiple languages. Luke was a doctor so it would be hard to assume that he were uneducated. Actually all 12 disciples traveled with Jesus (Luke 8:1-2)

 

jcgadfly wrote:
While I agree that some of the scholars date the Gospels earlier they are neither the consensus nor do they have evidence to support them. I'd like to see a link for your quote also.

Consensus has no over-riding factor when it comes to evidence or truth. Consensus is just a majority OPINION. The fact that none of the gospels mentions the fall of Jerusalem is EVIDENCE that they were all completed before 70 A.D.

I gave you a link above about the Hellenistic Jews but you didn't want to look at it. I'm not going to do your research for you so you can make ad hominem's. Do your own research!

 

 

Again since you seemed to have intentionally missed that first part. The guys who wrote the gospels were not the disciples. all you have to claim that they are is church tradition. The Bible and textual criticism stands against the direct followers of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) writing the gospels.

Again, Hellenistic Jews did not travel with Jesus. There was no need to follow the link because it didn't help your case (just because the OT was written in Greek does not make the gospel writers disciples of Jesus) . Or are you claiming that the gospel writers were Hellenized Jews instead of the disciples who supposedly walked with Jesus?

Consensus is based on evidence which is overwhelmingly on my side as you haven't brought any to support your position. The fact that none of the gospels mentioned the fall of Jerusalem could also be that it really had nothing to do with the story they were telling or the religion they were selling. It does nothing to date the books.

Looks like you have the theory that's falling apart "bro". Now, are you going to bring evidence to support your case or are you going to continue to be a dishonest Christian (but I repeat myself)?

Oh and thank you for the support, TGBaker.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Oh and thank

jcgadfly wrote:

Oh and thank you for the support, TGBaker.

You're welcome "bro".  I have been debating this with my ex-seminary and bible college classmates for 32 years as well as other Christians.  You can quote history, historical and textual criticism until you are blue in the face but little I have found that works  aprt from actually showing the conflicts of one gospel with another and showing the authors reason for changing or making up "history". It is even more amazing when you try and show that trinitarianism is a late third and early fourth century product not found in the New Testament.  I have a friend that is a philosopher who has created a working defense of faith without belief.  How can you dialog with a position like that?

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:jcgadfly

TGBaker wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Oh and thank you for the support, TGBaker.

You're welcome "bro".  I have been debating this with my ex-seminary and bible college classmates for 32 years as well as other Christians.  You can quote history, historical and textual criticism until you are blue in the face but little I have found that works  aprt from actually showing the conflicts of one gospel with another and showing the authors reason for changing or making up "history". It is even more amazing when you try and show that trinitarianism is a late third and early fourth century product not found in the New Testament.  I have a friend that is a philosopher who has created a working defense of faith without belief.  How can you dialog with a position like that?

I've come to the conclusion that you can't reach some people. I tend to do this forum stuff for the people who are in the middle and are open to information.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
The stuff about when the

The stuff about when the gospels where written doesnt really persusade me into believeing or not. What convinces me is how ridicoulus, immoral, and pointless it is.

So for me I am trying to understand the ideas behind what they were saying the more info I have the more I can put it off as myth.

Its like what you said about joseph being fiction if thats fiction by default abraham has to be fiction or am I missing somethin.

I have a tendency to second guess this stuff I really wish I could think about the bible like I think about greek mythology which is not at all.

So thats what I am doing here isnt this what you guys do help people get over their indoctratnation I just want to leave it behind.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:The

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

The stuff about when the gospels where written doesnt really persusade me into believeing or not. What convinces me is how ridicoulus, immoral, and pointless it is.

So for me I am trying to understand the ideas behind what they were saying the more info I have the more I can put it off as myth.

Its like what you said about joseph being fiction if thats fiction by default abraham has to be fiction or am I missing somethin.

I have a tendency to second guess this stuff I really wish I could think about the bible like I think about greek mythology which is not at all.

