Gospels

[Dex]

The Gospel according to Matthew says (27:52-54) 'the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints who slept rose up and came out of their graves after His resurrection, and went into the Holy City and appeared to many'. Do you believe this happened? If Yes: How could this amazing event have escaped everyone else's notice, even the other evangelists? If No: How could the author of Matthew get away with such a lie?

[bernee51]

Maybe they didn't appear to him. Maybe, as other Jews, he believed in resurrection. Maybe (maybe) he believed in the Bible account of the prophet Elisha, and Ezekiel, concerning resurrection from the dead.

Maybe, maybe maybe.....

Is your point (if 8 will permit me asking) that Philo wrote of everything else contained in Matthew ? In Mark ? In Luke ? In John ? In all 4 ?

Philo does not even mention Jesus - the man/god who's life was the most amazing miracle filled event ever.

They were written versions of oral legends.

i wouldn't call facts "legends." But if that's your twist, vocabulary, agenda, or concept, so be it

There is no evidence that the life/death/resurrection of Jesus is anything but legend.

I believe Mark was the first and the probable inventor of the Jesus myth.

i believe Matthew was written around AD 40

Bible scholars overwhelmingly agree that the Gospel of Mark was the first gospel written. It is also evident that Mark was the resource text used by Matthew and Luke in compiling their own accounts of Jesus’ life. The likely year of it’s composition is 65 AD.

.. and neither God nor Jesus are myth

As there is no evidence of either there is no alternative than to presume they are.

by fantastic I mean 'fantasy'. The fantasy becomes more fantastic from mark to John.

What fantasy ?

Counting the extraordinary occurrences in the gospels Mark lists one, John more than 8. John's resurrection story has real angels, bodily appearances (including a "now you see him" manifestation through shut doors), the "fish story" miracle, and an ascension. This anonymous writer ends with the claim that there were "many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."

From my reading the New Testament in comparison with your posts, i see that you're spiritually blind, dead, and in unbelief

It should come as no surprise that you are not the first to make this claim and in my experience this is usually the last ditch claim of the apologist who has no answer. I will ask of you what I have asked of them. I have yet to receive an answer - hopefully you can do better.

Please define 'spiritual' for me in order to determine what you mean by blindness, deafness and death.

God, the all powerful, eternal, unchanging christian creator god, does not exist..it is a logical impossibility.

That's illogical.

How is it illogical?

[Dex]

Quote:
8 considering it was such a big event,yes i do believe people would have written about it.

Matthew did




Quote:
there were many historians during this time who kept alot of records of events but yet this is one that was never recorded.

To the contrary: Matthew recorded it

as the supposed record keepers of the books of the bible have proven to be unreliant id sayid need some extrabiblical evidence to support the claim.

Quote:
i do believe the gospels contradict,if you want to debate this though it should be somewhere else.

i don't read the Gospels or Bible ever contradicting. If you want to debate this, feel free to do so anywhere you like

i would actually like that.its been awhile since ive debated anyone who thinks they could possibly explain away the contradictions of the bible and ill make a new topic for that.

Quote:
this question is pointless and just another way for you to avoid the topic at hand.

Then does that mean your statement about "fantastic" and "later Gospels," which i questioned, was also pointless and avoiding the topic at hand ?

the topic i the topic,if the questions stray from the topic then there pointless.

Quote:
i applaud your way of debating.you seem to have found a way to completly avoid the topic by just drilling anyone with questions that completely take you away from the topic.

i don't applaud you for mislabelling my questions about the topic as "avoiding" the topic. Since i'm simply trying to understand what you or another are saying.
If using your and his own words "completely takes away from the topic," then what words in questions, if any, do you want me to ask ? Would you prefer i simply take everything you and another say by faith ? Are you your own Bible ?

i wouldnt claim to be my own bible but i have been thinking about writing a new one since people will believe anything so long as its in writing and claiming to be the word of god.

[Goat]

8 considering it was such a big event,yes i do believe people would have written about it.

Matthew did

But, there was no independent confirmation. As such, it appears to be more fantasy than anything else

there were many historians during this time who kept alot of records of events but yet this is one that was never recorded.

To the contrary: Matthew recorded it

See above. There is no independent confirmation, where logically there should have been. It is more fantasy than anything else.

[piglet17]

Maybe, maybe maybe.....

If i were omniscient like bernee, maybe i could write "definitely, definitely, definitely."
If anyone else can help me understand: is that his problem with "maybe" ?

Philo does not even mention Jesus - the man/god who's life was the most amazing miracle filled event ever.

That's Philo's problem, lack, indifference, or ignorance.
Mabye bernee's making up for it by mentioning Jesus alot

There is no evidence that the life/death/resurrection of Jesus is anything but legend.

To the contrary: there's letters and histories by contemporaries who knew Him and knew of Him. In addition: i meet Him all the time

Bible scholars overwhelmingly agree that the Gospel of Mark was the first gospel written.

Is that your substitute for argument ?
Mark was probably the third written based on its author's name, "Mark," Peter's and Paul's coworker. Versus "Matthew," one of Jesus' educated, original, and older disciples

It is also evident that Mark was the resource text used by Matthew and Luke in compiling their own accounts of Jesus’ life.

To the contrary: that's "evident" only if that's your, or your "scholars'" bias.
i think their silly argument goes like this: "What's simpler or smaller must be earlier." Which might mean therefore, in terms of all literature: summaries of writings must precede the writings themselves.
This shows the level, if any, of the dear poster above's "scholars" and "scholarship"

The likely year of it’s composition is 65 AD.

We roughly agree then on Mark

As there is no evidence of either there is no alternative than to presume they are.

To the contrary: bernee was made in His Maker's image to
contain His Maker. "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved"

This anonymous writer ends with the claim that there were "many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."

Amen. It's fitting since He, as God, created the world.
Nor is John "anonymous" since He identifies Himself in John 21:24-20. The immediate preceding sentences to bernee's quote above !
You might wanna read John before you and your "scholars" hold forth on it

It should come as no surprise that you are not the first to make this claim and in my experience this is usually the last ditch claim of the apologist who has no answer.

To the contrary: it's the first claim. Since without sight, you can't see anything. Even if it's written in a book for you

Please define 'spiritual' for me in order to determine what you mean by blindness, deafness and death.

"God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit..."
John 4:24

7 as the supposed record keepers of the books of the bible have proven to be unreliant id sayid need some extrabiblical evidence to support the claim.

As Dex's posts prove to be unreliant generally, i'd say Dex needs God

i would actually like that.its been awhile since ive debated anyone who thinks they could possibly explain away the contradictions of the bible and ill make a new topic for that.

What contradictions ?
i'll take on your folly there, as i've begun to

i wouldnt claim to be my own bible but i have been thinking about writing a new one since people will believe anything so long as its in writing and claiming to be the word of god.

Meaning your word's not the word of God ?

There is no independent confirmation, where logically there should have been.

To the contrary of this fantasy: goat can superimpose his literacy, writing, journalistic, and unbeliever preconceptions on Matthew and Matthew's time all he wants. None of that makes goat's preconceptions necessarily logical. Additionally, there is confirmation, in the Scriptures themselves. In the typology of Christ in His Old Testament, the firstfruits of the harvest were never a single stalk of what, but rather a sheaf of wheat. Leviticus 23:10-11.

i'm guessing that even if Josephus or nonjewish Roman writers had also mentioned resurrections like they mentioned Christ, it wouldn't necessarily "confirm" anything to u

[Dex]

Quote:
7 as the supposed record keepers of the books of the bible have proven to be unreliant id sayid need some extrabiblical evidence to support the claim.

As Dex's posts prove to be unreliant generally, i'd say Dex needs God

ouch,a cheap shot,next thing you know youll resort to just quoting scripture.

[piglet17]

How so ?

[bernee51]

Piglet wants to play silly games instead of having a discussion....

Maybe, maybe maybe.....

If i were omniscient like bernee, maybe i could write "definitely, definitely, definitely."
If anyone else can help me understand: is that his problem with "maybe" ?

No I am just refecting on what Philo tells me - I meet him regularly,

Philo does not even mention Jesus - the man/god who's life was the most amazing miracle filled event ever.

That's Philo's problem, lack, indifference, or ignorance.

Philo was not indifferent - nor ignorant.

Mabye bernee's making up for it by mentioning Jesus alot

Philo doesn't mention him at all.

There is no evidence that the life/death/resurrection of Jesus is anything but legend.

To the contrary: there's letters and histories by contemporaries who knew Him and knew of Him.

