(January 17, 2015 at 4:26 pm)goodwithoutgod Wrote: is that easier for you? I offered you cited work, recommended multiple christian sourced scholarly books that say the SAME thing. I don't use wiki, unless it puts into short layman terms a point I am trying to make, rather than regurgitating and typing up an exhaustive book review, or the hundreds of pages of notes I have on this subject. Point is, they were not written when or by whom people think, and very few scholars say otherwise...are there naysayers? of course, Ken Ham is one, people blindly believe in all sorts of nonsense, but that doesn't discredit the forensic analysis of the historicity of the bible, or the copious amount of holes within the story, the book itself, and the plethora of anonymous after the fact hearsay based authors.

Yes. I'll accept that. I agree that it appears that Mark, Matthew and Luke drew from the same sources. That doesn't show that they were not written by the traditional authors. It could mean that those authors are ratifying the source and it made the task easier. You seem to place no value in oral tradition though, which was really almost the complete basis for the doctrines of the first and second century church. As for Papias who was probably most influential in identifying the gospel writers, here's how he described his method for gathering information:

I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.

Again, you're saying you believe it's the original authors because we can't prove they aren't. Three in a row.

I won't keep repeating myself, I've made my point, I shall leave you be Good night all.

(January 17, 2015 at 4:48 pm)Lek Wrote:

(January 17, 2015 at 4:26 pm)goodwithoutgod Wrote: is that easier for you? I offered you cited work, recommended multiple christian sourced scholarly books that say the SAME thing. I don't use wiki, unless it puts into short layman terms a point I am trying to make, rather than regurgitating and typing up an exhaustive book review, or the hundreds of pages of notes I have on this subject. Point is, they were not written when or by whom people think, and very few scholars say otherwise...are there naysayers? of course, Ken Ham is one, people blindly believe in all sorts of nonsense, but that doesn't discredit the forensic analysis of the historicity of the bible, or the copious amount of holes within the story, the book itself, and the plethora of anonymous after the fact hearsay based authors.

Yes. I'll accept that. I agree that it appears that Mark, Matthew and Luke drew from the same sources. That doesn't show that they were not written by the traditional authors. It could mean that those authors are ratifying the source and it made the task easier. You seem to place no value in oral tradition though, which was really almost the complete basis for the doctrines of the first and second century church. As for Papias who was probably most influential in identifying the gospel writers, here's how he described his method for gathering information:

I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.

You missed the point again, lets re-review.

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

Thus these writings were not written by those whose names they are written under (pseudepigrapha) and not by actual witnesses, as the people whose names they are written under were long dead by then...get the distinction?

(January 17, 2015 at 4:48 pm)Lek Wrote:

(January 17, 2015 at 4:26 pm)goodwithoutgod Wrote: is that easier for you? I offered you cited work, recommended multiple christian sourced scholarly books that say the SAME thing. I don't use wiki, unless it puts into short layman terms a point I am trying to make, rather than regurgitating and typing up an exhaustive book review, or the hundreds of pages of notes I have on this subject. Point is, they were not written when or by whom people think, and very few scholars say otherwise...are there naysayers? of course, Ken Ham is one, people blindly believe in all sorts of nonsense, but that doesn't discredit the forensic analysis of the historicity of the bible, or the copious amount of holes within the story, the book itself, and the plethora of anonymous after the fact hearsay based authors.

As for Papias who was probably most influential in identifying the gospel writers, here's how he described his method for gathering information:

I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.

Papias lived 100-220 CE, and gathered stories up. Lets look at this factoid concerning papias: Later scholars have been questioning of Papias' reliability. Much discussion of Papias's comments about the Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew is concerned with assessing Papias' reliability as evidence for the origins of these Gospels or with emphasizing the apologetic character of the Gospels in order to discredit their reliability. Concerning the Gospel of Mark, many modern scholars have dismissed Papias' reliability regarding this Gospel due to the purpose of Papias in vindicating the apostolicity of Mark's Gospel. I am very familiar in this quote, and have used it many times in debates. One must read it carefully to see the flaws...."but only in those who taught the truth."...and how exactly does one determine that specific stories told were true, while others were not true when you were not present to witness any of the events, and have no way of knowing who is spinning yarns, and who isn't it...and therein lies the flaw..and then when you look at the reliability issues......

oral tradition is like the telephone game....and as accurate.

One must ponder that when events like the earth going dark for 3 hours midday, ground shaking, temples twain in two, and corpses bursting out of the ground and walking around town...that no one who lived at the time thought these events were noteworthy...no, lets wait 60-110 years later for the anonymous authors of the pseudepgrapha known as matthew, mark and luke to tell these stories based on passed down "tradition"...sounds totally legit. Come on, you seem to be an intelligent fellow, surely you see the gaping holes in this fairy tale..

(January 17, 2015 at 4:50 pm)robvalue Wrote: Again, you're saying you believe it's the original authors because we can't prove they aren't. Three in a row.

I won't keep repeating myself, I've made my point, I shall leave you be Good night all.

If you review my posts, you will see that isn't at all what I have been stating. I choose to trust the sources closest to the actual event, such as Papias, who had to access to eyewitnesses or those who lived, or had family or acquaintances who lived at the time of Jesus. The closer a source is to the event it claims to describe, the more it can be trusted to give an accurate account of the event. Everyone is biased. I'm not going to write off these sources because somebody claims that they had ulterior motives for making their claims. There was no money in being a church leader or whatever in those days. You might receive some respect or adulation from other believers, but it also got you persecution from the Jews at first, then later from the Romans.

I respect the evidence and opinions presented by yourself and others. I see it as valid evidence against my beliefs, but not at all conclusive, and not enough to override my trust in the evidence put forth by the early church. This doesn't mean that I believe in Jesus just because it can't be proven that he didn't exist. I see plenty of evidence that he did. But even that isn't the reason I'm a christian. The reason that I'm a christian is that I've opened myself to God and he has shown me the truth.

I understand your frustration with this discussion because it has gotten repetitive and I'm tired too. I did want to make it clear that the reason I believe in Jesus is not because it can't be technically proven otherwise. Thanks for hanging in here with me. I'm all done now.

That's OK. I respect very much your desire to have honest discourse, it is probably the greatest I have seen from a theist on these boards. Obviously I don't agree with what you say, but I don't see you trying to trick me and worm out of things as is the norm. So props for that.

I made a little rant in another thread that religious beliefs are, in my opinion, mostly emotionally lead beliefs rather than logical. Would you say that is the case for you? And in such instances, logic cannot "trump" emotion because they are not in the same spheres.

What evidence put forward by the early church? They had no more evidence then than we do now and were forced to toil under less effective means of even collecting evidence than we have now. The early church put forward claims, and not always the same claims that you would put forward.

That is the key point, the difference between a fact and a claim. Even if we knew 100% that every word in the bible was how it was written originally, it is still just a claim about what happened. At best it tells you what the people writing it believed happened. Anyone can write anything, it doesn't make it true. And just because it was written a long time ago, that doesn't make it any more likely to be true. Less likely if anything.

So I really don't care who wrote what and when. There needs to be a mammoth amount of supporting independent evidence to even consider that the supernatural type stuff in the bible actually happened. And there isn't. There's barely enough to establish basic details in the bible let alone fantastical claims.

---

So I would say anyone who just believes anything the bible says, at face value, either has extremely low standards of evidence and would believe anything, or else has already decided for another reason that the bible is true.

John 20:30-31 - "but these are written that ye might believe that jesus is the christ, the son of god; and that believing ye might have life through his name".......just about says it all right there, let me paraphrase;

"we are making up these stories to help people believe...the story."

(January 19, 2015 at 4:15 am)robvalue Wrote: That's OK. I respect very much your desire to have honest discourse, it is probably the greatest I have seen from a theist on these boards. Obviously I don't agree with what you say, but I don't see you trying to trick me and worm out of things as is the norm. So props for that.

I made a little rant in another thread that religious beliefs are, in my opinion, mostly emotionally lead beliefs rather than logical. Would you say that is the case for you? And in such instances, logic cannot "trump" emotion because they are not in the same spheres.

I've known people who have become christians for emotional reasons, but they seem go be the ones who fall away quickly. I would say that most people become christians for practical or spiritual reasons. A practical reason might be someone who has overcome drug addiction and attributes it to their coming to God, or someone who has been healed from a major disease. I think most of us, like myself, believe for spiritual reasons. i look at the universe and how it may have come about or the fact that we appear to beings made up of more than physical matter. I recognize a difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom in our ability to reason and to seek the supernatural. I see the natural world as verifying the existence of a supernatural being. I don't think that science can ever answer the questions of how the energy or matter that makes up the cosmos came into existence or if it has always existed and never had a beginning. Or on the other end, what exists beyond the end of the universe or does the physical universe extend into infinity with no end? From what I read in this forum, most atheists are content to not know and don't worry about it. I have a craving to know about that kind of stuff and I'm open to a supernatural explanation. As for being a christian, rather than another faith. Of course, I was raised a christian. I see it as a historical faith. It's not something that was just made up by some individual, but rather was passed on and developed through the centuries, by numerous inspired writers culminating in Christ. It would have to had been some conspiracy. Finally, and I don't know if this is emotional or not, I just have an assurance within me that I'm on the right track.