Hitch is dead

It's not an sodding assertion! It's a fully observed, evidentially supported and scientifically frigging tested finding. Try not to deny in your face facts, it harms your credibility. We do not know who wrote the stories. Period. Without even that basic piece of information everything in them is speculative. They were all written decades after the events and none of them were eye witnesses. All hearsay. Look it up.

quote:

---

Gospel of Mark, 68—70 CE.[85] Mark, like all the gospels, is anonymous. It relies on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, which is evidence against the tradition that its author was John Mark (Mark the Evangelist), the companion of Peter, or that it was based on Peter's preaching.[86] Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Roman Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish, Christian community. The community had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs, and then developed them further independently of Paul the Apostle.[87] References to persecution and to war in Judea suggest that the context in which Mark was written was either Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the First Jewish—Roman War (66-73 CE).[88]

​

Gospel of Matthew, 80—90 CE.[89] The majority of modern scholars believe it is unlikely that this gospel was written by an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus.[90] Internal evidence suggests that the author was an ethnic Jewish male scribe from a Hellenised city, possibly Antioch in Syria,[91] and that he used a variety of oral traditions and written sources about Jesus, most importantly Mark and the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source.[92] The date is based on three strands of evidence: (a) the setting of Matthew reflects the final separation of Church and Synagogue, about 85 CE; (b) it reflects the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple by the Roman Empire in 70 CE; (c) it uses Mark, usually dated around 70 CE, as a source.[93]

​

Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles, 80—90 CE, with some scholars suggesting 90—100.[94] There is general agreement that Luke and Acts originated as a two-volume work by a single author.[95] This author was an "amateur Hellenistic historian", who was versed in Greek rhetoric, that being the standard training for historians in the ancient world.[96] In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events. The we passages in Acts are written in the first person plural the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me" and these are usually regarded as fragments of some earlier account which was incorporated into Acts by the later author, or simply a Greek rhetorical device which was used for describing sea voyages.[97] If Acts uses Josephus as a source, as has been proposed, then it must have been composed after 93 CE; the social situation is one in which the faithful need "shepherds" to protect them from heretical "wolves", which again reflects a late date.[98] There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century. (Marcion of Sinope was a 2nd-century heretic, who produced his own version of Christian scripture, based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles).[99]

​

Gospel of John, 90—110 CE. [100] John 21:24 identifies "the beloved disciple" as the author of at least some of the gospel, and from the late 2nd century this figure, unnamed in the Gospel itself, was identified as John the Evangelist, the author of the entire gospel.[101] Today, however, most scholars agree that John 21 is an appendix to the Gospel, which originally ended at John 20:30—31,[102] and believe that the author made use of two major sources, a "Signs" source (a collection of seven miracle stories) and a "Discourse" source.[103] The lower date of c.90 CE is based on internal reference to the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues, and the upper on external evidence that it was known in the early 2nd century

---

Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia

What you are referring to is the difference between "support" and "evidence."It is a tricky subject, with many subtleties.
But the word "evidence" does have a meaning already... and it is not the same as "support."
Trying to mince the two together so that they mean the same thing removes the significance behind having a word such as "evidence" in the first place.Support: This is the idea of a specific piece of information pointing towards a specific conclusion - but it disregards all other informaion.
Evidence: This is the idea that all the available information points towards a specific conclusion - you are no longer allowed to disregard other information if you're using the term "evidence."The two terms are kind of confusion, here is an example to help show the differences:The story of the Blind Men and the Elephant:

quote:

---

A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.

---

Now, to talk about support vs. evidence.At the point where each individual man only gets the information they are individually aware of... the "support" and "evidence" they receive are the same thing.Touching the side and thinking the elephant is a wall.
-if this is the only information available, then this information supports the idea that the elephant is a wall and this information is also evidence that the elephant is a wall.However, what if the men talk to each other? Or what if a sighted person comes along and discusses the full picture with them?
This is where the idea of "support" vs. "evidence" becomes clear.Once all the information is available, the situation changes to this:-Touching the side of the elephant is still information that "supports" the idea of the elephant being a wall
-However, this is no longer "evidence" of the elephant being a wall because there is more information available that does not align with the elephant being a wall (walls don't have trunks and tusks and tails and ears...)Bringing it back to your statement: What people are explaining to you:"Evidence is always evident to everyone."
-this is referring to the elephant; the full pictureIf believers cared enough to review all the information, then they would not be able to "choose" what is evident... there are never 2 (or more) possible answers to evidence. Evidence is always a single conclusion... or else it's not evidence. It's just support.If believers do not care to review all the information, or purposefully ignore certain areas of knowledge... then they are left with "support" for their position.
All kinds of information exists that supports all kinds of different beliefs.You just don't get to call it "evidence" unless you take an honest, all-information-available, encompassing position and look at it objectively.If not - then we need another word: Super-evidence! that means "taking an honest, all-information-available, encompassing position."
But, in normal language, the word "evidence" is already used to refer to this "looking at all available information" idea.The area you may want to focus on is this:
-conclusions based on past or current evidence can be misleading or incorrect.
-but, again, this is only confirmed/understood/known/identified by gaining more information... more support and then the conclusion of the "current evidence... now including the additional just-learned information" may be different from what was previously shown by the previous evidence.
-but this, if you accept it, is what we refer to as "Science."

