What atheists fail to understand

[Abraxos]

Is there any disputing that the three "synoptic" gospels share a body of text instead of being written utterly independently by eyewitnesses?

Because I'm telling you, if three of my students handed me in such a report, and then claimed that they had all written them independently, I'd fail their behinds immediately.

As to the authorship of "John's" gospel:
You could probably try to build a case for this being the only canonical eyewitness account, fundamentally diverging from the synoptics because they merely expanded upon another line of tradition. But then, you'd have to dismiss just how decidedly greek and "un-jewish" this gospel is (in light of the fact that the historical John would have been a Jew), and how it seems to speak more to the contemporary status and identity of Christianity in the late 1st century CE than to the historical situation of Jesus's ministry.

There would probably be disputes on the similarities of the synoptic Gospels for the layman that hasn't read the Gospels in it's entirety. A straightforward reading of the Gospels present numerous differences in perspective. It it like four people saw a car crash from different angles, and when they described it to the cops they described the same event but from their angle. For example, one may place emphasis on the colour of the car and how it crashed, while another may express the fear they felt while watching in horror as the people inside fought for their lives as they tried to get out. Though they explain the same event their witness to it differs in such a way that they could not have copied each others version of events word for word.

That is how it is for the four Gospels. The style of John's Gospel is very emotional compared to the other three Gospels, that much is clear, but that isn't due to some ambiguous conventional standard of writing, it was based on his own standard and experiences. John's narrative is a very personal perspective about Jesus. Some express this style as very mystical which they often confuse it for Gnostic literature. Comparatively, Luke's Gospel is much more logically minded, as Luke was a learned man, a doctor and an historian of first rank. So his style had a tone of specificity and accuracy to terminology. Matthew writes in a very Jewish perspective displaying an emphasis that he intended it to be for the Jewish audience, and Mark's Gospel placed emphasis on Jesus as a man of action rather than the depiction of him being the teacher.

These series of events described in the Gospels though very similar to each other, do not show a literary dependency on each other; they are different based on their personalities yet similar based on describing certain events.

 

[Episaw]

Does this mean you wont answer the question?

When I wrote the question "relevance" I was asking for the relevance of the comment. Being autistic, what I say is what I mean. If I meant I was not going to answer the question, that is what I would have said.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Atheists fail to understand that believers don't become believers because they go to church a lot or listen to very charismatic preachers. They believe because of experiencing highly improbable events that common sense insists can not be attributed to blind coincidence alone.

If they did understand this they wouldn't say things like well adam and eve never existed or there was no flood etc..... Because they would understand that a persons faith doesn't come from a book. It comes from experiencing things that you can't possibly believe is merely coincidental. That life isn't just a mere coincidence of coincidences. For example imagine the most improbable things happening to you time after time again. After a long enough time period even the hardest atheist would have to question his atheism. While life is not as extreme as this I think you can at least see where a believer is coming from.

I was on a different forum for a while and had my first taste of open debate/discussion with atheists. I was astounded that none of them, not a one, could even explain Christianity in a way that even came close to what we believe. There seems to be a kind of blindness such that they could not even articulate what Christians believe at the core. We can say what they believe. They could not seem to say what we believe. Surprising because it is not that difficult.

 

[Episaw]

I was on a different forum for a while and had my first taste of open debate/discussion with atheists. I was astounded that none of them, not a one, could even explain Christianity in a way that even came close to what we believe. There seems to be a kind of blindness such that they could not even articulate what Christians believe at the core. We can say what they believe. They could not seem to say what we believe. Surprising because it is not that difficult.

In my dialogue with atheists Dorothy, I have found that they have very little originality to offer. Such that I believe they have a little red book of quotes and when a particular subject comes up they look in their little red book to find the quote pertaining to that issue.

If the red book doesn't cover it, then there is no tangible answer. I often ask "how did life begin," and as they don't have an answer to that question, I get 10 different answers, all of which are wrong.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

In my dialogue with atheists Dorothy, I have found that they have very little originality to offer. Such that I believe they have a little red book of quotes and when a particular subject comes up they look in their little red book to find the quote pertaining to that issue.

If the red book doesn't cover it, then there is no tangible answer. I often ask "how did life begin," and as they don't have an answer to that question, I get 10 different answers, all of which are wrong.

I found that the worse answer to "how did life begin" was "we don't ask that question in evoltionary theory" which is so astounding to me. Science thrived on asking questions but evolution is silencing the questions unless they are in support of their philosophy. Evolution breeds ignorance if you read what atheists have to say in defense of their position. A great many of them just say "it is a fact" and that is their only defense.

And I agree. They take out a book of what to say to different questions Christians pose. In the bold print somewhere is the advise to use insulting adjectives freely. Hence they do not say "we don't ask that question" literally but "you are stupid/ignorant/evil" (more colorful adjectives used instead of these words) for asking that question.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

In my dialogue with atheists Dorothy, I have found that they have very little originality to offer. Such that I believe they have a little red book of quotes and when a particular subject comes up they look in their little red book to find the quote pertaining to that issue.

If the red book doesn't cover it, then there is no tangible answer. I often ask "how did life begin," and as they don't have an answer to that question, I get 10 different answers, all of which are wrong.

Yeah I hate to call it brainwashed but to me it seems like there is no actual originality but just canned responses to everything. Like comparing God to a fairy etc. Thats the only responses you get from atheists. I understand what these atheists have read but what I want to know is what do they actually think in their own words.

 

[Episaw]

Yeah I hate to call it brainwashed but to me it seems like there is no actual originality but just canned responses to everything. Like comparing God to a fairy etc. Thats the only responses you get from atheists. I understand what these atheists have read but what I want to know is what do they actually think in their own words.

Totally agree. One of my favourites is they claim the bible was written by goat herders. They ignore the fact that in those days, goat herders could not read or write and Moses was a Prime Minister, David and Solomon were Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah etc were prophets, Matthew was a government official, Luke was a Doctor, Peter was a self-employed businessman, Paul was a Rabbi and so on and so on.

A case of don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Yeah I hate to call it brainwashed but to me it seems like there is no actual originality but just canned responses to everything. Like comparing God to a fairy etc. Thats the only responses you get from atheists. I understand what these atheists have read but what I want to know is what do they actually think in their own words.

I agree as well. Thinking in their own mind is not something encouraged in schools these days, especially in the US. One is to memorize and spit it out back. One is not to question the party line. So they memorize the answers and the question only shows how well their memory is working that day, not what they think because way too many of them don't.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

These series of events described in the Gospels though very similar to each other, do not show a literary dependency on each other; they are different based on their personalities yet similar based on describing certain events.

Independently written eyewitness accounts would describe the same events (with the variations you mentioned) each using their own words. And that's where the synoptic gospels fall short: yes, they each contain material that the others don't, lacking or adding sentences, but there's a body of text that they *share*, and that is where the eyewitness-hypothesis falls apart.

Let's say three students have to write me an essay on Abraham Lincoln, and I receive these three versions:

Student 1. "Abraham Lincoln was a great man. He was called "Honest Abe". He was also very tall. President Lincoln fought against the South and abolished slavery. We can see his statue at the Lincoln Memorial."
Student 2: "Abraham Lincoln was a great man, and very tall. He was called "Honest Abe", because he always told the truth. His son died of pneumonia. President Lincoln fought against the South, uniting the nation, and abolished slavery. We can visit his statue at the Lincoln memorial."
Student 3: "Abraham Lincoln was a good man. He was called "Honest Abe", but his son died of pneumonia. President Lincoln fought against the South, he fought to abolish slavery. We can see his statue at the Lincoln Memorial, although I have never been there."

Now, as a teacher, I'd immediately notice that these three either
a) copied the same source(s), or
b) copied from each other and tried to obfuscate it by slightly changing the sentences or adding bits of their own.

I'm not even saying that the original authors of the gospels were trying to deceive or to plagiarize, unlike these hypothetical students: these books were written at a time when preserving the foundational lore became important, and each was probably read on its own at first, serving as an "anchor point" for different communities.
But independently written, let alone eyewitness accounts, they were not.
In fact, not even the traditionally attributed authorship sustains the eyewitness hypothesis:
Luke the physician only became acquainted with Christianity as a companion of Paul, and hailed from Antioch, so he wasn't present at the events described in his gospel.
Mark supposedly became acquainted with Christianity through Peter, who took him along as an interpreter somewhere on the way from Jerusalem to Rome.
Matthew is commonly credited as being one of the apostles, but "his" gospel shares 600 of Mark's (i.e. the oldest gospel's) 661 verses, making it EXTREMELY unlikely that the author a) was Matthew, and b) wrote this independently.

Which leaves the gospel of John, written by the self-identified "beloved disciple". I have already touched upon some of the problems with that traditional attribution, especially the anachronisms and the lack of distinct "Jewishness" in an account supposedly written by a Jewish fisherman. Sure, if John lived that long, he might have picked up a LOT of Greek philosophy etc. in the intervening decades. But so much so as to totally obfuscate his cultural upbringing? I highly doubt it.

 

[Not David]

Independently written eyewitness accounts would describe the same events (with the variations you mentioned) each using their own words. And that's where the synoptic gospels fall short: yes, they each contain material that the others don't, lacking or adding sentences, but there's a body of text that they *share*, and that is where the eyewitness-hypothesis falls apart.

Let's say three students have to write me an essay on Abraham Lincoln, and I receive these three versions:

Student 1. "Abraham Lincoln was a great man. He was called "Honest Abe". He was also very tall. President Lincoln fought against the South and abolished slavery. We can see his statue at the Lincoln Memorial."
Student 2: "Abraham Lincoln was a great man, and very tall. He was called "Honest Abe", because he always told the truth. His son died of pneumonia. President Lincoln fought against the South, uniting the nation, and abolished slavery. We can visit his statue at the Lincoln memorial."
Student 3: "Abraham Lincoln was a good man. He was called "Honest Abe", but his son died of pneumonia. President Lincoln fought against the South, he fought to abolish slavery. We can see his statue at the Lincoln Memorial, although I have never been there."

Now, as a teacher, I'd immediately notice that these three either
a) copied the same source(s), or
b) copied from each other and tried to obfuscate it by slightly changing the sentences or adding bits of their own.

I'm not even saying that the original authors of the gospels were trying to deceive or to plagiarize, unlike these hypothetical students: these books were written at a time when preserving the foundational lore became important, and each was probably read on its own at first, serving as an "anchor point" for different communities.
But independently written, let alone eyewitness accounts, they were not.
In fact, not even the traditionally attributed authorship sustains the eyewitness hypothesis:
Luke the physician only became acquainted with Christianity as a companion of Paul, and hailed from Antioch, so he wasn't present at the events described in his gospel.
Mark supposedly became acquainted with Christianity through Peter, who took him along as an interpreter somewhere on the way from Jerusalem to Rome.
Matthew is commonly credited as being one of the apostles, but "his" gospel shares 600 of Mark's (i.e. the oldest gospel's) 661 verses, making it EXTREMELY unlikely that the author a) was Matthew, and b) wrote this independently.

Which leaves the gospel of John, written by the self-identified "beloved disciple". I have already touched upon some of the problems with that traditional attribution, especially the anachronisms and the lack of distinct "Jewishness" in an account supposedly written by a Jewish fisherman. Sure, if John lived that long, he might have picked up a LOT of Greek philosophy etc. in the intervening decades. But so much so as to totally obfuscate his cultural upbringing? I highly doubt it.

I don't find it problematic that someone will copy the same material to another one if one thinks the way he did it was more specific. Also, your example of Lincoln is based on a graded class with people trying to give details of a historical man who they never met or his friends/relatives. I don't think it can be applied to 1st century men.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I found that the worse answer to "how did life begin" was "we don't ask that question in evoltionary theory" which is so astounding to me. Science thrived on asking questions but evolution is silencing the questions unless they are in support of their philosophy.

"Why do magnets attract each other." "That's not part of the theory of gravity, but a totally different field of scientific inq..." "YOU ARE SILENCING QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!1"

Scientists ask that kind of question all the time. It's simply not addressed by the theory of evolution, because that model only tells us how speciation happens, not where the first biological life originated.
The honest scientific answer to "how did life begin", at this point, is "we don't know, but we're trying to find out". Which is LIGHTYEARS better than "God did it, case closed".
Had we stopped at that, we still wouldn't know anything about the laws of physics, because instead of looking for answers and explanations, we'd just have stuck to the non-explanation of "God", which is the same as to say "it's supernatural, we cannot know".

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I don't find it problematic that someone will copy the same material to another one if one thinks the way he did it was more specific. Also, your example of Lincoln is based on a graded class with people trying to give details of a historical man who they never met or his friends/relatives. I don't think it can be applied to 1st century men.

I already said that I would not consider this plagiarism, and that the analogy has its limits. Still, the shared body of text(s) undermines the notion that the gospels were independently written accounts composed by eyewitnesses to the events described therein. Whether their source(s) constituted such first-hand accounts is a different question, but one that will be impossible to answer unless we find the text they seized upon.

 

[Not David]

I already said that I would not consider this plagiarism, and that the analogy has its limits. Still, the shared body of text(s) undermines the notion that the gospels were independently written accounts composed by eyewitnesses to the events described therein. Whether their source(s) constituted such first-hand accounts is a different question, but one that will be impossible to answer unless we find the text they seized upon.

I mean, Matthew has more details regarding teaching and parables than Mark, so I wouldn't consider it 100% based on Mark.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I mean, Matthew has more details regarding teaching and parables than Mark, so I wouldn't consider it 100% based on Mark.

100%? No.

It looks more like this:

 

[Not David]

100%? No.

It looks more like this:

It would be like half of it since Luke came after Matthew (although I read that the Church Fathers considered Matthew first). Also, I still don't see what's the problem that the Gospel share certain details if they think it was necessary for their audience.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

It would be like half of it since Luke came after Matthew (although I read that the Church Fathers considered Matthew first). Also, I still don't see what's the problem that the Gospel share certain details if they think it was necessary for their audience.

Okay, where is the disconnect there?
The only "problem" here lies with the "independent eyewitnesses"-hypothesis, based on the fact that they not only share details, but TEXT, more than strongly suggesting that these weren't men writing down their personal memories, but people adapting pre-existing sources and copying from them before adding to them.

Apart from that, there is no real problem. Luke, Mark, and Matthew not being eyewitnesses does not invalidate the gospels in and of themselves, although it changes the nature of their "testimony".

It is abundantly clear that these texts are not first-hand accounts.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

This isn't two people writing down their memories of events they witnessed personally.
This is two people adopting the same source.

 

[Not David]

This isn't two people writing down their memories of events they witnessed personally.
This is two people adopting the same source.

 

[Not David]

I wouldn't say that they didn't get their sources completely from one person. We see here that the account of the resurrection contain small differences that wouldn't exist if all of them came from a single source.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I wouldn't say that they didn't get their sources completely from one person. We see here that the account of the resurrection contain small differences that wouldn't exist if all of them came from a single source.

Not a *single* source, no.
Scholarly consensus mostly still relies on the "two sources"-hypothesis, with Mark and an unknown source ("Q") serving as the texts used by Luke and Matthew (in addition to their own connection and material they added individually).