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.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: "It was,

jcgadfly wrote:

"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 said Einstein was not an atheist. I didn't say he believed in a personal God. He believed in the pantheistic god of Benedict Spinoza. Pantheism is the belief that all is God, and God is all. The universe is God. Of course, there are serious philosophical problems with pantheism, but being a scientist and not a philosopher, Einstein didn't know this.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

My point remains valid. Einstein was no atheist.

I never said the world ends in 2011. You people are putting words in my mouth. I said you will see judgements fall on this world between now and 2011. I don't know when Christ will come. I never set a date.

I was thinking a lot today about the fires in southern California. I used to live there. I picked up my Bible today and randomly opened to this passage. My eyes landed straight on it:

"....why does the land perish and burn like a wilderness, do that no one can pass through?

And the LORD said, Because they have forsaken My law which I have set before them, and have not obeyed my voice, nor walked according to it, but they have walked according to the dictates of their own hearts and after the Baals which their fathers taught them" (Jeremiah 9:12-14).

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
Correction: "so that no

Correction: "so that no one..."

 

Most people aren't aware of the fact that southern California has the highest concentration of witches in the world. In addition to their idolatry and paganism, they have their homosexuality, immorality, greed, lust, avarice, vanity, materialism, etc.

 

New Orleans was heavely invloved in voodoo and the occult aswell.

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
  "knowing this first:

 

"knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days. walking according to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation" (2Pet.3:16).

 

I love to see biblical prophecy fulfilled. Your skepticism and mockery was foretold 2,000 years ago.

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


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:

Apotheon wrote:
My point remains valid. Einstein was no atheist.

Neither was a he a christian. Whatever his philosophy, it in no way jibes with yours. Therefore, it's entirely worthless of you to bring it up.

Apotheon wrote:
I don't know when Christ will come. I never set a date.

Every generation of christians has thought jesus was coming on their watch -- and has hemmed and hawed when it's failed to happen.

Allow me to set the date of his coming: Never.

Apotheon wrote:

I was thinking a lot today...

Well, that's a start. Keep it up.

Apotheon wrote:
...about the fires in southern California. I used to live there. I picked up my Bible today and randomly opened to this passage. My eyes landed straight on it:

"....(blah blah blah)" (Jeremiah 9:12-14).

I'm quite sure jeremiah had San Diego in mind when he wrote that down.

I just picked up my copy of Lolita and randomly opened it. I didn't find anything useful, so I opened it randomly again. After looking up and down the page, my eyes landed straight on:

"The stipulation of the Roman law, according to which a girl may marry at twelve, was adopted by the Church, and is still preserved, rather tacitly, in some of the United States."

No point, really. Opening books at random is a pretty useless pursuit...especially after thinking a lot.

 

Apotheon wrote:
Most people aren't aware of the fact that southern California has the highest concentration of witches in the world. In addition to their idolatry and paganism, they have their homosexuality, immorality, greed, lust, avarice, vanity, materialism, etc.

My friend, you are seriously on tilt.

The tsunami claimed more lives -- what offense did those Third Worlders commit?

How about the millions that the Black Plague killed in Europe -- when christianity was at the height of its influence?

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


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

Apotheon wrote:

Correction: "so that no one..."

 

Most people aren't aware of the fact that southern California has the highest concentration of witches in the world. In addition to their idolatry and paganism, they have their homosexuality, immorality, greed, lust, avarice, vanity, materialism, etc.

 

New Orleans was heavely invloved in voodoo and the occult aswell.

Yep, he's implying they deserved Katrina. Look well, people.

Oh, and California's fires have nothing to do with an unfortunate confluence of natural effects: a drought, the yearly Santa Ana winds, the dried trees left in the wake of the gradual destruction of the bark beetle, and the dried brush we have to clear every fall. No, Apotheon informs us, it's witches. His wrathful Yahweh has set into motion a load of unfortunate circumstances, that appear natural, to take out those pesky witches.


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

Apotheon wrote:

 

"knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days. walking according to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation" (2Pet.3:16).

 

I love to see biblical prophecy fulfilled. Your skepticism and mockery was foretold 2,000 years ago.