So thats what I am doing here isnt this what you guys do help people get over their indoctratnation I just want to leave it behind.

 

Just a note though, something seeming absurd does not mean it isn't true.  Relativity, quantum physics, some aspects of evolution, professional magic tricks....all examples of things that are not intuitive.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Well given the nature of

Well given the nature of what we are talking about I would say yeah that is good enough reason.

Also I would like to have info to keep my anxiety from comgin back like what is the one thing that shows christianity to be false that when ever im having doubts I can just remember this


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:Well

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Well given the nature of what we are talking about I would say yeah that is good enough reason.

Also I would like to have info to keep my anxiety from comgin back like what is the one thing that shows christianity to be false that when ever im having doubts I can just remember this

 

I think seeing how the gospels were composed will show you that the claims of Christianity are based upon fiction. I posted some good articles from Wikipedia a few posts back for you. Christology also rests upon a mistake. Christology is the study of the function of the Christ... he died not just for original sin but to restore the fallen order of the cosmos. No fall no valid Christology. There is no fall of humankind ( eviction from Eden) if you understand evolution to be true.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
I dont understand why the

I dont understand why the new testament introduces thought crime its not like they could every find out if you thought certain stuff.

Ive heard people say this would get more followers but I would like to know some other reasons

 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:I dont

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

I dont understand why the new testament introduces thought crime its not like they could every find out if you thought certain stuff.

Ive heard people say this would get more followers but I would like to know some other reasons

 

 

It is an attempt to control behavior. For example, "If you've looked at a woman with lust you have already commited adultery in your heart", Jesus.  Why say that? God knows all your thought, you're thinking about doing it with that women.  Then the belief God knows it...knows what i am thinking... oops no libido.  God knows you're coveting, oops no theft.  God knows I'm angry... oops guilt...no violence or murder.  It is simply the primitive fear tactic methodology of primitive religions.  It reinforces the human morality already there but replaces the natural chemical and neural based empathy with dogmatic command, guilt and fear.  You don't do something bad because you know its bad as a result you do ggod on a selfish basis because you are afraid of being tortured eternally with sulphur and brimstone in Satan's amusement park.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:ymalmsteen887

TGBaker wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

I dont understand why the new testament introduces thought crime its not like they could every find out if you thought certain stuff.

Ive heard people say this would get more followers but I would like to know some other reasons

 

 

It is an attempt to control behavior. For example, "If you've looked at a woman with lust you have already commited adultery in your heart", Jesus.  Why say that? God knows all your thought, you're thinking about doing it with that women.  Then the belief God knows it...knows what i am thinking... oops no libido.  God knows you're coveting, oops no theft.  God knows I'm angry... oops guilt...no violence or murder.  It is simply the primitive fear tactic methodology of primitive religions.  It reinforces the human morality already there but replaces the natural chemical and neural based empathy with dogmatic command, guilt and fear.  You don't do something bad because you know its bad as a result you do ggod on a selfish basis because you are afraid of being tortured eternally with sulphur and brimstone in Satan's amusement park.

It is also an effective idea from a meme standpoint.  By making unavoidable thoughts into sins the idea has a ceaseless internal reinforcement mechanism based on guilt and forgiveness.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:TGBaker

mellestad wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

I dont understand why the new testament introduces thought crime its not like they could every find out if you thought certain stuff.

Ive heard people say this would get more followers but I would like to know some other reasons

 

 

It is an attempt to control behavior. For example, "If you've looked at a woman with lust you have already commited adultery in your heart", Jesus.  Why say that? God knows all your thought, you're thinking about doing it with that women.  Then the belief God knows it...knows what i am thinking... oops no libido.  God knows you're coveting, oops no theft.  God knows I'm angry... oops guilt...no violence or murder.  It is simply the primitive fear tactic methodology of primitive religions.  It reinforces the human morality already there but replaces the natural chemical and neural based empathy with dogmatic command, guilt and fear.  You don't do something bad because you know its bad as a result you do ggod on a selfish basis because you are afraid of being tortured eternally with sulphur and brimstone in Satan's amusement park.

