Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 91 of 306 (494131)
01-14-2009 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by jaywill
01-13-2009 7:09 AM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
Jay,
You have the wrong end of the stick here.
Why I asked what you were on about was because I have no idea where you get these crazy rants:
As far as the New Testament document is concerned:
No, you won't find a copy that says Jesus was not Diety made flesh. No, you won't find a none redemptive death of Jesus.
No, you won't find a "no resurrection" copy of the NT.
No, you won't find a "Jesus is not Lord and Son of God" NT.
And this nonsense:
Hear me again Brian. There is NO ancient "Jesus was just a non extraordinary regular guy that the disciples blew up into a mythological legend" Gospel. You're hoping for something that simply does not exist.
From what I posted, which was:
I don't think it is the age of the Book that is the problem, I think DA is on about the history of the construction of the Book.
The obvious editings, redaction, and the anonymity of its authors are more of a concern than its age.
I don’t know where you get the idea that I am in any way interested in looking for something to undermine Jesus, I couldn’t care less about Jesus.
IF, and it is a BIG BIG IF, I ever get interested enough in the life of that particular failed messiah, I certainly wouldn’t be stupid enough to expect to find anything in the NT to undermine Jesus, the books were hand picked for goodness sakes.
However, while we are at it, thinking that thousands of accurate copies of a fairytale make it anything other than a fairytale is just silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by jaywill, posted 01-13-2009 7:09 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by jaywill, posted 01-14-2009 11:55 PM Brian has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 92 of 306 (494134)
01-14-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by jaywill
01-14-2009 11:23 AM


Re: Reasons to believe they told the truth
Historians can tell whether an author is truthful by testing by a "principle of embarressment." That is inclusion of details protentially embasessing to the author are probably true. The false propogandist is far more likely to omit deatils which make them look bad.
This is hilarious, you have just proven by the 'principle of embarrassment' that none of the disciples wrote any of the Gospels!
Since we do not know who wrote any of the Gospels, they were all anonymous works, and since no author would pen anything that would embarrass them, and the Gospels contain embarrassing things about the disciples, then no disciples wrote any of the Gospels.
Well done Jay, you just provided a great argument against the Gospels being written by a disciple.
Think my side just split!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jaywill, posted 01-14-2009 11:23 AM jaywill has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 93 of 306 (494137)
01-14-2009 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by jaywill
01-14-2009 11:23 AM


