Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-07-2015, 02:57 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
I need just one more day. Just one more. About 90% complete...all saved in draft.
Find all posts by this user
06-07-2015, 06:13 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Thats fine, I await to see what you post.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
07-07-2015, 08:05 PM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2015 08:18 PM by Call_of_the_Wild.)
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
First off, let me take the time to thank my opponent for his patience. Throughout our exchanges thus far, he has shown himself to be mature and respectful...offering some thought-provoking critiques of the Gospels..and I don't expect anything less in this debate, which will be a discussion on who wrote the Gospels, and When? (1 Corinthians and Galatians also discussed).

(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Well its been two days since, Call of the Wild agreed and was supposed to post arguments first but so far all we have is Crickets Crickets

I will therefore post my initial argument that the Gospels were not written before 70 CE and that the authors were not by the disciples or by the friends of them which is hearsay.

I would have preferred that you went first, anyway. Let me just point out as sort of a preface, that the universal consensus among historians today is that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus second paragraph). Now, whether Jesus is the risen Messiah, that is a different story, but historians recognize that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure. That is the consensus. Now sure, there are guys out there like Richard Carrier and Robert Price that deny this, but these are the minority. Even Richard Dawkins, who isn't a Christian by a long shot, admitted in his debate with John Lennox that Jesus existed.





When we look at the Gospels, it is clear that the four books were written in the genre of biography. What is a biography? According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, a biography is "the story of a real person's life written by someone other than that person." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biography

The Gospels are obviously an account of the life, death, Resurrection, and appearances of Jesus Christ. Now, whether or not you believe this is a different story, but it seems obvious (at least to me) is that the authors of the books were not writing what they believed to be works of fiction, but works of what they believed to be true.

My first argument is simple: The biography of any person, whether alive or dead, must originate from someone that knows the person. The very source of the information within the Gospels must have originated from those that were close to the figure in question, Jesus of Nazareth. The Gospels cover Jesus' thoughts, his sayings, his parables, his sermons, his day to day routines, his miracles, his travels...and you can only get this sort of in-depth personal information if you were there with him.

So at the very least, the narratives as stated in the Gospels come from eyewitness testimony. The very source material had its ORIGINS from eyewitnesses of the accounts which it describes. That is my overall argument. Now, I have reasons to think that the books were written by specific people, namely...two disciples of Jesus (Matthew and John), and two friends of the disciples (Luke and Mark), and they were all written before the year 70 CE.

I will give my reasons below.
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Now the first thing that I will point out is that the way the Gospels are presented in the Bible are actually not in chronological order.

The same can be said almost for the entire Bible.

(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  The earliest chronologically speaking is Mark, looking at the linguistics of the book, mark has two authors one writing around 65 CE at earliest estimates and another writing around 80 to 90 CE.

65 CE? I would place that date a little earlier, around 59-63 CE. Why? Because the book of Acts was written by Luke as part 2 to Luke's Gospel. Now, here is the reasoning; In the second half of Acts, the apostle Paul is the central figure, and it does not record Paul's death. My argument is simple...if Paul had died BEFORE the book was written, then how could you not close the book with Paul's death? The book of Act records the death of Stephen, James, and Herod, all of whom were already dead by the time the book was written. But there is no mention of Paul's death. I believe that is because Paul was still alive when the book was written.

If Paul died around 67 CE as early Christian sources indicates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Death, then that would mean the book of Luke had to have been written prior to 67 CE, and you just work backwards from there. If you take the year 67 CE, and allow at least a year in between all four books, then you will have Luke being written 66 CE, Matthew 65 CE, AND Mark 64 CE, and John 68 CE.

Personally, I'd like to allow at least two years in between the books..and if that is the case, then Luke 67 CE, Matthew 65 CE, Mark 63 CE, and John 69 CE.

But however one decides to divide the 10-15 year time frame from 55 CE to 70 CE is up to him. The important thing is the reason we have for believing that no book precedes 70 CE, and that is because no Gospel or epistle mentions the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 CE.

Now, the destruction of the temple may have zero significance to an unbeliever, but to the Jewish community, the temple is the holy sanctuary of the Living God and its destruction would mean EVERYTHING. Yet no book in the NT mentions it.

A person may say "well, this event isn't mentioned because the narratives don't cover the period at which the event occurred", which is a good point. The problem is, Jesus actually predicted that the temple WOULD be destroyed (Matthew 24:1-2). And if you are going to paint the picture of Jesus as a prophecy "fulfiller", as Matthew does throughout his book, then why do you exclude the fulfilling of the prophecy regarding the temple? Because the temple wasn't destroyed at the time that either book was written, that is why.

Now, regarding Mark specifically..how do we know that Mark wrote the Gospel that bears his name? We have the unanimous testimony from the earliest church fathers, with the earliest around 130 CE, by Papias http://www.awmi.net/bible/mar.

Mark was a apparently a follower of Peter. The point is, if the early church was gonna just go around randomly attributing names to the Gospels, why not claim that Peter wrote the book? Why say "a friend of Peter" wrote it? Wouldn't Peter's name carry more weight than Mark, who wasn't even a disciple?

It is these kind of modest details that lead me to believe that Mark, hearer of Peter, wrote the book that bears his name.

(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  The evidence of this is that passages about the resurrection of Jesus were not part of the original book and were added in later by the second author near the close of the 1st century.

Christians have no problems admitting that the last few verses of Mark regarding the post mortem appearances are not in the earliest manuscripts with have, but what we have in Mark is an empty tomb, at best.

(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Whoever the authors of Mark were they compiled stories and theological ideas at the time and wrote them into the Book of Mark.

Those compiled stories and theological ideas may actually be true.

(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Even Biblical scholars view mark as nothing more than a collection of legends, rumors, and a little bit of history.

And those Biblical scholars are obviously not believers.

(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Furthermore given the errors that were made in terms of geography and jewish customs and the explaining of jewish law indicate that whoever wrote mark was not a palestinian jew.

Errors like what? How dare you keep me in suspense?

(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Another thing of note with Mark is that verses 16:9 through 20 were a latter addition to the book, and were not present in the earliest available copies.

You still have an empty tomb in the earliest copies, don't you?

(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Now moving on to Matthew the second gospel chronologically speaking was penned between 70 CE and 100 CE and the author is also unknown, but was likely an early Christian.

You can say Matthew was penned between 70 CE and 100 CE, but what is your justification for saying it? As mentioned above, Matthew is quick to point out every time Jesus fulfilled a prophecy, yet it was written after the temple was destroyed, an event that Jesus predicted would happen?? I find that highly unlikely.

(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  This gospel also borrows very heavily from Mark

Yet it has almost twice as many chapters than Mark.

(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  , this gospel also starts with a genealogy that doesn't match what is found in Luke

Answers to why the genealogies are different came be found here http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.html and numerous other sources that have dealt with this issue.

(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  , then it moves on to a telling of the birth of Jesus and how he was baptized, this section seems likely to be the part of the euhemerization process of Jesus, in which the author is altering the story away from a mythical figure that has no human form, to one that does by writing the figure into history with a background and with historical figures that actually existed.

And I thought I was the one doing all the speculating. Is that what you got out of it?

(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Another thing of note is that the book of Matthew is only one to mention the flight of Mary and Joseph to Egypt to fulfill a prophecy. Which is suggesting that the author a future editor added it in on purposes in order to try and increase the legitimacy of the story. Again also could be considered as part of the Euhemerization process.

The problem, is the flight to Egypt is in the earliest manuscripts. So if it is in the earliest copies we have, at what point was this fine print "added by a future editor"?

Again, as far as who wrote Matthew, we go right back to Papias who claimed that Matthew, disciple of Jesus, wrote a Gospel. Now, I don't know what sources THEY had to draw such conclusions, but what I do know is they were all much closer to the scene in both time and geographical location than you, myself, and any other historian or scholar that is alive today.

(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Next in line we have Luke written around 85 to 100 CE which borrowed from Mark and Matthew and is a composite document, along with some theological differences from the actual author of Luke who is also unknown to history.

Luke is the one of whom we can pretty much conclude with high probability that he wrote his Gospel. He begins..

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Now, whether or not you agree with Luke is irrelevant, but what he is saying is...

1. Many people drew up accounts of the very thing that his book is about, that is the salvation of the world through Jesus Christ.

2. He is confirming that the information was HANDED DOWN TO them by EYEWITNESSES.

3. He is stating that he carefully investigated everything, and based on that investigation he is now ready to write up an account to Theophilus.

Again, verses 1-4 seems to be very modest and genuine. We know that whoever wrote Acts also wrote Luke..and we know who wrote Luke again, by unanimous testimony from the early church. Luke, just like Mark, wasn't even a disciple of Jesus. Never met the guy. Yet, the tradition has always been that despite this Luke, physician of Paul, wrote a Gospel. Modesty once again.

(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Lastly we have the book of John written around 100 CE which compared to the other three gospels goes flying off the wall in what it says, this is the only gospel that jesus is equated to god as going from god to flesh. The way John is written as well is a stringing together of incidents in order to prove a theological point, this would not be an eyewitness account by any means, and the writing style also suggests that the author wasn't using any contemporaries at all.

