Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Cerebrum123]

It seems to me that the question and debate surrounding the date of composition for the gospels and other books of the Bible could have been easily avoided by an All Powerful God, had the books been written in stone, or had the original manuscripts preserved somehow.

I can think of several ways that the Words of God could have better been delivered so that everyone could Know, or have better evidence for the Bible really being God's Message to mankind. This wasn't done. Instead, we have several books that we aren't sure who wrote them, not sure when they were written, and several others that appear to have been tampered with and edited.

Mere men can and have made things in stone that have lasted through the ages, but God wasn't interested in doing that? God wants all to be saved and doesn't want any to perish, but didn't want to go through the hassle of writing his own words in stone, so that we would always have the originals, or better yet, just reveal himself to all of his beloved creation, and instead decided to have men (many of which are unknown) write down some stuff on his behalf, that at the very least appears to have some issues and at least appears to have been edited?

But, this is just something that sticks out to me.

Actually, there is a good argument for why we don't have that here.

To sum up a major point, people are already prone to worshiping the created rather than the Creator, so such things as self correcting manuscripts*, or an original version would lead to more of this. There is a lot more to it than that in the article though.

* I know you didn't suggest this yourself, but I've seen similar suggestions before.

[William]

First of all..."council." Not "counsel".

Second, no...there was no council "set by Constantine" to do this. The most that can be said of his role is that he put a kibosh on canon development by ordering that 50 copies of the New Testament be made. Once that happened, it would be hard to add or subtract from what was copied. But that doesn't mean he chose the books or even had any idea what they were. He was a military grunt, not a theologian. He was more likely to use a copy of Luke to wipe mustard off his sleeve than he was to recognize it as Luke's Gospel.

Third, don't EVER rely on Google for information like this. Use real scholars. Like this one.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0800637909/

Okay?

thanks for correcting my poor spelling. You must stay busy with such things on internet threads. Kudos for your desire for accuracy. I'll try to do better.

Regrading the council of Nicea and Constantine, you appear to be correct. I apologize again for another mistake. It looks like the canon was decided upon in Carthage near 397AD - if this is another error, i await your correction. I plan on looking into this in more detail when I have time, as it seems there is much I have forgotten. I was once a history major in college, but that was a long time ago and before I moved toward engineering. Either way, there were more books in circulation, with different congregations ad groups holding onto some different ones, despite having several in common - until it was canonized, so while my details appear to have been wrong, that major detail and point still remains.

And I didn't even use google for my previous mistakes - they were just failures of memory. It happens... like it could have happened to the Gospel writers, if the Gospels were even written by their namesakes. I realize I should take the time to research and double check every point before I post it, but i dont for a few reasons:

1) I'm busy like everyone else, and typically rush through a comment before returning to work. I'm self employed, so I'm not robbing anyone, if you were concerned.
2) I view these as conversation, and people don't typically cite every little point in conversations. If this is sore spot for you, I can only try to do better in the future.

but let me add something about google - it's not the problem is it? The problem with the internet is identifying credible sources. Google is capable of displaying scholarly works.

Is there a particular library you prefer, if not Google?

[William]

Actually, there is a good argument for why we don't have that here.

To sum up a major point, people are already prone to worshiping the created rather than the Creator, so such things as self correcting manuscripts*, or an original version would lead to more of this. There is a lot more to it than that in the article though.

* I know you didn't suggest this yourself, but I've seen similar suggestions before.

I may have read this issue from somewhere, or it may just be an obvious issue.

I guess you're right thought, except that the bible has God commanding certain artifacts to be made for worship like the 10 commandments, the Ark of the Covenant, the Altar, the candle sticks, etc, etc... and then of course, creation... but yeah, people worshiping God's Word is probably worse than them not believing what we do have, which is a book that boil down to claims of men.

having the original, and knowing when it was actually written is worse that the copies we have today... some people practically worship their bibles as it is now, while others argue over when it was written who wrote it, and whether God had anything to do with it...

I guess I find the excuse to be reaching, but I could be mistaken.

[Gary]

It seems to me that the question and debate surrounding the date of composition for the gospels and other books of the Bible could have been easily avoided by an All Powerful God, had the books been written in stone, or had the original manuscripts preserved somehow.