It is also an effective idea from a meme standpoint.  By making unavoidable thoughts into sins the idea has a ceaseless internal reinforcement mechanism based on guilt and forgiveness.

 

Amen and Christianity is one big bad meme. God!!! every religion is a big meme.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:The author of

TGBaker wrote:
The author of Matthew also used a sayings document ( Q ) something an eyewitness would hardly need have done.

This Q document never existed. It's purely hypothetical. Try again!

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:You can quote

TGBaker wrote:
You can quote history, historical and textual criticism until you are blue in the face but little I have found that works  aprt from actually showing the conflicts of one gospel with another and showing the authors reason for changing or making up "history". It is even more amazing when you try and show that trinitarianism is a late third and early fourth century product not found in the New Testament.

The textual criticism avenue has already been debunked. There are no such conflicts. Trinitarianism is a late 3rd or 4th century product of the church. That's BS! It's all through out both the OT and NT!

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:TGBaker

Lee2216 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
The author of Matthew also used a sayings document ( Q ) something an eyewitness would hardly need have done.

This Q document never existed. It's purely hypothetical. Try again!

 

The Q document is hypothetical. So what. It is the best explanation for the editing matthew and Luke did of mark. I spent years isolating and comparing the manuscripts before  accepting it as the most workable hypothesis.  Take the foxes have holes pericope.  Matthew puts it at the beginning of the ministry outside Peter's home after Jesus cures Peter's mother-in-law. Luke places it at the end of his ministry in Samria on the road to Jerusalem to bite the big one. No need to try again. Discuss it rather than dismissing the majority of biblical scholarship including many evangelicals.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:TGBaker

Lee2216 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
You can quote history, historical and textual criticism until you are blue in the face but little I have found that works  aprt from actually showing the conflicts of one gospel with another and showing the authors reason for changing or making up "history". It is even more amazing when you try and show that trinitarianism is a late third and early fourth century product not found in the New Testament.

The textual criticism avenue has already been debunked. There are no such conflicts. Trinitarianism is a late 3rd or 4th century product of the church. That's BS! It's all through out both the OT and NT!

Small correction - polytheism is throughout the OT and NT. They started calling it Trinitarianism so they could worship other gods while convincing themselves they didn't.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:TGBaker

Lee2216 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
You can quote history, historical and textual criticism until you are blue in the face but little I have found that works  apart from actually showing the conflicts of one gospel with another and showing the authors reason for changing or making up "history". It is even more amazing when you try and show that trinitarianism is a late third and early fourth century product not found in the New Testament.

The textual criticism avenue has already been debunked. There are no such conflicts. Trinitarianism is a late 3rd or 4th century product of the church. That's BS! It's all through out both the OT and NT!

Show me. Textual criticism has not been debunked by you saying it has.  I gave references and times and places earlier. Do the same please. There are no trinitarian passages in the original manuscripts of the NT.  It develops because of speculation by your early forefathers. They could not even agree on what type. It was decided politically and by excommunicating the losers.  Orthodoxy= those who have the power to win. Heresy the losers.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Lee2216

TGBaker wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
The author of Matthew also used a sayings document ( Q ) something an eyewitness would hardly need have done.

This Q document never existed. It's purely hypothetical. Try again!

 

The Q document is hypothetical. So what. It is the best explanation for the editing matthew and Luke did of mark. I spent years isolating and comparing the manuscripts before  accepting it as the most workable hypothesis.  Take the foxes have holes pericope.  Matthew puts it at the beginning of the ministry outside Peter's home after Jesus cures Peter's mother-in-law. Luke places it at the end of his ministry in Samria on the road to Jerusalem to bite the big one. No need to try again. Discuss it rather than dismissing the majority of biblical scholarship including many evangelicals.

