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.
So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter if what is supposed to an eyewitness account isn't.
Christianity seems to be a shell game.
The bible was written by the hand of god (how many times have I heard that one?).
The bible was written by men who were influenced by god.
Everything in the bible is true.
Some stuff in the bible is true. Some stuff is allegorical. And we can't know which is which.
The bible is the greatest book in the world.
The bible isn't one book. It's a bunch of little books put together.
Those are eyewitness accounts in the New Testament.
Well, maybe those accounts were written decades after christ died...but that doesn't matter.
What's your point? Saying "Christians" is like saying "Conservative." It encompasses a whole spectrum of interpretations or viewpoints, which generally accept that Jesus is the Messiah as illustrated in the New Testament, and little else.
What's your point? Saying "Christians" is like saying "Conservative." It encompasses a whole spectrum of interpretations or viewpoints, which generally accept that Jesus is the Messiah as illustrated in the New Testament, and little else.
True, but that's an inconvenient truth for some. When an agenda is to be pushed, it's time to slew and sling around labels and identifications that are well-abused. We see the same abuse of the "L" word in politics. Words start to become meaningless, and pure-emotion fills the void left behind.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 01-11-2019 at 11:32 AM..
Mike, what you've done here is held up a duck egg and then tried to convince us you have a henhouse full of chickens.
I reiterate:
If the early church leaders knew the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John then why didn't they refer to them in their writings as "The Gospel of Mark" or "The Gospel of Luke" instead of Irenaeus having to affix the names and adding the dubious "Gospel ACCORDING to Mark" and "The Gospel ACCORDING to Luke".
In fact, wasn't it "The Memoirs of the Apostles" that was acting as a surrogate for the four gospels in the middle of the 2nd Century? Justin Martyr refers to it extensively in quoting various passages that later got incorporated into the canonical gospels. For example:
This passage of course later came to be incorporated in the Gospel ACCORDING to Luke, more specifically Luke 22:44
Now do some detective work, Mike:
If the Gospel of Luke was around in the 1st Century....and known to all the early church fathers as "The Gospel of Luke".....then WHY is Justin Martyr referring to a passage taken out of the Gospel of Luke and saying it derived from the "Memoirs of the Apostles" instead of "The Gospel of Luke"???????????
Shouldn't the Justin Martyr passage I quoted above read:
I'll wait for your reply to that before going on to the rest.
To Justin Martyr, the terms 'Memoirs of the apostles', and 'Gospels' were synonymous terms as shown by his statement in his first Apology;
JUSTIN MARTYR -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN
CHAPTER LXVI -- OF THE EUCHARIST.
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.
Again, without exception, the testimony of the early church is that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And I shown that the Gospels were quoted by Clement of Rome and Polycarp.
The church fathers quoted the apostles without deferring to you as to how they should have framed their quotes.
Look. Scholars recognize that the four Gospels were written in the first century. Your claim that the Gospels weren't written until much later is bogus and not supported by scholarship.
By the way, the titles attached to the Gospels is not ''The Gospel according to _____,'' but simply ''According to _____'' as can be seen on Codex Sinaiticus. κατα μαθθαιον (According to Matthew), κατα μαρκον (According to Mark), κατα λουκαν (According to Luke), κατα ϊωαννην (According to John).
Ask an apologist "How do you date Mark to 70 CE and they will ALWAYS trot out that failsafe meaningless term, "Tradition". Tradition is about as useful to dating a historic document as a current New York city phone directory is at giving us the phone number of Alexander Graham Bell. What secular Biblical historians really want are artifacts i.e. manuscripts of the document itself, or ancient writings from recognized historians of the period that mention the gospel, or excerpts from the gospel found in early church writings of the period. Mark has NONE of this. So when does the evidence show Mark really emerging? Let's have a look:
1. Mark did NOT write the gospel. Again that convenient maxim, "tradition" is thrown out by the apologists to try to place Mark in the 1st century by claiming Mark the companion of Peter wrote the gospel but we have no historic proof that is true.
Sanders, E (1995). The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin UK.
2. The earliest church father we can link with the apostles, Papias of Hierapolis, (60-163 CE admits he NEVER SPOKE TO ANY OF THE APOSTLES and so he never got firsthand from John the Apostle ANY information regarding Jesus.
