Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 07-25-2009, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why did Matthew and Luke copy Mark word for word in part but feel free to change details to suit their theological aims?

But there is no corroborative evidence that there were persons named Matthew, Mark and Luke who wrote any Gospels.

It is more likely that all three Gospels, under the names of Matthew, Mark and Luke, were derived from some other source or sources.

Based on Justin Martyr, there were no Gospels named Matthew, Mark and Luke up to the middle of the 2nd century, he mentioned only the Memoirs of the Apostles.

The Synoptics may have been derived from the Memoirs of the Apostles as found in the writings of Justin, since Irenaeus, writing after Justin, was the first to mention that there were Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke.

I don't think Toto is referring to the person of Matthew and Luke.

Unless your name is really aa5847 then I could use the same logic to conclude that you do not exist simply because the moniker you are using is different from the name you actually were given. Married woman who do not keep their name must not exist either.

I have been in multiple threads where you were given plenty of evidence that Justin Martry is referring to the same documents as Irenaeus.

sschlichter · 07-25-2009, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

...
The gospels seem to go to great stakes to link events to OT predictions, link events to non-biblical historical events, and link events to geographical locations. My question is how are you delineating from allegorical higher truths, a naive and fanciful view of history, or outright intentional mis-reporting of history?

...

I think you are stuck on this issue, and I can't dislodge you.

You seem to be obsessed with an idea that the gospels are either an attempt at a true report, or an outright lie.

But I think it is clear that the gospels were written well after the events, when there was little possibility that any real history could be recovered. They were written for theological purposes.

There are also some indications that the source of the gospels was "revelation" - the "holy spirit" "descended" on a prophet(ess) who channeled information from another dimension. Does the channeler consciously lie? I don't think so, but most modern skeptics do not consider the information reliable.

From my point of view, the gospel writers misreport history. But from the gospel writers point of view, I'm sure that they thought their motives were pure. Their motives were a mixture of religious feeling, community service, and support for the orthodox leadership of the Christian movement.

There were probably a few conscious liars in the movement - there always are people like that. But probably more people who were deceiving themselves for the usual reasons that people deceive themselves.

maybe, but thank you for trying. believe it or not, I am earnestly trying to understand what seems to be a common theory among those in this discussion.

Deus Ex · 07-25-2009, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Reporting of facts does not indicate reporting of all facts. Why couldn't Mark have reported facts and Matthew have reported more facts, different facts, a different perspective on the same facts, or a different emphasis on the same facts. Is it possible that there is more than 1 book written about WWII that is factual? Why could more than 1 book be written on WWII be factual but not on this subject.

~Steve

Some of the 'facts' seem to be in direct contradiction to one another. Take for instance the Nativity stories of Matthew and Luke. You are implying that each author is reporting some of the facts from a differing perspective. I see two stories that are not harmonious at all.

Since each gospel author took liberty to change the stories reported by other authors, how can we know which gospel is the definitive one? Is the bible the divine word of God, or do you see it as the witness of God by fallible human beings each writing from a different perspective?

Susan2 · 07-25-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

sschlichter
well, the eye candy of resurrection appears to be the message. There is no point to the gospels without it and there is no motive to write them without the resurrection as far as I can tell.

The crucifixion?

Yes, but if Jesus is the Son of God, he's resting. And if the Son of Man, in need of forgiveness.

Perhaps there are some people who would advise Jesus not to hold his breath, he might inherit the grave.

Turn the other cheek? And so, they later asked him how many times they must forgive, (turn the other cheek), to which he replied, 7x70. I guess that meant until you were black and blue.

And when they ask for your tunic, give them your coat too. I guess when you are cold, Jesus and his boys can have a good laugh.

The meek shall inherit the earth. They do, the grave.

The school of hard knocks, correct?

Quote:

Mohammed appeared to have understood that the Christians claimed Jesus was crucified, resurrected, and was God as well. the allegorical higher truth appears to have been lost on him as well.

I personally don't think anything was lost on Mohammad, nor Paul for that matter, nor the Catholic/Christian/Mormon/Jim Jones, yada yada church.

IamJoseph · 07-25-2009, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Your using one part of the Gospels to prove another part thereof.

Why can't one witness be used to weigh / consider the validity of another witness?

The Gospels, by its own criteria, is based on belief - meaning there is nothing historical therein. These two paradigms cannot attest for each other. Europe never demanded proof of the Gospels, nor was any choice given here. What has happened after 2000 years is that belief has blurred historical truths, and false charges have been accepted as truth and facts.

IamJoseph · 07-25-2009, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

It might be a problem when one witness has read and copied off of the other witness's statements.

that is the case with any witness. they are still distinct witnesses and the example you are discussing is clearly not copied off of what is supposed the early witness where no guards are mentioned.

Witnesses infer there was a trial. Imagine this was a legal action in a court and you have to prove this charge? What if your proof is rejected - what applies?

aa5874 · 07-25-2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But there is no corroborative evidence that there were persons named Matthew, Mark and Luke who wrote any Gospels.

It is more likely that all three Gospels, under the names of Matthew, Mark and Luke, were derived from some other source or sources.

Based on Justin Martyr, there were no Gospels named Matthew, Mark and Luke up to the middle of the 2nd century, he mentioned only the Memoirs of the Apostles.

The Synoptics may have been derived from the Memoirs of the Apostles as found in the writings of Justin, since Irenaeus, writing after Justin, was the first to mention that there were Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke.

I don't think Toto is referring to the person of Matthew and Luke.

You know what Toto thinks?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Unless your name is really aa5847 then I could use the same logic to conclude that you do not exist simply because the moniker you are using is different from the name you actually were given....

You could not use the same logics, the authors of the Synoptics did not include or acknowledge any name whatsoever in their writings.

I have registered my username as aa5874. My username is not arbitrarily affixed to other posts that did not originate from me.

Now, it appears to be false to claim that Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote Gospels when they did not especially when there is no corroborative source to secure their existence in the 1st century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I have been in multiple threads where you were given plenty of evidence that Justin Martry is referring to the same documents as Irenaeus.

What!

Plenty of evidence?

Please tell me of the plenty evidence that Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote Gospels?

I have not been in any thread where I was given plenty of evidence that Justin was referring to the same documents as Irenaeus.

You may have been grossly mistaken.

By the way, just name one piece of evidence to show that Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles was not copied, redacted or mutilated to become what is now called the Synoptics.

sschlichter · 07-25-2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Reporting of facts does not indicate reporting of all facts. Why couldn't Mark have reported facts and Matthew have reported more facts, different facts, a different perspective on the same facts, or a different emphasis on the same facts. Is it possible that there is more than 1 book written about WWII that is factual? Why could more than 1 book be written on WWII be factual but not on this subject.

~Steve

Some of the 'facts' seem to be in direct contradiction to one another. Take for instance the Nativity stories of Matthew and Luke. You are implying that each author is reporting some of the facts from a differing perspective. I see two stories that are not harmonious at all.

Since each gospel author took liberty to change the stories reported by other authors, how can we know which gospel is the definitive one? Is the bible the divine word of God, or do you see it as the witness of God by fallible human beings each writing from a different perspective?

Why would I have to pick one? Why can't it be both. Peter describes the orthodox position on inspiration as men carried along by the Holy Spirit. This does not require that it be inerrant at all. (though I believe it to be and certainly do not see examples of dis-harmony in the nativity stories)

sschlichter · 07-25-2009, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I don't think Toto is referring to the person of Matthew and Luke.

You know what Toto thinks?

You could not use the same logics, the authors of the Synoptics did not include or acknowledge any name whatsoever in their writings.

I have registered my username as aa5874. My username is not arbitrarily affixed to other posts that did not originate from me.

Now, it appears to be false to claim that Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote Gospels when they did not especially when there is no corroborative source to secure their existence in the 1st century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I have been in multiple threads where you were given plenty of evidence that Justin Martry is referring to the same documents as Irenaeus.

What!

Plenty of evidence?

Please tell me of the plenty evidence that Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote Gospels?

I have not been in any thread where I was given plenty of evidence that Justin was referring to the same documents as Irenaeus.

You may have been grossly mistaken.

By the way, just name one piece of evidence to show that Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles was not copied, redacted or mutilated to become what is now called the Synoptics.

Here is a link to the last conversation we had about Justin Martyr.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....00#post5352100

Deus Ex · 07-25-2009, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Some of the 'facts' seem to be in direct contradiction to one another. Take for instance the Nativity stories of Matthew and Luke. You are implying that each author is reporting some of the facts from a differing perspective. I see two stories that are not harmonious at all.

Since each gospel author took liberty to change the stories reported by other authors, how can we know which gospel is the definitive one? Is the bible the divine word of God, or do you see it as the witness of God by fallible human beings each writing from a different perspective?

Why would I have to pick one? Why can't it be both. Peter describes the orthodox position on inspiration as men carried along by the Holy Spirit. This does not require that it be inerrant at all. (though I believe it to be and certainly do not see examples of dis-harmony in the nativity stories)

I have heard of the lengths that apologists will go to contrive a harmony between the two stories. No one would read those two stories and consider them harmonious unless they were committed to a doctrine of inerrancy before they ever cracked the books open.

Second, I do not believe that a fisherman wrote either of "Peter's" epistles in fluent Greek. Plus, 2 Peter is almost universally accepted as pseudepigraphical.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.