You don't like discussing hypotheticals, Lee? It seems to me like that's all you've been doing.

Oh, that's right. you call it "divine inspiration".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Im surprised no one has

Im surprised no one has mentioned that trinitarism isnt in the old testament at all jesus and the holy ghost have nothing to do with the old testament.  They are parts of christianinty so you could argue that its in the newtestament but to say its in the old testament is wishful thinking.


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:The Q document

TGBaker wrote:
The Q document is hypothetical. So what. It is the best explanation for the editing matthew and Luke did of mark. I spent years isolating and comparing the manuscripts before  accepting it as the most workable hypothesis.

So what? It's very important that your basing your hypothesis on a nonexistent document and then claiming that as the best explanation. Critics are quick to charge that there are contradictions without fully examining the context or situation in which statements are given. Just because there are differences in the accounts does not mean these differences are irreconcilable. There are difficulties within the accounts, but difficulties are not the same as contradictions. Difficulties do not establish untrustworthiness. Difficulties are not errors.

It's important to consider the audience that the author was writing to. The inclusion or exclusion of certain events and teachings may have been based upon the audience. There are absolutely no contradictions in the historical details of the gospel accounts. You can find various rearrangements of the material which helped each author communicate the life of Christ to the particular audience which he targeted. The accounts weren't written chronologically but topically so that shouldn't be a problem.

One important factor is that there were eyewitnesses who could verify the truthfulness of the accounts. Matthew was a firsthand witness of Jesus, so it would seem strange that he would have had to rely on other material for events that he witnessed himself. Mark was a witness to some events and wrote his gospel based upon the testimony of Peter. Luke claims to have gathered information from eyewitnesses so the direct knowledge obtained by the writers refutes the need for the writers to rely upon each other for material.

We need to remember the Gospel was first spread orally. There was a great similarity in how the gospels were taught. Therefore, we need to factor this in regarding the similarities of the written accounts. Contradiction does not exist if there is a plausible explanation but there still may be questions concerning different facts that differ in the accounts.

This problem can be solved by proper hermeneutics. For example, Matthew says that a centurion came to Jesus, Luke on the other hand says the centurion sent others to Jesus. Matthew's account does not exclude what Luke said. It is possible the centurion sent others, then decided to go himself. In either case, a plausible explanation exists so one can't claim a contradiction. Just because we don't have all the information of a specific event does not mean it is in error.

The Synoptic problem has readily been acknowledged. I don't believe this problem is insurmountable. The problems disappear through careful study of the text and understanding of the historical context. I believe people with agendas force contradictions on the text when there are none.

 

tgbaker wrote:
Take the foxes have holes pericope.  Matthew puts it at the beginning of the ministry outside Peter's home after Jesus cures Peter's mother-in-law. Luke places it at the end of his ministry in Samria on the road to Jerusalem to bite the big one.

Again, the accounts were not written chronologically but topically so this should not be a problem. 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:TGBaker

Lee2216 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
The Q document is hypothetical. So what. It is the best explanation for the editing matthew and Luke did of mark. I spent years isolating and comparing the manuscripts before  accepting it as the most workable hypothesis.

So what? It's very important that your basing your hypothesis on a nonexistent document and then claiming that as the best explanation. Critics are quick to charge that there are contradictions without fully examining the context or situation in which statements are given. Just because there are differences in the accounts does not mean these differences are irreconcilable. There are difficulties within the accounts, but difficulties are not the same as contradictions. Difficulties do not establish untrustworthiness. Difficulties are not errors.

It's important to consider the audience that the author was writing to. The inclusion or exclusion of certain events and teachings may have been based upon the audience. There are absolutely no contradictions in the historical details of the gospel accounts. You can find various rearrangements of the material which helped each author communicate the life of Christ to the particular audience which he targeted. The accounts weren't written chronologically but topically so that shouldn't be a problem.

