Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 12-12-2012, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God's Will Hunting

Here are some of the areas I need quotes for:

Gospel authorship: they are not first hand accounts, and authorship is unknown

I'm sure you can find some, but it isn't actually true and all the ancient literature contradicts this.

Quote:

Likelihood of Q being real

Unknown.

Quote:

Bishop Irenaeus choosing four gospels as canon because of there are "four directions"

Also untrue - check what Irenaeus actually says.

Quote:

dating of gospel accounts

Not sure how this will help you.

Quote:

The fact that Mark 16:9-12 does not appear in early documents and was likely added later

You could try citing a footnote in a modern bible. Note that "later" probably still means 1st century.

Quote:

The parable of the "Woman taken in adultery" was added later

Ditto.

Quote:

NKJV was written to correct errors in KJV

Not sure this is correct; surely it was written to modernise the language?

Quote:

Amount of errors between different NT books, copyist errors etc.

The argument here is likely to be misconceived, IMHO, in a couple of respects. Arguing that NT books contradict each other is not something you need authorities for, because anyone can inspect the original and form their own opinions. Likewise what kind of valid argument can be made based on the idea that printers make mistakes (or their ancient equivalent)?

Guessing, it sounds as if here you are attempting to argue against inerrancy, a theological view? But surely it is unlikely that you will construct a valid theological argument without considerably more training than you suggest to us that you have; and it is unlikely that anyone will be impressed by a theological argument, when you don't believe in the theology yourself?

Quote:

Number of different bible versions

Versions meaning translations? I'm unclear what this would demonstrate?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874 · 12-12-2012, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God's Will Hunting

Here are some of the areas I need quotes for:

Gospel authorship: they are not first hand accounts, and authorship is unknown

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I'm sure you can find some, but it isn't actually true and all the ancient literature contradicts this.

Your statement that ALL ancient literature contradicts that the Gospels are not first hand accounts, and authorship is unknown is a blatant mis-representation of the facts.

Your statement effectively vandalizes the findings of Scholars and Historians.

It is clear to me that your are on a propaganda mission.

It is utterly erroneous and blatantly mis-leading to even suggest that the Gospels are first hand accounts when you very well know that NOT one manuscript that has ever been recovered and dated is from the supposed time of Jesus.

Roger, this is BC&H. This is NOT Sunday School.

Roger Pearse · 12-12-2012, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by God's Will Hunting

Here are some of the areas I need quotes for:

Gospel authorship: they are not first hand accounts, and authorship is unknown

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I'm sure you can find some, but it isn't actually true and all the ancient literature contradicts this.

Your statement that ALL ancient literature contradicts that the Gospels are not first hand accounts, and authorship is unknown is a blatant mis-representation of the facts.

Your statement effectively vandalizes the findings of Scholars and Historians. (etc)

More than happy to see any ancient statement that supports the claim made.

As an example of what the sources say, here's Tertullian, whose view is pretty typical:

Quote:

I lay it down to begin with that the documents of the gospel have the apostles for their authors, and that this task of promulgating the gospel was imposed upon them by our Lord himself. If they also have for their authors apostolic men, yet these stand not alone, but as companions of apostles or followers of apostles: because the preaching of disciples might be made suspect of the desire of vainglory, unless there stood by it the authority of their teachers, or rather the authority of Christ, which made the apostles teachers. In short, from among the apostles the faith is introduced to us by John and by Matthew, while from among apostolic men Luke and Mark give it renewal, <all of them> beginning with the same rules <of belief>, as far as relates to the one only God, the Creator, and to his Christ, born of a virgin, the fulfilment of the law and the prophets. It matters not that the arrangement of their narratives varies, so long as there is agreement on the essentials of the faith—and on these they show no agreement with Marcion. -- Adversus Marcionem book 4, chapter 2.

There are no sources, unless I am mistaken, that suggest that none of the authors of the gospels were eyewitnesses - that idea is a modern claim.

stephan huller · 12-12-2012, 09:23 AM

Adamantius de Recta in Deum Fide - the Marcionites said this

Chili · 12-12-2012, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Roger, this is BC&H. This is NOT Sunday School.

Yes but Sunday school is about currency that is handed to children on the everlasting day with no history about it, period, and BC&H is about the history that they as critic see and are trying to defeat.

So the argument really is unto yourself, that you, in particular, seem to have trouble to digest and shaped into bricks to throw at us while they frost your balls on the way out.

I have no problem with your arguments, but must add that "first hand accounts" are prior to nature in the mind of the author who so lived the actual event, and is not just a reporter of what he claims he saw of an event that happens 'behind' closed doors during the pupa stage of life.

So it is wrong to ask for that, and worse yet even is to argue that it cannot be true because you cannot relate to it.

Please remember here that they did not write those Gospels just for, but universally for mankind now with a voice to speak because the Son made know the voice of God among all men, and so like a mother hen can take all minor mythologies under her wing, that was not clipped, it sure was not.

Iskander · 12-12-2012, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God's Will Hunting

I am preparing a project aimed at "low information Christians" whose goal is to educate them about bible criticism, and hopefully open a crack in their belief system. The vast majority of Christians have no idea that the gospels are not first hand accounts, that there are verses added hundreds of years later, the synoptic problem etc.

So I would like to tap into the vast knowledge base here for some help. What I need are "Christian friendly", or at least "neutral" sources to back up the claims I am making on these various points. It can be a website or book citation, but should carry some weight. Wiki is great in general, but not an impressive source, for instance. I'm looking particularly for "Bible scholar" quotes ie "the vast majority of Bible scholars agree that the Gospels are not first hand accounts".

Here are some of the areas I need quotes for:

Gospel authorship: they are not first hand accounts, and authorship is unknown

Likelihood of Q being real

Bishop Irenaeus choosing four gospels as canon because of there are "four directions"

dating of gospel accounts

The fact that Mark 16:9-12 does not appear in early documents and was likely added later

The parable of the "Woman taken in adultery" was added later

NKJV was written to correct errors in KJV

Amount of errors between different NT books, copyist errors etc.

Number of different bible versions

Any and all help is appreciated! Remember these answers need to be geared to "low information" Christians, not apologists! I know Bart Ehrman is a great source but there has been pushback against him in the media, so Christian friendly sources would be best. I will certainly use some of his stuff though.

I don’t know what you mean by “low information Christians”
I have in front of me the catholic New America Bible (NABRE) and it says the following on the points you have raised:

Quote:

Gospel authorship: they are not first hand accounts, and authorship is unknown

NABRE, says it was wrong to say that Matthew was the first etc; he compiled the gospel from Mark plus.
Mark is declared to be anonymous,
NABRE says that Luke is not of the first generation of Christian disciples

Quote:

The fact that Mark 16:9-12 does not appear in early documents and was likely added later

NABRE says that the earliest M ended in 6:8. The longer Mark is a later addition not written by Mark

Quote:

The parable of the "Woman taken in adultery" was added later

NABRE also says that it is an addition

And so on.
Have a look at a modern bible and read the footnotes

tanya · 12-12-2012, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Adamantius de Recta in Deum Fide - the Marcionites said this

My understanding, which admittedly is imperfect, and here, maybe completely wrong, is that the oldest extant copy in existence today, of this article by Adamantius, dates, at the earliest, from the fourth century, because, according to Roger Pearse, whose work I trust whole heartedly, there exists within the text references to a fourth century author, Methodius of Olympos in Lycia, Turkey.

So, may I ask, Stephan, how do you know what the Marcionists thought, wrote, or said?

The English transliteration of the Greek word for followers of Marcion, is not Marcionite, it is Marcionist.

The "ite" ending is inserted by those seeking to discredit an ideology, or political movement, by deliberately writing the word without regard for the Greek original. It is shameful, and you, a scholar, and Marcionista, ought to recognize the insidious influence of orthodox Christianity, at work: seeking to discredit Marcion, by referring to his work, his publications and his followers, in a disrespectful fashion.

sotto voce · 12-12-2012, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by God's Will Hunting

I am preparing a project aimed at "low information Christians" whose goal is to educate them about bible criticism, and hopefully open a crack in their belief system. The vast majority of Christians have no idea that the gospels are not first hand accounts, that there are verses added hundreds of years later, the synoptic problem etc.

So I would like to tap into the vast knowledge base here for some help. What I need are "Christian friendly", or at least "neutral" sources to back up the claims I am making on these various points. It can be a website or book citation, but should carry some weight. Wiki is great in general, but not an impressive source, for instance. I'm looking particularly for "Bible scholar" quotes ie "the vast majority of Bible scholars agree that the Gospels are not first hand accounts".

Here are some of the areas I need quotes for:

Gospel authorship: they are not first hand accounts, and authorship is unknown

Likelihood of Q being real

Bishop Irenaeus choosing four gospels as canon because of there are "four directions"

dating of gospel accounts

The fact that Mark 16:9-12 does not appear in early documents and was likely added later

The parable of the "Woman taken in adultery" was added later

NKJV was written to correct errors in KJV

Amount of errors between different NT books, copyist errors etc.

Number of different bible versions

Any and all help is appreciated! Remember these answers need to be geared to "low information" Christians, not apologists! I know Bart Ehrman is a great source but there has been pushback against him in the media, so Christian friendly sources would be best. I will certainly use some of his stuff though.

I don’t know what you mean by “low information Christians”
I have in front of me the catholic New America Bible (NABRE) and it says the following on the points you have raised:

Quote:

Gospel authorship: they are not first hand accounts, and authorship is unknown

NABRE, says it was wrong to say that Matthew was the first etc; he compiled the gospel from Mark plus.
Mark is declared to be anonymous,
NABRE says that Luke is not of the first generation of Christian disciples

Quote:

The fact that Mark 16:9-12 does not appear in early documents and was likely added later

NABRE says that the earliest M ended in 6:8. The longer Mark is a later addition not written by Mark

Quote:

The parable of the "Woman taken in adultery" was added later

NABRE also says that it is an addition

Even NABRE. Wow.

Iskander · 12-12-2012, 01:28 PM

NABRE says John was not written by one person. John 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed. The prologue ( Jn 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn.

And that the advanced theology and literary style is against a theory of eyewitness authorship

I am using
NABRE.
OUP
ISBN 9780195298024

sotto voce · 12-12-2012, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

NABRE says John was not written by one person. John 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed. The prologue ( Jn 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn.

And that the advanced theology and literary style is against a theory of eyewitness authorship

I am using
NABRE.
OUP
ISBN 9780195298024

So presumably, if one does not believe the modern bullshit, you should accept the old Poop. Or vice versa.

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

12-12-2012, 09:23 AM	#24
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Adamantius de Recta in Deum Fide - the Marcionites said this

12-12-2012, 01:28 PM	#29
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	NABRE says John was not written by one person. John 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed. The prologue ( Jn 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn. And that the advanced theology and literary style is against a theory of eyewitness authorship I am using NABRE. OUP ISBN 9780195298024

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.