Re: Reasons to believe they told the truth
Wow, lengthy post there Jaywill.
jaywill writes:
Historians can tell whether an author is truthful by testing by a "principle of embarressment." That is inclusion of details protentially embasessing to the author are probably true. The false propogandist is far more likely to omit deatils which make them look bad.
But the disciples didn't write the gospels, they were all penned down later by other people. So, from this fact alone your argument seems pretty weak. Sorry if it took you a lot of work to make this list, and I dismiss it so simply, but this is how it is, sorry.
But anyway, I'll go see if I can find other things that might explain some of the things in the NT. I will treat them as written by the disciples, for the sake of this post, but remember, they weren't and so, this argument fails.
1.) They indicate that the disciples were dim witted at numersous times. They failed to understand what Jesus was saying (Mark 9:32; Luke 18:34; John 12:16).
A false propogandist would be more likely to present themselves as so sharp that nothing Jesus taught was not perfectly clear to them. What profit would it be to their cause to let people know that they may have misunderstood their own Master's teaching? Think about it.
Or this is an appeal to the general populace, by not portraying themselves as perfect, they can say to the public: "See, we're just like you, but we were changed by Jesus, and now we'll have a good life when we die." Seems plausible to me.
The same effectively goes for the other arguments in this category. By not portraying themselves as perfect, they can appeal better to the general populace, by making it seems that Jesus doesn't care how inept you are at life, he will still rescue you.
Other recorded information which put Jesus in a bad light:
Everything in this category can be explained too. By portraying Jesus not as a perfect deity, but as something close to a man, they wanted to create a bond between him and normal people. If they portrayed him as absolutely perfect, he'd be a very dull character, by making hi have some little flaws, they make him far more human. This makes him easier to relate too, and so, easier to believe in.
Well, that are just some of my thoughts on the matter. But remember, the main problem your claim has is that the disciples didn't write the gospels, and so, none of your argument applies. There is also one other thing. The writers of the gospels may have believed that everything they wrote down was the truth. Does this make the account true? NO! Without supporting evidence, we can't say it's true.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jaywill, posted 01-14-2009 11:23 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by jaywill, posted 01-15-2009 12:58 AM Huntard has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 94 of 306 (494214)
01-14-2009 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Brian
01-14-2009 1:24 PM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
Why I asked what you were on about was because I have no idea where you get these crazy rants:
As far as the New Testament document is concerned:
No, you won't find a copy that says Jesus was not Diety made flesh. No, you won't find a none redemptive death of Jesus.
No, you won't find a "no resurrection" copy of the NT.
No, you won't find a "Jesus is not Lord and Son of God" NT.
And this nonsense:
Hear me again Brian. There is NO ancient "Jesus was just a non extraordinary regular guy that the disciples blew up into a mythological legend" Gospel. You're hoping for something that simply does not exist.
From what I posted, which was:
I don't think it is the age of the Book that is the problem, I think DA is on about the history of the construction of the Book.
The obvious editings, redaction, and the anonymity of its authors are more of a concern than its age.
I don’t know where you get the idea that I am in any way interested in looking for something to undermine Jesus, I couldn’t care less about Jesus.
IF, and it is a BIG BIG IF, I ever get interested enough in the life of that particular failed messiah, I certainly wouldn’t be stupid enough to expect to find anything in the NT to undermine Jesus, the books were hand picked for goodness sakes.
However, while we are at it, thinking that thousands of accurate copies of a fairytale make it anything other than a fairytale is just silly.
I don't know which of your feeble defenses is suppose to overwhelm us - your foul language or your cavalier argumentless dismissal.
You apparently have neither the enthusiasm or the skill to refute me. All I see is a few hollow jeers and an ascertian of a "fairytale" and a quip that "I'm really not interested anyway."
Wow.
Nothing to learn here. Let's see what Huntard has to say.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Brian, posted 01-14-2009 1:24 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Brian, posted 01-15-2009 6:12 AM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 95 of 306 (494221)
01-15-2009 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Huntard
01-14-2009 1:59 PM


