|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 5, 2019 7:57:30 GMT
Both are hearsay. We don't have any direct eyewitness accounts. Only people saying what other people claimed to have seen. In fact who went to the tomb? The Gosples can't even agree on that.
― Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee
Dude, much of what happens in the gospels of John and Matthew are their own eyewitness testimony. Most scholars believe Peter (an eyewitness) was the original source of Mark’s account. Dude we don't know who wrote the gospels and we don't know what was the source for Mark. Most scholars think it was written by a Greek to a gentile audience.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 5, 2019 7:58:30 GMT
Dude, much of what happens in the gospels of John and Matthew are their own eyewitness testimony. Most scholars believe Peter (an eyewitness) was the original source of Mark’s account. And even if he wasn't, Mark was a disciple Of Christ, even if he wasn't part of the 12 Apostles. Most scholars reject that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark. The Gospel is anonymous.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 5, 2019 11:42:53 GMT
Dude, much of what happens in the gospels of John and Matthew are their own eyewitness testimony. Most scholars believe Peter (an eyewitness) was the original source of Mark’s account. Dude we don't know who wrote the gospels and we don't know what was the source for Mark. Most scholars think it was written by a Greek to a gentile audience. There is a lot of internal and external evidence that suggests the gospels were written by the men who they are credited to. But as a skeptic you would rather believe a non-believer like Ehrman than the early church fathers.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 5, 2019 11:51:05 GMT
And even if he wasn't, Mark was a disciple Of Christ, even if he wasn't part of the 12 Apostles. Most scholars reject that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark. The Gospel is anonymous. We have good reason to believe John Mark was in fact the author of Mark’s gospel. He wasn’t an eyewitness to the events but put Peter’s oral teachings into written form.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 5, 2019 11:51:23 GMT
Your source ... ... does not say by what recent revelation or historical documentation he draws his conclusions. Nor does he reconcile his conclusions with these verses. Another argument you might have heard that Jesus must have died in the sense of modern medicine is that he "gave up the ghost," (or spirit) which could be roughly translated that he stopped breathing. The justification is problematic as you can see here Wikipedia - Spirit. The link discusses "pneuma" and "anima." There are however indications that the breath and the life were commonly directly associated as does appear justified. Compare "spirit" and "respirate." Conclusions are of course difficult. I would only say that it appears possible that Jesus was merely in a coma.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 5, 2019 12:28:01 GMT
Dude we don't know who wrote the gospels and we don't know what was the source for Mark. Most scholars think it was written by a Greek to a gentile audience. There is a lot of internal and external evidence that suggests the gospels were written by the men who they are credited to. But as a skeptic you would rather believe a non-believer like Ehrman than the early church fathers. What evidence? The Gospels are anonymous. The attribution of authorship to the apostles or close associate of the apostles came up centuries laterand it's reject by most historical scholars. Funny how you accept their consensus on historical Jesus but then reject it when it comes to the authorship.
Ehrman started as a Christian fundamentalist but even you have accept that the accounts of the resurrection and who went to the tomb and what the women found there are different in each Gospel. Just read the passages in each Gospel and see how they differ.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 5, 2019 12:28:18 GMT
Most scholars reject that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark. The Gospel is anonymous. We have good reason to believe John Mark was in fact the author of Mark’s gospel. He wasn’t an eyewitness to the events but put Peter’s oral teachings into written form. What evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 5, 2019 13:04:17 GMT
There is a lot of internal and external evidence that suggests the gospels were written by the men who they are credited to. But as a skeptic you would rather believe a non-believer like Ehrman than the early church fathers. What evidence? The Gospels are antonymous. You mean anonymous? Incorrect. The early writings of the church fathers refer to the authorship as if it was already common knowledge. I go by the church tradition. The early church fathers lived far closer to the time than some atheist like Bart Ehrman who has a major axe to grind. They can easily be explained upon close examination. The gospels are in complete harmony.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 5, 2019 13:13:06 GMT