 Whoa! They expected people to scoff at what they were writing? That is spot on, man, because nobody could possibly have a reason to scoff.

Also, I predict you will die never having eating quiche.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Zaruthsutra, which church

 Zaruthsutra, which church allows 12 year olds to marry? Give me a specific name.

The tsunami occured because a large Christian community wanted to have a Christian celebration, but the local authorities forbade them. So the Christians went and celebrated in the mountains, and the tsunami came and destroyed their enemies.

 Einstein:

"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."

No personal God

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

Why no personal God?

It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

Einstein's error

Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

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


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
This is way off the thread

This is way off the thread topic.  If you'd like me to pick your nonsense apart in a new thread, let me know.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


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

Apotheon wrote:

 Zaruthsutra, which church allows 12 year olds to marry? Give me a specific name.

The tsunami occured because a large Christian community wanted to have a Christian celebration, but the local authorities forbade them. So the Christians went and celebrated in the mountains, and the tsunami came and destroyed their enemies.

 Einstein:

"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."

No personal God

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

Why no personal God?

It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

Einstein's error

Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

 Did you want to mention your source?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

Prick. 


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 No matter what happens

 No matter what happens and what prophecies are fulfilled, many atheists will simply refuse to yield to the truth and continue in their obstinate "rationalizing" of the events.  Their bias against God clouds their reasoning and any accurate appraisal of reality. No one can believe unless they are elect; unless they are children of God. Belief has to be given from God.

 

"No man can come to me unless the Father which has sent me draw him" (John 6:44).

 

I don't know on what basis God chooses some people and not others, but I trust His infinite wisdom.

 

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
 I thought the source was

 I thought the source was rather obvious in the links contained within my post.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Brian, Kelly, why do you

 Brian, Kelly, why do you have this website? What is in Jesus' message you find so repulsive? All He taught was love and forgiveness. He never hurt anyone. All He did was good. But they crucified Him for no reason at all. And He is being crucified again today. This is so sad. I agree that many people who claim to be followers of Christ are hypocrites and liars. But even you have to admit that if the world as a whole truly followed Jesus message, it would be a much better place to live. Even when Jesus' followers act like they are supposed to act, the world is a better place. Imagine what would happen if everyone truly followed Him.

 

But in all charity, I have to advise you that you are fighting against something you will never defeat.

 

Finally, I resent your anti-American attitude by wanting to eliminate Constitutionally protected freedom of religion. Frankly, I think atheists are just jealous of us. We have hope, meaning and purpose. Atheism offers nothing but dispair.

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:  I thought

Apotheon wrote:
 I thought the source was rather obvious in the links contained within my post.

Did you try them?

Forget it. Look who I'm talking to. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm done talking to Apotheon

I'm done talking to Apotheon until he refills his prescription.


DarwinsMonkey
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote: you have to admit

Quote:
you have to admit that if the world as a whole truly followed Jesus message, it would be a much better place to live

You mean if everyone was just like you, had the same exact belief system, hated homosexuals, blamed natural disasters on an invisible and vengeful sky person, feared anything that is different or disagreed with their philosophy, forbid the use of condoms, squashes any form of questioning about the natural world?  No thanks.  Diversity, in thought and philosophy, is much more healthy.  As is a questioning, skeptical, analytical mind.

Quote:
anti-American attitude by wanting to eliminate Constitutionally protected freedom of religion

Does your version of freedom of religion include the Wiccans (witches) that you gleefully think your god is trying to burn in San Diego?  Or the folks in New Orleans that practiced Santoria (voodoo)? Or is it just the freedom to be christian?  I don't think RRS is trying to rewrite the constitution.  I think RRS is trying to get religion where it belongs, in private. Out of our schools, out of our government, and out of our science.  You have as much right to your personal belief system as we do to ours, but you don't have the right to force it on anyone. 

Quote:
We have hope, meaning and purpose. Atheism offers nothing but dispair.

