If theists understood "evidence"

[Mystic]

As extreme or strange as the position Jesus attributed himself and the Torah attributed Adam and others with as the Image and word of light of God brought to life.

At the end, morality and goodness from Atheism is a program with no substance but what we decided to give it, which makes circular by definition, we generate it yet feel bound to obey it,  it's guidance but we are programming it's guidance so it's us deciding how to act,  there is no essential reality to it, not a singular universal agreed upon aspect, and there is no score keeping of any "true" good acts or evil acts because there is none of that in reality, it's a psychological thing we inherited, and in the past, it was justified by mythology.

There is no place it is found,  it's more chaotic then ordered,  and there is no universal guidance nor perception to it, it is like chaotic winds that sail our boat.

Love is left to chaotically judge with no guidance, and make decisions based on ignorance, and there is no essence to goodness in this respect, it's a concept with nothing backing it up, value given to ourselves and others, without an absolute source or basis, nothing but what culture makes it to be.

The only thing genetics proves in this regard, is that it's beneficially to follow "morality" and the leaders who claim to represent it, only that, if naturalism is true, no one actually represents it or even knows what it is.

As strange as Jesus being a instance of God's word and path brought to life, and the door of light and morning star from the household of guidance of that time, as strange as that sounds, there is no way to account for a real essence of guidance pertaining to love, and hence goodness is but a delusional concept we inherited if this is true.

Either there is a full fledge reliable connecting reality by which we have rights of one another, by which relationships are established by truth, by which we ask through regarding one another, and either there is a reliable guidance to all that,  or it's just an empty corpse.

Concepts of morality would not make morality but if we are program and our brain generates the code for morality, it's not binding, it's just whatever we wish it to be, and that has really no substance... 

And we aren't real in the sense think we are, our deeds don't form a part of our value, it's all delusional, something we inherited from mythology of unseen accountability of the soul, but it would be too an illusion.

There is no rising up stages or falling down, no misguidance or guidance, it's sheer chaos.


Why abandon everything we know about goodness, just to say we don't need God for it?

You hate God that much that you have to separate his light from him, and what are you really left with but chaotic dress up over a vile chaos, just lip serving some chaotic concept of goodness as goodness just to function.

Be truthful to yourself and the eyes of the unseen will open up doors out of the darkness.

[Minimalist]

Oh yes.... witness testimony is not evidence.
So then.... set Bill Cosby FREEE!!!!   We also seemed to have shown, that is not the case recently, or are you saying that the democrats had no reason to cite delay and to not confirm Kavenaugh?

As well, witness testimony is used in historical research, and in criminal trials all the time.   Atheists just seem to have double standards when it comes to things that don't fit their narrative.

Gotta love how Road confuses real standards with double standards despite being schooled on this over and over 

I've written him off as an asshole.  There is incapable of learning....Dripshit.  And then there is not interested in learning... RR.  Their loss.  They can keep wasting money on their fucking churches.

[Amarok]

Gotta love how Road confuses real standards with double standards despite being schooled on this over and over 

I've written him off as an asshole.  There is incapable of learning....Dripshit.  And then there is not interested in learning... RR.  Their loss.  They can keep wasting money on their fucking churches.

And we can keep pointing a laughing at their inability to see why reasonable people would accept real history and criminal investigation but disbelieve Roads fairytales and the horde of apologist scam artists who's nonsense he repeats .

[RoadRunner79]

See above....I think I answer some of your questions.

No, not really.  Paul presumably predates all the Gospels.  I don't see where you went from there as your post didn't make much sense.

I am curious in your support for the claims you made which you make from above though. And what gives you such force to use the highlighted words.

1. )  We can be confident that the work Papias was citing was not the gospel of Matthew that we have today

Because the gospel that Papias refers to was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek.

2.)  an anonymous gospel which likely drew from earlier sources attributed to Matthew existed by the latter half of the second century

A book without a clear attribution has an unknown or anonymous author.  The text itself doesn't indicate the author and we have only second hand, late attribution of it to Matthew.  The consensus opinion of scholars is that it was anonymous.  As to it likely being dependent upon earlier sources, that seems rather obvious given the tradition, examples of such as in the reuse of Mark and the Thomas Sayings, as well as the fact that its composition is rather late to be the testimony of an eye witness.  Additionally there are textual dependencies between Matthew and the other gospels which indicate that Matthew drew upon other sources.  I don't know why you consider suggesting that something likely drew on earlier sources is using words with force, but whatever.

