(November 6, 2013 at 2:20 pm)WesOlsen Wrote: ....Again I also want you to tell me:

. Who was Joseph's dad?

In one thread we rejoice over same-sex 'marriage' and gay adoption. Of course a child can have two dads.

In another thread we whine about the bible's ambiguity about father, father in law.

Typical hypocrisy from the bible errancy crowd.

(November 6, 2013 at 2:20 pm)WesOlsen Wrote: ..... How come nobody other than Matthew talks about the huge 'kill the firstborn' operation launched by Herod, which would have required enormous coordination and manpower?

You mean how come people were afraid to write bad stuff about a blood-thirsty dictator who murdered his own family members and who had an army?

Or maybe you are wondering why Herods day-to-day exercise of brute force in order to hold on to power wasnt particularly newsworthy back then. Abortion isnt very controversial and it is 2013!

"...enormous coordination and man power"
LOL
You dont even know how many new born babies were murdered in Bethlehem and yet you are a self-appointed expert on the coordination and manpower.

This is what really makes me laugh at these anti-theist bible skeptics.
On the one hand they rant about the slaughter of the Canaanites factually mentioned in the bible when it suits them.

But they claim Herod murdering babies never happened.

They claim the Exodus out of Egypt never happened.
...and yet it was the folk who left Egypt who went on to invade Canaan!!!

Come on WesOlsen. Make up your mind which part of the bible happened and which didnt.

(November 6, 2013 at 10:47 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(November 6, 2013 at 9:58 pm)Godschild Wrote: Picking out one verse in the story want get it, Jesus went to the home of Cleopus and another follower in Emmaus, they arrived after dark and after Jesus disappeared from their midst, they went back to Jerusalem to tell the apostles. This would be day two, your same day theory does not hold up.

I've re-read the chapter to be sure I didn't miss anything. Here's my reasoning...

Quote:Luke 24:13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
...
24:17-21 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
...
24:29-30 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
...
24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,

So, in plain (modern) English:
Early in the morning: Women came to the tomb
Later in the morning: the 11 don't believe them
Afternoon: Journey to Emmaus, confirmation in dialog it was still day 3
Evening: Dinner
Evening: (same hour) running back to other disciples, meeting with Jesus, Jesus blesses them and flies up into the sky

Looks like all in one day to me. I agree it's a pretty packed day but remember Jesus did all four trials in one night (Jews, Pilate, Antipas, back to Pilate).

Quote:As far as the rest of the text goes no specific time line is given, but as usual I'm sure you will assume a time line to fit your own ideas no matter how wrong they are.

Do tell, what part of "being seen of them forty days" sounds unspecific to you?

Jesus ascension was during day light hours, not at night. Now it says Jesus tarried with them which means he spent some time with them, they said the day was near spent, this means night was shortly to come. Then a seven mile run, right, I ran track in high school, long distance, and running seven miles would be a difficult task for anyone who had not trained rigorously, actually I would say impossible. So by your own research it did not happen, also remember that sundown meant the start of a new day to the Jewish people.

No time line in Luke, he gave it in Acts to bring more detail to the story, you might ask why, I don't know you'll need to ask Luke. I do appreciate that you went back to see what the whole story said. You are one of the few who will and for that I give you kudos.

GC

(November 7, 2013 at 1:40 am)Godschild Wrote: Jesus ascension was during day light hours, not at night. Now it says Jesus tarried with them which means he spent some time with them, they said the day was near spent, this means night was shortly to come.

Really? Let's go to the tape.

Quote:Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Jesus told his followers to tarry in Jerusalem. It doesn't say he did so. Then he went out to Bethany and ascended into Heaven. There is no mention of "next day" or that the event happened during daylight hours.

Quote:Then a seven mile run, right, I ran track in high school, long distance, and running seven miles would be a difficult task for anyone who had not trained rigorously, actually I would say impossible.

I agree.

I would also agree it's impossible that Jesus was, in one night, arrested at Gethsemane, taken to trial by the high priests, then given over to Pilate, then transported to Herod Antipas, then sent back to Pilate to be tried all in one night.

You're making progress.

Quote:So by your own research it did not happen,

Again, I agree.

Quote:also remember that sundown meant the start of a new day to the Jewish people.

Now you're playing semantic games. The point is Luke says it all happened within 24 hours which is a far cry from 40 days.

DP, everything you said about my last post was wrong, and I'm waiting for you to explain yourself. I was not "taught" what I believe, I've examined evidence for myself and I've changed my mind one some of these things more than once. This is completely incompatible with the assertions you have drawn.

(November 7, 2013 at 3:44 am)Aractus Wrote: and more extensive examination has made me more convinced that it's not possible to date Matthew later than 45 AD.

Wow. I've never heard any apologist, even of the most fringy variety, ever try to push the dates of any of the Gospels back sooner than 50 CE. I guess your research is more extensive than any scholar.

Quote:I provide references, and you don't. That's the difference between you and me.

How about my reference to Oxford's published Bible?

Quote:Do you know why they date Mark later than 70AD?

Yes. It's because of the "little apocalypse" in Mark chapter 13.

Quote:Mark 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

The temple was destroyed in 70 CE, so the reference to the temple destruction indicates the passage was written after this point. It's an old trick with "prophecy": wait for an event to happen and then "predict" it.

Quote:Thankyou, I agree, and this only strengthens my argument that the gospel could not have been written later than c. 45 AD.

...

...

OK, let me see if I got this.

The authorship of the Gospels is dubious at best. You agree. And that proves to your mind that they must have been written very early on.

Did I black out for a few minutes while you offered all the other evidence that allows you to draw this conclusion?

Quote:Nice straw man.

No, that seems to be your reasoning. You assert that the attributed authors wrote the Gospels, present the folklore about when they died and work backward from there. If I'm wrong, feel free to elaborate.

Quote:Luke can be reliably dated.

Do tell.

Quote:Just like "Q"...

The "Q" document is purely hypothetical.

Quote:Josephus and Luke had to have a "common written source" (maybe it was "Q"), or one was based on the other.

Or Josephus wrote his own works. Why would Josephus copy Luke, a historian so clearly inept that he confused the dates of Herod the Great and the administration of Quirinius so badly that Mary wound up with a 10 year pregnancy.

According to Luke, Mary conceived during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE (Luke chapter 1). Luke then says Mary gave birth during the census taken while Quirinus was governor of Syria (see Luke chapter 2). Quirinius didn't become governor until 6 CE. So either Luke screwed his dates up or those Sons of God take longer to bake in the oven.

Quote:But if Luke was written in c. 90 AD then: why doesn't he include the siege of Jerusalem, why doesn't he include the deaths of Peter Paul and others who have been martyred by then, and why does he end Acts c. 61 AD?

Perhaps because "Luke" (or whoever) was writing a Gospel about the life of Jesus, not a siege of Jerusalem that would happen four decades later. The "martyrdom" of Peter and Paul are also separate topics and might not yet have been fabricated (this is part of what I regard as Christian folklore). And my contention is that a different author wrote the ridiculously fanciful and woo-drenched (even by the Bible's standards) tale of Acts.

Quote:Why do I mention this? Because of the two accounts that have the same version, and they are Luke and (shock-horror) 1 Corinthians.

Have I proved my point yet?

No, you committed the logical fallacy of Red Herring (changing the subject). Try answering my question.

(November 7, 2013 at 7:18 am)Aractus Wrote: DP, everything you said about my last post was wrong, and I'm waiting for you to explain yourself. I was not "taught" what I believe, I've examined evidence for myself and I've changed my mind one some of these things more than once. This is completely incompatible with the assertions you have drawn.

Oh do try to be patient. I can only respond to one person at a time. Now read my above response to you. Happy?

(November 7, 2013 at 7:24 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Wow. I've never heard any apologist, even of the most fringy variety, ever try to push the dates of any of the Gospels back sooner than 50 CE. I guess your research is more extensive than any scholar.

DP, I had the locksmiths around today. They were doing me a mutual favour that would eventually result in me repaying said favour. While they were there I showed them a Chubb safe I had pulled out, which had no lock, and asked if I could fit a completely different lock into it. The next thing I knew, he drove back to his shop, got the parts he needed, came back and fitted it for me, and I insisted that I had to pay him for the service. He proceeded to write me an invoice for ... $50. Much less than I wanted to pay! Now I know what you're thinking - that's just Aussie Mateship - no it isn't, the guy's not my mate and I barely know him.

Let me put this in perspective - the going rate if you call a locksmith to break into your car or house for you would be about $250 (10-20 minutes work at the site).

Which fact is more important?

You guessed it, my "favour" is obviously not the norm, he was way too generous.

You cite as fact "fringy" Christian apologists, and label me as one of them. Would I label the locksmith a "fringe", or is he a regular lockie?

You also haven't provided any references at all, or reasoning behind dating the gospels. I can tell you the reasons, but that's not really my job. The most important fact (and one which I do not dispute) is that Mark has to have been written after the church spread to Rome.

Quote:Yes. It's because of the "little apocalypse" in Mark chapter 13.

No, as I've already said it's because supposedly the supposed author (which you dispute) John Mark wrote after Peter's supposed death in c. 65 AD.

Quote:The temple was destroyed in 70 CE, so the reference to the temple destruction indicates the passage was written after this point.

You don't know your history. Jerusalem (whole) was taken by siege, and you should have mentioned this. The temple already was "symbolically" destroyed at the cross.

Quote:The authorship of the Gospels is dubious at best. You agree. And that proves to your mind that they must have been written very early on.

Did I black out for a few minutes while you offered all the other evidence that allows you to draw this conclusion?

Well, if you accept everything the early church father's wrote was more Gospel than the Gospel?

If not, then you have to admit maybe Peter didn't die c. 65 AD! Or maybe John Mark wrote earlier than c. 65 AD. Or that John Mark was not the author allowing someone before him to write Mark.

Quote:No, that seems to be your reasoning. You assert that the attributed authors wrote the Gospels, present the folklore about when they died and work backward from there. If I'm wrong, feel free to elaborate.

Certainly.

Luke wrote Luke-Acts, Paul wrote all his epistles, Peter, James, Jude and John wrote their respective pieces. John the elder wrote Revelations. The remainder - Hebrews (could be Paul or James or some other apostle), Matthew and Mark are anonymous. Matthew and Mark are written by two different apostles, and one used the other. I'm 95% certain that Matthew used Mark, however, the scenario where Mark used Matthew is possible. I'm 100% certain that Luke is written c. 60-61 AD and that Luke had a copy of Mark and Matthew. I can't stress this part enough - I really don't care if John Mark wrote Mark or if Matthew wrote Matthew, it's trivial, what I do care about is the remainder of said works.

Oh and I'm about 60% certain that the Gospel of the Hebrews predates Matthew. So it should be easy to convince me I'm wrong on this, if I am?

Quote:Do tell.

I have already done so. Acts ends with Paul under house arrest, before Peter has died, and before Jerusalem has fallen.

Quote:The "Q" document is purely hypothetical.

Great, I agree. So much so I do not believe there was a Q.

Quote:Or Josephus wrote his own works. Why would Josephus copy Luke, a historian so clearly inept that he confused the dates of Herod the Great and the administration of Quirinius so badly that Mary wound up with a 10 year pregnancy.

I said they used a common source. This is a fundamental fact as far as I'm concerned, and until I see it disproven, I am convinced that they both went to the library and read the same book. I am not the only one who thinks this, and again, this only accounts for the "double tradition" - that is, a fraction of the respective works.

Quote:According to Luke, Mary conceived during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE (Luke chapter 1). Luke then says Mary gave birth during the census taken while Quirinus was governor of Syria (see Luke chapter 2). Quirinius didn't become governor until 6 CE. So either Luke screwed his dates up or those Sons of God take longer to bake in the oven.

I've addressed this multiple times already, either read what I've already written or just don’t bring it up again.

Quote:Perhaps because "Luke" (or whoever) was writing a Gospel about the life of Jesus, not a siege of Jerusalem that would happen four decades later. The "martyrdom" of Peter and Paul are also separate topics and might not yet have been fabricated (this is part of what I regard as Christian folklore). And my contention is that a different author wrote the ridiculously fanciful and woo-drenched (even by the Bible's standards) tale of Acts.

Pull the other one.

Quote:No, you committed the logical fallacy of Red Herring (changing the subject). Try answering my question.

I didn't think you'd understand the point, even though I did make it explicit. Thanks anyway.

***DeistPaladin edited to fix quote boxes***

(November 6, 2013 at 11:07 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(November 6, 2013 at 2:20 pm)WesOlsen Wrote: ....Again I also want you to tell me:

. Who was Joseph's dad?

In one thread we rejoice over same-sex 'marriage' and gay adoption. Of course a child can have two dads.

In another thread we whine about the bible's ambiguity about father, father in law.

Typical hypocrisy from the bible errancy crowd.

You seem to have missed the point of the question. Matthew 1 says that Joseph's father was named Jacob. Luke 3 says Heli.

There is no ambiguity about a child having two dads when he is adopted by gay parents. Trying to lay down a trail of red herrings as usual.

(November 6, 2013 at 11:07 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(November 6, 2013 at 2:20 pm)WesOlsen Wrote: ..... How come nobody other than Matthew talks about the huge 'kill the firstborn' operation launched by Herod, which would have required enormous coordination and manpower?

You mean how come people were afraid to write bad stuff about a blood-thirsty dictator who murdered his own family members and who had an army?

Or maybe you are wondering why Herods day-to-day exercise of brute force in order to hold on to power wasnt particularly newsworthy back then. Abortion isnt very controversial and it is 2013!

You're being obtuse—deliberately? Why would anyone be afraid to write about the slaughter of the innocents if it had happened? Herod was long dead by the time Matthew wrote about it. Josephus does in fact list in detail all of Herod's crimes but knows nothing about the murder of the babies in Bethlehem, suggesting it never happened, and Matthew put it in so he could slip in another garbled Old Testament reference:

Quote:16 When Herod realized that the visitors from the East had tricked him, he was furious. He gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its neighborhood who were two years old and younger—this was done in accordance with what he had learned from the visitors about the time when the star had appeared.

17 In this way what the prophet Jeremiah had said came true:

18 “A sound is heard in Ramah,
the sound of bitter weeping.
Rachel is crying for her children;
she refuses to be comforted,
for they are dead.”

(November 6, 2013 at 11:07 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: But they claim Herod murdering babies never happened.

They claim the Exodus out of Egypt never happened.
...and yet it was the folk who left Egypt who went on to invade Canaan!!!

Come on WesOlsen. Make up your mind which part of the bible happened and which didnt.

I can't answer for WesOlsen, but my answer is that most of it is fiction, evil fiction, a sort of snuff literature as in Psalm 137:

Quote:8 Babylon, you will be destroyed.
Happy are those who pay you back
for what you have done to us—
9 who take your babies
and smash them against a rock.