One important factor is that there were eyewitnesses who could verify the truthfulness of the accounts. Matthew was a firsthand witness of Jesus, so it would seem strange that he would have had to rely on other material for events that he witnessed himself. Mark was a witness to some events and wrote his gospel based upon the testimony of Peter. Luke claims to have gathered information from eyewitnesses so the direct knowledge obtained by the writers refutes the need for the writers to rely upon each other for material.

We need to remember the Gospel was first spread orally. There was a great similarity in how the gospels were taught. Therefore, we need to factor this in regarding the similarities of the written accounts. Contradiction does not exist if there is a plausible explanation but there still may be questions concerning different facts that differ in the accounts.

This problem can be solved by proper hermeneutics. For example, Matthew says that a centurion came to Jesus, Luke on the other hand says the centurion sent others to Jesus. Matthew's account does not exclude what Luke said. It is possible the centurion sent others, then decided to go himself. In either case, a plausible explanation exists so one can't claim a contradiction. Just because we don't have all the information of a specific event does not mean it is in error.

The Synoptic problem has readily been acknowledged. I don't believe this problem is insurmountable. The problems disappear through careful study of the text and understanding of the historical context. I believe people with agendas force contradictions on the text when there are none.

 

tgbaker wrote:
Take the foxes have holes pericope.  Matthew puts it at the beginning of the ministry outside Peter's home after Jesus cures Peter's mother-in-law. Luke places it at the end of his ministry in Samria on the road to Jerusalem to bite the big one.

Again, the accounts were not written chronologically but topically so this should not be a problem. 

Personally, I don't believe we should be talking about hypothetical documents.

You have enough problems with the gospel writers introducing Pauline concepts to a character who, if based on a real Jewish teacher, would have been offended by them. You also have problems explaining how a character supposedly fulfilled and didn't fulfill OT Messianic prophecies simultaneously. These guys had the resources in front of them - you'd think they'd have put together better work.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Show me.

TGBaker wrote:
Show me. Textual criticism has not been debunked by you saying it has.  I gave references and times and places earlier. Do the same please.

See post #139. I explain there. You want me to give references about the contradictions? It would be hard for me to give you references to contradictions when I believe there are none. The burden of proof is on you since you believe there are contradictions so it's up to you to show me these supposed contradictions.

tgbaker wrote:
There are no trinitarian passages in the original manuscripts of the NT.  It develops because of speculation by your early forefathers. They could not even agree on what type. It was decided politically and by excommunicating the losers.  Orthodoxy= those who have the power to win. Heresy the losers.

You can't claim there are no trinitarian passages in the original NT manuscripts simply for the FACT that no original manuscripts of the Greek NT have ever been found. Now, on the other hand, if you wan't to claim that for the earliest extant copies then the burden of proof is on you to show there are no trinitarian passages.

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:TGBaker

Lee2216 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Show me. Textual criticism has not been debunked by you saying it has.  I gave references and times and places earlier. Do the same please.

See post #139. I explain there. You want me to give references about the contradictions? It would be hard for me to give you references to contradictions when I believe there are none. The burden of proof is on you since you believe there are contradictions so it's up to you to show me these supposed contradictions.

tgbaker wrote:
There are no trinitarian passages in the original manuscripts of the NT.  It develops because of speculation by your early forefathers. They could not even agree on what type. It was decided politically and by excommunicating the losers.  Orthodoxy= those who have the power to win. Heresy the losers.

You can't claim there are no trinitarian passages in the original NT manuscripts simply for the FACT that no original manuscripts of the Greek NT have ever been found. Now, on the other hand, if you wan't to claim that for the earliest extant copies then the burden of proof is on you to show there are no trinitarian passages.

 

He wants you to give the references on which your opinion is based. We're pretty sure you didn't come up with that on your own.

"Trinitarianism is for people who want to worship Jesus and the Holy Spirit but don't want to be called polytheists" -  Dr. Robert Price (possibly my paraphrase)

As polytheism abounds in the OT and the NT are you admitting that Christianity is a polytheistic religion?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You have

jcgadfly wrote:
You have enough problems with the gospel writers introducing Pauline concepts to a character who, if based on a real Jewish teacher, would have been offended by them. You also have problems explaining how a character supposedly fulfilled and didn't fulfill OT Messianic prophecies simultaneously. These guys had the resources in front of them - you'd think they'd have put together better work.

Please do tell! You need to be specific. You need to give me specific scripture verses that verify your claims.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
You have enough problems with the gospel writers introducing Pauline concepts to a character who, if based on a real Jewish teacher, would have been offended by them. You also have problems explaining how a character supposedly fulfilled and didn't fulfill OT Messianic prophecies simultaneously. These guys had the resources in front of them - you'd think they'd have put together better work.

Please do tell! You need to be specific. You need to give me specific scripture verses that verify your claims.

Sure, I'll be more specific than you have been in your posts. It will take some time - be patient.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:He wants you

jcgadfly wrote:
He wants you to give the references on which your opinion is based. We're pretty sure you didn't come up with that on your own.

Your absolutely sure? So your implying that all Christians are dumb and can't think for themselves.

jcgadfly wrote:
As polytheism abounds in the OT and the NT are you admitting that Christianity is a polytheistic religion?

Give me specific verses!

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
He wants you to give the references on which your opinion is based. We're pretty sure you didn't come up with that on your own.

Your absolutely sure? So your implying that all Christians are dumb and can't think for themselves.

jcgadfly wrote:
As polytheism abounds in the OT and the NT are you admitting that Christianity is a polytheistic religion?

Give me specific verses!

'

Based on your style of writing - I at least have my doubts that the material you cited is your own. I never claimed to be absolutely sure - that's why I used the term "pretty sure". So if you are the religious expert you claim to be, bring up your credentials. Otherwise, own up to your sources.

You need specific verses to count how many beings are worshipped as God in scripture? It's simple math.

I count:

1. El

2. Yahweh

3. Jesus

4. The Holy Spirit

5. The construct that Paul created and named Christ.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:TGBaker

Lee2216 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
The Q document is hypothetical. So what. It is the best explanation for the editing matthew and Luke did of mark. I spent years isolating and comparing the manuscripts before  accepting it as the most workable hypothesis.

 

LEE: So what? It's very important that your basing your hypothesis on a nonexistent document and then claiming that as the best explanation. Critics are quick to charge that there are contradictions without fully examining the context or situation in which statements are given. Just because there are differences in the accounts does not mean these differences are irreconcilable. There are difficulties within the accounts, but difficulties are not the same as contradictions. Difficulties do not establish untrustworthiness. Difficulties are not errors.

 

TGB: Actually the contents are EXISTENT. They are the sayings that Matthew and Luke placed among the 612 out of 662 verses that they took from mark. The hypothetical is whether the source was written or oral.  They fabricated transitions and context to fit them in.  These are contradictions. Tell me about the cursed fig tree. Did it happen before or after the cleansing of the Temple? Did it happen all at once before the disciples or cursed one day and seen a following day.  Did the cleansing occur at the beggining of Jesus's ministry or at the end?

It's important to consider the audience that the author was writing to. The inclusion or exclusion of certain events and teachings may have been based upon the audience. There are absolutely no contradictions in the historical details of the gospel accounts. You can find various rearrangements of the material which helped each author communicate the life of Christ to the particular audience which he targeted. The accounts weren't written chronologically but topically so that shouldn't be a problem.

 

TGB: That had very little to do with and is not what source,form and redaction geshichte are focused on.  Secondly textual criticism is simply the attempt to reconstruct the original state of the Greek manuscripts from several groups of copies that have variations in them some intentional... some accidental.  If John places the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus ministry and indicates that it was so then it is in conflict with the other Synoptic gospels.

One important factor is that there were eyewitnesses who could verify the truthfulness of the accounts. Matthew was a firsthand witness of Jesus, so it would seem strange that he would have had to rely on other material for events that he witnessed himself. Mark was a witness to some events and wrote his gospel based upon the testimony of Peter. Luke claims to have gathered information from eyewitnesses so the direct knowledge obtained by the writers refutes the need for the writers to rely upon each other for material.

 

TGB: As I mention either here post 76 : 

The gospels are not historical accounts...non of the writers were witnesses ( the names matthew , Mark, Luke and John were not atrributed to the gospels until the second century ).  Matthew and Luke rework the gospel mark and add a group of sayings found in a now defunct source called Q.  Matthew and Luke change various things from mark to fit their theological agenda. The author of the gospel of John completely reworks mark and reflects a much later non-historical theology effected by Greek philosophy. What is supposedly historical???????????????  I had  4 years of Koine Greek, translated the New Testament from its original language and did point by point inspection of the propositions in them.  Compare the gospels and the contradictions reflect redaction ( editing of sources ) for purposes to defend one form of Christianity from another.

We need to remember the Gospel was first spread orally. There was a great similarity in how the gospels were taught. Therefore, we need to factor this in regarding the similarities of the written accounts. Contradiction does not exist if there is a plausible explanation but there still may be questions concerning different facts that differ in the accounts. Just because the author of Luke says he got information from eyewitness does not mean it is true given the dependency issues already mentioned. 

This problem can be solved by proper hermeneutics. For example, Matthew says that a centurion came to Jesus, Luke on the other hand says the centurion sent others to Jesus. Matthew's account does not exclude what Luke said. It is possible the centurion sent others, then decided to go himself. In either case, a plausible explanation exists so one can't claim a contradiction. Just because we don't have all the information of a specific event does not mean it is in error.

TGB: Actually we can say they contradict. You can not because you start with a presupposition that they are God's words and could not contradict so there must be an answer though we do not know what the answer is!!!!!

The Synoptic problem has readily been acknowledged. I don't believe this problem is insurmountable. The problems disappear through careful study of the text and understanding of the historical context. I believe people with agendas force contradictions on the text when there are none.

TGB: The reasons for the Synoptic Problem are what are insurmountable.  They have not disappeared through careful study. They are masked through elaborate harmonizations based upon presuppositions inherent in the methodology. 

 

tgbaker wrote:
Take the foxes have holes pericope.  Matthew puts it at the beginning of the ministry outside Peter's home after Jesus cures Peter's mother-in-law. Luke places it at the end of his ministry in Samria on the road to Jerusalem to bite the big one.

Again, the accounts were not written chronologically but topically so this should not be a problem. 

TGB: Actually it is not about the lack of chronology it is about the creation of chronology to place the Q saying into a Markan context, Luke 9:57 introduces the pericope with  and they went from village to village.  As they were walking along the road a man said to him I will follow.... Matthew 8;14ff  Jesus goes into Peter's house... many hear about it and come to have demons driven out... When he saw this crowd around him at Peter's house the pericope is inserted.  The rest of marks story is alter by placing this in the context.  Jesus instead of spending the night at Peter's get in a boat he calms the storm and crosses ver to the other side.  Since Luke places the pericope elsewhere he follows mark's story. 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:You can't

Lee2216 wrote:

You can't claim there are no trinitarian passages in the original NT manuscripts simply for the FACT that no original manuscripts of the Greek NT have ever been found. Now, on the other hand, if you wan't to claim that for the earliest extant copies then the burden of proof is on you to show there are no trinitarian passages.