4. Most importantly, we have NO historical document from the 1st or first-half of the 2nd Century that mentions the gospel of Mark. We do not even have any excerpts of it in any writings of either historians or church fathers with which to compare to the first complete copy of the gospel which dates to the Codex Sinaiticus assembled circa the middle of the 4th century. For all practical and historically provable points what we read in the Gospel of Mark dates to the 4th Century, not 70 CE as "TRADITION" asserts.
The earliest fragment of the gospel of Mark that survives is P45 dated to the early 3rd Century. This was true until a much hyped NEW fragment, P137 appeared from a mummy mask in 2012 that set the Biblical world abuzz because it supposedly dated from the 1st century. Turns out that minuscule fragment on closer examination actually dates to late 2nd-early 3rd century so the Biblical apologist scholars, Dan Wallace, Craig Evans, and Josh MacDowell who crowed about "sensational Biblical discovery" are right back at square one and have tucked tail and crawled back into their closets red-faced with embarrassment.
So as of Jan. 10, 2019 we have NOTHING-no writings, no excerpts from Mark proving historically what was in Mark prior to 360 CE (Codex Sinaiticus) or no mention of the gospel of Mark earlier than late 2nd Century which would prove Mark even existed prior to that date.
Just....ahem....TRADITION!
Gospel Mark makes a reference to the stone by stone destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, an historical event which occured at a known date; 70 ad. 70 ad therefore represents the EARLIEST date in which Gospel Mark could realistically have been written. Approximately 80 ad is often cited as a plausible date for the writing of Gospel Mark, with Gospels Matthew and Luke, both of which contain large amounts of material taken from Gospel Mark, following shortly after.
Writing in the second century, Christian historian Papias indicated that Mark served as the interpreter of Peter, but that Mark did not personally know Jesus. This represents the most we actually know about ANY of the authors of the Gospels, such as it is. Neither did Papias personally know Mark. Papias seems to have gotten his information from an individual he knew named John the Elder (Presbyter), who claimed to have known and been converted by the actual apostles. Although "tradition" assumes (without any sustaining corroboration) that The Gospel According to John was written by the apostle John, the existing evidence makes John the Elder a far more likely candidate.
It should also be pointed out that Catholic "tradition" insists that Joseph was an old man with children when he married Mary, and that Mary was and remained a virgin her entire life. The basis for the claim of the perpetual virginity of Mary, held as unarguable doctrine by both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, is based on the opinion (tradition) that the virgin had ever been despoiled by any man was repugnant to humanity. Such is the efficacy of "tradition."
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense; 01-11-2019 at 11:44 AM..
What's your point? Saying "Christians" is like saying "Conservative." It encompasses a whole spectrum of interpretations or viewpoints, which generally accept that Jesus is the Messiah as illustrated in the New Testament, and little else.
What I'm saying is that if christians can't even get together and decide these things, why should non-christians be sold on it?
Ah, "Winky winky"...we all need to read this carefully and contemplate the meaning for a few hours. Deep, very deep.
You're the one who keeps going back to this "deep" stuff. I already pointed out my approach is the opposite (Post #38 to be exact), but again you're not reading. Thanks for continuing to prove what I already highlighted, with your very own words.
Ask an apologist "How do you date Mark to 70 CE and they will ALWAYS trot out that failsafe meaningless term, "Tradition". Tradition is about as useful to dating a historic document as a current New York city phone directory is at giving us the phone number of Alexander Graham Bell. What secular Biblical historians really want are artifacts i.e. manuscripts of the document itself, or ancient writings from recognized historians of the period that mention the gospel, or excerpts from the gospel found in early church writings of the period. Mark has NONE of this. So when does the evidence show Mark really emerging? Let's have a look:
1. Mark did NOT write the gospel. Again that convenient maxim, "tradition" is thrown out by the apologists to try to place Mark in the 1st century by claiming Mark the companion of Peter wrote the gospel but we have no historic proof that is true.
Sanders, E (1995). The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin UK.
2. The earliest church father we can link with the apostles, Papias of Hierapolis, (60-163 CE admits he NEVER SPOKE TO ANY OF THE APOSTLES and so he never got firsthand from John the Apostle ANY information regarding Jesus.
Our Mike has always insisted that, if the Church fathers said it was true, then it is.
Which Church fathers? If I remember correctly, the early Christian cults and their leaders were often at each other's throats and there were even mentions of Christian laity rebellions against some leaders which some "church fathers" recognized today happened to disagree gravely with.
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.
