The Resurrection is it provable?

[joelr]

Personal and corporate salvation is OT theology.
The OT and NT teaches that God will be in Zion/Jerusalem forever and be with His people.
Heaven is not eliminated in that way however.

Hellenism is a savior figure suffers a passion and gets entry for the followers into an afterlife. Heaven in this case. This is not OT theology.
Baptism, Eucharist, communion, kin group - brothers in the Lord, secret teachings, individualistic (salvation for the individual not the community), cosmopolitan (all races, gender, nation..).
This is not in the Jewish theology.

The Jewish Messiah is in the OT before this time.

Messianism was introduced to Hebrew writers by the Persians. There is no messianic concepts before the 2nd Temple Period starting in 500 B.C.
The OT was canonized in this period.

Mary Boyce wrote this:

"Historically, the unique features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism,[5] messianism, belief in free will and judgement after death, conception of heaven, hell, angels, and demons, among other concepts, may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including the Abrahamic religions "

Revelation is literally a Persian myth they used in the NT. The Jewish people also adopted the idea sometime during the occupation.

Zoroastrianism may have been influenced by the Israeli religion.

Source a historian saying this. The Persian religion dates to ~1600B.C. they occupied Israel in 500 B.C. and during this time most of their myths were adopted by Judaism and especially Christianity.

"Historically, the unique features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism,[5] messianism, belief in free will and judgement after death, conception of heaven, hell, angels, and demons, among other concepts, may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including the Abrahamic religions"

"Lester L. Grabbe in 2006 concluded that "there is general agreement that Persian religion and tradition had its influence on Judaism over the centuries" and the "question is where this influence was and which of the developments in Judaism can be ascribed to the Iranian side as opposed to the effect of the Greek or other cultures"

There exist many similarities between Zoroastrianism and Abrahamic religions as pointed about already by The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906).[94] While some scholars consider that key concepts of Zoroastrian dualism (good and evil; divine twins Ahura Mazda "God" and Angra Mainyu "Satan"), image of the deity, eschatology, resurrection and final judgment, messianism, revelation of Zoroaster on a mountain with Moses on Mount Sinai, three sons of Fereydun with three sons of Noah, heaven and hell, angelology and demonology, cosmology of six days or periods of creation, free will among others influenced Abrahamic religions,


"Since the apocalyptic genre developed during the Persian period, this dualism may have developed under the influence of Persian thought."

"Apocalypticism is the religious belief that the end of the world is imminent, even within one's own lifetime"
The religious versions of these views and movements often focus on cryptic revelations about a sudden, dramatic, and cataclysmic intervention of God in history; the judgment of humanity; the salvation of the faithful elect; and the eventual rule of the elect with God in a renewed heaven and earth.[3] Arising initially in Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation.[1][4][5][6][7]

How could that be if the Jews claim Isa 53 is about Israel and their future suffering?

The Hebrew scholars should know their own scripture.

The Servant of the LORD Revealed
Just as we saw in Isaiah 42:1-4 we also see in these verses above (Isaiah 49:3-5), that there is an individual person who is appointed by God to bring justice to the nations and to redeem Israel. This individual servant of the LORD can be none other than the Messiah.

The Messiah, as the Servant of the LORD, is appointed to not only be the Redeemer of Israel but also a “light of the nations:”

He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations so that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” – Isaiah 49:6

The Servant of the LORD is to raise up Israel and to be a beacon of light to the nations, to the very ends of the earth. God’s ultimate goal is to cause His salvation to cover the whole earth. The phrase “My salvation” in Hebrew is “ישועתי” – “Yeshua’ti.” The last phrase in the above verse could literally read, “so that My Yeshua may reach to the ends of the earth.”

Towards the end of this section of the servant of the LORD (Isaiah chapters 41-53), we read clearly how this week’s section from the prophets, Isaiah 51:12 – Isaiah 52:12, reveals how Israel was incapable of redeeming herself through the inability of her own sons (Isaiah 51:17-23) and how God alone redeems Israel:

Break forth, shout joyfully together, you waste places of Jerusalem; for the LORD has comforted His people, He has redeemed Jerusalem. The LORD has bared His holy arm in the sight of all the nations, that all the ends of the earth may see the salvation of our God. – Isaiah 52:9-10

The Land and people of Israel are to display God’s glory on this earth but this is only possible through the redemptive power and salvation provided through God’s Messiah, the Servant of the LORD.

The Servant of Isaiah 53
The last section of the servant of the LORD begins at Isaiah 52:13 and ends at Isaiah 53:12. This section of Scripture is probably the most controversial section in all of the Bible between Christians and Jews, or between Jews who believe in Yeshua and Jews who don’t yet believe in Yeshua as the Messiah. In researching these Scriptures I read the following commentary from an Orthodox Jewish Perspective:

One of the most difficult and contested passages in the Bible, these fifteen vv. (Isaiah 52:13. – 53:12) have attracted an enormous amount of attention from ancient, medieval, and modern scholars. In particular the identity of the servant is vigorously debated. Although the servant is spoken of as an individual, the reference may well be to the collective nation (or the remnant). – Adele Berlin & Marc Zvi Bretler. The Jewish Study Bible. Oxford UP. 2014 p. 872

Orthodox Judaism generally teaches that the servant of the LORD mentioned in Isaiah 52:13 – Isaiah 53:12 is referring to the nation of Israel and not to an individual Messiah.
Who is the Servant of Isaiah 53? – Shoftim – Sept. 10 – Jewels of Judaism

 

[joelr]

There were what is known as schools of prophets. It is thought that different parts of Isaiah may have been written by different people in the same school.
The dating of course is related to the naturalistic methodology and people say that the mention of Cyrus in prophecy (last verse of Isa 44 and Isa 45:1) means that this part of Isaiah must have been written after Cyrus conquered Babylon. Naturalistic methodology also determines the dating of other parts of Isaiah.

It has nothing to do with this made-up bias you keep talking about?

Book of Isaiah | Old Testament

"According to 6:1, Isaiah received his call “in the year that King Uzziah died” (742 BC), and his latest recorded activity is dated in 701 BC. Only chapters 1–39, however, can be assigned to this period. Chapters 40–66 are much later in origin and therefore known as Deutero-Isaiah (Second Isaiah). Sometimes a further distinction is made between Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–55) and Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56–66).

Chapters 1–39 consist of numerous sayings and reports of Isaiah along with several narratives about the prophet that are attributed to his disciples. The growth of the book (1–39) was a gradual process, its final form dating from perhaps as late as the 5th century BC, a date suggested by the arrangement of the materials and the late additions.


Deutero-Isaiah (40–55), consisting of a collection of oracles, songs, and discourses, dates from the Babylonian Exile (6th century BC). The anonymous prophet is in exile and looks forward to the deliverance of his people. The destruction of Babylon is prophesied and the return of the exiles to their homeland is promised. The servant-of-Yahweh songs in Deutero-Isaiah (42:1–4; 49:1–6; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12) have generated animated discussions among scholars, but the ideas reflected in the songs suggest that they were written under the influence of the ideology of the king


Trito-Isaiah (56–66), coming from a still later period, reflects a Palestinian point of view, with the latter chapters in particular addressed to the cultic concerns of the restored community. The diversity of materials in these chapters suggests multiple authorship. How the three “Isaiahs” came together is not known.

 

[joelr]

There may have been more than one writer but the dating is due to the naturalistic methodology.
In the Hebrew there is something called to present prophetic tense (where prophecy is written as if it has already happened,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that is how certain it is).

Nothing to do with that bias. The second section is written by one in exile, the third is a Palestinian point of view. The literary styles and other factors indicate the time periods. Why don't you study historical information if you believe this is true?

The servant is Israel and in some places it is clearly Israel through one person and cannot mean the nation of Israel.
Israel, like David is a type of the Messiah and prophecy about Israel and about David can refer to the Messiah in places and is clearly not literally about David or Israel the nation.

When reading Isaiah and 5 text, God often calls Israel and Jacob (an5 reference to Israel), His "servant" in both the singular and plural.

Examples:
"But you, O Israel, My servant, Jacob, you whom I have chosen, offspring of Abraham who loved Me...and to whom I shall say: 'You are my servant' - I have chosen you and not rejected you." (Isaiah 41:8-9)

"But hear now Jacob, My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen!" (Isaiah 44:1)

"Remember these things, Jacob and Israel, for you are My servant: I fashioned you to be My servant: Israel do not forget Me!" (Isaiah 44:21)

"..for the sake of My servant Jacob and Israel, My chosen one: I have proclaimed you by name..." (Isaiah 45:4)

"...say, 'Hashem (God) has redeemed His servant Jacob." (Isaiah 48:20)

"...You are my servant, Israel, in whom I take glory." (Isaiah 49:3)

"But as for you, do not fear My servant Jacob, the word of Hashem (G-d) and do not be afraid, Israel..." (Jeremiah 30:10)

"A heritage for Israel, His (God's) servant, for His kindness endures forever." (Psalms Chapter 136:22)

In Chapters 52 - 54, the prophet is referring to the gentile nations who have tormented and inflicted pain and suffering on the Jewish people. It is THESE nations who will be astounded and shocked to see that God has saved us from their persecution and returned us to our home, Israel: and, that ultimately, God will vindicate us for our suffering The same promises appear in the Book of Ezekiel 36:6-9 & 15 and in Jeremiah 30:8-13.

An5 interesting point is, many missionaries often claim that "the Rabbis" have deliberately eliminated this chapter from the Haftorah portions (section from Prophets that is read every Shabbat after the Torah reading) in an effort to suppress the fact that Isaiah is talking about Jesus. The Haftorah system was established nearly two hundred years before the common era and Christianity, when Jews were prohibited to read and learn the Torah (pre-Chanukah revolt).

This fact is even documented in Acts 13:14-15, 27 (NT-Christian Gospels):

"...went into the synagogue on Sabbath, and sat down. And after the reading of the Law (Torah) and the Prophets (Haftorah)....the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath day..."


Isaiah 53 Explained

 

[joelr]

Which historian has the "Q" document? Are the synoptics in complete agreement?

Mark Goodacres peer-reviewed work has closed the door on Q and shown why Mark was the source.
The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre

Obviously the synoptics have many conflicts. It's clear that Matthew took Mark and tries to add his own ideas and theology as did Luke and John. Each was writing "the" gospel, not a collection.

Is this what you mean that they copied each other?

(Mt. 9:6) But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.”

(Mk. 2:10-11) “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic, 11 “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.”

(Lk. 5:24) “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,”—He said to the paralytic—”I say to you, get up, and pick up your stretcher and go home.

A book that summarizes the issue 0- Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction is used to write this post:
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org
If you are interested you would have to read the post. Or if you want the latest and best scholarship read Goodacre.

The basic arguments are:

1. AGREEMENT IN WORDING
2. AGREEMENT IN ORDER
3. AGREEMENT IN PARENTHETICAL MATERIAL
4. LUKE’S PREFACE



Then there is another group of arguments as to why Mark was first and was the source and there are too many arguments and sub-groups to present any possible shortened version. The first is:

1. MARK’S SHORTNESS: THE ARGUMENT FROM LENGTH
Mark’s brevity can be measured in terms of verses or words:
When one compares the synoptic parallels, some startling results are noticed. Of Mark’s 11,025 words, only 132 have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke. Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke. On the other hand, less than 60% of Matthew is duplicated in Mark, and only 47% of Luke is found in Mark.10

What is to account for the almost total absorption of Mark into Matthew and Luke? The Griesbach hypothesis11 suggests that Mark was the last gospel written and that the author used Matthew and Luke. But if so, why did he omit so much material? What Mark omits from his gospel cannot be considered insignificant: the birth of Jesus, the birth of John the Baptist, the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord’s Prayer, the resurrection appearances by Jesus,12 much teaching material, etc. Further, he has abbreviated accounts of the Lord’s temptation and baptism. There are two reasons13 usually given as to why Mark would omit so much material: (1) Mark wanted to provide an abridged gospel for use in the churches; (2) Mark only wanted to record material that was found in both Matthew and Luke, perhaps on the analogy of Deut 17:6-7/19:15 (the voice of at least two witnesses confirmed a truth). Both of these reasons seem inadequate however, for the following reasons.
(1) Mark’s Gospel is not really an abridgment: “whereas Mark is considerably shorter in total length than Matthew and Luke, when we compare the individual pericopes that they have in common, time and time again we find that Mark is the longest!”14 In other words, Mark’s Gospel, where it has parallels with Matthew and Luke, is not an abridgment, but an expansion. Not only this, but the very material he omits would have served a good purpose in his gospel. For example, Mark attempts to emphasize Jesus’ role as teacher (cf. 2:13; 4:1-2; 6:2; 8:31; 12:35, 38, etc.), yet he omits much of what he actually taught. The best explanation of this would seem to be that he was unacquainted with some of these sayings of Jesus, rather than that he intentionally omitted so much—in particular, the Sermon on the Mount. “An abridged work becomes shorter by both eliminating various materials and abbreviating the accounts retained.”15 But the material which Mark eliminates is quite inexplicable on the assumption of Markan posteriority; and the accounts which he retains are almost always longer than either Luke’s or Matthew’s.

(2) It is fallacious to argue that Mark only wanted to record material found in both Matthew and Luke. Yet, W. R. Farmer comes close to this view when he writes that Mark’s Gospel was created as:

a new Gospel out of existing Gospels on an “exclusive” principle. . . . [It was written for liturgical purposes as] a new Gospel [composed] largely out of existing Gospels concentrating on those materials where their texts bore concurrent testimony to the same Gospel tradition. The Gospel of Mark to a considerable extent could be understood as just such a work . . . 16
There is a threefold problem with this. First, it is rather doubtful that Mark intended to write his gospel by way of confirming what was found in both Matthew and Luke. There is little evidence in his gospel that this was an important motif. Rather, if any gospel writer employed this motif, it was Matthew not Mark.17

Second, there is much material—and very rich material—found in both Matthew and Luke that is absent in Mark. In particular, the birth narrative, Sermon on the Mount, Lord’s Prayer, and resurrection appearances. If Mark only produced material found in both Matthew and Luke, why did he omit such important passages which are attested by these other two gospels?

Third, it is quite an overstatement to say that Mark only produced material found in the other two: much of his gospel includes pericopes which are found in only one other gospel.

For examples of exclusively Mark-Luke parallels, note the following: the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue (Mark 1:23-28/Luke 4:33-37); the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44/Luke 21:1-4).

For examples of exclusively Mark-Matthew parallels, note the following: the offending eye/hand (Matt. 5:29-30 and 18:8-9/Mark 9:43-47); the details about the death of John the Baptist (Matt. 14:3-12/Mark 6:17-29); Jesus walking on the water (Matt 14:22-33/Mark 6:45-52); Isaiah’s prophecy about a hypocritical people and Jesus’ application (Matt 15:1-20/Mark 7:1-23); the Syrophoenicean woman pericope (Matt 15:21-28/Mark 7:24-30); the healing of the deaf-mute (Matt 15:29-31/Mark 7:31-37); the feeding of the four thousand (Matt 15:32-39/Mark 8:1-10); Elijah’s coming (Matt 17:10-13/Mark 9:11-13); the withering of the fig tree (Matt 21:20-22/Mark 11:20-26); the soldiers’ mockery of Jesus before Pilate (Matt 27:28-31/Mark 15:17-20).

What these double-gospel parallels reveal is two things: (1) Mark did not follow the principle of exclusivity, for he includes quite a bit of material which is found only in one other gospel; (2) Mark parallels Matthew far more often than he does Luke (only two pericopes in Mark-Luke vs. ten in Mark-Matthew), negating Farmer’s claim that where Mark only followed one gospel he did so in a balanced way, preferring neither Matthew nor Luke.18

Against a theory of Matthean priority stands the supposition that Luke and Matthew used additional source(s). If so, then the reason they shortened the pericopes they shared with Mark was so that they might include other materials within the length of their scrolls.19

In sum, we could add the now famous statement of G. M. Styler: “given Mk, it is easy to see why Matt. was written; given Matt., it is hard to see why Mk was needed.”20

 

[joelr]

I prefer facts and not opinions.

Then why did you link to an amateur apologetics site that used no scholars, sources or peer-reviewed material?
Why do you believe an ancient religion as fact that is using older mythology and is not verified in any meaningful way?

Like the fact that Paul said,
1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

Paul also claimed to see visions of a ghost deity.
But yes Paul basically said he believes a story and takes it as reality. As everyone did in those times because they didn't know myths were made up.
Muhammad also said things about beliefs. He also saw a ghost deity (angel).

Surah 9
And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

The Christians say the Messiah is the son of Allah. Allah (himself) fights against them.
How perverse are they!
He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse
O ye who believe! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom, On the day when it will (all) be heated in the fire of hell, and their foreheads and their flanks and their backs will be branded therewith (and it will be said unto them): Here is that which ye hoarded for yourselves. Now taste of what ye used to hoard.


Because a person who claims to have revelations says something, does that mean it's true?

Or the historical account of Luke and Acts. above opinions of historians and quasi-believers.

The Mystery of Acts: Unraveling Its Story, Richard Pervo
"Pervo's thesis is simple: Acts is beautiful literature, but it is not a historically accurate or reliable book. In the conclusion of the book he states, "...Acts is not a reliable history of Christian origins. One important point is that it does not attempt to be. Another is that the literary techniques are too artistic. The use of cycles, parallels, repetitions, melodramatic characterization, stereotyped scene construction, inventing or presenting stories that replicate biblical narrative, unbalanced narrative with evident symbolic import, and a balanced structure. History cannot be so symmetrical" (Pervo, p. 151)."

It's fiction, sourced from other fiction with zero proof it's any more real than the Quran or Hindu scripture. Belief does not make something true.

But you are welcome to continue your diet as Jesus said, Mark 4:23 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. 24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given. 25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.

Then you are welcome to continue your diet of avoiding scholarship to allow ancient stories to be literal. This Mark passage describes it nicely. Someone told you about a story but you didn't check to see if it's warranted by evidence. Instead you heard more and became attached. Now your empirical and rational thought processes cannot be applied because they are overridden by cognitive bias that the only option is that it's true.

The Parable isn't proof of a divine being. This is basic philosophy. Mark was clearly not only an expert at writing layered mythology but he understood parables and obviously studied Greek philosophy -

"The parable of the sower has very striking similarities to passages from Plato’s Phaedrus and Theages. In the Phaedrus, in the same passages that Socrates says that writing is problematic and higher truths need to be taught orally, he compares teaching to a farmer planting seeds: “Now what about the man who knows what is just, noble, and good … Shall we say that he is less sensible with his seeds than the farmer is with his?… The dialectician chooses a proper soul and plants and sows within it discourse accompanied by knowledge…. Such discourse makes the seed forever immortal and renders the man who has it as happy as any human can be” (276b-277a)."

 

[Kenny]

Then why did you link to an amateur apologetics site that used no scholars, sources or peer-reviewed material?
Why do you believe an ancient religion as fact that is using older mythology and is not verified in any meaningful way?

Appeal to authority fallacy. And your opinion about writers is irrelevant.

Paul also claimed to see visions of a ghost deity.
But yes Paul basically said he believes a story and takes it as reality. As everyone did in those times because they didn't know myths were made up.

Except the visions were verified to be true when he asked those in authority in Jerusalem.

Then you are welcome to continue your diet of avoiding scholarship to allow ancient stories to be literal. This Mark passage describes it nicely. Someone told you about a story but you didn't check to see if it's warranted by evidence. Instead you heard more and became attached. Now your empirical and rational thought processes cannot be applied because they are overridden by cognitive bias that the only option is that it's true.

The Parable isn't proof of a divine being. This is basic philosophy. Mark was clearly not only an expert at writing layered mythology but he understood parables and obviously studied Greek philosophy -

"The parable of the sower has very striking similarities to passages from Plato’s Phaedrus and Theages. In the Phaedrus, in the same passages that Socrates says that writing is problematic and higher truths need to be taught orally, he compares teaching to a farmer planting seeds: “Now what about the man who knows what is just, noble, and good … Shall we say that he is less sensible with his seeds than the farmer is with his?… The dialectician chooses a proper soul and plants and sows within it discourse accompanied by knowledge…. Such discourse makes the seed forever immortal and renders the man who has it as happy as any human can be” (276b-277a)."

Yes, today's revisionist scholars are not my diet. Jesus also had problems with the scholars of his times. He also had to correct their "peer reviewed" statements. It is interesting how one scholar slaps the back of the other like-minded scholar and declare how smart they are.

When did I say that the Parable is proof of a divine being? Is it your custom to add to what I have said? And what does your question about the man who knows what is just have to do with what I said? Is this a strawman effort?

So. are you saying that Plato and Socrates are the ones who espoused real truth?

 

[joelr]

Appeal to authority fallacy. And your opinion about writers is irrelevant.

Uh, nope. I didn't say this scholar says so. I said we have a standard of evidence that has to be met which is the point of peer review. It's the same reason I can't source Caesars Messiah about how Jesus is a creation of the Roman Empire or the Zeitgeist anti-religion video on how it's all stemmed from zodiac religions. They were written and "researched" by amateurs and are full of mistakes.

Interesting you answered an entire page of posts with "Supportive documentation please."719, 673.....and how are switching tactics once you get supportive documentation? You see how you are doing a tapdance to make a bias belief true?

But, you are free to also source historical scholars? It works both ways. But I'm not going to source D.M. Murdock because it's been pointed out that she has made many errors and stretched the truth. Yes, Richard Carrier even pointed her mistakes out. He isn't bias towards an opinion. He is interested in the truth and actual evidence that backs it up. He doesn't want to debunk the Bible with false information. As are all historians.

Except the visions were verified to be true when he asked those in authority in Jerusalem.

Will you believe anything? Acts is as fictive as any Greek epic. Purvoe has truly demonstrated it's a fictive narrative. Even if Paul did go before a council and have a trial, a man converting demonstrates nothing. A story doesn't demonstrate anything. You don't think Muhammad also had his revelation story?

"
In such a hopeless situation, Prophet Muhammad (SAWA) proclaimed his universal message of monotheism. First he invited his relatives to convey the words of God at the gathering of Dhu'l-Ashira where his testimony of the Oneness of God (ash-hado an-la ilaha il-Allah) received dumb looks, until the silence was broken by his ten-year old cousin, Ali (AS), who stood up testified: "ash-hado anna Muhammadan Rasoul-Allah" (I bear witness that Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah).



At this stage, the prime source of information on the life of the Prophet and the course of his call of monotheism is only the boy, Imam Ali (AS), as no one else had become a companion or a Muslim up till now. The boy whom the Prophet had hailed as "my legatee, my caliph" at the gathering of Dhu'l-Ashira (according to the Sunni hadith compiler, Ahmad ibn Hanbal), further informs us:



"Allah brought him out from the most distinguished sources of origin and the most honourable places of planting, namely from the same (lineal) tree from which He brought forth other Prophets and from which He selected His trustees. Muhammad's (SAWA) offspring are the best offspring, his kinsmen the best of kin and his lineal tree the best of trees. It grew in esteem and rose in distinction. It has tall branches and unapproachable fruits." (Sermon 94 – Nahj al-Balagha)



These words are ample proof of the fact that Prophet Muhammad (SAWA), whose universal message was foretold by all great prophets of God throughout history in different lands, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and others, did not leave mankind in darkness after completing his 23-year mission that saw the grand revelation of the holy Qur'an – the Final Heavenly Scripture from Allah for the guidance of all humanity till doomsday.

"

Yes, today's revisionist scholars are not my diet. Jesus also had problems with the scholars of his times. He also had to correct their "peer reviewed" statements. It is interesting how one scholar slaps the back of the other like-minded scholar and declare how smart they are.

Completely wrong on many levels. First demonstrate an actual scholar who writes about Jesus, not tales from Mark or the copied stories from Mark which is demonstrably fiction.
Then demonstrate the writings from a historian or scholar where Jesus corrects anything.

Now onto actual problems.
The field of Biblical history is a relatively NEW field because information was kept secret or had not yet been discovered..
As to scholars back slapping, you are wrong. Carrier and Ehrman are in a bitter debate about mythicism vs historicity.
There are other debates as well. There is no back slapping, just putting out information and attempting to see if it's the best model of what is actually true. Which is ironic because back slapping is exactly what apologists seem to do with zero regard for actual truth. If it says Jesus was real, it's true.
Why you feel the need to make statements about a field you clearly know NOTHING about in favor of imaginary opinions seems somehow appropriate.

Here is an example of why history is a modern discipline:
Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text

Genesis/Enuma Elish
The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.


Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.


Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.

When did I say that the Parable is proof of a divine being?

That's what I said.

Is it your custom to add to what I have said?

I think it's called a discussion?

And what does your question about the man who knows what is just have to do with what I said? Is this a strawman effort?

Oh I see. So I'm pointing out that the wisdom in the NT is syncretic. Mostly Greek. The theology is Hellenistic, the writers wrote in Greek and studied at the Greek school (the only school that taught writing) and in Mark we see something similar to Greek wisdom. More evidence this isn't wisdom from a deity but wisdom passed between cultures by people.

So. are you saying that Plato and Socrates are the ones who espoused real truth?

Well Aquinas wrote his theology using Platonic concepts, tri-omni, beyond space and time, uncreated...

Plato and Socrates are philosophers not creators of religion. You take from them what you feel is true as one does with philosophy. No one is saying the word of Plato is scripture from the God of reality. There is no God of reality. Wisdom is just passed on. Before Jesus Hillel was preaching similar ideas:
Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia
which is from the OT.
Proverbs, the wisdom section has been identified as similar to other older nations.

"The Book of Proverbs (, .......The third unit, 22:17–24:22, is headed "bend your ear and hear the words of the wise". A large part of this section is a recasting of a second-millennium BCE Egyptian work, the Instruction of Amenemope, and may have reached the Hebrew author(s) through an Aramaic translation.
The "wisdom" genre was widespread throughout the ancient Near East, and reading Proverbs alongside the examples recovered from Egypt and Mesopotamia reveals the common ground shared by international wisdom.[/QUOTE]

 

[Kenny]

Mark Goodacres peer-reviewed work has closed the door on Q and shown why Mark was the source.
The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre

Obviously the synoptics have many conflicts. It's clear that Matthew took Mark and tries to add his own ideas and theology as did Luke and John. Each was writing "the" gospel, not a collection.

Your opinions and creative writing, an unbeliever. Expected, of course. But this is a forum where we share our positions and we accept our differences

Of course there is no evidence of Q.

For that matter, we have no problem with sharing information: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:1-4). Information was shared and compiled

I would deduct that it is only those who believe that the writings were not inspired by God.

So, we each have our diet. Mine, in that I believe, is where all things become possible and for you, according to our scripture, are on your own (Please review signature)

 

[Kenny]

Uh, nope. I didn't say this scholar says so. I said we have a standard of evidence that has to be met which is the point of peer review. It's the same reason I can't source Caesars Messiah about how Jesus is a creation of the Roman Empire or the Zeitgeist anti-religion video on how it's all stemmed from zodiac religions. They were written and "researched" by amateurs and are full of mistakes.

Interesting you answered an entire page of posts with "Supportive documentation please."719, 673.....and how are switching tactics once you get supportive documentation? You see how you are doing a tapdance to make a bias belief true?

But, you are free to also source historical scholars? It works both ways. But I'm not going to source D.M. Murdock because it's been pointed out that she has made many errors and stretched the truth. Yes, Richard Carrier even pointed her mistakes out. He isn't bias towards an opinion. He is interested in the truth and actual evidence that backs it up. He doesn't want to debunk the Bible with false information. As are all historians.

Because someone else revises history doesn't make it supportive evidence. I gave you what those of the 1st through 3rd century said of which some were eye witnesses.... and you simply dismiss it. So, you want me to go to hearsay of modern apologists/historians who weren't even there and accept their revisionists positions.

As they pat each other on the back.

Completely wrong on many levels. First demonstrate an actual scholar who writes about Jesus, not tales from Mark or the copied stories from Mark which is demonstrably fiction.
Then demonstrate the writings from a historian or scholar where Jesus corrects anything.

Hmmm... opinions and not demonstrably fiction. Creative writing and bias based on your personal beliefs.

Mohammad is a strawman effort.... again.

Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.

Obviously flawed in you logic.

1) Before writing ever existed, there was oral tradition. Almost every religion started with the oral tradition of the fall of man and a flood. Why? Logically, because it all happened - and eventually all wrote about it.

2) You said "originally conceived"... how do you know?

3) It was "written" that Moses also wrote it down. Who actually wrote it first? Archaeology can only attest to what is found and not all that was.

Biiiiias.

 

[joelr]

Your opinions and creative writing, an unbeliever. Expected, of course. But this is a forum where we share our positions and we accept our differences)

You can call me what you like but I am not an "unbeliever". I believe things that are warranted by good evidentiary standards. I believe the Earth is round, conservation of energy, Krishna, Yahweh and Gabrielle are mythological characters and so on.

For that matter, we have no problem with sharing information: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:1-4). Information was shared and compiled

Luke is not a historian. Carrier has an entire chapter demonstrating this and explaining examples. Unlike historians of his day he gives no sources or anything remotely similar to an actual historian.

OHJ pg.469

"So we know Luke is making a lot of things up in order to deliberately sell a fake history, for purposes of winning an argument against doubters (both within and without Christianity, as his opponents included, for example, Christians with very different ideas about the nature of the resurrection).
This already warns us not to trust anything he has added to the story found in Mark and Matthew: we should assume it is, like those, a convenient fabrication invented for some purpose, unless we can find sufficient evidence to believe otherwise. .....
despite his pretense at being a historian, preface and all, Luke's methods are demonstrably nonhistorical: he is not doing research, weighing facts, checking them against independent sources, and writing down what he thinks most likely happened.He is simply producing an expanded and redacted literary hybird of a couple of previous religious novels (Matthew and Mark), each itself even more obviously constructed according to literary conventions rather than historiographical.
Unlike other historians of even his own era, Luke never names his sources or explains why we are to trust them (or why he did), or how he chose what to include or exclude. In fact Luke does not even declare any critical method at all, but rather insists he slavishly followed what was handed to him - yet another claim we know to be a lie (since we have two of his sources and can confirm he freely altered then to suit his own agenda)."

R. Carrier

1Kings 17.10 and 17.17-24. and Luke 7.6 and 7.11-17

It happened after this / It happened afterwards

At the gate of Sarepta, Elijah meets a widow/ At the gate of Nain, Jesus meets a widow

Another widows son was dead / This widoes son was dead

That widow expresses a sense of her unworthiness on account of sin / A centurion expresses his unworthiness on account of sin

Elijah compassionately bears her son up the stairs and asks the Lord why he was allowed to die. / The Lord feels compassion for her and touches her sons bier

Elijah prays to the Lord for her sons life. / The Lord commands the boy to rise

the boy comes to life and cries out. /and he who was dead sat up to speak

and he gave him to his mother / and he gave him to his mother

the widow recognizes Elijah is a man of God and the word he speaks is the truth. / the people recognize Jesus as a great prophet of God and the word of this truth spreads everywhere

I would deduct that it is only those who believe that the writings were not inspired by God.

The evidence in no way shows this to be from a deity. All of the theology is Greek/Persian, the literary styles is total fiction. We can identify all of the source material. Matthew, Luke copied Mark which is completely sourced by Paul, OT narratives and is a Hellenistic savior demigod.I've sourced Briticannica, many historians, a Harvard professor all saying the same. You just said "garbage". (that is denial)

No ancient historians show anything except people who believed the gospel narratives. The OT is Mesopotamian mythology. The 2nd century apologists admitted Jesus was exactly like all the other saviors (but Satan did it).
This religion is exactly as likely as Islam.

So, we each have our diet. Mine, in that I believe, is where all things become possible and for you, according to our scripture, are on your own (Please review signature)

My diet is truth. Things that are true. I am always interested in evidence.
Believing in a mythology does not make "all things possible" no matter how hard you believe. According to Islamic scripture you are doomed to a "painful doom". According to Jehovas Witness doctrine you are going straight to Satan when the apoclypse happens. Oh but you don't believe those? You believe the one version you were brought into? Wow, coincidence? They are all religious myth. You were not told like many others. That is what religions do.

Pascals Wager thou? Really?

 

[joelr]

Because someone else revises history doesn't make it supportive evidence. I gave you what those of the 1st through 3rd century said of which some were eye witnesses.... and you simply dismiss it. So, you want me to go to hearsay of modern apologists/historians who weren't even there and accept their revisionists positions.

You gave the Gospels which are not eyewitness. Christian scholarship admits this, not just historical scholars. Christian scholarship demonstrates (I JUST gave you a link to start learning) Mark is the source which the others were copied from.
It's a mythical story, uses all literary devices found in myth, copies Paul, OT and other narratives (some which I demonstrated and you ignored) and not one historian can verify any of these stories. None.
I don't simply "dismiss" it. I provide evidence of why it's a myth, why they are copied, why they used sources, what historians say, I back up everything.
Your answer was "garbage". Cool. Denial. Don't act like you did any such thing because now you are lying.

Modern historians can still analyze documents. You want to use the 2nd century knowledge? Because they couldn't seem to figure out what actually happened? What was chosen wasn't until the 3rd century. Talk about revisionist? YOu are losing in every way possible here.

These various interpretations were called heresies by the leaders of the proto-orthodox church, but many were very popular and had large followings. Part of the unifying trend in proto-orthodoxy was an increasingly harsh anti-Judaism and rejection of Judaizers. Some of the major movements were:

• Gnosticism – second to fourth centuries – reliance on revealed knowledge from an unknowable God, a distinct divinity from the Demiurge who created and oversees the material world. The Gnostics claimed to have received secret teachings (gnosis) from Jesus via other apostles which were not publicly known, or in the case of Valentinius from Paul the Apostle. Gnosticism is predicated on the existence of such hidden knowledge, but brief references to private teachings of Jesus have also survived in the canonic scripture (Mark 4:11) as did warning by the Christ that there would be false prophets or false teachers. Irenaeus' opponents also claimed that the wellsprings of divine inspiration were not dried up, which is the doctrine of continuing revelation.[citation needed]
• Marcionism – second century – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament.
• Montanism – second century – a pentecostal movement initiated by Montanus and his female disciples, featuring prophetic continuing revelations from the Holy Spirit.
• Adoptionism – second century – Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.
• Docetism – second to third century – Jesus was pure spirit and his physical form an illusion.
• Sabellianism – third century – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of the one God and not the three separate persons of the Trinity.
• Arianism – third to fourth century – Jesus, while not merely mortal, was not eternally divine and was of some lesser status than God the Father.[note 1]

In the middle of the second century, the Christian communities of Rome, for example, were divided between followers of Marcion, Montanism, and the gnostic teachings of Valentinus.

Many groups were dualistic, maintaining that reality was composed into two radically opposing parts: matter, usually seen as evil, and spirit, seen as good. Proto-orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, held that both the material and spiritual worlds were created by God and were therefore both good, and that this was represented in the unified divine and human natures of Christ.[63] Trinitarianism held that God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit were all strictly one being with three hypostases.


Wow look at that. 2nd century had no idea what Christianity was? Your myth wasn't formed until the 3rd century. There were 40 gospels.

As they pat each other on the back.

Like I said Carrier and Ehrman are in a feud. If you want to be wrong about one point twice, go ahead.

Hmmm... opinions and not demonstrably fiction. Creative writing and bias based on your personal beliefs.

Mohammad is a strawman effort.... again.

No Muhammad is just like Paul. He claimed revelations and people believed him.

Now as to "personal beliefs" you have made another error. The essay on Mark is from Dr Carriers work. You thought that was me?
The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark

A sample of the MANY fictive literary elements:
The final parallel that I wanted to mention was that found between the Passover Narrative and the story of a different Jesus, named Jesus ben Ananias. This was a man who was known as an insane prophet that was active in the 60s CE who was then killed in the siege of Jerusalem (around 70 CE). His story was told in Josephus’ Jewish War, and thus Mark was likely to have known about it, and the number of parallels between what Josephus wrote and that of Mark’s Passover Narrative are far too numerous to be a mere coincidence. Clearly Mark either wrote his narrative based off of what Josephus wrote, or based on the same tale known to Josephus. Here are the parallels between Mark’s Jesus and that of Jesus ben Ananias as found in Josephus’ writings:

1 – Both are named Jesus. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

2 – Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. (Mark 11.15-17 = JW 6.301)

3 -Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

4 – During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. (Jer. 7.11 in Mk, Jer. 7.34 in JW)

5 – Both then preach daily in the temple. (Mark 14.49 = JW 6.306)

6 – Both declared “woe” unto Judea or the Jews. (Mark 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309)

7 – Both predict the temple will be destroyed. (Mark 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309)

8 – Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. (Mark 14.43 = JW 6.302)

9 – Both are accused of speaking against the temple. (Mark 14.58 = JW 6.302)

10 – Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. (Mark 14.60 = JW 6.302)

11 – Both are beaten by the Jews. (Mark 14.65 = JW 6.302)

12 – Then both are taken to the Roman governor. (Pilate in Mark 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.302)

13 – Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. (Mark 15.2-4 = JW 6.305)

14 – During which both are asked to identify themselves. (Mark 15.2 = JW 6.305)

15 – And yet again neither says anything in his defense. (Mark 15.3-5 = JW 6.305)

16 – Both are then beaten by the Romans. (Mark 15.15 = JW 6.304)

17 – In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

18 – But doesn’t (Mark)…but does (JW) — (Mark 15.6-15 = JW 6.305)
19 – Both are finally killed by the Romans: in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.308-9)

20 – Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.309)

21 – Both die with a loud cry. (Mark 15.37 = JW 6.309)
The odds of these coincidences arising by chance is quite small to say the least, so it appears Mark used this Jesus as a model for his own to serve some particular literary or theological purpose. In any case, we can see that Mark is writing fiction here, through and through.

 

[joelr]

Obviously flawed in you logic.

1) Before writing ever existed, there was oral tradition. Almost every religion started with the oral tradition of the fall of man and a flood. Why? Logically, because it all happened - and eventually all wrote about it.

Talk about flawed logic? Almost ZERO religions started with the fall of man and only nations near water had flood stories.
The OT is a re-working of Mesopotamian myths who shared myth with Babylon and Sumer. So the fact that these existed here show a definite correlation to the Israelite myths. This is worldhistory.org and you think you know more than them from reading the Bible and that's it? Wow. That is truly flawed logic. It doesn't stop here.....

2) You said "originally conceived"... how do you know?

No worldhistory.org said. We know they didn't originate with the Israelites. Sumer was the first city so it's likely they started there. There may be further evidence, I haven't studies Sumer. Like the article said, your myths are not original.
"Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible. "

3) It was "written" that Moses also wrote it down. Who actually wrote it first? Archaeology can only attest to what is found and not all that was.

Biiiiias.

No, that is a myth sorry. The Moses story is full of Egyptian myths and dismantled since Thompson.
Since Thomas Thompsons work was peer-reviewed Moses is seen as a literary construction.

The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives The Quest for the Historical Abraham

Thompson says that archaeological materials should never be dated or evaluated on the basis of written texts. Looking to the patriarchal narratives in Genesis, he concludes that these stories are neither historical nor were they intended to be historical. Instead, these narratives are written as expressions of Israel's relationship to God. Thomas L. Thompson is Professor of Old Testament, University of Copenhagen. His books include The Mythic Past and The Early History of the Israelite People.
Completely dismantles the historic patriarchal narratives. His impeccable scholarship, his astounding mastery of the sources, and rigorous detailed examination of the archaeological claims makes this book one I will immediately take with me in case of a flood. And it still hasn't been refuted. I am well aware of the excellent work of William G. Dever, and his critique of the "minimalists" and his harping against

 

[Kenny]

You gave the Gospels which are not eyewitness.

Let's start from the beginning and foundation... Matthew and John were eye-witnesses. Why are they not eye-witnesses and what proof do you have that they didn't write the books that have their name ascribed to it?

Let's start with the foundation because everything else is fluff and stuff.

 

[ppp]

Let's start from the beginning and foundation... Matthew and John were eye-witnesses. Why are they not eye-witnesses and what proof do you have that they didn't write the books that have their name ascribed to it?

Let's start with the foundation because everything else is fluff and stuff.

If you actually want to start at the foundation, then justify your foundational assertions. Don't just make a bunch of bald assertions then demand someone else prove you wrong. Why would they need to provide more evidence against your claim that you have provided for it in the first place?

 

[Muffled]

So all you have to do is to convince yourself that someone was not "innocent" and you can justify their murder?

I believe I do not have permission to take a life without the consent of God. Man's judgment is lawed but God's judgment is always good.

 

[Muffled]

Let's start from the beginning and foundation... Matthew and John were eye-witnesses. Why are they not eye-witnesses and what proof do you have that they didn't write the books that have their name ascribed to it?

Let's start with the foundation because everything else is fluff and stuff.

Mark is most likely writing for Peter and Luke interviews eyewitnesses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I do not have permission to take a life without the consent of God. Man's judgment is lawed but God's judgment is always good.

That is quite an assumption. Why believe that God is always good? The Bible sometimes claims that but its own stories refute that claim. But you know what does make sense? That the Bible is largely a book of history and myths all rolled together by a people that would be considered very primitive today. They were affected by the many nations around them. That story makes sense and is much better at explaining the countless self-contradictions in the Bible than apologetics does.

 

[joelr]

Let's start from the beginning and foundation... Matthew and John were eye-witnesses. Why are they not eye-witnesses and what proof do you have that they didn't write the books that have their name ascribed to it?

Let's start with the foundation because everything else is fluff and stuff.

All of the Gospels are not written as eyewitnesses. They all start with "Kata" which means source. So
katá Matthaío Evangélio says Matthew was the source.
I gave a summary of Kliens book on the Synoptic problem as well as Goodacres updated work which is considered to have put this issue to rest. Mark is the source.

"The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission."
Reddish, Mitchell (2011). An Introduction to The Gospels


"The gospels appear to be anonymous; the modern titles ("Gospel according to Matthew", etc.) do not appear to have been part of the earliest forms of the work. They were eventually ascribed to Matthew the Apostle, Mark the Evangelist, Luke the Evangelist, and John the Apostle."
Porter, Stanley E. (2006). "Language and Translation of the New Testament". In Rogerson, J.W.; Lieu, Judith M. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies. Oxford University Press.


"The authors of Matthew and Luke, acting independently, used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, "
Levine, Amy-Jill (2009). "Introduction". In Levine, Amy-Jill; Allison, Dale C. Jr.; Crossan, John Dominic (eds.). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press.


"The majority view among critical scholars is that the authors of Matthew and Luke have based their narratives on Mark's gospel, editing him to suit their own ends, and the contradictions and discrepancies between these three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable"
Tuckett, Christopher (2000). "Gospel, Gospels". In Freedman, David Noel; Myers, Allen C. (eds.). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible.



Let's consult an expert again, Matthew then it is,

"That Matthew is essentially a redaction of Mark is almost universally agreed. He borrows extensively from Mark (nearly the whole narrative), and frequently duplicates his material verbatim. Matthew added a ridiculous Nativity Narrative (which no reasonable historian should regard as anything but fiction) and a brief but vague resurrection-appearance narrative (to fix what he may have regarded as the unsatisfying ending of Mark), which most historians also doubt is historical, and then revised the material in between, often altering or expanding on the stories Mark had invented, occasionally inventing new ones and adding large sections attributing new teachings to Jesus. (footnotes and sources left out)
.......The material Matthew adds could be wholly fabricated, or could be newly invented historical contexts into which were set what were originally mystically revealed sayings or teachings, or the borrowings of material once written by or about someone else and attributed to Jesus (as in the Eugnostos case we saw earlier). His sources in any case would then be moot. And since we've already seen this is how Mark composed his Gospel, and Matthew simply copies Mark's Gospeland tweaks it and adds to it, we have no good reason to trust he has any more reliable source material than Mark. That Matthew clearly and routinely and even egregiously fabricates narratives (such as his nativity, or hiss absurd redaction of Mark's empty tomb narrative) only further raises the prior probability that this is just what he did everywhere else in his Gospel. We have no particular reason to believe otherwise.

It is generally agreed that Matthew rewrote Mark not only to fix and improve on it but also to reverse it's too Gentile friendly argument....
Matthew comes from a community of Torah-observant Christians and is keen to have Jesus insist that we continue to make all converts remain or become practicing Jews.
Many of Matthew's rewrites reflect this specific need to rewrite Mark. But that Matthew had to do this by rewriting Mark (rather than simply producing his own Gospel) proves that Matthew had no actual independent sources from which to argue his position. He thus had to fabricate what he needed - but not by composing his own text, bur instead simply constructing a better Mark."

Then we get into examples of how Matthew tries to improve Mark but ends up making it into nonsense - riding on two donkeys to literally match Zech 9.9 or destroys Mark's beautiful literary structure by moving events around.

Matthew parallels the baptism of Jesus with the transfiguration of Jesus.
He recrafts the crucifixion narrative to be more of a chiastic literary form (all markers of creating events for a story.
The sermon is organized in triadic structure, far too literary to be casual speech

Richard Carrier, OHJ "The Gospels"

Also from Carrier's work,
John is a free redaction of all 3 Gospels. There is abundant evidence that John knew all 3.

As Michael White says:

"John was made intentionally aware of the Synoptic tradition. Several features of the Johannine narrative seem to reflect such awareness and use of the Synoptic tradition, including direct verbal similarities with distinctive linguistic formulations or narrative elements in Mark and Luke respectively"



Now Hindu scripture HAS EYEWITNESS of Krishna speaking to Prince Arjuna and the Quran contains many examples of EYEWITNESSES confirming events. Joe Smith/Mormonism also claims eyewitness to some events. But they are all made-up mythologies.
This shows even with eyewitnesses the witness can bend the truth, the story may bend the truth, later scribes may bend the truth.

Sai Baba has millions of eyewitnesses to miracles as late as 1910. Millions. Still not real.

All of the local religions were Hellenized from 300 BC to 1 AD (Petra Pakken The Hellenization of Early Religions). They all had saviors, baptism and the whole works. Judaism was the last to do this.
These are myths.

 

[joelr]

Mark is most likely writing for Peter and Luke interviews eyewitnesses.

Luke is not a historian. Carrier has an entire chapter demonstrating this and explaining examples. Unlike historians of his day he gives no sources or anything remotely similar to an actual historian.

OHJ pg.469

"So we know Luke is making a lot of things up in order to deliberately sell a fake history, for purposes of winning an argument against doubters (both within and without Christianity, as his opponents included, for example, Christians with very different ideas about the nature of the resurrection).
This already warns us not to trust anything he has added to the story found in Mark and Matthew: we should assume it is, like those, a convenient fabrication invented for some purpose, unless we can find sufficient evidence to believe otherwise. .....
despite his pretense at being a historian, preface and all, Luke's methods are demonstrably nonhistorical: he is not doing research, weighing facts, checking them against independent sources, and writing down what he thinks most likely happened.He is simply producing an expanded and redacted literary hybird of a couple of previous religious novels (Matthew and Mark), each itself even more obviously constructed according to literary conventions rather than historiographical.
Unlike other historians of even his own era, Luke never names his sources or explains why we are to trust them (or why he did), or how he chose what to include or exclude. In fact Luke does not even declare any critical method at all, but rather insists he slavishly followed what was handed to him - yet another claim we know to be a lie (since we have two of his sources and can confirm he freely altered then to suit his own agenda)."

R. Carrier

1Kings 17.10 and 17.17-24. and Luke 7.6 and 7.11-17

It happened after this / It happened afterwards

At the gate of Sarepta, Elijah meets a widow/ At the gate of Nain, Jesus meets a widow

Another widows son was dead / This widoes son was dead

That widow expresses a sense of her unworthiness on account of sin / A centurion expresses his unworthiness on account of sin

Elijah compassionately bears her son up the stairs and asks the Lord why he was allowed to die. / The Lord feels compassion for her and touches her sons bier

Elijah prays to the Lord for her sons life. / The Lord commands the boy to rise

the boy comes to life and cries out. /and he who was dead sat up to speak

and he gave him to his mother / and he gave him to his mother

the widow recognizes Elijah is a man of God and the word he speaks is the truth. / the people recognize Jesus as a great prophet of God and the word of this truth spreads everywhere

 

[Kenny]

All of the Gospels are not written as eyewitnesses. They all start with "Kata" which means source. So
katá Matthaío Evangélio says Matthew was the source.
I gave a summary of Kliens book on the Synoptic problem as well as Goodacres updated work which is considered to have put this issue to rest. Mark is the source.

Never said "all"... I said Matthew and John. Obviously the writer of Luke is a biography and a compilation of those who were eye witnesses. A deposition of sorts.

The early church is unanimous in their acceptance of Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen all report Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias (c. AD 60-130) writes, “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”
Papias, “Fragments of Papias,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 155.

So you are wrong.

John

Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD) Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,—that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things

Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies, 1.8.5.” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 328.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 AD), as quoted by the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263-339 AD) denotes the following:

Again, in the same books Clement has set down a tradition which he had received from the elders before him, in regard to the order of the Gospels, to the following effect. He says that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first, and that the Gospel according to Mark was composed in the following circumstances:—

Peter having preached the word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those who were present, who were numerous, entreated Mark, inasmuch as he had attended him from an early period, and remembered what had been said, to write down what had been spoken. On his composing the Gospel, he handed it to those who had made the request to him; which coming to Peter’s knowledge, he neither hindered nor encouraged. But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel

Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “The Martyrdom of Ignatius,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 130.

And, again, you are wrong.

"The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission."
Reddish, Mitchell (2011). An Introduction to The Gospels

I love the words like "probably" which means they aren't sure and then talk like they are right. And, again, I have already shown that the statements are wrong as far "none were eyewitness while they use the word "almost" certainly.

I prefer a "dates between" approach which would be more honest.

Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.
Mark between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.
Luke was written before A.D. 62
John appears to have been written in the ’80s to ’90s.

When were the gospels written and by whom?

Mark, of course, wrote down what Peter said who was an eye-witness.

"The gospels appear to be anonymous; the modern titles ("Gospel according to Matthew", etc.) do not appear to have been part of the earliest forms of the work. They were eventually ascribed to Matthew the Apostle, Mark the Evangelist, Luke the Evangelist, and John the Apostle."
Porter, Stanley E. (2006). "Language and Translation of the New Testament". In Rogerson, J.W.; Lieu, Judith M. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies. Oxford University Press.

Already addressed

Sai Baba has millions of eyewitnesses to miracles as late as 1910. Millions. Still not real.

So, what you are saying is that even though there are million of eyewitnesses to Mohammad, he never existed... got it.