Authorship of canonical gospels

KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Authorship of canonical gospels

I got a question regarding who authored the gospels in the bible. The traditional interpretation is that they are written by the apostles (or whatever they were, if they actually existed) with the names we know today. This I don't trust as far as I can throw it, mainly because the bible contains all sorts of embarrassing errors and most of the traditions derived from it are plain ridiculous.

I realize that such a blanket statement isn't an argument. Would I be correct when I think the reason for dismissing the traditional interpretation is that the gospels are written too late in time to be from an actual person around Jesus (if he existed) or the apostles? That combined with that references to the gospels as written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John don't appear until the latter half of the second century, which is two generations at least after they were written? Is this close to why, and/or am I missing something?

I think that if a reference to the gospels (other than the fact that they borrow from each other) which doesn't refer to the traditional names could be found, that would be the kind of smoking gun needed to kill the traditional view. Maybe such a thing exists?

I apologize if this is trivial or covered elsewhere on the forums. If so, I'd appreciate a like to where that would be.


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, the fact that the

Yeah, the fact that the Gospels aren't given authors until late in the 2nd century, and the assignment isn't backed up by anything but tradition, is one of the main reasons that the Gospels are considered anonymous. There's also textual hints. One of the biggest is that the authors describe events that had no eyewitnesses, like Jesus's temptation in the desert. Luke -- or the person who wrote Luke, at least -- explicitly says that he's writing down what was passed down by eyewitnesses, meaning he wasn't one himself.

 Of course, the biggest hint is quite simply that, unlike histories written by the Romans and other more-or-less reputable historians from the era, the Gospels aren't signed. None of the authors provide a name or talk about who they are at all.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/guess.html

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jesus.html#sources 

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Mark, Matthew, Luke and

Mark, Matthew, Luke and John probably did not right their respective gospels. However, a book such as Mark was probably written by or influenced by people who knew Jesus. Since Mark was written around 70AD, that is well within a timeframe for witnesses to Jesus to still be alive.

Considering that the disciples probably would have been 15-20 when Jesus picked them up, they would still be 55-60 when Mark was written. Not to mention the large groups of people that followed the man around and would have remembered some aspects of the life of Jesus.  

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Cassiopeia
Cassiopeia's picture
Posts: 102
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: Mark,

Christos wrote:

Mark, Matthew, Luke and John probably did not right their respective gospels. However, a book such as Mark was probably written by or influenced by people who knew Jesus. Since Mark was written around 70AD, that is well within a timeframe for witnesses to Jesus to still be alive.

Considering that the disciples probably would have been 15-20 when Jesus picked them up, they would still be 55-60 when Mark was written. Not to mention the large groups of people that followed the man around and would have remembered some aspects of the life of Jesus.

Why would an apostle wait until 70AD to write an eyewitness account to the life of Jesus?

And why didn't Mark sign the gospel and claim authorship himself?

Wasn't Mark one of the four Gospels not given a name until the late second century?

I think I read somewhere, maybe on this site, that the average life span back then was 45 years. Don't know if that's true, but if it is, being 55-65 seems a bit cloudy to me. Where did you get this information?

I ask not for arguments sake, but am very interested in the history of Jesus. I've recently read books by Earl Doherty(couldn't finish his book, sorta sucked) Achary S or whatever her name is.(Didn't like her book either) and Bart Erhman, liking his books alot. Someone also suggested Friedman to me, but I think he deals with the OT. 

 

I suck at signatures.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: Mark,

Christos wrote:

Mark, Matthew, Luke and John probably did not right their respective gospels.

You said probably? Are you guessing? I'm guessing Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are imaginary.
Quote:
However, a book such as Mark was probably written by or influenced by people who knew Jesus.
More guessing? Its disgusting.
Quote:
Since Mark was written around 70AD, that is well within a timeframe for witnesses to Jesus to still be alive.
You'll say anything to defend this book won't you?

Quote:
Considering that the disciples probably would have been 15-20 when Jesus picked them up, they would still be 55-60 when Mark was written. Not to mention the large groups of people that followed the man around and would have remembered some aspects of the life of Jesus.

The 'Gospels' are 'Midrash'

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
JeremiahSmith wrote: Yeah,

JeremiahSmith wrote:

Yeah, the fact that the Gospels aren't given authors until late in the 2nd century, and the assignment isn't backed up by anything but tradition, is one of the main reasons that the Gospels are considered anonymous. There's also textual hints. One of the biggest is that the authors describe events that had no eyewitnesses, like Jesus's temptation in the desert. Luke -- or the person who wrote Luke, at least -- explicitly says that he's writing down what was passed down by eyewitnesses, meaning he wasn't one himself.

Of course, the biggest hint is quite simply that, unlike histories written by the Romans and other more-or-less reputable historians from the era, the Gospels aren't signed. None of the authors provide a name or talk about who they are at all.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/guess.html

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jesus.html#sources

Thanks for these links, they were very helpful.


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Cassiopeia wrote:Why

Cassiopeia wrote:

Why would an apostle wait until 70AD to write an eyewitness account to the life of Jesus?

You're forgetting that the average life expectency for men in Bible times was 857.5 years old. So to them, it was a comparitively short time. Makes perfect sense, see?


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Or you can take a look at

Or you can take a look at the historical testimony of auhtors such as Papias, who lived from 60-139 AD and testified to Matthew being written by Matthew, and Mark being written by Mark who was Peter's "secretary". 

Justin Martyr quotes from both Matthew and Luke sometime after 130 AD, and ascribes authorship of the Gospels so titled to those individuals.  Luke, as noted above may not have been a first hand witness, being the "secretary" of Paul travelled extensively with Paul and had opportunity to meet and interview many of the Apostles.

The list continues of early Church fathers and documents written by them attesting to the Apostolic authorship of the Gospels.  No contemporary evidence to the contrary exists, nor were acusations made by detractors of Christianity that the Gospel accounts were fabrications.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:

Christos wrote:

Mark, Matthew, Luke and John probably did not right their respective gospels. However, a book such as Mark was probably written by or influenced by people who knew Jesus.

The facts say different:

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_anonymous_works_and_none_are_eyewitness_accounts

The Markian author doesn't even make a pretense of writing history.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_midrash

 From the above page:

Michael Turton writes:

If Mark is history, where are the reliable methods for uncovering it? If Mark knew real traditions, why would be bother to parallel some other story every time Jesus does something major? It's not like this is a sometime thing. Almost every story in Mark draws on the OT, and Mark often tells you where he got it from one way or another (and if he doesn't, that fussbudget Matthew certainly will). The few stories that are not OT in origin have a narrative function, and of course, are so totally bound up with the supernatural that they are certainly fiction -- sometimes both (as in the Gerasene Demoniac, for example, though that has OT echoes too).

 

Quote:

Considering that the disciples probably would have been 15-20 when Jesus picked them up, they would still be 55-60 when Mark was written.

Why wait so long and risking dying before writing? The argument strains credibility. The reality is that there is no evidence that there was any contemporary accounts of a real jesus, and the gospels appear to all rely on mark, which is a midrashic work, never intended as history.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: Or you

totus_tuus wrote:

Or you can take a look at the historical testimony of auhtors such as Papias, who lived from 60-139 AD and testified to Matthew being written by Matthew, and Mark being written by Mark who was Peter's "secretary".

I really don't think you've analyzed this claim. I challenge you to cite your source, and demonstrate why it has any value.  I think you'll see that your claim is spurious. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: totus_tuus

todangst wrote:
totus_tuus wrote:

Or you can take a look at the historical testimony of auhtors such as Papias, who lived from 60-139 AD and testified to Matthew being written by Matthew, and Mark being written by Mark who was Peter's "secretary".

I really don't think you've analyzed this claim. I challenge you to cite your source, and demonstrate why it has any value.  I think you'll see that your claim is spurious. 

My source is the Ecclesiatical History of Eusebius, book 3, chapter 39:

"`And this the Presbyter used to say: "Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order whatever he [Peter] remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord; for he [Mark] had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to make teachings according to the cheias, [a special kind of anecdote] but not making as it were a systematic composition of the Lords sayings; so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote certain things just as he had recalled [them]. For he had but one intention, not to leave out anything he had heard, nor to falsify anything in them". This is what was related by Papias about Mark. But about Matthew`s this was said: "For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able. '"

Eusebius here is quoting Papias, who is quoting John the Apostle defending the style of Mark's Gospel. 

Eusebius states that Papias wrote five books, and specifically mentions Papias' commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and John.  Other texts credit him with writing a commentary on Luke as well, although none of these texts seem to have survived intact.  Papias' life overlapped that of John by 30-40 years and Papias' home of Hieropolis was about 150 km from Ephesus, the home of John for many years, both cities connected by a good surfaced road.

This citation of Eusebius is the earliest quote concerning the historicity of the Gospels.  No other writing contradict or confilct with it. 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Notice that Papias says that

Notice that Papias says that Matthew wrote the sayings in Hebrew. The gospel bearing his name wasn't written in Hebrew.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: Notice that

KSMB wrote:
Notice that Papias says that Matthew wrote the sayings in Hebrew. The gospel bearing his name wasn't written in Hebrew.

Just so I have this right, you, writing nearly 2000 years after the event, are contradicting Papias, who was writing, at most, 90 years after the event?

OK.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: You said

AiiA wrote:

You said probably? Are you guessing? I'm guessing Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are imaginary.

No, I'm not guessing. For one thing, the fact that Luke and Matthew draw heavily off Mark and Q means that they were not eyewitness accounts. John was written way too late to be an eyewitness.  

AiiA wrote:
More guessing? Its disgusting.

Uh, I'm not guessing. It's not hard to figure out that some people who knew Jesus would have still been alive when Mark was written. I'm just assuming that you know something about the Gospels, and I shouldn't have to explain everything to you.

AiiA wrote:
You'll say anything to defend this book won't you?

Actually, I'm not a Christian. So yeah......stop making assumptions. 

I'm glad you can regurgitate whatever Todangst says about the gospels being Midrash. Obviously Mark was writing a text filled with allegory, and myth. However, I think you probably dismiss the gospels as completely non-historical because you are putting standards of modernity on a first century text. You expect the gospels to report to you like the Chicago Tribune. Wake up; it’s a first century manuscript where Mark tries to portray the historical Jesus as the Jewish messiah. 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: todangst

totus_tuus wrote:
todangst wrote:
totus_tuus wrote:

Or you can take a look at the historical testimony of auhtors such as Papias, who lived from 60-139 AD and testified to Matthew being written by Matthew, and Mark being written by Mark who was Peter's "secretary".

