Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?
Moderator: Moderators
Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?
Post #1so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???
Post #171
I can see that you Believe in Creationism because of your Christian faith. This is clear from everything that you have said. I'm a bit more puzzled by your next statement, though, since it's a bit compact. You accept microevolution, as many Creationists do? But you draw the line at macroevolution (as defined by Creationists)?GreenLight311 wrote:I believe in Creationism because it is the truth of the origin of everything. I believe Evolution is true too... but this ape to man, macro evolution is a web of creatively strung lies and deception.
More importantly, let's be specific. You claim that evolution is "a web of creatively strung lies and deception." This is a pretty strong statement. Rather than fire back a similar statement about Creationists, though, I'll suggest that we look into this more fully. Can you give examples of things you call lies and deception? What is the evidence that they are lies or deception? I don't think it is sufficient to say that they are lies because they "contradict the Bible." After all, the Pope has accepted evolution, and believes it is entirely consistent with the Bible. So: can you be specific about these lies and deceptions that you speak of?
Panza llena, corazon contento
-
chrispalasz
- Scholar
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:22 am
- Location: Seoul, South Korea
Taken from Santa thread
Post #172This is in response to a post on the Santa thread. I moved it here so it would be more on-topic.
bernee51 wrote:
Here's some logic, courtesy of St. Augustine. Let me know when we come to a point when you cannot agree, and then please state your reasoning:
1. We exist
2. We are alive
3. We understand that we exist and that we are alive
4. A rock exists, this is all it does. It has no concept of life, or even of it’s own existence.
5. A tree exists. It is both alive, and it exists. It does not have understanding, nor does it have mobility.
6. A dog exists, lives, and is sensate. It can feel, taste, smell, hear, and touch. It has an understanding of life, and of survival. It has what he calls an inner animal sense. It can chose whether or not to eat a certain item, it can move freely, and respond freely, where as nothing below a dog in the hierarchy can do any of that.
7. Humans exist, have life, are sensate, and have one thing that all the others lack, one things that sets us apart from all the others, we have reason. We are capable of understanding, and choosing.
8. If it can be proven that there is something greater than human reason, it must be God. Seven plus three equals ten. This is true, whether or not we exist. It is not ten because we want it to be, because it should be, because it’s supposed to be, because it could be, because it might be, it is because it is. And that fact alone demonstrates that there is something out there, some truth, which is greater than human reason. It is true, not because we, as humans, say it is, but because it is a truth that exists in this world and that truth must come from somewhere. Since this truth is greater than human reason, and does not depend on us, the greatest being in the hierarchy, to be true, then there must be a God.
bernee51 wrote:
Not everything that is logical has evidence. Try math. It can be logical and purely conceptional.There is not one single piece of objective evidence to support a belief in god and to my knowledge never has been throughout the entire history of mankind.
A belief in god is therefore illogical. Believers in god must therefore also be deemed illogical.
Here's some logic, courtesy of St. Augustine. Let me know when we come to a point when you cannot agree, and then please state your reasoning:
1. We exist
2. We are alive
3. We understand that we exist and that we are alive
4. A rock exists, this is all it does. It has no concept of life, or even of it’s own existence.
5. A tree exists. It is both alive, and it exists. It does not have understanding, nor does it have mobility.
6. A dog exists, lives, and is sensate. It can feel, taste, smell, hear, and touch. It has an understanding of life, and of survival. It has what he calls an inner animal sense. It can chose whether or not to eat a certain item, it can move freely, and respond freely, where as nothing below a dog in the hierarchy can do any of that.
7. Humans exist, have life, are sensate, and have one thing that all the others lack, one things that sets us apart from all the others, we have reason. We are capable of understanding, and choosing.
8. If it can be proven that there is something greater than human reason, it must be God. Seven plus three equals ten. This is true, whether or not we exist. It is not ten because we want it to be, because it should be, because it’s supposed to be, because it could be, because it might be, it is because it is. And that fact alone demonstrates that there is something out there, some truth, which is greater than human reason. It is true, not because we, as humans, say it is, but because it is a truth that exists in this world and that truth must come from somewhere. Since this truth is greater than human reason, and does not depend on us, the greatest being in the hierarchy, to be true, then there must be a God.
Re: Taken from Santa thread
Post #173Agreed.GreenLight311 wrote:This is in response to a post on the Santa thread. I moved it here so it would be more on-topic.
Here's some logic, courtesy of St. Augustine. Let me know when we come to a point when you cannot agree, and then please state your reasoning:
1. We exist
Agreed.2. We are alive
Agreed.3. We understand that we exist and that we are alive
Agreed.4. A rock exists, this is all it does. It has no concept of life, or even of it’s own existence.
Uh... care to support the notion that trees lack some form of understanding?5. A tree exists. It is both alive, and it exists. It does not have understanding, nor does it have mobility.
What hierarchy?6. A dog exists, lives, and is sensate. It can feel, taste, smell, hear, and touch. It has an understanding of life, and of survival. It has what he calls an inner animal sense. It can chose whether or not to eat a certain item, it can move freely, and respond freely, where as nothing below a dog in the hierarchy can do any of that.
Fair enough...7. Humans exist, have life, are sensate, and have one thing that all the others lack, one things that sets us apart from all the others, we have reason. We are capable of understanding, and choosing.
BZZT!! Thanks for playing. Have fun with the home version.8. If it can be proven that there is something greater than human reason, it must be God.
I mean this is a complete and total non-sequitor. It simply does not follow from all of the previous premises. It might as well have been "I like cheesy poofs". But, with that in mind, lets continue.