3. ) There appears strong reason to believe that neither were written by eye witnesses.

Both are rather late for them to be eye witnesses, and, as to the gospel we do have, there is no claim of authorship; both the lateness and lack of authorial attribution argue against the author of the later work being Matthew.  Additionally, it seems rather unlikely that an eye witness would depend upon another source other than himself.  That doesn't fit with the theory that the gospel of Matthew is the product of an eye witness.

I would like to know the reasons for this confidence in these claims.

And I'd like to know if you're doing more than dicking the dog with these questions.  I asked you a question which you don't seem to have answered with anything but some nonsense theory about Paul.

I answered why I thought it was early.... sorry if you didn't understand (I don't see where you think that is "kicking the dog")  You could just say, that you don't understand.  

1.)  Yes there is some dispute about what Papias meant by this.  Was there an earlier Gospel or what.   In any case, Matthew was quoted early in Church History.

2.)   By anonymous, you mean that the author doesn't identify himself within the writing.   However their could have been a cover page, or header which attributes it to Matthew, such as on all the copies that we have these parts do.  I don't think that they just found it along side the road, and decided to put Matthews name on it, so the people who shared the Gospel may have known.   All the information we have points to Matthew as the author, and pretty nothing direct that doesn't.

3.)  You literally used the conclusion in the premise here.  Directly and unmistakably.  Would you care to revise, because this is a text book (over-emphasized) case of begging the question.  Usually it's at least somewhat hidden.  And if an eye witness has heard other's testimony, they will often repeat what they have heard.   In addition, there are many early and recognized Christian creeds within the new testament.   In any case, I hardly see where this is cause for a late dating.   You may note, that this is why detectives separate witnesses as soon as possible before questioning them. 
 
It seems that at most you have a maximum date, where the author was directly attributed to the writing.   Earlier quotes which indicate that the writing was at least partially known before this.  As I was saying before, Paul notes that the gospel (not necessarily this writing, but the story) was early, and as he cautions, and the Early Church demonstrates, they where wary of that which was different from what they where taught.   We don't see any indication of dispute over the writing or the labeling it as Matthew's.   We don't see dispute over it's contents.   It lines up with the Early Church teachings, and the other Gospels.  

Your whole argument seems to be that it late, because it was a late writing, and doesn't really answer the question of why.  Certainly not to use words like "confident"  and "likely" and "strong reason".   As I said, I don't see any reason to doubt those who where closest to the events and shown to be checking for content and authorship, over some conspiracy theory developed 18 centuries later.

[Amarok]

And the broken record continues to play

[Jehanne]

But, you act like the early Church(es) unanimously considered the Gospel of Matthew to be divinely inspired, and again, such was not how the New Testament came to be:

Wikipedia -- Development of the New Testament canon

Yes, I am aware, that the declaration of Canon was not perhaps as authoritative and clear cut as some might like.  I also no some who use information like this selectively and incompletly to suggest things that are not true.   Kind of like trying to surprise people that the manuscripts are filled with errors, but suggesting in silence something other than what the data indicates.

It is interesting that you bring up Marconianism, referred to early in the Church as being unorthodox, and given a fair amount of credit for the start of the focus on Apostolic succession by Irenaeus.  I understand that there where some groups (which we can see as isolated and having some growth in history) which did differ.  And it was the connection of the teaching of the apostles and those who knew Jesus, that was the answer which was traced back to; in order to resolve this.   But there where some who certainly had their own ideas which did not trace back to Christ.

You see this as well in Paul's letter to the Gallations;  which most scholars date back to the 40-50s or at latest 60's and which wikipedia states  has near universal consensus was written by the Apostle Paul (since I know such things of are great concern to you).   Even here, there are those who where trying to distort the Gospel for their own ends, and Paul gives a rather stiff warning that if they or another teach you any other Gospel, that they are  to be accursed. With this, I find it rather difficult to believe, given that we do have quite a few disputes in history over authorship and canon, that the authorship of the Gospels would go so unnoticed a century later in some conspiracy theory to attribute authorship to them. And then there is the question of why would they do this?   You don't see in the early writings, the challenges and discussions as to the historicity of these things, which largely arose in the 19th century.

---

I am curious in your support for the claims you made which you make from above though. And what gives you such force to use the highlighted words.

1. )  We can be confident that the work Papias was citing was not the gospel of Matthew that we have today
2.)  an anonymous gospel which likely drew from earlier sources attributed to Matthew existed by the latter half of the second century
3. ) There appears strong reason to believe that neither were written by eye witnesses.

I would like to know the reasons for this confidence in these claims.

I don't believe Paul, for reasons that I have stated before, namely, I believe that Paul was a "storyteller" who told overt lies, in particular, his claim to have persecuted early Christians.  I think that this story was invented by Paul in order to give him credibility within the early Christian community, but within the known structure of the Roman Empire in Palestine, I think that his claims were impossible.  Neither the local nor the Roman authorities would have tolerated such behavior, either due to one of their citizens or one of their subjects.  Paul's claims are equivalent to someone claiming that Sheriff Joe Shapiro went to New York City, set up his own jail in a rented hotel room and started making his own arrests.  A few decades from now someone may write such a story, and while it may make for entertaining reading, it would be viewed as being an historical impossibility.  Ditto for Paul.

By the way, there is a principle of law at work here:

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus -- It means that when a defendant lies about one thing, it is proper to assume he lied about everything.

Paul is not a credible witness to history -- he likely suffered from epileptic seizures, which he interpreted as being of divine origin, he believed in a flat Earth, and he was a liar.

[Amarok]

Yes, I am aware, that the declaration of Canon was not perhaps as authoritative and clear cut as some might like.  I also no some who use information like this selectively and incompletly to suggest things that are not true.   Kind of like trying to surprise people that the manuscripts are filled with errors, but suggesting in silence something other than what the data indicates.

It is interesting that you bring up Marconianism, referred to early in the Church as being unorthodox, and given a fair amount of credit for the start of the focus on Apostolic succession by Irenaeus.  I understand that there where some groups (which we can see as isolated and having some growth in history) which did differ.  And it was the connection of the teaching of the apostles and those who knew Jesus, that was the answer which was traced back to; in order to resolve this.   But there where some who certainly had their own ideas which did not trace back to Christ.

You see this as well in Paul's letter to the Gallations;  which most scholars date back to the 40-50s or at latest 60's and which wikipedia states  has near universal consensus was written by the Apostle Paul (since I know such things of are great concern to you).   Even here, there are those who where trying to distort the Gospel for their own ends, and Paul gives a rather stiff warning that if they or another teach you any other Gospel, that they are  to be accursed. With this, I find it rather difficult to believe, given that we do have quite a few disputes in history over authorship and canon, that the authorship of the Gospels would go so unnoticed a century later in some conspiracy theory to attribute authorship to them. And then there is the question of why would they do this?   You don't see in the early writings, the challenges and discussions as to the historicity of these things, which largely arose in the 19th century.

---

I am curious in your support for the claims you made which you make from above though. And what gives you such force to use the highlighted words.

1. )  We can be confident that the work Papias was citing was not the gospel of Matthew that we have today
2.)  an anonymous gospel which likely drew from earlier sources attributed to Matthew existed by the latter half of the second century
3. ) There appears strong reason to believe that neither were written by eye witnesses.

I would like to know the reasons for this confidence in these claims.

I don't believe Paul, for reasons that I have stated before, namely, I believe that Paul was a "storyteller" who told overt lies, in particular, his claim to have persecuted early Christians.  I think that this story was invented by Paul in order to give him credibility within the early Christian community, but within the known structure of the Roman Empire in Palestine, I think that his claims were impossible.  Neither the local nor the Roman authorities would have tolerated such behavior, either due to one of their citizens or one of their subjects.  Paul's claims are equivalent to someone claiming that Sheriff Joe Shapiro went to New York City, set up his own jail in a rented hotel room and started making his own arrests.  A few decades from now someone may write such a story, and while it may make for entertaining reading, it would be viewed as being an historical impossibility.  Ditto for Paul.