I really don't think you've analyzed this claim. I challenge you to cite your source, and demonstrate why it has any value. I think you'll see that your claim is spurious.

My source is the Ecclesiatical History of Eusebius, book 3, chapter 39:

Thanks. But unfortunately I wasn't clear previously: I am not denying the existence of the claim, but challening you as to its veracity, including demonstrating the years of Papias' lifespan.

 

 
Quote:

This citation of Eusebius is the earliest quote concerning the historicity of the Gospels. No other writing contradict or confilct with it. 

None that survives at least....

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:

Christos wrote:

AiiA wrote:

You said probably? Are you guessing? I'm guessing Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are imaginary.

No, I'm not guessing. For one thing, the fact that Luke and Matthew draw heavily off Mark and Q means that they were not eyewitness accounts. John was written way too late to be an eyewitness.

Good to hear this. Now all you have to do is recognize that Mark is not writing history, but a midrash...

 

Quote:

I'm glad you can regurgitate whatever Todangst says about the gospels being Midrash.

An honest person would read the cited work. They might out that what I cited there wasn't written by me, but by someone who has done an excellent examination of the book of Mark.

An asshole would just toss it aside without even bothering to look at it, while tossing an insult at the person for even having dared to cite it to you.

I don't see how you can be taken seriously if you openly reject evidence.

Quote:
You expect the gospels to report to you like the Chicago Tribune. 

This demonstrates, again, how lost you are - your comments address a strawman of your opponent's actual view of the matter. No one is writing off the book of Mark simply because it isn't good reporting - although good historical works predated the existence of Mark.   The problem with the 'gospel' is that 1) it isn't a good history, even though good histories existed prior to its creation 2) it makes extraordinary claims without even an attempt to provide supports for the claims and in the face of a complete silence on these claims outside of mark  AND 3) 65% of the work can be traced back, directly, to OT passages. There's nothing to the book of mark that points to eyewitness accounting.... and plenty that points to midrash,  a point that you studiously ignore, making your complaints nothing more than an expression of yoru ignorance.

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: KSMB

totus_tuus wrote:

KSMB wrote:
Notice that Papias says that Matthew wrote the sayings in Hebrew. The gospel bearing his name wasn't written in Hebrew.

Just so I have this right, you, writing nearly 2000 years after the event, are contradicting Papias, who was writing, at most, 90 years after the event?

OK.

Just so I have this right, you believe that the passage of time alone, and not matters of provenance, evidence, superior critical scholarship - are what dictate which is more likely correct?

OK.

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: KSMB

totus_tuus wrote:

KSMB wrote:
Notice that Papias says that Matthew wrote the sayings in Hebrew. The gospel bearing his name wasn't written in Hebrew.

Just so I have this right, you, writing nearly 2000 years after the event, are contradicting Papias, who was writing, at most, 90 years after the event?

OK.

Please. Are you serious? Are you really saying that the Matthew gospel wasn't written in greek? If you have evidence of that, I'm sure the bible scolars would like to know about it. Matthew copies from Mark, a greek document. Papias also claims Matthew writes the sayings of Jesus. The Matthew gospel is a narrative story, made from supposed acts and sayings of Jesus. It's therefore more likely that Papias is referring to some document which isn't what is called the gospel according to Matthew today.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: An honest

todangst wrote:

An honest person would read the cited work. They might out that what I cited there wasn't written by me, but by someone who has done an excellent examination of the book of Mark.

An asshole would just toss it aside without even bothering to look at it, while tossing an insult at the person for even having dared to cite it to you.


Oh, I agree that Mark is Midrash. Don't get so pissed off Todangst.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: todangst

Christos wrote:
todangst wrote:

An honest person would read the cited work. They might out that what I cited there wasn't written by me, but by someone who has done an excellent examination of the book of Mark.

An asshole would just toss it aside without even bothering to look at it, while tossing an insult at the person for even having dared to cite it to you.


Oh, I agree that Mark is Midrash. Don't get so pissed off Todangst.

You're so dishonest. The actual point is that you waved away the citation without even bothering to look at it.  No one is getting pissed off, what I'm doing is calling you on your bullshit.

And now that you're called on your bullshit, what do you do? You want to keep blaming the other guy.

Look, stay ignorant if you like, but don't pretend that what you're doing here is taking an honest look at the situation.

No wonder you side with trolls....  

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: You're so

todangst wrote:

You're so dishonest. The actual point is that you waved away the citation without even bothering to look at it. No one is getting pissed off, what I'm doing is calling you on your bullshit.

And now that you're called on your bullshit, what do you do? You want to keep blaming the other guy.

Look, stay ignorant if you like, but don't pretend that what you're doing here is taking an honest look at the situation.

No wonder you side with trolls....

Don't be so sensitive Todangst. Of course Mark is Midrash. He's trying to paint a picture of the historical Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. The author takes a lot of liberties historically in writing his text. For example, the author utilizes Psalm 22 to compensate for the fact that his Messiah was executed like a common criminal. I've studied to Gospels a lot, although I would never pretend to be an expert.

