Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection

[night912]

It's baloney and lame. The early church fathers confirmed the traditional Gospel authors.

Matthew

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel

Mark Authorship

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel

Luke Authorship

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel

John Authorship

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel

Reposting your refuted sources won't change a thing. It's not going to help your argument, instead it just show that you have nothing. You still didn't address my point regarding that there's no authors assigned to the four gospels. You even failed at making any attempts to address my later points, instead you just went on deluding yourself into believing that you have dealt with my points. Reality is, calling them lame and baloney without even addressing them still does nothing to help your argument.

More than likely, you will refuse to look into this but for everyone else, here is some things about the gospels.

Christian Authorities - The New Testament - Bad News About Christianity

 

[Riders]

Sense the early church fathers were not alive at the same time Jesus was, they could not confirm anything including who wrote the Gospels. They wern't there. So why use evidence that is not evidence?

 

[Riders]

This part of your evidence.

The Church fathers quoted here lived in the first to third centuries. They are unanimous that Matthew wrote the first Gospel, and it was authoritative for them–so it should be for us too.


They lived before the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, so they are called the Ante-Nicene Fathers (“ante” means “before”).

They are not modern historians, but their opinions are still interesting and revealing–they did not express doubts.

That;s hundreds of years after Jesus, and after Mathew Mark Luke and John. If your saying Mathew Mark Luke and John wrote the gospels hundreds of years after Jesus, then that's proof the whole bible was a fictional story.

Because if Mathew Mark Luke and John are alive hundreds of years after Christ, they obviously were not alive the same time Christ was and there Gospels are lies.

 

[Spartan]

Reposting your refuted sources won't change a thing. It's not going to help your argument, instead it just show that you have nothing.

"refuted sources? LOL. You didn't refute anything. All you do is post the usual anti-Christianity tripe and think it's scholarship.

 

[Spartan]

This part of your evidence.

The Church fathers quoted here lived in the first to third centuries. They are unanimous that Matthew wrote the first Gospel, and it was authoritative for them–so it should be for us too.


They lived before the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, so they are called the Ante-Nicene Fathers (“ante” means “before”).

They are not modern historians, but their opinions are still interesting and revealing–they did not express doubts.

That;s hundreds of years after Jesus, and after Mathew Mark Luke and John. If your saying Mathew Mark Luke and John wrote the gospels hundreds of years after Jesus, then that's proof the whole bible was a fictional story.

Because if Mathew Mark Luke and John are alive hundreds of years after Christ, they obviously were not alive the same time Christ was and there Gospels are lies.

You know, I see a lot of wild claims from you guys - almost all of it nonsensical. Yours takes the cake. Like what you wrote above: "Because if Mathew Mark Luke and John are alive hundreds of years after Christ, they obviously were not alive the same time Christ was and there Gospels are lies."

That's absolute nonsense. I don't know a scholar on earth who believes the Gospel writers lived "hundreds of years after Christ." That's bizarre.

 

[Spartan]

Because if Mathew Mark Luke and John are alive hundreds of years after Christ, they obviously were not alive the same time Christ was and there Gospels are lies.

<facepalm>

“Gospel According to Matthew, first of the four New Testament Gospels (narratives recounting the life and death of Jesus Christ) and, with The Gospels According to Mark and Luke, one of the three so-called Synoptic Gospels (i.e., those presenting a common view). It has traditionally been attributed to St. Matthew the Evangelist, one of the 12 Apostles, described in the text as a tax collector (10:3). The Gospel According to Matthew was composed in Greek, probably sometime after 70 CE, with evident dependence on the earlier Gospel According to Mark. There has, however, been extended discussion about the possibility of an earlier version in Aramaic. Numerous textual indications point to an author who was a Jewish Christian writing for Christians of similar background. The Gospel According to Matthew consequently emphasizes Christ’s fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (5:17) and his role as a new lawgiver whose divine mission was confirmed by repeated miracles.” – Written by the Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica Gospel According to Matthew | Description, History, & Facts

You're busted.

 

[Left Coast]

It's baloney and lame. The early church fathers confirmed the traditional Gospel authors.

Matthew

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel

Mark Authorship

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel

Luke Authorship

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel

John Authorship

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel

Actually read these links. All these "Early Church Fathers" either a) lived way too long after the fact to be able to credibly certify who wrote these Gospels, b) credulously refer to the Gospel as Scripture without giving any reason beyond faith, and/or c) cite passages from the Gospels without naming their authors.

This is not convincing stuff. This is the same "logic" a modern day fundamentalist uses to say Matthew wrote Matthew because it's called "Matthew." The "Early Church Fathers" didnt have any more information than us about these things. If anything, they had less.

 

[night912]

"refuted sources? LOL. You didn't refute anything. All you do is post the usual anti-Christianity tripe and think it's scholarship.