By the way, there is a principle of law at work here:

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus -- It means that when a defendant lies about one thing, it is proper to assume he lied about everything.

Paul is not a credible witness to history -- he likely suffered from epileptic seizures, which he interpreted as being of divine origin, he believed in a flat Earth, and he was a liar.

He will just dismiss the seizure because Paul claims that other people heard shit of course he would say that afterwards ....

---

Of course Paul isn't a witness nor was the bible written by any actual witnesses just apologists desperate to make witnesses

[Jehanne]

Of course, the accounts differ, and hence, contradict each other.  But, every scholar (well, almost) agrees that the early Christian communities embellished and altered the stories of Jesus as time went on, and Paul's stories are no different.  I just wonder if RR is willing to defend the authorship of 2 Peter as being of "apostolic" origin:

Issue of authorship already settled for most scholars

The great majority of scholars agree that Peter could not have written this letter.[19] For example, textual critic Daniel Wallace (who maintains that Peter was the author) writes that, for most experts, "the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter" and that "the vast bulk of NT scholars adopts this perspective without much discussion"[20] Werner Kümmel exemplifies this position, stating, "It is certain, therefore, that 2 Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged",[21] as does Stephen L Harris, who states that "[v]irtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter."[22] Evangelical scholars D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo wrote that "most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author."[23] Despite this broad denial by the majority of modern scholars, other scholars view the arguments of the majority to be largely inconclusive.[24] Likewise, Stanley Porter points to the fact that 2 Peter's acceptance to the canon by early Christians presumes that they were sure that Peter wrote it.[25] In the end, Carson and Moo point to the controversy reflective of this issue, stating, "We are therefore left with the choice of accepting the letter's prima facie claim to have been written by the apostle Peter or viewing it as a forgery hardly deserving of canonical status."[26]

Wikipedia -- Authorship of the Petrine epistles

[Amarok]

Of course, the accounts differ, and hence, contradict each other.  But, every scholar (well, almost) agrees that the early Christian communities embellished and altered the stories of Jesus as time went on, and Paul's stories are no different.  I just wonder if RR is willing to defend the authorship of 2 Peter as being of "apostolic" origin:

Issue of authorship already settled for most scholars

The great majority of scholars agree that Peter could not have written this letter.[19] For example, textual critic Daniel Wallace (who maintains that Peter was the author) writes that, for most experts, "the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter" and that "the vast bulk of NT scholars adopts this perspective without much discussion"[20] Werner Kümmel exemplifies this position, stating, "It is certain, therefore, that 2 Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged",[21] as does Stephen L Harris, who states that "[v]irtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter."[22] Evangelical scholars D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo wrote that "most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author."[23] Despite this broad denial by the majority of modern scholars, other scholars view the arguments of the majority to be largely inconclusive.[24] Likewise, Stanley Porter points to the fact that 2 Peter's acceptance to the canon by early Christians presumes that they were sure that Peter wrote it.[25] In the end, Carson and Moo point to the controversy reflective of this issue, stating, "We are therefore left with the choice of accepting the letter's prima facie claim to have been written by the apostle Peter or viewing it as a forgery hardly deserving of canonical status."[26]

Wikipedia -- Authorship of the Petrine epistles

But Road and Steve deny contradictions and try and ploy them as "just different accounts  " then try and peddle the BS as making it more credible .

[RoadRunner79]

---

Yes, I am aware, that the declaration of Canon was not perhaps as authoritative and clear cut as some might like.  I also no some who use information like this selectively and incompletly to suggest things that are not true.   Kind of like trying to surprise people that the manuscripts are filled with errors, but suggesting in silence something other than what the data indicates.

It is interesting that you bring up Marconianism, referred to early in the Church as being unorthodox, and given a fair amount of credit for the start of the focus on Apostolic succession by Irenaeus.  I understand that there where some groups (which we can see as isolated and having some growth in history) which did differ.  And it was the connection of the teaching of the apostles and those who knew Jesus, that was the answer which was traced back to; in order to resolve this.   But there where some who certainly had their own ideas which did not trace back to Christ.