I'm fairly certain that you won't change your beliefs, so there's really no point in saying this, but what exactly about living in fear that you're going to burn for eternity unless you follow some 2000+ year-old set of rules gives hope, meaning, and purpose?  I'd much rather realize that this is my one shot at life and do everything I can to live it to the fullest than to pin my hopes on an eternal frat party after I die.  There's no more dispair in atheism than there is in theism, and I would argue that there's significantly less.  Live life like it's the only one you've got and you'll discover beauty, subtleness, and wonder in things you previously took for granted.  Atheists don't believe in a 'do-over', and are free to live our lives without the burden of 'sins' we didn't commit, or even the concept of 'sin' itself.  We are free from any threats of eternal damnation, free to question our existence, free to expand our knowledge, and free to change our minds without fear of pissing off imaginary god(s).


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

Apotheon wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

"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 said Einstein was not an atheist. I didn't say he believed in a personal God. He believed in the pantheistic god of Benedict Spinoza. Pantheism is the belief that all is God, and God is all. The universe is God. Of course, there are serious philosophical problems with pantheism, but being a scientist and not a philosopher, Einstein didn't know this.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

My point remains valid. Einstein was no atheist.

I never said the world ends in 2011. You people are putting words in my mouth. I said you will see judgements fall on this world between now and 2011. I don't know when Christ will come. I never set a date.

I was thinking a lot today about the fires in southern California. I used to live there. I picked up my Bible today and randomly opened to this passage. My eyes landed straight on it:

"....why does the land perish and burn like a wilderness, do that no one can pass through?

And the LORD said, Because they have forsaken My law which I have set before them, and have not obeyed my voice, nor walked according to it, but they have walked according to the dictates of their own hearts and after the Baals which their fathers taught them" (Jeremiah 9:12-14).

You trumpeted Einstein like he was such a grand example of your cause. You also claim that the Abrahamic God is the only one. Why bring up Einstein if you disagree with him?

I never said you claimed the world ends in 2011. I asked you why you are so excited and hopeful about the judgments you claim are coming. Most people would feel sorrow at the misfortunes of others. Your posts indicate that you are experincing an almost orgasmic happiness about it. I also asked if you would adjust your dates if the judgments you're getting anticipatory pleasure from fail to come to pass.

 

"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


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: No matter

Apotheon wrote:

No matter what happens and what prophecies are fulfilled, many atheists will simply refuse to yield to the truth and continue in their obstinate "rationalizing" of the events. Their bias against God clouds their reasoning and any accurate appraisal of reality. No one can believe unless they are elect; unless they are children of God. Belief has to be given from God.

No matter what happens and what prophecies aren't fulfilled, many theists will simply refuse to yield to the truth and continue in their obstinate rationalizing of their beliefs. Their bias for god clouds their reasonig and any accurate appraisal of reality.

Do you see you aren't actually making any arguments at this point? And if you believe that belief is granted by god, why are you bothering to argue with us? Do you think you can go against your god's will? Or does god need your help in bringing belief to us?

-Triften


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Why did this raving lunatic

Why did this raving lunatic hijack my thread? Sad


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

KSMB wrote:
Why did this raving lunatic hijack my thread? Sad

Well, he started out bringing up debunked scholarship stating that the gospels were written not long after Jesus death and that Matthew was first.

After being slapped around there, he decided to try a new tack to make himself relevant.

 

"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: KSMB

jcgadfly wrote:

KSMB wrote:
Why did this raving lunatic hijack my thread? Sad

Well, he started out bringing up debunked scholarship stating that the gospels were written not long after Jesus death and that Matthew was first.

After being slapped around there, he decided to try a new tack to make himself relevant.

 

Oh really? What exactly did I say that has been debunked? Give me a name, book, page, chapter and verse. Infact, give me the quote from this thread that "debunked" me. I refuted the asinine and ignorant claim that the Gospels were written in the 200's. The person who made that claim is basing his entire thesis on 18th century German higher criticism. But he didn't know that the late date theory has been completaly abandoned by the scholarly community. And like the coward that he is, he has not returned here to defend his argument.  I gave direct, precise and specific evidence refuting the late date theory. I named the manuscripts and sources. We can really get into this if you want to. But I would think twice if I were you.

 

Monkey, we don't believe in an invisible man in the sky. That's a straw man. If you are going to argue against us, atleast get our position right. God is not a man. He exists everywhere as Spirit. He exists inside and outside the universe.

 

And yes I resent this website because it is fundementally Anti-American and Communistic.