So Christian scholars are now anti-Christianity? You can always tell whenever someone can no longer provide any evidence to support their argument and know themselves that they can no longer continue the discussion in a rational manner.

Btw, you still haven't address my later points.

 

[night912]

You know, I see a lot of wild claims from you guys - almost all of it nonsensical. Yours takes the cake. Like what you wrote above: "Because if Mathew Mark Luke and John are alive hundreds of years after Christ, they obviously were not alive the same time Christ was and there Gospels are lies."

That's absolute nonsense. I don't know a scholar on earth who believes the Gospel writers lived "hundreds of years after Christ." That's bizarre.

It sounds like Rider was saying that the early church fathers lived centuries after Jesus, so their opinions can't be taken as authority for who the authors were. So it would be illogical to automatically take their words as authority. That is why no matter how many times you repost those links, it still won't make it any more true than when you first posted it, therefore it is easily dismissed like the first time you posted it. It's just irrational to say, "They said it was true, so we have to take it as being true." That's what a lame argument looks like.

 

[night912]

Why is this not taken to be as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

"And in the night in which the Lord's day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven; and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend from thence with great light and approach the tomb. And that stone which was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part; and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in. 10 When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders; for they too were hard by keeping guard. And as they declared what things they had seen, again they see three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them: and of the two the head reached unto the heaven, but the head of him who was lead by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, Thou hast preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yea.”

 

[Riders]

You know, I see a lot of wild claims from you guys - almost all of it nonsensical. Yours takes the cake. Like what you wrote above: "Because if Mathew Mark Luke and John are alive hundreds of years after Christ, they obviously were not alive the same time Christ was and there Gospels are lies."

That's absolute nonsense. I don't know a scholar on earth who believes the Gospel writers lived "hundreds of years after Christ." That's bizarre.

Your proof said they lived in the 200s or 300s the early church fathers did, not Mathew Luke and John you misquoted me.Your not even really reading what I said You just want to scream your proof is right.

The early church Fathers whom you claimed could verify Mathew Luke and Johns writings as correct and right live 2 to 300 years after Christ. They could not in any verify anything if they didn't live at the time the books were written.

 

[Riders]

<facepalm>

“Gospel According to Matthew, first of the four New Testament Gospels (narratives recounting the life and death of Jesus Christ) and, with The Gospels According to Mark and Luke, one of the three so-called Synoptic Gospels (i.e., those presenting a common view). It has traditionally been attributed to St. Matthew the Evangelist, one of the 12 Apostles, described in the text as a tax collector (10:3). The Gospel According to Matthew was composed in Greek, probably sometime after 70 CE, with evident dependence on the earlier Gospel According to Mark. There has, however, been extended discussion about the possibility of an earlier version in Aramaic. Numerous textual indications point to an author who was a Jewish Christian writing for Christians of similar background. The Gospel According to Matthew consequently emphasizes Christ’s fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (5:17) and his role as a new lawgiver whose divine mission was confirmed by repeated miracles.” – Written by the Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica Gospel According to Matthew | Description, History, & Facts

You're busted.

using the bible to prove the bible again ah same thing you do over and over and no one believes.

 

[Spartan]

using the bible to prove the bible again ah same thing you do over and over and no one believes.

That's a poor argument. Just shows you haven't done your proper research.

 

[Spartan]

It sounds like Rider was saying that the early church fathers lived centuries after Jesus, so their opinions can't be taken as authority for who the authors were. So it would be illogical to automatically take their words as authority. That is why no matter how many times you repost those links, it still won't make it any more true than when you first posted it, therefore it is easily dismissed like the first time you posted it. It's just irrational to say, "They said it was true, so we have to take it as being true." That's what a lame argument looks like.

No matter how many times you dedicated Christ-deniers seek to deny the authorship of the traditional Gospel authors, your denials are worthless and shows a distinct lack of scholarship and denial of facts presented.

 

[Riders]

That's a poor argument. Just shows you haven't done your proper research.

Your wasting my time, that's your thing huh getting people into endless circle of no good repeated arguments, I have better things to do here.

 

[Spartan]

Your wasting my time, that's your thing huh getting people into endless circle of no good repeated arguments, I have better things to do here.

If your time is being wasted recommend you quit answering my posts. Go tell someone else your follies.

 

[McBell]

Your wasting my time, that's your thing huh getting people into endless circle of no good repeated arguments, I have better things to do here.

It is referred to as "Pigeon Chess"

 

[night912]

No matter how many times you dedicated Christ-deniers seek to deny the authorship of the traditional Gospel authors, your denials are worthless and shows a distinct lack of scholarship and denial of facts presented.

No, not really. The denials are not worthless since even Christians scholars are willing to agree with them. And by the way, you have to admire my tactic of using other Christian scholars to refute your claims. Obviously you were caught with your pants down and weren't prepared to give any couter arguments against your fellow Christian brothers and sisters. It's not worthless since it was able to make you speechless and run away without even an attempt to address them. It's not worthless since it was enough for you to resort to using ad hominem tactics. It's not worthless since it was able to even refute your strawman argument.

There's no lack of scholarship since I knew my information and was able to immediately provide counter arguments to the few points that you actually addressed during your brief moment of still possessing some confidence. There's no lack of scholarship since I knew your own information more than you did. There's no lack of scholarship since I was able to ruined your precelabration "ah-ha!" moments. Remember that part when you were too overconfident and pointed out the all too common argument about Mary being alone? It was hilariously funny when you expressed your overly enthusiastic reply about the gospel using the word, "women," only to be embarrassedly get shutdown by me pointing out that you were referring to something else. It was funny how I showed you that your own source proved that the gospel had a major consistency problem.

But if you want some examples of being lacking in scholarship, I'll provide some just to be fair.

I don't buy it that Mary was alone when the angel appeared. That's your claim.

You don't buy it because you thought it was my claim. With your lack of "scholarship," you didn't know that was actually the author of the gospel who claimed it, using the word, "woman." I would think that even someone lacking in scholarship would the difference between the singular use of, "woman," with an "a" and the plural use of "women" with an "e." Strangely enough, you eagerly used the plural use of women during your failed "ah-ha" moment.

Now how about the lack of logical reasoning?

The early church fathers confirmed the traditional Gospel authors.

Wow. Apparently, according to Spartan, the opinions of people living centuries after Jesus died is more logical than providing evidence of the gospels having no authorship assigned to them. Forget about the early church fathers having less resources or being bias or having the agenda to legitimizing Christian traditions making some official while others are not. And let's not forget, it's also more logical to dismiss the findings of research done by modern Christians biblical scholars with more resources and less bias, not having an agenda at proving or disproving the gospels by having the need for assigned authorship. After all, according to Spartan, they're all anti-christianity and Christ deniers.

Btw,
The movie 300 is not evidence for the historical Battle of Thermopylae involving Spartans.

 

[Spartan]

No, not really. The denials are not worthless since even Christians scholars are willing to agree with them. And by the way, you have to admire my tactic of using other Christian scholars to refute your claims. Obviously you were caught with your pants down and weren't prepared to give any couter arguments against your fellow Christian brothers and sisters. It's not worthless since it was able to make you speechless and run away without even an attempt to address them. It's not worthless since it was enough for you to resort to using ad hominem tactics. It's not worthless since it was able to even refute your strawman argument.

There's no lack of scholarship since I knew my information and was able to immediately provide counter arguments to the few points that you actually addressed during your brief moment of still possessing some confidence. There's no lack of scholarship since I knew your own information more than you did. There's no lack of scholarship since I was able to ruined your precelabration "ah-ha!" moments. Remember that part when you were too overconfident and pointed out the all too common argument about Mary being alone? It was hilariously funny when you expressed your overly enthusiastic reply about the gospel using the word, "women," only to be embarrassedly get shutdown by me pointing out that you were referring to something else. It was funny how I showed you that your own source proved that the gospel had a major consistency problem.

But if you want some examples of being lacking in scholarship, I'll provide some just to be fair.

You don't buy it because you thought it was my claim. With your lack of "scholarship," you didn't know that was actually the author of the gospel who claimed it, using the word, "woman." I would think that even someone lacking in scholarship would the difference between the singular use of, "woman," with an "a" and the plural use of "women" with an "e." Strangely enough, you eagerly used the plural use of women during your failed "ah-ha" moment.

Now how about the lack of logical reasoning?


Wow. Apparently, according to Spartan, the opinions of people living centuries after Jesus died is more logical than providing evidence of the gospels having no authorship assigned to them. Forget about the early church fathers having less resources or being bias or having the agenda to legitimizing Christian traditions making some official while others are not. And let's not forget, it's also more logical to dismiss the findings of research done by modern Christians biblical scholars with more resources and less bias, not having an agenda at proving or disproving the gospels by having the need for assigned authorship. After all, according to Spartan, they're all anti-christianity and Christ deniers.

Btw,
The movie 300 is not evidence for the historical Battle of Thermopylae involving Spartans.

I never mentioned the movie 300. That's your usual spin.

You have a lot of strange beliefs, very few matching up with the historical Jesus. I also marvel at your claim that the early church fathers were biased and had an agenda to legitimize Christian traditions. You've got evidence of their bias, do you? With a broad brush you insult many men who very likely were honorable individuals? That's your brand of scholarship?

Like I've said before, the number of people in the Gospels, epistles, the authors, the early church fathers, etc., etc., who ALL have to be liars, biased, agenda-driven loons, and so forth, just so you're right, are far, far, too many to have to kick to the curb.

Nor does modern day conservative scholarship agree with you. The Biblically-challenged loons on the left would love your follies, though.