Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
RESPONSE: Who wrote that and was he a witness or a later commentator? Any evidence?
Actually there is no evdience they did not write the gospel. It is just a later claim and they need to be the ones proving their claim as history disagrees. Many want the Bible to be false so they invent claims and demand proof they are wrong rather than proof they are right.
It is like claiming Alexander the Great did not ride a horse. Prove he did? Oh, but reject the claims of anyone living at the time and who wrote about it after his death and only accept the opinion of people 2300 years later.
It is like the claim that the style of writing changed. So what? I can look at things I wrote and later guess what????? My style changed, BUT I still wrote the words in all the documents.
Really vapid arguments are used against the authorship and historical accuracy.
Actually there is no evdience they did not write the gospel. It is just a later claim and they need to be the ones proving their claim as history disagrees. Many want the Bible to be false so they invent claims and demand proof they are wrong rather than proof they are right.
It is like claiming Alexander the Great did not ride a horse. Prove he did? Oh, but reject the claims of anyone living at the time and who wrote about it after his death and only accept the opinion of people 2300 years later.
It is like the claim that the style of writing changed. So what? I can look at things I wrote and later guess what????? My style changed, BUT I still wrote the words in all the documents.
Really vapid arguments are used against the authorship and historical accuracy.
Those are perhaps vapid arguments as presented by you. There is pretty good evidence that Matthew -the disciple of Jesus - did not write Matthew's gospel as it now stands because it is so demonstrably false.
The argument is not that it is false because Matthew didn't write it, it it couldn't be written by the disciple Matthew because it is false.
The Alexander argument is as vapid as they come. That Alexander rode a horse is so probable, in fact virtually a given assumption that to ask for disproof of it is absurd. Now the same probability is that Jesus drank quite a bit of wine. Did he get a bit tipsy? Mmm? The gospels even imply that he did. Now, if you claim that he didn't because of his magical nature that is something you have to substantiate, because the probability is that you are wrong.
Now we see that the claims of the magical are those that have to be proven. But that too is vapid because the question is not even about Jesus doing miracles but whether the gospels are historically reliable. They are not, not because they contain miracles, but because they contradict each other, wildly and they also conflict with history.
Now you have to prove that Alexander did not ride a horse by showing how the conflicts with history and the contradiction are not conflicts and contradictions.
The style of writing? That can sometimes help with dating buit again that is a vapid argument for you to use, because it is nothing to do with the real reasons to doubt that the gospels are historically accurate.
You effectively trying to fool us with strawman argument. The arguments we use are other arguments and are not at all vapid. The apologetic excuses are.
[quote=expatCA;41622881]>>Actually there is no evdience they did not write the gospel. <<
RESPONSE: There is no evidence that Jesus isn't flying around the universe in a UFO either. Would you then argue that we should believe it?
>>It is just a later claim and they need to be the ones proving their claim as history disagrees. Many want the Bible to be false so they invent claims and demand proof they are wrong rather than proof they are right<<
RESPONSE: Assertions without evidence are to be rejected out of hand.
>>It is like claiming Alexander the Great did not ride a horse. Prove he did? Oh, but reject the claims of anyone living at the time and who wrote about it after his death and only accept the opinion of people 2300 years later.<<
RESPONSE: Can you cite any claim from his contempories who were in a postion to know the truth that Alexander the Great did ride a horse? However that is of an entirely different order of probability than an unknown writer whose date of writing and whose location we don't know claims.
>>It is like the claim that the style of writing changed. So what? I can look at things I wrote and later guess what????? My style changed, BUT I still wrote the words in all the documents.<<
RESPONSE: You have not established who, if fact, wrote the Gospel of John (about 70 years after the events they describe but with perfect recollection about Jesus very long speaches). Is that at all probable?
>>Really vapid arguments are used against the authorship and historical accuracy.
RESPONSE: Actually, logically they are very valid ones. Keep in mind a person making an assertion must offer the proof before any counter arguments need be made.
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 10-20-2015 at 09:48 AM..
Reason: typo
While that is your opinion, it is not the opinion held by the majority of scholars and historians who study the matter. Bart Ehrman who is an agnostic, and who doesn't believe that everything in the Gospels is historical, nevertheless states that the Gospels are, and must be considered as historical sources of information. Quoting Ehrman;
''The Gospels are filled with nonhistorical material, accounts of events that could not have happened.''
