(Atheist Arguments from History: 2#) The gospels were not eyewitness accounts

[theoneandonlypencil]

It takes a master to paint with a broad brush and i am not speaking of me, i do believe God is swinging the brush.

"An atheist is no more than an liar/antichrist why give them the time of day."


Matthew 5:44-45 NIV "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

1 Timothy 2 New International Version (NIV) 2 "I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles."


It sounds like God cares about them.

 

[d taylor]

"An atheist is no more than an liar/antichrist why give them the time of day."


Matthew 5:44-45 NIV "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

1 Timothy 2 New International Version (NIV) 2 "I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles."


It sounds like God cares about them.

"An atheist is no more than an liar/antichrist why give them the time of day."


Matthew 5:44-45 NIV "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

1 Timothy 2 New International Version (NIV) 2 "I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles."


It sounds like God cares about them.

I was saying give them the time of day, as in acknowledging that anything that have to say against scripture is nothing but a lie.

So why give the atheist an audience to debate truth against lies, really what do you accomplish.

 

[JackRT]

He quoted scripture, sir. So if you think scripture paints with too broad a brush that's not good.

He gave no citation.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

I was saying give them the time of day, as in acknowledging that anything that have to say against scripture is nothing but a lie.

So why give the atheist an audience to debate truth against lies, really what do you accomplish.

1 Peter 3:15 New International Version (NIV) "15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,"

Atheists can bring up valid points and problems with the church, as some of us cannot remove the plank from our eyes and are blind to the lies and corruption that hurt the reputation of our faith.

 

[Sam81]

1 Peter 3:15 New International Version (NIV) "15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,"

Atheists can bring up valid points and problems with the church, as some of us cannot remove the plank from our eyes and are blind to the lies and corruption that hurt the reputation of our faith.

I'm ready to give an answer to someone if what they want to know is why I'm so happy and full of hope. But I don't have any patience whatsoever for people who hate God and seek only to attack. Jesus makes it clear to shake the dust off our feet. There's a balance to scriptures and how we're supposed to deal with things and you're taking a few scriptures completely out of context to justify sucking up to the people who hate you and hate God. So if you want to play kumbaya with atheists and side with them as mr. sweet guy go right on ahead but I want no part of it I'm more interested in preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and telling people the truth even if it hurts their feelings. The Word of God is inerrant. Deal with it.

 

[Sam81]

And the 2011 NIV is a corrupt, gender neutral piece of trash fit for toilet paper.

 

[d taylor]

1 Peter 3:15 New International Version (NIV) "15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,"

Atheists can bring up valid points and problems with the church, as some of us cannot remove the plank from our eyes and are blind to the lies and corruption that hurt the reputation of our faith.

If you look at the verse it states to give an answer for the reason for the hope you have. And that can be done without ever having to bring up a church or debate the historical accuracy of the Bible.

And the reason is that believers have hope is, God is offering people (all) a free gift of Eternal Life.
The only way to receive Eternal Life (salvation) as stated by the Bible. Is to believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah from the prophecies of The Tanakh and trust in The Messiah for the free gift of Gods Eternal Life.
The way (to eternal life) is narrow only through the Messiah.

Just as Paul presented the offer of everlasting life and His audience rejected it. He moved on to other people to ones who may have been looking for how to have life.
Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.

This is just a personal opinion but there are many people out in the world looking for eternal life. They are just waiting for some one to tell them how.

 

[klutedavid]

Scholars say that Mark wrote before Matthew and much of Matthew is copied from Mark.

My opinion on this is subjective. Maybe it's just me, but when I read Matthew, I can see someone who was an eye-witness. His details are too specific, and he divides his gospel (scholars say) into seven parts, each part ending with the words "When Jesus ended these sayings", or similar words. I actually find eight divisions when I read Matthew: the seventh division talks about His arrest, trial, and crucifixion, the eighth talks about His resurrection.

So when I read Matthew and Mark, it looks to me like parts of Mark were copied from Matthew, and that Matthew was an eye-witness, but again, maybe it's just me, but I really do see an eye-witness when I read Matthew.

I believe John was written by John and I see an eye-witness when I read John, I see someone who was writing from memory, not oral tradition, and Luke identifies himself as someone who was not an eye-witness. Luke went around collecting information from those who were eye-witnesses in order to compile his gospel.

If Matthew was not an eye-witness, then all I can think is that Matthew and Mark both copied from a third source, now no longer extant. However, I doubt very much Matthew was not an eye-witness. I see someone who not only knows what he's talking about, but knows what he's talking about because he saw and heard what he's talking about,

I don't see any of the gospels talking as though the destruction of the temple had already occurred, when I read them. I see Jesus prophesying the destruction of the temple, but that's not the same thing. But that's just me. Maybe these atheist scholars who believe nothing anyway can see more clearly than me.

I don't believe everything that the modern Christian scholars say either, because it's like everything else - how do you react to the Corona virus - like Sweden, or like the U.K, both of which have exactly the same infection rate, with no lock-down in Sweden and a lock-down in the U.K? There are so many medical experts on the virus disagreeing with one another - and this is something that is happening in our time - how about 2,000 years ago?

So what I do is believe what my spirit tells me while reading the gospels - and in them (with the exception of Luke), I see eye-witness accounts all over the place.

The gospel of Mark only has 9 parables spoken by Jesus. Where as Matthew records 21 parables spoken by Jesus.

The resurrection accounts in Mark and Matthew are different accounts.

Matthew and Mark used a common source?

The evidence is pointing the other way; Matthew and Mark used different sources for the accounts!

 

[hedrick]

Matthew and Mark used a common source?

The evidence is pointing the other way; Matthew and Mark used different sources for the accounts!

After looking at a parallel edition of the gospels, not many people will agree with you.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

I'm ready to give an answer to someone if what they want to know is why I'm so happy and full of hope. But I don't have any patience whatsoever for people who hate God and seek only to attack. Jesus makes it clear to shake the dust off our feet. There's a balance to scriptures and how we're supposed to deal with things and you're taking a few scriptures completely out of context to justify sucking up to the people who hate you and hate God. So if you want to play kumbaya with atheists and side with them as mr. sweet guy go right on ahead but I want no part of it I'm more interested in preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and telling people the truth even if it hurts their feelings. The Word of God is inerrant. Deal with it.

And the 2011 NIV is a corrupt, gender neutral piece of trash fit for toilet paper.

1. I'm a girl, not a guy.

2. It might surprise you, but perhaps for some people, the reason why they can have hope in Jesus is more than just 'because everyone told me so'? You would understand this more if perhaps you were born and raised in a different country where a totally different religion was dominant, thus needing more than the average person to be convinced to convert.

3. Jesus spent most of his time rebuking the pharisees and corrupt religious leaders--not the pagans.

4. If the bible is your reason for believing that the bible is inerrant, well...I don't think I can help you understand where that goes wrong.

5. I don't know why you call the NIV 'gender neutral'. I use it in conjunction with other bible translations, but I quote it the most because it is the one I'm used to and it is easier to read. Certainly easier on the eyes and mind than the KJV, which I have a plethora of personal reasons to not give the time of day, unless it is perhaps the revised version. The fact that you, however, can call a translation of our bible a 'piece of trash fit for toilet paper' almost made me physically sick.

I used to be full of hate for people, non-religious and religious alike. Even today it is difficult to subdue the seed of wrath that took root in my heart, but at least I try with all of my might and ask God to help give me patience and understanding. I'm very firm in my faith, but I refuse to sit by and listen to people selectively tell me the parts of the church's history that help them 'keep me in line' with whatever new movement or political nonsense they're trying to drag me into--and hiding anything that threatens their beloved doctrines which are used to, in my opinion, play 'god' and control others. We have so many modern-day Pharisees, and most of them go right under everyone's noses.

Even if the bible was a mashup of who-knows-what and was most man-made(not saying it is per se), I would still believe in Jesus. I've had all the convincing I need, and I have always believed that what we do absolutely know about Jesus and his ministry in and out of the bible is the bare necessities of what it means to be a Christian.

There is so much hate and anger in your reply. If you don't like what is being discussed, then please leave the thread by all means. This thread was meant to start an intellectual conversation to separate fact from fiction.

 

[klutedavid]

After looking at a parallel edition of the gospels, not many people will agree with you.

Here are two different resurrection accounts from Matthew and Mark.

Matthew 28: 1-3
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down and from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightening, and his clothes were white as snow.

Mark 16: 1-4
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so they might go to anoint Jesus' body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.

So who are these people that think their was some common source for Matthew and Mark.

Side by side, these two accounts are noticeably different.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

If you look at the verse it states to give an answer for the reason for the hope you have. And that can be done without ever having to bring up a church or debate the historical accuracy of the Bible.

And the reason is that believers have hope is, God is offering people (all) a free gift of Eternal Life.
The only way to receive Eternal Life (salvation) as stated by the Bible. Is to believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah from the prophecies of The Tanakh and trust in The Messiah for the free gift of Gods Eternal Life.
The way (to eternal life) is narrow only through the Messiah.

Just as Paul presented the offer of everlasting life and His audience rejected it. He moved on to other people to ones who may have been looking for how to have life.
Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.

This is just a personal opinion but there are many people out in the world looking for eternal life. They are just waiting for some one to tell them how.

I understand, but at the same time Paul also was extremely well-read on the philosophical figures and literature of the places he went to evangelize in; I believe he actually quoted a non-christian figure in one of his epistles? Correct me if I'm wrong, I do not remember which passage that was in.

Besides that, the people in the bible were preaching with divine inspiration; all we have now is a book that's been passed down for so long that people are beginning to question it, so before we can even hope to gain listening ears, we need to make sure we have our facts straight about our whole book.

You can build an entire empire on lies and half-truths, but one contradiction could result in devastating consequences and hurt the trust of those who listen to us beyond repair.

 

[JackRT]

It is interesting that of the 664 verses in Mark, Matthew includes 606 of them in one form or another. Mark makes 21 references in all to the scribes and 19 of these were negative.
Of the 19 negative references to scribes in Mark, Matthew dropped 7 completely, kept 6 intact and altered 6 so as to remove the negativity. Matthew's community obviously regarded the scribe in higher esteem. Seems fairly obvious that Matthew followed Mark.

 

[hedrick]

So who are these people that think their was some common source for Matthew and Mark.

The usual theory is that Matthew and Luke took a lot of it from Mark, but there's also lots of material not in Mark. Much of it is common between Matthew and Luke.

You've shown a place that isn't the same. Now let's look at one that is

Mark
"But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.”

Matthew
But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’

You need to look at a parallel edition of the whole Gospels to see the similarities and differences. There are too many verbal similarities to think that they're independent.

 

[Sam81]

It is interesting that of the 664 verses in Mark, Matthew includes 606 of them in one form or another. Mark makes 21 references in all to the scribes and 19 of these were negative.
Of the 19 negative references to scribes in Mark, Matthew dropped 7 completely, kept 6 intact and altered 6 so as to remove the negativity. Matthew's community obviously regarded the scribe in higher esteem. Seems fairly obvious that Matthew followed Mark.

The reason the same verses are in Matthew is because they happened. Not cause it was copied. It was written under inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, God-breathed. God preserved His Word. See, people need to stop thinking in the natural. If there is no God who involves Himself in the handing down of His Word then it would be different.

The problem is that the scholars who study this stuff come at it already imposing naturalism from the start.

 

[klutedavid]

The usual theory is that Matthew and Luke took a lot of it from Mark, but there's also lots of material not in Mark. Much of it is common between Matthew and Luke.

You've shown a place that isn't the same. Now let's look at one that is

Mark
"But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.”

Matthew
But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’

You need to look at a parallel edition of the whole Gospels to see the similarities and differences. There are too many verbal similarities to think that they're indepedent.

On the other hand, where in Mark is the birth of Jesus.

Where in Mark is the flight to Egypt?

Where is the execution of the infants by Herod in Mark?

Synoptic gospels?

There may be some similarities but there are also profound differences.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

The reason the same verses are in Matthew is because they happened. Not cause it was copied. It was written under inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, God-breathed. God preserved His Word. See, people need to stop thinking in the natural. If there is no God who involves Himself in the handing down of His Word then it would be different.

The problem is that the scholars who study this stuff come at it already imposing naturalism from the start.

If people were evil and corrupt all the way up to when Jesus came & died--especially in the name of religion--what makes you think they've changed now and are suddenly pure and spirit-filled?

 

[klutedavid]

The usual theory is that Matthew and Luke took a lot of it from Mark, but there's also lots of material not in Mark. Much of it is common between Matthew and Luke.

You've shown a place that isn't the same. Now let's look at one that is

Mark
"But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.”

Matthew
But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’

You need to look at a parallel edition of the whole Gospels to see the similarities and differences. There are too many verbal similarities to think that they're independent.

What happens if the folk copying the early letters in the first or second century. Edited these two accounts to make them appear more in agreement?

There are too many striking differences in Matthew and Mark, a common source is highly unlikely. I would lean more towards a later editing of the texts by copyists.

 

[Radagast]

Scholars say that Mark wrote before Matthew and much of Matthew is copied from Mark.

It is certainly the case that Matthew, Mark, and Luke overlap a lot.

If you look at what early Christians have said, it suggests that:

1. Very early on, Matthew wrote something called "The Sayings of Our Lord," which no longer exists. Probably it was in Aramaic, and it may have even been written during Jesus's ministry. A number of Greek translations of this were made.

2. Mark wrote down Peter's eyewitness account.

3. Somebody, possibly Matthew himself, wrote the gospel we now call Matthew, using #1 and #2, plus other material.

4. Luke wrote his gospel, also using #1 and #2, plus other material.

5. John wrote his own eyewitness account.

So there are 3 eyewitness accounts (Matthew, Peter, John) mixed into the 4 gospels.

 

[ChetSinger]

If people were evil and corrupt all the way up to when Jesus came & died--especially in the name of religion--what makes you think they've changed now and are suddenly pure and spirit-filled?

What matters, to me, is whether what I read is what the authors wrote. And I'm convinced it is remarkably close. The differences are numerous, as would be expected from 2,000 years of hand copying, but are so minor that I'm convinced God had a hand in their preservation.

We now have more than 5,000 NT manuscripts in the original Greek. We have so many of them that scholars called textual critics can devote entire careers to tracing their family lines. That number dwarfs any other ancient document. So if you're going to rely on any ancient document at all, the NT wins hands down.