The Trial of Diddo97
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2014, 12:53 PM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(22-10-2014 09:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I agree with this viewpoint that two of four accounts only were direct eyewitnesses:

http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

It's flat-out wrong. Mark was written first, and was written after 70 CE. Matthew and Luke are known to both be written after this and to have heavily borrowed from Mark. Matthew could not have been written in 50 CE. While, it's possible he could have still been an eye witness with it written after 70 CE, note that:
  • This would involve an eye-witness sitting on this information for 40 years before writing it down.
  • Matthew never claims to be an eye witness. It's just assumed to add credence to the account.

John was written twenty years later still, so we have to assume that an eye witness sat on his information for 60 years. Also, he makes a lot more mystical claims and larger claims that the first thre gospels do not.

If you actually read the four of them in the order they were written, you'll notice the claims made get larger and larger. It's almost like one of those fish stories, where the fish caught gets bigger and bigger with each telling. As to why I should take the forth telling of events written sixty years later and involving crap-tons of magic seriously is beyond me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
22-10-2014, 01:03 PM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2014 01:07 PM by Impulse.)
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(22-10-2014 09:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I agree with this viewpoint that two of four accounts only were direct eyewitnesses:

http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

But, of course, that isn't what your linked page shows at all.

It says the following:

Matthew was written A.D. 50-70

Mark - "Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life."

Luke - "Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ."

John - just an unsubstantiated claim: "The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs." Obviously? No, not really. It's equally plausible for him to have fabricated the whole thing, but in language that sounds like he was there. Knowledge is just knowledge and not proof that he got it from being an eyewitness.

And, of course, the last paragraph makes no claim that any of the four were eyewitnesses:
"Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses." The red is the only real claim. The blue attempts to link them to eyewitnesses, but it's an unsubstantiated claim that doesn't make Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John eyewitnesses necessarily anyway.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
22-10-2014, 01:21 PM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
I would also note that neither Matthew nor John (the supposed eyewitnesses) ever uses the word "I". They always refer to "themselves" in the third person, and there is no "Matthew" in the Gospel According to Matthew. The "Matthew" character in that Gospel is called Levi. Also, neither Gospel was signed -- they were anonymous documents.

I know that if I were an eyewitness to this sort of thing, and I wanted to write something to convince people that these things really happened, and that Jesus really was the son of God, I would damn sure establish my authority by stating that I was an eyewitness (and giving my name). I honestly don't see how they could fail to mention that if it were true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
22-10-2014, 02:12 PM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
Several points were mentioned here. First, there is no evidence that Mark wrote after 70 or indeed, before it--if you want to be literal about rules of evidence. Bibles come with copyrights, just not dates of their first printings. Smile What we can say is that none of the gospel writers mention the Temple events of 70 CE, so...

Robby made a statement about why he should receive a text written post-dated with magic in it. We can start with why tens of thousands of Jewish people received these texts without someone saying "We were there but Jesus wasn't."

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 02:31 PM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(22-10-2014 02:12 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Several points were mentioned here. First, there is no evidence that Mark wrote after 70 or indeed, before it--if you want to be literal about rules of evidence. Bibles come with copyrights, just not dates of their first printings. Smile What we can say is that none of the gospel writers mention the Temple events of 70 CE, so...

Robby made a statement about why he should receive a text written post-dated with magic in it. We can start with why tens of thousands of Jewish people received these texts without someone saying "We were there but Jesus wasn't."

1. The Gospels do mention the destruction of the temple (they just make it look like a "prophecy") -- this is actually one of the reasons why they are thought to have been composed after 70 CE.

2. The Jewish people were not some monolithic bunch of anti-Christians. There were numerous mutually disagreeing sects of Jews. The Christians were one of those sects.

3. When the temple was destroyed in 70 CE, so were the Jews, for all practical purposes. They were in deep shit. They were certainly in no position to complain about anything the Christians did or wrote.

4. There was no publishing or printing industry. There were a few manuscripts of the gospels being circulated among Christians. "The Jews" may or may not have even been aware of them.

This "The Jews would have complained" argument is old, tired, and completely unconvincing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Grasshopper's post
22-10-2014, 02:46 PM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(22-10-2014 12:53 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 09:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I agree with this viewpoint that two of four accounts only were direct eyewitnesses:

http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

It's flat-out wrong. Mark was written first, and was written after 70 CE. Matthew and Luke are known to both be written after this and to have heavily borrowed from Mark. Matthew could not have been written in 50 CE. While, it's possible he could have still been an eye witness with it written after 70 CE, note that:
  • This would involve an eye-witness sitting on this information for 40 years before writing it down.
  • Matthew never claims to be an eye witness. It's just assumed to add credence to the account.

John was written twenty years later still, so we have to assume that an eye witness sat on his information for 60 years. Also, he makes a lot more mystical claims and larger claims that the first thre gospels do not.

If you actually read the four of them in the order they were written, you'll notice the claims made get larger and larger. It's almost like one of those fish stories, where the fish caught gets bigger and bigger with each telling. As to why I should take the forth telling of events written sixty years later and involving crap-tons of magic seriously is beyond me.

