10 Lies Christians *ARE FORCED* To Tell To Defend Their Faith (Catholic, devil)

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

You have not given me any verifiable evidence because no one can prove who the authors of the gospels are. That means the ones assigned to them may be right.

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." - Papias Papias (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)[/quote]

Papias knew this second John, the Presbyter, personally, and it is to this John that the author of Gospel John and the three epistles may be attributed.

The author of Gospel John has NO HISTORICAL CLAIM claim to have had personal eyewitness information surrounding the life and death of Jesus. That the author of Gospel John was the Apostle John is merely an assumption that has traditionally been made by Christians based on little more than wishful thinking.

Now we come to the Gospel According to Matthew. The question of authorship here is the most interesting simply because it's actual origins are the most nebulous. Papias along with his good friend Polycarp, in the second century, indicated that the apostle Matthew undertook to write a Gospel of Jesus Christ during the period in which Peter and Paul were supposed to be attempting to found a Christian church in Rome. This is given to be the period shortly before the great fire in Rome, which occurred in 64. Since it was known that the Gospel of Mark, as well as the other Gospels, was written sometime after 70, the Catholic Church, which only came into being in the fourth century, traditionally placed the Gospel of Matthew as the first book of the Gospels, Mark second, then Luke, with Gospel John clearly the last to be written. One problem though for a book written some few years prior to the Gospel of Mark. The canonical Gospel of Matthew (canonical, found in all modern copies of the NT) contains within it virtually the entire Gospel of Mark, excluding mainly the "long ending" of Gospel Mark, verses 28:9-20, which are not found in the oldest manuscripts of Gospel Mark. How could the Gospel of Matthew contain the entire Gospel of Mark if the Gospel of Matthew was written PRIOR to the writing of Gospel Mark? And why would the apostle, presumably an eyewitness, rely on the work of an individual, Mark, who clearly never even met Jesus?

Another and even greater problem with the authorship of Gospel Matthew occurs however. Papias also wrote:

"For Matthew composed the loggia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able."`

And in fact both Polycarp and Eusebius also confirmed in their own writings that the apostle Matthew wrote his gospel "in the language of the Jews." In other words in the Hebrew language, Aramaic. And that's a serious problem for determining the authorship of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, which was written in pure KOINE GREEK. All FOUR canonical Gospels are in fact written in pure Koine Greek, the common language of that time, and show no signs of translation. Pure unaltered Greek in pure Greek verse and idiom, with no indication of adjustments from the vastly more completed Aramaic. There WAS an early document well known at the time to have been written in Aramaic known as the Gospel of the Hebrews, but all mention of that document abruptly disappeared about the time of the formation of the Catholic Church in the fourth century. Only some few fragments of it remain today. The canonical Gospel of Matthew so well known to modern Christians WAS NOT originally written in Aramaic and cannot be direct a translation FROM Aramaic.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories."
scripture

So who actually wrote the Gospel According to Matthew contained in your Bible? NO ONE KNOWS! What is clear today is that it was written AFTER Gospel Mark. Gospel Matthew IS essentially Gospel Mark, with some material original to Matthew woven in. Gospel Luke contains elements of both Gospels Mark and Matthew, and was clearly written third.

The Gospel According to Matthew has NO claim to have been a personal eyewitness account on the life and death of Jesus.

Bottom line, all of the Gospels were written anonymously decades after the fact, and NONE of them can be shown to have been first hand accounts for what they are describing. Gospel Mark may well have been an account written by an individual named Mark, who wrote down some of the stories he was told by Peter. The NT is consistent in the claim that Peter was an original disciple of Jesus, and was a key figure responsible for spreading the rumor of the risen Jesus. The author of Gospel Luke was a follower of Paul, who clearly was not a personal eyewitness to the life and death of Jesus. The author of Gospel John can more reasonably be attributed to the acquaintance of Papias known was John the Elder, rather than the apostle John. No one actually knows WHO is responsible for Gospel Matthew. Gospel Matthew is largely a plagiarized version of Gospel Mark.