Re: Reasons to believe they told the truth
But the disciples didn't write the gospels, they were all penned down later by other people.
That's what you were told and which you cannot prove.
So, from this fact
You don't know it to be a fact.
alone your argument seems pretty weak.
You're groundless claim to possess "the fact" that the disciples didn't write the Gospels is weak.
Besides it is obvious that "disciples" wrote the Gospels. If not Matthew was the author of Matthew, it should be obvious that a DISCIPLE wrote it. Who else would be interested in passing it on, a non-disciple?
Maybe you don't know the difference between disciple and apostle. Maybe what you mean to say is that the Apostle Matthew, for example, did not write Matthew.
Well scholars a whole lot closer to the writing of Matthew than you here, 2000 plus years latter, believed that Matthew wrote Matthew.
One of the indications that Matthew wrote Matthew is found in Matt. 10:2-5.
"And the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananeaean, and Judas Isacariot, who also betrayed Him. These twelve Jesus sent forth, charging them ..." (Matt. 10:2-5a)
This is Matthew's list of the twelve apostles. And why do I say it evidences Matthew as the author? Because if you compare the list of apostles to how they are mentioned in Mark and Luke you find the order changed to list Matthew before Thomas -(Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15). The writer of Matthew in humility listed himself second rather than first.
Jesus sent the apostles out in teams. Probably each team had a senior and a junior member. Matthew, in his humility, put his own name AFTER his junior partner Thomas. Jesus had taught them to avoid ambition for position and rivalry. The effect of that teaching is seen in the way the author of Matthew listed himself among the apostles.
The other listings recognize that Matthew was the senior team member between Matthew and Thomas.
Sorry if it took you a lot of work to make this list, and I dismiss it so simply, but this is how it is, sorry.
No problem. I am neither disappointed that you reject it. Hey, that's part of the business. We're use to stubborness.
Maybe someone reading along did get some benefit from my labors.
But anyway, I'll go see if I can find other things that might explain some of the things in the NT. I will treat them as written by the disciples, for the sake of this post, but remember, they weren't and so, this argument fails.
Just on your say so ?
While you're at it learn that apostles are disciples and followers who are not apostles are also disciples. Should I expect that someone apparently loose or sloppy about the terms can be trusted to offer a more accurate reconstruction of the NT document authorship?
1.) They indicate that the disciples were dim witted at numersous times. They failed to understand what Jesus was saying (Mark 9:32; Luke 18:34; John 12:16).
A false propogandist would be more likely to present themselves as so sharp that nothing Jesus taught was not perfectly clear to them. What profit would it be to their cause to let people know that they may have misunderstood their own Master's teaching? Think about it.
You:
Or this is an appeal to the general populace, by not portraying themselves as perfect, they can say to the public: "See, we're just like you, but we were changed by Jesus, and now we'll have a good life when we die." Seems plausible to me.
Plausible but more impressive to me as a paranoid conspiracy theory.
And your addition "We'll all have a good life when we die" tells me more about your own superfiscial concepts about a heavenly afterlife rather than the biblical resurrection which Jesus taught.
Are you reading your own concepts into the Bible and taking them for the attitude of the disciples? "We'll have a good life WHEN WE DIE."
They were not expecting to have a good life when they died. They were expecting live until Jesus returned or to be resurrected should He delay His return until after their lifetime.
The same effectively goes for the other arguments in this category. By not portraying themselves as perfect, they can appeal better to the general populace, by making it seems that Jesus doesn't care how inept you are at life, he will still rescue you.
There is nothing suggesting that Jesus wanted the disciples to BE inept. He told them to be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. Where's His teaching for them to be or remain inept?
I think you are so paranoid that someone has out to pull the wool over your eyes that regard all the evidence I presented as purposeful conspiracy.
Bluntly speaking, I think that is stupid.
Other recorded information which put Jesus in a bad light:
You:
Everything in this category can be explained too.
With a fertile imagination and commitment to paranoia, sure, I expect you could concoct some alternative plausible explanation.
For example:
By portraying Jesus not as a perfect deity, but as something close to a man, they wanted to create a bond between him and normal people.
So they concocted a not so perfect Man who was a perfect sinless sacrifice?
Peter said that He "committed no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22). Where's the less than perfect God-man there ?
John records that Pilate could find no fault in Him (John 18:38). Where's the less than perfect God-man there ? If John wanted to portray Him as less than perfect why did he record that Pontius Pilate knew that he was condemning a perfectly innocent man?
"Maybe he wanted to envoke our sympathy" will be your next conspiratorial rational?
I would suggest that you actually read the Gospels for yourself rather than pour over skeptical books and websites ABOUT the Gospel.
You do give me that impression that you are gullible and running on second and third hand skeptical oopinions of the Gospels.
If they portrayed him as absolutely perfect, he'd be a very dull character, by making hi have some little flaws, they make him far more human. This makes him easier to relate too, and so, easier to believe in.
It is doubtful that imperfect people such as the disciples, would convincingly make up an absolutely perfect person?
It is more ridiculous of you to assume that they started with a perfect person and concocted errors and faults to attribute Him to make Him more believable.
"Hey, John this is too perfect. Let's make up a weakness here and there so that this character doesn't come off as too perfect. Do you have some good bloopers we can put into His mouth?"
Well, that are just some of my thoughts on the matter. But remember, the main problem your claim has is that the disciples didn't write the gospels,
On your say so, with no submitted evidence?
Seems to me that you are the one commiting all the phony authoritative pronouncements that you want to accuse the Gospel writers of.
"As face answers to face in water, so the mind of a man reflects the man."
I think you are telling me more about your own suspicious mistrust of God's word.
and so, none of your argument applies. There is also one other thing. The writers of the gospels may have believed that everything they wrote down was the truth. Does this make the account true? NO! Without supporting evidence, we can't say it's true.
Are you suggesting that they all had a collective group hallucination at the same time? They all at the same time had a group hallucination of a resurrected Jesus?
Peter writes:
"For we did not follow clevery devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we became eyewitnesses of that One's majesty.
For He received from God the Father honor and glory, a voice such as this being borne to Him by the magnificent glory: This is My Son, My Beloved, in whom I delight.
And this voice we heard being borne out of heaven while we were with Him in the holy mountain." ( 2 Peter 1:16-18)
The Apostle Peter says that he and others were eyewitness. He says that they were not following cleverly devised myths.
You are saying that they did follow clevery devised myths and that the writers were not eyewitnesses. But I don't find your reasons to state this more credible than the Gospel record. But they are cleverly devised rationals and excuses.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Huntard, posted 01-14-2009 1:59 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by 8upwidit2, posted 01-15-2009 4:18 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 98 by Brian, posted 01-15-2009 6:20 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 99 by bluescat48, posted 01-15-2009 8:34 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 105 by Huntard, posted 01-16-2009 2:27 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 106 by Nighttrain, posted 01-16-2009 6:35 PM jaywill has replied

8upwidit2
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 88
From: Katrinaville USA
Joined: 02-03-2005


Message 96 of 306 (494231)
01-15-2009 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by jaywill
01-15-2009 12:58 AM


Re: Reasons to believe they told the truth
Jaywill, PROOF is: Something that induces certainty or establishes validity. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009.
Your lengthy rant included comments like: "Besides it is obvious that "disciples" wrote the Gospels. If not Matthew was the author of Matthew, it should be obvious that a DISCIPLE wrote it. Who else would be interested in passing it on, a non-disciple?" How is it obvious? How is this proof?
Also,the fact that the order in which the names are listed in different texts doesn't prove the disciples wrote anything.
You continue to offer lengthy rhetoric still with no proof of anything. And why are you calling Bryan names or suggesting he is stupid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jaywill, posted 01-15-2009 12:58 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by jaywill, posted 01-16-2009 11:54 AM 8upwidit2 has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 97 of 306 (494253)
01-15-2009 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by jaywill
01-14-2009 11:55 PM


Re: In regards to the geneaology of Jesus
Just gets funnier.
I haven't even attempted to refute anything, you are actually doing a fantastic job of refuting yourself, all I have done is to ask why you jumped to certain conclusions from what I said.
I don't spend much time 'refuting' fundies anymore, apart from my time being very valuable, theres also the fact that fundies don't want to learn anything, they already know it all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by jaywill, posted 01-14-2009 11:55 PM jaywill has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 98 of 306 (494255)
01-15-2009 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by jaywill
01-15-2009 12:58 AM


Yes or No?
Let's test your personal integrity and scholarship with a question that has a one word answer.
You claim: One of the indications that Matthew wrote Matthew is found in Matt. 10:2-5.
Now, this question requires a 'yes' or a 'no' answer.
Is the Gospel of Matthew an anonymous work?
Yes or No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jaywill, posted 01-15-2009 12:58 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by jaywill, posted 01-16-2009 12:07 PM Brian has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 99 of 306 (494294)
01-15-2009 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by jaywill
01-15-2009 12:58 AM


Re: Reasons to believe they told the truth
One of the indications that Matthew wrote Matthew is found in Matt. 10:2-5.
"And the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananeaean, and Judas Isacariot, who also betrayed Him. These twelve Jesus sent forth, charging them ..." (Matt. 10:2-5a)
This is Matthew's list of the twelve apostles. And why do I say it evidences Matthew as the author? Because if you compare the list of apostles to how they are mentioned in Mark and Luke you find the order changed to list Matthew before Thomas -(Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15). The writer of Matthew in humility listed himself second rather than first.
That proves nothing. It neither proves nor disproves whether "Matthew" was Matthew.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jaywill, posted 01-15-2009 12:58 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jaywill, posted 01-16-2009 11:36 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 100 of 306 (494309)
01-15-2009 8:59 AM


No critical skills at all
The writer of Matthew in humility listed himself second rather than first.
Whereas someone who was really humble would have placed himself last!
Good gift to have that though, being able to read the mind of a man who died 2000 years ago, wonderful.