Granted, there does seem to be a theological push by the author of John regarding the deity of Jesus. On that note, I have my own independent argument as to why Jesus must be God in the flesh. If my argument is true and since it is almost independent of any Gospel (regarding Jesus' moral perfection), then that would mean that John's account of the deity of Jesus is valid. Not to mention the fact that all Gospel's are writing from different perspectives, and John, one of the "big three" of Jesus' followers, took upon the task of writing about the Deity of Jesus than the rest.

But anyway, how do we know that John the disciple wrote Jesus? Yet again, the early church fathers testified to this. I don't know what sources they had or used, but that has always been the tradition, that John wrote a gospel. The only question is, which John? John the apostle? John the Presbyter?

John 21:22-24 states that the person that "testifies to these things and wrote them down" was a DISCIPLE. Remember, my belief is that all Gospels were written down by disciples or friends of the disciples...or at the very least, the information which are contained in the books originated from eyewitnesses of the accounts.

When was John written? Almost everyone seems to believe that the John was the last Gospel written, and it was written around the 90s CE. This is possible, if John lived to be a very old man (which seems to be the case), but a case can also be made that it was written earlier.

There is no smoking gun either way.

(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  One thing I would like to add of note, is that the earliest pieces we have of these documents is around 150 CE and are a best fragments, when we do have whole copies available they have significant differences compared to the books that are presented today.

That time frame of 150 CE is a lot closer to the events in question than any other writing in antiquity. That is worth noting.

(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  These are my Initial arguments, depending on the response by Call of the Wild I will increase the strength of these arguments.

Cool. I just want to use the rest of my time/space to point out some other "unforced coincidences" in the Gospels that, in my opinion, drives home the "modesty" factor regarding the books...and I'd also like to touch on the epistles of Paul, particularly 1 Corinthians and Galatians.

First, the modesty factor. In John 6, he is recalling the account of Jesus feeding the 5,000 people. In Luke's Gospel, he states that the feeding of the 5,000 occurred in a town called Bethsaida (Luke 9:10).

So what happened? As we all know, Jesus wanted to provide the large crowd of people with food, so he asked one of his disciples, Philip, "Where shall we buy something for these people to eat?", and of course Philip, not knowing exactly who was asking him the question, responded in an "unfaithful" way.

Why would Jesus ask Phillip where to buy food? Well, that is because Philip, along with Andrew and Peter, was FROM the town of Bethsaida (John 1:43-44), and Jesus naturally asked a guy that was familiar with the area where to buy food. But see, we don't know that this gathering took place in the town of Bethsaida until we read Luke's Gospel (Luke 9:10), and Luke doesn't even record Jesus asking Philip where to buy food, it is just something that Luke haphazardly mentions, unknowingly connecting himself with a Gospel that isn't even one of the synoptic gospels!!!

See, it is unforced coincidences like that which makes the entire thing so modest, so genuine. And that is the point I was trying to drive home to you in the public forums, is that when you have independent accounts, sometimes you have to take each account and piece them all together for one BIG account of the same event.

Now, you may ask what was so special about Philip because after all, Andrew and Peter was from Bethsaida, too. True, but Jesus asked the person that he knew would respond in such a manner, as a way to LEAD UP to him performing such a miracle. In other words, the message is "There is no stunt on a bike that God can't perform." Jesus wanted to get that message across, and he used Philip to do it.

Another example is when after Jesus appeared to the women in John's Gospel (John 20:17), he told the women "Do not hold on to me, I have not yet ascended to the Father". Why would he tell them that? Well, we find out in Matthew that when the women saw him, they "clasped his feet and worshiped him" (Matthew 28:9). Matthew doesn't record Jesus telling the women not to cling on to him, but in John's narrative, it is assumed that the women are clinging to him to him based on him telling the women NOT to cling on to him. Another unforced coincidence, in my opinion.

Moving along to 1 Corinthians. There is very little (if any doubt) from historians/scholars that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. It is a known fact that his epistles predate the Gospels. The famous creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 confirms what the Gospels would later come to state, which is that Jesus lived, died, was buried, and raised on the third day, and he was seen by his followers. So we have an early book, which is NOT one of the Gospels, CONFIRMING the overall message of the Gospels, by someone who wasn't even an original follower of Jesus....and the information that he was received dates back to shortly after the crucifixion, making it early Christian-type stuff Laugh out load Goodness gracious Big Grin

Then we have Galatians, where this same guy, Paul, claimed to have met Peter, disciple of Jesus, and James, brother of Jesus...He claimed he spent two weeks with Peter (Gal 1:18-20), and he also met James. So unless Paul is just flat out blatantly LYING, he meet two eyewitnesses to Jesus, and Paul himself was a contemporary to Jesus. He lived in the same geographical location, and during the same time as Jesus. Second, in Gal 1:21-24, he is stating that the Churches of Judea didn't know him personally, they just heard that "the man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy".

But what faith? He sure as hell wasn't formerly trying to destroy Judaism, was he? No, he was trying to destroy the growing religion of Christianity. So again, this is Paul's personal testimony, and what he is talking about is earlyyyy stuff here, which shows that the belief in Christianity was something that occurred long before ANY of the Gospels were even written.

That is my case, thus far. Worom, the floor is yours. Again, thanks for your patience.
Find all posts by this user
08-07-2015, 11:14 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  First off, let me take the time to thank my opponent for his patience. Throughout our exchanges thus far, he has shown himself to be mature and respectful...offering some thought-provoking critiques of the Gospels..and I don't expect anything less in this debate, which will be a discussion on who wrote the Gospels, and When? (1 Corinthians and Galatians also discussed).

You're welcome Smile

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Well its been two days since, Call of the Wild agreed and was supposed to post arguments first but so far all we have is Crickets Crickets

I will therefore post my initial argument that the Gospels were not written before 70 CE and that the authors were not by the disciples or by the friends of them which is hearsay.

I would have preferred that you went first, anyway. Let me just point out as sort of a preface, that the universal consensus among historians today is that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus second paragraph). Now, whether Jesus is the risen Messiah, that is a different story, but historians recognize that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure. That is the consensus. Now sure, there are guys out there like Richard Carrier and Robert Price that deny this, but these are the minority. Even Richard Dawkins, who isn't a Christian by a long shot, admitted in his debate with John Lennox that Jesus existed.




I do admit that a person that was named Jesus from the City of Nazareth could have existed, but based on what I've researched thus far I find it unlikely, the name Jesus wasn't exactly uncommon. Richard Carrier has been getting some serious attention recently, his recent presentations and what I've read of his books have presented some rather convincing evidence that Jesus may not have existed at all, and at best was nothing more than a man that kicked things off. However since this isn't the core of our debate I will move on from this topic.

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  When we look at the Gospels, it is clear that the four books were written in the genre of biography. What is a biography? According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, a biography is "the story of a real person's life written by someone other than that person." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biography

The Gospels are obviously an account of the life, death, Resurrection, and appearances of Jesus Christ. Now, whether or not you believe this is a different story, but it seems obvious (at least to me) is that the authors of the books were not writing what they believed to be works of fiction, but works of what they believed to be true.

My first argument is simple: The biography of any person, whether alive or dead, must originate from someone that knows the person. The very source of the information within the Gospels must have originated from those that were close to the figure in question, Jesus of Nazareth. The Gospels cover Jesus' thoughts, his sayings, his parables, his sermons, his day to day routines, his miracles, his travels...and you can only get this sort of in-depth personal information if you were there with him.

While it may fit the definition of a biography one thing to realize though is, biographies can be partly or entirely fictional. The information doesn't have to be from anyone that knew the person, for the gospels they would be mostly fictional with smatterings of fact in them, such as at least some of the locations mentioned did actually exist, Jerusalem for example, as well as some of the people Harod for example here, although his actions and timeframes of those actions could be considered in question. Now If your argument was true then the Biography of Jean-Luc Picard of the Starship Enterprise would have to be true as well.

Here is his biography by the way http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Jean-Luc_Picard

You're argument actually supports the idea of euhemerization rather than refutes it as well, I may have missed defining euhemerization in my previous post so I will post that now.

euhemerization
Noun
(plural euhemerizations)

The interpretation of myths as historical events


(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So at the very least, the narratives as stated in the Gospels come from eyewitness testimony. The very source material had its ORIGINS from eyewitnesses of the accounts which it describes. That is my overall argument. Now, I have reasons to think that the books were written by specific people, namely...two disciples of Jesus (Matthew and John), and two friends of the disciples (Luke and Mark), and they were all written before the year 70 CE.


I will give my reasons below.

The Farrer hypothesis and the Q source Hypothesis both call into serious question that the accounts were by eyewitnesses, and again if the author was not an eyewitness than the account is hearsay at best, since you state you will give individual reasons I will deal with those as they come up Smile

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Now the first thing that I will point out is that the way the Gospels are presented in the Bible are actually not in chronological order.

The same can be said almost for the entire Bible.

I'm glad we seem to agree on this point

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  The earliest chronologically speaking is Mark, looking at the linguistics of the book, mark has two authors one writing around 65 CE at earliest estimates and another writing around 80 to 90 CE.