We have good reason to believe John Mark was in fact the author of Mark’s gospel. He wasn’t an eyewitness to the events but put Peter’s oral teachings into written form. What evidence? 1) Several early church fathers claim Mark was written by a man named John Mark, thought to be a companion of Peter and Paul. 2) One of the apostles (John the Elder) told Papias that John Mark wrote it. 3) John Mark appears in Acts 12:12 and is called the Interpreter of Peter.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 5, 2019 14:16:39 GMT
What evidence? The Gospels are antonymous. You mean anonymous? Incorrect. The early writings of the church fathers refer to the authorship as if it was already common knowledge. I go by the church tradition. The early church fathers lived far closer to the time than some atheist like Bart Ehrman who has a major axe to grind. They can easily be explained upon close examination. The gospels are in complete harmony. Yes. I edited the error. But it came much later after the Gospels were already written. Actually Ehrman calls himself an agnostic and he's just a Biblical scholar. The sort of scholars that you trust when it comes to the historicity of Jesus. How can they be explained away? Did Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus had the flight to Egypt to escape King Herod massacre of the innocents (which by the way no historical record of that event exists outside the Gospel of Matthew) or did they went first to the Temple and then return directly to Nazareth (according to Luke that doesn't mention the massacre and neither flight to Egypt.) Now here as a couple of historical problems with the reasoning the Gospel of Luke gives for Josus to be born in Bethlehem : it didn't require people to go to place where their ancestor had lived and it happened 10 years after Herod's death. In Mark, Pilate doesn't say anything about Jesus being innocent, in John he says Jesus is innocent three times. Judas hangs himself according to the Gospels but in the Acts he appears to fall headlong and didn't hang himself. I already posted how the narratives of the resurrection are different. What women were at the empty tomb? Was the stone rolled away or not? Did they found man, an angel or two men? No one? Did they tell disciples? The disciples and other people? Or they didn't tell anyone what they saw there? Jesus entered in Jerusalem riding single animal, probably a colt or a donkey like almost every Gospel seems to agree or did enter Jerusalem riding two animals like the author of Matthew says trying to fulfill the prophecy from Zechariah 9:9: Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 5, 2019 14:19:51 GMT
1) Several early church fathers claim Mark was written by a man named John Mark, thought to be a companion of Peter and Paul. 2) One of the apostles (John the Elder) told Papias that John Mark wrote it. 3) John Mark appears in Acts 12:12 and is called the Interpreter of Peter. Yeah several Church fathers try to link it to an authoritative figure, but there is no evidence of that.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 5, 2019 15:56:32 GMT
You mean anonymous? Incorrect. The early writings of the church fathers refer to the authorship as if it was already common knowledge. I go by the church tradition. The early church fathers lived far closer to the time than some atheist like Bart Ehrman who has a major axe to grind. They can easily be explained upon close examination. The gospels are in complete harmony. Yes. I edited the error. But it came much later after the Gospels were already written. The gospel authorship was in circulation and common knowledge way before officially accredited. And it certainly wasn’t centuries after the gospels which you initially asserted. Ehrman is an agnostic atheist. And he is a bible scholar who has a major axe to grind with Christianity. You mean the sort of scholars you question when it comes to the historicity of Jesus but appeal to when it comes to the authorship of the gospels? The problem here is you assume Matthew and Luke each would automatically include all the whereabouts of Jesus’ family. You don’t think it’s possible that one author would omit a detail that another recorded? We see examples of this in other places. Luke leaves out the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Galilee, which a mentioned in both Matthew and John. Is that a contradiction too? You’ll have to elaborate on this one. Again one author simply omits a detail that another mentions. No. Judas hung himself but later his body fell and split open probably due to the rope or branch breaking carrying his bodyweight. All of them. When the women got to the tomb the stone was rolled away. Angels. The best explanation is that they were initially afraid at what they’d seen and didn’t know what to do. But later spoke up and told the disciples and the rest. 2 animals. One at a time.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Dec 5, 2019 16:20:47 GMT
You don’t think it’s possible that one author would omit a detail that another recorded? Some things sure, but some things are beyond small details. I mean why does Luke not mention Herod trying to kill Jesus - that's a pretty big detail to miss out. And why would Judea be included in a Roman Census while Herod was alive and Judea therefore not part of the Roman Empire yet?
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 5, 2019 16:36:36 GMT
Yes. I edited the error. But it came much later after the Gospels were already written. The gospel authorship was in circulation and common knowledge way before officially accredited. And it certainly wasn’t centuries after the gospels which you initially asserted. Ehrman is an agnostic atheist. And he is a bible scholar who has a major axe to grind with Christianity. You mean the sort of scholars you question when it comes to the historicity of Jesus but appeal to when it comes to the authorship of the gospels? The problem here is you assume Matthew and Luke each included all the whereabouts. You don’t think it’s possible that one author would omit a detail that another recorded? We see examples of this in other places. Luke leaves out the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Galilee, which a mentioned in both Matthew and John. Is that a contradiction too? Again one author simply omits a detail that another mentions. No. Judas hung himself but later his body fell and split open probably due to the rope or branch breaking carrying his bodyweight. All of them. When the women got to the tomb the stone was rolled away. Angels. The best explanation is that they were initially afraid at what they’d seen and didn’t know what to do. But later spoke up and told the disciples and the rest. 2 animals. One at a time. Rejected by almost every Biblical scholar. In fact we know that there were additions to the Gospels that were later. I already mentioned this in another thread but the Gospel of Mark ended at the empty tomb. What came after was added later and probably by another person. What major axe to grind with Christianity? I don't question the historicity of Jesus. Nice try. It clearly shows contradictions. So they didn't have to run to Egypt because of Herod killing every male under two years old? They could stay and present him to the Temple and Luke suddenly omits the fact that they didn't need to run to Egypt because apparently they were in no danger from Herod. They just returned to Nazareth. And yes, probably. There other contradictions besides the ones I've mentioned. Or simply put, one author wanted to make Christianity more palatable to the Romans and portrays Pilate as somewhat of a honest governor caught in the politics of ancient Judea so he makes Pilate the good guy by saying that Jesus is innocent three times and put the blame for the death of Jesus on the Jews. And here you are creating an alternative scenario that's not mentioned in the Bible in an attempt to explain an obvious contradiction. Not according to Matthew: It was Mary Magdalene and another Mary. Not according to Mark: It was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. Not according to Luke: Mary Magdalene, Johanna, Mary the mother of James and a few other women. Not according to John: It was just Mary Magdalene And you're saying that there is no contradiction with Matthew that says that that an angel came and rolled away the stone? The Gospel of John doesn't mention anyone. That's clearly a contradiction. The Gospel of Matthew mentions one angel not angels. The Gospel of Mark mentions one man. The Gospel of Luke mentions two men. Well but Gospel of Matthew says they left in a hurry to tell the disciples. Mark says they didn't tell anyone. John says Mary Magdalene told Peter and the beloved disciple. You create an alternative scenario again in an attempt to harmonize and explain a contradiction but your version isn't the one from the Bible. It's yours. The Gospel according to Cody. Mark 11 John 12 Matthew 21 Only Matthew mentions two animals. The others mention a single one. Again another contradiction. There are more.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 5, 2019 18:33:52 GMT
Winter_King I may be mixing you up with someone else. I don’t think you fully grasp what a contradiction means. Silence does not equal denial my friend. Luke doesn’t mention the Magi visit, doesn’t mean it never happened. Neither gospel claims to be an exhaustive account of every detail of Christ’s birth. Here you are creating an alternative explanation that is not at all indicated in scripture based on a preconceived bias you have against the truthfulness of the bible. There’s no obvious contradiction. I’m simply reconciling the facts. Note acts doesn’t actually say Judas died from the fall. A man falling down in a field doesn’t cause his body from bursting open. Only decomposition and a fall from a height could cause a body to burst open. Basically Matthew records the cause of death and Acts focus on the circumstances surrounding it. It’s like two reports of Kennedy’s death. One says he died of a gunshot to the head. The other details how he fell back, his head splattered open blood and fragments of his scalp, brain, and skull landed on the interior of the car. No contradiction. “So she went running to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said to them, “They’ve taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they’ve put him!”JOHN 20:2What’s that? we? I thought it was only Mary Magdalene? Who’s this we? The writers are not obligated to mention every person present. That’s exactly what I’m saying. The stone was rolled away before the women arrived. Matthew was just providing extra context. He doesn’t say the women witnessed it. The NASB translation even uses the verb "had occurred,” suggesting that the events in verses 2-4 occurred before the women arrived. Two angels. Two were present, but Matthew and Mark only mention the speaker. It is clear that the "men" in Mark and Luke were intended to be understood as angels, because they were dressed in a brilliant white and (more significantly) they had a message from God for the women. Another explanation is that Mark 16:8 only tells what happened initially. The original ending of Mark is lost (with the existing version ending with the women not telling anyone), so it is possible that Mark wrote of the women later telling the disciples. Matthew is focusing on a prophetic fulfilment. The other two weren’t. You’re looking at this all the wrong way. The slight differences within the gospels point to their authenticity. Think about it. Wouldn’t it be more suspicious if all 4 gospels were identical? This would mean that the writers more likely collaborated, perhaps even conspired, with one another to produce a perfectly harmonized resurrection account. The fact that we have 4 gospels with some significant differences strongly implies that each author was simply reporting events that he had seen or heard himself.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 5, 2019 20:28:27 GMT
Winter_King I may be mixing you up with someone else. I don’t think you fully grasp what a contradiction means. Silence does not equal denial my friend. Luke doesn’t mention the Magi visit, doesn’t mean it never happened. Neither gospel claims to be an exhaustive account of every detail of Christ’s birth. Here you are creating an alternative explanation that is not at all indicated in scripture based on a preconceived bias you have against the truthfulness of the bible. There’s no obvious contradiction. I’m simply reconciling the facts. Note acts doesn’t actually say Judas died from the fall. A man falling down in a field doesn’t cause his body from bursting open. Only decomposition and a fall from a height could cause a body to burst open. Basically Matthew records the cause of death and Acts focus on the circumstances surrounding it. It’s like two reports of Kennedy’s death. One says he died of a gunshot to the head. The other details how he fell back, his head splattered open blood and fragments of his scalp, brain, and skull landed on the interior of the car. No contradiction. “So she went running to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said to them, “They’ve taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they’ve put him!”JOHN 20:2What’s that? we? I thought it was only Mary Magdalene? Who’s this we? The writers are not obligated to mention every person present. That’s exactly what I’m saying. The stone was rolled away before the women arrived. Matthew was just providing extra context. He doesn’t say the women witnessed it. The NASB translation even uses the verb "had occurred,” suggesting that the events in verses 2-4 occurred before the women arrived. Two angels. Two were present, but Matthew and Mark only mention the speaker. It is clear that the "men" in Mark and Luke were intended to be understood as angels, because they were dressed in a brilliant white and (more significantly) they had a message from God for the women. Another explanation is that Mark 16:8 only tells what happened initially. The original ending of Mark is lost (with the existing version ending with the women not telling anyone), so it is possible that Mark wrote of the women later telling the disciples. Matthew is focusing on a prophetic fulfilment. The other two weren’t. You’re looking at this all the wrong way. The slight differences within the gospels point to their authenticity. Think about it. Wouldn’t it be more suspicious if all 4 gospels were identical? This would mean that the writers more likely collaborated, perhaps even conspired, with one another to produce a perfectly harmonized resurrection account. The fact that we have 4 gospels with some significant differences strongly implies that each author was simply reporting events that he had seen or heard himself. ...and here folks, we have THE best example of a confirmation bias thread of the year...perhaps even on these boards ever. Cody will argue black is white, use terms like 'common knowledge' of something attributed to 2 thousand years ago amongst a historical miasma of different opinions on the history and argues about a book that has been translated, interpreted, added to, changed and studied for 2 thousand years as though it is some kind of immutable 'truth' proven by 'evidence'. A for effort.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 10, 2019 16:36:17 GMT
Cody™ It's when two stories or statements are in opposition to each other. For example: three authors mentioning a man entering a city riding an animal and another mentioning the same man riding two animals at once. Well here is the problem, one accounts that due to Herod's persecution, they had to flee to Egypt. Another one feels that this persecution was not even important that they just went present their newborn to the Temple and returned to Nazareth. That is a clear contradiction. It's not omitting a detail like who visited Jesus even though it's likely that none of that happened. What needed to made clear was that Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem because that's where the Messiah would be born. But that wouldn't work if Jesus family lived in Nazareth so the two authors of the Gospels told two different Christmas stories in order for Jesus to be born there. Two reports on Kennedy's death: in one he died of a gunshot wound to the head. In another he died in a car crash. You're reconciling the two accounts in attempt to explain what are two different narratives. And apparently they're not even obliged to determine if the stone was rolled away or not or what the womenwho went there did afterwards. Each one can write whatever they wants and if they are in contradiction, who cares? It's just the Word of God "amiright"? That's your assumption but even assuming it's true it does throw you argument about eyewitnesses out of the water doesn't it? How did they know it was angel that rolled the stone away if they weren't there to see it? Of course the chapter in questions mentions the women going there, and then an angel coming down to roll the stone away. Yeah he's providing detail that apparently no one was there to see. According to John, when Mary went to the tomb, Jesus wasn't there and stone had been rolled away. No one there. Only after she told Peter and Peter went to the tomb was that angel appeared. That's very different than the angel that came and rolled the stone away. Or the the two men who were already there. Another explanation is that Mark 16:8 only tells what happened initially. The original ending of Mark is lost (with the existing version ending with the women not telling anyone), so it is possible that Mark wrote of the women later telling the disciples. Actually most scholars believe that the original ending is Mark 16. Everything else is later addition. Exactly right. Matthew is focusing on prophetic fulfillment. Of course it's not exactly a prophecy if you look at ancient texts and try to act accordingly. That's why they have different narratives. The authors had to make Jesus the Messiah and that's why they have different narratives because they were trying to make Jesus to have fulfilled them. That's why you had two different motives for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem even though his family lived in Nazareth. If you apply this to the rest of the Gospel narratives, you will see that whoever wrote the Gospels didn't witness the events and was just trying to convince the readers that Jesus was the Messiah. And this was intended for different audiences. Including gentiles ones. That's why some are clearly more forgiving on the Romans than others. Again you have hearsay. Which leads me to the what I've already said: this is really poor evidence for an actual Resurrection.If this happened today we wouldn't accept the accounts of four different people saying that one person resurrected 30 years before according to some other people. At least I wouldn't.
|
|