RE: Part I - The Archaeological Evidence (Response In Part)
(02-11-2012 04:40 AM)The Theist Wrote:
(02-11-2012 02:24 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: Hi Theist, thanks for your reply.
I note you shifted the topic of the archaeological evidence for the Greek scriptures on to an examination of the scripture itself.
Actually I was responding to your request to supply "one contemporary author who talks about the star of the show, Jesus."
(02-11-2012 02:24 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: Am I to understand that your archaeological evidence is limited to the fact that
-John the Baptist ,
-Pilate and a
-fellow who Paul knew existed?
If there is more, please fill me in. If there is no more, you must admit, surely, that this is woefully inadequate as evidence.
I think that you're overlooking crucial evidence based upon a need to come to a certain conclusion, namely; that there is no archaeological evidence of the historicity of the Christian Greek scriptures. Each of the examples I gave were claims by critics of the Bible that it couldn't be historically accurate because those people it mentioned were not known to exist outside of the Bible itself, until the archaeological evidence was discovered thus effectively dismissing those criticisms.
Those examples were just a few of many. Perhaps I should give one of a lesser known discovery which, even to this day isn't well known among skeptics, and demonstrate how important they are to dismissing the critic's doubt of historicity. To this day skeptics of the Bible seem blissfully aware of these rather old discoveries.
The skeptic's accusation is that there was only one census taken while Publius Sulpicius was governor of Syria, at about 6 C.E. The one that sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots? (Acts 5:37) That was the second, actually. Inscriptions found at and near Antioch reveals that some years earlier Quirinius served as the emperor's legate in Syria. As the Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon's French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) says: "The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II,
86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria."
In 1764 an inscription called the Lapis Tiburtinus was found which concurs.
What does this mean? The skeptic of the Bible, even to this day, unaware of this "new" information, will unknowingly deny the possibility that there was a registration in days of Joseph and Mary just prior to Jesus birth. Didn't happen, they say. Though the evidence for it has been well established for some time. They, the critics of the Bible, are somewhat selective in their appreciation for evidence, it seems. They have been wrong time and time again. But when the evidence, the archaeological evidence which they claim is so important dismisses their protestations. Then the evidence becomes irrelevant.
(02-11-2012 02:24 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: Before I specifically address each issue you raise, I need to establish two fundamental points.
1.Irenaeus of Lyons attempted to list the first known Catholic canon in 180-190 CE, although he never compiled a definitive list of books. His list was the first ever to mention the four canonical Gospels. This was the first record of anybody mentioning the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, over 150 years after the events they purported to record. (http://firstnewtestament.com/gospels_ear...yons.htm). This is undisputed historical fact. Please google it for yourself. Ask yourself what that means about "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." It means the names are fabrications that have nothing to do with the authorship. The gospels were probably originally written decades earlier by we don't know who, but the names have NOTHING to do with whoever wrote them. There were scores of gospels in the second century...Irenaeus picked four and invented the names of their authors.
The link you supplied was dead. Irenaeus was educated by Ploycarp, a living link to the apostles. Your unsubstantiated claims that he the originator of the spurious authorship of the Gospels is without merit.
(02-11-2012 02:24 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: 2. The early church fathers were notorious liars. I refer you to Bucky Ball's commentary on this. I have written a chapter on this in my book, which I could cut and paste, but I will spare. Google the topic. You will be very surprised.
I don't think it a very effective course of debate to make a nonsensical claim unsupported by fact or evidence with a vague reference to some commentary I am unaware of and likely unimpressed by compounded by the suggestion that I "Google the topic." I could Google Chupacabra with a more profound result.
(01-11-2012 09:46 AM)The Theist Wrote: Matthew, also named as Levi, was the tax collector before becoming one of Jesus' apostles. He is credited for writing the first gospel account.
(02-11-2012 02:24 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: WRONG. "He is credited" is a term commonly used by apologists. It is not the same as "the evidence for this is as follows..." Other similar terms are "there is a tradition..." "the earliest tradition..." "it is thought...." "it is commonly believed...." Literature from apologists is full of these phrases because they lack real evidence. Matthew was not the author of the gospel, a fact admitted by nearly all respected historians today (including the conservative Catholic encyclopaedia)
Oh. WRONG! If only we had some fireworks to support that bold assessment. Is this Bucky talking now? 'Cause I gotta tell 'ya Doc, it wreaks of the stench of the Ball. Nevertheless . . .
If I had to choose which were more accurate, you accumulation of "nearly all respected historians of today" verses the numerous historians of the day in which we refer to I would choose the the later, if for no other reason than even as far as this debate goes, a brief episode so as not to bore the biased reader, still offers more support. This is just nonsense.
(01-11-2012 09:46 AM)The Theist Wrote: Though he isn't listed as its writer in the account itself,
(02-11-2012 02:24 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: Correct ....one only needs to leaf through any of the Gospels to realise they were not written by eyewitnesses, or by anyone who interrogated eyewitnesses. There are no interviews of Jesus, or his disciples, or of any of the characters in the action. Nowhere do we read a phrase such as “I, Matthew/Mark/Luke/John saw this or heard that” or “I was present when” this or that happened, or “I talked to …who told me… so I asked him...” Everything is written as pure narrative, because the authors had no close connection to the described accounts.
Are you joking? The entire collection of four accounts are exclusively devoted to the very thing you are claiming doesn't exist.
Look. If Bucky Ball is the best you can do I would have pissed off to you and challenged him before you. Let me just give you this advise. Look elsewhere. You only do yourself a disservice.
I'm going to call a time out and pause this debate for a discussion with the moderator. Stark. We need to establish if Mark is using Bucky as puppet master, whether that is acceptable. I can come to some agreement upon that in as much as I am aware of it. I wanted a debate with Mark and promised one to Bucky which he rejected. Now, I'm willing to accept a debate with both of them but it is . . . somehow dirty and unacceptable to continue without the acknowledgement of Mr. Ball's participation.
"Are you joking? The entire collection of four accounts are exclusively
devoted to the very thing you are claiming doesn't exist."
I don't think you understood the point I was making. Please read this again:
"One only needs to leaf through any of the Gospels to realise they were not written by eyewitnesses, or by anyone who interrogated eyewitnesses. There are no interviews of Jesus, or his disciples, or of any of the characters in the action. Nowhere do we read a phrase such as “I, Matthew/Mark/Luke/John saw this or heard that” or “I was present when” this or that happened, or “I talked to …who told me… so I asked him...” Everything is written as pure narrative, because the authors had no close connection to the described accounts."
I was making the point that the commentary in the gospels is written from the viewpoint of an uninvolved commentator, not from the viewpoint of someone who was actually there or who had talked to eyewitnesses.