No there isn't. None of the authors (who ever they are) of the NT write as if they knew him personally.

In addition: i meet Him all the time

Next time ask him if he met or heard of Philo.

Bible scholars overwhelmingly agree that the Gospel of Mark was the first gospel written.

Is that your substitute for argument ?
Mark was probably the third written based on its author's name, "Mark," Peter's and Paul's coworker. Versus "Matthew," one of Jesus' educated, original, and older disciples

That is what first century urban legend holds to be the case. Markian primacy seems to be the most commonly held opinion amongst biblical scholars - those that have actually studied the texts. I note though that your Public Enemies (the catholics) hold that Matthew was first. What else do you have in common with Catholics?

As there is no evidence of either there is no alternative than to presume they are.

To the contrary: bernee was made in His Maker's image to
contain His Maker.

On that we agree. I do contain the maker.

Please define 'spiritual' for me in order to determine what you mean by blindness, deafness and death.

"God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit..."
John 4:24

As suspected...you cannot define 'spiritual'.

It is interesting to note that those who speak loudest about 'spirit' are those who understand it least. They make an assumption that because they 'believe' they are somehow 'spiritual' - yet they have no apparent understanding at all of the term.

Come on Piglet - try again. You are the one claiming I am spiritually blind and thus, by default, you are not.

[Goat]

Maybe, maybe maybe.....

If i were omniscient like bernee, maybe i could write "definitely, definitely, definitely."
If anyone else can help me understand: is that his problem with "maybe" ?

I don't see Bernie having a problem with 'maybe'. I see him being skeptical of unsupported assertions.

[piglet17]

Piglet wants to play silly games instead of having a discussion....

How so ?
By asking "how so" ?
Do you prefer to be inspecific ?

No I am just refecting on what Philo tells me - I meet him regularly,

You mean Philo's alive ?
Philo tells you "definitely" instead of "maybe" ?

How regularly ?
Or are you being deceitful ?

Philo was not indifferent - nor ignorant.

Of what ?

Philo doesn't mention him at all.

Then, by definition, Philo's ignorant of Jesus. At least in his writings.
That's okay by me. bernee51's making up for Philo's lack

No there isn't. None of the authors (who ever they are) of the NT write as if they knew him personally.

To the contrary: John and Matthew do, and Mark and Luke record details from eyewitnesses. Luke and Mark don't write of themselves and their personal relationship with the Lord, because their purposes were to record Jesus' earthly life.

But since bernee apparently implies he's thinking about these matters: can bernee offer anything better than "who ever they are" for authors ?
Can bernee try real hard ?

Next time ask him if he met or heard of Philo.

Why don't you yourself, bernee ?

Markian primacy seems to be the most commonly held opinion amongst biblical scholars - those that have actually studied the texts.

Does that mean bernee's just repeating by faith what others have told him ?
Or has bernee actually read his laughable "scholars'" texts ?
Is bernee waiting to be begged to supply his own arguments,
waiting for the magic word ?

I note though that your Public Enemies (the catholics)

Other than being a liar, ignoramus, or never bothering to ask me:
why does bernee label Catholics my "Public Enemies" ?
Is it 'cuz bernee's Catholic and wants to play victim instead of having discussion ?
Is it 'cuz bernee hates Catholics so he wants me to too ?

What else do you have in common with Catholics?

Early postapostolic Christian writers, such as Papias (unless in bernee-world, they didn't exist or write either), refer to Matthew's Gospel, and Matthew's Gospel first in Hebrew (of which i don't believe any copy exists), existing very early in the church in Jerusalem. Before the apostles and disciples were scattered. That's part of the reason for the date around AD 40

On that we agree. I do contain the maker.

Just not an all-powerful one ?
Actually, based on the darkness of your posts and my impression of your personality coming thru them: we don't agree. i wrote that God created you (and us) to contain Him. Not that you've received Him. Yet

you cannot define 'spiritual'.

How does "God is Spirit...worship Him in spirit..." (John 4:24)
Not define "spiritual" ?
Because it doesn't use the word "spirit" ?
Because bernee repects not or knows not God ?
Knows not bernee's own spirit ?

Is this more example of bernee wantin or waitin to be begged to supply his own arguments ?

It is interesting to note that those who speak loudest about 'spirit' are those who understand it least.

"Loudest." By writing it ?
By bringing it up ?
If bernee'd prefer not to talk about it, then why ask me to define it ?

They make an assumption that because they 'believe' they are somehow 'spiritual' - yet they have no apparent understanding at all of the term.

"God is Spirit" means God is Spirit.
"Worship in spirit" means man has a spirit.
(And soul and body, 1 Thes 5:23; Gen 2:7)

Come on Piglet - try again.

God is Spirit. Jn 4:24.
The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. 1 Cor 15:45.
The Lord is the Spirit. 2 Cor 3:17.
He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit. 1 Cor 6:17.

In any case, to be fair, why don't you at least try to define it once

You are the one claiming I am spiritually blind and thus, by default, you are not.

Meaning.............you're not ? You are ?
Meaning you don't know what you are ?


Back to top


goat
Savant
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Total posts: 5027
Gender: Male
Usergroups:
[Agnostic ]
[Hominidae ]


27356.39 tokens
Post 18: Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:01 pm Post subject: Re: Maybe maybe maybe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

piglet17 wrote:
Quote:
Maybe, maybe maybe.....

If i were omniscient like bernee, maybe i could write "definitely, definitely, definitely."
If anyone else can help me understand: is that his problem with "maybe" ?

I don't see Bernie having a problem with 'maybe'. I see him being skeptical of unsupported assertions.

What assertions ?
Feel free to try to specify what you're writing about, if you're able.
Thanx

[bernee51]

Markian primacy seems to be the most commonly held opinion amongst biblical scholars - those that have actually studied the texts.

Does that mean bernee's just repeating by faith what others have told him ?

You have certainly added nothing to support a primacy other than Mark. Are you waiting to be asked? Consider your self asked.

What else do you have in common with Catholics?

Early postapostolic Christian writers, such as Papias (unless in bernee-world, they didn't exist or write either), refer to Matthew's Gospel, and Matthew's Gospel first in Hebrew (of which i don't believe any copy exists), existing very early in the church in Jerusalem. Before the apostles and disciples were scattered. That's part of the reason for the date around AD 40

Is this the same Papias writing 100+ years after the event who freely admits his sources are hearsay.

In the time I have spent on this forum we have had a long line of 'Piglets' spouting their faith in the veracity of the gospels. Not one has yet been able to provide an extr-biblical source that confirms th greatest event in human history - the resurrection of the man they call Jesus.

The story is myth - and not even an original myth.

On that we agree. I do contain the maker.

Just not an all-powerful one ?
Actually, based on the darkness of your posts and my impression of your personality coming thru them: we don't agree. i wrote that God created you (and us) to contain Him. Not that you've received Him. Yet

I cannot receive something I already have. The maker is our own consciousness. God is a mental construct.

you cannot define 'spiritual'.

How does "God is Spirit...worship Him in spirit..." (John 4:24)
Not define "spiritual" ?

For one I did not ask 'John's' opinion I asked Piglet. Conclusion 0 Piglet does not lnow.

Because bernee repects not or knows not God ?

To the contrary I know 'god' well and have the deepest respect.

Is this more example of bernee wantin or waitin to be begged to supply his own arguments ?

Not all all. They are available on this forum to those who want to look.

If bernee'd prefer not to talk about it, then why ask me to define it ?

Merely interested to se if you are any differnt to the other 'Piglets" You are prving not to be.

They make an assumption that because they 'believe' they are somehow 'spiritual' - yet they have no apparent understanding at all of the term.

"God is Spirit" means God is Spirit.
"Worship in spirit" means man has a spirit.
(And soul and body, 1 Thes 5:23; Gen 2:7)

More John? And then the misanthrope Paul. Has Piglet nothing to say for himself?

Come on Piglet - try again.

God is Spirit. Jn 4:24.
The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. 1 Cor 15:45.
The Lord is the Spirit. 2 Cor 3:17.
He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit. 1 Cor 6:17.

Piglet still has nothing to say. Conclusion: Piglet has no idea how to personally define spirit

In any case, to be fair, why don't you at least try to define it once

You first.

Besides, as previously mentioned, my definition of both soul and spirit is easily accessed on this forum

You are the one claiming I am spiritually blind and thus, by default, you are not.

Meaning.............

Meaning you are yet to demonstrate any 'spiritual sightedness. You cannot even demonstrate a personal understanding of spirit. All you have shown is an ability to parrot bible verses.