FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-21-2007, 05:33 PM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Space Station 33
Posts: 2,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boro Nut View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinJay View Post
And that damn Kirk gets all the hot alien chicks....
He's welcome to them. Personally I wouldn't touch anything over 40°C. And the green stripey ones? Let's just say 'Not even with a borrowed dick'.

Boro Nut
Wuss... Besides, it's only kinky the first time...
xaxxat is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 05:36 PM   #42
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: russia
Posts: 1,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iasion View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinJay View Post
reniaa, please cite where you cut and pasted this from.
regards,
NinJay
It came from here :
http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/gospelhist.html

But then, you probably knew that :-)


Iasion
hehe thankyou I was struggling to find it again.

I was trying not to use an AiG source as then, it just gets blown out of the water without being looked at for just being AiG :s
reniaa is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 05:39 PM   #43
Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart
Posts: 10,326
Default

oops...nevermind.
Gawen is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 05:42 PM   #44
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,366
Default

Oh, it's been looked at plenty of times. Most of these arguments are as old as the hills and have been gone thru countless times. AiG is dissmissed out of hand because it offers nothing new.
Dogfish is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 05:46 PM   #45
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: russia
Posts: 1,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogfish View Post
Oh, it's been looked at plenty of times. Most of these arguments are as old as the hills and have been gone thru countless times. AiG is dissmissed out of hand because it offers nothing new.
but to mention one name from the list my quote gave of people that verify the gospel writers is polycarp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp

so we are not talking fictional sources here?
reniaa is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 06:52 PM   #46
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 4,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reniaa View Post
The Gospels and Acts are quoted as genuine by ancient writers,
beginning with writers contemporaneous with the apostles themselves
and continuing thereafter. This sort of proof is the strongest argument
for the authenticity of a writing and is regularly used by ordinary
historians to prove that a particular work came from a certain author.
This method when applied to the Gospels and Acts, establishes without
question their authenticity. For example, the Epistle of Barnabas
(ca. 120 A.D.) quotes Matthew as Scripture, and Clement of Rome (ca.
90 A.D.) also quotes words found in Matthew. The Shephard of Hermas
alludes to Matthew, Luke, and John. Ignatius, who was a church leader
in Antioch about 37 years after Christ's death (i.e. 70 - 110 A.D.),
alludes to Matthew and John. His contemporary Polycarp, who knew
personally the disciple John and other eywitnesses to Jesus' ministry,
refers to different New Testament works some fourty times. Papias, who
also knew John, specifically says Matthew and Mark wrote their Gospels;
the offhand way in which he makes this remark shows that it was a fact
generally known. Justin Martyr about twenty years later frequently
quotes the Gospels. Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp, specifically names the
four Gospel writers.
I went back to Metzger (or via: amazon.co.uk) to see what he had to say about these. He doesn't comment on the Epistle of Barnabas vis-a-vis references to Matthew, but he does corroborate most of the other assertions here. However, and this is a big however, Metzger goes no farther than stating that the church fathers mentioned above cite various works as scripture. That's significantly different than stating that the church fathers authenticate the traditional authorship of the Gospels.
(To be fair, Metzger's subject here is how books came to be included in the Biblical canon. He's less concerned with exploring the authorship in this instance.)

The take-away here, though, is that favorably quoting, alluding to, mentioning, or otherwise invoking one of the Gospels is not the same as authenticating the sources of the Gospels. All it really says is that those Gospels, in some form, were in circulation at the times the church fathers were writing.

regards,

NinJay
-Jay- is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 07:04 PM   #47
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 4,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reniaa View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogfish View Post
Oh, it's been looked at plenty of times. Most of these arguments are as old as the hills and have been gone thru countless times. AiG is dissmissed out of hand because it offers nothing new.
but to mention one name from the list my quote gave of people that verify the gospel writers is polycarp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp

so we are not talking fictional sources here?
So Polycarp mentions the traditional Gospel writers. Eh. The tradition that Polycarp knew the author of GJn dates well after Polycarp's own death, so you've got to look a little closer at that before you accept it as a given.

regards,

NinJay
-Jay- is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 07:09 PM   #48
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 147
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reniaa View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogfish View Post
Oh, it's been looked at plenty of times. Most of these arguments are as old as the hills and have been gone thru countless times. AiG is dissmissed out of hand because it offers nothing new.
but to mention one name from the list my quote gave of people that verify the gospel writers is polycarp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp

so we are not talking fictional sources here?
I must also admit to enjoying the originating post in this series, and the unfounded assertions that many gave in attempting to refute it. One even went so far to state that the writers of the NT were aware that their accounts were not based on reality.

I have kept looking over to these posts this evening waiting for a response to your posts that would have some verifiable information in it that would back up some of the anti-anti-anti-theist assertions made in this thread. So far, absolutely nothing!

By the way, I went to the AiG museum a week ago last Saturday. The place was mobbed with people. Nothing new in it either, but it was truly interesting anyway. A criteria for something being correct is not that it is new, per Dogfish.

Thanks,
Timetospend is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 07:15 PM   #49
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reniaa View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iasion View Post

It came from here :
http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/gospelhist.html

But then, you probably knew that :-)


Iasion
hehe thankyou I was struggling to find it again.

I was trying not to use an AiG source as then, it just gets blown out of the water without being looked at for just being AiG :s
Actually, we like people that come here who know how to use the source materials for arguments, not just rehashing rehashes. AiG tends to cobble together other rubbish. If however, you really think that any argument is so good and that you understand it enough to defend it referring to the primary sources (in translation, if you will), I'm sure someone will be happy to consider it, but you need to present your argument, not just say, "I think that their stuff is good and that's as far as I'm prepared to go." Oh, and if it's already been dealt with in this forum, you'll happily read the archives, before presenting it.

(And as to Polycarp, when he says in Phil. 12 to "pray for kings", the only kings were the Roman emperors and the only time they were plural was after 160 CE with Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, so Polycarp was writing his letter after 160. He's of no help to you.)


spin
spin is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 11:21 PM   #50
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timetospend
I am not interested in the speculation that often goes for support on this site but actual tangible data that can be verified. Scholarly opinion by itself is not verifiable, but needs additional support for it to be more than opinions or editorials.
But if a God exists, it is he who needs to provide additional support. What could God or anyone else have to gain from his refusal to provide more evidence? If the God of the Bible exists, the Bible was needlessly written in ways that invite dissent. Of course, no rational God would ever depend primarily or largely upon written records to communicate with people. He would always be available, tangibly, in person. The best kind of evidence is tangible, firsthand evidence, the kind of evidence that no religion provides.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:56 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.