 

I'm actually being gentle on my treatment on witches and homosexuals. The law God gave Moses required they be stoned to death.

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
  There's an old

 

There's an old saying:

 

"those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."

 

The people who are postulating the "late-date" theory of the Goepls, are ignorant of history because they didn't know that this position has been abandoned. Modern archaeology proves the traditional belief of the Gospels, as do the over 9,000 references to the Gospels from the church fathers. The late -date theory was made before the discovery of the contents of cave 7 at Qumron, and before the discovery of the Chester-Beaty, Bodmer papyri and the other ancient manuscripts which contain the New Testament. The late-date theory also doesn't make sense enlight of the things written in the New Testament itself. For example the Gospels and the Book of Acts speak frequently of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. But the Gospels and Acts refer to the Temple as still standing. Therefore, they must have been written before the destrcution of the Temple. Moreoever, Acts was written before 65 A.D. because it doesn't record the death of Paul, which occured in 65 A.D.

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


DarwinsMonkey
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Monkey, we don't

Quote:
Monkey, we don't believe in an invisible man in the sky. That's a straw man. If you are going to argue against us, atleast get our position right. God is not a man. He exists everywhere as Spirit. He exists inside and outside the universe.

Ok, I don't really want to hijack this thread any more than it already has been, but I'm a bit confused.  If god is not a man, but created man in his image, wouldn't it follow that god at least resembles a man?  As far as god existing everywhere and both inside and outside the universe: prove it.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
DarwinsMonkey

DarwinsMonkey wrote:

Quote:
Monkey, we don't believe in an invisible man in the sky. That's a straw man. If you are going to argue against us, atleast get our position right. God is not a man. He exists everywhere as Spirit. He exists inside and outside the universe.

Ok, I don't really want to hijack this thread any more than it already has been, but I'm a bit confused.  If god is not a man, but created man in his image, wouldn't it follow that god at least resembles a man?  As far as god existing everywhere and both inside and outside the universe: prove it.

Good question.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/6633 


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
DarwinsMonkey wrote: Ok, I

DarwinsMonkey wrote:

Ok, I don't really want to hijack this thread any more than it already has been, but I'm a bit confused.  If god is not a man, but created man in his image, wouldn't it follow that god at least resembles a man?  As far as god existing everywhere and both inside and outside the universe: prove it.

Humans resemble God in that we have characterisitics of God: intellect, free will, spirit, goodness, etc.

 I'm not on this thread to prove that God exists inside and outside the universe. That's another issue. I was just telling you what my actual position is. I don't believe God is a man in the sky. Did you actually think that was the Christian position, or were you just being sarcastic? That sounds like something a Sunday School child would believe. However, that's not to say there is no truth to that claim, because Christ is God and He posesses two natures: human and divine. He's not half man and half God. He is fully human and fully divine. He is the bridge between God and man. That's the Christian position anyway. But he's not in the sky floating on a cloud somewhere. He resides bodily in heaven. But He is omnipresent --everywhere present, and He knows everything we are saying on this thread, aswell as everything that is occuring in the far reaches of the universe.

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
KSMB wrote: Why did this

KSMB wrote:
Why did this raving lunatic hijack my thread? Sad

 

Well, you opened a thread for discussion. I thought you were seeking answers. Perhaps I was wrong.

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


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

Apotheon wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

KSMB wrote:
Why did this raving lunatic hijack my thread? Sad

Well, he started out bringing up debunked scholarship stating that the gospels were written not long after Jesus death and that Matthew was first.

After being slapped around there, he decided to try a new tack to make himself relevant.

 

Oh really? What exactly did I say that has been debunked? Give me a name, book, page, chapter and verse. Infact, give me the quote from this thread that "debunked" me. I refuted the asinine and ignorant claim that the Gospels were written in the 200's. The person who made that claim is basing his entire thesis on 18th century German higher criticism. But he didn't know that the late date theory has been completaly abandoned by the scholarly community. And like the coward that he is, he has not returned here to defend his argument. I gave direct, precise and specific evidence refuting the late date theory. I named the manuscripts and sources. We can really get into this if you want to. But I would think twice if I were you.

