The testimony of the NT writers

[Kenny]

No. What I said was, "People who haven't learned to argue without fallacy don't have a vote in the community of critical thinkers who can. I often make the same point when creationists tell me that there is dissent in their camp with the community of evolutionary scientists. So what if they dissent? They don't get a vote. Neither do other lay people including those who happen to agree with the consensus of qualified opinions."

What that means is that one needs to demonstrate expertise in various areas before their opinions that contradict those who are proficient in them carry any weight. Isn't that also your own standard when discussing biblical matters? Certain mistakes would disqualify all other opinions on the same topic, such as thinking that the original documents were written in English. At that point, you stop taking such a person and his opinions on the matter seriously.

Ok... basically I can agree with that.

OK. But so what? You commonly commit logical fallacies. Your criticism of critical thinking lacks standing.

"commonly". That is a big statement with no supportive documentation. The rest is poor opinion for it also lacks evidence.

Perhaps you also have been accused of logical fallacies?

Yes, I know. Are you implying that you made a claim and I refuted something else? If so, what was the claim and where is it (post number)? I'd like to review it and my response. And if you can't do that, isn't it you that's introducing the straw man here?

At this point... I think it is irrelevant to the real issues not to mention I don't want to go down that path - for time sake.

Again, so what? Also, with these alternate sources for Matthew and Luke, we don't know that they didn't just make it up themselves when text in their Gospels appears nowhere else. And even if they didn't, we would have no way of corroborating most of those claims.

So, I must accept your position because there isn't (in your opinion) enough evidence? Watch out for the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

PS... I have never said "you have to accept my position". What I have said is simply the next generation who knew the writers accepted the authors of the same. I also have said that in those days, building your position off the foundation of another valid position was customary.

It may not convince you (which is fine) - but I am satisfied.

No, it doesn't. In fact, it tends to argue against that.

Opinion - As you could say mine is too.

Once again, that is not my conclusion. That's only one possibility.

I completely agree - no argument here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Plagiarism:
THE PRACTICE BEFORE THE 17TH CENTURY

Until the seventeenth century writers did not think twice about borrowing passages or themes from one another. As Thomas Mallon points out, the classical view prevailed. As iterated by Aristotle:"Imitation is natural to man from childhood [and] the first things that he learns come to him through imitation." No one, in other words, bothered with footnotes.

569

You can't use modern western thought on eastern 1 century culture and thought.

So what? How does that help you? The fact that there was plagiarism may not indicate that they were dishonest. No one has said that. What it tells us was that neither Luke or Matthew were eyewitnesses because actual eyewitnesses would give their own version to those key events that they copied word for word.

Your use of the argument "but the attitude towards plagiarism changed" is a red herring.

T

 

[Subduction Zone]

So Matthew witnessed the following?

50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Matthew was quite the witness and you are sure about that?

Yep, the zombie apocalypse, oddly enough not noticed by anyone else.

 

[Kenny]

Hinduism and Buddhism influence eastern thought. Judaism and Christianity influence western thought.

"influence" is not the same as "Eastern thought". Middle Eastern thought is still considered "Eastern". IMV

 

[Kenny]

So what? How does that help you? The fact that there was plagiarism may not indicate that they were dishonest. No one has said that. What it tells us was that neither Luke or Matthew were eyewitnesses because actual eyewitnesses would give their own version to those key events that they copied word for word.

Your use of the argument "but the attitude towards plagiarism changed" is a red herring.

T

you are irrelevant. IMHV

 

[Kenny]

Citations please. How is it possible that the gospel writers were witnesses? Please explain this.

you completely lost me within the history of what I have said and presented.

I certainly don't want to go on a merry-go-round with each plethora of the atheists that are adamant to prove that what they don't believe in the first place is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You committed the ad hominem fallacy of attacking the messenger instead of dealing with the issue that was talked about.

It is why I place you in the "Irrelevant" category.

Nope, that is not an ad hominem. Look it up. The fact that one has to agree to a statement of faith is very relevant when one is talking about the reliability of a source. Now I may shorten it to Liars for Jesus, because from my experience that can be demonstrated time after time, but your source once again required that authors agree to a statement of faith.


Try to reason critically and honestly. If the Bible is true there would be no need for a statement of faith. The evidence would support them. Why even require that? When a site requires that they are shooting themselves in the foot as a reliable source.

No peer reviewed source makes such an amateur error. To publish in a biology journal you do not have to swear by Darwin. In fact if one could support one's claims with valid evidence that Darwin was wrong it would be a sought after article. The journal that first refuted Darwin would get huge prestige for such an event. But if Darwin was essentially right that will not happen. And journals will not force people to agree to that ahead of time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you are irrelevant. IMHV

You may think that. But you are demonstrably wrong again.

 

[Kenny]

Nope, that is not an ad hominem. Look it up. The fact that one has to agree to a statement of faith is very relevant when one is talking about the reliability of a source. Now I may shorten it to Liars for Jesus, because from my experience that can be demonstrated time after time, but your source once again required that authors agree to a statement of faith.


Try to reason critically and honestly. If the Bible is true there would be no need for a statement of faith. The evidence would support them. Why even require that? When a site requires that they are shooting themselves in the foot as a reliable source.

No peer reviewed source makes such an amateur error. To publish in a biology journal you do not have to swear by Darwin. In fact if one could support one's claims with valid evidence that Darwin was wrong it would be a sought after article. The journal that first refuted Darwin would get huge prestige for such an event. But if Darwin was essentially right that will not happen. And journals will not force people to agree to that ahead of time.

#625

 

[Kenny]

You may think that. But you are demonstrably wrong again.

you are still
#625

 

[Subduction Zone]

you completely lost me within the history of what I have said and presented.

I certainly don't want to go on a merry-go-round with each plethora of the atheists that are adamant to prove that what they don't believe in the first place is wrong.

Your general claim is that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew and that Matthew was a witness. The same goes for Mark and John. He is asking you to support those claims.

By the way, apologist sites will probably not fly with him either. A statement of faith makes a site too biased to use.

 

[Subduction Zone]

#625

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you are still
#625

Thank you for continuing to admit that you are wrong.

I know, it sucks when you cannot find a decent argument to support your beliefs. When the only sources that you can find are fatally biased.

I do have some bias. But my bias pales compared to yours. I am willing to consider that I could be wrong. That is why I check out the sources that others use. I do not just read the articles, I also check to see if they sources are reliable or not. Do you even read the sources that refute you? You never seem to have an answer for their arguments.

 

[lukethethird]

you completely lost me within the history of what I have said and presented.

I certainly don't want to go on a merry-go-round with each plethora of the atheists that are adamant to prove that what they don't believe in the first place is wrong.

You make unsubstantiated claims such as, Matthew was a witness, and now you can't support it which is why I say you make unsubstantiated claims. How do you like that merry-go-round?

You have presented your faith belief which has nothing to do with history that you falsely claim to have presented.

 

[lukethethird]

"influence" is not the same as "Eastern thought". Middle Eastern thought is still considered "Eastern". IMV

Influence determines the makeup of thought.

Middle Eastern thought is still considered "Eastern".

Tell that to a Hindu or a Buddhist.

 

[Kenny]

Thank you for continuing to admit that you are wrong.

I know, it sucks when you cannot find a decent argument to support your beliefs. When the only sources that you can find are fatally biased.

I do have some bias. But my bias pales compared to yours. I am willing to consider that I could be wrong. That is why I check out the sources that others use. I do not just read the articles, I also check to see if they sources are reliable or not. Do you even read the sources that refute you? You never seem to have an answer for their arguments.

If that makes you happy.

 

[Kenny]

You make unsubstantiated claims such as, Matthew was a witness, and now you can't support it which is why I say you make unsubstantiated claims. How do you like that merry-go-round?

You have presented your faith belief which has nothing to do with history that you falsely claim to have presented.

I have covered that before.

I get tired of going over the presented argument again and again when you can just google it and see it for yourself.

It was substantiated with website and logical application of what evidence we do have.

Of course you can view it differently, but your view hasn't presented enough evidence to invalidate what I have given.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that makes you happy.

It does not make me "happy". It just means that I am far more likely to be correct than you are.

If someone could only support the existence of the Tooth Fairy by referring to sites where one has to swear that the Tooth Fairy was real and the opponent only sites based upon observations which one would be more likely to be correct? Sites that support a person no matter what are worthless. I used to argue against AGW years and years ago. I never used the Kool Aid sites. I would get my ideas from scientists that were deniers and would use the peer reviewed papers that they cited. The problem was that those papers could be refuted. You use sites that only make claims. They do not provide evidence. There is no "there" there. And to make it worse they have to swear to ignore the evidence to the contrary.


That is conspiracy theorist territory that you are entering.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have covered that before.

I get tired of going over the presented argument again and again when you can just google it and see it for yourself.

It was substantiated with website and logical application of what evidence we do have.

Of course you can view it differently, but your view hasn't presented enough evidence to invalidate what I have given.

When one Googles it one finds to the contrary. That is the problem. We went over this a long time ago. All you had were apologist sites.

Can you find sites that are based upon history? Not ones where one has to swear a statement of faith?

 

[Kenny]

Influence determines the makeup of thought.

Middle Eastern thought is still considered "Eastern".

Tell that to a Hindu or a Buddhist.

And that is the evidence of your position?

Are you saying that "Middle Eastern thought" is western thought? Tell that to a Muslim.