The testimony of the NT writers

[Subduction Zone]

I notice some sites, including wikipedia, make decisions that are simply decisions, not necessarily true. So one must be aware. It's similar to the ideas about evolution, including dates. Assertions are made but -- (many buts)...you know like, but but but.

In Wikipedia one needs reliable sources when editing an article. Did you check out the link that I provided about the Gospel of Matthew? It has articles in the foot notes that they quoted from with links to some of them. They do not get to "just say things".

Evolution was not being discussed here, but you can find the a original works yourself if you want to. They are all based on rather solid evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here the situation is: do you believe Jesus (or someone like Jesus considered to be a savior or messiah or very special person) lived around the 1st century. CE. If you believe the writers made the whole thing up, that's hard for me to consider that for a couple of reasons. One is that there are accounts of torture (lions killing Christians thrown into an arena), burning of Rome out of fear of Christians and the eventual establishment of the religion with which Constantine was controversially involved with later on.
(I'll get back to the details about Herod later -- it requires time and concentration.)

Why use a black and white fallacy? Yes, there probably was a real man named Jesus that had followers and died on the cross. But that is where his story ends. And you are confused about what happened to early Christians. Yes, some were abused and put to death in terrible ways. But there is no evidence that they were given a chance to recant. The Romans were not that way. If they were going to kill someone they killed someone. And we really do not know what happened to most of the disciples. Two or maybe even three were executed. Peter, Paul, and possibly James.

 

[Kenny]

These are faith declarations made by Christian apologists that we are trying to show to be true but can't. Tertullian and Irenaeus are writing at the time that these names were assigned to the gospels, prior to their writing, the gospels were anonymous and are still considered anonymous by literary scholars. They simply make declarations in the late second century without giving any indication as to how they came about this information. No different than Christian apologists making these same faith claims today, just an echo chamber.

Mark as an author proves unlikely considering how the gospel portrays the disciples, Peter, James, and John, as somewhat dim, Jesus gets frustrated with them for not understanding his message, and if that isn't bad enough, Peter abandons and denies Jesus at his time of need, suffice to say, such an unflattering portrayal of Peter proves rather improbable considering the author is supposed to be an acquaintance and writing down Peter's side of the story.

Does it make sense that Luke, a supposed partner of Paul, was an author of a gospel about Jesus after considering the fact that Paul claimed never to have met Jesus?

Papias raises far more questions than it answers. You can read what Subduction Zone says about that.

This seems more like a faith declaration.

All I see is unsupported opinions with no actual facts.

You could be deemed an apologist.

Does it make sense that Luke, a supposed partner of Paul, was an author of a gospel about Jesus after considering the fact that Paul claimed never to have met Jesus?

Did you even read the Gospel of Luke? Other than a wild assumption, you haven't given any supportive facts, supportive letters or historical support

It is almost laughable and hypocritical that you demand evidence and yet offer none

This is what makes all your positions irrelevant as those who don't believe in God or what is written, make enormous twisted attempts to deny its veracity at the expense of all that is written by the second generation who happen to have lived at or close to that time.

You will have to do better than that.

 

[metis]

Matthew got the beatitudes from the old testament.

The Old Testament Background of the Beatitudes

Absolutely correct as it's an amalgamation of so many points in Jewish Law meant to deal with how we are to treat others.

A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)

 

[SkepticThinker]

You will have to go back and explain exactly what you are asking for.

I'm pointing out to you that plagiarism indicates that large parts of were copied, word for word
In your supposed "eyewitness accounts."

 

[lukethethird]

This seems more like a faith declaration.

All I see is unsupported opinions with no actual facts.

You could be deemed an apologist.




Did you even read the Gospel of Luke? Other than a wild assumption, you haven't given any supportive facts, supportive letters or historical support

It is almost laughable and hypocritical that you demand evidence and yet offer none

This is what makes all your positions irrelevant as those who don't believe in God or what is written, make enormous twisted attempts to deny its veracity at the expense of all that is written by the second generation who happen to have lived at or close to that time.

You will have to do better than that.

This is from Paul's epistle to Galatians



1:2 I did not receive it [gospel,good news] from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Regarding scripture, at some point you could read some basic scholarship for yourself instead of declaring your faith on a discussion forum. You have all the information you need at your fingertips. What I've stated is mainstream, pretty common knowledge for anyone that can do a search. Apologist sites get you no where, they are nothing but faith based echo chambers.

 

[pearl]

Apologist sites get you know where, they are nothing but faith based echo chambers.

Yes, there is a vast difference between Apologists, as the name implies, to defend the faith, and critical scholarship while believers, delve beyond the surface meaning.

 

[Kenny]

I'm pointing out to you that plagiarism indicates that large parts of were copied, word for word
In your supposed "eyewitness accounts."

Again... never denied it (you could be there and say "what he wrote is good enough, don't need to add to it". It is that which is unique that gives us pause to consider the eyewitness potential and what is written by those who came after that confirms.

 

[lukethethird]

Again... never denied it (you could be there and say "what he wrote is good enough, don't need to add to it". It is that which is unique that gives us pause to consider the eyewitness potential and what is written by those who came after that confirms.

Obviously the following happened because Matthew was there:
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

 

[Kenny]

1:2 I did not receive it [gospel,good news] from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

I have never disputed that position. Not sure why you are posting it. What I have said is that he went to those in authority (Peter, James et al) - and they confirmed that what he learned was correct. And if he did receive it by revelation, is it not still a witness--just spiritual and not physical?

Regarding scripture, at some point you could read some basic scholarship for yourself instead of declaring your faith on a discussion forum. You have all the information you need at your fingertips. What I've stated is mainstream, pretty common knowledge for anyone that can do a search. Apologist sites get you no where, they are nothing but faith based echo chambers.

I disagree.

Just curious-- are you saying that a scholar can't also be an apologist or that somehow an apologist never learned about scholarly scrutiny and education?

The point I made which no one has refuted is "What did, what you call "apologist", write that has been proven wrong in the context of what I have stated?

*crickets - chirp - chirp - chirp*

 

[Kenny]

Obviously the following happened because Matthew was there:
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

And what evidence do you have that he wasn't? or that he was thee when bodies were raised to life and then heard "The curtain has been from top to bottom"?

Don't just say something... give me some hard evidence!

And don't be such a literalist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have never disputed that position. Not sure why you are posting it. What I have said is that he went to those in authority (Peter, James et al) - and they confirmed that what he learned was correct. And if he did receive it by revelation, is it not still a witness--just spiritual and not physical?



I disagree.

Just curious-- are you saying that a scholar can't also be an apologist or that somehow an apologist never learned about scholarly scrutiny and education?

The point I made which no one has refuted is "What did, what you call "apologist", write that has been proven wrong in the context of what I have stated?

*crickets - chirp - chirp - chirp*

An apologist can even be right. I know, this probably surprises you too. The problem is that their open bias means that they are of no use as sources in a debate. Perhaps a legal analogy will help. In a court case a judge may impeach a witness. And open bias is a valid reason to do so:

Impeaching a Witness: What Does It Mean?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again... never denied it (you could be there and say "what he wrote is good enough, don't need to add to it". It is that which is unique that gives us pause to consider the eyewitness potential and what is written by those who came after that confirms.

It's not unique though. Rather, it's copied. Verbatim, in large swathes. That doesn't indicate an unique eyewitness account to me. Why does it to you? (Going back to my paper example, if you can remember it. You brushed it off the first time.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

And what evidence do you have that he wasn't? or that he was thee when bodies were raised to life and then heard "The curtain has been from top to bottom"?

Don't just say something... give me some hard evidence!

And don't be such a literalist.

Oh there goes another irony meter.


You still do not understand the burden of proof and who has it. But that is not why I posted. Hopefully you can understand why apologists of the sort that you are using would not be allowed in a legal case. The side that opposed their use would object and the judge seeing that they were openly biased by their statements that they proudly published would not allow them.

You could always use their claims and see if they are verified by historical sources. Let me give you an example. Richard Carrier is very open in his opposition to Christianity. He would not be a good source for me to use in a debate since you would, and perhaps rightfully, dismiss his testimony. But I can take his claims and see if they are supported by history. So far they have been.

But since I did use his arguments and checked for myself and found independent sources that confirm him I no longer need to cite him. I can quote the origin original work. You should try that.

But if you cannot support them there is a good chance that your site was spreading falsehoods.

 

[Kenny]

It's not unique though. Rather, it's copied. Verbatim, in large swathes. That doesn't indicate an unique eyewitness account to me. Why does it to you? (Going back to my paper example, if you can remember it. You brushed it off the first time.)

Again, it seems you brushed off the culture of that time. It was customary to add to what other people said or wrote.

Is there a part there that wasn't clear?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again, it seems you brushed off the culture of that time. It was customary to add to what other people said or wrote.

Is there a part there that wasn't clear?

The culture at the time is irrelevant. They don't say "this guy said this." They just copied it and put it in their story. Stories which you are claiming are unique eyewitness accounts. Do you not know what the word "unique" means?

Copying word for word is plagiarism, and it's evidence against your claims of "unique" eyewitness accounts. Just like finding exact copies of full paragraphs in essays that both you and I wrote isn't evidence that we each wrote our papers independently. Rather, it's evidence that we copied directly from each other's papers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, it seems you brushed off the culture of that time. It was customary to add to what other people said or wrote.

Is there a part there that wasn't clear?

That is a claim that requires support. Plus it ignores the fact that actual witnesses tend to tell their own version of the story.

Do I expect you to ever support your claims? Unfortunately I no longer do so. You simply cannot do so properly. It seems that you know that you cannot do that properly. You have just been making unsupported claims and demand that others refute them. This is supposed to be a discussion. You should be willing to support your clams properly.

 

[Kenny]

The culture at the time is irrelevant. They don't say "this guy said this." They just copied it and put it in their story. Stories which you are claiming are unique eyewitness accounts. Do you not know what the word "unique" means?

Copying word for word is plagiarism, and it's evidence against your claims of "unique" eyewitness accounts. Just like finding exact copies of full paragraphs in essays that both you and I wrote isn't evidence that we each wrote our papers independently. Rather, it's evidence that we copied directly from each other's papers.

Ok... let me synthesize...

You don't agree with my position on the basis of plagiarism which was wrong after 1700 AD. You don't care what the culture was at that time.

You don't agree that the penned letters and statements of those who knew the Apostles during and/or close after their lives that said who wrote them

Those statements that are unique that are stated in books called Matthew, Luke and John are irrelevant and immaterial

While I believe the opposite.

OK... I got what you believe.

Let's now move on

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok... let me synthesize...

You don't agree with my position on the basis of plagiarism which was wrong after 1700 AD. You don't care what the culture was at that time.

You don't agree that the penned letters and statements of those who knew the Apostles during and/or close after their lives that said who wrote them

Those statements that are unique that are stated in books called Matthew, Luke and John are irrelevant and immaterial

While I believe the opposite.

OK... I got what you believe.

Let's now move on

This is a strawman argument on your part. it is not a matter of it being right or wrong. Yes, it is wrong today, but no one was arguing that it was wrong in the past. What you refuse to deal with is that it is human nature for eyewitnesses to tell their own version. Odds are that you try to use the "different witnesses different viewpoints" argument in areas where the works disagree with each other. Though some of those differences are huge, such as the ten year difference in when Jesus was born, or even the day of the week of the crucifixion. It is not a good sign when one's tactics constantly change when it comes to the argument that one is trying to refute.

One more time: The plagiarism is bad for your claims. That was the point. It has nothing to do with it being wrong now.

 

[Kenny]

...

As a person, Sub, I honor and appreciate you. I think we can move on here as we both understand where we stand and on what basis.

No need to waste your time on this thread until we meet again on another thread.

Do hope you have a great rest of your day and that you continue to have a fulfilling life.