• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

If Evolution were true...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deaver

A follower of Christ
May 25, 2011
485
22
Colorado, USA
Visit site
✟23,232.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Funny how you ask him for sources, but don't offer any for your claims.

I wonder how some of the arguments against the author of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) would work if applied equally to secular ancient documents whose authenticity and authorship is never (or is no longer) questioned, but are every bit as "anonymous" in the same sense that many claim the Gospels are.

Please consider the following in argument for Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as authors of the four gospels of the New Testament.

- Gospel of Matthew -

The strongest evidence attesting to Matthew’s authorship is the fact that four ancient sources (Papias of Asia Minor, Irenaeus of Gaul, Pantaenus, and Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea) specifically attribute the Gospel of Matthew to Matthew, the disciple of Jesus.

Probably relying on Papias, Irenaeus writes: ``Matthew published a written Gospel for the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and laying the foundations of the Church.'' Eusebius quotes Papias as writing that ``Matthew compiled the Oracles [of Jesus] in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated them as well as he could.'' In addition to this quotation from Papias, Eusebius also wrote the following about Matthew (probably depending upon Papias as his main source): ``Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote.''

- Gospel of Mark -

Early church figures, including Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Jerome of Palestine all attribute Mark's Gospel to Mark. There's little reason to believe the early church would falsely attribute this Gospel to Mark, who was a second-tier church figure at best.

Again, Irenaeus writes: ``After their passing [presumably the deaths of Peter, Paul, and Matthew], Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter.'' Eusebius quotes Papias as writing, ``This, too, the Presbyter [John] says: `Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord's sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter's. Peter would adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord's sayings, so Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only-to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.''' Eusebius also writes (admittedly depending in part upon Papias), ``So brightly shone the light of true religion on the minds of Peter's hearers that, not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine message, they resorted to appeals of every kind to induce Mark (whose Gospel we have), as he was a follower of Peter, to leave them in writing a summary of the instruction they had received by word of mouth, nor did they let him go til they had persuaded him, and thus became responsible for the writing of what is known as the Gospel according to Mark. It is said that, on learning by revelation of the Spirit what had happened, the Apostle [Peter] was delighted at their enthusiasm and authorised the reading of the book in the churches. Clement quoted this story in Outlines Book VI, and his statement is confirmed by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, who also points out that Mark is mentioned by Peter in his first epistle, which he is said to have composed in Rome itself, as he himself indicates when he speaks of the city figuratively as Babylon (I Peter 5:13).''

- Gospel of Luke –

Evidence associating Luke with his Gospel (as well as the book of Acts) includes the Muratorian Canon (c. A.D. 180-200) as well as the writings of Irenaeus, Clement, and famed early church historian Eusebius.

Irenaeus, who may well have been relying in part on Papias, writes: ``Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him [i.e., Paul].'' In the Canon Muratorianus, circa 170 A.D., we find the following (possibly derived from Papias): ``The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke: the physician Luke after Christ's arising, since Paul had taken him with him as an expert in the Way, composed it in his own name according to [Paul's] thinking. Yet neither did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to determine it, so he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.''

- Gospel of John -

The evidence is thinner for John than the others, but Irenaeus and Polycarp (according to Eusebius) both attribute the fourth Gospel to John.

Also, St. Irenaeus identified the author of the fourth Gospel as St. John the Apostle. He does so based on the instruction of his teacher, St. Polycarp (d. 155), who himself was a disciple of St. John.

Irenaeus writes: ``Lastly John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned back on His breast, once more set forth the Gospel, while residing at Ephesus in Asia.'' Eusebius writes: ``When Mark and Luke had published their Gospels, John, we are told, who hitherto had relied entirely on the spoken word, finally took to writing for the following reason. The three Gospels already written were in general circulation and copies had come into John's hands. He welcomed them, we are told, and confirmed their accuracy, but remarked that the narrative only lacked the story of what Christ had done first of all at the beginning of His mission.'' To that we may compare the story in the Canon Muratorianus, circa 170 A.D. (possibly taken from Papias): ``The fourth of the Gospels, that of John, one of the disciples: When his fellow-disciples and bishops urged him, he said, `Fast with me from today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us relate to one another. In the same night [i.e., after the fast] it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that, while all were to go over it, John in his own name should write everything down. . . .'' (cf. John 14:26)

Throughout the Gospel of John, the numerous details indicate the author was an eyewitness. Also scholars generally agree that "the beloved disciple" mentioned in the Gospel is St. John. This Gospel was written probably about 80-90.

Sources:

1. Eusebius-The History of the Church From Christ to Constantine , translated by G.A. Williamson, revised and edited by Andrew Louth, Penguin Books, 1965, 1989.

2. The History of Primitive Christianity, Hans Conzelmann, 1973
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

Tomatoman

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2010
1,338
51
✟1,829.00
Faith
Anglican
One little point that I've always found striking about the gospels is that there isn't a single description anywhere of what jesus looked like. Which given the fundamentalist's claims that the 4 authors were all eyewitnesses seems very strange. The first thing you'd do if you were writing about someone you saw yourself is describe them, but there isn't a single physical description in the gospels. Even a second hand account might reasonably be expected to have some sort of physical description, but, no, we have no idea what the character was supposed to have looked like. This little fact is most suggestive.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,259
52,668
Guam
✟5,158,687.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
One little point that I've always found striking about the gospels is that there isn't a single description anywhere of what jesus looked like. Which given the fundamentalist's claims that the 4 authors were all eyewitnesses seems very strange. The first thing you'd do if you were writing about someone you saw yourself is describe them, but there isn't a single physical description in the gospels. Even a second hand account might reasonably be expected to have some sort of physical description, but, no, we have no idea what the character was supposed to have looked like. This little fact is most suggestive.
I'd say that God is smarter than that -- knowing that, in the end times, people will be posing as Jesus?
 
Upvote 0

Tomatoman

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2010
1,338
51
✟1,829.00
Faith
Anglican
I'll guess that either he was an ugly cuss, or heaven forbid, he was effeminate. I have a couple more guesses, but those two were the most humorous.

I think either of those would have been worth mentioning in the gospels. It would be very hard to write about jesus without mentioning how ugly he was, for instance. Or effeminate. Maybe he had a big nose, or crooked teeth, or a wild look in his eyes. I'd say writing about someone you know without including any sort of description, even in passing, is almost impossible. For four people all to to it is highly suspicious.
 
Upvote 0

jpcedotal

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style
May 26, 2009
4,244
239
In between Deliverance and Brother, Where Art Thou
✟28,293.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
No, to come up with an explanation for the lack of a description in the gospels that actually makes sense.

How about this (2 points):

1) By not giving a very descriptive account of Jesus Christ, even though we all know He was a Jew, when each of us think of Christ we have a more personal physical picture of Him as our friend and our Saviour in our relationship with Him...which goes along exactly with what He tells us our relationship with Him should be...very personal.

2) When He comes back, every knee will bow. Everyone, both Christian and non-Christian will know exactly who He is...and will get on their knees. Now this does not mean they will give up their sinful ways or that they will choose Christ over some other idol. What is does mean is everyone will recognized Jesus for exactly who the Bible says He is. No one will need a mug shot to compare to when the Creator comes back to earth. To me, this shows just how opposite what the world thinks is important compared to what God thinks is important. Jesus's physical appearance is the least important quality of Christ, but He still will be easily recognized by all when He does return. It falls into the "don't sweat the details that are of little worth."
 
Upvote 0

Tomatoman

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2010
1,338
51
✟1,829.00
Faith
Anglican
How about this (2 points):

1) By not giving a very descriptive account of Jesus Christ, even though we all know He was a Jew, when each of us think of Christ we have a more personal physical picture of Him as our friend and our Saviour in our relationship with Him...which goes along exactly with what He tells us our relationship with Him should be...very personal.

2) When He comes back, every knee will bow. Everyone, both Christian and non-Christian will know exactly who He is...and will get on their knees. Now this does not mean they will give up their sinful ways or that they will choose Christ over some other idol. What is does mean is everyone will recognized Jesus for exactly who the Bible says He is. No one will need a mug shot to compare to when the Creator comes back to earth. To me, this shows just how opposite what the world thinks is important compared to what God thinks is important. Jesus's physical appearance is the least important quality of Christ, but He still will be easily recognized by all when He does return. It falls into the "don't sweat the details that are of little worth."

Or, alternatively, the gospel authors were not eyewitnesses.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
51
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
How about this (2 points):

1) By not giving a very descriptive account of Jesus Christ, even though we all know He was a Jew, when each of us think of Christ we have a more personal physical picture of Him as our friend and our Saviour in our relationship with Him...which goes along exactly with what He tells us our relationship with Him should be...very personal.

By not giving a very descriptive account, Jesus can be whoever we want him to be -- thus shifting the focus from him to ourselves, as we (quite literally) make God in our own image.

The lesson here being -- as Christian theology always turns it into -- that who Jesus was is far less important than who we can turn him into.

caroon-jesus-repub-horsey.gif


2) When He comes back, every knee will bow. Everyone, both Christian and non-Christian will know exactly who He is...and will get on their knees. Now this does not mean they will give up their sinful ways or that they will choose Christ over some other idol. What is does mean is everyone will recognized Jesus for exactly who the Bible says He is. No one will need a mug shot to compare to when the Creator comes back to earth. To me, this shows just how opposite what the world thinks is important compared to what God thinks is important. Jesus's physical appearance is the least important quality of Christ, but He still will be easily recognized by all when He does return. It falls into the "don't sweat the details that are of little worth."

And don't sweat any details that you get to make up.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,259
52,668
Guam
✟5,158,687.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, to come up with an explanation for the lack of a description in the gospels that actually makes sense.
Makes sense to whom? you?

You already rejected this explanation: 944

I have a feeling you're not going to accept anything -- you're trained not to.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,259
52,668
Guam
✟5,158,687.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'll guess that either he was an ugly cuss, or heaven forbid, he was effeminate.
Isaiah 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
 
Upvote 0

Tomatoman

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2010
1,338
51
✟1,829.00
Faith
Anglican
Makes sense to whom? you?

You already rejected this explanation: 944

I have a feeling you're not going to accept anything -- you're trained not to.

I chose not to comment on Deaver's reasons because there are other people here who can do it better than me. I've looked into the history before and found no reason to disagree with what theological scholars have agreed on, that the gospel authors were not eyewitnesses.

But you have, for some reason, assumed that my rejection of your illogical explanation means rejection of all explanations, and then claimed this is a result of training. I'll let you work out where you've gone wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,259
52,668
Guam
✟5,158,687.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But you have, for some reason, assumed that my rejection of your illogical explanation means rejection of all explanations, and then claimed this is a result of training.
Am I to assume that you're venting some disgust at Jesus' physical characteristics not being profiled in the Bible, because you want to alter your features to look like Him, so you can go around fooling people?

If not -- and I do suspect not -- then I've made my point.

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Had God done this your way, then "Jesus" would have made appearances all throughout history, with attendant followers being led astray.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.