Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[Lion IRC]

....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.

..... 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.

[Godscreated]

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...

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).

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

[Aractus]

---

Really? I gave you a completely straightforward answer. Inscriptions can be forged, just about anything can be forged.

You seem to be obsessed with dates as if they prove something. Your responses are becoming more and more lethargic as you go on.

Perhaps you are trying to respond to too many people at once. A self proclaimed skeptic of text such as youself must know that The Bible can be authentically dated, and the things written in it can still be false.

For whatever reason, you have chosen not to be skeptical of this. It is my guess that you have been blinded by confirmation bias and your beliefs are immune to revision.

Your position is indistinguishable from a delusion at this point. I don't think anything constructive will come from this exchange.

Thank you for your time.

---

No, I responded to each person individually, and you never addressed any of the important points that I raised. Goodbye.

---

Actually, I agree. I see what you've done here. You've used folklore, assumed everything about it to be true and then created artificial dates that conform to your assumptions.

No, as I already admitted I've changed my mind on some of these things multiple times. I've especially changed it over whether Mark or Matthew was written first, and when they were written. I had believed, for a very long time, that they were written in the 50's AD, but closer and more extensive examination has made me more convinced that it's not possible to date Matthew later than 45 AD.

Nothing to do with folklore. Nothing to do with what others believe (every pastor I know I would have multiple disagreements with in terms of these things, I was NOT taught what I believe).

As an aside, I especially love the way you can tout scholarly consensus when it suits you and then ignore it or discount it when it doesn't. Scholarly consensus on the dates of authorship, which actually are generous to Christians as they use the earliest possible dates, is Mark around 70 CE and the others came later.

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

Do you know why they date Mark later than 70AD? I do.

It's because a church father in the 2nd century wrote down that John Mark wrote his Gospel from memory from the testimony of Peter, after Peter had died - and then you have another church father saying Peter dies by crucifixion c. 65 AD. Had he not said "after Peter died" then the dating would be far less contained, and you would have scholars saying 45-55 AD and scholars saying 70-80 AD.

Considering the comment that follows this, I don't understand how you could possibly firmly argue a later date.

The authorship of the Gospels is actually quite dubious, even among Christian Bible scholars. The NRSV 3rd Edition (Oxford University Press) states in it's introduction of Mark and Luke that their authorship is given by "tradition" and "scholars find little evidence to support this claim". In particular with Luke, "little is known of him" except that he was believed to be a physician traveling with Paul.

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

But you employ this beautifully backward reasoning to establish your preferred early dates seemingly, judging by your post, in the following manner:

1. ASSUMPTION: The Bible is true
2. ASSUMPTION: The attributed authorship is accurate
3. ASSUMPTION: The folklore about the Bible and its attributed authors are true
4. COROLLARY: The dates couldn't be later than X because otherwise it wouldn't fit with the folklore and we know the folklore is true (see 3).
5. CONCLUSION: Getting the early dates you propose

Nice straw man.

As I said, I work backwards from LUKE. Luke can be reliably dated. That's it. I never said that anything about Luke, John or Paul's epistles is working backwards from anything else. If you really want to work backwards for Luke, not that I do, you could ask about the double-tradition with Josephus. Just like "Q", Josephus and Luke had to have a "common written source" (maybe it was "Q"), or one was based on the other. Almost no one believes that Luke is based on Josephus, thus we know he had to have what Josephus has, meaning it can't be written later than Antiquities, 95 AD.

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?

Let me throw a monkey wrench in some of your assumptions. First, would you agree that ...? :

1. Luke wrote The Gospel According to Luke
2. Luke wrote The Acts of the Apostles

If so, I'd like to ask a few other questions. Would you agree that ...? :

1. The event where the resurrected Jesus, after appearing to his followers, rose up into the sky is a rather important and memorable detail in the story
2. If Luke wrote both books, than both books should agree on that point

Now, when did Jesus rise up into the sky after his resurrection?

Gospel of Luke: On the day of his resurrection

Luke 24:50-51
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.

Acts of the Apostles: 40 days after the resurrection
Acts 1:3-9 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
...And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

I could go into more contradictions between the Gospel of Luke and Acts but that should suffice for now. I look forward to reading the mental contortions you engage into square this circle.

Look, I catch a lot of Christians out who don't know how many times wine was drunk at the last supper - because they follow traditional communion which has it only once after the bread is broken. No pastor, ever, has been able to explain to me when I've asked - "why don't we begin communion with wine?" Besides of course agreeing that it's traditional, and that yes wine is drunk, then the bread is broken, and then more wine is drunk at the last supper, we have two accounts that fully agree with that, but the other accounts leave out the first passing of the wine.

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?

[DeistPaladin]

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.

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.

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.

So by your own research it did not happen,

Again, I agree.

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.

[Aractus]

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.

[DeistPaladin]

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.

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

How about my reference to Oxford's published Bible?

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

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

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.

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?

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.

Luke can be reliably dated.

Do tell.

Just like "Q"...

The "Q" document is purely hypothetical.

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.

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.

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.

[DeistPaladin]

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?

[Aractus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Do tell.

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

The "Q" document is purely hypothetical.

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

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.

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.

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.

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***

[xpastor]

....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.

..... 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:

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.”

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:

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.

[DeistPaladin]

You also haven't provided any references at all, or reasoning behind dating the gospels.

And again, what was wrong with the NRSV 3rd Ed published by Oxford University Press? This is not to say they're the only ones who suggest a date around 70 CE. You can do a simple wikipedia search and find it (though I tend to go with Oxford more than Wikipedia). Christian scholars and apologists do try to push it back to 65 or even 60 CE. More skeptical scholars who don't believe in woo and divine prophecy place the earliest possible date at 70 CE for reasons already given.

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.

Can we please keep woo out of our discussion on history?
In any event, the temple was razed during the 70 CE siege of Jerusalem.

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

...and I don't.

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.

I simply don't know and am not willing to take church propaganda and folklore about its history at face value.

Luke wrote Luke

...according to tradition.

-Acts,

Nope.

Paul wrote all his epistles

Actually, scholars think that roughly half the epistles are "probably authentic" and the rest are of dubious authorship. Pseudo-epigraphy was a common problem with religious texts. Anyone who wanted to push a certain theological agenda could "discover" a letter by a more notable church figure from history that happened to agree.

Peter, James, Jude and John wrote their respective pieces.

...maybe. I haven't researched these but the track record for the sacred scriptures is so spotty that I'm doubtful of any claims of these epistles.

John the elder wrote Revelations.

...while taking a bad trip on mushrooms, one must assume.

The remainder - Hebrews (could be Paul or James or some other apostle),

...or completely unknown since even the Bible doesn't bother to attempt to attribute authorship.

the scenario where Mark used Matthew is possible.

Unlikely. Matthew corrects Mark in too many places where the theology is embarrassingly wrong. For example, Mark has Jesus saying "no divorce ever". Matthew, knowledgeable of Jewish customs and laws, puts in the caveat of the absence of female chastity.

I'm 100% certain that Luke is written c. 60-61 AD

Good for you. Prove it.

and that Luke had a copy of Mark and Matthew.

One would think they'd have gotten the nativity story straight then, to say nothing of the contradictory itinerary of Jesus' ministry.

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?

Let's stick to canonical works. Christians maintain that the heterodox Christian texts came much later, which is why they can be discounted.

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

Your point?

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.

Be convinced of whatever you like. I care about what you can prove.

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

Do me the kindness of a link, then. They're easy to create. It's the globe-with-the-chain-under-it icon above the text box.

To be blunt, I'm skeptical of your claim to have debunked my observations given the quality of the logic you've presented so far.

Pull the other one.

Pull what? And what other one? You're making no sense.

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

Oh, I understood quite well. You're using a red herring to distract from the problems of the two books contradicting each other on a point where there would be no room for self-contradiction if such an event actually happened.