Seriously, there is no reason to get so pissed off. You are probably still steamed that I called you on banning Ahura Mazda. I like how you deleted the thread. I know it must be hard to debate someone who is not a fundamentalist Christian, however I think a better solution would have been to recognize AM's arguments rather than ban him for being right. 

 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:

Christos wrote:
todangst wrote:

You're so dishonest. The actual point is that you waved away the citation without even bothering to look at it. No one is getting pissed off, what I'm doing is calling you on your bullshit.

And now that you're called on your bullshit, what do you do? You want to keep blaming the other guy.

Look, stay ignorant if you like, but don't pretend that what you're doing here is taking an honest look at the situation.

No wonder you side with trolls....

Don't be so sensitive Todangst.

Don't be so sensitive, Christos. Really. Calm down. There's no need for you to continually refer to emotions in every post...

Just take a deep breath, and count to ten before posting, OK?

 

Quote:

Of course Mark is Midrash. He's trying to paint a picture of the historical Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. The author takes a lot of liberties historically in writing his text.

The author isn't writing a history at all. You might even recognize this if you were willing to get past your emotional resistance and actually look at the evidence.

But you seem far too focused on anger issues.

 

Quote:

Seriously, there is no reason to get so pissed off. You are probably still steamed that I called you on banning Ahura Mazda.

I'm sure this is how it seems to you, considering that you act rashly, out of emotion, without even bothering to look at the facts.

The reality is that I pointed out why your claims about his banning were false. And you aren't able to get past your anger over it.

In fact, this is your modus operandi. Just look at the evidence:

Quote:

I like how you deleted the thread.

I like how you leap to conclusions without even bothering to look at the facts. 

No thread was deleted. It was moved by another mod.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/miscellanous_forums/trollville/9649 

But look at you, simply assuming the worst, without any evidence.

So, will you concede your latest blunder, your latest rash judgement, damn the facts? I'm betting 'no'. 

Why are you doing this? Over and over?

Because it's clear that you are the one with the anger problems, the emotional issues.

Again, please take deep breaths and deal with your emotional issues before posting. Otherwise, you end up making irrationally driven claims without evidence.... like you've done here.

I don't expect an apology, you've already made too many errors to start conceding them now, it would be too overwhelming for you, but at least consider those breathing exercises before posting again.

Again, if you can't deal with your emotional issues, if you can't refrain from simply making things up and lying, then you need to take some time to cool off.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: I think a

Christos wrote:

I think a better solution would have been to recognize AM's arguments rather than ban him for being right.

 

I see that you are STILL lying about this too....

 

He was banned for his behavior, not his opinions.

You seem to not give a flying fuck about reality when reality is in discord with what you want to be true...

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Sorry for having taken so

Sorry for having taken so long to post again, but family matters have been pressing, and I've been unable to get away long enough to post suitably.

todangst wrote:
I am not denying the existence of the claim, but challening you as to its veracity, including demonstrating the years of Papias' lifespan.

My source for the lifespan of Papias is The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Iraeneus by Philip Schaff, published by Wm B Eerdmans Publishing, 2001.  Schaff dates the life of Papias as being 70AD to 155 AD, although some traditional sources date Papias' death as late as 163 AD.

In the article The Order of the Synoptics, Harold Riley and Bernard Orchard cite sources (I've not been able to confirm) dating Papias' lifetime as between 60 AD and 139 AD.

todangst wrote:
None that survives at least....

'Tis a shame.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Just so I

todangst wrote:
Just so I have this right, you believe that the passage of time alone, and not matters of provenance, evidence, superior critical scholarship - are what dictate which is more likely correct?

OK.

Not at all.  The earliest written evidence supports Matthean priority.  The "superior critical scholarship has its roots in Bismark' political struggles with the Church and deliberately tosses out the earliest evidence available, and those researchers decide to depend on documents such as "Q", the existence of which is pure speculation, with no roots in history whatsoever.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: Please. Are you

KSMB wrote:
Please. Are you serious? Are you really saying that the Matthew gospel wasn't written in greek? If you have evidence of that, I'm sure the bible scolars would like to know about it. Matthew copies from Mark, a greek document. Papias also claims Matthew writes the sayings of Jesus. The Matthew gospel is a narrative story, made from supposed acts and sayings of Jesus. It's therefore more likely that Papias is referring to some document which isn't what is called the gospel according to Matthew today.

Again, the supposition that Matthew wrote in Greek is pure speculation.  Eusebius quotes Papias,"Matthew collected the sayings in the Hebrew language", and quotes Irenaeus,"Now Matthew published among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own tongue"

Modern scholars are amazed at the ease with which Greek Matthew can be back translated into Hebrew, the latest effort was made by Jean Carmingac in 1963.  After a search of the old monastic libraries, he located over sixty ancient copies of Matthew in Hebrew done by Jewish converts to Christianity, or by rabbis wanting to refute Christianity.

Hebrew undertones run all through Matthew, from Hebrew wordplay to translation and copyist errors which change some key passages, and account for differences among Greek manuscripts.

Numerous Hebrew theological concepts, foreign to the Greek mind are found in Matthew.

Finally, Irenaeus records the testimony of Pantaenus, director of the Alexandrian School of Sacred Learning, that during a trip to India in 190 AD, he saw, a copy of a Hebrew Matthew taken to India in 52 AD by Thomas the Apostle during his missionary voyage there.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Ok Todangst, I tried to

Ok Todangst, I tried to count to ten, but I couldn't stop laughing at how seriously you're taking this.

Calm down sir. Maybe AM was being really annoying. I still don't see that as a reason to ban him. I think a better method would have been to defeat him in debate on the forums. Maybe you were afraid of being destroyed for everyone to see......

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
!

!


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:

Christos wrote:

Ok Todangst, I tried to count to ten, but I couldn't stop laughing at how seriously you're taking this.

You really need to calm down, you're very, very upset. It's causing you to lie over and over to save face.

I see you hand to run from the evidence of your latest lie. I've shown that thread was not deleted. And what do you do in response? Rant, attack... because, you're clearly too, too emotional here. Because you know that you've been caught in yet another lie, and there's no way out other than to ignore reality again, and turn to more attacks.

Please count to 20 next time. It might help rein in your constant trolling on our boards. 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus

totus_tuus wrote:

 

todangst wrote:
I am not denying the existence of the claim, but challenging you as to its veracity, including demonstrating the years of Papias' lifespan.

My source for the lifespan of Papias is The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Iraeneus by Philip Schaff, published by Wm B Eerdmans Publishing, 2001. Schaff dates the life of Papias as being 70AD to 155 AD, although some traditional sources date Papias' death as late as 163 AD.

In the article The Order of the Synoptics, Harold Riley and Bernard Orchard cite sources (I've not been able to confirm) dating Papias' lifetime as between 60 AD and 139 AD.

Thanks for the sources. I don't see how this provides a response however. You'd need to provide their arguments to do that.

todangst wrote:
None that survives at least....

Quote:
 

'Tis a shame.

Perhaps not from the christian perspective.... perhaps early christians made sure that there were no dissenting opinions...

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: todangst

totus_tuus wrote:
todangst wrote:
Just so I have this right, you believe that the passage of time alone, and not matters of provenance, evidence, superior critical scholarship - are what dictate which is more likely correct?

OK.

Not at all.

But I don't see you offering anything other than this.

Quote:
 

 The earliest written evidence supports Matthean priority.

No, it does not. 

 

Quote:

The "superior critical scholarship has its roots in Bismark' political struggles with the Church and deliberately tosses out the earliest evidence available, and those researchers decide to depend on documents such as "Q", the existence of which is pure speculation, with no roots in history whatsoever.

I have no problem writing off Q either, seeing as if it existed, it may well have been nothing more than the writings of cynic philosophers.

However, you're not answering the question. But I see little reason to continue.  

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Well Todangst, I counted to

Well Todangst, I counted to 20 but this time I didn't laugh. I just felt sorry for you.

So my friend...answer me this: Why didn't you debate AM on the forums to shut him up rather than just banning him?

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:

Christos wrote:

Well Todangst, I counted to 20 but this time I didn't laugh. I just felt sorry for you.

So my friend...answer me this: Why didn't you debate AM on the forums to shut him up rather than just banning him?

Oh of course, you felt sorry for me.

It couldn't be that you're just trolling at this point, angry over your own blunders, right?

christos wrote:

I like how you deleted the thread.

I like how you leap to conclusions without even bothering to look at the facts.

No thread was deleted. It was moved by another mod.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/miscellanous_forums/trollville/9649

But look at you, simply assuming the worst, without any evidence.

So, will you concede your latest blunder, your latest rash judgement, damn the facts? I'm betting 'no'.

Why are you doing this? Over and over?

Because it's clear that you are the one with the anger problems, the emotional issues.

And you're making it clear yet again.

Repeating the same lies

Running from admitting your mistakes.

 

As for the banning of your buddy: I never 'debated' him in the first place and never had any concern about his arguments.

I banned him for his trolling behavior. 

Just like I'll be banning you pretty soon.

And then you'll claim I didn't want to 'debate' you either, right?

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
  Would you like to settle

 

Would you like to settle this over a hot cup of tea and an AIM conversation? (longball401)


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:   Would

Christos wrote:

 

Would you like to settle this over a hot cup of tea and an AIM conversation? (longball401)

 

Interesting that you want to run from dealing with it here.

You've done nothing but troll the board for the past few days. Repeating lies and dodging your clear errors. Let me repeat this for you again, in the hopes that you'll eventually stop dodging it:


christos wrote:

I like how you deleted the thread.

I like how you leap to conclusions without even bothering to look at the facts.

No thread was deleted. It was moved by another mod.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/miscellanous_forums/trollville/9649

But look at you, simply assuming the worst, without any evidence.

So, will you concede your latest blunder, your latest rash judgement, damn the facts? I'm betting 'no'.

Why are you doing this? Over and over?

Because it's clear that you are the one with the anger problems, the emotional issues.

And you're making it clear yet again.

Repeating the same lies

Running from admitting your mistakes.

 

As for the banning of your buddy: I never 'debated' him in the first place and never had any concern about his arguments.

I banned him for his trolling behavior.

Just like I'll be banning you pretty soon.

And then you'll claim I didn't want to 'debate' you either, right?

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Oh Todangst, I apologize

Oh Todangst, I apologize for making a mistake on you deleting the thread. It was obviously just moved to Trollville. However, I still think you banned AM to avoid having to formally debate him.

