Science standards under threat in Arizona

[BilliardsBall]

Writing about one's beliefs while facing persecution doesn't make one's beliefs true though, does it?

What motivated 12 ANE Jews, facing persecution from their people and death from Rome?

 

[BilliardsBall]

So? Those millions of other Christians could be wrong. Or vice versa. Who knows?


Uh huh. The inquisitors and the Westboro Baptist Church believe(d) the same thing. Muslims believe they're worshiping the "right" God. Hindus believe they're worshiping the "right" gods. And on and on.

The point is, how can we determine who is actually right (or wrong)?

You're right, no one can possibly define terms regarding anything at all. Good work.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Irrelevant to the point of discussion.

How about answering the relevant questions from my post, please.

And if you can't back up the claim about 500 people being witness to an event, why do you keep making it over and over?

I wasn't present, but over a dozen NT writers write regarding the resurrection--why I prompted you regarding my other question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What motivated 12 ANE Jews, facing persecution from their people and death from Rome?

I don't know.
You didn't answer my question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're right, no one can possibly define terms regarding anything at all. Good work.

I didn't say that.
Are we back to this again? Can you respond to what I said?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I wasn't present, but over a dozen NT writers write regarding the resurrection--why I prompted you regarding my other question.

Why say 500 when you actually mean 12?

 

[gnostic]

That would be true, except 12 NT writers represent a collection of witnesses/documents. Would you need to hear more than 12 witnesses in a criminal trial?

Good grief.

You know very well that Paul cannot be counted as witness to anything that Jesus did in his ministry. And that some of epistles that were attributed, post-dated his demise.

And you should know that all 4 gospels were originally written anonymously, and 4 names that were attributed (ie Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) to the respective gospels, were only known from the early to mid-2nd century CE.

The gospel of Mark may well be the earliest, written some times between 65 and 75, but Matthew and Luke were written in between 80 and 90, and John in between 90 and 100.

And I find it rather fishy that two of the gospels provided two very different versions of Jesus’ birth. Surely unknown authors couldn’t be eye-witnesses to Jesus’ birth. The only thing in the birth myth to be probably true is that Jesus was probably born in Bethlehem, but the stories and details behind it were all fictional.

And I do find it suspicious that any of the author had privileged access to Herod’s or to his Herod Antipas’ palaces, so how would any of the authors know what being said? How do anyone know what happened with John Baptist in Antipas’ palace?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Good grief.

You know very well that Paul cannot be counted as witness to anything that Jesus did in his ministry. And that some of epistles that were attributed, post-dated his demise.

And you should know that all 4 gospels were originally written anonymously, and 4 names that were attributed (ie Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) to the respective gospels, were only known from the early to mid-2nd century CE.

The gospel of Mark may well be the earliest, written some times between 65 and 75, but Matthew and Luke were written in between 80 and 90, and John in between 90 and 100.

And I find it rather fishy that two of the gospels provided two very different versions of Jesus’ birth. Surely unknown authors couldn’t be eye-witnesses to Jesus’ birth. The only thing in the birth myth to be probably true is that Jesus was probably born in Bethlehem, but the stories and details behind it were all fictional.

And I do find it suspicious that any of the author had privileged access to Herod’s or to his Herod Antipas’ palaces, so how would any of the authors know what being said? How do anyone know what happened with John Baptist in Antipas’ palace?

Your dates are overly late, like your Flood date, and your remarks are disbelieved by conservative and liberal authors alike.

What is most concerning is your lack of imagination (willful?). Luke says he interviewed eyewitnesses extensively. Paul addressed people in palaces who were believers. There were people in sinful Herod's circle who testified of the Christ. Why not you?

 

[gnostic]

Your dates are overly late, like your Flood date, and your remarks are disbelieved by conservative and liberal authors alike.

What is most concerning is your lack of imagination (willful?). Luke says he interviewed eyewitnesses extensively. Paul addressed people in palaces who were believers. There were people in sinful Herod's circle who testified of the Christ. Why not you?

Judging by the gospel of Matthew, the birth story seemed to be fromthe point of view of Joseph, as Luke’s gospel seemingly to be in Mary’s view?

Joseph seemed to be still alive, when Jesus was 12, but after that he was never seen in any of the other gospels.

All indications seem that Joseph died years before Jesus started his ministry, so how would the author interview Jesus’ father, who has been long dead?

And did Paul interview Herod the Great before his death?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Judging by the gospel of Matthew, the birth story seemed to be fromthe point of view of Joseph, as Luke’s gospel seemingly to be in Mary’s view?

Joseph seemed to be still alive, when Jesus was 12, but after that he was never seen in any of the other gospels.

All indications seem that Joseph died years before Jesus started his ministry, so how would the author interview Jesus’ father, who has been long dead?

And did Paul interview Herod the Great before his death?

Speaking as a Jew, I can tell you that we keep genealogical records. They are still kept by many, to show authority and lineage.

Paul worked on several texts with Luke, Luke who was a careful recipient of testimony.

 

[Audie]

I don't know.
You didn't answer my question.

Maybe the same thing that got the early Mormons
to do the same.
Hey, they were willing to swear before god that
they saw the gold books. If someone else
says they saw a zombie, fine. We have those
who say they were abducted by aliens, too.

We dont do "There must be flying saucers,
else, why would anyone risk his reputation
by saying he rode in one?"

 

[gnostic]

Speaking as a Jew, I can tell you that we keep genealogical records. They are still kept by many, to show authority and lineage.

Paul worked on several texts with Luke, Luke who was a careful recipient of testimony.

But you still don’t get it.

The author is unknown, and the name “Luke” was only ascribed or attributed to the gospel by the church of the 2nd century CE.

It is highly probable that the author never met Jesus, let alone witnessed Jesus’ birth and ministry, and the author would have only heard the story from another source, as did the other authors of the other gospels. hence, based on hearsay from 2nd or 3rd person.

You are basing the author on 2nd century church tradition, which are highly unreliable.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But you still don’t get it.

The author is unknown, and the name “Luke” was only ascribed or attributed to the gospel by the church of the 2nd century CE.

It is highly probable that the author never met Jesus, let alone witnessed Jesus’ birth and ministry, and the author would have only heard the story from another source, as did the other authors of the other gospels. hence, based on hearsay from 2nd or 3rd person.

You are basing the author on 2nd century church tradition, which are highly unreliable.

The author called Luke cites his rationale and rubric in the first few sentences of his gospel, rigorous interviews with eyewitnesses. He has 11 other NT authors who support his testimony.

 

[Sapiens]

The author called Luke cites his rationale and rubric in the first few sentences of his gospel, rigorous interviews with eyewitnesses. He has 11 other NT authors who support his testimony.

You can say it as often as you like but that just does not make it so. Eyewitnesses? Balderdash!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The author called Luke cites his rationale and rubric in the first few sentences of his gospel, rigorous interviews with eyewitnesses. He has 11 other NT authors who support his testimony.

Where does the book say that the author's name was Luke?

 

[Audie]

You can say it as often as you like but that just does not make it so. Eyewitnesses? Balderdash!

The Book of Mormon has sworn testimony
of eyewitnesses.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Where does the book say that the author's name was Luke?

I'm using Luke to denote which synoptic we're discussing. Whoever wrote "Luke" describes his rubric, to begin his account.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You can say it as often as you like but that just does not make it so. Eyewitnesses? Balderdash!

Since all scholars, including the ultra-liberal Jesus Seminar group, say universally that the NT was completed before the close of the 1st century, what is your evidence that the writers were from a different time period, not Jewish, not subject to Jewish scrutiny (there was no miracle worker here in Jerusalem, away with you!) and etc.?

"Balderdash" is not counter evidence or an argument, really. Please post your evidence here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm using Luke to denote which synoptic we're discussing. Whoever wrote "Luke" describes his rubric, to begin his account.

It would be nice if you made that clearer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since all scholars, including the ultra-liberal Jesus Seminar group, say universally that the NT was completed before the close of the 1st century, what is your evidence that the writers were from a different time period, not Jewish, not subject to Jewish scrutiny (there was no miracle worker here in Jerusalem, away with you!) and etc.?

"Balderdash" is not counter evidence or an argument, really. Please post your evidence here.

What? That is not the case. You might mean 2nd century. In case you forgot the first century spans from 1 CE to 100 CE. The second century from 101 CE to 200 CE. Side note, the year for the big New Year's celebration should have been from 2,000 to 2,001 since that was when the new millennium began.

"All the works that eventually became incorporated into the New Testament are believed to have been written no later than around 120 AD."

New Testament - Wikipedia

120 CE is a second century date. Though some scholars do think that it was completed as early as 96 CE.