''At the same time, there is historical information in the Gospels.''
''However else the Gospels are used---for example, in communities of faith---they can and must be considered historical sources of information.''
''To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly.''
[Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Ehrman, pp. 71-73.]
Now, concerning the existence of an historical Jesus, Ehrman has this to say;
Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea. Even though this is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet, it is not the view of a group of writers who are usually labeled, and often label themselves, mythicists.
[Did Jesus Exist, Ehrman, p. 12
Ehrman, while not himself believing that Jesus actually rose from the dead, recognizes that the early disciples of Jesus believed that they saw the resurrected Jesus.
''He was crucified. This, of course radically disconfirmed everything his followers had thought and hoped since he obviously was the furthest thing from the messiah. But then something else happened. Some of them began to say that God had intervened and brought him back from the dead. The story caught on, and some (or all--we don't know) of his closest followers came to think that in fact he had been raised.
[Did Jesus Exist, Ehrman, p. 164]
Scholars recognize in Paul's writings a number of what are called pre-Pauline traditions. These are traditions which can be traced back to the beginning of the Church. 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is one of those pre-Pauline traditions or creeds. Quoting Bart Ehrman yet again;
I can start with that basic confession of faith that Paul lays out in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, a confession that was passed along to him by those who came before, as he himself states: ''For I delivered to over to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried; and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures ant that he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve.''
[Ehrman, 'Did Jesus Exist, p.249]
And;
The apostle Paul knew several of the people who passed along such stories, as we have seen, as he mentions traditions that he inherited from believers before him (1 Corinthians 11:22-24; 15:3-5) and names several of Jesus' close intimates as personal acquaintances: the disciples Cephas and John, along with Jesus's brother James.'
The idea that Christians were telling stories of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection before Luke, before Mark, and before Paul is held by virtually all scholars of the New Testament, and for compelling reasons.
[Ehrman, 'Did Jesus Exist, pp.260-61]
1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is the gospel (15:1) which Paul said he received. And he received it from others. Again, he probably received this tradition during his visit with Peter and James when he met with them three years after his conversion which means that this tradition goes back even further.
Right from the beginning, then, it was believed that Jesus was raised from the dead. The question then becomes, Why did they believe it? After ruling out things such as mass - hallucinations, since Jesus was seen on different occasions and under various circumstances, or mistaken identity, the best reason why the early disciples believed that Jesus rose from the dead was because He did. But many modern day skeptics will not be convinced.
In the event that you might be interested, the following YouTube video is a speech given by Dr. Gary R. Habermas on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Habermas is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, and is a recognized authority on the resurrection of Jesus. He has written twenty-five books, including 'The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.'
So there we are. This opinion that Matthew could well have been first, or perhaps Mark was first but never mind, stories about Jesus were circulating before Paul, rehash the 'Apostles must have believed the resurrection' argument and then appeal to ongoing faith.
Is it any wonder that getting people to look at the Bible with a really Open Mind rather than one open to anything other that anything to make the question is an uphill task?
Out of the 12 bits of evidence (this relates to the Habermass vid above)
[SIZE=2]4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]5 and 6 are the central pivot of the resurrection claim. And they are flawed. Totally flawed.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]I do not understand why all these scholars and experts do not see this, or if they do I haven't heard it.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]The Bible says in three discrepant stories (mark doesn't have one) that there was a literal risen Jesus. The basis for believing those claims is totally vapid.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]The Bible in just one very dubious source - acts - claims that they became transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]The doubts are questionable enough. The bold proclaiming is even less credible. The dying for the faith in based on later church tradition and pretty dodgy.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Scholarshoip, religious or secular, has made a bad mistake in taking the NT on trust...simply because they have taken it on trust![/SIZE]
Actually all four Gospels speak of the risen Jesus. Mark 16:6 is original to Mark's Gospel. It is Mark 16:9-20 which is an addition.
Mark 16:6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him.
You speak of open minds, but yours is anything but open. Despite your opinion (and that's all that it is . . .your opinion), many, and perhaps most scholars, both Christian and secular, rightfully regard the New Testament writings as historical documents although secular scholars may not consider everything in them as historical. And yes, they are experts who have studied the subject professionally for many years.
And no appeal is being made here to Biblical inspiration or inerrancy. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is being presented on historical grounds.
Your empty and unsupported assertion that points 5 and 6 are flawed is nonsense. That the apostles believed they had seen the risen Jesus and as a result were changed into bold proclaimers of the gospel is the very reason for the growth of Christianity in those first years of the church. The apostles were in a position to know whether or not Jesus had actually risen. And if He hadn't risen they would not have been willing to suffer, and in at least the case for some them, to be martyred for something they knew to be false. Peter, James, and James the brother of Jesus, as well as Paul were all martyred. There is no historical evidence regarding whether the other apostles were martyred however.
That the tomb was empty is believed by roughly 75 percent of scholars on the subject according to Dr. Habermas in his book, 'The Case for the Risen Jesus', p.70. If Jesus' body was still in the tomb then the tomb could have been opened and His body produced, which would have put an end to any resurrection claims. But because the tomb was empty the chief priests told the guard which had guarded the tomb to say that Jesus' body had been stolen by the apostles. The apostles however had no motive to steal the body even if they could have. Again, they would not have been willing to promote something they knew to be false even at the expense of their own lives.
Again, even many critical scholars accept the fact that the early disciples believed they had seen the resurrected Jesus. I already quoted Bart Ehrman.
''He was crucified. This, of course radically disconfirmed everything his followers had thought and hoped since he obviously was the furthest thing from the messiah. But then something else happened. Some of them began to say that God had intervened and brought him back from the dead. The story caught on, and some (or all--we don't know) of his closest followers came to think that in fact he had been raised.
[Did Jesus Exist, Ehrman, p. 164]
The simple fact, whether you agree or not, is that most scholars, both Christian and secular believe that the early disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus. Here are 40 such quotes.
Many people disregard historical evidence, and will not believe simply because they don't want to believe. Therefore they will disregard the historical evidence as non-evidence. You appear to fall into that category. Regardless of your opinion however, the empty tomb is well attested and the early disciples did believe they saw the risen Christ and they proclaimed that He had been risen.
I am quite sure that the author of Acts 2 was speaking of a real phenomenon which you and all those other believers have experienced. But that does not make Acts two true. In fact the rest of acts is so dubious and demonstrably false not to mention the Angel's message in Luke being altered so that Acts could keep the apostles in Jerusalem choosing a replacement for Judas, that theh 'pentecost' event cannot be taken as historically reliable.
Now, since you are talking of personal convictions, let me give you mine.
The resurrection stories are hopelessly contradictory. Mark does not even have one. Now, I have to assume that the disciples believed that Jesus has resurrected as Paul says so and I have to believe on evidence that this is at least true. But reading Paul on the resurrection sightings, you notice that they are quite unlike the resurrection stories.
There is a reason why and Paul tells us what it is. Paul makes it clear that his encounter with the risen Jesus was a spiritual one. Effectively Jesus appeared in Paul's head telling him exactly what he wanted to hear. Thus the appearances first to Peter, then the apostles and then 500 together were vision of the spirit Jesus not a solid walking one. The were in fact visionary appearances and the appearance of Jesus to the women in Matthew and to the ten disciples in John are fabrications. Not historically reliable.
In fact i am sure that the claim of Paul that Jesus appeared first to Simon is the explanation of the puzzling remark in Luke 24.34 where the disciples don't mention any appearance of Jesus to the women (as per Matthew) but claim that he has appeared to Simon. But no account is given of this.
I reckon the reason that Luke, author of Acts and biographer of Paul, knew that Paul had said that Jesus appeared first to Simon. So he Wangled this claim into his resurrection account but without giving any details.
Very astute analysis, AREQUIPA. It points to all the contradictory accounts which then point to how most of Acts and the gospels had to be manufactured/assembled in order to try to tie up so many loose ends they looked like Rapunzel's hair.
Actually there is no evdience they did not write the gospel. It is just a later claim and they need to be the ones proving their claim as history disagrees. Many want the Bible to be false so they invent claims and demand proof they are wrong rather than proof they are right.
It is like claiming Alexander the Great did not ride a horse. Prove he did? Oh, but reject the claims of anyone living at the time and who wrote about it after his death and only accept the opinion of people 2300 years later.
It is like the claim that the style of writing changed. So what? I can look at things I wrote and later guess what????? My style changed, BUT I still wrote the words in all the documents.
Really vapid arguments are used against the authorship and historical accuracy.
Just as many WANT the bible to be true so they invent claims and demand proof they are right rather than accepting proof they are wrong.
The Alexander argument is just another scarecrow...one may assume since Alexander did not have another mode of transportation, he most likely rode a horse.
However, there are no assumptions that would lead ANYONE to accept the idea of talking snakes / mules burning bushes and other bizarre ideas as being factual simply because there was no other comparables existence.
To say that Luke was a real person does not create ANY inferences that leads one to believe he walked with a man named Jesus or that the man name Luke was god's chosen disciple.
So using logic, it cannot be said with any surety, God had anything to do with the NT or the OT being written anymore than one can say god wrote the Koran or Moroni actually loaned out the golden plates.
If one believes the bible was "written" by god to be true, then I suppose it is true for them? But one cannot deny the evidence AGAINST such having actually happened -- At least be honest and say I willfully IGNORE the obvious in favor for the warm-fuzzies that have NO basis in reality.
>>Many people disregard historical evidence, and will not believe simply because they don't want to believe. Therefore they will disregard the historical evidence as non-evidence. You appear to fall into that category. Regardless of your opinion however, the empty tomb is well attested and the early disciples did believe they saw the risen Christ and they proclaimed that He had been risen.<<
RESPONSE:
But of course many disregard "historical evidence" when they find that it isn't really historical evidence.
For example, Jesus was crucified about 33 AD. Paul's epistle written in 55 AD claims that Jesus was raised from the dead.
How could such an amazing thing happen and everybody kept it a secret until the time of Paul? Is it credible that none of the original witnesses or those they told the story to could write?
And Paul says nothing about an empty tomb. That part of the story doesn't get added until 70 AD in Mark's Gospel.
And we have to wait until the second century until the " the longer ending" to Mark's gospel is added, so we can have an Ascension.
Any chance this was just a legend that grew and grew?
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 10-20-2015 at 12:57 PM..
You quoted a source to support your view, and now I will quote a couple of sources which hold an opposing view.
1.) Drs. John F. Walvood and Charles H. Dyer write;
''History uniformly testifies that the first gospel was written by Matthew, one of the twelve disciples. All the early copies of Matthew are headed by the phrase ''according to Matthew,'' and the testimony of the early Fathers is unanimous on the authorship of this gospel.''
''Conservative scholarship has agreed that whether or not there was an earlier Hebrew version, the present Greek version was Matthew's own work and that it is the inspired Word of God.''
[Matthew, John F. Walvoord and Charles H. Dyer, pp. 11, 13]
The comments above are made while having taken into consideration the two main arguments against Matthean authorship; 1.) The question of whether the Gospel we have is a translation of an earlier Hebrew work by Matthew; and 2.) the question of whether Matthew is heavily indebted to the gospel of Mark for most of his facts.
2) Assuming Markan priority (Mark being written before Matthew), and regarding the issue of whether Matthew would have depended on Mark for much of his material, Dr. Craig L. Blomberg comments;
''It is often alleged that the apostle Matthew would scarcely have consulted, much less extensively relied on, canonical Mark, written by one who was not even a follower of Jesus during most of his ministry. But early church tradition regularly associates Mark with Peter. If Matthew recognized Mark's Gospel as in some sense reflecting Peter's ''memoirs,'' he would have had many reasons to consult and follow it: Peter was one of the inner core of three disciples who experienced certain things Matthew did not (cf. e.g., Matt 17:1; 26:37), by the 60s Peter was probably the most prominent apostle in Christian circles, and it is always helpful and interesting to see how other have already tackled a project one wishes to undertake.''
''When all the evidence is amassed, there appears no conclusive proof for the apostle Matthew as author but no particularly cogent reason to deny this uniform early church tradition. Were the Gospel not written by him, the church surely chose a rather strange individual (in light of his unscrupulous past by Jewish standards) as a candidate for authorship. Without any ancient traditions to the contrary, Matthew remains the most plausible choice for author.''
[The New American Commentary, Matthew, vol. 22 Craig L. Blomberg, pp. 43-44]
Matthean authorship of the Gospel which is attributed to him is certainly defensible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child
RESPONSE:
Let's look at some the claims you made and and an argument against the Apostle Matthew's authorship of the Gospel of Matthew.
>>>All the early copies of Matthew are headed by the phrase ''according to Matthew,'' <<<
RESPONSE: What existing copies of the Gospel of Matthew do you have that are dated earlier than 325 AD?
>>>and the testimony of the early Fathers is unanimous on the authorship of this gospel.'<<
RESPONSE: "unanimous" you say? Please give the dates and names of the earliest that stated what you claim.
RESPONSE: The writer of Matthew's gospel does not identify himself, and it wasn't until 4th century Eusebius that we find a claim that he was based a second century claim by Papias (who provides no evidence) who even Eusebius wasn't too bright.
RESPONSE: But the internal evidence in "Matthew's Gospel" shows that he was not an eyewitness. Jesus is shown to have conversed with the other apostles and they with him. But nowhere in Matthew's gospel are they claimed to have spoken with Matthew or him with them. What is the inescapable conclusion then about the Apostle's authorship of the gospel?
First of all, I quoted Drs. John F. Walvood , Charles H. Dyer, and Craig L. Blomberg. I did not merely give an unsupported personal opinion. And I do agree with them.
Secondly, your assertion that Matthew was not the author based on a lack of conversation between Jesus and Matthew or between Matthew and the other apostles is not valid and is no evidence at all. Besides, Matthew records the fact that Jesus had dinner at his house in Matthew 9:10. Luke 5:29 verifies that the dinner was at Matthew's (Levi's) house. This is after Jesus told Matthew to follow Him (Matthew 9:9 ).
Thirdly, I don't personally own any of the extant manuscript copies or even photo copies of Matthew. That is not the point. The point is that scholars say that the earliest extant manuscript copies of Matthew are headed by the phrase, ''according to Matthew.''
D. A. Carson, in 'An introduction to the New Testament' on p.141, refers to an argument made by Martin Hengel in 'Studies in the Gospel of Mark,' in which (Carson apparently paraphrasing Hengel) Hengel points out, that 'it is inconceivable that the gospels could circulate anonymously for up to sixty years, and then in the second century suddenly display unanimous attribution to certain authors. If they had originally been anonymous, then surely there would have been some variation in second-century attributions.''
Fourth, as you stated, Eusebius quoted Papias who lived in the early second century. Irenaeus quoted Matthew as the author in 'Against Heresies 3.1.1. The early church attributed the Gospel of Matthew to Matthew. Again, as Dr. Blomberg wrote, ''Were the Gospel not written by him, the church surely chose a rather strange individual (in light of his unscrupulous past by Jewish standards) as a candidate for authorship. Without any ancient traditions to the contrary, Matthew remains the most plausible choice for author.''
>>Many people disregard historical evidence, and will not believe simply because they don't want to believe. Therefore they will disregard the historical evidence as non-evidence. You appear to fall into that category. Regardless of your opinion however, the empty tomb is well attested and the early disciples did believe they saw the risen Christ and they proclaimed that He had been risen.<<
RESPONSE:
But of course many disregard "historical evidence" when they find that it isn't really historical evidence.
For example, Jesus was crucified about 33 AD. Paul's epistle written in 55 AD claims that Jesus was raised from the dead.
How could such an amazing thing happen and everybody kept it a secret until the time of Paul? Is it credible that none of the original witnesses or those they told the story to could write?
And Paul says nothing about an empty tomb. That part of the story doesn't get added until 70 AD in Mark's Gospel.
And we have to wait until the second century until the " the longer ending" to Mark's gospel is added, so we can have an Ascension.
Any chance this was just a legend that grew and grew?
It WASN'T kept a secret until the time of Paul. And scholars (which you aren't) regard as historical evidence that which you choose to reject.
As I am sure I made clear, 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is considered by scholars to be a PRE-PAULINE tradition which was received by Paul from Peter and James probably when he visited them three years after his conversion. This means that the tradition was even older. In other words, it was believed by the early church from the beginning that Jesus was crucified and resurrected.
RESPONSE: Who wrote that and was he a witness or a later commentator? Any evidence?
Lazarus wrote that and YES he was indeed a witness. He was the one that "Jesus loved". John 11:36
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