Unless you want to continue to clog this thread with our side conversation, we should talk on AIM.......longball401

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: Oh

Christos wrote:

Oh Todangst, I apologize for making a mistake on you deleting the thread. It was obviously just moved to Trollville.

You didn't just make a 'mistake'

You made an accusation without evidence.

In fact, you lept into the accusation, out of anger, without any evidence.

You simply assumed, because it jibed well with your irrational bias.

And now, after repeating it you over and over and over and over, you FINALLY admit it.

 

Now you only need to concede that all the rest of your post is lies too.

Quote:
 

 
Unless you want to continue to clog this thread with our side conversation, we should talk on AIM.......longball401

First you clog our entire board with repeated unsubstantiated claims and lies, now you want to run away from dealing with the very storm you've created!

If even you can see that you've made false claims, if even you can see that your posts do nothing but 'clog up this thread' then I've made my point. As for the rest, you clearly need to cling to it for emotional reasons, and I don't wish to perform therapy without being paid for it.

 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Ok Todangst....have a good

Ok Todangst....have a good day. I can see you would rather avoid debate yet again.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Ok Todangst....have a good

Ok Todangst....have a good day. I can see you would rather avoid debate yet again.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:

Christos wrote:

Ok Todangst....have a good day. I can see you would rather avoid debate yet again.

 

And I see you have a need for another face saving lie!

I've already exposed your lying on this board. You've even agreed to it.

What's left? For you to admit yet another obvious fact, that your buddy was banned for the same sort of trolling that is putting you nearer and nearer a ban yourself? How is that a debate?!

There's no 'debate' here at all. Yet, just as I predicted, you're going to whine that this is about me running from a debate.

Quote:

I banned him for his trolling behavior.

Just like I'll be banning you pretty soon.

And then you'll claim I didn't want to 'debate' you either, right?

 

 By the way, I saw you double posted... that happens when someone is so angry and so upset that they can't wait long enough for the first click to work.

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
The New Testament does NOT

The New Testament does NOT date to the second century. That is a total lie, or it is a claim based on total ignorance.  That whole fallacy is based on pre-archaeological conjectures from liberals. I wanted to quote from the person who said that, but for some reason the "quote" link is placed too far to the right of my screen. I can't even see it.

 Here are the facts:

MATTHEW (A.D 40-60)

MARK (A.D. 45-60)

LUKE (A.D. 57-60)

JOHN (A.D. 40-65)

Source: Redating the New Testament, by NT scholar, John A.T. Robinson, pp. 352-354).

Jose O' Callahan, a Spanish paleographer confirmed in 1972 the earliest piece of the Gosepl of Mark found in Qumron in cave 7. Using the accepted methods of papyrology and paleography, O'Callahan eventually identified several fragments from Qumron as follows:

Mark 4:28 7Q6? A.D. 50

Mark 6:48 7Q15 A.D.?

Mark 6:52, 53 7Q5 A.D. 50

Mark 12:17 7Q7 A.D. 50

Acts 27:38 7Q6? A.D. 60 +

"The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant, make it [the New Testament] the best attested of any ancient writing in the world" (A.T. Robinson, CWTNT, 36).

 The New Testament is the best attested document in all of ancient history. The NT has over 5,700 Greek manuscripts in existance -- this makes it the best textually supported book from antiquity. The most for any other book is Homer's Iliad, with 643 manuscripts.

The earliest and undisputed manuscript of a New Testament book is the John Ryland's Papyri (P52, dated A.D. 117-138), which survives from within about a generation of the time most scholars believe it was composed (A.D. 95).

Whole New Testament books (Bodmer Papyri) are available from A.D. 200, and most of the NT, including all the Gospels, are available in the Chester Beatty Papyri from 150 years after the NT was finished.

Bruce Metzger, the great New Testament scholar and Princeton professor, made a comparison of the Iliad of Homer, the Mahabarata of Hinduism, and the New Testament. He found the text of the Mahabarata to represent 9% of the original (10 percent textual corruption), the text of the Iliad to be 95% pure, and the New Testament text to be only one half of 1% in question, or 99.5% intact. John A.T. Robinson estimated the general concern of textual criticism to be with only a "thousandth part of the entire text." That would place the accuracy of the New Testament text at 99.9%, the best known for any book of the ancient world.

Speaking of the four Gospels alone, there are 19,368 citations of the Church Fathers from the late first century onward. Even before these men there were citations: Pseudo-Barnabas (A.D. 70-130) cited Matthew, Mark and Luke: Clement of Rome (A.D. 95-97) cited Matthew, John and 1 Corinthians. Ignatius (A.D. 110) referred to six of Paul's epistles; Polycarp (A.D. 110-150) quoted all four Gospels, Acts, and most of Paul's epistles.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


lpetrich
lpetrich's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
J.A.T. Robinson is just

J.A.T. Robinson is just J.A.T. Robinson and not some demigod; most other New Testament scholars disagree and place the Gospels after 70 CE, and sometimes well into the second century CE. If you disagree, then please tell us why you think that J.A.T. Robinson's arguments are stronger than others' arguments.

And nearly all of those 5700 New Testament copies are medieval manuscripts, many of them from a few centuries near 1000 CE; there are hardly any much older than about 300 CE.

Just to show how slender the papyrus trail gets, we don't have any testimonial inscriptions describing how great a healer Jesus Christ had been. By comparison, temples of Asclepius, like the one at Epidaurus, are chock-full of such testimonies.

And According to the Gospeis, Jesus Christ had been a BIG celebrity, and one whose last days were lurid enough to attract a LOT of attention. But historians like Philo, Josephus, and Tacitus said little or nothing about him, despite having written hundreds of pages of other stuff, including lots of pages on eccentric Jewish sects (Philo) and self-styled prophets (Josephus).


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
lpetrich wrote: J.A.T.

lpetrich wrote:

J.A.T. Robinson is just J.A.T. Robinson and not some demigod; most other New Testament scholars disagree and place the Gospels after 70 CE, and sometimes well into the second century CE.

You're reading old scholarship. Inlight of the facts I gave above, it is impossible for the NT to post-date 100 AD. Obviously you did not pay close attention to my post. And if you are actually going to argue the absurd (that most scholars place the Gospels after 70 A.D. and well into the second century), please give me a name, a direct quote and a source. Give me the name and quote from one NT scholar/ historian who accepts the dates you just gave.

lpetrich wrote:
  If you disagree, then please tell us why you think that J.A.T. Robinson's arguments are stronger than others' arguments.

No reputable scholar today believes in the "late-date" theory of the New Testament. That hypothesis is dead as an academic theory. Read Robertson's book. And read the thousands of quotes from the New Testament by the early Church Fathers from the late first century on. I think they quoted all the NT but 11 verses.

lpetrich wrote:
And nearly all of those 5700 New Testament copies are medieval manuscripts, many of them from a few centuries near 1000 CE; there are hardly any much older than about 300 CE.

You didn't read my post very clearly at all! Go back and read it. The Chester Beatty Papyri, Bodmer Papyri, etc are pre-medieval (Medieval period begins around 500 A.D.).

In contrast, the oldest manuscripts for the Gallic Wars, is some 900 years later than Caesars day!

The two manuscripts pf Tacitus are 8 and 10 centuries later then the originals.

In the case of Thucydides and Herodotus, the earliest manuscript is 1300 years after the originals!

But of course you have no problem with this do you?

lpetrich wrote:
Just to show how slender the papyrus trail gets, we don't have any testimonial inscriptions describing how great a healer Jesus Christ had been. By comparison, temples of Asclepius, like the one at Epidaurus, are chock-full of such testimonies.

Sure we do. Ever hear of the New Testament? Which is, by the way, what we are talking about. In addition to the NT, which dates very early as I have proven, we have the blood of thousands of martyrs who died for the very cause of the RESURRECTION, the greatest miracle and healing of all.

lpetrich wrote:
And According to the Gospeis, Jesus Christ had been a BIG celebrity, and one whose last days were lurid enough to attract a LOT of attention. But historians like Philo, Josephus, and Tacitus said little or nothing about him, despite having written hundreds of pages of other stuff, including lots of pages on eccentric Jewish sects (Philo) and self-styled prophets (Josephus).

Josephus wrote about Jesus, James and other apotles, and Tacitus did write about Jesus, Pilate, the crucifiction, etc. The Talmud also speaks on Jesus, the "Virgin Mary," and some apostles. But this is not the issue here anyway. The issue is that the New Testament is by far the best attested document in all of ancient history.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 By the way, Asclepius was

 By the way, Asclepius was a Greek god. Not an historical person. As for the healings that have come from Christ? In any one century there are millions of reports. Even His saints have inscriptions and reports of the healings people receive from them. The healings from one saint of Christ, would make any Greek god look like a loser. Infact, there are patron saints for healings. There are patron saints for jobs, marriages, lost items, etc. And they don't even come remotely close to all the billions of reported healings and miracles from Christ spanning the last 2,000 years. I'll give you one or two dozen from Asclepius. But they're all lies anyway.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   Just a thought from an

  

Just a thought from an old drunk geezzer rrs fan.

The west debating that god of abraham will eventually play on the the comedy channel in the east at some future date. This thread got stupid me belly laughing. No I am not a buddhist. I just reject the western dictionary god definition, and reject the bible while admiring the Jesus philosophy that we are god.

.... so funny / sad western humans still debating the ridicious god of abraham, geezzz it's got to stop. Go ask an average buddhist, atheist Einstein would insist.

I've been making two folders of rrs stuff, one is very enlighting , the other is for the eastern comedy channel .... yeah I'm blizzed again, but I am laughing ......


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: By the

Apotheon wrote:
By the way, Asclepius was a Greek god. Not an historical person. As for the healings that have come from Christ? In any one century there are millions of reports. Even His saints have inscriptions and reports of the healings people receive from them. The healings from one saint of Christ, would make any Greek god look like a loser. Infact, there are patron saints for healings. There are patron saints for jobs, marriages, lost items, etc. And they don't even come remotely close to all the billions of reported healings and miracles from Christ spanning the last 2,000 years. I'll give you one or two dozen from Asclepius. But they're all lies anyway.

You're right - they're all lies. All healings attributed solely to mythologies have other explanations. We may not know them all yet but there are other explanations.