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 101 of 306 (494490)
01-16-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by bluescat48
01-15-2009 8:34 AM


Re: Reasons to believe they told the truth
That proves nothing. It neither proves nor disproves whether "Matthew" was Matthew.
It doesn't PROVE Matthew as the author. We know that.
It is reasonable evidence to the liturary critic that Matthew WAS the author.
Now old Jolly fellow Brian gets a belly laugh from this and quite predictably says in essence "Well then, ha ha, why didn't he list himself LAST? ha ha."
They were sent out in teams of two. He may not have had the freedom of conscience to list his team as last. He may have had the freedom of conscience to say in essencse "Me, Matthew a tax collector, by the way, was teamed up with Thomas."
Proof of authorship, no. Evidence for authorship? I think so.
Iccidently, one of the original twelve apostles, John, had a disciple Polycarp (c. 110 - 150 AD) and Polycarp a disciple of John had a pupil Irenaues (c 130 - 202 AD).
Both of those men named the Apostle Matthew as the author of Matthew. They were a heck of a lot closer to its composition then some Johnny Come Lately Skepic selling his sensational book saying that Matthew was not the author of Matthew some 2000 plus years afterwards.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by bluescat48, posted 01-15-2009 8:34 AM bluescat48 has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 102 of 306 (494492)
01-16-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by 8upwidit2
01-15-2009 4:18 AM


Re: Reasons to believe they told the truth
Jaywill, PROOF is: ....
That's nice. Now QUOTE me where I said I had proof of Matthew as the author of the book Matthew.
Please point out where I said I have proof.
I think I said I had reason to believe or evidence.
Ah yes. Here is what I wrote:
Well scholars a whole lot closer to the writing of Matthew than you here, 2000 plus years latter, believed that Matthew wrote Matthew.
One of the indications that Matthew wrote Matthew is found in Matt. 10:2-5.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by 8upwidit2, posted 01-15-2009 4:18 AM 8upwidit2 has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 103 of 306 (494493)
01-16-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Brian
01-15-2009 6:20 AM


Re: Yes or No?
Let's test your personal integrity and scholarship with a question that has a one word answer.
You claim: One of the indications that Matthew wrote Matthew is found in Matt. 10:2-5.
Now, this question requires a 'yes' or a 'no' answer.
Is the Gospel of Matthew an anonymous work?
Yes or No?
Have you forgotten so soon, You're not INTERESTED ANYWAY. Remember?
We heard your argument by Boredom. We've heard your argument by Laughter. We've heard your argument by Non-interest.
What's next?
Oh, an anonyomous book MAY indeed have an indication of who its author was.
Yes? No?
And if it is anonymous how can you be so cock sure that Matthew was NOT the author of the book named after him? Anonymous does not insist on who did NOT write something.
And particularly so if the book bears the title of a personal NAME.
Now go back to sleep and don't roll off the bed laughing.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Brian, posted 01-15-2009 6:20 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Brian, posted 01-17-2009 3:58 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 110 by Brian, posted 01-17-2009 5:33 AM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 104 of 306 (494495)
01-16-2009 12:19 PM


Early church "fathers" recognized that there were pseudo named noncanical writings.
The skeptics on this site seem to want to suggest there was NOTHING BUT such.
The integrity and careful scholarship of second and third century scholars realized that there was apochyphal writings, but not all ciculated books were in this catagory.
It serves the skeptic of the Christian faith to attempt to lead people to believe that there were ONLY pseudo authentic books falsely named after their authors.

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 105 of 306 (494517)
01-16-2009 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by jaywill
01-15-2009 12:58 AM