[thrillobyte]

Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
From Wikepedia: "Origen of Alexandria (182-254 AD), in Against Celsus (Book II, Chap. XIV), wrote that Phlegon, in his "Chronicles", mentions Jesus:"

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Yes, that was Origen talking about Phlegon NOT talking about Jesus, because Origen made an error. Now come back with the actual quote from Phlegon. Hint, Eusebius tells us exactly what Phlegon wrote.

Yes, what pathetic business omega engages in. He cannot find ANYBODY contemporaneous to Jesus; he cannot find ANYBODY of legitimacy in the latter part of the 1st Century. He can't find ANYBODY in the 2nd Century. He has to resort to "he said she said" which is pure hearsay, not admissible as evidence of any sort. Here's the actual blurb from Wiki:

Origen of Alexandria (182-254 AD), in Against Celsus (Book II, Chap. XIV), wrote that Phlegon, in his "Chronicles", mentions Jesus:

Origen: "Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions."

He [Origen] referred to a description by Phlegon of an eclipse accompanied by earthquakes during the reign of Tiberius: that there was

"the greatest eclipse of the sun"

and that

"it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i. e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea."

So what do we have? "Origen writes that Phlegon said that..." and it's just the usual exaggerated supernatural stuff like that coming from the writers of Matthew with "Day of the Dead" zombies marching on Jerusalem.

Pathetic.
Do I have to remind readers of the business omega persistently engages in:

10 Lies Christians *ARE FORCED* To Tell To Defend Their Faith

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

I give you permission o use it about me. It will verify the kind of person you really are better than anything else you can do.

It's not you I need permission from and besides, nobody here needs an explanation about you.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Quite so.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

So what do we have? "Origen writes that Phlegon said that..." and it's just the usual exaggerated supernatural stuff like that coming from the writers of Matthew with "Day of the Dead" zombies marching on Jerusalem.

Pathetic.
Do I have to remind readers of the business omega persistently engages in:

10 Lies Christians *ARE FORCED* To Tell To Defend Their Faith

Although Origen IS quoting parts of Phlegon, he does not mention Jesus in those quotes. Because Phlegon did not mention Jesus. Eusebius actually quoted Phlegon -

“Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (July 31 AD to July 32 AD), a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour (12:00) that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea”.

No mention of Jesus. We also know an solar eclipse occurred in Bithynia in the first year of this Olympiad, in November, 29 AD. And the numbers 1 and 4 look similar in Greek, so the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad is probably a copyist error (or a later 'correction').

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

That is one of the silliest arguments you have in your arsenal---If only one writers mentions something, it can't be true. If they all mentioned it, you would accuse them of plagiarism.

A very Eusebian argument. And repeating yourself. If one writer mentions something very important and the others don't - that is strong evidence that they didn't know about it.

How could that possibly be? The usual excuses are 'they didn't think it important'. The raising of lazarus not important? Really?

Yet i can thing of some apologetic excuses (Not telling - you think of it yoursel). Which is why I prefer John having no transfiguration. He actually passes over (literally) the same events and there is no Transfiguration. That is even stronger than no raising of lazrus - John would have HAD to mention itif it was true.

It isn't on all reason and evidence and so Lazarus is not true and Doubting Thomas is not true and the 'eucharist' in the Synagogue is not true, and Nicodemus is not true and Jesus handing his mother over to Christianity in the form of the Other disciple is not true.

The sermon -lectures are not true and one of the versions of the man with palsy and the healing at a distance (either in Cana or in Capernaum) is not true. Because when some is shown to by lying they don't get credibility for other dubious claims - even if 'eyewitness slips' might otherwise have been half -way acceptable/

The Biggies bring down the smaller ones.

And, if they all confirmed each other in different works (reported speech apart) we'd have a hard job of it.

But they don't. And what's more, there are signs of plagiarism (if you now accept the dictionary definition of what it means) with the same ordering and style of words (not of reported speech) which ought to different if they were not copying. That of course is why we have the 'Synoptics' and John. The first three are copying. John clearly isn't.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

There is no contradiction in John. You just don't put all of the applicable Bible verses together.

Don't be ridiculous. There are only two relevant verses - John says that Thomas was absent and Luke says the '11' were all there. If you have anything at all to explain that, let's hear it.

Le me offer a suggestion. Don't just read the Bible, study it seriously.

I have studied it a lot more 'seriously' than you have. Don't think so? Let me offer you a suggestion - show where I'm wrong. Out - Bible me with chapter and verse - not denial and dismissal - which is all you have done so far.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Your usual MO---pontification with no evidence. Why should I beleive you?

You should believe us on the evidence and reasoning. But of course, you don't - on faith. You either dismiss or deny it or shamelessly cut and paste from websites.

Which is ok in itself, but you castigated me for doing it, and when in fact i hadn't.

But what I meant to say was that convincing you is not the name of the game - it is producing an argument convincing to the lurkers and browsers and indeed the posters here.

They are looking in - 10,000 a day just on my posts alone, and they are watching to see what argument you can make. They will not be impressed by your old Eusebian Denial and 'If I refuse to accept anything you say - I win' type of thinking.

You can always drift away claiming that you won because you simply denied everything, but if you don't do better than that, your case will be lost, nevertheless.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Talk is cheap, do so.






Talk is cheap , do so.









I can't but Wikepedia can. Here is one of heir comments on Tacitus.


"Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. [5] [6] [7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus ."




Since it is about no secular historian mentioning Jesus, you lose. Not only does Taitus mention Jesus, he mentions His resurrection.

That's more like it. In fact Tacitus was the Only example of extra- Biblical confirmation of Jesus. As I recall, he doesn't mention Jesus by name (I'll go and look (1) but only mentions the Christians implying that he is the one they are named after. I'll leave the debate about that aside - and whether it is a Christian interpolation - and instead say that i am prepared to credit it as authentic. And while it is the nearest thing to an Extra -Biblical attestation of Jesus I now think that he isn't saying what he knows as a historian but is just repeating
what the Christian claims were.

The reason why is a point that the excellent Pneuma made - a Roman governor of a province can be either Procurator or prefect acording to whether he is carrying out Fiscal duties or military.

The earliest Judean governors were Prefects (up to Marcellus) and thereafter Procurators. So when Tacitus calls Pilate a procurator he is (as the Pilate inscription shows) incorrect. He is assuming that Judean governors are procurators as in his own day.

This makes his reference not evidence from personal knowledge but 'Hearsay'.

P.s. I think you are mistake. As i recall, Tacitus does NOT refer to the resurrection at all. You may be confusing him with the Flavian testament in Josephus, which does refer to the resurrection.

(1) Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. (Tacitus, annals)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

From the letter by Pliny the Younger ...

NO MENTION OF JESUS!!!!!

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.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Although Origen IS quoting parts of Phlegon, he does not mention Jesus in those quotes. Because Phlegon did not mention Jesus. Eusebius actually quoted Phlegon -

“Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (July 31 AD to July 32 AD), a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour (12:00) that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea”.

No mention of Jesus. We also know an solar eclipse occurred in Bithynia in the first year of this Olympiad, in November, 29 AD. And the numbers 1 and 4 look similar in Greek, so the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad is probably a copyist error (or a later 'correction').

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.

In fact this is a futile effort as the 'darkness' is a miracle not an eclipse, and I believe, is refuted by John who doesn't mention any darkness at all.

Now Omegius will say 'That doesn't prove that it didn't happen'. But when you have already had John's spear -thrust refuted by Luke, and Lazarus tacitly debunked by the Synoptics, the failure to mention a remarkable darkness becomes more than just suspect - it becomes a contradiction.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

That is one of the silliest arguments you have in your arsenal---If only one writers mentions something, it can't be true. If they all mentioned it, you would accuse them of plagiarism.

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?

[phetaroi]

I don't understand why any of us are dialoging with Omega. If he won't even listen to reason about the topic of plagiarism, what makes any of you think he's going to actually participate in an honest dialog about bible content? I've given up. Now I read his posts for amusement and it reminds me to be thankful that I'm now an atheist. He is the best advertisement for atheism I've seen yet on this forum.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I don't understand why any of us are dialoging with Omega. If he won't even listen to reason about the topic of plagiarism, what makes any of you think he's going to actually participate in an honest dialog about bible content? I've given up. Now I read his posts for amusement and it reminds me to be thankful that I'm now an atheist. He is the best advertisement for atheism I've seen yet on this forum.

Others are reading this material was well. It serves to set the record straight.