Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's take Matthew 2:16 (the murder of the innocents) and Matthew 27:52-53 (the resurrection of the saints) as two examples. Not only do none of the other Gospels mention these two "events," there is no indication of them FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE EITHER. Jewish historians have gone so far as to suggest that these claims are entirely made up, because there is no record of them.
Does that indicate that the author of Matthew lied? Lies that Christians propagate IS the subject of this topic, is it not?
The Apologetic is that - just because nobody else mentions it doesn't prove that it didn't happen.
But that is no more than an excuse. It is an excuse of the usual kind and for the usual reasons - Christian apologists find, in the end that they are not able to show that the evidence supports their claims; they rather are constantly looking for excuses as to why it doesn't.
And - as i argue - the more excuses they have to make and the more untenable they are, the less it will wash.
The Massacre of innocents has a number of solid queries and a few minor ones.
(1) the whole nativity story in Matthew is utterly refuted by Luke (if one accepts the solid argument for a 6 AD date for Luke's nativity )
(2) Nobody else reports this. Not Josephus, who was eager to relate each and every misdeed of Herod's. What's worse is that none of the other gospels mention this - or indeed the whole star and wise men thing at all - in fact Mark and John don't even have a nativity. And at this stage this is strong evidence that, if the nativities are invented, the 'massacre of innocents' has to be invented, too.
(3) and there is evidence that it is, too. the 'prophecy' of this event is taken from the OT and is nothing whatsoever to do with the nativity event, but is about the destruction of the two - tribed Northern Kingdom of Israel by Assyria. Neither is the 'Virgin' prophecy valid, either. It is based on a Greek translation where 'Virgin' is translated with the ambiguous word 'Parthenos', whereas the Hebrew has two specific words with different meanings, which Matthew would have known if he was a Jew and knew his scriptures.
The scriptural quote at the end is not very impressive either. 'He shall be called a Nazorene' appears nowhere in the OT.
The weight of evidence - is heavily against this event being true. And to me the nativity is a 'Touchstone' case. If that goes down the tube - and it does - the resurrection goes with it..
Here is what is known about the authorship of the Gospels. Not that you will read it, because you can't be bothered with facts. But they are being provided to you nonetheless.
ALL FOUR GOSPELS WERE AUTHORED ANONYMOUSLY. The names of the authors have been assigned to the works simply as a matter of Christian tradition. In truth we know almost nothing about the authors. Here are the "facts" concerning what we do know. And first of all is should be noted that all four Gospels are written in pure common or Koine Greek.
Koine Greek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Koine Greek (UK: /ˈkɔɪniː/,[1] US: /kɔɪˈneɪ, ˈkɔɪneɪ, kiːˈniː/), also known as Alexandrian dialect, common Attic, Hellenistic or Biblical Greek, was the common supra-regional form of Greek spoken and written during the Hellenistic period, the Roman Empire, and the early Byzantine Empire, or late antiquity. It developed through the spread of Greek following the conquests of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, and served as the common lingua franca of much of the Mediterranean region and the Middle East during the following centuries. It was based mainly on Attic and related Ionic speech forms, with various admixtures brought about through dialect levelling with other varieties." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_greek
Although the Gospel of Matthew is the first Gospel chronologically in the NT, because the early Catholic church believe it to have been written first (for reasons I will address shortly), it is now almost universally accepted that the Gospel of Mark was actually written first. The reason for this change in opinion is actually quite solid. Virtually the ENTIRE Gospel of Mark is contained in Gospel Matthew. Gospel Matthew essentially is the Gospel of Mark, with additional information woven in. Since the author of Gospel Matthew could not have used Gospel Mark as the foundation for his narrative if Gospel Mark had yet to be written we are left with two options. The first and most obvious is that Gospel Mark was actually written first. The second is that Gospel Mark is nothing more then an abridged version of Gospel Matthew. But the evidence for the independent authorship of Mark is actually the best and strongest of the four. Christian written history concerning the author of Gospel Mark:
"And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him." - PapiasPapias (Roberts-Donaldson)
Mark was a believer, according to the early evidence provided by Papias. Mark served as an interpreter for Peter. But Mark was NOT a personal eyewitness to any of the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus.
The Gospel of Luke is traditionally attributed by Christians to "Luke, the beloved physician," mentioned in Col.4:14. In truth however there is absolutely no evidence contained in scripture which would serve to connect the physician named Luke mentioned in Galatians and the author of the Gospel traditionally attributed to someone named Luke, other then the name Luke. Luke was a common name commonly used 2,000 years ago, much as it is today. As we can see from the profusion of Marys listed in the NT. The best we can do here is to conclude that the Luke mentioned in Col.4 and 2Tim. MIGHT be the same individual, although we have no direct evidence of it.