You see this as well in Paul's letter to the Gallations;  which most scholars date back to the 40-50s or at latest 60's and which wikipedia states  has near universal consensus was written by the Apostle Paul (since I know such things of are great concern to you).   Even here, there are those who where trying to distort the Gospel for their own ends, and Paul gives a rather stiff warning that if they or another teach you any other Gospel, that they are  to be accursed. With this, I find it rather difficult to believe, given that we do have quite a few disputes in history over authorship and canon, that the authorship of the Gospels would go so unnoticed a century later in some conspiracy theory to attribute authorship to them. And then there is the question of why would they do this?   You don't see in the early writings, the challenges and discussions as to the historicity of these things, which largely arose in the 19th century.

---

I am curious in your support for the claims you made which you make from above though. And what gives you such force to use the highlighted words.

1. )  We can be confident that the work Papias was citing was not the gospel of Matthew that we have today
2.)  an anonymous gospel which likely drew from earlier sources attributed to Matthew existed by the latter half of the second century
3. ) There appears strong reason to believe that neither were written by eye witnesses.

I would like to know the reasons for this confidence in these claims.

I don't believe Paul, for reasons that I have stated before, namely, I believe that Paul was a "storyteller" who told overt lies, in particular, his claim to have persecuted early Christians.  I think that this story was invented by Paul in order to give him credibility within the early Christian community, but within the known structure of the Roman Empire in Palestine, I think that his claims were impossible.  Neither the local nor the Roman authorities would have tolerated such behavior, either due to one of their citizens or one of their subjects.  Paul's claims are equivalent to someone claiming that Sheriff Joe Shapiro went to New York City, set up his own jail in a rented hotel room and started making his own arrests.  A few decades from now someone may write such a story, and while it may make for entertaining reading, it would be viewed as being an historical impossibility.  Ditto for Paul.

By the way, there is a principle of law at work here:

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus -- It means that when a defendant lies about one thing, it is proper to assume he lied about everything.

Paul is not a credible witness to history -- he likely suffered from epileptic seizures, which he interpreted as being of divine origin, he believed in a flat Earth, and he was a liar.

---

Do the majority of scholars support your view?  I never see this as a major argument articulated by scholars.

It seems to me, that during this time period, the Romans and the Jews had a complicated on again - off again relationship.   I also think that it is incorrect to compare modern practices to those of 1st century Rome (anachronistic fallacy).  During the time of Jesus (and Paul) they where trying to get along with the Jews,  shortly after, was the Jewish war.  There was a tension and power struggle between the two.   I don't think that the Romans had any problem with killing people, but the question is, would they have allowed the Jewish authorities to do so.  I'm certainly not any kind of authority or expert in this area, but given my knowledge of their relationship and the behavior of the Romans I think that the answer is it's complicated. It fluctuated and what they allowed or didn't allow depended on that complicated relationship which could change rapidly.

Here are some citations from a shortly before the time of Paul, showing that the Romans did grant authority to the Jewish leaders over their people

• Extradition from Egypt was granted for Simon the high priest by Ptolemy VII in 142 B.C. (1 Macc. 15:15-21)
  
• Julius Caesar formally acknowledged the sovereignty of the high priest in all matters of Jewish religion in a decree of 47 B.C. (Josephus, Ant. 14. 192-195)
  

http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/did-paul-have-the-authority-to-arrest-people-in-damascus/

I think it could depend on who and to what extent. That it largely depended on how much it effected the Romans.     I can agree, that Christians may at times overstate or over-extrapolate the persecution to be larger and more extreme than it was.  This is often the case (just look at min's threads on cops). However it seems that atheists at times want to understate it, or remove it from history all together. I don't think that your theory fits. Perhaps people incorrectly extrapolate it to a wider epidemic than what it was, but those who Paul was supposedly lying to, knew better than you or I, what the current conditions where, and what was or wasn't allowed. If it was as outlandish a thought as you suggest (comparing it to modern times) then I find that implausible. There has to at least be some truth to it. Also, I don't think that claiming to kill, people is a very plausible way to become their friend (in any time), especially if there is no persecution at all, to base this on. I don't see that history agree's with your thoughts here, and think you need to back it up with something more concrete.