65 CE? I would place that date a little earlier, around 59-63 CE. Why? Because the book of Acts was written by Luke as part 2 to Luke's Gospel. Now, here is the reasoning; In the second half of Acts, the apostle Paul is the central figure, and it does not record Paul's death. My argument is simple...if Paul had died BEFORE the book was written, then how could you not close the book with Paul's death? The book of Act records the death of Stephen, James, and Herod, all of whom were already dead by the time the book was written. But there is no mention of Paul's death. I believe that is because Paul was still alive when the book was written.

Acts was written well after the book of Mark, closer to the 2nd century than the 1st century [G.A. Wells, Acts of the Apostles: A Historical Record, South Place Ethical Society, 2000] On a side note cliffhanger stories are not exactly uncommon either in literature, why the author left it out we would have to speculate on, but if you were trying to make a book look written earlier than it actually was that would be a great way to try and do it.

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If Paul died around 67 CE as early Christian sources indicates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Death, then that would mean the book of Luke had to have been written prior to 67 CE, and you just work backwards from there. If you take the year 67 CE, and allow at least a year in between all four books, then you will have Luke being written 66 CE, Matthew 65 CE, AND Mark 64 CE, and John 68 CE.

So what exactly are you trying to say here? That paul wrote all the gospels or had a hand in all of them? The authorship of Luke Is Unknown

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Personally, I'd like to allow at least two years in between the books..and if that is the case, then Luke 67 CE, Matthew 65 CE, Mark 63 CE, and John 69 CE.

This is pure personal speculation, do you have a source for coming up with these dates?

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But however one decides to divide the 10-15 year time frame from 55 CE to 70 CE is up to him. The important thing is the reason we have for believing that no book precedes 70 CE, and that is because no Gospel or epistle mentions the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 CE.

Now, the destruction of the temple may have zero significance to an unbeliever, but to the Jewish community, the temple is the holy sanctuary of the Living God and its destruction would mean EVERYTHING. Yet no book in the NT mentions it.

A person may say "well, this event isn't mentioned because the narratives don't cover the period at which the event occurred", which is a good point. The problem is, Jesus actually predicted that the temple WOULD be destroyed (Matthew 24:1-2). And if you are going to paint the picture of Jesus as a prophecy "fulfiller", as Matthew does throughout his book, then why do you exclude the fulfilling of the prophecy regarding the temple? Because the temple wasn't destroyed at the time that either book was written, that is why.

Your internally contradicting here and following what you are trying to say is very difficult as it doesn't flow well, also "Matthew is traditionally (historically) understood to have originally been written in Hebrew, sometime between 50s and 70s, then translated, edited, and added to by the actual author of Matthew sometime in the last part of the first century, or even as late as the second century. While there linguistic evidence to support the idea that a few distinct passages in Matthew could have been written in Hebrew linguistic markers in the Greek version of Matthew do not support this theory." [Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ, Robert Price] In short a prophecy predicting the destruction of the temple is totally meaningless when the book was written/edited well after the destruction occurred.

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now, regarding Mark specifically..how do we know that Mark wrote the Gospel that bears his name? We have the unanimous testimony from the earliest church fathers, with the earliest around 130 CE, by Papias http://www.awmi.net/bible/mar.

A unanimous testimony from a bunch of people from the early church 65 years after mark was written? The author was long dead by then, interestingly enough you omitted a rather key piece of information from your source, here is what it says about Papias

"Eusebius (A.D. 330) quoted Papias (A.D. 130) as saying, "Mark, being the interpreter of St. Peter, wrote down exactly whatever things he remembered, yet not in the order in which Christ either spoke or did them; for he was neither a hearer nor a follower of our Lord, but he was afterwards a follower of St. Peter."

So you have someone 265 years after the book of mark was written quoting someone who was alive 65 years after the book of mark was written, when the author would have been dead (average lifespan was around 48 years old in this time) So neither person would have known the author this is not evidence, especially when both church fathers would have had ulterior motives to say mark wrote mark.

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Mark was a apparently a follower of Peter. The point is, if the early church was gonna just go around randomly attributing names to the Gospels, why not claim that Peter wrote the book? Why say "a friend of Peter" wrote it? Wouldn't Peter's name carry more weight than Mark, who wasn't even a disciple?

It is these kind of modest details that lead me to believe that Mark, hearer of Peter, wrote the book that bears his name.

Something to keep in mind with the early church is it was not a unified body by any means, there were several early churches each writing thier own versions of the gospels, so it could have originated from that. This is a bit of speculation on my part

Richard Carrier describes a case where an orthodox church was caught red handed making a forgery of gospel they were using in his videos and books.

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  The evidence of this is that passages about the resurrection of Jesus were not part of the original book and were added in later by the second author near the close of the 1st century.

Christians have no problems admitting that the last few verses of Mark regarding the post mortem appearances are not in the earliest manuscripts with have, but what we have in Mark is an empty tomb, at best.

I see we agree on this point essentially

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Whoever the authors of Mark were they compiled stories and theological ideas at the time and wrote them into the Book of Mark.

Those compiled stories and theological ideas may actually be true.

And your proof of this would be?

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Even Biblical scholars view mark as nothing more than a collection of legends, rumors, and a little bit of history.

And those Biblical scholars are obviously not believers.

I'm pretty sure my college professors would disagree with you, this is a no true scottsman fallacy in action here. Thier view of the Bible would be more metaphorical instead of literal.

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Furthermore given the errors that were made in terms of geography and jewish customs and the explaining of jewish law indicate that whoever wrote mark was not a palestinian jew.

Errors like what? How dare you keep me in suspense?

Time to end the suspense Smile

"Geographical Errors

The Gerasene Demoniac:

In Mark 5:1, Jesus and company sail across the Sea of Galilee and come to "the land of the Gerasenes." There they encounter a man possessed by unclean spirits. Jesus drives out the spirits, the spirits enter some pigs and the pigs run down a hill and jump into the lake.

Gerasa is 30 miles south southeast of the lake. That's a pretty big jump for those pigs. There is also no 30 mile long embankment running down from Gerasa to the lake.

Matthew recognized Mark's blunder and tried to correct Gerasa to Gadara (the Matthew story also contains two demoniacs instead of one so Matthew's version of the story contains two contradictions with Mark) but Gadara was still six miles from the lake. Luke retains Gerasa in his version indicating that Luke didn't know much about Palestinian geography either.

Tyre to the Sea of Galilee through Sidon:

In 7:31, Mark says the following:
"And again he [Jesus] went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis."

There is at least one clear error here and arguably two. Tyre and Sidon are on the coast of the Mediterranean sea, northwest of the Sea of Galilee. Mark says that Jesus went from Tyre through Sidon to get to the lake. But Sidon is north of Tyre. It's exactly the wrong direction. You cannot go through Sidon to get to Galilee from Tyre.

There also wasn't a road from Sidon southeast to Galilee but that's a minor point.

The other arguable error is that Mark seems to suggest that Jesus went through the Decapolis to get to the lake. The Decapolis was a cluster of ten Greek cities, most of which were located to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee.

Mark's meaning is a little awkward even in Greek. He says ...ana meson twn oriwn dekapolewV (...ana meson ton horion decapoleos); literally, "...up through the middle of the borders of the Decapolis."

Now the "up" part is somewhat debatable. The preposition ana denotes upward movement and with the accusative can indicate either "up through" or just "through." In this case we find the construction ana meson which can mean "up through the middle of" or "into the middle of." It would clearly be a boner for Mark to say that Jesus went from Sidon "up through" the Decapolis to get to the lake. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and just translate it as "into the middle of" it still isn't quite clear what he means.

There seems to still be an implication that Mark thinks the Decapolis is between Sidon and the lake. It's possible that he means Jesus went to the lake first and then to the middle of the shores of the Decapolis but then we have a lake in the way (to get to middle of the shores of the Decapolis) and Mark says nothing about another lake crossing here. It is also possible that Mark is truncating a description of a journey which goes all the way around the lake to the south and then goes "up through" the Decapolis to get the middle of southeastern shore of the lake. If that's what he means, he picks a very confusing way to convey it. This may or may not be an error but I mention it because it's said directly in conjunction with another error and the entire verse gives an impression that Mark did not have an accurate understanding of the geography he was describing.

Crossing the Jordan into Judea

Mark 10:1 says that Jesus travelled down from Capernaum then crossed the Jordan into Judea. But crossing to the east bank of the river would have put him outside of Judea into Perea. Furthermore, travelling from Capernaum to Judea would have entailed going through Samaria, a hostile territory which Jews habitually avoided. Customarily, travellers from Galilee to Judea crossed the river north of Samaria, went south along the river in the Transjordan and then crossed back over to Judea. Mark seems to know that crossing the Jordan was part of the journey but doesn't seem to quite grasp the mechanics of the trip.

Of course it is possible that Mark just elided the initial crossing from his description, however what is actually in the text provides a misleading picture of the route.