Richard Bauckman has wriiten a book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses which I am still reading about the authorship of the Gospels. Using the original languages with all of the material available from that area he has shed considerable new light on who it was the wrote or compiled the Gospels. There is much more data now available. Also the Gospels were written during the life time of those who were eyewitnesses to the Jesus' teaching and resurrection. Your article confirms that John was written by a disciple although it may have the author right but with information from what was written by Papius it was likely John the elder as opposed to John the evangelist.

Well done him. They were written up to 80 years after Jesus's alleged death. A massive game of telephone had been played around thousands of campfires by then. The authors are unknown and were not eyewitnesses, therefore it is all hearsay.Witness evidence is terrible anyway, the worst kind; anonymous people writing up other people's stories decades after the supposed events is useless. Doesn't even come close to anything remotely useful.

It is on no way "obvious" that the Bible was intended as non-fiction.

Indeed, parts of it - like Esther - clearly are fiction.

So explain the following:

Why is the road to destruction so broad? What misapplied evidence leads so many to travel that path?

Why do only a few find the narrow path? Surely the evidence is available for everyone.

​

Also while we are at it, what do you define as fiction? Why did the late Stan Lee use to begin his podcasts with "Greetings, True Believers!" You see, there are basically two roads. Two imaginations, if you will. There is the vanity of our own imagination and there is the truth of God's imagination itself...which is, in essence, the Spirit of Creativity. You may say that I'm adding to the "fiction" but I am merely extrapolating on it. He who has an ear, listen up.

​

Why did Jesus emphasize that His Father was greater than Him? What benefit can we get by humbling ourselves under a higher power rather than marching around as if we ourselves are the only source of the answers?

---

The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.Calvin Coolidge
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.-RC Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

- You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. Anne Lamott
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.~Andre Gide

Just as it is currently obvious that the news media feeds off of fiction. The day has come where a bunch of Bronze Age writings provides more comfort than many of the "facts" that the media proliferates upon the sheeple. (Buzzsaws favorite word )

You are correct. I will try and use the word, "support". I am trying to get ringo to see that scriptural writings support scriptural philosophy and that though scripture does not always refer to a generic context, it can be studied that way if I have already decided for my life that the beliefs and teachings are valid philosophy for today's world.

quote:

---

So explain the following:

Matt 7:13-14 writes:

​

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Why is the road to destruction so broad? What misapplied evidence leads so many to travel that path?

Why do only a few find the narrow path? Surely the evidence is available for everyone.

---

You need to read the full chapter Phat.This part is especially relevant. It’s not about mere assent to propositions like God exists or even Jesus is Lord. It’s because doing what Jesus requires is HARD.The evidence may show the way but it doesn’t compel you to walk it. You, of all people, should know that.

That's what apologetics is all about. The broad road is an easy sell - all you have to do is profess belief and you get out of hell free. You could ask the same question about creationism. People who reject the evidence don't have "different evidence". They just choose easy answers. Fiction is made up. It doesn't conform directly to reality. There are real prodigal sons but the details in that story might be an amalgamation of several different stories. Fiction is reality altered to make a point. The imaginings of an imaginary being are not somehow " more real" than our own imaginings. Acknowledging that we are responsible for all of the answers is humbling ourselves. Bragging that your Sky Daddy has all the answers is anything but humble.

That isn't obvious. Unthinking people prefer the easy answers of fiction but you can't blame the media for that.

We are responsible for what we know. As I have said many times before, one cannot simply be left at the altar waiting forever for evidence to show up. They had witnesses and stories back then, yet you claim that apologists or some other rebel faction wrote the book as a propaganda tool for their own agendas... which I find laughable. Yes, I know human nature all too well. People market religion for their own agendas these days more than ever. I see that. But I'm puzzled why you found your belief so empty. I feel God's presence when I pray....and I keep my belief because it is NOT empty. At this point in my life, even if I were able to somehow throw it away I would never find anything to replace it. You evidently did. Though I don't know you or your experience, I can't believe that you were as deep into it as I am. You wanted to make sense out of dogmatic pageantry. You rejected the dog and pony show and threw the "belief" out with it. I have never been a fan of the rituals, the "turn to your neighbor and say" or the "give God a shout of Praise" edict that many churchgoers seem to love. My relationship is treasured and personal.Even if I was more curious about science and evidence-based thinking, (which I do use to some degree) I wouldn't discard my belief because of it.Neither did such intelligent people as Dr. Stephen MeyerGranted I am uninterested in creationism arguments. They don't help my faith at all, but I am glad to see at least one intelligent person who finds it necessary to defend it. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Frankly I wasn't going to dignify that by responding, but I'll just show you this link. Fiction wasn't invented until the 12th century. The Invention of FictionEdited by GDR, : wasn't instead of was

You do realize Homer's Odyssey was written well before the 1100s.That gives Poseidon, Zeus, Athena, and the cyclops Polyphemus the same reality as your god and your Jesus.