Two facts do emerge rather unambiguously concerning the author of Gospel Luke however. The first is the almost unanimous opinion by scholars and experts that the author of Gospel Luke and the author of Acts of the Apostles are the same person. And it is very clear from the details provided in Acts that the author is an admirer and a disciple of Paul. Paul himself has no claim to have had personal eyewitness information surrounding the life and death of Jesus and as such neither does his disciple, the author of Gospel Luke and Acts.
Like the other Gospels, the Gospel According to John was authored anonymously, and it's authorship was traditionally attributed by early Christians to an individual named John. And again we run into the problem of John being a very common name.
Authorship of the Johannine works
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Various objections to John the Apostle's authorship have been raised. First of all, the Gospel of John is a highly intellectual account of Jesus' life, and is familiar with Rabbinic traditions of biblical interpretation. The Synoptic Gospels, however, are united in identifying John as a fisherman. Acts 4:13 refers to John as "without learning" or "unlettered". Objections are also raised because the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is not mentioned before the Last Supper."
The title ("beloved disciple") is also strange to Beasley-Murray because "if the beloved disciple were one of the Twelve, he would have been sufficiently known outside the Johannine circle of churches for the author to have named him". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...ohannine_works
Gospel of John
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Authorship
"The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it."
As you can see, doubts concerning the authorship of Gospel John ARE NOT confined to a handful of non believers posting on City-Data Forum.
Papias indicates that there were two distinct individuals named John in the early church, the apostle John, known as the evangelist, and a second John known as the Presbyter, or elder.
Writings of Papias:
One
"I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, anyone who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice." Papias (Roberts-Donaldson)
Great exegesis, though all you'll get out of omega is "You cannot prove______" then fill in the blank. Pitiful, really.
Great exegesis, though all you'll get out of omega is "You cannot prove______" then fill in the blank. Pitiful, really.
No one can prove that Santa does not have a team of flying reindeer either, and I challenge omega or anyone else to try. The best we can do is to examine the reasons why reindeer are incapable of flight. Of course if you are going to introduce magic as the cause, then ANY claim can be put forward.
Originally Posted by omega2xx "Governor Pliny The Younger Mentions Jesus in 106 AD"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
You forgot to post the link, you sly devil...
Another lie from omegaxx. This guy simply cannot tell the truth. We call people like these "Pathological liars for Jesus."
Here's exactly what Pliny has to say. He never says "Jesus". He's referring Christians as being troublemakers just like Tacitus does. He's writing to Emperor Trajan.
Quote:
Pliny states that he gives Christians multiple chances to affirm they are innocent and if they refuse three times, they are executed. Pliny states that his investigations have revealed nothing on the Christians' part but harmless practices and "depraved, excessive superstition."
arguing over the gospels is light weights fighting in a light weight league.
they both have an agenda. anybody with half a brain sees the good parts and the not so good parts.
we don't need a history lesson to say the dude didn't die and rise for our sins. And because it didn't happen doesn't mean jesus teachings were all bad.
arguing over the gospels is light weights fighting in a light weight league.
they both have an agenda. anybody with half a brain sees the good parts and the not so good parts.
we don't need a history lesson to say the dude didn't die and rise for our sins. And because it didn't happen doesn't mean jesus teachings were all bad.
Except that many of them WERE bad. Really bad! Like "Take no thought for the morrow".
Quite so. he mentions (or asks) about what to do about Christians. No mention of Jesus and not even an indirect reference to 'Christ' when referring to their claims and beliefs.
As I recall, Phlegon is referring back to the same argument in Thallus - that the 'darkness' at the crucifixion was an eclipse, and Phlegon was trying to date the event using eclipses.
No, Phlegon is talking about an eclipse and an earthquake in the Turkey in 29 AD. Phlegon probably wrote at the time Hadrian was emperor, when Christianity was not well known according to Pliny's letter. And the evidence shows that Thallus may have wrote a shorter version based on Phlegon. Neither was talking about Jesus or Christianity.
It was the later Christians who thought they were talking about the crucifixion.
Quite so. he mentions (or asks) about what to do about Christians. No mention of Jesus and not even an indirect reference to 'Christ' when referring to their claims and beliefs.
I really have no dog in this fight, but can you tell me how you can refer to Christians WITHOUT indirectly referencing Christ?
No, Phlegon is talking about an eclipse and an earthquake in the Turkey in 29 AD. Phlegon probably wrote at the time Hadrian was emperor, when Christianity was not well known according to Pliny's letter. And the evidence shows that Thallus may have wrote a shorter version based on Phlegon. Neither was talking about Jesus or Christianity.
It was the later Christians who thought they were talking about the crucifixion.
Other way round was it? I recalled that one of them referenced the Biblical darkness. If there's not much else to do, I might track those passages down again.
Incidentally, the visible quote of Arach's post shows that he is talking balls again. If he doesn't know that the Basis of Christianity is on the resurrection and that this is accepted as if not true at least a reporting of (perhaps misunderstood) actual events, and how this is the single most important matter in the whole US religion debate, then his lack of understanding of the matter renders his posting not worth the reading
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
)
