The testimony of the NT writers

[Subduction Zone]

The key here is to understand that these 'stories' are all written decades post the D/R, and present the faith of the early Christians and how to relate this faith to future generations. And they did so by applying to Jesus what they interpreted to be messianic texts from Scripture. Its not really a question of 'right or wrong' but through faith its a question of a literary style predominant of the time.

When I say "right or wrong" I mean in the context of the Bible being able to be interpreted literally. The message of Christianity seems to work better in a non-literal translation of the Bible. Some people have an overly simple approach to the Bible. They have to believe in Bible that is word for word accurate. They believe the words, but far too often they do not follow the message.

 

[Kenny]

But he didn't make a mistake. He rejected the claim that Jesus' body would be treated differently because the Gospels claim a man named Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body. More hearsay. A reason also needs to be provided for why that request would be respected. Who was Joseph to Pilate? How would he even get an audience with Pilate? Where is Aramathea, and how is that identification of a person? Did only one Joseph come from there? Bob of Chicago thinks not. Mark of Long Beach said so in a letter.

Those are good questions. Whether hearsay or not is a matter of public interpretation.

This is mythogenesis (mythopoeia).

you haven't established that.

Look at the stories of Jesus in the Gospels that didn't make canon

Because they were mythhopoeia? Heresy or other reasons? Critical thinking?

That doesn't matter at all to the critical thinker. All that matters is how they came to a particular conclusion, and whether their belief is justified by critical analysis.

No argument here

Yes, but what you keep failing to note is that there is only one way to come to sound conclusions using any given evidence, and other beliefs arrived at by other paths don't matter to the empiricist. Not all opinions are equal. Do you think otherwise? If you do - and I believe that many do - then you unaware of what critical thinking is and what it can do. Such people are apparently unaware that a process exists which generates answers that are correct and that can be known to be correct by those able to evaluate arguments for soundness. The evidence for this is everywhere. We see it in these threads whenever we read, "That's just your opinion" in response to such a conclusion. It's as outrageous as a student who hasn't learned what arithmetic is and can do rejecting the output of an addition problem from a skilled and accurate adder with the same hand waving dismissal.

Now, IMV, there are multiple issues with your viewpoint.
1) You are intimating that if one comes to a different conclusion to a critical thinker, it is because the other isn't a critical thinker. Sounds more like thought control. Almost as if you are saying "You are the qualifier of who is a critical thinker and who is not"
2) That somehow your "addition" is better that the other when dealing with things that happened 2000 years ago
3) It also seems like you are waving a hand of dismissal to all that was written in those times.

So I would have to say that you are just offering your personal opinion?

 

[Kenny]

Go on.

You didn't answer the question. I'm waiting so that I can answer yours.

 

[lukethethird]

You didn't answer the question. I'm waiting so that I can answer yours.

Let's back up then. Matthew and Luke copied Mark, they are not attestations to witnesses as you falsely claimed.

 

[Kenny]

Let's back up then. Matthew and Luke copied Mark, they are not attestations to witnesses as you falsely claimed.

Then I would wholeheartedly disagree because the gave more information that attests to the fact they were there. If they would have "just copied" - nothing would have been added

 

[lukethethird]

Then I would wholeheartedly disagree because the gave more information that attests to the fact they were there. If they would have "just copied" - nothing would have been added

So you believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then I would wholeheartedly disagree because the gave more information that attests to the fact they were there. If they would have "just copied" - nothing would have been added

Sorry, but your conclusion does not logically follow from the claim. They did plagiarize a good amount of their work. Some of it is word for word It is rather odd that a supposed "eye-witness" would find it necessary for a word for word copying of another person's work. A person that is doing some of his own work could still be a plagiarist. And doing your own work does not mean that one is n eyewitness either. The author of Luke (almost certainly not Luke himself) tells you that he did not go to eyewitnesses. His claim is that his sources had it handed down by eyewitnesses. That is not eyewitness testimony. You have yet to provide any evidence for why any of the gospels should be considered eyewitness testimony. Need I remind you that we are not having a discussion on interpretation, we are having a discussion on history. Or you could just continue to claim by the sources that you do use that the Bible is not supported by history.

 

[Kenny]

Let's back up then. Matthew and Luke copied Mark, they are not attestations to witnesses as you falsely claimed.

that isn't what I said... was it?

Is it your custom to give twisted and false statements?

 

[Kenny]

Sorry, but your conclusion does not logically follow from the claim. They did plagiarize a good amount of their work.

As one who is trying to apply western thought to eastern thought and customs...

Can you give me a history of when the concept of plagiarizing started?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As one who is trying to apply western thought to eastern thought and customs...

Can you give me a history of when the concept of plagiarizing started?

No, I can't. Why would it matter? Just trying to put the concept down as "western thought" is not a refutation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are intimating that if one comes to a different conclusion to a critical thinker, it is because the other isn't a critical thinker.

Yes, I am, assuming the critical thinker didn't make any mistakes.

If one comes to an unsound conclusion, his thinking wasn't critical. There's no wiggle room in critical thinking when it comes to logical fallacy. If each step in your reasoning is a valid inference, your conclusion will be valid. And if it begins with evidence rather than premises, it will also be sound.

It exactly analogous to arithmetic. If one comes to an incorrect sum, his addition contained at least one error in reasoning (fallacy).

Sounds more like thought control. Almost as if you are saying "You are the qualifier of who is a critical thinker and who is not"

The community of critical thinkers decides that. There is a consensus there. You can call it thought control, but it's not an attempt at controlling the thoughts of others. One is attempting to control his own thinking. One can call it thought quality control.

That somehow your "addition" is better that the other when dealing with things that happened 2000 years ago

Yes. If somebody's reasoning was fallacious in the first century, it still is. If it was valid then, it still is. The laws of reason are immutable.

It also seems like you are waving a hand of dismissal to all that was written in those times.

My standards are the same for what was written then as for what is written now. If the Gospels were written this week, they would still be subject to the same criticisms. The Baha'i have newer revelations than Christian scripture, but critical thinkers subject them to the same standards. It's not about when it was written. It's about the quality of the evidence and argument.

I would have to say that you are just offering your personal opinion?

Opinions based in things hoped for but not seen are only that. Justified opinions are more. They are considered provisionally correct unless falsified, like the theory of evolution, which is also more than just an opinion.

Then I would wholeheartedly disagree because the gave more information that attests to the fact they were there. If they would have "just copied" - nothing would have been added

Whether they were there or not doesn't mean that they didn't embellish or synthesize various reports. What was added was likely also copied, but not from Mark. You've no doubt seen this. Here, the dark blue is sometimes called the Q-document (material in Luke and Matthew but not in Mark), the turquoise thought to come from an L-source (in Luke only), and the green from an M-source (in Matthew only). This is how stories become embellished over time:

 

[lukethethird]

that isn't what I said... was it?

Is it your custom to give twisted and false statements?

Now you are stating that you never claimed Matthew and Luke were witnesses?

 

[Kenny]

No, I can't. Why would it matter? Just trying to put the concept down as "western thought" is not a refutation.

Then you should learn, grasshopper.

 

[Kenny]

Now you are stating that you never claimed Matthew and Luke were witnesses?

Can you find where I said that too? Oh, twisting words one.

 

[lukethethird]

Then I would wholeheartedly disagree because the gave more information that attests to the fact they were there. If they would have "just copied" - nothing would have been added

The unknown author of Matthew added more than fifty direct citations from the Old Testament. Claiming that Matthew added to what he copied from Mark means he was a witness is as good as lying to ourselves. As Christians we have been lied to almost from the beginning and making excuses and lying to ourselves serves no one.

 

[lukethethird]

Can you find where I said that too? Oh, twisting words one.

"then I would wholeheartedly disagree because the gave more information that attests to the fact they were there. If they would have "just copied" - nothing would have been added"

"they were there"

Need I pull up more of your quotes?

 

[Kenny]

Yes, I am, assuming the critical thinker didn't make any mistakes.

.

Exactly... and you haven't proved you are free of mistakes (as in the last statement)

he community of critical thinkers decides that. There is a consensus there. You can call it thought control, but it's not an attempt at controlling the thoughts of others. One is attempting to control his own thinking. One can call it thought quality control.

No... this isn't a democratic position of who is "a good critical thinker" and who is not. Your appeal to authority isn't working with me.

Yes. If somebody's reasoning was fallacious in the first century, it still is. If it was valid then, it still is. The laws of reason are immutable.

And if someone's reasoning in the first century is correct and your reasoning is fallacious... then it is still fallacious.

My standards are the same for what was written then as for what is written now. If the Gospels were written this week, they would still be subject to the same criticisms. The Baha'i have newer revelations than Christian scripture, but critical thinkers subject them to the same standards. It's not about when it was written. It's about the quality of the evidence and argument.

We aren't talking about Bahai - another fallacy

Opinions based in things hoped for but not seen are only that. Justified opinions are more. They are considered provisionally correct unless falsified, like the theory of evolution, which is also more than just an opinion.

We aren't talking about evolution. Yours is still an opinion of things hoped for as below

Here, the dark blue is sometimes called the Q-document

Show me ONE document that shows the embellishment to support your position.

 

[Kenny]

The unknown author of Matthew added more than fifty direct citations from the Old Testament. Claiming that Matthew added to what he copied from Mark means he was a witness is as good as lying to ourselves. As Christians we have been lied to almost from the beginning and making excuses and lying to ourselves serves no one.

opinion.

 

[Kenny]

"then I would wholeheartedly disagree because the gave more information that attests to the fact they were there. If they would have "just copied" - nothing would have been added"

"they were there"

Need I pull up more of your quotes?

Did I ever say they weren't? You must of misinterpreted what I said.

 

[Kenny]

It is so interesting how atheist et al come out of the woodwork to try to disprove what they don't believe in.

Me thinks thou protest too much.