 

Monkey, we don't believe in an invisible man in the sky. That's a straw man. If you are going to argue against us, atleast get our position right. God is not a man. He exists everywhere as Spirit. He exists inside and outside the universe.

 

And yes I resent this website because it is fundementally Anti-American and Communistic.

 

I'm actually being gentle on my treatment on witches and homosexuals. The law God gave Moses required they be stoned to death.

What has been debunked?

Let me see -you brought up Josephus' little bit on Jesus which is at best a later interpolation not written by him and is at worst an outright forgery.

You brought up some historians that mentioned "Chrestos" but nothing linking Jesus to the Abrahamic God.

You brought up 30 year old scholarship saying that Matthew was written three years after Jesus' death without noting how Matthew liberally "borrows" from Mark and completely disregarding more modern scholarship that lists Mark as being written first and some 20-30 years later (Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, 1996). I'd only heard the 2nd century idea for Luke-Acts and I don't hold to that view. 

You believe in God as Spirit, ok. Do you have a definition of Spirit that doesn't include invisible and intangible? If not, believing in a spirit makes nearly as much sense as believing in an invisible man.

As for the Americanism and Communism of this site - Communism is an economic theory, not a political or religious one. In fact, it is only when Communism is tweaked into a political and religious theory that it is doomed to failure. With America today being forced into a fundy christian dominionist mold that believes that not believing in  thd God of the Bible should merit a death sentence - count me in with the anti-Americans, please. 

"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


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

Apotheon wrote:

KSMB wrote:
Why did this raving lunatic hijack my thread? Sad

Well, you opened a thread for discussion. I thought you were seeking answers. Perhaps I was wrong.

I was seeking discussion and answers, not ramblings from batshit crazy people who can't read my OP, like yourself. I'm not saying the canonical gospels are 2nd century themselves, although your given time of authorship is too early. I'm saying that referencing them as written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, that is 2nd century speculation.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: [...] As

jcgadfly wrote:
[...] As for the Americanism and Communism of this site - Communism is an economic theory, not a political or religious one. In fact, it is only when Communism is tweaked into a political and religious theory that it is doomed to failure. With America today being forced into a fundy christian dominionist mold that believes that not believing in  thd God of the Bible should merit a death sentence - count me in with the anti-Americans, please.

My America is the America of the enlightenment, in the realm of Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, et al. The tactic of conflating an entire country with a current policy, interest group, or administration was used, ironically, by the communists to denounce their opponents as Anti-Russian. My views can run to any extreme, and still be constitutionally protected; if anything, it's the religious extremists, trying to sanctify their majority into a bludgeon, that are being contrary to the foundations of the this country. The founding fathers could have made this an official Christian nation -- Armenia was, for instance, an official Christian nation years before the conversion of Constantine -- but they deliberately did not. I don't think they did it with a wink, either, as if to say, "We're trusting you'll be a Christian anyway." Thomas Jefferson expected most American Christians to lapse into going through the motions, in the form of Unitarianism.


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

magilum wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
[...] As for the Americanism and Communism of this site - Communism is an economic theory, not a political or religious one. In fact, it is only when Communism is tweaked into a political and religious theory that it is doomed to failure. With America today being forced into a fundy christian dominionist mold that believes that not believing in thd God of the Bible should merit a death sentence - count me in with the anti-Americans, please.

My America is the America of the enlightenment, in the realm of Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, et al. The tactic of conflating an entire country with a current policy, interest group, or administration was used, ironically, by the communists to denounce their opponents as Anti-Russian. My views can run to any extreme, and still be constitutionally protected; if anything, it's the religious extremists, trying to sanctify their majority into a bludgeon, that are being contrary to the foundations of the this country. The founding fathers could have made this an official Christian nation -- Armenia was, for instance, an official Christian nation years before the conversion of Constantine -- but they deliberately did not. I don't think they did it with a wink, either, as if to say, "We're trusting you'll be a Christian anyway." Thomas Jefferson expected most American Christians to lapse into going through the motions, in the form of Unitarianism.

This is about the time that I expect Apotheon to come in with "But the Founding Fathers were all Christians!"

I hope he's a bit more well-read than that but I hold out little hope. 

"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: Well, he

jcgadfly wrote:

Well, he started out bringing up debunked scholarship stating that the gospels were written not long after Jesus death and that Matthew was first.