A lot of the "miracles" that I've seen are of the kind "I prayed to Jesus for healing and then I went to the hospital for the surgery I needed. Jesus healed me!" or "I prayed to St. Anthony of Padua to help me find my car keys. Then I turned my house upside down and searched until I found them. Prayer works!"

"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


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: A lot of

jcgadfly wrote:
A lot of the "miracles" that I've seen are of the kind "I prayed to Jesus for healing and then I went to the hospital for the surgery I needed. Jesus healed me!" or "I prayed to St. Anthony of Padua to help me find my car keys. Then I turned my house upside down and searched until I found them. Prayer works!"

"God does not hear sinners" (John 9:31).

 The God of Abraham is the only one true God. He crushed the polytheistic nations, and their little gods were helpless before Him.

God can only tolerate so much evil and blasphemy. His hard judgements are beginning to fall on this nation and the world. He is slow to wrath, but there is only so much He will take. Between now and the year 2011 we are going to see judgements on this world that you would have thought impossible. Stop looking for excuses. Get right with your Creator.

By the way, Einstein was not an atheist. He was too smart for that.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: jcgadfly

Apotheon wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
A lot of the "miracles" that I've seen are of the kind "I prayed to Jesus for healing and then I went to the hospital for the surgery I needed. Jesus healed me!" or "I prayed to St. Anthony of Padua to help me find my car keys. Then I turned my house upside down and searched until I found them. Prayer works!"

"God does not hear sinners" (John 9:31).

 The God of Abraham is the only one true God. He crushed the polytheistic nations, and their little gods were helpless before Him.

God can only tolerate so much evil and blasphemy. His hard judgements are beginning to fall on this nation and the world. He is slow to wrath, but there is only so much He will take. Between now and the year 2011 we are going to see judgements on this world that you would have thought impossible. Stop looking for excuses. Get right with your Creator.

By the way, Einstein was not an atheist. He was too smart for that.

Wow...

You're madder than a march hare. Everybody -- atheists, Christians, etc. -- anybody who values their lives for what they are (ends in themselves, rather than incidental cosmic stopovers), fix your eyes on Apotheon's writing. There are people around us who not only believe their apocalyptic revenge fantasies, but welcome the destruction of the only home humans have known. If you're an adherent and you don't agree with cheerleading for destruction, you're as obligated as we are to speak up.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: "God does

Apotheon wrote:

"God does not hear sinners" (John 9:31).

The God of Abraham is the only one true God. He crushed the polytheistic nations, and their little gods were helpless before Him.


Although, your god did have some trouble with one group that had chariots of iron (Judges 1:19). So much for omnipotence.

Correction, the rabid followers of the god of Abraham crushed polytheistic nations.

(Also, your claim is called "Special Pleading". It's when you want an exception made for the case you are arguing.)

Apotheon wrote:

God can only tolerate so much evil and blasphemy. His hard judgements are beginning to fall on this nation and the world. He is slow to wrath, but there is only so much He will take. Between now and the year 2011 we are going to see judgements on this world that you would have thought impossible. Stop looking for excuses. Get right with your Creator.

It's sad that your god, if he exists, is so frustrated with his own handiwork. Seems a little short on omnipotence again. 

People have been claiming that we only have a little bit of time left before judgement day for years! (2000 or so, in fact.) When their predictions come up short, they look like fools, and the next group willing to set a date steps up. Do a little research on eschatology.

Hey everyone! Apotheon says we have until 2011! He's right and all those other doomsday predictions have been wrong! He's the one! No really! (/sarcasm)

If anything, the "end of times" will likely be a self-fulfilling prophecy from rabid religious lunatics screwing everything up.

Apotheon wrote:

By the way, Einstein was not an atheist. He was too smart for that.

By the way, Einstein was not a Christian. He was too smart for that. (More pantheist/deist, actually.)

-Triften


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: jcgadfly

Apotheon wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
A lot of the "miracles" that I've seen are of the kind "I prayed to Jesus for healing and then I went to the hospital for the surgery I needed. Jesus healed me!" or "I prayed to St. Anthony of Padua to help me find my car keys. Then I turned my house upside down and searched until I found them. Prayer works!"

"God does not hear sinners" (John 9:31).

The God of Abraham is the only one true God. He crushed the polytheistic nations, and their little gods were helpless before Him.

God can only tolerate so much evil and blasphemy. His hard judgements are beginning to fall on this nation and the world. He is slow to wrath, but there is only so much He will take. Between now and the year 2011 we are going to see judgements on this world that you would have thought impossible. Stop looking for excuses. Get right with your Creator.

By the way, Einstein was not an atheist. He was too smart for that.

Assume much? I love the way you "If they don't believe exactly my way, God doesn't like them" types operate.

You can just as easily substitute "Jesus" with "the God of Abraham" in my little examples and not change a thing.

Are you one of those Fred Phelps types? Your post reads like you're getting a serious boner for the judgments you want to see

When 2012 rolls around and the world hasn't suffered from the judgments you're getting all hot for are you going to come back and change the time to 2017-2021?

And by the way, Einstein himself debunked your hope that he believed in the God of Abraham.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

I guess you're too caught up in yourself to do proper research.

"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


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
More from Albert Einstein,

More from Albert Einstein, though I really wish people would stop claiming him. He was a bloody pantheist -- deal with it.

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."