Bethsaida and Gennesaret

In Mark 6 we get the story of Jesus walking on water. This occurs immediately after Mark's first loaves and fishes story:

(Mk 6:45-53)
Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 46 After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray. 47 When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. 48 He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, 49 but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, 50 because they all saw him and were terrified. Immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid. 51 Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, 52 for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened. 53 When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret and anchored there.

Jesus tells the disciples to get in the boat and start heading across the lake to Bethsaida which was on the northeast shore. Jesus somehow gets rid of the crowd and then goes up a mountain to pray. That night the disciples get to the middle of the lake. Jesus sees them straining against the wind. He walks out to them on the surface of the water, the disciples freak, Jesus tells them to chill and he gets in the boat. Then they continue across the lake until they land in Gennesaret....which is on the northwest shore, the same side of the lake they presumably started on.

Bethpage and Bethany

(This is more of a minor error)

In Mark 11, Jesus and his posse are walking from Jericho to Jerusalem. Mark describes their route as going through Bethpage the Bethany but they would have passed those towns in the opposite order coming from Jericho.

There are some other nitpicky things as well. Mark calls Bethsaida a "village" when it was actually a good sized city. He also names some towns that are unknown from any other literature from the time (Dalmanutha, Arimathea, even Nazareth) and may have been Mark's own inventions (I think at least Arimathea probably was).

Legal and cultural errors in Mark

Mark doesn't know Jewish divorce law.

In Mark 10:11-12, Jesus forbids divorce: 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Verse 12 implies that Mark believed women had a right of divorce in Jewish law. They did not.

Mark doesn't know ritual purity laws.

Mark says this in 7:3-4: 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.

These laws only applied to priests, not to Pharisees and not to "all the Jews."

The trial before the Sanhedrin

Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin contains a number of procedural and legal errors. Each of the following details would have been in direct contradiction to Jewish law.

Mark's trial is at night. The Sanhedrin was forbidden to hold trials at night.
Mark's trial happens at the home of the high priest. The Sanhedrin was permitted to hold trials only in the Gazith Hall at the Temple.
Mark's trial is held on Passover. This is perhaps the greatest implausibility of the story. Jewish law absolutely forbid any such activity on high holy days or on the sabbath.
Jesus is given a death sentence immediately. Jewish law required that a death sentence could not be pronounced until 24 hours after the trial.
Mark has Jesus being convicted of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah"

Quoted Source: http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologet...htm#errors
Corroborating sources:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ab...pels-3.htm
http://vridar.org/2010/08/06/mark-failed...e-student/

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Another thing of note with Mark is that verses 16:9 through 20 were a latter addition to the book, and were not present in the earliest available copies.

You still have an empty tomb in the earliest copies, don't you?

Yes, however I fail to see your point on this matter? Verse 16:8 kinda makes things a bit difficult for the author if they were using supposed eyewitness, or passed down testimony.

16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

How would the author know this, if they told no one?

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Now moving on to Matthew the second gospel chronologically speaking was penned between 70 CE and 100 CE and the author is also unknown, but was likely an early Christian.

You can say Matthew was penned between 70 CE and 100 CE, but what is your justification for saying it? As mentioned above, Matthew is quick to point out every time Jesus fulfilled a prophecy, yet it was written after the temple was destroyed, an event that Jesus predicted would happen?? I find that highly unlikely.

I covered this above when you mentioned Matthew previously.
(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  This gospel also borrows very heavily from Mark

Yet it has almost twice as many chapters than Mark.

Your point? A book can heavily borrow from another book and be much longer

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  , this gospel also starts with a genealogy that doesn't match what is found in Luke

Answers to why the genealogies are different came be found here http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.html and numerous other sources that have dealt with this issue.

Reading through the information you posted here I find it lacking, the first explanation is "One explanation, held by the church historian Eusebius, is that Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of “levirate marriage"" This is rather odd, if both books were written by jewish authors shouldn't they have a common understanding of what should be in a genealogy according to thier rules? Especially since your source says that the Jewish people were meticulous in genealogy keeping.

The second explanation isn't any better "Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s" Given how women were typically regarded during this time frame a genealogy of mary doesn't really make sense either. Something else to point out is how can Jesus have a genealogy if he was the son of an all powerful god that impregnated a virgin woman?

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  , then it moves on to a telling of the birth of Jesus and how he was baptized, this section seems likely to be the part of the euhemerization process of Jesus, in which the author is altering the story away from a mythical figure that has no human form, to one that does by writing the figure into history with a background and with historical figures that actually existed.

And I thought I was the one doing all the speculating. Is that what you got out of it?

Based on what Richard Carrier has presented, and what I've been able to read thus far in his book, yes that is what I get out of it.

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Another thing of note is that the book of Matthew is only one to mention the flight of Mary and Joseph to Egypt to fulfill a prophecy. Which is suggesting that the author a future editor added it in on purposes in order to try and increase the legitimacy of the story. Again also could be considered as part of the Euhemerization process.

The problem, is the flight to Egypt is in the earliest manuscripts. So if it is in the earliest copies we have, at what point was this fine print "added by a future editor"?

This point is made because none of the other gospels mention this flight to egypt the ones written before and after Matthew, this is what could suggest editing.

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Again, as far as who wrote Matthew, we go right back to Papias who claimed that Matthew, disciple of Jesus, wrote a Gospel. Now, I don't know what sources THEY had to draw such conclusions, but what I do know is they were all much closer to the scene in both time and geographical location than you, myself, and any other historian or scholar that is alive today.

I already dealt with the papias argument above Smile

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Next in line we have Luke written around 85 to 100 CE which borrowed from Mark and Matthew and is a composite document, along with some theological differences from the actual author of Luke who is also unknown to history.

Luke is the one of whom we can pretty much conclude with high probability that he wrote his Gospel. He begins..

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Now, whether or not you agree with Luke is irrelevant, but what he is saying is...

1. Many people drew up accounts of the very thing that his book is about, that is the salvation of the world through Jesus Christ.

These would be professions of faith, in other words theological arguments

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  2. He is confirming that the information was HANDED DOWN TO them by EYEWITNESSES.

That makes the entire gospel of luke hearsay, as the supposed eyewitnesses didn't write the book, the author of Luke did

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  3. He is stating that he carefully investigated everything, and based on that investigation he is now ready to write up an account to Theophilus.

This is irrelevant as he didn't provide copies or where to find copies of his sources so its rather hard to verify that he investigated everything.

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Again, verses 1-4 seems to be very modest and genuine. We know that whoever wrote Acts also wrote Luke..and we know who wrote Luke again, by unanimous testimony from the early church. Luke, just like Mark, wasn't even a disciple of Jesus. Never met the guy. Yet, the tradition has always been that despite this Luke, physician of Paul, wrote a Gospel. Modesty once again.

I would agree with you on the point that whoever wrote Acts did also write luke, the writing style similarities are so profound that this is not in dispute. Modesty is meaningless when the whole thing is hearsay at best, also unanimous agreement by the early church is suspect at best, as pointed out above about Matthew.

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  Lastly we have the book of John written around 100 CE which compared to the other three gospels goes flying off the wall in what it says, this is the only gospel that jesus is equated to god as going from god to flesh. The way John is written as well is a stringing together of incidents in order to prove a theological point, this would not be an eyewitness account by any means, and the writing style also suggests that the author wasn't using any contemporaries at all.

Granted, there does seem to be a theological push by the author of John regarding the deity of Jesus. On that note, I have my own independent argument as to why Jesus must be God in the flesh. If my argument is true and since it is almost independent of any Gospel (regarding Jesus' moral perfection), then that would mean that John's account of the deity of Jesus is valid. Not to mention the fact that all Gospel's are writing from different perspectives, and John, one of the "big three" of Jesus' followers, took upon the task of writing about the Deity of Jesus than the rest.

But anyway, how do we know that John the disciple wrote Jesus? Yet again, the early church fathers testified to this. I don't know what sources they had or used, but that has always been the tradition, that John wrote a gospel. The only question is, which John? John the apostle? John the Presbyter?

This is a rather important question to answer isn't it? My argument is that neither one of them wrote it. Based on the writing style of John there were probably three different authors all adding to it at different times, The first author is hearsay telling of an eyewitness story possibly prior to the destruction of the temple, the second author adds to the the Jonathan theology, and the third author edits it to the text that we see today. [Paul Anderson, Steven L. Harris, William Temple, Leon Morris books contain examples]
[The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John By Paul N. Anderson, 2011]

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  John 21:22-24 states that the person that "testifies to these things and wrote them down" was a DISCIPLE. Remember, my belief is that all Gospels were written down by disciples or friends of the disciples...or at the very least, the information which are contained in the books originated from eyewitnesses of the accounts.

I delt with this above Smile

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  When was John written? Almost everyone seems to believe that the John was the last Gospel written, and it was written around the 90s CE. This is possible, if John lived to be a very old man (which seems to be the case), but a case can also be made that it was written earlier.

There is no smoking gun either way.

I just showed you the smoking gun above, also what case? The consensus is that John was written between 90-100 CE.

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  One thing I would like to add of note, is that the earliest pieces we have of these documents is around 150 CE and are a best fragments, when we do have whole copies available they have significant differences compared to the books that are presented today.

That time frame of 150 CE is a lot closer to the events in question than any other writing in antiquity. That is worth noting.

It's also worth noting that by fragments, I really mean fragments pieces smaller than the size of postcards, the oldest complete documents we have date around the 4th century. It's also worth noting that this bible is very different than the one we see today
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/...s=PM:WORLD

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:52 AM)Worom Wrote:  These are my Initial arguments, depending on the response by Call of the Wild I will increase the strength of these arguments.

Cool. I just want to use the rest of my time/space to point out some other "unforced coincidences" in the Gospels that, in my opinion, drives home the "modesty" factor regarding the books...and I'd also like to touch on the epistles of Paul, particularly 1 Corinthians and Galatians.

First, the modesty factor. In John 6, he is recalling the account of Jesus feeding the 5,000 people. In Luke's Gospel, he states that the feeding of the 5,000 occurred in a town called Bethsaida (Luke 9:10).

So what happened? As we all know, Jesus wanted to provide the large crowd of people with food, so he asked one of his disciples, Philip, "Where shall we buy something for these people to eat?", and of course Philip, not knowing exactly who was asking him the question, responded in an "unfaithful" way.

Why would Jesus ask Phillip where to buy food? Well, that is because Philip, along with Andrew and Peter, was FROM the town of Bethsaida (John 1:43-44), and Jesus naturally asked a guy that was familiar with the area where to buy food. But see, we don't know that this gathering took place in the town of Bethsaida until we read Luke's Gospel (Luke 9:10), and Luke doesn't even record Jesus asking Philip where to buy food, it is just something that Luke haphazardly mentions, unknowingly connecting himself with a Gospel that isn't even one of the synoptic gospels!!!

Hold on a second here
Both luke and John describe the location of where Jesus was, if I read your argument correctly, the author of john including jesus asking philip is not exactly an argument, it shows that the authors of john felt it necessary to add that part in there at best. I'm sorry but this argument makes no sense.

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  See, it is unforced coincidences like that which makes the entire thing so modest, so genuine. And that is the point I was trying to drive home to you in the public forums, is that when you have independent accounts, sometimes you have to take each account and piece them all together for one BIG account of the same event.

Now, you may ask what was so special about Philip because after all, Andrew and Peter was from Bethsaida, too. True, but Jesus asked the person that he knew would respond in such a manner, as a way to LEAD UP to him performing such a miracle. In other words, the message is "There is no stunt on a bike that God can't perform." Jesus wanted to get that message across, and he used Philip to do it.

I like my proof in the form of evidence, not of modest storytelling, as for coincidences, I don't see one when both books mention the location, one just happens to mention Jesus asking a specific person. I fail to see the connection. It's interesting that you mention no stunt that god can't perform, it begs the question of why would Jesus need to even ask philip where to buy food if he is just going to will it into existence?

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Another example is when after Jesus appeared to the women in John's Gospel (John 20:17), he told the women "Do not hold on to me, I have not yet ascended to the Father". Why would he tell them that? Well, we find out in Matthew that when the women saw him, they "clasped his feet and worshiped him" (Matthew 28:9). Matthew doesn't record Jesus telling the women not to cling on to him, but in John's narrative, it is assumed that the women are clinging to him to him based on him telling the women NOT to cling on to him. Another unforced coincidence, in my opinion.

This isn't a coincidence it's a contradiction

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Moving along to 1 Corinthians. There is very little (if any doubt) from historians/scholars that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. It is a known fact that his epistles predate the Gospels. The famous creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 confirms what the Gospels would later come to state, which is that Jesus lived, died, was buried, and raised on the third day, and he was seen by his followers. So we have an early book, which is NOT one of the Gospels, CONFIRMING the overall message of the Gospels, by someone who wasn't even an original follower of Jesus....and the information that he was received dates back to shortly after the crucifixion, making it early Christian-type stuff Laugh out load Goodness gracious Big Grin

Agreed on the authenticity of who wrote 1 Corinthians. It may be confirming what the other gospels state, however as you yourself stated 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is a creed, which is a profession of faith not evidence. Which mentions scriptures as well, so Paul was pulling that information from other documents.

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Then we have Galatians, where this same guy, Paul, claimed to have met Peter, disciple of Jesus, and James, brother of Jesus...He claimed he spent two weeks with Peter (Gal 1:18-20), and he also met James. So unless Paul is just flat out blatantly LYING, he meet two eyewitnesses to Jesus, and Paul himself was a contemporary to Jesus. He lived in the same geographical location, and during the same time as Jesus. Second, in Gal 1:21-24, he is stating that the Churches of Judea didn't know him personally, they just heard that "the man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy".

Galatians is also considered to be authentic, He could be lying or at least stretching the truth, keep in mind that the epistles are letters that Paul wrote well 7 of them anyway, he could have said anything in the letters he wanted to, especially since he was trying to bolster the faith of the early church.

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But what faith? He sure as hell wasn't formerly trying to destroy Judaism, was he? No, he was trying to destroy the growing religion of Christianity. So again, this is Paul's personal testimony, and what he is talking about is earlyyyy stuff here, which shows that the belief in Christianity was something that occurred long before ANY of the Gospels were even written.

I think you meant that Christian religion started before the gospels, along with the belief in Jesus, this is of course possible but doesn't help your case Smile

(07-07-2015 08:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  That is my case, thus far. Worom, the floor is yours. Again, thanks for your patience.

Thank you, and you're welcome Smile

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Worom's post
14-07-2015, 06:20 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Will have my post tomorrow. Please be patience.
Find all posts by this user
15-07-2015, 11:25 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Sounds good, I await your response

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
18-07-2015, 01:36 AM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(15-07-2015 11:25 AM)Worom Wrote:  Sounds good, I await your response

Bear with me, man. Christian apologetics can be mentality draining at times. Going through all of that stuff has my brain fried. I will be at the airport later today with a six hour wait between flights (ouch). I will have more than enough time to put the finishing touches on my post.

Moderator: Do NOT close out this thread, please.
Find all posts by this user
18-07-2015, 04:11 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(18-07-2015 01:36 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 11:25 AM)Worom Wrote:  Sounds good, I await your response

Bear with me, man. Christian apologetics can be mentality draining at times. Going through all of that stuff has my brain fried. I will be at the airport later today with a six hour wait between flights (ouch). I will have more than enough time to put the finishing touches on my post.

Moderator: Do NOT close out this thread, please.
I await your post Smile

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
18-07-2015, 07:54 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  I do admit that a person that was named Jesus from the City of Nazareth could have existed, but based on what I've researched thus far I find it unlikely, the name Jesus wasn't exactly uncommon.

Nonsense. The name of Jesus wasn't uncommon, but this particular Jesus was the ultimate source from which the religion Christianity originated from, and we have both Biblical and non-Biblical sources that attest to that, making it...HISTORICAL.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  While it may fit the definition of a biography one thing to realize though is, biographies can be partly or entirely fictional. The information doesn't have to be from anyone that knew the person, for the gospels they would be mostly fictional with smatterings of fact in them, such as at least some of the locations mentioned did actually exist, Jerusalem for example, as well as some of the people Harod for example here, although his actions and timeframes of those actions could be considered in question. Now If your argument was true then the Biography of Jean-Luc Picard of the Starship Enterprise would have to be true as well.

Here is his biography by the way http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Jean-Luc_Picard

So the question is, how did the authors intend for their books to be taken? Did the authors intend for their books to be read as fiction, or non-fiction? Were they lying, or telling the truth? Based on Paul's testimony, the preface of Luke, and the ending of John...I don't see how any honest person can conclude that the stories/testimony were just figments of their imagination. Either they were lying, or telling the truth.

As far as Jean-Luc Picard is concerned, you mentioning him reminds of when unbelievers often use Santa Claus, "I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in Santa Claus".

But we don't believe in Santa Claus because of the evidence AGAINST such a person. There is no one living on the North Pole, flying around giving children presents, with a magical sleigh of reindeer, one of whom which has a shiny nose. That is why we don't believe in Santa Claus, and that is why no one is going around stating the Jean-Luc Picard is an actual historical person based on Star Trek. Nor did the originators of Star Trek intend for the series to be taken as non-fiction.

Apples and oranges when compared to Jesus of Nazareth.


(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  You're argument actually supports the idea of euhemerization rather than refutes it as well, I may have missed defining euhemerization in my previous post so I will post that now.

euhemerization
Noun
(plural euhemerizations)

The interpretation of myths as historical events

And how does one determine what is a myth and what isn't?

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  The Farrer hypothesis and the Q source Hypothesis both call into serious question that the accounts were by eyewitnesses, and again if the author was not an eyewitness than the account is hearsay at best, since you state you will give individual reasons I will deal with those as they come up Smile

First, even if the Q source hypothesis turns out to be true, that would still mean that this source is even earlier than the Gospels, obviously. So the source of Q would be independent sources that predate both the Gospels, AND Paul's epistles, which would further give credibility to main idea (Jesus/Resurrection).

Second, the source of Q doesn't act as BIOGRAPHIES of Jesus, but just a compiled collection of his sayings. Kind of like a "Greatest Sayings of Jesus" list, or "The Best of Jesus" list. It says nothing about the life and times of Jesus, and if that is the case, then you would need to provide an alternate explanation as to where the author writers got the rest of their material from...so the Q source won't help in that regard.

Third, the Farrer hypothesis; look, no Gospel could have copied ENTIRELY from the other two synoptics. As much similarities as there are between the three, there are differences as well, as some books include accounts that the others don't mention, which means that neither book relied ENTIRELY on the others. Mark is supposed to be the one that both Matthew and Luke relied on loosely, yet Mark is the shortest Gospel out of all four?? Makes no sense. And it would make sense that Luke would use one of the others as a source, as he approached the ordeal as a Gentile...an investigator, and if he thought that Mark was a good source to use as he gathered information in an attempt to give an account to Theophilus, then it is what it is.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Acts was written well after the book of Mark, closer to the 2nd century than the 1st century

That is the claim, but what I need is reasons for the claim. In other words, make the case.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  On a side note cliffhanger stories are not exactly uncommon either in literature, why the author left it out we would have to speculate on, but if you were trying to make a book look written earlier than it actually was that would be a great way to try and do it.

If Luke is the author then he wouldn't need to do that, now would he?

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  So what exactly are you trying to say here? That paul wrote all the gospels or had a hand in all of them?

I am saying, if you are gonna make Paul the central figure in the second half of Acts, and in the book you include the deaths of guys like Stephen, James, and Herod...you found their deaths worth mentioning, why not mention the death of Paul, if he died after the book was written? Since Paul's death is not mentioned but a guy like Herod's death is mentioned, I am concluding that Paul was still alive when the book was written...and if Paul died in 67 CE, then that would mean that the book of Acts couldn't have been written before 67 CE, which means that Luke had to have been written even earlier than that, and you just work backwards from there.

Now of course, this isn't a knock-down argument, but I am appealing to what I believe to be the best explanation.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  The authorship of Luke Is Unknown

Then the authorship of anything written in antiquity is unknown because the fact of the matter is, no one living today was there when it was written. The question is, what reasons do we have for believing that person X wrote book Y? And in this case, we have the early church claiming that Luke wrote a Gospel, a guy that never met Christ.

Now scholars today may disagree with this, but my question is simple; Who has more credibility in this regard? Guys that are over 2,000 years removed from the scene (today's historians), or guys that were a little over 100 years removed from the scene (early Church Fathers)?? I am gonna go with the early Church Fathers.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  This is pure personal speculation, do you have a source for coming up with these dates?

I gave my reasons.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Your internally contradicting here and following what you are trying to say is very difficult as it doesn't flow well

So basically you are telling me that you understood enough to know that there is an "internal contradiction", but yet following what I said is difficult and it doesn't flow well?? Makes no sense.

However, let me elaborate. My point is, since the authors were so quick to enlighten readers on whenever Jesus fulfilled a prophecy, why didn't they include the prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 CE? If the book was written AFTER it happened, right? Makes no sense.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  , also "Matthew is traditionally (historically) understood to have originally been written in Hebrew, sometime between 50s and 70s, then translated, edited, and added to by the actual author of Matthew sometime in the last part of the first century, or even as late as the second century.

Blank assertions with no reasons as to why one should adopt such a viewpoint.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  While there linguistic evidence to support the idea that a few distinct passages in Matthew could have been written in Hebrew linguistic markers in the Greek version of Matthew do not support this theory." [Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ, Robert Price] In short a prophecy predicting the destruction of the temple is totally meaningless when the book was written/edited well after the destruction occurred.

Then back to my original question...if you have Jesus himself predicting that the temple would be destroyed, if you are writing the book after the temple was destroyed, why would you fail to mention this fulfillment? Again, this was not just some minor issue in the Jewish community, this was the holy temple of Jerusalem.

Makes no sense.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  A unanimous testimony from a bunch of people from the early church 65 years after mark was written?

65 years? Dude, the biographies of Alexander the Great were written between 300- 400 years after his death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiogr...in_sources

Even if one BELIEVES the Gospels/Epistles were written in the late first century/early second century, that is STILL closer to the events in question than the biographies of Alexander the Great relative to the person in question.

And not only that, but we are just talking about when the stuff was written on paper. However, the core belief in Christianity goes back to Paul's epistles, with the earliest in the 50's CE, and in his Epistles he is talking about events that occurred shortly after the death of Jesus (1 Corin 15:3-7).

One common theme for the skeptics is to make it seem as if Christianity began when the Gospels were written, as if Christianity didn't exist until then. Nonsense. The belief in the Resurrection had already traveled almost 1,000 miles from Jerusalem to Corinth by the 50's CE...and this was long before the days of automobiles, television, and the internet.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  The author was long dead by then, interestingly enough you omitted a rather key piece of information from your source

Omitted? Dude, I gave you a link Laugh out load

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  , here is what it says about Papias

"Eusebius (A.D. 330) quoted Papias (A.D. 130) as saying, "Mark, being the interpreter of St. Peter, wrote down exactly whatever things he remembered, yet not in the order in which Christ either spoke or did them; for he was neither a hearer nor a follower of our Lord, but he was afterwards a follower of St. Peter."

Wow. It's amazing how things just flow together. Now Papias could have just said that Mark was actually a follower of Jesus, but instead, he honestly admitted that Mark was not a follower of Jesus. Modesty. And notice how Papias' account harmonizes with the preface of Luke, when Luke stated that many (Mark included) have undertaken the task of drawing up an account as to what happened...with the source material coming from eyewitnesses of Jesus (Peter).

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  So you have someone 265 years after the book of mark was written

And Arrian wrote over 400 years after Alexander the Great lived and wrote an autobiography of him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anabas...r#Details, and historians view Arrian's work in this regard as credible. Compare that to a Mark's Gospel, which was written even according to you in 65 CE, which is around 30 years or so after the cross...so you tell me which one was written closer to the events? Double standard.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  quoting someone who was alive 65 years after the book of mark was written

Nonsense. Papias is said to have written those passages about the Gospels around 100 CE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logia#Papi...ierapolis. You said yourself that Mark was written around 65 CE...so you do the math.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  when the author would have been dead (average lifespan was around 48 years old in this time)

Nonsense. The current average lifespan in the U.S is 78, yet the oldest woman alive is Susannah Mushatt Jones, who is currently the oldest woman in the world at 116 years old.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  So neither person would have known the author this is not evidence, especially when both church fathers would have had ulterior motives to say mark wrote mark.

Since your above logic is invalid, any conclusion that is draw from that invalid logic is also invalid.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Something to keep in mind with the early church is it was not a unified body by any means, there were several early churches each writing thier own versions of the gospels, so it could have originated from that. This is a bit of speculation on my part

Well, there is no evidence that there were quarrels amongst anyone involved in the church as to who wrote what book. The authorship of the Gospels was always unanimous.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Richard Carrier describes a case where an orthodox church was caught red handed making a forgery of gospel they were using in his videos and books.

Good point, which is why we should be careful not to generalize and examine things on a case by case basis.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  And your proof of this would be?

Simple. Lets just take 1 Cor 15:3-7, for example. If Paul isnt lying, and he was actually handed down the creed by prior believers, and Paul and those that handed down the creed actually BELIEVED what they were testifying, then it follows that what they believed must be true. Why? Because if they sincerely believed what they were saying, then no one can say that they were lying. So the question is, what is the best explanation as to why they believed what they believed? And I think the best explanation is that they were telling the truth, and what they claimed happend, HAPPENED.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  I'm pretty sure my college professors would disagree with you, this is a no true scottsman fallacy in action here. Thier view of the Bible would be more metaphorical instead of literal.

Well, please enlighten me on what the metaphor is.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  "Geographical Errors

The Gerasene Demoniac:

In Mark 5:1, Jesus and company sail across the Sea of Galilee and come to "the land of the Gerasenes." There they encounter a man possessed by unclean spirits. Jesus drives out the spirits, the spirits enter some pigs and the pigs run down a hill and jump into the lake.

Gerasa is 30 miles south southeast of the lake. That's a pretty big jump for those pigs. There is also no 30 mile long embankment running down from Gerasa to the lake.

Ok, so according to the translation/version of the Bible you just used, it has "the LAND of the Gerasenes. I looked up other translations and some render the verse as "in the Gerasenes territory", "in the region of Gerasenes", "in the region of "Gadarenes" "the country of Gadarenes".

Five different Bibles, five different translations. Either way there is no contradiction. Obviously, the incident occurred right after Jesus got off of the boat (verse 2), and based on ALL translations above, it is clear that he wasn't in a particular city per say, but he was in the REGION/TERRITORY of Gadarenes/Gerasenes.

Even in the wiki article, it doesn't describe the "land of the Gerasenes" as a city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gergesa , but rather, a "place"..and this place is in fact within Gadara territory.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Matthew recognized Mark's blunder and tried to correct Gerasa to Gadara

Ok, so he is correcting Mark, yet, he is using him as a source? Makes no sense.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  (the Matthew story also contains two demoniacs instead of one so Matthew's version of the story contains two contradictions with Mark)

Nonsense. If there was two, then there was at least one. One account mentions one of the two, and the other one mentions both. Next.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  but Gadara was still six miles from the lake.