No, what has been debunked is the late-date theory. And while there is ample evidence Matthew was written first (several apostolic fathers said it was first and originally written in Aramaic), I don't think I made the claim here. We have no  Aramaic manuscripts of Matthew. All we have is the testimony of the earliest apostolic writers.

jcgadfly wrote:
After being slapped around there, he decided to try a new tack to make himself relevant.

 No one here has disproved one thing I said. And you know it. Stop lying.

jcgadfly wrote:
Let me see -you brought up Josephus' little bit on Jesus which is at best a later interpolation not written by him and is at worst an outright forgery.

Really? In what posts did I mention Josephus in this thread? lol that wasn't even part of my argument. And you're wrong anyway. Flusser and Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem have proven it is not a forgery.

jcgadfly wrote:
You brought up some historians that mentioned "Chrestos" but nothing linking Jesus to the Abrahamic God.

You're hallucinating. Not in this thread.

jcgadfly wrote:
You brought up 30 year old scholarship saying that Matthew was written three years after Jesus' death without noting how Matthew liberally "borrows" from Mark and completely disregarding more modern scholarship that lists Mark as being written first and some 20-30 years later (Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, 1996). I'd only heard the 2nd century idea for Luke-Acts and I don't hold to that view. 

Even if my scholarship was 30 years old, which it isn't, then logically we must of necessity completely discard the theory of evolution because it is a very old theory lol. You people are unbelievable. Appeal only to modern times (appeal to novelty) is a logical fallacy.

jcgadfly wrote:
You believe in God as Spirit, ok. Do you have a definition of Spirit that doesn't include invisible and intangible?

Why do I have to give a definition that makes you happy? A spirit is not extended in time and space.

jcgadfly wrote:
If not, believing in a spirit makes nearly as much sense as believing in an invisible man.

It makes perfect sense to 95-98% of the worlds population. Who are you?

jcgadfly wrote:
As for the Americanism and Communism of this site - Communism is an economic theory, not a political or religious one. In fact, it is only when Communism is tweaked into a political and religious theory that it is doomed to failure. With America today being forced into a fundy christian dominionist mold that believes that not believing in  thd God of the Bible should merit a death sentence - count me in with the anti-Americans, please. 

Give me a source showing non-theistic beliefs warrant a death sentence. Communism is also a philosophy. It is a philosphy rooted in atheism. And historically, its is very destructive.

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


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

Apotheon wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

Well, he started out bringing up debunked scholarship stating that the gospels were written not long after Jesus death and that Matthew was first.

No, what has been debunked is the late-date theory. And while there is ample evidence Matthew was written first (several apostolic fathers said it was first and originally written in Aramaic), I don't think I made the claim here. We have no Aramaic manuscripts of Matthew. All we have is the testimony of the earliest apostolic writers.

jcgadfly wrote:
After being slapped around there, he decided to try a new tack to make himself relevant.

No one here has disproved one thing I said. And you know it. Stop lying.

jcgadfly wrote:
Let me see -you brought up Josephus' little bit on Jesus which is at best a later interpolation not written by him and is at worst an outright forgery.

Really? In what posts did I mention Josephus in this thread? lol that wasn't even part of my argument. And you're wrong anyway. Flusser and Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem have proven it is not a forgery.

jcgadfly wrote:
You brought up some historians that mentioned "Chrestos" but nothing linking Jesus to the Abrahamic God.

You're hallucinating. Not in this thread.

jcgadfly wrote:
You brought up 30 year old scholarship saying that Matthew was written three years after Jesus' death without noting how Matthew liberally "borrows" from Mark and completely disregarding more modern scholarship that lists Mark as being written first and some 20-30 years later (Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, 1996). I'd only heard the 2nd century idea for Luke-Acts and I don't hold to that view.

Even if my scholarship was 30 years old, which it isn't, then logically we must of necessity completely discard the theory of evolution because it is a very old theory lol. You people are unbelievable. Appeal only to modern times (appeal to novelty) is a logical fallacy.

jcgadfly wrote:
You believe in God as Spirit, ok. Do you have a definition of Spirit that doesn't include invisible and intangible?

Why do I have to give a definition that makes you happy? A spirit is not extended in time and space.

jcgadfly wrote:
If not, believing in a spirit makes nearly as much sense as believing in an invisible man.

It makes perfect sense to 95-98% of the worlds population. Who are you?

jcgadfly wrote:
As for the Americanism and Communism of this site - Communism is an economic theory, not a political or religious one. In fact, it is only when Communism is tweaked into a political and religious theory that it is doomed to failure. With America today being forced into a fundy christian dominionist mold that believes that not believing in thd God of the Bible should merit a death sentence - count me in with the anti-Americans, please.

Give me a source showing non-theistic beliefs warrant a death sentence. Communism is also a philosophy. It is a philosphy rooted in atheism. And historically, its is very destructive.

1. Thank you for bringing that up. The apostolic fathers had a reason to say that Matthew was first - they were selling religion. You don't want to raise doubts about your product when you're rolling it out.

2. I though you brought up Jospehus and Tacitus as others who mentioned Christ. If I was wrong and misatrributed it, I apologize. And I never said that the whole was a forgery - just that the part mentioning Christ was not written by Josephus.

3. In your diatribe about old scholarship, I notice that you completely forgot to mention anything about the fact that modern scholarship has taken apart Robinson's dating. Is that the selective truth-telling christians are so famous for? Incidentally, evolution hasn't been debunked yet.

4. Why give me a definition? You and others claim you know God exists. What is so hard then about providing a definintion that actually tells me what it is instead of what it's not? And then you add more about what a spirit isn't - why can't you tell me what it is?

5. 95-98% of the worlds population? It's not even 70% of Israel's population. Lots of people doing something doesn't mean it makes sense.

6. The people who died during communism didn't die because they were theists - they died becaus they ticked off the government. Theistic governments are also good at killing those who annoy them. Hadn't you noticed? 

NB - You've been refuted long and often by others in this thread. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

"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


Tankalish
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-07-06
User is offlineOffline
As a Christian I have to

As a Christian I have to concede that the evidence suggests Mark was written first, roughly 60-70 ad, with Matthew following shortly after. If you actually want numbers something over 90% of Mark is found in Matthew, exactly or paraphrased, alhthough frequently expanded upon.

I would resist the claim that dating the Gospels later somehow mitigates or devaluates their testimony. The beleif, clearly wrong, of many early Christians was that Christ would be returning immediately. No reason for books if the faith need not pass beyond this generation.

Claiming that believing in an intangible spirit is the same as believing in a spirit man is a bit of equivocation, and it's not clear to me that it's at all valid. A central element of Christian's claim throughout history has been the transformative affect of the spirit. If you saw something happen, defying explanation except something invisible, would it be justifiable to believe in an invisible man? Certainly an invisible being of some sort, at which point the question becomes what nature of being. Hence theology.

A couple other questions, why the bit about Josephus? If it's references you're looking for, the Church has a number of explicit documents on this Christ figure, and we have documents dated to as early as 50, 1st Thesselonians I believe. This is obviously conceding the fact that most letters would have just been tossed as we do with letters today. Claiming that this is biased and doesn't count isn't valid here. While it can be claimed that they are biased and need to be read with skeptcisim, this a claim that historians apply to every document. It's called a hermeneutical situation and needs to be accounted for. American histories of America are valid. You don't need an outside source to prove something. 


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

Tankalish wrote:

As a Christian I have to concede that the evidence suggests Mark was written first, roughly 60-70 ad, with Matthew following shortly after. If you actually want numbers something over 90% of Mark is found in Matthew, exactly or paraphrased, alhthough frequently expanded upon.

I would resist the claim that dating the Gospels later somehow mitigates or devaluates their testimony. The beleif, clearly wrong, of many early Christians was that Christ would be returning immediately. No reason for books if the faith need not pass beyond this generation.

Claiming that believing in an intangible spirit is the same as believing in a spirit man is a bit of equivocation, and it's not clear to me that it's at all valid. A central element of Christian's claim throughout history has been the transformative affect of the spirit. If you saw something happen, defying explanation except something invisible, would it be justifiable to believe in an invisible man? Certainly an invisible being of some sort, at which point the question becomes what nature of being. Hence theology.

A couple other questions, why the bit about Josephus? If it's references you're looking for, the Church has a number of explicit documents on this Christ figure, and we have documents dated to as early as 50, 1st Thesselonians I believe. This is obviously conceding the fact that most letters would have just been tossed as we do with letters today. Claiming that this is biased and doesn't count isn't valid here. While it can be claimed that they are biased and need to be read with skeptcisim, this a claim that historians apply to every document. It's called a hermeneutical situation and needs to be accounted for. American histories of America are valid. You don't need an outside source to prove something.

Thanks for writing that.

The dating of the Gospels doesn't famage their testimony for believers. It does, however, crush their historical value as proofs of the historicity of Jesus. Apotheon is proceeding (if I'm not mistaken again) as though the Gospels are historical documents proving that Jesus existed.

I brought up Josephus as what I thought was a response to Apotheon bringing him up as an example of a historian of the time who mentioned Jesus. Josephus and Tacitus run so tightly together in Christian apologetics that I may have added him when he wasn't mentioned in this thread.

Bringing up Paul in this adds another problem - Paul doesn't mention any incidents in Jesus' life. If he knew about Jesus and thought he was the Christ, why not mention his life? His writings were closer to Jesus' life than the Gospels. That's one of the reasons that I think that Paul was trying to create a religion out of whole cloth and used the name Jesus Christ as a title - Messiah God's Deliverer (christos->messiah, Jesus->Yeshua->God is my savior/deliverer).

My problem is not with outside accounts - just with those folks who bring up Josephus and Tacitus when people ask for contemporary accounts of Jesus' existence.

"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


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Bringing

jcgadfly wrote:
Bringing up Paul in this adds another problem - Paul doesn't mention any incidents in Jesus' life. If he knew about Jesus and thought he was the Christ, why not mention his life? His writings were closer to Jesus' life than the Gospels.

 

If I may interject here....

 

I've always found this argument very unconvincing.  Most, if not all, of Paul's letters were occasional--that is, they were written in a specific situation to address specific issues.  They were also mostly written to churches he had already started around Asia Minor.  He could have already told the stories to these churches in person.  No reason to rehearse them in epistles which he was writing to address specific issues and themes.  Moreover, if we are to believe Luke, there were already many gospels in circulation at the point of his own gospel being written, so why w ould Paul take it upon himself to add to the pile?  I see no compelling evidence that Paul would tell a bunch of stories about Jesus.  At the same time, its quite clear from his epistles that he viewed Jesus as a historical person.


Tankalish
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-07-06
User is offlineOffline
True enough, the Gospels do

True enough, the Gospels do not prove Jesus. Neither do texts from the lat 1700's prove that we revolted while under English rule. It is the the events that are the proposed result of that incident that give the testimony credence. In this line of thought, it is the events that follow the resurrected Christ, both around 33 c.e. and today, that give the claim validity. If you have an explanation for the behavior of the disicples and the resulting mass conversions, testimonies to miracles etc. I'd be interested to hear it. But I feel such a claim is a necessary condition of refuting them.


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Tankalish wrote: If you

Tankalish wrote:
If you have an explanation for the behavior of the disicples and the resulting mass conversions, testimonies to miracles etc. I'd be interested to hear it. But I feel such a claim is a necessary condition of refuting them.

Here's mine: People were even more ignorant and superstitious then then they are today. 

-Triften


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
And that merely demonstrates

And that merely demonstrates your modern Western-civilization arrogance.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
That's an rather arrogant

That's a rather arrogant thing to say


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
irrespective wrote: And

irrespective wrote:
And that merely demonstrates your modern Western-civilization arrogance.

I'm not drawing it on a Western/Eastern divide. I'm drawing it on an ignorant/rational thinking divide.

Besides, belief in the supernatural is pretty pervasive in the "West".

-Triften 


heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
I don't know if this has

I don't know if this has been said yet, but the early Church believed Christ would return during the lives of the apostles.  It would be a dead giveaway of midrash had they written gospels early on, considering there was no need for them.  The gospels were written when the began to realize Christ might not return so soon as they thought.  Mark and Luke weren't even apostles!  It aslo matters when you date them.  Anytime after 70 is very late.  I'd say most were written between 55-65.