Re: Reasons to believe they told the truth
Hello again Jaywill, another good post I see.
jaywill writes:
That's what you were told and which you cannot prove.
nothing except maths can ever be proven.
You don't know it to be a fact.
No, I don't.
You're groundless claim to possess "the fact" that the disciples didn't write the Gospels is weak.
As it turns out, it is.
Besides it is obvious that "disciples" wrote the Gospels. If not Matthew was the author of Matthew, it should be obvious that a DISCIPLE wrote it.
Obvious maybe not, but probable, yes.
Maybe you don't know the difference between disciple and apostle.
I do, but I mixed them up. I retract the statement that a disciple didn't write the gospel, it is likely one did. This doesn't mean it's true though.
Maybe what you mean to say is that the Apostle Matthew, for example, did not write Matthew.
Yes, that's what I meant, thanks for pointing out my mistake. Now, on what do I base this? On the fact that most scholars that studied the gospels come to the conclusion that Matthew was written somewhere between AD 70 and 100, Matthew would likely be dead then.
Well scholars a whole lot closer to the writing of Matthew than you here, 2000 plus years latter, believed that Matthew wrote Matthew.
A belief is not evidence though.
One of the indications that Matthew wrote Matthew is found in Matt. 10:2-5.
"And the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananeaean, and Judas Isacariot, who also betrayed Him. These twelve Jesus sent forth, charging them ..." (Matt. 10:2-5a)
This is Matthew's list of the twelve apostles. And why do I say it evidences Matthew as the author? Because if you compare the list of apostles to how they are mentioned in Mark and Luke you find the order changed to list Matthew before Thomas -(Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15). The writer of Matthew in humility listed himself second rather than first.
Jesus sent the apostles out in teams. Probably each team had a senior and a junior member. Matthew, in his humility, put his own name AFTER his junior partner Thomas. Jesus had taught them to avoid ambition for position and rivalry. The effect of that teaching is seen in the way the author of Matthew listed himself among the apostles.
The other listings recognize that Matthew was the senior team member between Matthew and Thomas.
Not evidence that he wrote it though, again, if we take even AD 70 as the date, Matthew would still likely be dead.
No problem. I am neither disappointed that you reject it. Hey, that's part of the business. We're use to stubborness.
Indeed we are.
Maybe someone reading along did get some benefit from my labors.
unless they already believed it, I doubt it, but hey, to each his own.
Just on your say so ?
As opposed to your say so? Why should anyone believe what you say, yet disregard what I say?
While you're at it learn that apostles are disciples and followers who are not apostles are also disciples.
Yes, that was a bit stupid of me.
Should I expect that someone apparently loose or sloppy about the terms can be trusted to offer a more accurate reconstruction of the NT document authorship?
If a reasonable explanation can be found, with equal evidence, sure why not? Of course, since there is no evidence for either of our statements, they're both equally valid.
Plausible but more impressive to me as a paranoid conspiracy theory.
Of course. I didn't expect you to take it for granted, neither should you expect me to take anything you've said for granted either. Unless. of course, you can provide evidence.
And your addition "We'll all have a good life when we die" tells me more about your own superfiscial concepts about a heavenly afterlife rather than the biblical resurrection which Jesus taught.
So, heaven's not pleasant at all? Or am I missing something here? Please explain it to me.
Are you reading your own concepts into the Bible and taking them for the attitude of the disciples?
Are you? I'm offering a reasonable explanation for the way the Bible is written.
"We'll have a good life WHEN WE DIE."
How about "after we die and go to heaven" then?
They were not expecting to have a good life when they died. They were expecting live until Jesus returned or to be resurrected should He delay His return until after their lifetime.
In the mean time, they'd be up in heaven lounging with god, wouldn't they? So don't tell me they saw that as such a terrible thing.
There is nothing suggesting that Jesus wanted the disciples to BE inept.
Nor did I say he did. I said he didn't care either way. You're great at life, cool, you completely suck at it, cool too.
He told them to be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.
Yet they still portray the apostles as "inept" (your words by the way)
Where's His teaching for them to be or remain inept?
Nowhere, and I didn't say that. See above.
I think you are so paranoid that someone has out to pull the wool over your eyes that regard all the evidence I presented as purposeful conspiracy.
Judging by your reactions to me, it's the other way around. I simply offer a plausible explanation. Oh, and you didn't present evidence. You presented your view.
Bluntly speaking, I think that is stupid.
Why is offering a plausible explanation stupid? You have offered just as much evidence for your view as I have, so our proposals are equal.
With a fertile imagination and commitment to paranoia, sure, I expect you could concoct some alternative plausible explanation.
With a fertile imagination and commitment to blind faith, sure, I expect you could concoct some alternative plausible explanation. When talking about real, empirical evidence however, you haven't presented any yet.
So they concocted a not so perfect Man who was a perfect sinless sacrifice?
You said they did, don't put those words in my mouth.
Form your post:
quote:
Other recorded information which put Jesus in a bad light
How is a perfect man put in a bad light? if he's perfect there's nothing to put in a bad light, now is there? I simply offered a plausible explanation for why they did as you asserted.
Peter said that He "committed no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22). Where's the less than perfect God-man there?
I don't know, I never said he wasn't a perfect god man. You said they put him in a bad light.
John records that Pilate could find no fault in Him (John 18:38). Where's the less than perfect God-man there ? If John wanted to portray Him as less than perfect why did he record that Pontius Pilate knew that he was condemning a perfectly innocent man?
YOU said they did, not me. I offered an explanation as to why they would do this. And now you're saying I said they made him less perfect? I NEVER said that, YOU did.
"Maybe he wanted to envoke our sympathy" will be your next conspiratorial rational?
Sympathy for what? I don't think Jesus had need for sympathy. I merely offered a plausible explanation as to why they would put him in a bad light, as YOU asserted.
I would suggest that you actually read the Gospels for yourself rather than pour over skeptical books and websites ABOUT the Gospel.
This might surprise you, but I read the gospel, though admittedly a long time ago. So forgive me if my knowledge is a bit rusty. Also, I got taught the stories of the gospel during my first school years, seeing as I went to a Roman Catholic school form age 4 to 12. We even had our local pastor come over to the school to talk to us about the gospel and the Christian religion.
You do give me that impression that you are gullible and running on second and third hand skeptical oopinions of the Gospels.
Asking for evidence for claims made in the gospel is being gullible? I'd say taking them for granted without any evidence is being gullible. How can you equate asking for support for the claims to being gullible?
It is doubtful that imperfect people such as the disciples, would convincingly make up an absolutely perfect person?
According to you, they didn't. When I offer an explanation as to why they didn't, you do a 360 and claim I said he wasn't perfect. I never did, you did.
It is more ridiculous of you to assume that they started with a perfect person and concocted errors and faults to attribute Him to make Him more believable.
YOU said:
quote:
Other recorded information which put Jesus in a bad light
I gave an explanation for that. I never claimed he wasn't perfect, you did.
"Hey, John this is too perfect. Let's make up a weakness here and there so that this character doesn't come off as too perfect. Do you have some good bloopers we can put into His mouth?"
Perhaps it went that way, if what you said about it is true.
On your say so, with no submitted evidence?
Why not on MY say so, when we have to accept YOUR say so? You didn't offer any evidence either. You offered your explanation, as did I.
Seems to me that you are the one commiting all the phony authoritative pronouncements that you want to accuse the Gospel writers of.
I'm offering explanations as to why they would've written it as they did. As are you. You said you wanted to offer evidence, you haven't yet.
I think you are telling me more about your own suspicious mistrust of God's word.
There's NO evidence that it actually IS god's word.
Are you suggesting that they all had a collective group hallucination at the same time?
The writers of the gospels never saw this. It could be the apostle's lied about it, and it got recorded from there. If you have evidence it is true, offer it up, and I will retract my statements, until then, they stand.
They all at the same time had a group hallucination of a resurrected Jesus?
NONE of the gospel writers saw it. So NO, they didn't have a group hallucination. They were lied to.
The Apostle Peter says that he and others were eyewitness. He says that they were not following cleverly devised myths.
Wrong. The writers of the gospels say Peter said this. There is no evidence he did, nor is there evidence he actually saw this.
You are saying that they did follow clevery devised myths and that the writers were not eyewitnesses.
Yes. Most scholars will agree with me on the not being eyewitnesses part.
But I don't find your reasons to state this more credible than the Gospel record.
It is just as credible, as we both offer the same amount of evidence, none.
But they are cleverly devised rationals and excuses.
They are reasonable explanations for the actions of the gospel writers, with just as much support as the gospels themselves.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jaywill, posted 01-15-2009 12:58 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by jaywill, posted 01-17-2009 8:56 AM Huntard has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024