Not quite, numbers are an abstraction of a certain characteristic of what we perceive. There is no "2" that gets referenced from the etherial plane when I see two cars. Its just that a property of the area that I am looking at is that it contains two cars. Mathematics is simply a more general abstraction that allows one to manipulate the numbers.Seven plus three equals ten. This is true, whether or not we exist. It is not ten because we want it to be, because it should be, because it’s supposed to be, because it could be, because it might be, it is because it is.
One cannot point out a "2" anymore than one could point out an "animal". I mean yes you can point out a frog, a tiger, an elephant, etc. however you cannot point out just an "animal" since "animal" is an abstraction. Likewise with 2.
Also 7+3 is in fact 12 in an octal numeric system.
The rest simply collapses from the removal of the above supports.
Gilt and Vetinari shared a look. It said: While I loathe you and all of your personal philosophy to a depth unplummable by any line, I will credit you at least with not being Crispin Horsefry [The big loud idiot in the room].
-Going Postal, Discworld
-Going Postal, Discworld
Post #174
Plants do not have the same kind of understanding that we do, but they certainly have a very profound understanding of their environments. They move as needed to accomodate changes in their environments. They may be rooted to a single spot, but they nonetheless move quite a bit. Here are some good time-lapse movies that illustrate this point.GreenLight311 wrote:5. A tree exists. It is both alive, and it exists. It does not have understanding, nor does it have mobility.
A sea slug can also choose whether or not to eat something, and can move and respond quite freely. What makes dogs more "sophisticated" is their superior reasoning powers.GreenLight311 wrote:6. A dog exists, lives, and is sensate. It can feel, taste, smell, hear, and touch. It has an understanding of life, and of survival. It has what he calls an inner animal sense. It can chose whether or not to eat a certain item, it can move freely, and respond freely, where as nothing below a dog in the hierarchy can do any of that.
GreenLight311 wrote:7. Humans exist, have life, are sensate, and have one thing that all the others lack, one things that sets us apart from all the others, we have reason. We are capable of understanding, and choosing.
The idea that humans can reason, but animals can't, used to be thought valid. It no longer is. One of the most obvious demonstrations of this is Koko's asking for help with her toothache. Others that have been obvious for years and years, for anyone who wanted to look, are the responses of dogs to their human companions. They clearly reason their way through a variety of scenarios--like stopping at a fork in the road, looking back at their human, and waiting for the human to indicate which way to go.
So, this is a great little hierarchy of things, but it isn't quite accurate. That's OK, though, since it doesn't get us very far toward evidence for God. I wonder if gets us closer to liking cheesy poofs?
Ah yes, GL--what about those lies and deceptions you spoke of a while back, that you suggested were used to support "macroevolution"? We're still interested in the specifics.
Panza llena, corazon contento
-
chrispalasz
- Scholar
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:22 am
- Location: Seoul, South Korea
Part 1
Post #175This discussion is taken from the Santa thread and moved here, where it is more relevant because I'm sure it will expand.
Part 1: Refutations
Part 2: Establishing Biblical Reliability
Part 3: Evidence
Part 1
A) Refuting Arch:
Jesus is His name. Christ is His title. (Christ is translated from Hebrew to Greek and is translated from the word for "Messiah")
Which way do you want it? You cannot both say that Santa predates Christianity because of his likeness to pagan deities AND say that he is presented as a man because he comes from St. Nicholas. St. Nicholas is presented as a man in his mythology. Pagan gods are not presented as men. Which one is he? If he is both... then he is not presented as a man because his pagan gods origin preestablishes that.
You will be able to see that this is not correct when you read Part 2. In short, Mark was a disciple of Peter the Apostle, who was an eyewitness to the Jesus accounts.
God uses firefighters to save people. Otherwise, why was the firefighter able to find you?
God sends people to rescue others, even if those people do not know it. Even you unknowingly support God's Kingdom, His Children, and His Plan.
Sure, when you pray for a job, you do the work. Jobs do not come from the sky. But what determines whether or not you find one? A person that does not look very hard can find a job before a person that looks very hard. Even this is determined by God.
B) Refuting bernee51:
Many contemporaries have written mention of Biblical accounts. Take a look at the listing in my last post and take a look at the evidence in Part 2 and 3.
Bethlehem, as far as the Romans was concerned, was an insignificant and very small town located about five miles south of Jerusalem at around 2500 feet elevation. It probably had a population of no more than 500 - 600 people.
Micah 5:2 it says, "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.” Notice that Micah (written around 500 B.C.) prophecies that from Bethlehem, a small town, Jesus will be born. If there were as many as 600 people in Bethlehem, how many children would have been under the age of two? Ten, twenty, thirty? Whatever the number, it would not have been hundreds. It would have been relatively few. Add to this the fact that Herod was known for committing horrendous crimes against people and you could see why this event in an insignificant village in the Jewish area, would be ignored.
"But it is not surprising that he [Josephus] and other secular historians overlooked the death of a few Hebrew children in an insignificant village, for Herod’s infamous crimes were many. He put to death several of his own children and some of his wives whom he thought were plotting against him. Emperor Augustus reportedly said it was better to be Herod’s sow than his son, for his sow had a better chance of surviving in a Jewish community."1
Many more "important" things happening in the Roman Empire which would occupy the details of historical writers. Take a look below and notice that at the time of Christ, some major events were taking place. Undoubtedly, Roman historians would have focused on issues more appropriate to the Empire.