 

 

Actually I can and did. The orignal manuscripts have been reproduced to at least 96% reliability.  The one trinitarian passage that has been found originated from the Latin Vulgate.  I John 5:7 Erasmus (late 15th century) in collecting all the manuscripts did not include it in his construction of the Greek text because it was not in any.  The church wanted in it. He said not unless he found a Greek text with it. The next day the church produced one ( the miracle was that the ink was still wet after 1000 years).  Thus it wound up in the King James version. Good translations restore the orignal Greek text to the three as the Spirit, the water and the blood.  Actually the burden is on you to show that there are trinitarian passages because I can not quote the whole bible verse by verse here whereas you can quote the alledged trinitarian passages you say are there.

 

I wanted to add this tin your response about eyewitnesses ( Mathtew, Luke etc.; ) in the previous post but here will do:

Papias mentions that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew.  The gospel attributed to Matthew was written in Greek and dependent on the Gospel of Mark and copies over 612 of Mark's 662 verses The author of Matthew also used a sayings document ( Q ) something an eyewitness would hardly need have done. Eusibeus is writing in the late third early fourth century.  The early church fathers speak of the Gospel of Hebrews not Matthew. Jerome reflects debate during his period as to whether the apostle Matthew wrote the Greek gospel called Matthew. Jerome translated a gospel called the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites into Greek and stated that many think it was the real Gospel of Matthew. There is NO ACCURACY IN THE GOSPELS to speak.  The contradictions between the synoptics are often intentional doctrinal redactions.. WHAT THEY ARE are non-historical propaganda to recruit people into each gospel's particular version of Christianity.  The later their writing the more lofty the theological and miracle claims.  That is the bottom line.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Based on your

jcgadfly wrote:
Based on your style of writing - I at least have my doubts that the material you cited is your own. I never claimed to be absolutely sure - that's why I used the term "pretty sure". So if you are the religious expert you claim to be, bring up your credentials. Otherwise, own up to your sources.

Your still implying that Christians are all uneducated which shows your prejudice. I've never claimed to be an expert. I simply take what people claim as truth and compare it with the scriptures. Credentials are irrelevant when it comes to telling the truth. When I use sources I give them to you. I gave you one yesterday that you didn't even bother with.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
You need specific verses to count how many beings are worshipped as God in scripture? It's simple math.

I count:

1. El

2. Yahweh

3. Jesus

4. The Holy Spirit

5. The construct that Paul created and named Christ.

Yes, I need you to give me specific verses that support your view that Christianity is a polytheistic religion not your presuppositions. Your avoiding the issue here.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Based on your style of writing - I at least have my doubts that the material you cited is your own. I never claimed to be absolutely sure - that's why I used the term "pretty sure". So if you are the religious expert you claim to be, bring up your credentials. Otherwise, own up to your sources.

Your still implying that Christians are all uneducated which shows your prejudice. I've never claimed to be an expert. I simply take what people claim as truth and compare it with the scriptures. Credentials are irrelevant when it comes to telling the truth. When I use sources I give them to you. I gave you one yesterday that you didn't even bother with.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
You need specific verses to count how many beings are worshipped as God in scripture? It's simple math.

I count:

1. El

2. Yahweh

3. Jesus

4. The Holy Spirit

5. The construct that Paul created and named Christ.

Yes, I need you to give me specific verses that support your view that Christianity is a polytheistic religion not your presuppositions. Your avoiding the issue here.

No I'm not implying Christians are uneducated. I'm sure the Christian you likely took the ideas you claim as yours from was well educated. The person whose education and honesty I'm questioning is you.

I also told you that I'm working on it and asked for your patience. Here's a start.

Genesis 14:17-22 - In the original Language Melchizedek invokes El. Abraham (here Abram) invokes Yahweh. Christians accept both as God.

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/whodoyousay.html contains how the Pauline converts who wrote the Gospel established Jesus as God.

John 14:26 Says that the Father will send the Holy spirit in Jesus' name. Christians pray to the Holy Spirit frequently. This also implies that Jesus is to be considered a god.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin