What if it was created by God to evolve?

[Subduction Zone]

For someone like you making that statement about another poster is... hysterical.

No, if I make attacks against others I can justify them. I asked him to do so and he ran away. Have you ever seen me make an attack that was not accurate?

 

[Brian2]

You are the one making personal attacks against others. The burden of proof is upon you.

I don't say that the presumption about the prophecy is the only evidence used, and I have already said that it is not an accusation about the presumption.
You are the one claiming I am making personal attacks. The burden of proof is upon you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't say that the presumption about the prophecy is the only evidence used, and I have already said that it is not an accusation about the presumption.
You are the one claiming I am making personal attacks. The burden of proof is upon you.

You make it too easy:

"We don't know that they did not have someone to write down what they said. iow that is no problem.
And what is 60 years after the crucifixion all about unless you want to date the gospels after 70AD on the presumption that they are not true. Without that presumption Matthew was written maybe 20-30 years after the resurrection."

 

[Brian2]

You make it too easy:

"We don't know that they did not have someone to write down what they said. iow that is no problem.
And what is 60 years after the crucifixion all about unless you want to date the gospels after 70AD on the presumption that they are not true. Without that presumption Matthew was written maybe 20-30 years after the resurrection."

Whom am I attacking here?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whom am I attacking here?

The scholars that dated Matthew. "Presumption" and "assumptions" are accusations. They require evidence on your part.

 

[Brian2]

The scholars that dated Matthew. "Presumption" and "assumptions" are accusations. They require evidence on your part.

Now you are claiming that "presumption" and "assumption" are accusations. You need to supply the evidence for that.
Are you saying that they don't presume or assume, but that they know that prophecy is not true?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now you are claiming that "presumption" and "assumption" are accusations. You need to supply the evidence for that.
Are you saying that the don't presume or assume, but that they know that prophecy is not true?

Oh my, So you can't be honest. Why does religion cause so many people to lose their ability to be honest?

 

[metis]

Well Peter wrote or dictated epistles. (and dictation does not mean that it was not a witness testimony)
The accounts of Matthew (an apostle) and John (an apostle) have these people as witnesses. That is hearsay but hearsay maybe but it is witnesses saying who was there and is a high standard for historical reporting.

We actually don't know with any certainty who were the authors of the four Gospels, and it was the 2nd century Church that did that assigning based on oral tradition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well Peter wrote or dictated epistles. (and dictation does not mean that it was not a witness testimony)
The accounts of Matthew (an apostle) and John (an apostle) have these people as witnesses. That is hearsay but hearsay maybe but it is witnesses saying who was there and is a high standard for historical reporting.

Both of Peter's epistles appear to be pseudonymous. So you do not know if he wrote or dictated them. The first one is a maybe, the second one scholars are rather sure of being pseudonymous. And Matthew almost certainly did not write Matthew. There were claims that Matthew wrote a work in either Aramaic or Hebrew. The claim was that he did so in the "language of his people". But that work does not exist today. The Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek. No serious scholar thinks that the Gospels are from eyewitness testimony.

I just remember one of the reasons that scholars are very sure that Matthew and Luke were not eyewitness testimony. They both copy wide swaths of Mark. If Matthew was a witness why would he copy the work of another? He would relate what he saw and not copy someone else. That is just one piece of evidence that puts it later than Mark.

 

[shunyadragon]

Whom am I attacking here?

Over all in your posts SCIENCE!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Over all in your posts SCIENCE!

And of course the people in those fields.

 

[Brian2]

Both of Peter's epistles appear to be pseudonymous. So you do not know if he wrote or dictated them. The first one is a maybe, the second one scholars are rather sure of being pseudonymous. And Matthew almost certainly did not write Matthew. There were claims that Matthew wrote a work in either Aramaic or Hebrew. The claim was that he did so in the "language of his people". But that work does not exist today. The Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek. No serious scholar thinks that the Gospels are from eyewitness testimony.

I just remember one of the reasons that scholars are very sure that Matthew and Luke were not eyewitness testimony. They both copy wide swaths of Mark. If Matthew was a witness why would he copy the work of another? He would relate what he saw and not copy someone else. That is just one piece of evidence that puts it later than Mark.

I think it strange that the early church can tell us who wrote the gospels but that modern scholarship can deny that based partly at least on a pre supposition that the supernatural is BS.
As for Luke and Matthew being post Mark, there is no problem with that.
Why would Luke's use of Mark not be from witnesses and those who had been there from the beginning?
For Luke however it seems plain that his Acts of the Apostles was a work that came after his gospel and that Acts was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and before the death of Paul, because neither of these important events are mentioned in Acts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it strange that the early church can tell us who wrote the gospels but that modern scholarship can deny that based partly at least on a pre supposition that the supernatural is BS.
As for Luke and Matthew being post Mark, there is no problem with that.
Why would Luke's use of Mark not be from witnesses and those who had been there from the beginning?
For Luke however it seems plain that his Acts of the Apostles was a work that came after his gospel and that Acts was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and before the death of Paul, because neither of these important events are mentioned in Acts.

The early church could not do that. It was not until the mid to late second century before they even began putting names to the Gospels.

And you are not listening. I would suggest that you go back and reread what you demanded, You remember don't you? When you broke the Ninth Commandment by saying things about scholars that you could not justify.

 

[Brian2]

The early church could not do that. It was not until the mid to late second century before they even began putting names to the Gospels.

It sounds like you think that the church fathers decided to make up names for the gospels. So you do what you usually do, accuse Christians of lies.

And you are not listening. I would suggest that you go back and reread what you demanded, You remember don't you? When you broke the Ninth Commandment by saying things about scholars that you could not justify.

You have accused me before, in this thread, of lying, but that is your normal way.
Now you do it again.
You should know that the methodology of historians as well as science is that it is fine in their work to proceed as if the supernatural is not true. That means that modern historians feel free to presume that the prophecy of Jesus about the temple destruction is not true and so they can date the writing of the gospels after 70AD.
So show me where I lied and that the writing of Mark can be dated after 70AD without that presumption.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It sounds like you think that the church fathers decided to make up names for the gospels. So you do what how usually do, accuse Christians of lies.

Not necessarily lies. Foolish errors is good enough.

You have accused me before, in this thread, of lying, but that is your normal way.
Now you do it again.

One goes not have to lie to be dishonest. One could be so wrong that it staggers belief.

You should know that the methodology of historians as well as science is that it is fine in their work to proceed as if the supernatural is not true. That means that modern historians feel free to presume that the prophecy of Jesus about the temple destruction is not true and so they can date the writing of the gospels after 70AD.
So show me where I lied and that the writing of Mark can be dated after 70AD without that presumption.

And here you are wrong again. They do not "presume" Jesus's prophecy to be untrue. They simply ignore it . That is not the same thing at all. That was why your claim is a false attack on Christians. They are neutral belief wise. They also ignore the prophecies that refute him as you do as well.

 

[Whateverist]

There is always a what-if-something else. So what? Can’t land a whale with a red herring.

 

[Brian2]

And here you are wrong again. They do not "presume" Jesus's prophecy to be untrue. They simply ignore it . That is not the same thing at all. That was why your claim is a false attack on Christians. They are neutral belief wise. They also ignore the prophecies that refute him as you do as well.

The prophecies that you and other skeptics say refute Jesus are just interpreted wrongly imo.
As for the way modern historians handle the prophecy of the Temple destruction, it is used to date the gospels to post 70 AD and I have seen it used that way, just as I have seen OT prophecies used in the same way to date the OT books.
A critical scholar would be remiss to ignore the prophecies, in the sense of not considering what was written to have any bearing on the dating of the books.
There is plenty of evidence for the early writing of the gospels however, including that Christians are said to have escaped Jerusalem because of the prophecy.

Evidence for an Early Dating of the Four Gospels | Evidence Unseen

www.evidenceunseen.com

 

[metis]

It sounds like you think that the church fathers decided to make up names for the gospels. So you do what how usually do, accuse Christians of lies.

They based it on an oral tradition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The prophecies that you and other skeptics say refute Jesus are just interpreted wrongly imo.
As for the way modern historians handle the prophecy of the Temple destruction, it is used to date the gospels to post 70 AD and I have seen it used that way, just as I have seen OT prophecies used in the same way to date the OT books.
A critical scholar would be remiss to ignore the prophecies, in the sense of not considering what was written to have any bearing on the dating of the books.
There is plenty of evidence for the early writing of the gospels however, including that Christians are said to have escaped Jerusalem because of the prophecy.

Evidence for an Early Dating of the Four Gospels | Evidence Unseen

www.evidenceunseen.com

Your opinion is of no value because you refuse to properly support it. Look at this post of yours. You had to go to a worthless source, Liars For Jesus are not valid evidence. When a source is willing to lie for a cause they do not help you either.

This is a historical question that we are discussing. And you refuse to use historical sources because they show you to be wrong.

As to Jesus's prophecy that he will be back before all of his apostles were dead we can discuss that. The meaning is clear. The context is clear. The timing is clear. That means that like every other precise prophecy, that it failed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The prophecies that you and other skeptics say refute Jesus are just interpreted wrongly imo.
As for the way modern historians handle the prophecy of the Temple destruction, it is used to date the gospels to post 70 AD and I have seen it used that way, just as I have seen OT prophecies used in the same way to date the OT books.
A critical scholar would be remiss to ignore the prophecies, in the sense of not considering what was written to have any bearing on the dating of the books.
There is plenty of evidence for the early writing of the gospels however, including that Christians are said to have escaped Jerusalem because of the prophecy.

Evidence for an Early Dating of the Four Gospels | Evidence Unseen

www.evidenceunseen.com

I had to check out your source. And like most apologist tracts it is filled with grasping at straws. For example it says that Clement I quoted from Matthew in 95 AD. Though at best that would only set a pre 95 CE dating for Matthew even that claim is weak. For example it says that Clement quoted from Matthew in 1 Clement 13:2. But at best it is a paraphrase of a short verse of Matthew 7 2 and may have been just a well known phrase at that time. To show a quote one needs more than a similarity to something that my be just an adage of the days.

When I see such weak sauce I tend to ignore the rest. That was one of the first arguments it put forth. It should have been one of the strongest.