20 B.C. - Herod begins remodeling the temple
12 B.C. - Beginning of war between the Pannonians and the Romans.
9 B.C. - Pannonians are defeated.
7 B.C.- Rome is divided into 14 regions.Herod executes his son.
4 B.C. - Herod burns alive 40 Jews who destroyed a golden eagle. Possible date of the slaughter of the babies. Herod dies.
3 B.C. - Archelaus (Herod's son) kills 3000 Jews in the Temple
1 A.D. - War in Germany
2 A.D. - Peace made with Persia
3 A.D. - Roman decree permitting Jews to follow their religious customs
4 A.D. - Tiberius subdues Germany
6 A.D. - Pannonians revolt. Herod Archelaus deposed by Augustus. Judea is absorbed into the Roman Empire
We must remember that the Bible has demonstrated itself to be reliable and accurate countless times. It may very well be that some inscription is waiting to be uncovered which will, like many inscriptions in the past, validate yet another biblical event. In the meantime, we can trust the Bible to be the accurate document of historical record that it is.
http://www.carm.org/questions/massacre.htm
I believe in the only version that exists in the Bible is true.
Also, I looked at your link. I've been there. Funny website - a nice attempt, but the claims are false.
I will hold you to this.
They are contemporary with the time period.
8)
C) Refuting potwalloper
You are not stating facts you are stating beliefs.
Fact - an element's physical state varies according to temperature
Assertion - the bible is not a work of fiction
This "assertion" is as much of an assertion as the laws of gravity are asserted and that macro evolution is a "fact" is asserted
See my previous post on this board.
Is all "knowledge" equal to fact? If something is not a fact, can it be known? Do all facts need to have objective evidence? I have knowledge of God, so naturally it is a fact that God exists - regardless of the objective evidence. Do you have knowledge that He doesn't exist? If you DO, fine. Then it's your acclaimed "knowledge" against the knowledge of Christians.
I do appreciate it, actually. Only a few years ago, I used to post on the http://www.about.com Biology web forum under the thread of Creation vs Evolution. Only then, I was arguing in favor if evolution. After a couple years, I stopped posting there. Then I gave my life to Christ, and here I am. Interesting, huh? I'll be posting that story (the longer version) in the "Questions for GreenLight311" thread before the end of this week.
But, since I do understand how ludicrous Christian arguments sound to unbelievers... I must sincerely apologize for the frustration I am causing you and anyone else. I've been through it myself.
I would also like to mention that, no, I didn't "give in". And, no, I wasn't "convinced" by any Christian arguments - just as you aren't convinced. It isn't logical reasoning that brings people to God. It's God. This does not mean that God cannot USE logical reasoning to bring people to Him and it doesn't mean that logical reasoning for His existance does not exist. It simply means that God chooses who to save, so logical reasoning can't be 100% consistent with bringing people to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. It can be known that He is calling you... because when He is calling you, you are searching for Him.
END PART 1
P.S. Jose - Please give me a break 8). I have other things to do outside of posting on this forum... so I pick and choose topics. It would be GREAT if somebody else were helping me post! But... nobody is, right now. Maybe I'll ask somebody to... or maybe you could ask somebody to. Until then... I have to choose which posts to respond to in order. I'll get to it. But I also try to be well researched before posting... and I never claimed to be a biologist or archaologist.
Part 1: Refutations
Part 2: Establishing Biblical Reliability
Part 3: Evidence
Part 1
A) Refuting Arch:
I disput it to there is a proven fact that there has been no man in race color or creed by the name of JESUS CHRIST.
Jesus is His name. Christ is His title. (Christ is translated from Hebrew to Greek and is translated from the word for "Messiah")
Santa is presented as a real person, his name has changed over time, but his still presented as real.
Which way do you want it? You cannot both say that Santa predates Christianity because of his likeness to pagan deities AND say that he is presented as a man because he comes from St. Nicholas. St. Nicholas is presented as a man in his mythology. Pagan gods are not presented as men. Which one is he? If he is both... then he is not presented as a man because his pagan gods origin preestablishes that.
Since Matthew didn't write Matthew and Mark and Luke didn't even Know the man you call jesus, We are already far from 99.5% accuracy or textually purity.
You will be able to see that this is not correct when you read Part 2. In short, Mark was a disciple of Peter the Apostle, who was an eyewitness to the Jesus accounts.
God uses both Doctors and medicines as physical methods to heal people. That's why Christians also go to doctors. Praying also helps. But for your sake, what about healings that Doctors can't explain? (examples: When a person is diognosed with HIV... and it disappears. When a person has cancer... and it goes away for no reason.)The facts are that when people pray for their loved ones to heal, its the doctors and medicines that are healing them.
God uses firefighters to save people. Otherwise, why was the firefighter able to find you?
God sends people to rescue others, even if those people do not know it. Even you unknowingly support God's Kingdom, His Children, and His Plan.
Sure, when you pray for a job, you do the work. Jobs do not come from the sky. But what determines whether or not you find one? A person that does not look very hard can find a job before a person that looks very hard. Even this is determined by God.
Surely you can see that this material is biased. It presents information from a person that does not know God. How is that not biased?GreenLight here is how you present unbaised information.....
B) Refuting bernee51:
You claim the bible is historic yet there is no evidence supporting this. Not one contemportary writer mentions any of the so called 'history' in the bible.
Many contemporaries have written mention of Biblical accounts. Take a look at the listing in my last post and take a look at the evidence in Part 2 and 3.
For instance, take the alleged 'slaughter of the Innocents'. Here we have a maniacal jealous ruler (Herod) killing every new born boy child in the kingdom. A kingdom, that was actually a roman fiefdom. Not one writer, Roman, Arabic or Jewish thinks to bother mentioning this atrocity. Why could that be? Perhaps it didn't occur?
Bethlehem, as far as the Romans was concerned, was an insignificant and very small town located about five miles south of Jerusalem at around 2500 feet elevation. It probably had a population of no more than 500 - 600 people.
Micah 5:2 it says, "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.” Notice that Micah (written around 500 B.C.) prophecies that from Bethlehem, a small town, Jesus will be born. If there were as many as 600 people in Bethlehem, how many children would have been under the age of two? Ten, twenty, thirty? Whatever the number, it would not have been hundreds. It would have been relatively few. Add to this the fact that Herod was known for committing horrendous crimes against people and you could see why this event in an insignificant village in the Jewish area, would be ignored.
"But it is not surprising that he [Josephus] and other secular historians overlooked the death of a few Hebrew children in an insignificant village, for Herod’s infamous crimes were many. He put to death several of his own children and some of his wives whom he thought were plotting against him. Emperor Augustus reportedly said it was better to be Herod’s sow than his son, for his sow had a better chance of surviving in a Jewish community."1
Many more "important" things happening in the Roman Empire which would occupy the details of historical writers. Take a look below and notice that at the time of Christ, some major events were taking place. Undoubtedly, Roman historians would have focused on issues more appropriate to the Empire.
20 B.C. - Herod begins remodeling the temple
12 B.C. - Beginning of war between the Pannonians and the Romans.
9 B.C. - Pannonians are defeated.
7 B.C.- Rome is divided into 14 regions.Herod executes his son.
4 B.C. - Herod burns alive 40 Jews who destroyed a golden eagle. Possible date of the slaughter of the babies. Herod dies.
3 B.C. - Archelaus (Herod's son) kills 3000 Jews in the Temple
1 A.D. - War in Germany
2 A.D. - Peace made with Persia
3 A.D. - Roman decree permitting Jews to follow their religious customs
4 A.D. - Tiberius subdues Germany
6 A.D. - Pannonians revolt. Herod Archelaus deposed by Augustus. Judea is absorbed into the Roman Empire
We must remember that the Bible has demonstrated itself to be reliable and accurate countless times. It may very well be that some inscription is waiting to be uncovered which will, like many inscriptions in the past, validate yet another biblical event. In the meantime, we can trust the Bible to be the accurate document of historical record that it is.
http://www.carm.org/questions/massacre.htm
As to veracity and consistency - I ask you again...which version of the resurrection do you hold to be true.
I believe in the only version that exists in the Bible is true.
Also, I looked at your link. I've been there. Funny website - a nice attempt, but the claims are false.
If you supply your evidence I am happy to discuss it.
I will hold you to this.
Now let's look at some of your evidence...
I note that none are contemporary with the life of the alleged Jesus.
They are contemporary with the time period.
I also don't need you to tell me what I need and need not do.
8)
C) Refuting potwalloper
You are not stating facts you are stating beliefs.
Fact - an element's physical state varies according to temperature
Assertion - the bible is not a work of fiction
This "assertion" is as much of an assertion as the laws of gravity are asserted and that macro evolution is a "fact" is asserted
A belief in god is therefore illogical. Believers in god must therefore also be deemed illogical.
See my previous post on this board.
You have a belief - I have no problem with that. Please do not present your belief as a fact - it is not (and yes I know that you feel that you know God exists - this has no bearing on the argument)
Facts are facts. Beliefs are not however many people believe them to be true - the entire population of the western world once believed that the Earth was flat - it ain't).
Is all "knowledge" equal to fact? If something is not a fact, can it be known? Do all facts need to have objective evidence? I have knowledge of God, so naturally it is a fact that God exists - regardless of the objective evidence. Do you have knowledge that He doesn't exist? If you DO, fine. Then it's your acclaimed "knowledge" against the knowledge of Christians.
You do not appreciate, methinks, just how ludicrous arguments based on assertion sound to people like me...
I do appreciate it, actually. Only a few years ago, I used to post on the http://www.about.com Biology web forum under the thread of Creation vs Evolution. Only then, I was arguing in favor if evolution. After a couple years, I stopped posting there. Then I gave my life to Christ, and here I am. Interesting, huh? I'll be posting that story (the longer version) in the "Questions for GreenLight311" thread before the end of this week.
But, since I do understand how ludicrous Christian arguments sound to unbelievers... I must sincerely apologize for the frustration I am causing you and anyone else. I've been through it myself.
I would also like to mention that, no, I didn't "give in". And, no, I wasn't "convinced" by any Christian arguments - just as you aren't convinced. It isn't logical reasoning that brings people to God. It's God. This does not mean that God cannot USE logical reasoning to bring people to Him and it doesn't mean that logical reasoning for His existance does not exist. It simply means that God chooses who to save, so logical reasoning can't be 100% consistent with bringing people to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. It can be known that He is calling you... because when He is calling you, you are searching for Him.
END PART 1
P.S. Jose - Please give me a break 8). I have other things to do outside of posting on this forum... so I pick and choose topics. It would be GREAT if somebody else were helping me post! But... nobody is, right now. Maybe I'll ask somebody to... or maybe you could ask somebody to. Until then... I have to choose which posts to respond to in order. I'll get to it. But I also try to be well researched before posting... and I never claimed to be a biologist or archaologist.
On Youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/chrispalasz
Blog http://www.teslinkorea.blogspot.com
"Beware the sound of one hand clapping"
"Evolution must be the best-known yet worst-understood of all scientific theories."
Blog http://www.teslinkorea.blogspot.com
"Beware the sound of one hand clapping"
"Evolution must be the best-known yet worst-understood of all scientific theories."
Post #176
Yes, No, and if something is claimed to exist objectively, it requires objective evidence for belief in it to qualify as knowledge of it.GreenLight311 wrote:Is all "knowledge" equal to fact? If something is not a fact, can it be known? Do all facts need to have objective evidence? I have knowledge of God,
Knowledge is a subset of true beliefs that are justified. Therefore, for something to be knowledge, it must necessarily be true (ie, be a fact) and there must be justification for it. Otherwise it can simply be attributed to luck that the belief turned out to be true. If your belief does not satisfy this, then no matter how certain of something you are, and no matter how firmly you believe, it is not knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent on the strength of one's convictions.
If you can justify belief in god only in a subjective sense (eg "I know because I believe"), it is not evidence for the existence of god in an objective sense.
Even Jesus's existance as a human being, something that is being challenged by bernee51, is not objective evidence that God exists anymore than the existance of the Pharoh is evidence for the Egyptian Pantheon.
-
chrispalasz
- Scholar
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:22 am
- Location: Seoul, South Korea
Gaunt
Post #177I won't have time to do parts 2 or 3 until later tonight, so I will allow myself to be sidetracked until then with:
Gaunt:
Gaunt:
Yes, No, and if something is claimed to exist objectively, it requires objective evidence for belief in it to qualify as knowledge of it.GreenLight311 wrote:
Is all "knowledge" equal to fact? If something is not a fact, can it be known? Do all facts need to have objective evidence? I have knowledge of God,
God only exists objectively in the sense that He exists in everything that is objective. The actual entity of God is not objective, though. Everything that exists is evidence of the invisible (non-objective God). If you will not accept this... does that get me off the hook for providing evidence?
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. firstborn of all creation.
1 Timothy 1:17
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
Good! Propose, then, that we agree - since my beliefs are justified. Nothing can be attributed to "luck" unless you can offer objective evidence or justification that "luck" exists, right? Otherwise I will have to say that all luck is not, in fact, luck - but God.Knowledge is a subset of true beliefs that are justified. Therefore, for something to be knowledge, it must necessarily be true (ie, be a fact) and there must be justification for it. Otherwise it can simply be attributed to luck that the belief turned out to be true. If your belief does not satisfy this, then no matter how certain of something you are, and no matter how firmly you believe, it is not knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent on the strength of one's convictions.Given what I have already said in this post... would you conclude that it is possible to provide evidence for the disagreement at hand? (which, regardless of the answer, will not prove or disprove the existence of God).If you can justify belief in god only in a subjective sense (eg "I know because I believe"), it is not evidence for the existence of god in an objective sense.
Even Jesus's existance as a human being, something that is being challenged by bernee51, is not objective evidence that God exists anymore than the existance of the Pharoh is evidence for the Egyptian Pantheon.
Well, let's first establish that Jesus did exist as a human being. Then we will move on to what you propose to be true. BTW: Do you contest Jesus' existance as a human being? I am curious.
-
chrispalasz
- Scholar
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:22 am
- Location: Seoul, South Korea
Wow
Post #178I never thought there would be an actual complaint or accusation regarding this... but there was. So...
If you want to follow up on the discussion that I have posted a response to, please view the posts that I have refuted in their original context. They are, as I had stated in bold red letters above, found in the Santa thread.
http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... =8163#8163
If you want to follow up on the discussion that I have posted a response to, please view the posts that I have refuted in their original context. They are, as I had stated in bold red letters above, found in the Santa thread.
http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... =8163#8163
-
chrispalasz
- Scholar
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:22 am
- Location: Seoul, South Korea
Part 2: Establishing Biblical Reliability
Post #179Part 1: Refutations
Part 2: Establishing Biblical Reliability
Part 3: Evidence
Part 2: Establishing Biblical Reliability
A)
http://www.carm.org/questions/rewritten.htm
The following list represents a compilation of various ancient manuscripts, their original date of writing, the earliest copy, the number of copies in existent, and the time span between the originals and the copies. If the Bible is singled out to be criticized as unreliable then all the other writings listed below must also be discarded.
Author, Date Written, Earliest Copy, Approximate Time Span between original and copy, Number of Copies, Accuracy of Copies:
Lucretius, died 55 or 53 B.C., ----, 1100 yrs, 2, ----
Pliny, 61-113 A.D., 850 A.D., 750 yrs, 7, ----
Plato, 427-347 B.C., 900 A.D., 1200 yrs, 7, ----
Demosthenes, 4th Cent. B.C., 1100 A.D., 800 yrs, 8, ----
Herodotus, 480-425 B.C., 900 A.D., 1300 yrs, 8, ----
Suetonius, 75-160 A.D., 950 A.D., 800 yrs, 8, ----
Thucydides, 460-400 B.C., 900 A.D., 1300 yrs, 8., ----
Euripides, 480-406 B.C., 1100 A.D., 1300 yrs, 9, ----
Aristophanes, 450-385 B.C., 900 A.D., 1200, 10, ----
Caesar, 100-44 B.C., 900 A.D., 1000, 10, ----
Livy, 59 BC-AD 17, ----, ???, 20, ----
Tacitus, circa 100 A.D., 1100 A.D., 1000 yrs, 20, ----
Aristotle, 384-322 B.C., 1100 A.D., 1400, 49, ----
Sophocles, 496-406 B.C., 1000 A.D., 1400 yrs, 193, ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C., 400 B.C., 500 yrs, 643, 95%
New Testament1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D., 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D.), less than 100 years, 5600, 99.5%
It should be obvious that the biblical documents, especially in the New Testament documents, are superior in their quantity, time span from original occurrence, and textual reliability. The question is not into documents a reliably transmitted to us. In the question is whether or not the biblical documents record actual historical accounts.
B)
http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm
None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.
Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. If we add to this the fact that acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)," and we have further evidence that it was written early
If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God") "may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts." This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.
* "At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."
* "It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."
Matthew
The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The debate is far from over.
The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.5
* "Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."6
This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure.
The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.
Mark
Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.
Luke
Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.
* "T
he first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3).
Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.
As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8 Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly.
John
The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.
The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.
Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity.
Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.
ACTS
Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 79. A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were written before 70 A.D.
The gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle. It is written from the perspective of an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.
Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John does not mention Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple. He was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity. This makes perfect sense since he already knew of the previously written gospels.
Furthermore, 1, 2, and 3 John all contain the same writing style as the gospel of John and the book of Revelation which is supposed to have been written in the late 80's or early 90's.
Paul's Writings
Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 7 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon
Paul the Apostle was a convert to Christianity. The book of Acts speaks of his conversion in Acts 9. Since Acts was written before 70 A.D. and Paul wrote the Pauline Epistles and we know that Paul died in 64 A.D., the Pauline Epistles were all written before that date. Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is an early creed of the Christian church where Paul mentions that Jesus had died and risen. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Notice that he says he received this information. From whom did he receive it? Most probably the apostles since he had a lot of interaction with them. This means that Paul received the gospel account from the eyewitnesses. They were, of course contemporaries and since they all died before the turn of the century. Therefore, their writings were completed within the lifetime of the apostles of Jesus.
Hebrews
It is not known for sure who wrote the book of Hebrews. Authorship has been proposed for Paul, Barnabas (Acts 4:36), Apollos (Acts 18:24), etc. The only geographical area mentioned is Italy (Heb. 13:24). The latest possible date for the writing of Hebrews is A.D. 95 but could have been written as early as A.D. 67. The book of Hebrews speaks of the sacrifice by the High Priest in the present tense (Heb. 5:1-3; Heb. 7:27) possibly signifying that the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. had not yet happened.
James
This epistles claims to have been written by James, "James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad, greetings," (James 1:1). The question is, "Which James?" Is it James, the son of Zebedee (Matt. 10:2-3); James, the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:2-3), or the most commonly and accepted James who was the brother of Jesus? "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56And His sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matt. 13:55). Notice the context of the verses suggests immediate family since it mentions Jesus' Mother, brothers, and sisters. Also, see Gal. 1:19 which says "Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother." It is probable that James didn't believe in Jesus as the Messiah until Jesus appeared to him after His resurrection as is mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:7, "then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles."
James was martyred by the order of the high priest Ananus after the death of the "procurator Festus in A.D. 61 (Josephus, Ant. 20. 9)." Therefore, the epistle of James was written before A.D. 61.1
1 and 2 Peter
Both epistles clearly state that they were authored by Peter, an eyewitness of Jesus' life and post resurrection appearances. Though there has been some who have doubted the authorship of these two epistles, the clear opening statements of each epistle tell us Peter was the author. "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus...", (1 Pet. 1:1) and "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours..." (2 Pet. 2:1). It certainly seems most logical that Peter is indeed the author of the letters that bear his name.
Peter died at Rome during Nero's persecution of Christians around 64 AD so the epistles were obviously written before that time.
1, 2, 3 John
The writer of 1 John does not identify himself in the letter. The writer of 2 and 3 John refers to himself as "the elder," (2 John 1; 3 John 1). Regarding the first epistle, authorship can reasonably be determined to be that of John the Apostle. The opening of John is written from the perspective of someone who was there with Jesus (John 1:1-4). Also, "Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39) says of Papias, a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, 'He used testimonies from the First Epistle of John. Irenaeus, according to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 5.8), often quoted this Epistle. So in his work Against Heresies (3.15; 5, 8) he quotes from John by name, 1 John 2:18...Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies, 2.66, p. 464) refers to 1 Jn 5:16, as in John’s larger Epistle.'"2 "In the earliest canonical lists, dating from the end of the second century, 1 John already appears. Indeed, 1 John is quoted as authoritative by Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna [a disciple of John the apostle] before the middle of the second century. The attestation of 2 John is almost as good. There is no second-century reference to 3 John, but that is not surprising, since it deals with a specific, local issue."3 Furthermore, the style of the three epistles is very similar to that of the gospel of John. 1 John mentions the "word of life" (1 John 1:1) as does the gospel of John 1:1, etc.
It appears that the epistles were written after the Gospel of John since the epistles seem to assume a knowledge of the gospel facts.
Date of writing varies from A.D. 60 to the early 90's.4
Jude
Jude identifies himself as the brother of James (Jude 1). It is most likely that Jude, in true Christian humility, does not want to equate himself as the brother of Jesus as he is traditionally held to be and seems to be supported by scripture: "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" (Matt. 13:55).5 Instead, he mentions himself as a servant of Jesus, as James has also done.
The date of writing seems to be anywhere from A.D. 68 to the early 90's. Remember that if Judas was a brother of Jesus, he was born around after Jesus which would mean the later the writing date, the older was Judas. There is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem which could have been naturally included in the writing considering that Jude mentions judgments from God upon believers and unbelievers alike (Jude 5-12). Nevertheless, it appears that Jude may have quoted from James. Jude 17-18 says, "But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18that they were saying to you, "In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts." Compare this to 2 Pet. 3:3, "Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts." If this is a quote, it would place the epistle after the writing of 2 Peter.6
Revelation
The author of the Book of Revelation is John. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John," (Rev. 1:1). "Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, p. 308) (A.D.. 139–161) quotes from the Apocalypse, as John the apostle’s work."7
Revelation was probably written at the end of John the Apostle's life. Some hold to the 90's and it is the last book written in the New Testament.
Conclusion
Though this information is basic, it supplies enough evidence to support the apostolic authorship of the New Testament documents. The debate on the dating of the books may never be absolutely settled, but as scholarship and archaeology advance, confirmation of early authorship of the New Testament continues to be validated.
This post needn't get any bigger. Want more?
Flavius Josephus (37-101 A.D) wrote a history of the Jewish Revolt while in prison and mentions many biblical people and places:
http://www.carm.org/questions/Josephus.htm
What is the gospel of "Q" and does it prove the Bible to be false?
http://www.carm.org/questions/Q.htm
Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore? http://www.carm.org/questions/rewritten.htm
Other interesting questions regarding the Bible: ANSWERED
http://www.carm.org/questions_bible.htm
Part 2: Establishing Biblical Reliability
Part 3: Evidence
Part 2: Establishing Biblical Reliability
A)
http://www.carm.org/questions/rewritten.htm
The following list represents a compilation of various ancient manuscripts, their original date of writing, the earliest copy, the number of copies in existent, and the time span between the originals and the copies. If the Bible is singled out to be criticized as unreliable then all the other writings listed below must also be discarded.
Author, Date Written, Earliest Copy, Approximate Time Span between original and copy, Number of Copies, Accuracy of Copies:
Lucretius, died 55 or 53 B.C., ----, 1100 yrs, 2, ----
Pliny, 61-113 A.D., 850 A.D., 750 yrs, 7, ----
Plato, 427-347 B.C., 900 A.D., 1200 yrs, 7, ----
Demosthenes, 4th Cent. B.C., 1100 A.D., 800 yrs, 8, ----
Herodotus, 480-425 B.C., 900 A.D., 1300 yrs, 8, ----
Suetonius, 75-160 A.D., 950 A.D., 800 yrs, 8, ----
Thucydides, 460-400 B.C., 900 A.D., 1300 yrs, 8., ----
Euripides, 480-406 B.C., 1100 A.D., 1300 yrs, 9, ----
Aristophanes, 450-385 B.C., 900 A.D., 1200, 10, ----
Caesar, 100-44 B.C., 900 A.D., 1000, 10, ----
Livy, 59 BC-AD 17, ----, ???, 20, ----
Tacitus, circa 100 A.D., 1100 A.D., 1000 yrs, 20, ----
Aristotle, 384-322 B.C., 1100 A.D., 1400, 49, ----
Sophocles, 496-406 B.C., 1000 A.D., 1400 yrs, 193, ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C., 400 B.C., 500 yrs, 643, 95%
New Testament1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D., 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D.), less than 100 years, 5600, 99.5%
It should be obvious that the biblical documents, especially in the New Testament documents, are superior in their quantity, time span from original occurrence, and textual reliability. The question is not into documents a reliably transmitted to us. In the question is whether or not the biblical documents record actual historical accounts.
B)
http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm
None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.
Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. If we add to this the fact that acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)," and we have further evidence that it was written early
If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God") "may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts." This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.
* "At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."
* "It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."
Matthew
The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The debate is far from over.
The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.5
* "Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."6
This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure.
The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.
Mark
Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.
Luke
Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.
* "T
he first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3).
Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.
As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8 Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly.
John
The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.
The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.
Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity.
Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.
ACTS
Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 79. A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were written before 70 A.D.
The gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle. It is written from the perspective of an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.
Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John does not mention Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple. He was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity. This makes perfect sense since he already knew of the previously written gospels.
Furthermore, 1, 2, and 3 John all contain the same writing style as the gospel of John and the book of Revelation which is supposed to have been written in the late 80's or early 90's.
Paul's Writings
Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 7 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon
Paul the Apostle was a convert to Christianity. The book of Acts speaks of his conversion in Acts 9. Since Acts was written before 70 A.D. and Paul wrote the Pauline Epistles and we know that Paul died in 64 A.D., the Pauline Epistles were all written before that date. Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is an early creed of the Christian church where Paul mentions that Jesus had died and risen. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Notice that he says he received this information. From whom did he receive it? Most probably the apostles since he had a lot of interaction with them. This means that Paul received the gospel account from the eyewitnesses. They were, of course contemporaries and since they all died before the turn of the century. Therefore, their writings were completed within the lifetime of the apostles of Jesus.
Hebrews
It is not known for sure who wrote the book of Hebrews. Authorship has been proposed for Paul, Barnabas (Acts 4:36), Apollos (Acts 18:24), etc. The only geographical area mentioned is Italy (Heb. 13:24). The latest possible date for the writing of Hebrews is A.D. 95 but could have been written as early as A.D. 67. The book of Hebrews speaks of the sacrifice by the High Priest in the present tense (Heb. 5:1-3; Heb. 7:27) possibly signifying that the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. had not yet happened.
James
This epistles claims to have been written by James, "James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad, greetings," (James 1:1). The question is, "Which James?" Is it James, the son of Zebedee (Matt. 10:2-3); James, the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:2-3), or the most commonly and accepted James who was the brother of Jesus? "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56And His sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matt. 13:55). Notice the context of the verses suggests immediate family since it mentions Jesus' Mother, brothers, and sisters. Also, see Gal. 1:19 which says "Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother." It is probable that James didn't believe in Jesus as the Messiah until Jesus appeared to him after His resurrection as is mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:7, "then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles."
James was martyred by the order of the high priest Ananus after the death of the "procurator Festus in A.D. 61 (Josephus, Ant. 20. 9)." Therefore, the epistle of James was written before A.D. 61.1
1 and 2 Peter
Both epistles clearly state that they were authored by Peter, an eyewitness of Jesus' life and post resurrection appearances. Though there has been some who have doubted the authorship of these two epistles, the clear opening statements of each epistle tell us Peter was the author. "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus...", (1 Pet. 1:1) and "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours..." (2 Pet. 2:1). It certainly seems most logical that Peter is indeed the author of the letters that bear his name.
Peter died at Rome during Nero's persecution of Christians around 64 AD so the epistles were obviously written before that time.
1, 2, 3 John
The writer of 1 John does not identify himself in the letter. The writer of 2 and 3 John refers to himself as "the elder," (2 John 1; 3 John 1). Regarding the first epistle, authorship can reasonably be determined to be that of John the Apostle. The opening of John is written from the perspective of someone who was there with Jesus (John 1:1-4). Also, "Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39) says of Papias, a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, 'He used testimonies from the First Epistle of John. Irenaeus, according to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 5.8), often quoted this Epistle. So in his work Against Heresies (3.15; 5, 8) he quotes from John by name, 1 John 2:18...Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies, 2.66, p. 464) refers to 1 Jn 5:16, as in John’s larger Epistle.'"2 "In the earliest canonical lists, dating from the end of the second century, 1 John already appears. Indeed, 1 John is quoted as authoritative by Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna [a disciple of John the apostle] before the middle of the second century. The attestation of 2 John is almost as good. There is no second-century reference to 3 John, but that is not surprising, since it deals with a specific, local issue."3 Furthermore, the style of the three epistles is very similar to that of the gospel of John. 1 John mentions the "word of life" (1 John 1:1) as does the gospel of John 1:1, etc.
It appears that the epistles were written after the Gospel of John since the epistles seem to assume a knowledge of the gospel facts.
Date of writing varies from A.D. 60 to the early 90's.4
Jude
Jude identifies himself as the brother of James (Jude 1). It is most likely that Jude, in true Christian humility, does not want to equate himself as the brother of Jesus as he is traditionally held to be and seems to be supported by scripture: "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" (Matt. 13:55).5 Instead, he mentions himself as a servant of Jesus, as James has also done.
The date of writing seems to be anywhere from A.D. 68 to the early 90's. Remember that if Judas was a brother of Jesus, he was born around after Jesus which would mean the later the writing date, the older was Judas. There is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem which could have been naturally included in the writing considering that Jude mentions judgments from God upon believers and unbelievers alike (Jude 5-12). Nevertheless, it appears that Jude may have quoted from James. Jude 17-18 says, "But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18that they were saying to you, "In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts." Compare this to 2 Pet. 3:3, "Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts." If this is a quote, it would place the epistle after the writing of 2 Peter.6
Revelation
The author of the Book of Revelation is John. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John," (Rev. 1:1). "Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, p. 308) (A.D.. 139–161) quotes from the Apocalypse, as John the apostle’s work."7
Revelation was probably written at the end of John the Apostle's life. Some hold to the 90's and it is the last book written in the New Testament.
Conclusion
Though this information is basic, it supplies enough evidence to support the apostolic authorship of the New Testament documents. The debate on the dating of the books may never be absolutely settled, but as scholarship and archaeology advance, confirmation of early authorship of the New Testament continues to be validated.
This post needn't get any bigger. Want more?
Flavius Josephus (37-101 A.D) wrote a history of the Jewish Revolt while in prison and mentions many biblical people and places:
http://www.carm.org/questions/Josephus.htm
What is the gospel of "Q" and does it prove the Bible to be false?
http://www.carm.org/questions/Q.htm
Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore? http://www.carm.org/questions/rewritten.htm
Other interesting questions regarding the Bible: ANSWERED
http://www.carm.org/questions_bible.htm
On Youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/chrispalasz
Blog http://www.teslinkorea.blogspot.com
"Beware the sound of one hand clapping"
"Evolution must be the best-known yet worst-understood of all scientific theories."
Blog http://www.teslinkorea.blogspot.com
"Beware the sound of one hand clapping"
"Evolution must be the best-known yet worst-understood of all scientific theories."
Post #180
Ok, there are so many topics being thrown around here, I’ll just choose one, for the sake of brevity…
These quotes were from one paragraph of one of Greenlights posts…
Greenlight, I just want clarification on your stance, do you think belief in God is logical and can easily be shown by objective scientific evidence? Or is God over and above our petty rational thought?
Also Greenlight, I’d like to ask what your thoughts on rationalization are? How do they differ to “apologetics”?
These quotes were from one paragraph of one of Greenlights posts…
Amen brother.It isn't logical reasoning that brings people to God.
So if God can “choose” to “use” logical reasoning, would you then say that issues of God are over and above logical reasoning (otherwise known as illogical)? If so, I agree with you.This does not mean that God cannot USE logical reasoning to bring people to Him...
So let me get this straight, people aren’t brought to God by logical reasoning, as God isn’t confined by logical reasoning (ie - illogical), but there is still logical reasoning that suggest her existence?...and it doesn't mean that logical reasoning for His existance does not exist.
Greenlight, I just want clarification on your stance, do you think belief in God is logical and can easily be shown by objective scientific evidence? Or is God over and above our petty rational thought?
Also Greenlight, I’d like to ask what your thoughts on rationalization are? How do they differ to “apologetics”?