But since the accounts doesn't state that Jesus went TO Gadara, but to its region, then the "six miles" thing is irrelevant.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Luke retains Gerasa in his version indicating that Luke didn't know much about Palestinian geography either.

All of those places are in the REGION of the Sea of Galilee, according to what I see on any map that look at.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Tyre to the Sea of Galilee through Sidon:

In 7:31, Mark says the following:
"And again he [Jesus] went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis."

There is at least one clear error here and arguably two. Tyre and Sidon are on the coast of the Mediterranean sea, northwest of the Sea of Galilee. Mark says that Jesus went from Tyre through Sidon to get to the lake. But Sidon is north of Tyre. It's exactly the wrong direction. You cannot go through Sidon to get to Galilee from Tyre.

That would depend on which translation you are using, because in the NIV, it states "Then Jesus left the vacinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee...", whch means that Jesus left Tyre, went up to Sidon, and down back to the Sea of Galilee. Wow, will ya look at that Cool

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  There also wasn't a road from Sidon southeast to Galilee but that's a minor point.

There wasn't? How do you know?

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  The other arguable error is that Mark seems to suggest that Jesus went through the Decapolis to get to the lake.Now the "up" part is somewhat debatable. The preposition ana denotes upward movement and with the accusative can indicate either "up through" or just "through." In this case we find the construction ana meson which can mean "up through the middle of" or "into the middle of." It would clearly be a boner for Mark to say that Jesus went from Sidon "up through" the Decapolis to get to the lake. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and just translate it as "into the middle of" it still isn't quite clear what he means.

The Decapolis was a cluster of ten Greek cities, most of which were located to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee.

Mark's meaning is a little awkward even in Greek. He says ...ana meson twn oriwn dekapolewV (...ana meson ton horion decapoleos); literally, "...up through the middle of the borders of the Decapolis."

There seems to still be an implication that Mark thinks the Decapolis is between Sidon and the lake. It's possible that he means Jesus went to the lake first and then to the middle of the shores of the Decapolis but then we have a lake in the way (to get to middle of the shores of the Decapolis) and Mark says nothing about another lake crossing here. It is also possible that Mark is truncating a description of a journey which goes all the way around the lake to the south and then goes "up through" the Decapolis to get the middle of southeastern shore of the lake. If that's what he means, he picks a very confusing way to convey it. This may or may not be an error but I mention it because it's said directly in conjunction with another error and the entire verse gives an impression that Mark did not have an accurate understanding of the geography he was describing.

You are making it seem as if Jesus was supposed to go the direction YOU want him to go. Did it ever occur to you that Jesus may have taken an alternate route to get to the Sea of Gailee, a route that would have taken him "through the Decapolis" to get to the lake, because maybe he wanted to preach to some of the folks within the borders of the cities (or whatever the case may be)?

Back in 2010, I traveled (drove) from Phoenix, AZ to Fort Campbell, KY. But before I went to KY, I was GOING to make my way up to New Mexico first (I changed my mind about going to NM). Now, suppose I actually made the trip to NM first, and someone is wring a narrative of my trip...and they say "Kevin traveled from AZ to KY, traveling through NM and to the KY border".

Now someone can read this narrative and say "There is a discrepancy in your story, you can't get to KY THROUGH NM!!!", but the narrative is only describing the route that was taken, it doesn't mean that I went through NM and after one step outside of NM I arrived in KY.

You, my friend, is simply "over-analyzing" the situation.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Crossing the Jordan into Judea

Mark 10:1 says that Jesus travelled down from Capernaum then crossed the Jordan into Judea. But crossing to the east bank of the river would have put him outside of Judea into Perea.

Nonsense. It doesn't state that Jesus crossed the Jordan into Judea. It states that he went from Capernaum down to Judea, AND <----(keyword) crossed over the Jordan river.

10 After Jesus left, he went to Judea and then on to the other side of the Jordan River. Once again large crowds came to him, and as usual, he taught them.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Furthermore, travelling from Capernaum to Judea would have entailed going through Samaria, a hostile territory which Jews habitually avoided.

Well, they decided not to avoid it this time, apparently.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Of course it is possible that Mark just elided the initial crossing from his description, however what is actually in the text provides a misleading picture of the route.

Mark is probably just telling readers what happened, not giving a damn about customary routes or any other commonalites one may think of.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Bethsaida and Gennesaret

In Mark 6 we get the story of Jesus walking on water. This occurs immediately after Mark's first loaves and fishes story:

Jesus tells the disciples to get in the boat and start heading across the lake to Bethsaida which was on the northeast shore. Jesus somehow gets rid of the crowd and then goes up a mountain to pray. That night the disciples get to the middle of the lake. Jesus sees them straining against the wind. He walks out to them on the surface of the water, the disciples freak, Jesus tells them to chill and he gets in the boat. Then they continue across the lake until they land in Gennesaret....which is on the northwest shore, the same side of the lake they presumably started on.

You are a smart man, and I can tell by how you used "presumably" here Laugh out load And you are damn right it is "presumable", because neither this scripture or any other scripture within the 6th chapter (Mark) or elsewhere tells us where the feeding of the 5,000 took place. In Mark 6, the only thing we can assume based on what is stated is that Jesus went to Nazareth (Mark 6:1) and preached "village to village" (Mark 6:6).

So if the narrative went from Mark 6:1 with Jesus in Nazareth, to Mark 6:30 with Jesus & company somewhere around the Sea of Galilee , yet it doesn't record the actual city by city /village by village comings and goings...we really don't know where exactly the feeding of the 5,000 took place. The distance from Nazareth and the Sea of Galilee isn't exactly close, especially on foot, yet that is the distance covered in 30 verses without the author recording the actual travel time.

Sure, we can speculate all we want, but only one of us here is making a big fuss over something that isn't even explicitly implied.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Bethpage and Bethany

(This is more of a minor error)

In Mark 11, Jesus and his posse are walking from Jericho to Jerusalem. Mark describes their route as going through Bethpage the Bethany but they would have passed those towns in the opposite order coming from Jericho.

Nonsense. Coming from Jericho, depending on the route that you take, you can actually walk right down the middle of the outskirts of both cities. So Mark is actually correct because I just looked at a map of the area, and just like Mark said, if you come from Jericho, you will approach both cities and if you walk on the outskirts, you will pass both Bethpage and Bethany, one to your right, and one to your left.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  There are some other nitpicky things as well. Mark calls Bethsaida a "village" when it was actually a good sized city.

Where did he say that at?

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  He also names some towns that are unknown from any other literature from the time (Dalmanutha, Arimathea, even Nazareth) and may have been Mark's own inventions (I think at least Arimathea probably was).

Lets pretend as if we know of every city, town, and village from 2,000 years ago and beyond. Let's continue to pretend as if our knowledge of the ancient world and geography is complete and with full understanding.

I am being sarcastic, by the way.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Legal and cultural errors in Mark

Mark doesn't know Jewish divorce law.

In Mark 10:11-12, Jesus forbids divorce: 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Verse 12 implies that Mark believed women had a right of divorce in Jewish law. They did not.

Yeah, and also said that if a man divorces his wife, unless for marital unfaithfulness, he commits adultery against her (Matt 19:1-9). The Pharisees knew the law and told Jesus was "Moses commanded"...and Jesus basically told them, to hell what Moses said, I am saying this...so in other words, Jesus is God, and his word is law, and if Jesus allows for a woman to divorce husband (or not), then that is the law. Point blank, period.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Mark doesn't know ritual purity laws.

Mark says this in 7:3-4: 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.

These laws only applied to priests, not to Pharisees and not to "all the Jews."

Well, regardless of who the laws applied to, Jesus made it clear in his response to the Pharisees that those laws were MAN MADE LAWS, not laws commanded by God.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  The trial before the Sanhedrin

Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin contains a number of procedural and legal errors. Each of the following details would have been in direct contradiction to Jewish law.

Mark's trial is at night. The Sanhedrin was forbidden to hold trials at night.

Nonsense. Mark 15:1 clearly states that the trial began at DAYBREAK..and daybreak is "the time of the morning when light first appears. "http://www.thefreedictionary.com/daybreak

And when you think about it, that actually makes PERFECT sense. If it was forbidden for the Sanhedrin to hold trials at night as you say...then it would make perfect sense for those that were hell bent on putting Jesus on trial to get started as early in the morning as they possibly could, in other words...FIRST THING IN THE MORNING, when they could legally do so.

It all kinda flows together...like pearls on a string Laugh out load

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Mark's trial happens at the home of the high priest.

You are assuming that the "courtyard" of the high priest is synonymous with "home" of the high priest.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Mark's trial is held on Passover. This is perhaps the greatest implausibility of the story. Jewish law absolutely forbid any such activity on high holy days or on the sabbath.

Jesus is given a death sentence immediately. Jewish law required that a death sentence could not be pronounced until 24 hours after the trial.
Mark has Jesus being convicted of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah"

Jewish law? Jesus was not tried by the Jews, he was tried by the Roman authorities, which was Pilate & company. The Jews may have saw that Jesus had been placed on trial, but it was not through their law and their courts that Jesus was crucified...so in other words, the Pharisees used a loop hole where they bypassed their own rules and regulations and used an external system in efforts to see that Jesus be sentenced to death as early as possible. That is how much they wanted the son of the living God dead.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Yes, however I fail to see your point on this matter? Verse 16:8 kinda makes things a bit difficult for the author if they were using supposed eyewitness, or passed down testimony.

Well, we still have the testimony of Paul who did not use any of the Gospels as sources for his material, and his epistles predate the Gospels...so it isn't as if the book of Mark is where the beginning of Christianity rises or fall.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

How would the author know this, if they told no one?

Facepalm Obviously they didn't tell anyone, AT FIRST.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  I covered this above when you mentioned Matthew previously.

Oh, did you?

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Your point? A book can heavily borrow from another book and be much longer

True, but sometimes you people (skeptics) make it seem as if Matthew got everything from Mark...and my question is, how do you figure? Matthew has stuff in his book that Mark doesn't, now where would he have gotten it from? Hmmmm.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Reading through the information you posted here I find it lacking, the first explanation is "One explanation, held by the church historian Eusebius, is that Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of “levirate marriage"" This is rather odd, if both books were written by jewish authors shouldn't they have a common understanding of what should be in a genealogy according to thier rules? Especially since your source says that the Jewish people were meticulous in genealogy keeping.

That depends on from what perspective they are writing, and I am not too sure as to whether Luke was a Christian convert from Judaism, or Christian convert from paganism. Don't know...and if either of those two are true, then that would be why his genealogy may be from a different perspective than that of Mark, who was a Jew.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  The second explanation isn't any better "Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s" Given how women were typically regarded during this time frame a genealogy of mary doesn't really make sense either.

Good point, because that is another point worth emphasizing...women were regarded as low class in that society, yet it is women that discovered the empty tomb, which is an embarrassment factor that I am having a hard time believing Jewish men from that time and society would concoct a story with the women being so lucky as to discover the tomb empty, while the men of the story were looked at as ignorant unbelieving wimps who were constantly rebuked for their ignorance and lack of faith.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Something else to point out is how can Jesus have a genealogy if he was the son of an all powerful god that impregnated a virgin woman?

Ever heard of immaculate conception???

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Based on what Richard Carrier has presented, and what I've been able to read thus far in his book, yes that is what I get out of it.

In his debate with Dr. Craig, Carrier was smoked out of the arena. He presented his best case against the Resurrection, and he admittedly lost. He doesn't believe that Jesus ever existed, so I wouldn't expect him to give the Gospels any kind of validity.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  This point is made because none of the other gospels mention this flight to egypt the ones written before and after Matthew, this is what could suggest editing.

Or it could mean the story is true, one account just doesn't mention it, while the other account does.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  I already dealt with the papias argument above Smile

Did you?

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  These would be professions of faith, in other words theological arguments

I am saying; what is theological about saying "a lot of people went through the trouble of writing about what had occurred, and after investigating things for myself, here is what I gather".

What is theological about that?

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  That makes the entire gospel of luke hearsay, as the supposed eyewitnesses didn't write the book, the author of Luke did

But the book is corroborated by other books, plus Paul's epistles. Besides, this isn't a court of law. If you believe that Luke was lying about the fact that some people took the time to write/pass down information regarding a man's life, then you have every right to do so.

At this point, it isn't necessarily about the INFORMATION within the Gospels that is questionable, it is the question of whether the author of Luke is lying or telling the truth about something so simple as whether people wrote/passed down stories regarding Jesus of Nazareth.

Only with the Gospels are there extra lengths that people go through as to where even the simple, non-theological stuff can't even be believed. If you can't believe the simple stuff, then something like a Resurrection is so far fetched that it makes me wonder whether or not it is even worth the bother.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  This is irrelevant as he didn't provide copies or where to find copies of his sources so its rather hard to verify that he investigated everything.

Hey, Christianity came from somewhere, didn't it? Laugh out load

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  I would agree with you on the point that whoever wrote Acts did also write luke, the writing style similarities are so profound that this is not in dispute. Modesty is meaningless when the whole thing is hearsay at best

The question is, what are the reasons we have to believe that what Luke is saying is more plausible than not. Look, you to explain the origins of Christianity, and how it spread so far and so fast. The only way this could have occurred is by word of mouth, and much later, written accounts. That is the only way you can explain it, and based on your own dating of the Gospels, Christianity had already reached the highest office in the land before the Gospels were even written (year 64 CE), which is over a 1,000 miles away from where it originated from. That means that word spread rapidly.

So in my opinion, you (in general) need to explain how something like that could have spread so rapidly if there weren't people going around stating that those things occurred (or at least BELIEVED they occurred). So again, Luke stating that many gave accounts of what happened, first by eyewitnesses....it all makes sense in light of what we know historically happened from sources that aren't even Christian friendly.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  This is a rather important question to answer isn't it? My argument is that neither one of them wrote it. Based on the writing style of John there were probably three different authors all adding to it at different times, The first author is hearsay telling of an eyewitness story possibly prior to the destruction of the temple, the second author adds to the the Jonathan theology, and the third author edits it to the text that we see today.

So you, and other modern day people have a difference of opinion than individuals living within 100 years of the events. Now, 100 years after the fact may seem long, but if that is long, then what do we call individuals who are living over 2,000 years after the events? If we can't trust the early Church fathers, why should we trust modern day men?

The point is, again, two of the alleged Gospel writers weren't even disciples, yet, they have been attributed authorship of the sacred Gospels??!!! It just doesn't get any more modest than that, in my opinion.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  I just showed you the smoking gun above, also what case? The consensus is that John was written between 90-100 CE.

All of the dates are speculative. Now there are good speculation, and bad speculation. I need to know WHY the Gospels are said to be written that late. What is the case? I built mines.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  It's also worth noting that by fragments, I really mean fragments pieces smaller than the size of postcards, the oldest complete documents we have date around the 4th century. It's also worth noting that this bible is very different than the one we see today
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/...s=PM:WORLD

Nonsense. The earliest manuscript we have is P52, which, even among the later date folks, is said to have been written around 175 CE...which is about 150 years after the crucifixion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Li...52#Date...

That wiki link is highly cited, btw.

And that "150 years after-the-fact" stuff...other classical works don't even COMPARE to the New Testament. Now sure, you did say "oldest complete copy", but we do know that the books were around well before then.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Hold on a second here
Both luke and John describe the location of where Jesus was, if I read your argument correctly, the author of john including jesus asking philip is not exactly an argument, it shows that the authors of john felt it necessary to add that part in there at best. I'm sorry but this argument makes no sense.

The book of John doesn't state where the feeding of the 5,000 took place. That is the point, Jesus asked Phillip where to buy food because he knew that they were in a place that Phillip was familiar with..but we don't know of their location unless we read Luke, and once we read Luke, we can see why Jesus would have asked Phillip the question, because they were in Phillips home town. That is the point.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  I like my proof in the form of evidence, not of modest storytelling, as for coincidences, I don't see one when both books mention the location, one just happens to mention Jesus asking a specific person. I fail to see the connection. It's interesting that you mention no stunt that god can't perform, it begs the question of why would Jesus need to even ask philip where to buy food if he is just going to will it into existence?

Well, hey...you can't please everyone, I guess. That did it for me. But to answer your question...he didn't need to ask Phillip, as I SAID, he wanted to use someone that he knew would respond in an unfaithful way so he could prove that God can do all things, even when man thinks otherwise.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  This isn't a coincidence it's a contradiction

Dude, again...you seem to have a problem coming to the realization that everyone doesn't tell the same story the same way. Some people are more vivid, more detailed than others. Others explain things in a nutshell, getting straight to the point. There isn't anything contradictory about it.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Agreed on the authenticity of who wrote 1 Corinthians. It may be confirming what the other gospels state, however as you yourself stated 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is a creed, which is a profession of faith not evidence. Which mentions scriptures as well, so Paul was pulling that information from other documents.

He met an eyewitness, though...and he claimed to have witnessed the Resurrected Jesus himself. Either he was lying, or telling the truth. Which is it.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  Galatians is also considered to be authentic, He could be lying or at least stretching the truth, keep in mind that the epistles are letters that Paul wrote well 7 of them anyway, he could have said anything in the letters he wanted to, especially since he was trying to bolster the faith of the early church.

Well, enlighten me on what part is he lying, what part is he stretching the truth, and what part is he telling the truth...and while you are at it, do the same thing with every other ancient document. Apply the same level of skepticism with other ancient writings like you do the New Testament, or better yet, lets just negate the entire genre of history, while we are at it.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  I think you meant that Christian religion started before the gospels, along with the belief in Jesus

Yeah, I will assume that belief in George Washington will precede any biography written about him. But maybe that is just me tho.

(08-07-2015 11:14 AM)Worom Wrote:  , this is of course possible but doesn't help your case Smile

Yes it does. The earlier, the better.
Find all posts by this user
18-07-2015, 07:55 PM
RE: Worom Vs. Call_of_the_Wild
Hopefully it came out right, because I didn't proofread a damn thing Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: