• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Gospels and Acts

RGacky3 said:
Hvae you read that webiste?

I've dealt EVERYONE of those scriptures before .... you haven't dealt with one of mine.
Click to expand...

Here's another one you can try to sweep under the rug:

Did Jesus claim to be God? Sure he did!

The claims of Christ are many and varied. He said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and that He was equal with the Father (John 5:17, 18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–7), which the Bible teaches was something that God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25).

The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3), and that He is the one who holds everything together (Colossians 1:17). The apostle Paul says that God was manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16, KJV), and John the evangelist says that “the Word was God” (John 1:1). The united testimony of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament is that He was more than mere man; He was God.

Not only did His friends notice that He claimed to be God, but so did His enemies as well. There may be some doubt today among the skeptics who refuse to examine the evidence, but there was no doubt on the part of the Jewish authorities.

When Jesus asked them why they wanted to stone Him, they replied, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God” (John 10:33, NASB).

Did Jesus Claim to Be God? Even if He did Make the Claim, Why Should I Believe it?
 
RGacky3 said:
Hvae you read that webiste?

I've dealt EVERYONE of those scriptures before .... you haven't dealt with one of mine.
Click to expand...
Indeed, you do deal a lot of Scriptures to everyone - and an equal amount of losing hands in the process for your misinterpretation of each one.
 
EdwinWillers said:
Indeed, you do deal a lot of Scriptures to everyone - and an equal amount of losing hands in the process for your misinterpretation of each one.
Click to expand...

you haven't shown how I misinterprate them at all ....
 
Logicman said:
Here's another one you can try to sweep under the rug:

Did Jesus claim to be God? Sure he did!

The claims of Christ are many and varied. He said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and that He was equal with the Father (John 5:17, 18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–7), which the Bible teaches was something that God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25).

The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3), and that He is the one who holds everything together (Colossians 1:17). The apostle Paul says that God was manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16, KJV), and John the evangelist says that “the Word was God” (John 1:1). The united testimony of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament is that He was more than mere man; He was God.

Not only did His friends notice that He claimed to be God, but so did His enemies as well. There may be some doubt today among the skeptics who refuse to examine the evidence, but there was no doubt on the part of the Jewish authorities.

When Jesus asked them why they wanted to stone Him, they replied, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God” (John 10:33, NASB).

Did Jesus Claim to Be God? Even if He did Make the Claim, Why Should I Believe it?
Click to expand...

John 8:58, doesn't say anything about him being Yahweh.
John 5:17,18: That was the accusation given to him by his enemies .... book Jesus responds to that in John 10, where he explains that he is precisely NOT doing that.
Colossians 1:17: Look earlier ... he is the IMAGE of god and the FIRSTBORN of creation (meaning amung creation).
John 1.1: Common now .... the word was with THE God and the word was God ..... 2 seperate beings .... THE GOD, and God, nowhere else is god placed once with a article and once without, which is why the translatiosn that say "the word was with god and the word was divine" is more accurate, because that's what it's saying, it's saying it was of a divine nature, not identified with the GOd that it was with, i.e. NOT yahweh.

Where did his friends notice? Only his enemies accused him .... and he rejected that accusation (in John 10), believe me I examined the evidence.

They wanted to stone him because he was a threat to them, they're gonna come up with a reason, but look, at what Jesus responce was ... HE REFUTED THEIR ACCUSATION.

Notice ... it's always THROUGH Jesus ... not by Jesus ... that should say something.

About the ability to forgive sins. Jesus ALWAYS says his power and authority are NOT his but Gods ..... remember he is teh final sacrifice, the new temple ....

Also in 1 Timothy 3:16, it doesn't say GOD was manifest in the flesh ....

Now I can do this all day, can you even touch the scriptures I post? Can you make them fit with your theology? I don't think you can.
 
RGacky3 said:
John 8:58, doesn't say anything about him being Yahweh.
John 5:17,18: That was the accusation given to him by his enemies .... book Jesus responds to that in John 10, where he explains that he is precisely NOT doing that.
Colossians 1:17: Look earlier ... he is the IMAGE of god and the FIRSTBORN of creation (meaning amung creation).
John 1.1: Common now .... the word was with THE God and the word was God ..... 2 seperate beings .... THE GOD, and God, nowhere else is god placed once with a article and once without, which is why the translatiosn that say "the word was with god and the word was divine" is more accurate, because that's what it's saying, it's saying it was of a divine nature, not identified with the GOd that it was with, i.e. NOT yahweh.

Where did his friends notice? Only his enemies accused him .... and he rejected that accusation (in John 10), believe me I examined the evidence.

They wanted to stone him because he was a threat to them, they're gonna come up with a reason, but look, at what Jesus responce was ... HE REFUTED THEIR ACCUSATION.

Notice ... it's always THROUGH Jesus ... not by Jesus ... that should say something.

About the ability to forgive sins. Jesus ALWAYS says his power and authority are NOT his but Gods ..... remember he is teh final sacrifice, the new temple ....

Also in 1 Timothy 3:16, it doesn't say GOD was manifest in the flesh ....

Now I can do this all day, can you even touch the scriptures I post? Can you make them fit with your theology? I don't think you can.
Click to expand...

You can misrepresent these all day. But it's not working for you.

Still another chink in your armor is when Jesus was asked for a sign, he said: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up… but he spake of the temple of his body” (John 2:19, 21, KJV). The ability to raise His life back from the dead was the sign that separates Him not only from all other religious leaders, but also from anyone else who has ever lived.

You're busted.
 
cpwill said:
My guess would have to be that none of the evidence currently available for these subjects is the foundation of his faith.

I'm in the same boat. Sure, the historical evidence lines up with the New Testament accounts. But that's not why I believe.
Click to expand...
This is a large (51 MB, 500 pages) pdf textbook that is used in introductory Biblical courses. You will find it incredibly interesting to read as it explains very nicely what does and does not line up with traditional Christian beliefs about the Bible.

www.archive.org/download/BartEhrman...alIntroductionToTheEarlyChristianWritings.pdf

For example - while it shows that the Gospel accounts were not written by the Apostles or their associates, IT ALSO takes the effort to explain the historical evidence and reasoning that historians have used to make that conclusion. It does well to also explain ancient culture, religions and the overall "context" behind the Bible.

Edit: There is also a note to Christians from the author that you should read on pages 14-15, if you decide to read the textbook.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
My guess would have to be that none of the evidence currently available for these subjects is the foundation of his faith.
Click to expand...

Logicman said:
The following shows some of the evidence for the traditional Gospel authors - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Includes internal and external evidences. It's in response to Muslim claims that the traditional authors did not write their accounts.
Click to expand...

I want you to understand why that counter-Islam article is relying on the wrong information.

Take a look at the bibliography. It shows many of the common sources -- Papias, Ignatius of Antioch, Origen, Eusebius and Irenaeus among others -- that are cited by Christian apologists to prove the traditional Gospel authors. All of these men are well-respected, early Christian leaders who lived decades after the Gospels were written. Many of them hailed from across the ancient world. Irenaeus lived in 4th Century France. Eusebius lived in 3rd Century Palestine.

But that's the problem. These men, while well-respected, lived well after the time of the Gospels. The claims of traditional authorship had already started before these men were even born! We can't rely on their testaments without examining the content of the actual Gospels. It's like modern investigations, because human witnesses are often wrong. Thus you have to rely on the actual evidence (the Bible) to verify whether these men are making the right claims centuries after the events they describe.

That's where the traditional authorship falls apart - the actual Bible. Why would (for example) Mark, Matthew and Luke have the literal word-for-word contents of each other? The Gospel of Matthew is a word-for-word copy of Mark (the shortest Gospel), with the addition of 1/3rd more source material.

467px-Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels.jpg

Matthew contains 94% of the word-for-word language of Mark. That exact copy and paste of text takes up 55% of Matthew!

If Matthew was written first, why would Mark delete the other 45% of Matthew's content? Mark doesn't include the Virgin birth, the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer and actually ENDS when the women roll away the tombstone. (Matthew 16:9-20 was added later.) Did Mark not think that the Lord's Prayer or the Resurrection was important?

No ... that would not make any sense. The only explanation is that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke copied it. So why would Matthew (an Apostle) copy the word-for-word text of Mark (a non-Apostle)?
 
Logicman said:
The following shows some of the evidence for the traditional Gospel authors - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Includes internal and external evidences. It's in response to Muslim claims that the traditional authors did not write their accounts.
Click to expand...
brothern said:
Matthew contains 94% of the word-for-word language of Mark. That exact copy and paste of text takes up 55% of Matthew!

If Matthew was written first, why would Mark delete the other 45% of Matthew's content? Mark doesn't include the Virgin birth, the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer and actually ENDS when the women roll away the tombstone. (Matthew 16:9-20 was added later.) Did Mark not think that the Lord's Prayer or the Resurrection was important?

No ... that would not make any sense. The only explanation is that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke copied it. So why would Matthew (an Apostle) copy the word-for-word text of Mark (a non-Apostle)?
Click to expand...
Or take a look at the Rich and the Kingdom of God story:

Matthew 19:16-17 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”Mark 10:17-18 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.Luke 18:18-19 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
This is an example of one of those word-for-word parts of the Gospels (but now slightly off, due to the English translation ... take a look at the Greek instead).

You can see that the story in Matthew is slightly different than Luke and Mark. Instead of the rich man saying, "Good teacher!", the rich man inquires about good things. Jesus' rebuke is omitted. Why would Mark and Luke drastically change the sentence structure and add Jesus' rebuke? That part seems irrelevant to the story.

Unless ... Matthew was written AFTER either Mark or Luke. In all likelihood, the person who wrote Matthew saw that Mark could be misinterpreted. That author realized that a careless reading of Mark could lead the reader into believing that Jesus is saying he is not divine. Thus, to fix the problem, Matthew changed Mark's story to a question about Good things and not have a potential misquote about Jesus' nature.

It's through that contextual analysis (and not relying on what early Christians said) of the actual Bible that we are able to arrive to the conclusion that the Gospels were written by non-witness anonymous writers, in the order of Mark < Matthew < Luke < John.
 
Last edited:
brothern said:
Or take a look at the Rich and the Kingdom of God story:

Matthew 19:16-17 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”Mark 10:17-18 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.Luke 18:18-19 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
This is an example of one of those word-for-word parts of the Gospels (but now slightly off, due to the English translation ... take a look at the Greek instead).

You can see that the story in Matthew is slightly different than Luke and Mark. Instead of the rich man saying, "Good teacher!", the rich man inquires about good things. Jesus' rebuke is omitted. Why would Mark and Luke drastically change the sentence structure and add Jesus' rebuke? That part seems irrelevant to the story.

Unless ... Matthew was written AFTER either Mark or Luke. In all likelihood, the person who wrote Matthew saw that Mark could be misinterpreted. That author realized that a careless reading of Mark could lead the reader into believing that Jesus is saying he is not divine. Thus, to fix the problem, Matthew changed Mark's story to a question about Good things and not have a potential misquote about Jesus' nature.

It's through that contextual analysis (and not relying on what early Christians said) of the actual Bible that we are able to arrive to the conclusion that the Gospels were written by non-witness anonymous writers, in the order of Mark < Matthew < Luke < John.
Click to expand...

So they sat around campfires together after the resurrection and compared notes on what Jesus said. Or, the Holy Spirit reminded them of what Jesus taught (John 14:26). Neither one requires Mark to be first. Not only that, but there's quite a bit of difference in other passages.

I'll stick with the traditional authors.

By the way, either way Jesus is Resurrected from the dead. All four Gospels plus other epistles confirm that.
 
Logicman said:
By the way, either way Jesus is Resurrected from the dead. All four Gospels plus other epistles confirm that.
Click to expand...
Thus my criticism that you are absolutely blinded by your ideological wants, and fail to understand (or want to understand) the evidence in front of you.

... but I found a really cool timeline while talking to you!

(Link to big picture)
 
brothern said:
Thus my criticism that you are absolutely blinded by your ideological wants, and fail to understand (or want to understand) the evidence in front of you.

... but I found a really cool timeline while talking to you!

(Link to big picture)
Click to expand...

EDIT: Although to be fair, I was dragged kicking and screaming from believing in God too. It sucked, but I was out argued and the evidence spoke for itself. Still I'm definitely a better person because of it.
 
brothern said:
Thus my criticism that you are absolutely blinded by your ideological wants, and fail to understand (or want to understand) the evidence in front of you.

... but I found a really cool timeline while talking to you!

(Link to big picture)
Click to expand...

There's all kinds of problems with your theological bent. First, the problems with Q (which assumes Markan priority):

Ten Reasons to Question Q:

The Case Against Q: Ten Reasons

Fallacies at the Heart of Q

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

Also, in the link you provided, the following strawman arguments were seen regarding the Gospel of Mark:

1. Nativity of Jesus

2. Bethlehem origins

I mean, "Duh," Mark starts his Gospel when Jesus is fully grown.

Then there's the other strawman about resurrection appearances and ascension, when Mark ends his Gospel after the resurrection and doesn't go into further detail.

Then the final losing argument that Mark doesn't mention the deity of Jesus. It does. In the passage where Jesus is walking on water, he says, "Take courage, it is I." The actual Greek is ego eimi (I AM). Thus, Jesus declares his divinity, linking him to the burning bush account in Exodus.

And here's another one:

http://www.fellowtravelerblog.com/2011/02/08/is-jesus-god-in-the-gospel-of-mark/

Perhaps we can get you kicking and screaming back to the truth, so you can leave your liberal theology in the dust where it belongs?
 
Last edited:
EdwinWillers said:
Amen. RGacky has openly denied the divinity of Jesus as well as the divinity of the Holy Spirit. 'nuff said.
Click to expand...

I openly deny fairies at the bottom of the garden and the FSM in all of his holy noodlyness.
 
Logicman said:
Perhaps we can get you kicking and screaming back to the truth, so you can leave your liberal theology in the dust where it belongs?
Click to expand...

Perhaps science can drag Christians kicking and screaming into the age of scientific reason and send their god the way of the gods of the Greeks, Egyptians, Norse, etc.
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
There's all kinds of problems with your theological bent. First, the problems with Q (which assumes Markan priority):

Ten Reasons to Question Q:

The Case Against Q: Ten Reasons

Fallacies at the Heart of Q

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q
Click to expand...
What I presented has nothing to do with Q ... ? The author is arguing about the nature of the material exclusive Matthew. That's the Q source. He's already assumed what I've posted is completely true.

Also, in the link you provided, the following strawman arguments were seen regarding the Gospel of Mark:

1. Nativity of Jesus

2. Bethlehem origins

I mean, "Duh," Mark starts his Gospel when Jesus is fully grown.

Then there's the other strawman about resurrection appearances and ascension, when Mark ends his Gospel after the resurrection and doesn't go into further detail.

Then the final losing argument that Mark doesn't mention the deity of Jesus. It does. In the passage where Jesus is walking on water, he says, "Take courage, it is I." The actual Greek is ego eimi (I AM). Thus, Jesus declares his divinity, linking him to the burning bush account in Exodus.

And here's another one: http://www.fellowtravelerblog.com/2011/02/08/is-jesus-god-in-the-gospel-of-mark/
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?? I never commented upon the divinity of Jesus. What does any of that have to do with Markan priority or the authorship of the Gospels??

Logicman said:
Perhaps we can get you kicking and screaming back to the truth, so you can leave your liberal theology in the dust where it belongs?
Click to expand...
History isn't dependent upon theology? My only point is that evidence has demonstrated that the Gospels weren't written by the authors in the order assumed by traditional Christian mythology.

I don't know why you're talking about Jesus' divinity or the Q source, since I didn't mention them and because they don't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
 
Last edited:
brothern said:
I want you to understand why that counter-Islam article is relying on the wrong information.

Take a look at the bibliography. It shows many of the common sources -- Papias, Ignatius of Antioch, Origen, Eusebius and Irenaeus among others -- that are cited by Christian apologists to prove the traditional Gospel authors. All of these men are well-respected, early Christian leaders who lived decades after the Gospels were written. Many of them hailed from across the ancient world. Irenaeus lived in 4th Century France. Eusebius lived in 3rd Century Palestine.

But that's the problem. These men, while well-respected, lived well after the time of the Gospels. The claims of traditional authorship had already started before these men were even born! We can't rely on their testaments without examining the content of the actual Gospels. It's like modern investigations, because human witnesses are often wrong. Thus you have to rely on the actual evidence (the Bible) to verify whether these men are making the right claims centuries after the events they describe.

That's where the traditional authorship falls apart - the actual Bible. Why would (for example) Mark, Matthew and Luke have the literal word-for-word contents of each other? The Gospel of Matthew is a word-for-word copy of Mark (the shortest Gospel), with the addition of 1/3rd more source material.

View attachment 67156193

Matthew contains 94% of the word-for-word language of Mark. That exact copy and paste of text takes up 55% of Matthew!

If Matthew was written first, why would Mark delete the other 45% of Matthew's content? Mark doesn't include the Virgin birth, the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer and actually ENDS when the women roll away the tombstone. (Matthew 16:9-20 was added later.) Did Mark not think that the Lord's Prayer or the Resurrection was important?

No ... that would not make any sense. The only explanation is that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke copied it. So why would Matthew (an Apostle) copy the word-for-word text of Mark (a non-Apostle)?
Click to expand...

1. I have that chart, and enjoy it quite a bit.

2. Historically speaking, it actually strengthens the traditional account of the Gospel authorship, rather than detracting from it.

3. As a single example, Matthew wasn't written first - Mark was. (I don't know why Mark is second in order in the NT, it has always been recognized as the oldest of the gospels) Matthew took the account written by Mark (who was the disciple of Peters' - Mark is really Peters' account, but not written by him, as Mark spoke and wrote Greek fluently while Peter probably did not). It is the ending of Mark that is not captured in the earliest surviving pieces of the documents, not the end of Matthew. So Matthew took Mark's work, and expanded on it as he deemed necessary, just as Luke (who was also not an apostle, but rather a disciple of Pauls') took the work of Mark and Matthew, but then also went to the Christian community that then included the first-generation witnesses (for example, Luke appears to have captured the testimony of Mary, mother of Jesus) for an expanded two-part series that produced both the Gospel and the book of Acts.

As a side note - it is not word-for word copying; but rather common material. There is even a (rather respectable) theory out there that all three of the Synoptics were additionally drawing on a fourth source, known as Q (for Quelle, German for "source"), which may have been the community's common written account of the sayings of Jesus.

As another side note - Irenaeus lived in the Second Century, not the 4th.
 
brothern said:
Thus my criticism that you are absolutely blinded by your ideological wants, and fail to understand (or want to understand) the evidence in front of you.

... but I found a really cool timeline while talking to you!

(Link to big picture)
Click to expand...

:shrug: that's a good enough depiction of the liberal position. The problem with it would be that it depends upon assumption rather than preponderance of evidence, but it can be defended. The stronger probability remains that at least Mark was authored roughly around the same time as the latter letters of Paul, pre-destruction of Jerusalem, and not improbably all the synoptics were. But the earliest texts do indeed remain the Epistles of Paul, which confirm Jesus raised from the dead and divine, thus rather countering some of the implicit thrust of the chart.
 
I thought the Dead Sea Scrolls were considered a source of validation for the Gospels because of how close in date they were?
 
ethanUNC said:
Perhaps science can drag Christians kicking and screaming into the age of scientific reason and send their god the way of the gods of the Greeks, Egyptians, Norse, etc.
Click to expand...

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow
 
brothern said:
What I presented has nothing to do with Q ... ? The author is arguing about the nature of the material exclusive Matthew. That's the Q source. He's already assumed what I've posted is completely true.

What are you talking about?? I never commented upon the divinity of Jesus. What does any of that have to do with Markan priority or the authorship of the Gospels??

History isn't dependent upon theology? My only point is that evidence has demonstrated that the Gospels weren't written by the authors in the order assumed by traditional Christian mythology.

I don't know why you're talking about Jesus' divinity or the Q source, since I didn't mention them and because they don't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

Well, you're free to believe as you will, but I'll stick with conservative scholarship which endorses the traditional Gospel authors, and I've provided my reasons why.

By the way, let me ask you a few questions:

1. Do you believe Jesus is divine?

2. Do you believe Jesus performed miracles and raised the dead?

3. Do you believe Jesus was physically resurrected as the Gospel of John confirms?

FYI, my answer to all those is yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom