Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
haven't I?
Archaeology of the New Testament
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
It raises questions about the reliability of your claims, when they are wildly different from the established facts.
You claimed nobody wrote anything about Jesus until 40 to 90 years later. Paul knew the eyewitness Peter, James, John, and in Corinthians Paul references an older Christian creed that corroborates the death and resurrection of Jesus which he obviously leaned from the apostles. This means we have a very early confirmation of the Christian belief in the resurrection that goes all the way back to the earliest days of the Church in Jerusalem in the 30s or 40s AD. That's only shortly after Jesus was crucified.
Accounts that are written/dictated by eyewitnesses, or written down by their students. Mark, Luke, Paul, Matthew, John, Clement.
What's an example of massive incompatibility that points to massive confusion on the part of the canonical authors? All the discrepancies I am aware of do not change the basic facts fundamental tenets of Christian belief and practice.
Any police detective will tell you there will be differences and discrepancies in witness accounts.
I would be very suspicious of the canon if there weren't discrepancies and they matched up perfectly.
Good, so you finally agree with me that the disciples of Jesus genuinely believe they saw him again after the crucifixion. You no longer believe they just sat around with bottles of wine and lied their asses off in fabricating a fake story.
No you haven't, if you were unaware that Acts and the Epistles describe the lashings, beatings, stonings, shipwrecks Paul endured as he carried out his ministry.
ZenMode
Well-known member
We've been through this several times....
First, if it's true that Jesus disciples believed they saw Jesus after his death, that doesn't mean they actually saw him after his death.
Second, since the gospel writers, who lived in other countries and very likely never met the disciples or met anyone who met any who met anyone who met a disciple, they're either a) working off of 10th hand information or simply making up things that sound good, like Matthew made up the story of the virgin birth because he wanted Jesus birth to fulfill OT prophecy.
I've never said they "lied their asses off". I did say, because there's reasons to believe it, they they made up some events or the details of some events.
Matthew misunderstood an OT verse and as a result, made up a story about Mary being a virgin. The story about the census was very likely made up.
I can go on and on.....
I never said anything of the sort.
We'll never know what the truth is. All an intelligent person can do is decide what is the best explanation which fits the evidence. If you think the apostles all simultaneously had mass hallucinations, I can't prove you wrong. I just question how good of an explanation that really is.
I am just making sure you abandon the claim that the apostles lied their asses off and made up a fake story so they could acquire money, fame, and chicks.
False. Who told you they lived in other countries and never met the apostles? That sounds like guesswork to me.
The strongest available evidence points to the fact that Luke and Mark were assistants to Paul and Peter, and that the apostles John and Matthew were known to have authored or dictated gospels.
Yes, your entire argument basically invokes the argument they they're all lying their asses off or just making stuff up.
I don't think it's a convincing argument to claim everyone is lying their asses off.
Last edited:
ZenMode
Well-known member
Well, Matthew lived in Syria. I don't recall where the others lived.
There may have been assistants to Paul named Luke and Mark. That doesn't mean they are the ones who wrote the books named after them.
Nowhere in Matthew, Mark or Luke does the writer say they are Matthew, Mark or Luke. The titles of the books were added after the fact, not by the authors. In fact, they books are written in the 3rd person. The author isn't saying "I" did this or "we" did that, which you would expect if there was first hand knowledge.
I've never said anyone is lying their asses off. Why do you keep saying I did?
There is clear evidence that some of them made up stories because you have stories that both can't be true and/or simply don't make sense, like the story of the census as the reason Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem.
What's your source on that? The apostle Matthew was from Capernium in Galilee, and the first century Bishop Pappias said he was told by associates of the apostles that Matthew authored a gospel in Hebrew. The only question is whether or how his Hebrew gospel was translated into Greek.
The first century Bishop Pappias claims he was told by associates of the apostles that Mark was a secretary to Peter and wrote a gospel based on Peter's teachings.
It's irrational to believe that early church fathers would have named two canonical gospels after two low-ranking obscure Christians who didn't even know Jesus, unless it were true. If the goal was to make a splash with gospel accounts that seemed authoritative and utterly reliable, they would have named them after actual apostles like Andrew, Phillip, or James.
Obviously the gospels are not strictly historical biography as we are accustomed to. Historical biography did not exist as a literary genre on the ancient Near East.
The gospels are clearly literature that encompasses allegory, parable, hyperbole, theology, and some historical narrative.
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
am I unaware of that?
You implied the biographical details of Paul's life I mentioned were "made up"
ZenMode
Well-known member
The question of where Matthew lived and where the writer of the book of Matthew lived are two separate questions.
Though dating the Gospel maybe difficult or complicated, it is even more problematic to determine where Matthew wrote the Gospel. Most scholars conclude that Matthew was written in either Palestine or Syria because of its Jewish nature. Antioch of Syria is usually the most favoured because many in the early church dispersed there (Acts 11:19, 27). Another reason for favouring Antioch is that the earliest reference to Matthew's Gospel was found in Ignatius' (the Bishop of Antioch) Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (ca. 110).
Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew - Study Resources
The Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew approx. 50-100 A.D. to the Jews. '...he focuses on the fulfillment of the Old Testament' quoting from it 62 times
www.blueletterbible.org
Ok. I tend to believe the opinion of experts studying the topic today.
Like with the writers of the Gospels, many people had an agenda and one agenda could be giving legitimacy to a writing by attributing it to someone close to Jesus, Paul, etc.
Which is why we should trust the experts who study the topic today.
You forgot fairytales. There's no reason, for example, to believe the census, that had Mary and Joseph traveling to Bethlehem, ever happened.
Last edited:
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
you had yet to present your argument at that point.You implied the biographical details of Paul's life I mentioned were "made up"
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
The only thing worth saving is the golden rule; it's the sum of the law and the prophets.
If you are agreeing that the author was actually Matthew, I don't see why you think it's significant that he wrote it in Syria. The whole Levant was under Roman control, and people could travel from Galilee to Judah, to Lebanon, to Sidon, to Syria, to Asia Minor, to Greece.
Even an expert like atheist Bart Ehrman has written that Bishop Pappas confirmation that Mark and Matthew wrote gospels is solid circumstantial evidence which has to be taken seriously, though it can't be considered definitive.
First you have to explain what evidence you have that Bishop Pappias is either lying or mistaken that Mark and Matthew wrote gospels.
Then you have to give evidence that Bishop Iraneus is lying or mistaken that the apostle John's disciple Polycarp told him that John authored/dictated a gospel.
Then after you prove that somehow everyone is lying, you have to provide alternate evidence that people in the first century knew that the authorship of the gospels were faked, and they were actually write by random obscure people at least ten steps removed from anyone associated with Jesus' ministry.
So far you have just been making claims and guesses without providing any evidence
You don't have to believe in the virgin birth, that the book of Job is a historical biography, or that Genesis 1 is a scientific report to be a Christian. I have no doubt there is hyperbole, exaggeration, myth, and theological agenda in the gospels. Ancient people used myth, hyperbole, allegory all the time to frame certain truths.