I can think of several ways that the Words of God could have better been delivered so that everyone could Know, or have better evidence for the Bible really being God's Message to mankind. This wasn't done. Instead, we have several books that we aren't sure who wrote them, not sure when they were written, and several others that appear to have been tampered with and edited.

Mere men can and have made things in stone that have lasted through the ages, but God wasn't interested in doing that? God wants all to be saved and doesn't want any to perish, but didn't want to go through the hassle of writing his own words in stone, so that we would always have the originals, or better yet, just reveal himself to all of his beloved creation, and instead decided to have men (many of which are unknown) write down some stuff on his behalf, that at the very least appears to have some issues and at least appears to have been edited?

But, this is just something that sticks out to me.

When I bring this issue up to Christians, they give me two responses:

1. God wants you to seek him by faith. If he gave you too much evidence you wouldn't need faith.
2. Who are we to question the ways of our loving, merciful, just, perfect Creator?

If these justifications for poor evidence are true, then why do Christian bother debating skeptics about evidence? Why don't they just admit: God purposely left us very poor evidence so that we are forced to take a blind leap of faith to believe him.

[Sea of red]

Aerospace. I was taking the astronomy courses mostly just because I was interested. I settled for the Aerospace degree, and got a minor in Astronomy (the first such minor awarded by Penn State - they established it during my junior year). The course load would not have been easy for that last year (it would have heavily focused on physics), but it looked doable.

What math level were you at? I'd assume you've learned single-variable calculus.

*were

PS: NO sleepy.

[Gary]

Actually, there is a good argument for why we don't have that here.

To sum up a major point, people are already prone to worshiping the created rather than the Creator, so such things as self correcting manuscripts*, or an original version would lead to more of this. There is a lot more to it than that in the article though.

* I know you didn't suggest this yourself, but I've seen similar suggestions before.

Absolutely. Keep the evidence so murky that only the really pure of heart (or the most gullible and uneducated) believe it.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, but only those who are willing to take a blind leap of faith due to really pathetic evidence, from an allegedly perfect and all-powerful God, will believe in him and not perish but have everlasting life...but, those who refused to switch off their brains and rejected God's pathetic evidence, will be cast into an everlasting cauldron of fire (real or psychological) to writhe in torment forever and ever, to satisfy the vindictive wrath, of the God who supposedly loved the whole world, but didn't give them sufficient evidence, for people with educated brains, who were not indoctrinated in this belief system as children, to believe his far-fetched, science and reason defying, supernatural tall tales."

[Adrift]

really? so are there any miracles you believe to be true outside of the bible and outside of Christianity?

Like any native Americans, or Islam, or of the Hindus, or any else?

Certainly.

[Apologiaphoenix]

To set the terminus ad quem, Ignatius of Antioch and other early writers show dependence on the Gospel of Matthew. Dependence on Mark sets a terminus a quo for the dating of Matthew, which should be assumed to have been written at least a decade after the gospel upon which it relies. Several indications in the text also confirm that Matthew was written c. 80 CE or later.

J.C. Fenton summarizes the evidence for the dating of Matthew as follows (op. cit., p. 11):


The earliest surviving writings which quote this Gospel are probably the letters of Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, who, while being taken as prisoner from the East to Rome about A.D. 110, wrote to various churches in Asia in Asia Minor and to the church at Rome. Ignatius refers to the star which appeared at the time of the birth of Jesus, the answer of Jesus to John the Baptist, when he was baptized, and several sayings of Jesus which are recorded only in this Gospel (12:33, 15:13, 19:12). It seems almost certain that Ignatius, and possibly the recipients of his letters also, knew this Gospel, and thus that it was written before A.D. 110. But how long before?

Here we cannot be so certain. But it is possible that we can find evidence that Matthew was writing after the war between the Romans and the Jews which ended in the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in A.D. 70. See, for example, 22:7: The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city; and compare also 21:41, 27:25. Similarly, Matthew's Gospel contains a strongly anti-Jewish note running through it, from the teaching not to do as the hypocrites do in Chapter 6, to the Woes on the scribes and Pharisees in Chapter 23; and this may point to a date after c. A.D. 85 when the Christians were excluded from the Jewish synagogues. It is worth noting here that Matthew often speaks of their synagogues (4:23, 9:35, 10:17, 12:9, 13:54), as if to distinguish Christian meetings and meeting places from those of the Jews, from which the Christians had now been turned out.

Beare offers the following to date the Gospel of Matthew (op. cit., pp. 7-8):


It is generally agreed that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem to the armies of Titus (AD 70), and the widespread acquaintance with it which is exhibited in all the Christian literature of the second century makes it difficult to place its composition any later than the opening decade of that century. If the Sermon on the Mount can be regarded in any sense as 'the Christian answer to Jamnia. . . a kind of Christian mishnaic counterpart to the formulation taking place there' (Davies, Setting, p. 315), this would indicate a date a few years before or after the turn of the century.

Concerning the knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem that the author evinces, Schweizer writes concerning Matthew 22:7 (op. cit., p. 418):


The wrath of the host is mentioned by both evangelists, but it is impossible to conceive of the king coming with his army not only to slay those who had been invited but to burn down their city (not "cities"), and doing all this while the feast stands ready for the newly invited. The parable deals with ordinary citizens, who buy fields and use oxen, not with men who rule entire cities. After his punishment, furthermore, the verdict of the king in verse 8 is pointless. Verses 6-7 are thus clearly an interpolation in the narrative, which earlier passed directly from verse 5 to the wrath of the king (beginning of vs. 7), and then to verse 8. Here the events of A.D. 70 - the taking and burning of Jerusalem by Roman armies - have colored the language of the parable.

Source: Early Christian Writings
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

Yeah. I know about this kind of stuff. Unfortunately, it's metaphysics doing things instead of real history. When people say it had to have happened after the event, it carries with it a hidden premise that any kind of predictive prophecy is not possible. I do not share that presupposition so I do not find such an argument convincing. Now if you can establish that argument, then you have a case, but until then, it should not be used as a premise.

As for their synagogues, yeah, that makes sense easily enough. Jesus was establishing His own in-group in relation to Israel and setting up a new Israel movement. This had been started by John the Baptist earlier. In that regards, the synagogues of the Jews would not be the places where the people of God would identify. Jesus's ministry was a dividing line and the Jews would have their group judge Jesus's group.

As for the destruction of the city, the king can easily have a feast in his own city and destroy the city of those who refused to come to his banquet. Note also the description would be inaccurate. The Romans did not burn the city. They only burnt the temple.

---Thus, Kummel argues to date the Gospel of Matthew in the last two decades of the first century (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 119-120): "Even if, indeed, Mark and Matthew originated in different regions, precisely in his reworking of Mk Mt shows so clear a development of community relationships and theological reflection (see, e.g., 18:15 ff and 28:19) that a date of writing shortly after Mk seems less likely than a time between 80 and 100. A date of origin after 100 is excluded by Mt's having been used by Ignatius."---

Considering we have Aramaic traditions that put Jesus in the divine identity and are the earliest traditions and we have Paul Christianizing the Shema and including Jesus in it and the Philippian hymn, all of which are universally accepted as Pauline, theological development falls really short as an argument.

What I find fascinating in these scholarly statements is this: Notice that Ignatius, writing in the first decades of the second century, mentions alleged historical events that are only mentioned in ONE source: the Gospel of Matthew, events and details such as the Star of Bethlehem, but he NEVER gives credit for his knowledge of the event or detail to the Apostle Matthew! Not once. Never.

I find it very, very odd that an early Christian leader would mention alleged details from the life of Jesus but NEVER once give credit to the source of that information as being an apostle, a first hand witness to the event in question or the recipient of the information directly from Jesus. This is very strong evidence, to me, at least, that Matthew the Tax Collector and disciple of Jesus did NOT write the gospel that church leaders in the second half of the second century attributed to him---the Gospel according to Matthew.

Sorry, but this argument works against you. You can find several times where the epistles, including the Pauline ones, quote the Old Testament and do not source it at all. Why would Paul do that and not explicitly state what he was quoting from? Because he expected his audience to recognize it as a reference they already knew and deemed authoritative. For instance, today a lot of people quote to love your neighbor as yourself. Few know that comes from Leviticus. They just know it comes from a Bible book and Christians should take it authoritatively.

That Ignatius can quote this without having to say where it's from (Which is common in a high context society anyway) shows how well it was already accepted.

It looks like your argument boils down to incredulity. You find something very odd and since this is what you would not do and you see yourself as an intelligent person, then surely no other intelligent person would do this. That just becomes a form of anthropological bigotry by assuming every culture has people just like you.

1. The majority of scholars do not believe that John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. Moreover, the majority of scholars do not believe that the Gospel of Mark was written by an eyewitness or an associate of an eyewitness. And, the author of the Gospel of Mark does not seem familiar with the geography of Palestine, making it very doubtful that he had ever stepped foot in the Holy Land!

Mark 7:31 implies that this was going through one city to get to another. If so, that would be a problem, but that has not been shown. What instead is going on is that Mark is giving an itinerary of what happened. If there's some other argument there you consider worthwhile, let me know.

2. And here is the biggest problem, and its a whopper: Why would an apostle of Jesus (Matthew) borrow almost 55% of the content of an another author's book, in compiling his own gospel about the life of Jesus, and, why on earth would he borrow so much information from someone who was not an eyewitness himself???

It's preposterous!

I love it when this whopper comes up! It makes me laugh so much! Hey. Here's the solution to your "whopper" and it's remarkably easy.

Let's suppose Mark is the author of Mark and is the testimony of Peter and Matthew knows this.

Why would Matthew use the testimony of Peter?

Because Peter was part of the inner three. There were things Jesus shared with only Peter, James, and John. Matthew would not be an eyewitness of those.

Therefore, Matthew would use that account to get Peter's firsthand testimony.

Oh well. So much for that whopper. You might want to be careful about what you say is preposterous.

But please, keep evangelizing. You're doing a great job showing the fundamentalism of skepticism and embarrassing it.

[William]

When I bring this issue up to Christians, they give me two responses:

1. God wants you to seek him by faith. If he gave you too much evidence you wouldn't need faith.
2. Who are we to question the ways of our loving, merciful, just, perfect Creator?

If these justifications for poor evidence are true, then why do Christian bother debating skeptics about evidence? Why don't they just admit: God purposely left us very poor evidence so that we are forced to take a blind leap of faith to believe him.

I agree, and the #1 ignores all those listed in Hebrews 11 as being champions of faith, who had direct signs and miracles and interactions with God or with his angels... Such certainty didnt seem to diminish their faith, according the the Bible.

and #2, I do not mean to question God, but rather weigh the evidence and try these claims made about God by men who wrote a book. these men claim to speak for God - I question them. I wonder whether they can be trusted. God can do as he likes and men can lie and be mistaken, so I do not trust every word or every claim that men make.

[One Bad Pig]

What math level where you at? I'd assume you've learned single-variable calculus.

Yeah, that was needed for the introductory Astrophysics courses. I took 4 semesters of calculus, though I didn't find it easy. Differential equations were a particular struggle.

[William]

Certainly.

I am intrigued. Can you give an example or two?

would these miracles be evidence of Divine acceptance?

[William]

Yeah. I know about this kind of stuff. Unfortunately, it's metaphysics doing things instead of real history. When people say it had to have happened after the event, it carries with it a hidden premise that any kind of predictive prophecy is not possible. I do not share that presupposition so I do not find such an argument convincing. Now if you can establish that argument, then you have a case, but until then, it should not be used as a premise.

what presuppositions do you share?

[Sea of red]

Yeah, that was needed for the introductory Astrophysics courses. I took 4 semesters of calculus, though I didn't find it easy. Differential equations were a particular struggle.

I would recommend you try your hand at Mathematical Methods For Physics and Engineering by Riley, Hobson, and Bence. It covers everything from Algebra 3 to Tensor Analysis and includes lots of practice questions with examples. Then move on to Classical Mechanics by Kibble and you should be good to go.

[Apologiaphoenix]

what presuppositions do you share?

I have some beliefs and these people can have beliefs such as prophecy not being possible, but you do not come to the text with them. You seek to eliminate them as much as possible when doing academic research. (If you're reading the Bible for devotional purposes, that's a different matter.)

If you think my presuppositions are clouding with the data, then feel free to show that.

[Adrift]

I am intrigued. Can you give an example or two?

Nope.

would these miracles be evidence of Divine acceptance?

I don't know what you mean by that.