Excellent points all, also the original gospel of Mark didn't even mention Jesus appearing to anyone, the women that went to the tomb talked to the man in a white robe and he says he is risen and then they go away in fear and don't mention it to anyone.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
22-10-2014, 03:35 PM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(22-10-2014 02:12 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Several points were mentioned here. First, there is no evidence that Mark wrote after 70 or indeed, before it--if you want to be literal about rules of evidence. Bibles come with copyrights, just not dates of their first printings. Smile What we can say is that none of the gospel writers mention the Temple events of 70 CE, so...

Robby made a statement about why he should receive a text written post-dated with magic in it. We can start with why tens of thousands of Jewish people received these texts without someone saying "We were there but Jesus wasn't."

Why would they mention something from 70 AD when the stories they are telling are from decades before that?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2014, 05:44 AM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(22-10-2014 02:12 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Robby made a statement about why he should receive a text written post-dated with magic in it. We can start with why tens of thousands of Jewish people received these texts without someone saying "We were there but Jesus wasn't."

If you think that's compelling, then I guess I can counter with "Yabut why didn't the Romans write about people being raised from the dead?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 12:23 PM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(22-10-2014 02:31 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 02:12 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Several points were mentioned here. First, there is no evidence that Mark wrote after 70 or indeed, before it--if you want to be literal about rules of evidence. Bibles come with copyrights, just not dates of their first printings. Smile What we can say is that none of the gospel writers mention the Temple events of 70 CE, so...

Robby made a statement about why he should receive a text written post-dated with magic in it. We can start with why tens of thousands of Jewish people received these texts without someone saying "We were there but Jesus wasn't."

1. The Gospels do mention the destruction of the temple (they just make it look like a "prophecy") -- this is actually one of the reasons why they are thought to have been composed after 70 CE.

2. The Jewish people were not some monolithic bunch of anti-Christians. There were numerous mutually disagreeing sects of Jews. The Christians were one of those sects.

3. When the temple was destroyed in 70 CE, so were the Jews, for all practical purposes. They were in deep shit. They were certainly in no position to complain about anything the Christians did or wrote.

4. There was no publishing or printing industry. There were a few manuscripts of the gospels being circulated among Christians. "The Jews" may or may not have even been aware of them.

This "The Jews would have complained" argument is old, tired, and completely unconvincing.

I am familiar with some of your arguments. Do you realize you just said "the Xians were a Jewish sect... the other Jews may not have been aware of the gospels being circulated..." - does that seem self-contradictory to you as it does to me?

How can you find "The Jews would have complained" argument old and tired when the Jewish people complain about the gospels now, finding Jesus as Messiah the worst sort of heresy? Paul's scriptures talk about the heresy he is said to have promulgated. The Jewish people would have complained and the NT reports they complained and in multiple cities, naming the ruling governors and etc. where the complaints were lodged! Do you have personal experience with the displeasure zealous Jews have with Xianity even now?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 02:50 PM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2014 02:55 PM by Grasshopper.)
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(28-10-2014 12:23 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 02:31 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  1. The Gospels do mention the destruction of the temple (they just make it look like a "prophecy") -- this is actually one of the reasons why they are thought to have been composed after 70 CE.

2. The Jewish people were not some monolithic bunch of anti-Christians. There were numerous mutually disagreeing sects of Jews. The Christians were one of those sects.

3. When the temple was destroyed in 70 CE, so were the Jews, for all practical purposes. They were in deep shit. They were certainly in no position to complain about anything the Christians did or wrote.

4. There was no publishing or printing industry. There were a few manuscripts of the gospels being circulated among Christians. "The Jews" may or may not have even been aware of them.

This "The Jews would have complained" argument is old, tired, and completely unconvincing.

I am familiar with some of your arguments. Do you realize you just said "the Xians were a Jewish sect... the other Jews may not have been aware of the gospels being circulated..." - does that seem self-contradictory to you as it does to me?

It doesn't seem at all contradictory to me. Why would all of the various sects of a religious group be aware of (and upset about) a piece of writing which is privately distributed within one sect only? If the Methodists, for example, were circulating a pamphlet among themselves, would you expect Catholics and Baptists and Lutherans to know about it and complain about it? Why not? They're all Christians, aren't they?

Quote:How can you find "The Jews would have complained" argument old and tired when the Jewish people complain about the gospels now, finding Jesus as Messiah the worst sort of heresy? Paul's scriptures talk about the heresy he is said to have promulgated. The Jewish people would have complained and the NT reports they complained and in multiple cities, naming the ruling governors and etc. where the complaints were lodged! Do you have personal experience with the displeasure zealous Jews have with Xianity even now?

What happens "even now" has little to do with what might have happened 2000 years ago. In case you missed it the first time, there were no printing presses 2000 years ago. Paper was expensive, manuscripts had to be laboriously copied -- and were then jealously guarded -- and most people were illiterate. The Gospels would not have been "out there" for anyone and everyone to read like they are today. I repeat -- "the Jews" in general may or may not have even been aware of them. And I also repeat -- after their resounding defeat by the Romans in 70 AD, and again in the 2nd century, and the destruction of the temple, the few remaining Jews were scattered to the four winds, and would have been in no position to complain about anything. Even before that, they were not exactly all-powerful. The Romans were the ruling power. If you want to talk about how non-Christians would have reacted to Christianity, the Romans are far more relevant than the Jews. And my guess is that the Romans didn't feel particularly threatened by either Jews or Christians.

By the way, Paul's writing about the Jews and their complaints means nothing with respect to the Gospels. All of Paul's writings predate the Gospels. There were no Gospels yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: