No answers as usual. It's because you don't really want to face the truth.
The truth of what?

No. You have provided definitions for fundamentalism. I gave you a definition for evangelicalism which is decidedly a different matter.

No, you said you were not an evangelical. Anyone who believes in talking reptiles is a fundamentalist. Evangelical, fundy, born again - all the same.


Even worse, I have told you on multiple occasions that I am not a fundamentalist.

Your words are so riddled with changing horses in mid-stream, adding and deleting words and phrases to suit your opinion, insults and nastiness, misquoting others, and a striking weakness in understanding what is written, that a barrel of salt must be taken with whatever you are saying.

For the record, a reptile-speaking believer is a fundy. No way of getting around it.


To make matters worse, you have oversimplified your response.

That sounds like you're agreeing with my definition, oversimplified as you think it is. In any case, my definition is the prime definition that sets you apart from non-fundys. You can add all you want to it, but it doesn't change the basic fact.


And you are still afraid to answer the question about the resurrection.

Why is everyone who thinks differently than you think, said to be afraid? There's something Freudian about that.


Shame. Mr. Evasion again?

Please tell as again how you hate insults and want this board to be civil and polite.

No, you said you were not an evangelical. Anyone who believes in talking reptiles is a fundamentalist. Evangelical, fundy, born again - all the same.I said I was not both, and I certainly am not bound by your ridiculous definitions held by no one but you, and especially when you frequently insist on attaching racial descriptions to it, a habit you have also been too hesitant to explain.


Why is everyone who thinks differently than you think, said to be afraid? There's something Freudian about that.I have no idea what you think of the resurrection since you are apparently too fearful to express your opinion. You have a point, I think, about my use of "Mr. Evasion". Perhaps in the future I shall simply say that your refusal to express your view seems to me to be evasive. That would seem civil enough.

WG
The truth of what?The truth of our topic of discussion. But you can have another shot at it. This is what you replied to with the thoughtful comment of, "A deluge of verbiage." Your refusal to express your view seems to me to be evasive.

"Questions which I'm sure will remain unanswered. Did Jesus show "unconditional love" to the rich young ruler when He told him to sell all that he had and follow Christ? Did He show "unconditional love" to the sellers in the Temple? Did He show unconditional love to Peter when He said, "Get behind me Satan?" Does He show unconditional love in the very plain and clear text in Matthew 25 when He condemns people to Hell? Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

You and I both know you will not answer those questions. You never do. Now I actually do believe that God's love is unconditional, but His acceptance is not, and that is where you are obstinately confused. Unlike you, I can demonstrate it in the Bible. In fact, your own John 3:16 example shows it clearly. That passage is the meeting point of God's love and mercy, but also judgment.

Your refusal to express your view seems to me to be evasive.
When I've expressed my view (oooooo, I'm evasive like Athos is???), you've told me I'm wrong and/or shot down with insults and nastiness.

You've answered no questions at all. Honest is not the same as insulting and nasty. You are both simply the most difficult people to discuss anything with I've seen in a long time because you will not answer simply questions, and then you want to blame your reluctance on someone else instead of being honest and taking some responsibility.

Good night guys. Wifey is flying in tonight so I'm going to pick her up. It's been a long five days. She's been visiting the grandbaby. Glad to have her back home.

I said I was not both, and I certainly am not bound by your ridiculous definitions held by no one but you

Held by me and Encyclopedia Britannica, and Merriam-Webster dictionary, and Wikipedia and dozens of others.


and especially when you frequently insist on attaching racial descriptions to it

No idea what you mean.................


I have no idea what you think of the resurrection since you are apparently too fearful to express your opinion.

Here's the "fearful" business again. Is that the only insult you carry in your purse? I notice you employ it against others, too.


your refusal to express your view seems to me to be evasive.

I have expressed my views here as much as anyone has and more than most.


(The following comment is addressed to WG)


Your refusal to express your view seems to me to be evasive.

I had to laugh at this comment. It's addressed to WG but is the same comment addressed to me. I guess the purse is full.

Held by me and Encyclopedia Britannica, and Merriam-Webster dictionary, and Wikipedia and dozens of others.Ridiculously untrue. This lunacy is found in none of those. "Anyone who believes in talking reptiles is a fundamentalist. Evangelical, fundy, born again - all the same." That only comes from you. No reputable person would dare put such silliness out for public consumption.



and especially when you frequently insist on attaching racial descriptions to it



No idea what you mean.................You know exactly what I mean. "White evangelicals"


Here's the "fearful" business again. Is that the only insult you carry in your purse? I notice you employ it against others, too.Prove me wrong. Summon up your courage and answer. Do you believe in the resurrection? You really humor me with your responses. "Oh, he's trying to trick me! I wonder about his motives in asking such a question! Where is he going with that?" (Note to non-thinkers. The quotation marks are meant to be humorous.) You'd think you are a member of the CIA being interrogated by a Russian operative and you have to think it all through at great length. It's just a question!


I had to laugh at this comment. It's addressed to WG but is the same comment addressed to me. I guess the purse is full.You two are the Cheech and Chong of this board. Anytime I can get either one of you to answer a question, I feel it's been a VERY good day. Sadly, they are few and far between.

Any of you guys hearing anything out of Tal? Haven't seen a post from him lately. I don't read his posts, but I do notice them. Assume he is OK?

You two are the Cheech and Chong of this board. Anytime I can get either one of you to answer a question, I feel it's been a VERY good day. Sadly, they are few and far between.
Ask me a question.

"Questions which I'm sure will remain unanswered. Did Jesus show "unconditional love" to the rich young ruler when He told him to sell all that he had and follow Christ? Did He show "unconditional love" to the sellers in the Temple? Did He show unconditional love to Peter when He said, "Get behind me Satan?" Does He show unconditional love in the very plain and clear text in Matthew 25 when He condemns people to Hell? Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

You and I both know you will not answer those questions. You never do. Now I actually do believe that God's love is unconditional, but His acceptance is not, and that is where you are obstinately confused. Unlike you, I can demonstrate it in the Bible. In fact, your own John 3:16 example shows it clearly. That passage is the meeting point of God's love and mercy, but also judgment.

Ridiculously untrue.

What Jl calls "ridiculously untrue" is taken word-for-word from the Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Wikipedia. Interested parties may review these definitions at my post #245.


This lunacy is found in none of those. "Anyone who believes in talking reptiles is a fundamentalist.

Jl believes in talking reptiles as he has stated on this board. The lunacy is all his.


Evangelical, fundy, born again - all the same."

There's actually a liberal wing of evangelicals - they're not included in my statement. That was obvious - but not to Jl.


That only comes from you. No reputable person would dare put such silliness out for public consumption.

Jl has a habit of insulting others instead of presenting his position on any issue. It satisfies his anger at being bested.


You know exactly what I mean. "White evangelicals"

No, I don't. The evangelicals I've been referring to are white. That's to ensure people don't think I'm including Black evangelicals when I cite Trump's core support. Another obvious point missed by Jl.


Prove me wrong.

You've already been proven wrong - several times.


Summon up your courage and answer. Do you believe in the resurrection?

When Jl doesn't get an answer he demands, he reverts to fear as the reason for not answering. This is his constant refrain even though it has been explained to him many times that his questions are not honest questions. They are designed (admitted by Jl) to find areas for him to criticize and, believe it or not, opportunities to threaten the person with hellfire.


You really humor me with your responses.

Jl is trying here to be clever. But all he's achieving is showing how truly desperate he's become after being on the losing side of so many discussions with members. Jl inadvertently reveals himself in his own posts, especially when he's so blinded by the comments from others that he has to cast insults in place of reasoned arguments.

I'm not happy saying these things but they have to be said.

What Jl calls "ridiculously untrue" is taken word-for-word from the Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Wikipedia. Interested parties may review these definitions at my post #245.What is ridiculously untrue is his absurd characterization. "Anyone who believes in talking reptiles is a fundamentalist. Evangelical, fundy, born again - all the same." It is flatly untrue and not in agreement at all with the partial definitions he pulled from those sites. None of them agrees with him. After you read his cherry-picked partial quotes, note my full definition at the bottom. In doing so you will clearly see his deceitful approach.

As for talking reptiles, Athos is referring to the serpent used by Satan in Genesis 3. I have said before that if God can raise Jesus from the dead, then having a serpent speak in the Garden seems to be unremarkable. He, of course, is too fearful to post his view on the resurrection, so that cannot be pursued further.



Evangelical, fundy, born again - all the same."Athos' statement is simply ridiculous and inaccurate in the extreme. There is no other way to put it, and no reputable person would say such a thing in public for fear of the public ridicule he or she would rightly receive.


When Jl doesn't get an answer he demands, he reverts to fear as the reason for not answering. This is his constant refrain even though it has been explained to him many times that his questions are not honest questions. They are designed (admitted by Jl) to find areas for him to criticize and, believe it or not, opportunities to threaten the person with hellfire.Athos has been asked a simple question. Does he believe in the resurrection. He refuses to answer. To cover up his refusal, he, of course, tries to shift the blame elsewhere.


Jl is trying here to be clever. But all he's achieving is showing how truly desperate he's become after being on the losing side of so many discussions with members. Jl inadvertently reveals himself in his own posts, especially when he's so blinded by the comments from others that he has to cast insults in place of reasoned arguments.This is just more excuse making from Athos. He will not answer if he believes in the resurrection, so he attempts to deflect attention away from that. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


I'm not happy saying these things but they have to be said.Poor unhappy Athos could actually avoid saying "these things" by simply answering a question. Do you believe in the resurrection? A one word answer would do, but since he is reluctant to answer, we have to plow our way through these long diatribes. It's all so needless.

We have an old saying where I live. "Put up or shut up." Athos should take that to heart.

I'm not sure why we are speaking in the third person. Athos seems to prefer that, so I try to humor him.

From Wikipedia. "Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamental Christianity or fundamentalist Christianity, in its modern form, began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among British and American Protestants[1][2] as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th-century modernist theologians had misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, which they considered the fundamentals of the Christian faith.[3]Fundamentalists are almost always described as holding to the beliefs in Biblical infallibility and Biblical inerrancy.[4] In keeping with traditional Christian doctrines concerning biblical interpretation, the role of Jesus in the Bible, and the role of the church in society, fundamentalists usually believe in a core of Christian beliefs which include the historical accuracy of the Bible and all of the events which are recorded in it as well as the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.[5]"

Yesterday I posted, "You two are the Cheech and Chong of this board. Anytime I can get either one of you to answer a question, I feel it's been a VERY good day. Sadly, they are few and far between." WG replied, "Ask me a question." I did, but so far no response. It would seem the prospect of this being a VERY good day is pretty slim. Sigh. Her usual approach is to post an answer to a question not asked, thus avoiding answering the questions that WERE asked. Perhaps this day will see a more forthright approach by her. I certainly hope so.

This third person business seems awfully artificial.

WG replied, "Ask me a question." I did, but so far no response.
No, you didn't. Only a vomitus of repeat verbiage followed.

It had happened earlier in history, but became evident especially during the early part of and throughout Trump's campaign when fundamentalists decided "evangelicals" was a much nicer and more acceptable noun that shows their deep devotion to spreading the Gospel instead of just shouting out Bible verses that threaten hellfire, meanwhile thumping Bibles on the foreheads of non-Christians. Hey, that's mission work, right???

I hit the nail on the head!! "Yesterday I posted, 'You two are the Cheech and Chong of this board. Anytime I can get either one of you to answer a question, I feel it's been a VERY good day. Sadly, they are few and far between." WG replied, "Ask me a question." I did, but so far no response. It would seem the prospect of this being a VERY good day is pretty slim. Sigh. Her usual approach is to post an answer to a question not asked, thus avoiding answering the questions that WERE asked. Perhaps this day will see a more forthright approach by her. I certainly hope so.' "

In a spirit of cooperation, I will repost, for the third time, the questions. I separated them this time for convenience sake. Five questions, all of which can be answered with a simple yes or no. I'll give her some time, and then, as I oftentimes have to do with my two friends here, I will answer them myself.

Did Jesus show "unconditional love" to the rich young ruler when He told him to sell all that he had and follow Christ?

Did He show "unconditional love" to the sellers in the Temple?

Did He show unconditional love to Peter when He said, "Get behind me Satan?"

Does He show unconditional love in the very plain and clear text in Matthew 25 when He condemns people to Hell?

Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

I do believe in the resurrection. WG has said she does as well. Athos has said...nothing.

No effluvium, please. Just ONE question.

OK. I'll just pick one of the above for the reluctant lady from Illinois. As I'm sure you are well aware, they are all going down the same logical trail, and could have been accompanied by hundreds of other examples from the Bible, all of which illustrate the same point.

Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

Bear in mind that this came tragically and horribly true when Titus besieged and overcame Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

ONE question. No parenthetical verbiage.

"Yesterday I posted, 'You two are the Cheech and Chong of this board. Anytime I can get either one of you to answer a question, I feel it's been a VERY good day. Sadly, they are few and far between." WG replied, "Ask me a question." I did, but so far no response. It would seem the prospect of this being a VERY good day is pretty slim. Sigh. Her usual approach is to post an answer to a question not asked, thus avoiding answering the questions that WERE asked. Perhaps this day will see a more forthright approach by her. I certainly hope so.' "

It was, it appears, a vain hope.

ONE question. No parenthetical verbiage

On any planet in the universe, this is one question followed by a comment. If trying to comprehend the comment confuses you, then just ignore it.


Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate?"

Bear in mind that this came tragically and horribly true when Titus besieged and overcame Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

My new prediction. There will still be no answer. We will hear an utterly foolish appeal to "cherry-picking" or an appeal to context which would be equally foolish. I still think there will be no answer, but rather just another dodgy excuse. We'll see.

ONE question. No parenthetical verbiage

Right again!! What a day. "I still think there will be no answer, but rather just another dodgy excuse."

So we have a retired librarian who cannot recognize when she is faced with a single question. Rather alarming, I would think.

ONE question. No parenthetical verbiage.

Oh for goodness sake. It's like trying to deal with a first grader. I don't know how to get any more simple than this. If this doesn't work, then it's back to Watch The Two Children Run for you.

Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate?"

ONE question. No parenthetical verbiage.

Forget it. Some people love ignorance too much to help. It's as I've been saying. Two people here are fearful of answering questions. Sad.

What is ridiculously untrue is his absurd characterization. "Anyone who believes in talking reptiles is a fundamentalist. Evangelical, fundy, born again - all the same." It is flatly untrue and not in agreement at all with the partial definitions he pulled from those sites.

I repeat - anyone who believes in talking reptiles is a fundamentalist. It is a perfect example of reading the Bible literally when it's obviously not literally true. Jl is one of those. Evangelicals, fundys and born agains all believe in the talking reptile. Facts are facts, and Jl can't deny he is what he is.


None of them agrees with him. After you read his cherry-picked partial quotes, note my full definition at the bottom. In doing so you will clearly see his deceitful approach.

Every source cited agrees with me. One has only to read my post #245 to see the truth. Jl thinks that adding details changes the basic principle. He doesn't understand that the principle of literal remains. In his frustration, he charges cherry-picking and deceitful - they are obviously not reasoned arguments but more of his anger getting control of him. I'm genuinely sorry Jl has sunk to such a low.


As for talking reptiles, Athos is referring to the serpent used by Satan in Genesis 3. I have said before that if God can raise Jesus from the dead, then having a serpent speak in the Garden seems to be unremarkable.

By that reasoning, Jl can claim anything at all he wants to believe. Say, speaking trees. Using a faulty comparison, he shows once again his failure to think logically.


He, of course, is too fearful to post his view on the resurrection

Jl's favorite mantra (one of them) is - fear explains a member's disagreement with him. He has used it more than once about more than one member here. He knows his question is dishonest (previously explained at length) but he has nowhere else to go, so he repeats and repeats and repeats.


Athos' statement is simply ridiculous and inaccurate in the extreme. There is no other way to put it, and no reputable person would say such a thing in public for fear of the public ridicule he or she would rightly receive.

A literal Bible reading is common to all three - evangelicals, fundys, and born agains. Jl's denying it won't change that. Reputable persons believe that and have said it in public without fear of ridicule. In fact, they are applauded for saying it.


Athos has been asked a simple question. Does he believe in the resurrection. He refuses to answer.

I have explained my reasons over and over. No use in stating them again. They're not getting through. It's that reading comp problem again.


He will not answer if he believes in the resurrection

Like a dog on a bone, Jl just can't let this go.


Athos could actually avoid saying "these things" by simply answering a question. Do you believe in the resurrection?

Same dog, same bone.


We have an old saying where I live.

Where do you live?

I do believe in the resurrection. Athos has said...nothing.

Actually, I've said plenty. It's just that you won't accept what I've said. Your problem, not mine.

I repeat - anyone who believes in talking reptiles is a fundamentalist.You are welcome to your opinion. It is just that...your opinion. It is supported by nothing.


Every source cited agrees with me.No source agreed with your ridiculous observation about talking reptiles. NO ONE.


A literal Bible reading is common to all three - evangelicals, fundys, and born againsYou are completely wrong. WG, for instance, believes in the new birth, and she is hardly a fundamentalist or a believer in a basically literal understanding of the scripture. It's like saying that dems and repubs are the same because they both believe in government. Details do matter in the real world.

As to the rest of your post, it is simply a dodge of trying not to answer about your belief concerning the resurrection. Just too afraid to answer. You can continue to pursue this if you want to, but you are going to see this question every time so all can see your refusal to answer. DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION???

I must admit that I do enjoy it when I get you stuck on a question like this. It's really mystifying. Like I said earlier, you would think you are a CIA agent being questioned by the Russkies. You are posting on a little used website read by nearly no one. It's really pretty safe. Go ahead, get up your courage, and just go for it!!!

What if we all promise not to tell anyone??? Would that help you feel more secure?

Well, enough of this. A discussion has degenerated into...whatever this is. Let's press on and leave this behind. It's not worth it.

The question:
Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate?"

My answer:
Jesus is not pronouncing judgment, but is, with unconditional love, merely warning them to shape up or the sky will fall in on them. The warning = unconditional love.

It's clear that JL has no idea what WG means when she says "One question. No parenthetical verbiage."
It means ask your question and then shut up. No comments, no additional, no predictions, no sniping, just ask the question and then wait for the answer.
JL seems incapable of that.

The answer to the question is yes. He went into the city and ultimately died for them even though he knew they were going to reject him. He mourned over what he knew was going to happen to them. He begged them to come to him. He mourned and lamented over the people who would turn him over to be killed.
If that's not unconditional love, then whatever it is, I'll take it.

And by the way, "agape" means "unconditional love."

It's clear that JL has no idea what WG means when she says "One question. No parenthetical verbiage."
It means ask your question and then shut up. No comments, no additional, no predictions, no sniping, just ask the question and then wait for the answer.
JL seems incapable of that.

The answer to the question is yes. He went into the city and ultimately died for them even though he knew they were going to reject him. He mourned over what he knew was going to happen to them. He begged them to come to him. He mourned and lamented over the people who would turn him over to be killed.
If that's not unconditional love, then whatever it is, I'll take it.

And by the way, "agape" means "unconditional love."

Careful - Jl doesn't like to be corrected.

You are welcome to your opinion. It is just that...your opinion. It is supported by nothing.

My "opinion" of fundamentalism is supported by the three sources I cited - Britannica, Merriam-Webster, and Wikipedia. I'm sure you know that by now.


No source agreed with your ridiculous observation about talking reptiles. NO ONE.

My observation was that you yourself agreed that reptiles spoke. Are you now denying that? Were you being ridiculous?


You are completely wrong.

I am completely correct when I say that a literal Bible reading is common to all three (Evangelicals, Fundys and Born Agains).


WG, for instance, believes in the new birth, and she is hardly a fundamentalist or a believer in a basically literal understanding of the scripture.

WG's beliefs are her own and not my concern. You're no match for her.


It's like saying that dems and repubs are the same because they both believe in government.

If you want to liken that to dems and repubs, that is your privilege.


As to the rest of your post, it is simply a dodge of trying not to answer about your belief concerning the resurrection. Just too afraid to answer.

You're repeating yourself - again. Do you have anything new?


You can continue to pursue this if you want to, but you are going to see this question every time so all can see your refusal to answer. DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION???

Not a problem. I'll be happy to repeat my answer.


I must admit that I do enjoy it when I get you stuck on a question like this.

You don't seem to enjoy it. In fact, you seem upset and angry. I'm sorry if I am the cause of that, but you bring it on yourself.


It's really mystifying.

In that case, I'll give you my answer again to dissolve the mystery. When you admitted your reason for asking was to correct wrong belief, I didn't accept that as a valid reason. I then tried to explain what the purpose of a Q&A website is, but you couldn't/wouldn't understand that either.

Your grasp of the written word has proven to be deficient on this issue as it has on so many other issues. Not knowing how to help you, I point it out from time to time in the hope you will improve.


Would that help you feel more secure?

If you would stop promoting such strange beliefs as talking reptiles, all of us here would feel more secure.

You are, I suppose, too insecure to answer basic questions, so we're done. You are completely caught up in silliness such as "talking reptiles" and have no understanding of fundamentalism, evangelicalism, and so forth. This rock throwing contest has gone on too long. When you are ready for a genuine discussion and prepared to answer critical questions such as, "Do you believe in the resurrection," then get back with us.

When you are ready for a genuine discussion and prepared to answer critical questions such as, "Do you believe in the resurrection," then get back with us.
Why does it matter what Athos or anyone else here believes about anything? This is a discussion board, not a right-or-wrong board, not an offshoot from that TV show, "To Tell the Truth." Even in your confusing post above, you say you want "a genuine discussion" -- about what we believe??? (and we can only hope it's the same things you believe?)

Sample discussion question: Why was the resurrection of Jesus Christ necessary?

Why does it matter what Athos or anyone else here believes about anything?Please tell me you're joking.


Sample discussion question: Why was the resurrection of Jesus Christ necessary?Aren't you asking what I believe? Isn't that violating your own post???

Please tell me you're joking.
This is not a BELIEF board; it's a DISCUSSION board.

Aren't you asking what I believe? Isn't that violating your own post???
Nope. That question can be answered without stating personal beliefs and church affiliations. For instance, one answer could be Jesus' resurrection was necessary in order to fulfill biblical prophecy.

You are, I suppose, too insecure to answer basic questions,

As I've explained, I require a valid reason to answer your questions. You gave none. Instead, you continue your insulting behavior. I hope you don't act like this in real life. If you do, that would explain your troubles in real life.


You are completely caught up in silliness such as "talking reptiles"

YOU are the one who believes in talking reptiles - not me. Do you now think your stated belief in talking reptiles is silliness?


and have no understanding of fundamentalism, evangelicalism,

They read the bible literally. Do you say otherwise?


This rock throwing contest has gone on too long.

Then stop throwing rocks. It's very simple.


When you are ready for a genuine discussion and prepared to answer critical questions such as, "Do you believe in the resurrection," then get back with us.

See WG's excellent response to this in her post #288. Your response to that post is another indication of your lack of understanding.

Stop being evasive. Do you believe in the resurrection? Simple question.


That question can be answered without stating personal beliefs and church affiliations. For instance, one answer could be Jesus' resurrection was necessary in order to fulfill biblical prophecy.Which is, of course, a personal belief of yours. But at least you are affirming you believe in the resurrection.

This is silliness. We have a discussion board to talk about what we DON"T believe??? Is that how you see it?

Stop being evasive. Do you believe in the resurrection? Simple question.

I've provided a simple answer over 6 times now. Yet, you keep asking the same question. It's odd that it's so important to you, someone who believes in talking reptiles.

Do you believe in the resurrection? Yes or no.

Stop being evasive. Do you believe in the resurrection? Simple question.
That's not what this board, this particular thread, is for! Start a new thread, asking your "simple question".

Which is, of course, a belief of yours. But at least you are affirming you believe in the resurrection.
No, that statement (Jesus' resurrection was necessary in order to fulfill biblical prophecy.) has nothing to do with what I believe. It answers the question. There are additional reasons why Jesus' resurrection was necessary. Can you think of more?

This is silliness. We have a discussion board to talk about what we DON"T believe??? Is that how you see it?
No. What's the difference between being involved in a discussion and expressing one's beliefs?

Which is, of course, a personal belief of yours. But at least you are affirming you believe in the resurrection.

WG's statement may or may not be her personal belief. There's no way to tell. It just as easily could be her answer based on her study of Christianity. She is affirming nothing.


This is silliness. We have a discussion board to talk about what we DON"T believe??? Is that how you see it?

A discussion is NOT the same as expressing a personal religious belief or a church affiliation. You really, truly have a serious difficulty grasping the English language.


Do you believe in the resurrection? Yes or no.

Do you understand my response? Yes or no.

No, that statement has nothing to do with what I believe. It snswers the question. There are additional reasons why Jesus' resurrection was necessary. Can you think of more?Of course it's what you believe to be a possible answer. Why else would you post it???

The lengths you guys will go to to avoid a simple answer. Do you believe in the resurrection?

Of course it's what you believe to be a possible answer. Why else would you post it???

One possibility has been explained to you. Do you understand it?

Do you believe in the resurrection?

Of course it's what you believe to be a possible answer. Why else would you post it???
I googled to find that answer.

Good for you. Do you believe in the resurrection?

Good for you. Do you believe in the resurrection?
What happens if I don't?

Do you believe in the resurrection?

Do you believe in talking reptiles?

Already told you I believe the Genesis account of the devil speaking through the serpent. See how easy it is when you have some courage and confidence in your convictions? You should try it.

More evasion, WG. Do you believe in the resurrection?

Guys, my reply to your every post will be to ask you if you believe in the resurrection. When you are prepared to answer that, then let me know. Otherwise, this is just a pointless back and forth. I don't like discussions with people who are afraid to answer questions.

More evasion. Do you believe in the resurrection?

Do you believe in talking reptiles?

Already answered in 304. Pay attention.

Do you believe in the resurrection??

Guys, my reply to your every post will be to ask you if you believe in the resurrection. When you are prepared to answer that, then let me know. Otherwise, this is just a pointless back and forth. I don't like discussions with people who are afraid to answer questions.
Why do you need to know?

And again. Guys, my reply to your every post will be to ask you if you believe in the resurrection. When you are prepared to answer that, then let me know. Otherwise, this is just a pointless back and forth. I don't like discussions with people who are afraid to answer questions.

And again. Guys, my reply to your every post will be to ask you if you believe in the resurrection. When you are prepared to answer that, then let me know. Otherwise, this is just a pointless back and forth. I don't like discussions with people who are afraid to answer questions.
This isn't a discussion any longer; it's an interrogation!

And again. Guys, my reply to your every post will be to ask you if you believe in the resurrection.

As usually happens, you are now trapped again in that corner you love so well. When you have figured out the difference between a discussion and a church meeting, get back to us.

Hi Cheech!

Hi Cheech!
Yo, Chong!

Do you believe in the resurrection, Cheech and Chong?

Do you believe in the resurrection, Cheech and Chong?
Why do you need to know? Resurrection of what? To where? When? Whose?

The real question is this. Why would you, a confessing Christian, hesitate for even a millisecond to agree WITH ENTHUSIASM that Jesus was raised from the dead? Very, very suspicious.

The real question is this. Why would you, a confessing Christian, hesitate for even a millisecond to agree WITH ENTHUSIASM that Jesus was raised from the dead? Very, very suspicious.
Your sentence makes absolutely no sense. Plus, this isn't the place for confessions of faith.

It certainly isn’t for you. Sad.

Just like I said, Jl. Your only interest in how people believe is so that you can criticize them if their belief isn't satisfactory to you.

"You hypocrites! You honor me with your lips, but your heart is far from me".

Oh for goodness sake. You two are so sensitive!! Just forget it if it bothers you so much to answer a simple question. It’s not the end of the world.

Oh for goodness sake. You two are so sensitive!! Just forget it if it bothers you so much to answer a simple question. It’s not the end of the world.
You promise you won't criticize or make fun or humiliate or say put-downs or embarrass or demean or shame?

You promise you'll answer honest questions???

Have a good night, WG. Sleep well. Tomorrow's another day!

You promise you'll answer honest questions???

I will answer honest questions - if they're honest.

You promise you'll answer honest questions???
I'll honestly discuss biblical topics with you but no pinning me to the wall.

The real question is this. Why would you, a confessing Christian, hesitate for even a millisecond to agree WITH ENTHUSIASM that Jesus was raised from the dead? Very, very suspicious.

I might be playing "devil's advocate" to see how much a person actually knows about the resurrection.

I might be talking to someone who denies the resurrection. I like to say "Yeah, there are a few questions" and then proceed to enumerate some of them.

And then answer them. It's fun to watch the faces.

But I'm a troll.

I might be playing "devil's advocate" to see how much a person actually knows about the resurrection.

But I'm a troll.
Be sure to use "I" statements. "I've often wondered..." and "I really might question..." and "I have doubts about..."

I might be playing "devil's advocate" to see how much a person actually knows about the resurrection.

I might be talking to someone who denies the resurrection. I like to say "Yeah, there are a few questions" and then proceed to enumerate some of them.

And then answer them. It's fun to watch the faces.Give us your top three of the "few questions" and then the answers. That's a really interesting approach. I'd love to see how it works.

Okay, here's one: why to the accounts in the gospels differ about who got there first, who saw what, etc.? If they're reporting an inspired event, you'd think they'd put their heads together first.

Are you wanting us to answer?

Okay, here's one: why to the accounts in the gospels differ about who got there first, who saw what, etc.? If they're reporting an inspired event, you'd think they'd put their heads together first.
--Matthew 28:1 says that there were two women who went to the sepulchre, in Mark 16:1 three women went, Luke 24:10 said there was one, and John 20:1 says five or more. Every single Gospel differs.

--According to Matthew 28:1 it was at dawn that the women went to the Sepulchre, but in John 20:1 they went before dawn, when it was still dark.

--Again, we encounter another subject on which none of the Gospels agree. Who was at the tomb when the women got there? Matthew 28:2 says there was an angel, Mark 16:5 says a young man, Luke 24:4 says there were two men, and finally John 20:12 says there were two angels.

--And just how did these people get into the tomb? Matthew 28:2 says that the angel rolled the stone from the entrance, but Luke 24:4 says the stone was already moved.

--The Gospels don't agree on where the angel(s) and/or men were. Matthew 28:2 says that he was outside to open the tomb... but the other Gospels they are found inside the tomb.

--In Matthew 28:8 the women run to tell the disciples about what they found at the tomb. But Mark 16:8 says they were too scared to tell anyone.

--Mary Magdaline saw Jesus and knew it was him in Matthew 28:9, but she didn't know it was him in John 20:14, and never saw him, but was told by angels that he was alive in Luke 24:23.

http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/gospels.htm (http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/gospels.htm)

you'd think they'd put their heads together first.

There are several replies to that.

1. The accounts differ but don't seem to contradict. That being the case, the differences can be seen as providing a fuller, more detailed account than any one Gospel would have provided. So if one account says there were two women, another account saying there were five simply adds a fuller version, but there is no contradiction. It is true that there were two women, and it is true that there were five women. BTW, Luke did not say there was only one woman.
2. They would have been as aware of the differences in the late first century as we are now. That no effort was made to harmonize them speaks volumes for the perceived need to keep the copied manuscripts true to the originals. That is, for me, enormously important.
3. If all four authors were writing the accounts either as they personally remembered them (Matthew and John) or in the manner in which it was reported to them (Luke and Mark), then there would have been no need in their minds to get together and make sure they all wrote exactly the same thing. They all felt they were writing the truth.
4. The similarities far outweigh the differences.

For what it's worth, I thought WG's post on this topic was informative.

There are several replies to that.

The similarities far outweigh the differences.

This implies that the differences don't matter since they are “far outweighed” by the similarities. Not at all true. It's like saying lies don't matter since the person has made other statements that are not lies.

The rest of the numbered statements have similar conditions that fail the test of logic. For example, he states that the differences are “fuller”. As proof, the example provided is that 5 is “fuller” than 2. That avoids the fact that 5 is not 2. That is a major disparity between eyewitnesses or copyists.

The reference to the first century neatly avoids the further fact that there are no complete copies of the Gospels from that time period. The earliest complete copies (not fragments) date from the 4th century – centuries later.

The number 3 statement claims that all four authors felt no need to get together to ensure all wrote the same thing. That assumes all 4 authors knew each other, which is highly doubtful since most scholars agree that the names of the authors are not the actual Apostles but writers using their names for its recognition value.

WG's points are good ones and they cast doubt on the accuracy of Gospels copied after centuries of copying.


These are more than mere “differences”.

2 women vs. 5 women,
dawn vs. dusk,
angels vs. men,
inside the tomb vs. outside the tomb,
stone is moved vs. stone not moved,
women tell the disciples vs. the women do not tell the disciples,
Mary Magdalene knew it was Jesus vs. Mary Magdalene never saw Jesus.


Far better answers are needed to deal with a denier of the resurrection.

The reference to the first century neatly avoids the further fact that there are no complete copies of the Gospels from that time period. The earliest complete copies (not fragments) date from the 4th century – centuries later.There are no complete copies of any ancient documents for centuries after the original autographs. No one suggests that is a major problem. If you count the hundreds of direct quotes by the early church fathers of the second century and combine that with the dozen or so manuscript fragments (most manuscripts are incomplete...not unusual) from the second century, then it is plainly apparent that the NT books existed and were being copied and widely distributed in the second century. There is absolutely no reason to doubt that just as there is no reason to believe that the NT documents were substantially changed at any point. If you know of evidence to the contrary, then I encourage you to post it.


The number 3 statement claims that all four authors felt no need to get together to ensure all wrote the same thing. That assumes all 4 authors knew each other, which is highly doubtful since most scholars agree that the names of the authors are not the actual Apostles but writers using their names for its recognition value."Most scholars" don't believe any such thing. The second century church fathers wrote that the authors we know the Gospels by were, indeed, the authors. And we don't assume they knew each other, we KNOW they knew each other. It is beyond dispute that Matthew, John, and Mark would have known each other very well. Luke, at the beginning of his Gospel, made it very clear that he had researched his material well and would likely have known many people still alive at the time who had accompanied Jesus. He was in Jerusalem for the two years of Paul's imprisonment there. He also would have known Mark from his travels with Paul.

As to the rest of your post, there is a HUUGGGEEEE difference between texts that differ in detail (number of women) versus texts that contradict. I would not deny that some of the differences are difficult, but most are not such as the number of women or this one. "Mary Magdaline saw Jesus and knew it was him in Matthew 28:9, but she didn't know it was him in John 20:14, and never saw him, but was told by angels that he was alive in Luke 24:23." The Luke passage does not say they "never saw Him." The John passage says she did not immediately recognize Him but then very quickly did. The Matthew passage also says the women saw Him. So they do not contradict. They differ, but do not contradict.

At any rate, I'd love to see DW's answer to that question.

Here's an interesting site that tries to clear up all those differences among the Gospel writers:

https://www.bethinking.org/did-jesus-rise-from-the-dead/q-dont-the-resurrection-accounts-contradict-each-other

E.g., "One of the seeming contradictions that bothers people concerns the time women came to the tomb, related differently by John and Mark. Mark's account has the women coming to the tomb at the rising of the sun, while John states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb when it was dark.This difficulty is solved when it is realized that the women had to walk quite some distance to reach the grave, since they stayed in Jerusalem or Bethany. It was dark when they left the place in which they were staying, but when they arrived at the tomb, the sun was beginning to shine. Therefore, Mark is speaking of their arrival, while John refers to their departure [from where they were staying]."

That was a good site. McDowell has been around a long time. I remember reading his book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, when I was in Bible College back before the Civil War.

As to the authors of the Gospels, this site has a good discussion. https://www.joydigitalmag.com/burning-issues/can-know-wrote-gospels/

It includes this. "By contrast, we have evidence (via church historian Eusebius) that Papias named Matthew and Mark as the author of those Gospels by AD 120. This is at most 50 years after Mark was written, and 30 years after John was written, according to the most accepted dating of the Gospels. About 60 years after Papias in c 180 AD, Irenaeus names each of the evangelists as the authors of their works. This is followed by Tertullian in about 207 AD and Origen in approximately 245 AD."

I would add this. Polycarp actually knew John and would have been alive when John wrote his Gospel and certainly would have been intimately familiar with the other Gospels. Irenaeus was very familiar with Polycarp and heard him preach on many occasions. Irenaeus, as we read above, identified the Gospels as coming from the named authors. It is virtually impossible to imagine that he would have heard Polycarp proclaim otherwise.

You can also read Polycarp's letter to the Philippian Church, dated sometime prior to A.D. 150. It is interesting the many, many times he quotes from several of the NT books including Matthew, thus demonstrating that the books were well known by that time and that he considered them to be authoritative.

https://people.engr.tamu.edu/davis/OLD/Precept/Rev1/PolycarpToPhilippians-2010-01-05.pdf

There are no complete copies of any ancient documents for centuries after the original autographs. No one suggests that is a major problem. If you count the hundreds of direct quotes by the early church fathers of the second century and combine that with the dozen or so manuscript fragments (most manuscripts are incomplete...not unusual) from the second century, then it is plainly apparent that the NT books existed and were being copied and widely distributed in the second century. There is absolutely no reason to doubt that just as there is no reason to believe that the NT documents were substantially changed at any point. If you know of evidence to the contrary, then I encourage you to post it.

The condition of other ancient documents is irrelevant. The "major" problem consists in determining the original autographs from copies made centuries after the originals.

No one denies that the books existed and were widely copied during the second century. Again, the difficulty is that those books are no longer available.The complete extant books are from the 4th century - a long time afterwards. Any extensive editing, copying and changes cannot be proven SINCE THE ORIGINALS DO NOT EXIST.

You missed my meaning. I am not saying that Matthew, Mark and John did not know each other. Obviously they did. I am saying the writers used those names to provide credibility to what they wrote. This is not disputed by scholars.

I took the Mary Magdalene citation from WG's post. I see now that further along in that Gospel, she does recognize Jesus. I stand by the others.

The differences certainly belie the claim that they all saw the same thing. It is much more likely that the story got muddled over the centuries being passed down over such an extensive period of time.

"By contrast, we have evidence (via church historian Eusebius) that Papias named Matthew and Mark as the author of those Gospels by AD 120. This is at most 50 years after Mark was written, and 30 years after John was written, according to the most accepted dating of the Gospels. About 60 years after Papias in c 180 AD, Irenaeus names each of the evangelists as the authors of their works. This is followed by Tertullian in about 207 AD and Origen in approximately 245 AD."

As you are wont to say, this is all hearsay and would not be allowed as evidence in a court of law.


Polycarp actually knew John and would have been alive when John wrote his Gospel and certainly would have been intimately familiar with the other Gospels. Irenaeus was very familiar with Polycarp and heard him preach on many occasions. Irenaeus, as we read above, identified the Gospels as coming from the named authors. It is virtually impossible to imagine that he would have heard Polycarp proclaim otherwise.

You have a lot of "would-have-beens" in there. Then, as now, the traditional authors are accepted as such, especially today by the ordinary reader. The scholars no longer hold that belief - at least since the 19th century.


You can also read Polycarp's letter to the Philippian Church, dated sometime prior to A.D. 150. It is interesting the many, many times he quotes from several of the NT books including Matthew, thus demonstrating that the books were well known by that time and that he considered them to be authoritative.

To repeat, the issue is NOT that the books existed or that they were read and were considered authoritative. The issue is the authorship.

Any extensive editing, copying and changes cannot be proven SINCE THE ORIGINALS DO NOT EXIST.But reliable copies and quotations from the second century, which for ancient documents is incredibly close, show no changes of any consequence.


You missed my meaning. I am not saying that Matthew, Mark and John did not know each other. Obviously they did. I am saying the writers used those names to provide credibility to what they wrote. This is not disputed by scholars.To say it is not disputed is incredible. That Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels attributed to them is WIDELY accepted.


As you are wont to say, this is all hearsay and would not be allowed as evidence in a court of law.Quotes from the founding fathers of the church is hearsay??? Well...believe that if you wish. The bottom line is that you have presented not a shred of evidence to the contrary. So in a court of law, your case would be summarily dismissed.


You have a lot of "would-have-beens" in there. Then, as now, the traditional authors are accepted as such, especially today by the ordinary reader. The scholars no longer hold that belief - at least since the 19th century.The woods are full of scholars such as, for instance, F. F. Bruce, who would have (He's dead now) completely rejected your idea. Honestly, when the founding fathers of of the church testify against you, and I have no idea who would have known better than them, and when there is not an ounce of ancient testimony to the contrary, then I just don't know how you can hold to that position other than mere, unsubstantiated conjecture. And contending that "the scholars" no longer hold to that position is just silliness. Some scholars, to be sure, would agree with you, but to suggest that it is all or even a majority is just flat wrong.


The "major" problem consists in determining the original autographs from copies made centuries after the originals.I'm sorry but that argument is off base. NO ancient autographs survive from ANY works of the ancient world other than those carved in stone or written on clay tablets, so to take your approach, practically all of ancient history would have to be tossed aside. Textual critics are well able to determine within a small margin of error what the originals said. This site gives a pretty good summary of the process.

https://ryanleasure.com/the-number-of-new-testament-textual-variants-doesnt-matter/

But if you want to maintain your position, then you should abandon quoting any text from the Bible at all. It is either reliable or it's not.

But reliable copies and quotations from the second century, which for ancient documents is incredibly close, show no changes of any consequence.

The second century copies are too fragmentary to be of any real value in the debate. Ancient extra-Biblical documents are frequently mentioned as though they constitutes some sort of proof. They don't, and are irrelevant comparing them to the Bible.


To say it is not disputed is incredible.

Incredible only to fundamentalists.

From the Oxford Annotated Bible, Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1:4;&version=31;); Jn. 20.31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20:31;&version=31;)). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus' life and teachings.


That Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the gospels attributed to them is WIDELY accepted.

Not by most scholars.


Quotes from the founding fathers of the church is hearsay??? ........ in a court of law, your case would be summarily dismissed.

In a court of law, "founding fathers" do not get special privileges. So their testimony would be hearsay.


The woods are full of scholars such as, for instance, F. F. Bruce, who would have (He's dead now) completely rejected your idea.

Bruce was an evangelical fundamentalist. No doubt many would reject my idea, but more would accept it.


Honestly, when the founding fathers of of the church testify against you, and I have no idea who would have known better than them,

It was not the intent of the Church Fathers (not "founding fathers") to examine the issue. See the Oxford Bible paragraph above. Also, some of the early fathers had ideas that are very weird and certainly not held by anyone today.


And contending that "the scholars" no longer hold to that position is just silliness. Some scholars, to be sure, would agree with you, but to suggest that it is all or even a majority is just flat wrong.

See the Oxford Bible quote above. There are dozens more saying the same thing. It's only the fundies that hold to the traditional view.


I'm sorry but that argument is off base. NO ancient autographs survive from ANY works of the ancient world other than those carved in stone or written on clay tablets, so to take your approach, practically all of ancient history would have to be tossed aside.

You're missing the point again. If Homer didn't write The Iliad, would we toss aside The Iliad? That's what you're saying with the gospels. As though questioning the gospel authorship results in tossing aside all of them. It doesn't work that way. This is the second time I have tried to explain that to you.


Textual critics are well able to determine within a small margin of error what the originals said.

If the textual critic is an evangelical, he comes with a bias toward the subject. Surely you will admit that.


This site gives a pretty good summary of the process.

https://ryanleasure.com/the-number-of-new-testament-textual-variants-doesnt-matter/

It is from the point of view of a Southern Baptist. Few, if any, Southern Baptists are objective or neutral on the issue.


But if you want to maintain your position, then you should abandon quoting any text from the Bible at all. It is either reliable or it's not.

No, this is a major error of yours. An all-or-nothing approach is the mark of fundamentalism. Your own admission of believing in talking reptiles is proof positive of the error of your ways.

The second century copies are too fragmentary to be of any real value in the debate. Ancient extra-Biblical documents are frequently mentioned as though they constitutes some sort of proof. They don't, and are irrelevant comparing them to the Bible.Only to you. No one who knows anything about textual criticism would make such a statement. First you complain about not having the autographs, and then you dismiss the existence of copies very close in time to the autographs. I think you are simply not familiar enough with the process. Might add that the vast majority of NT manuscripts, in particular in the first five centuries, are fragmentary. To dismiss them as of "no real value" is just amazing.

The rest of your comments just concern more of your ad hominem attacks. "Oh my gosh! He's a fundamentalist! He's Southern Baptist! He's evangelical!! They have to be wrong." (Note: Quotation marks are only there for sarcasm.) Unbelievable. Who is more biased in this discussion that you are? Your bias against conservative scholarship is plainly apparent.


If the textual critic is an evangelical, he comes with a bias toward the subject. Surely you will admit that.
You are basically claiming the evangelical critics are dishonest. No, I do not accept that. Could they be affected by bias? Of course. Tell me your liberal critics are not. Can you really suggest that?

As to the Oxford Annotated Bible Quote, there are no named individuals. Even worse, his only real objection is that the evangelicals are biased, as though liberal scholars are not. That's laughable.

In the court of historical research, there are no better witnesses than those individuals close in time to the writing of the Gospels.

I will ask again. What ancient source do you appeal to in order to cast doubt on the authorship of the Gospels? Do you have any evidence whatsoever? Anything? Anything at all? Please don't respond again until you do.

Only to you. No one who knows anything about textual criticism would make such an absurd statement.

Not at all absurd. The second century fragments consist of a few lines, none of which discuss the possibility of authors different than the traditional ones.


First you complain about not having the autographs, and then you dismiss the existence of copies very close in time to the autographs.

I have never complained about not having the autographs. I have stated a fact. I have not dismissed the existence of fragments. I have said they do not matter in the discussion. The fact that they are close in time to the autographs has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever.


You have no idea of what you're talking about.

Ah, the real Jl has emerged. When losing the argument, attack, and attack again.


The rest of your comments just concern more of your ad hominem attacks. "Oh my gosh! He's a fundamentalist! He's Southern Baptist! He's evangelical!! They have to be wrong.

No, I said they are biased. Do you deny that?


You are basically claiming the evangelical critics are dishonest.

No, I am claiming they put their faith ahead of their objectivity. You do the same thing and, if memory serves, you have even bragged about doing that. Do you do that? Put your faith ahead of your objectivity?


Tell me your liberal critics are not.

I don't have liberal critics. (You seem to be obsessed with "liberal".)


In the court of historical research, there are no better witnesses than those individuals close in time to the writing of the Gospels.

That is true. The only problem is we have no records - excluding tiny fragments - from witnesses close in time to the events.


What ancient source do you appeal to in order to cast doubt on the authorship of the Gospels?

My sources are those scholars who examine the Bible from many different angles. They include text criticism, form criticism, archeology, and history, to name a few. Here is an excellent description of the methods used.

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/bible-basics/how-do-biblical-scholars-study-the-new-testament.aspx


Do you have any evidence whatsoever?

I have given you more than enough for you to chew on. But, as usual, you have succumbed to nastiness, your go-to position when you feel lost and overwhelmed.

Your anger is very obvious. It's not my intention to make you like that, but it seems to arise when you feel defeated. It would be better for you if you just calmly tried to read and learn.

I have given you more than enough for you to chew on.You have provided nothing other than the plainly false claim that all the scholars believe the Gospel accounts were written by other writers than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Other than that fake news you have nothing.


none of which discuss the possibility of authors different than the traditional ones.
Which is really the entire point. You have nothing at all to support your claim.


The only problem is we have no records - excluding tiny fragments - from witnesses close in time to the eventsI can only say again, you have no idea of what you're talking about. Polycarp dates to the writing of John as did Papias. They could have both seen Matthew in their childhood for that matter based on their birth dates. They both attributed Matthew to Matthew. Iranaeus lived a century afterwards as did Clement, and they said the same. You just don't know the material.


So I will ask again, again. What ancient source do you appeal to in order to cast doubt on the authorship of the Gospels? Do you have any evidence whatsoever? Anything? Anything at all? Please don't respond again until you do.

BTW, there are legit reasons to question the authorship of Matthew, but none of them seem to appeal at all to ancient sources. I don't find them compelling, but they are out there. That you don't know them seems plainly apparent. Do you have anything at all????? Anything, anything, anything at all??? (I have to repeat frequently due to your hesitancy to answer questions.)

You have provided nothing.........etc., etc., etc.

I understand how angry you are. That is apparent when you start repeating what I have already replied to, replies which showed your claims to be in error. When you project that anger elsewhere on this website, that is not good for your mental health and I worry about you.

Here's a quick summary for you to refer to:

Post 331 – where I gave you seven examples (from WG's post) of the different gospel accounts which are definitive in showing that they cannot be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and are clearly the result of the details being handed down from generation to generation. The Mary Magdalene account is also here which you called into question. However, you were wrong. In John, Mary does not immediately recognize Jesus as she does in the other gospels. The author of John embellishes the account for spiritual faith-based reasons. You ignored the remaining six examples which I take to be your tacit agreement or, at a minimum, your inability to challenge them.

Post 335 – where the authorship question came up and which you totally missed my meaning. Also mentioned in this post is the impossibility of comparing the original gospels because they no longer exist. All we have are copies (of copies). This critical observation seemed to have gone right over your head.

Post 336 – here you cited a number of ancient writers, most of whom were not contemporary and none of whom provided anything germane to the authorship identity question. Their use of traditional names was received, not personal knowledge.

Post 338 – a citation from a recognized authority that modern scholars do not accept the traditional authorship of the gospels. Of course, the fundie “scholars” are not included in this. Homer's Iliad was cited to help you understand, but this too went over your head. To further show you your error I mentioned your belief in talking reptiles to solidify the point. No reply to that either.

Post 340 – I told you why the second century fragments don't figure in the discussion. And I corrected some statements of mine that you misquoted – a familiar tactic of yours when you're out of your depth. I made note of the nastiness starting when you run out of ideas – another common tactic of yours. Even gave you a link describing how modern Biblical study is carried out, but it is unclear whether you took advantage of that.

Now you have reverted to insults and false comments which is the best indication of your lack of understanding, not only of how the Bible is interpreted, but of the bible itself and how you and other fundies rely on selected verses and read the book only at its surface meaning.

I've done my best to help you, but your refusal to accept help is a major obstacle in dealing with you.

More details as time allows, including your revealing comment about "ancient sources".

You've done a wonderful job of answering questions that no one has asked. This is what I asked you to reply to, and have asked it a number of times. So far you've had nothing, so I will ask again, again and yet again. "What ancient source do you appeal to in order to cast doubt on the authorship of the Gospels? Do you have any evidence whatsoever? Anything? Anything at all? Please don't respond again until you do." Well, it is plain by now that you don't know of any, nor are you aware of any justification used by scholars to question the authorship of the Gospels. You seem to be walking in the dark.

Not angry, but weary from waiting on an answer. Anyone following this thread can see easily why I also wrote, "I have to repeat frequently due to your hesitancy to answer questions." It's the same pattern as when you were repeatedly asked the very simple and yet profound question of whether or not you believe in the resurrection. Still no answer to that one, either, assuming, of course, that you rise to the challenge.


Post 331 – where I gave you seven examples (from WG's post) of the different gospel accounts which are definitive in showing that they cannot be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and are clearly the result of the details being handed down from generation to generation.Actually, your post 331 did no such thing. But since you cannot answer my question about ancient sources, and since you will not answer about the resurrection, then rather than throwing up my hands in despair, let's try a different approach. Give just one reference from a Gospel account that, "cannot be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and are clearly the result of details being handed down from generation to generation." Considering that none of the Gospel authors claimed to be eyewitnesses of the events at the tomb and would logically have received their information from the women who were there and were eyewitnesses (a common practice among historians), your statement seems to be an odd one. Still, I'd like to see one. The claim that you can clearly tell that they were handed down from generation to generation appeals to me. I would be interested to see an example of that specifically.

The waiting game begins.

2. They would have been as aware of the differences in the late first century as we are now. That no effort was made to harmonize them speaks volumes for the perceived need to keep the copied manuscripts true to the originals. That is, for me, enormously important.


Then please explain the Eusebian Sections, The Diatessaron, and the writings of numerous church fathers on the subject. And by the way, our manuscripts include all kinds of variant readings in which scribes tried to harmonize things. There was no "perceived need to keep the copied manuscripts true to the originals". Especially in the first two centuries, scribes felt free to make alterations to the text as they saw fit.

A good, though somewhat dated, introduction to the subject is Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament. I recommend you read it before commenting on the manuscripts again.

The Diatessaron was a true harmony of the Gospels and is clearly understood as being so. There was no effort there to change the text of any of the individual Gospel account manuscripts as they then existed. The Eusebian Canons were simply an attempt to organize the Gospels as to where they agreed or differed and were seen as useful for the purposes of reference and comparison. As I understand it, there was no attempt to alter the texts of the Gospels so I don't really know why you would even mention them. Besides, wasn't that late fourth century?

As to the early church fathers, if you have read the posts above, I have quoted several of them so I am familiar with them. Nothing of your post gives evidence that scribes were willing to alter the texts of the Gospels.

My reference to attempts to "harmonize" the Gospel accounts was in reference to attempts to change the text so as to remove, for instance, any appearance of differences in the visits to the tomb by the women. That there are differences is a testimony to the dedication of scribes NOT to alter the text. You say scribes felt free to, "make alterations as they saw fit" in the first two centuries. What evidence is there of that in any sense of scribes altering the accounts in any meaningful way other than such things as changes in spelling?

I am presently reading William Paley's A View of the Evidences of Christianity and New Testament Documents by F. F. Bruce. When I finish those I'll begin Sermons Preached at Boyle's Lecture by Richard Bentley and Alexander Dyce since I just received it. At that point I will consider your suggestion, but I will certainly not back away from commenting on the NT manuscripts. If something wrong is said, then point it out with evidence. You are welcome to do so.

My reference to attempts to "harmonize" the Gospel accounts was in reference to attempts to change the text so as to remove, for instance, any appearance of differences in the visits to the tomb by the women.

That's exactly what happened in the earliest manuscripts, and beyond. It was especially prevalent during the Byzantine period. The Diatessaron harmonizes the different gospels in hundreds of places, and the Eusebian sections are a cross-reference tool but they also happen to mark the places where the most common harmonizing alterations to the text were made.


What evidence is there of that in any sense of scribes altering the accounts in any meaningful way other than such things as changes in spelling?

That's easy. Mark 16:9-16.

The Diatessaron harmonizes the different gospels in hundreds of places,That's true, but it did so as a separate document. Tatian made no effort to alter the 4 independent Gospel accounts, and they were the topic of discussion. By way of comparison, there are many summaries of the Constitution floating around, but no one suggests their existence in any way indicates that the Constitution has been altered. It is two separate issues.


The Eusebian sections are a cross-reference tool but they also happen to mark the places where the most common harmonizing alterations to the text were made.They mark the places where the accounts are similar or different in an attempt at cross-referencing to assist the reader. Are you saying that they actually indicate "harmonizing alterations"? How so?

The Byzantine period started late fourth century, did it not? The manuscript evidence for that time is pretty good. You have evidence of wholesale changes to the texts in an effort to "harmonize" them post fourth century? I'd love to hear about that. And if they did (I don't think that's true on a level even approaching anything beyond a small scale), why wouldn't they have "cleaned up" the post-resurrection accounts? That's probably the most difficult Gospel details to harmonize, and so should have been high up on the list for correction. Why didn't that happen?


That's easy. Mark 16:9-16.That's true. It's also true that everyone knows it and it is clearly recognized as being so. There are a handful of other instances such as the account of the woman caught in adultery, but those are additions to the texts that are obvious BECAUSE there are so many manuscripts available for comparison. If you want to contend for that handful of additions then that's fine, but that's a far cry from suggesting that, "Especially in the first two centuries, scribes felt free to make alterations to the text as they saw fit." You make it sound as if wholesale changes were made, and I don't think you can establish that. Perhaps I have misunderstood your intent?

All that aside, how do you answer this question you mentioned? "Okay, here's one: why to the accounts in the gospels differ about who got there first, who saw what, etc.? If they're reporting an inspired event, you'd think they'd put their heads together first." That's really how this all got started to begin with.

"What ancient source do you appeal to in order to cast doubt on the authorship of the Gospels?


A better question would be - “What ancient source do you appeal to in order to support the authorship of the Gospels?”

I will answer both below.


“None of the synoptic gospels name their author or authors. In each case authorial attribution dates from the second century CE. “Dr. Ian Bond, Pastor, Missionary, Evangelical

The titles “According to Matthew,” etc., were not added until late in the second century. All four Gospels were originally anonymous, none claim to be written by eyewitnesses, and all contain giveaways that they were written generations later, by well-educated Greek-speaking theologians.

There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. Early Christian scholar Henry Dodwell wrote in the 1600s:

“We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named”
(Dissertations upon Irenaeus, Henry Bodwell, 1689).

In other words, the four gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ would have demanded the use of these Gospels, had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin] — do not occur once in all his writings” (Christian Records, p. 71).

Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, these names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple which occurred in 70 CE.

They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their authority.

Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: “They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24).


Your attribution of Papias citing the Gospel in 120 AD was disingenuous. The implication is that we actually have that from 120 AD. The truth, as you know, is that it only occurs in the 4th century in the writings of Eusubius.


Theophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second century, mentions the Gospel of John. Irenaeus, who wrote a little later, mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from them. In the latter half of the second century, then, between the time of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus,the Four Gospels were undoubtedly written OR compiled.




From Athos
Post 331 – where I gave you seven examples (from WG's post) of the different gospel accounts which are definitive in showing that they cannot be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and are clearly the result of the details being handed down from generation to generation.


From jlsenbe
Actually, your post 331 did no such thing. But since you cannot answer my question about ancient sources, and since you will not answer about the resurrection, then rather than throwing up my hands in despair, let's try a different approach.

Noted that you cannot answer my contention in Post 331. Rather, you decide to “try a different approach”.


The claim that you can clearly tell that they were handed down from generation to generation appeals to me. I would be interested to see an example of that specifically.

It's already in Post 331 – specifically. Read it again. Hint: the disparity between the retelling of the accounts.

Here's a good piece of advice from DW - “A good, though somewhat dated, introduction to the subject is Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament. I recommend you read it before commenting on the manuscripts again.”

The titles “According to Matthew,” etc., were not added until late in the second centuryIf that is so, then how did Polycarp know who wrote the 4 Gospels?


There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels.Not true. It's already been demonstrated here that Polycarp mentioned them as did Papias. Look at post 334. You are quoting a source from 1689. A little dated, yes?


In other words, the four gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers.Just flatly wrong. If that is true, then how did Tatian mange to write a harmony of the Gospels in the second century? The contention is just foolish. Polycarp quoted Matthew. You even contradict this yourself when you write, "Theophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second century, mentions the Gospel of John. Irenaeus, who wrote a little later, mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from them." So how on earth could he have quoted from Gospels which were unknown to him?

Truth is, even if all of the currently existing Greek manuscripts were destroyed, scholars would still be able to reconstruct 99% of the New Testament simply by using quotes from the second and third century church fathers. Not too bad considering that, according to you, they knew very little of the Gospels.

This is my reply to your post 331. You see that I have asked you to defend your questionable claim by giving just one example. Clearly you can't. "Actually, your post 331 did no such thing. But since you cannot answer my question about ancient sources, and since you will not answer about the resurrection, then rather than throwing up my hands in despair, let's try a different approach. Give just one reference from a Gospel account that, 'cannot be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and are clearly the result of details being handed down from generation to generation.' Considering that none of the Gospel authors claimed to be eyewitnesses of the events at the tomb and would logically have received their information from the women who were there and were eyewitnesses (a common practice among historians), your statement seems to be an odd one. Still, I'd like to see one. The claim that you can clearly tell that they were handed down from generation to generation appeals to me. I would be interested to see an example of that specifically."

So you have no ancient source to contradict the authorship of the four Gospels. You will not give your belief on the resurrection. You can cite no accounts from the Gospels that you can CLEARLY tell were handed down from generation to generation. You are just devoid of answers. Sad.


Your attribution of Papias citing the Gospel in 120 AD was disingenuous. The implication is that we actually have that from 120 AD. The truth, as you know, is that it only occurs in the 4th century in the writings of Eusubius.Eusebius, whose name you misspelled, made reference to Papias. Papias lived in the late first, early second century. And he was mentioned and quoted by second century Irenaeus, two centuries before Eusebius. So there was nothing disingenuous at all in my statement about Papias.


Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, these names first appeared in the second centuryThey "appeared"? They were certainly acknowledged in the second century, as well they would have been if the very simple and common sense explanation that they were written by those four authors is accepted.

One more point. If you are going to quote others as you did above, you really should acknowledge that. Plagiarism is a bad habit.


none claim to be written by eyewitnessesOK. Can't let that one go. John claimed his account was based on eyewitness testimony.
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (1:14). “He who saw it has borne witness” (19:35). “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true” (21:24).

Might add that Luke, while not an eyewitness, claimed to have interviewed eyewitnesses in his first chapter.

We don't have the actual writings of Polycarp or Papias. We have Eusebius saying they wrote these things, but Eusebius is well known for adding stuff that didn't come along until later, plus some very late manuscripts, the best ones in Latin, not Greek.

Tatian was late second century at best and we don't have proof that he wrote the Diatessaron. The earliest copies we have are late 4th century.

You're not making your case. You're using flawed approaches to fragmentary, questionable sources.

Incidentally, to the other person in this thread (I lost track of who's doing what), Luke also claims to be based on eyewitness accounts. He indicates that he interviewed the people involved, examined records, and otherwise sought out all the eyewitness testimony he could. There's no reason not to assume he did a good job of it.

I wouldn't think that anyone of note seriously questions Tatian's authorship of the Diatessaron. It seems to be widely accepted. Now granted that is not "proof", so fair enough. Polycarp's letter to the Philippian church has, as ancient documents go, survived somewhat well, and in it he quotes from a number of NT books including Matthew. As you well know, with many ancient sources, what often survives is another person quoting them and that person's writings surviving. It is not unusual at all. Irenaeus quotes Papias, for instance, so we're not solely dependent on Eusebius for information concerning Papias.

But it all seems to illustrate the skeptical approach to TC. Even if a manuscript was found today written by Papias stating that the four Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it would then be heard that, after all, it is only a copy of a copy of a copy, and we can't be certain that Papias wrote it, and it might date a hundred years after his life, and on and on it goes. So perhaps it can only be said that the great weight of evidence seems to favor the traditional authorship of those four books.

But even if a person wants to question those documents, it still seems true that, at least so far as I'm aware, there are no ancient sources which take the position that the Gospels were written by someone other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. There seems to be no serious case to be made for questioning their authorship other than a supposed shortage of second century attestations. That seems weak to me. It's basing a negative on negatives. Even worse, we are asked to assume that the early church used Gospels which they knew were written by persons other than the names attached to the Gospels. That seems to be an enormous stretch to me. Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement, and others were early enough to have known this. It's hard to imagine how it could have been kept secret in an early church where honesty was valued. So if I go on what seems to be overwhelmingly likely, I would go with the traditional authors of the Gospel. There seems to be but little reason not to.

If that is so, then how did Polycarp know who wrote the 4 Gospels

Polycarp never names the any of the 4 evangelists. Me 1, You 0.


Not true. It's already been demonstrated here that Polycarp mentioned them as did Papias. Look at post 334. You are quoting a source from 1689. A little dated, yes?

I looked at your #334. You are wrong. You assume that since Polycarp knew the Gospels, he therefore knew the authors as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. As I said above, Polycarp never names the 4 evangelists. Me 2, You 0.

I laughed out loud when you criticized me for citing an author from 1689. “A little dated, yes?”, you said. And you quoting authors from over a thousand years earlier! A little dated, yes? No points on this one – I enjoyed the comic relief.


You can also read Polycarp's letter to the Philippian Church, dated sometime prior to A.D. 150. It is interesting the many, many times he quotes from several of the NT books including Matthew, thus demonstrating that the books were well known by that time and that he considered them to be authoritative.

I read Polycarp many years ago, and was surprised to see the Philippian letter on the net. So I read it again, remembering almost nothing about it. The letter NOWHERE mentions any of the 4 evangelists by name. Me 3, You 0.



from Athos
In other words, the four gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers.


Just flatly wrong. If that is true, then how did Tatian mange to write a harmony of the Gospels in the second century?

My comment that you said is “just flatly wrong” is within the context of the second century according to our discussion.

Tatian's “harmony” (the Diatessaron) of the Gospels was written without naming the titles or the author names. We have this from Irenaeus through the 6th century Bishop, Victor. Me 4, You 0.


You even contradict this yourself when you write, "Theophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second century, mentions the Gospel of John. Irenaeus, who wrote a little later, mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from them." So how on earth could he have quoted from Gospels which were unknown to him?

There is no contradiction. My contention is that the authors – the AUTHORS – were not known in the early second century. The Gospels were in circulation without attribution. By the latter part of the second century, the traditional authors had been added to the Gospels.

Nowhere have I said the gospels were unknown at the beginning of the second century. I have said the AUTHORS were unknown at that time.

Please carefully read what I write. Otherwise, you're wasting my time.

This one gets 2 points. Me 6, You 0.


Truth is, even if all of the currently existing Greek manuscripts were destroyed, scholars would still be able to reconstruct 99% of the New Testament simply by using quotes from the second and third century church fathers. Not too bad considering that, according to you, they knew very little of the Gospels.

Jl, Jl, Jl. This is really getting ridiculous. I never said scholars knew very little of the Gospels. Changing the discussion does you no good. Me 7, You 0.


This is my reply to your post 331. You see that I have asked you to defend your questionable claim by giving just one example. Clearly you can't.

Of course I can, and have. Here it is again:


The titles “According to Matthew,” etc., were not added until late in the second century. All four Gospels were originally anonymous, none claim to be written by eyewitnesses, and all contain giveaways that they were written generations later, by well-educated Greek-speaking theologians.

There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. You will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament,nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named”

In other words, the four gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin] — do not occur once in all his writings”

These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority.

They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their authority.

Theophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second century, mentions the Gospel of John. Irenaeus, who wrote a little later, mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from them. In the latter half of the second century, then, between the time of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus,the Four Gospels were undoubtedly written ORcompiled.


But since you cannot answer my question about ancient sources, and since you will not answer about the resurrection

Ancient sources has been answered. It is not my fault you cannot grasp the evidence. I did answer the resurrection question.

Here it is again :
“What is your reason for asking?”

You refused to reply to my question.


Give just one reference from a Gospel account that, 'cannot be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and are clearly the result of details being handed down from generation to generation.'

Gladly. How can two eyewitnesses report two different oh-so-obvious details such as the number of people at the tomb? One reports two, the other reports 5. It couldn't be more clear that the two traditions, differing as they do, have been passed down over the generations. The theological difference is not affected, only the clear evidence for being passed down.


So you have no ancient source to contradict the authorship of the four Gospels. You will not give your belief on the resurrection. You can cite no accounts from the Gospels that you can CLEARLY tell were handed down from generation to generation. You are just devoid of answers. Sad.

What is REALLY sad is your inability to understand that all three questions have been answered. Just not the answers you wanted.

1. You have quoted no ancient sources who questioned the authorship of the four Gospels. That was the question. Lack of affirmation does not qualify in any way as an answer.

2. You stated, "There is no contradiction. My contention is that the authors – the AUTHORS – were not known in the early second century...Nowhere have I said the gospels were unknown at the beginning of the second century." But earlier you said, "In other words, the four gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers." Are you confused? You are saying you did not do what you clearly did. Well, Tatian, Polycarp, and Papias all quoted from the Gospels. Irenaeus named them as you can see below. And you certainly have no way of knowing what the early church fathers such as Papias and Polycarp DIDN'T know. You can only state that, in your view, they did not mention it in the surviving fragments of what they wrote.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are now agreeing that the four Gospels existed at the beginning of the second century. You are simply arguing that they were not mentioned by name in that century. Is that your contention? If so, then how do you explain this?
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.''There is similar evidence for Mark, Luke, and John. I'll let you take the link yourself.

http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/papias.html

You can also go here. This site says not only Irenaeus, but also Justin, Clement and Tertullian mentioned the Gospel authors. https://isjesusalive.com/who-wrote-the-gospels/

3. I asked, "Give just one reference from a Gospel account that cannot be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and are clearly the result of details being handed down from generation to generation." You responded, "Gladly. How can two eyewitnesses report two different oh-so-obvious details such as the number of people at the tomb? One reports two, the other reports 5. It couldn't be more clear that the two traditions, differing as they do, have been passed down over the generations. The theological difference is not affected, only the clear evidence for being passed down." But I have already explained that one saying five and one saying two is not a contradiction. If there were five, then there were certainly two. If it had said, "only two", then you would have a point. It does not, however, so you don't. It certainly is not a satisfactory answer to the question since there is no reason to believe that both accounts could not be based on eyewitness testimony.

4. "I laughed out loud when you criticized me for citing an author from 1689. “A little dated, yes?”, you said. And you quoting authors from over a thousand years earlier! A little dated, yes? No points on this one – I enjoyed the comic relief." Surely you can understand the difference between quoting direct sources (me) versus quoting a theologian or historian (you) merely supplying opinions. I hope you can.

5. "Jl, Jl, Jl. This is really getting ridiculous. I never said scholars knew very little of the Gospels." I agree. I never said you did. I have no idea where you got that from. Imagination? My comment of, "Not too bad considering that, according to you, they knew very little of the Gospels," was referring, rather clearly I think, to the early church fathers, and certainly not to modern scholars.

6. I am pleased that you did not engage in plagiarism this time. That's progress. Regrettably, you did not see fit to explain your previous misstep. That's rather puzzling.

7. You were correct in pointing out that Polycarp did not mention the Gospels by name. Good catch. Unhappily, it was your only one. Polycarp did indeed quote from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but not by name, so fair enough. But do you really think Polycarp would have quoted from a written account set down by some unknown individual? Does that makes sense to you? And if he knew the authors were other than Matthew, Mark, and Luke, then wouldn't that information have been passed on to Irenaeus? Your contention just doesn't make sense.

Irenaeus wrote, “But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ... having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.” (Against Heresies, Book III, 3.4) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm)

This discussion is going too far afield with too many components. Perhaps we can boil it down to one area. Do you know of any ancient source who contested the traditional authorship of the Gospels? Not a "failure to affirm", but a statement in which he said the Gospels were authored by someone else.

OR

Can you explain why second century figures would have quoted the Gospels if they knew the accounts were written by merely an unknown figure? Doesn't that sound wildly implausible?

OR

Would you agree that the fact that the post-resurrection accounts do glaringly differ in some respects to be evidence of the high regard in which the early church held these documents and attests to the seeming fact that they did not alter the accounts in any dramatic way, not even to correct what some would consider to be errors?

Take your pick, OR you can pose a question yourself.

Why is the Bible considered the Greatest Book ever written?

Could it be because it tells you more about yourself than you could ever know?

Could it be because it tells you more about yourself than you could ever know?Or because it tells us more about God than we could ever know?

But it all seems to illustrate the skeptical approach to TC. Even if a manuscript was found today written by Papias stating that the four Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it would then be heard that, after all, it is only a copy of a copy of a copy, and we can't be certain that Papias wrote it, and it might date a hundred years after his life, and on and on it goes.

It's called science. I've been involved in textual criticism of both testaments since about 1972. I've published on the subject multiple times.
This is exactly how we approach any new discovery. Step one would be to verify what it says. Step two would be to date it. There are several ways to do this, the most common being handwriting style. We can follow the trail of writing styles through the manuscripts back almost to the first century, so it's a pretty reliable method. In some cases carbon dating might also be done. From there we would put it in its place in the manuscript tradition of the purported writer, if there is a manuscript tradition. If there isn't, we look at other sources to see if the dates of the purported author and the date of the document jive. If the suggested author lived after the date of the manuscript, then s/he didn't write it, obviously. If the author is supposed to have lived in the second century and the document references something from the third century, we know it's not authentic. If we have any citations of this author in other sources, we compare the vocabulary, grammar, and style to see if they match. From there we'll draw a "yea" or "nay" conclusion based on what evidence we have.
That's how the process works. It's also why the conclusions we've reached about things like date, authorship, etc. are so reliable.

This discussion is going too far afield with too many components. Perhaps we can boil it down to one area. Do you know of any ancient source who contested the traditional authorship of the Gospels? Not a "failure to affirm", but a statement in which he said the Gospels were authored by someone else.

In the first two centuries, they didn't care. Many important documents were anonymous, including the letter we call Hebrews.




OR

Can you explain why second century figures would have quoted the Gospels if they knew the accounts were written by merely an unknown figure? Doesn't that sound wildly implausible?

Not if you do some research into the second century mindset. You're trying to apply 21st century principles to a thoroughly different age. Again, who wrote it wasn't important to them. What mattered to them was what it said.



OR

Would you agree that the fact that the post-resurrection accounts do glaringly differ in some respects to be evidence of the high regard in which the early church held these documents and attests to the seeming fact that they did not alter the accounts in any dramatic way, not even to correct what some would consider to be errors?

In the first and second centuries? No. Many Christians only knew of one or two books, and there were lots of other gospels circulating out there. The Didache is anonymous and it nearly made it into the canon. Likewise Shepherd of Hermas. One of our most important manuscripts includes it as part of the New Testament, and that manuscript is from the fourth century.

It wasn't until Nicea that anybody worried about who wrote what. Authorship became the criterion for inclusion in the canon. But in the couple of centuries before that, the church at large didn't have such a big stick up their collective goozyx.

In the first two centuries, they didn't care. Many important documents were anonymous, including the letter we call Hebrews.I think you would have a difficult time trying to establish that the early church didn't care who wrote the Gospel accounts that they were risking their lives for. This is not like works of fiction or even historical accounts. They would have regarded it as the greatest event of history, and yet you want me to believe they would have just casually accepted a Gospel account written by whoever? That's pretty difficult to imagine.

At any rate, Irenaeus seemed to care a great deal.


No. Many Christians only knew of one or two booksAre you suggesting that in the second century, church leaders only knew of one or two NT books?


and there were lots of other gospels circulating out there That's true, but only four ever received widespread acceptance, and that continued for several centuries.


It wasn't until Nicea that anybody worried about who wrote whatI just don't think that's accurate. Paul's writings were recognized as his work from the word go. The same was true of 1 Peter and 1 John. If my memory serves me correctly, in his letter to the Philippian church, Polycarp even attributed his quotes to Paul, Peter, and John, and even made reference to the letter Paul wrote to that same Philippian church. That was mid second century.

But that leaves an important question still unanswered. Do you know of anyone in the first several centuries who questioned the traditional authorships of the four Gospels?

I understand the general working of TC, though I am far from being a professional. I also know that many people apply a level of skepticism to the NT that is not applied to other ancient works.

1. You have quoted no ancient sources who questioned the authorship of the four Gospels. That was the question. Lack of affirmation does not qualify in any way as an answer.

The stories describing the life of Jesus circulated during and after his life. They spread from person to person until, sometime after his death, they began to be written down. As is well-known, there were many written accounts of the life of Jesus. Centuries later, the four gospels as we now know them (Matthew, Mark, etc.) were selected as authentic.

Back in the latter part of the second century was when they first became attributed to the 4 traditional authors. Prior to that attribution the authors were unknown. We know this from several sources that were writing at the time but made no mention of the AUTHORS of the gospels. There were sections of these stories quoted but NONE OF THE EVANGELISTS WERE NAMED. This point has been previously made, but you call it “silence”.

In other words, questioning the authorship of the stories was not an issue in the beginning. It was not until a century or so after Jesus' death that the stories began to be attributed to apostolic times to give them a needed authenticity.


But earlier you said, "In other words, the four gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers.

The AUTHORS were unknown, not the contents of the gospels.


In your view, they did not mention it in the surviving fragments of what they wrote.

It's not "my view", it's the considered view of modern scholars, and hardly from fragments. See the following:

Justin Martyr makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels.


If I am understanding you correctly, you are now agreeing that the four Gospels existed at the beginning of the second century. You are simply arguing that they were not mentioned by name in that century. Is that your contention? If so, then how do you explain this? There is similar evidence for Mark, Luke, and John. I'll let you take the link yourself.

http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/papias.html

No. Not named until the latter part of the second century. Your link does nothing but repeat what you already wrote. The source is Irenaeus who wrote in the latter part of the second century.


3. I asked, "Give just one reference from a Gospel account that cannot be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and are clearly the result of details being handed down from generation to generation." You responded, "Gladly. How can two eyewitnesses report two different oh-so-obvious details such as the number of people at the tomb? One reports two, the other reports 5. It couldn't be more clear that the two traditions, differing as they do, have been passed down over the generations. The theological difference is not affected, only the clear evidence for being passed down." But I have already explained that one saying five and one saying two is not a contradiction. If there were five, then there were certainly two. If it had said, "only two", then you would have a point. It does not, however, so you don't. It certainly is not a satisfactory answer to the question since there is no reason to believe that both accounts could not be based on eyewitness testimony.

This is an astounding piece of miscombobulation (if that isn't a word, it should be). There are five apples on the table. You come along and say there are two. Someone else says but there are five. You say 2 is included in the 5, so 2 does not contradict 5. Your stretch to prove any point you make, no matter how ridiculous, is breathtaking. In any case, it was never about contradiction - that was your word. It was about difference - the difference between two people at the tomb and five at the tomb.


"I laughed out loud when you criticized me for citing an author from 1689. “A little dated, yes?”, you said. And you quoting authors from over a thousand years earlier! A little dated, yes? No points on this one – I enjoyed the comic relief." Surely you can understand the difference between quoting direct sources (me) versus quoting a theologian or historian (you) merely supplying opinions. I hope you can.

You commented on the date but not the content of what I wrote. Revealing, isn't it? In any case, your sources were writing far after the events in question. My modern sources have certain advantages over the ancient sources when both are writing after the events being described.


5. "Jl, Jl, Jl. This is really getting ridiculous. I never said scholars knew very little of the Gospels." I agree. I never said you did. I have no idea where you got that from. Imagination? My comment of, "Not too bad considering that, according to you, they knew very little of the Gospels," was referring, rather clearly I think, to the early church fathers, and certainly not to modern scholars.

What I meant was the early church fathers. Obviously they knew what they were reading. You should have seen the typo of scholars for early church fathers.


6. I am pleased that you did not engage in plagiarism this time. That's progress. Regrettably, you did not see fit to explain your previous misstep.

Another astounding piece of discombob. First you whined that I didn't provide names, then when I did provide names, you call it plagiarism. It's really about deflection, isn't it? Your position is weak and you would rather accuse me of bad faith. Ok, two can play that game.

Please tell us more about your belief in talking reptiles. Do they speak in forked tongues? How about talking elephants? Do you believe in those, too? Or maybe a God who creates billions of people only to watch them burn forever in his private torture chamber for the sin of never having heard of him? If it's possible I have your beliefs wrong, here's your chance to set the record straight. I'll wait.


7. You were correct in pointing out that Polycarp did not mention the Gospels by name. Good catch. Unhappily, it was your only one. Polycarp did indeed quote from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but not by name, so fair enough. But do you really think Polycarp would have quoted from a written account set down by some unknown individual? Does that makes sense to you? And if he knew the authors were other than Matthew, Mark, and Luke, then wouldn't that information have been passed on to Irenaeus? Your contention just doesn't make sense.

Polycarp, and the others, read the anonymous accounts and believed in the content and were not concerned about the name of the person or persons who wrote them. The crux of the matter was the LIFE of Jesus, not the writer of the life. When, after several generations, it became necessary to attribute the stories to famiiar names from the apostolic era, the stories were then prefaced with "According to...". Note that this is an attribution, not a claim of authorship. Yes, it makes perfect good sense to me, and others who study these things professionally.

1. You have quoted no ancient sources who questioned the authorship of the four Gospels. That was the question. Lack of affirmation does not qualify in any way as an answer.You provided no answer. A name would be needed for this of someone who questioned the authorship of the four Gospels. The supposed silence you reference is not a source.

And this comment was flat out false. "Centuries later, the four gospels as we now know them (Matthew, Mark, etc.) were selected as authentic."


The AUTHORS were unknown, not the contents of the gospels.
As I have already demonstrated, that is not true.


No. Not named until the latter part of the second century. Your link does nothing but repeat what you already wrote. The source is Irenaeus who wrote in the latter part of the second century.Except that Irenaeus is thought to be quoting Papias who was early first century.


What I meant was the early church fathers. Obviously they knew what they were reading. You should have seen the typo of scholars for early church fathers.You have no support for that idea. Papias and Polycarp were both about as early as you can get, and they both knew of the Gospel accounts. Evidence supports the idea that Papias knew who wrote them, and as I have said several times, it just seems to be folly to me to suppose that they would have used Gospel accounts of the greatest event in all of history written by...whoever.

Your mistake about "scholars" is yours to own. Don't blame me for it.


Another astounding piece of discombob. First you whined that I didn't provide names, then when I did provide names, you call it plagiarism. It's really about deflection, isn't it? Your position is weak and you would rather accuse me of bad faith. Ok, two can play that game.Plagiarism is not a game. You quoted from an internet article and did not cite the source. That is plagiarism.


Polycarp, and the others, read the anonymous accounts and believed in the content and were not concerned about the name of the person or persons who wrote them.Except you have no evidence about what they were concerned about. None at all. Nothing. At some point you need to support your statements. You would need a statement by one of them to that effect, and you absolutely do not have it, so it's just conjecture.

As far as "talking reptiles" go, I don't believe in that, but I do believe that a snake was used by the devil to speak in Genesis 3. As I have said earlier, if God can raise a man from the dead, then a snake speaking is no big deal. You have declined to tell us if you believe in the resurrection. I have answered your question, so now it's your turn.

You provided no answer. A name would be needed for this of someone who questioned the authorship of the four Gospels. The supposed silence you reference is not a source.

A name is not needed to question the authorship of the four Gospels. This has now been explained to you umpteen times in the simplest terms possible, yet you still don't understand it. Even DW has contributed his similar explanation, but you refuse to understand. I have no other conclusion to make other than you are blinded by your literal fundamentalism regarding matters of the Bible and Christianity.

The silence you referenced was originally yours until you edited your post.

As to the remainder of your reply (except as noted below), it's just a rehash of the errors you have already made. If you want to learn, go back and read my posts and the posts from DW. I assume you won't do that because it would reveal your fundamentalism to be a house of cards. I get it - believe me, I do.


And this comment was flat out false. "Centuries later, the four gospels as we now know them (Matthew, Mark, etc.) were selected as authentic


Church Councils during the 4th century made the final decision on which books should be included in the Bible. This was to finalize once and for all various disagreements and discrepancies among the various books .


As far as "talking reptiles" go, I don't believe in that, but I do believe that a snake was used by the devil to speak in Genesis 3. As I have said earlier, if God can raise a man from the dead, then a snake speaking is no big deal.

You believe the devil can use a snake to speak but you don't believe in talking reptiles!!?????? So you think a talking snake is not a talking reptile?? Last I heard, a snake is a reptile. You omitted any response to God torturing people for all eternity because they never heard of Jesus. But no matter. The questions were rhetorical intended to show the workings of your mind for all to consider when weighing your comments.


You have declined to tell us if you believe in the resurrection.

No I have not declined (really, can you read?) In fact, I said I would answer your question depending on the reason you asked it. We both know why you're asking - to find a reason for you to condemn my belief if it doesn't match yours. Nothing could be more apparent.

And again. "You provided no answer. A name would be needed for this of someone who questioned the authorship of the four Gospels. The supposed silence you reference is not a source." As everyone knows, a source must be named. "Lots of people" is not a source. "No one said this or that" is not a source. You have no name because you have no source, and that's really the whole point. No one of reputation ever questioned the authorship of the 4 Gospels. It was simply accepted everywhere, even by heretical writers. That, at least, is now a settled issue.


Church Councils during the 4th century made the final decision on which books should be included in the Bible. This was to finalize once and for all various disagreements and discrepancies among the various books .That's not altogether inaccurate as long as you realize that they simply acknowledged what nearly everyone had already accepted. Gospels other than the four we have now had never been accepted by the vast majority of churches to begin with. The canon of the NT can be traced to far before then, and that is especially true of the four Gospels. It was always the four Gospels, not three or five, but four. There was discussion about some books, Revelation and James, for instance, but not about the Gospel accounts, nor was there discussion about the Pauline letters or Acts.


No I have not declined (really, can you read?) In fact, I said I would answer your question depending on the reason you asked it. We both know why you're asking - to find a reason for you to condemn my belief if it doesn't match yours. Nothing could be more apparent.So you haven't declined to answer, you simply have chosen not to answer? Well...OK, if that makes sense to you, then so be it. I think it's kind of like saying, "I didn't break the window; I just threw a rock through it."



As to the remainder of your replyA non-response is your choice. At least all of that is settled now as well by your unwillingness (inability?) to address it.

No one of reputation ever questioned the authorship of the 4 Gospels. It was simply accepted everywhere, even by heretical writers. That, at least, is now a settled issue.

Almost everyone "of reputation" has questioned the authorship of the 4 Gospels. I have named several of them. You deny the truth only because it doesn't agree with your received Biblical brainwashing. Only to your fundie brethren is it a "settled issue". Try reviewing what has been said about proving a negative. That's the source of your hangup and will help you out of your confusion about a "named source"


It was always the four Gospels, not three or five, but four.

There were several other gospels floating around. Check wikipedia - simple to find out. Did you know 4 were picked to agree with 4 winds and 4 corners of the earth?


So you haven't declined to answer, you simply have chosen not to answer?

Trouble reading again, I see. Here's what I wrote. See if it agrees with your reply on what I said.

No I have not declined (really, can you read?) In fact, I said I would answer your question depending on the reason you asked it. We both know why you're asking - to find a reason for you to condemn my belief if it doesn't match yours. Nothing could be more apparent.

Almost everyone "of reputation" has questioned the authorship of the 4 Gospels. I have named several of them. Name one who questioned the authorship, remembering that silence on the issue does not equate to questioning authorship. You have named no one who did so.


There were several other gospels floating around. Check wikipedia - simple to find out. Did you know 4 were picked to agree with 4 winds and 4 corners of the earth?I don't depend on Wiki. There were other Gospels, as you say, "floating around", but they were not accepted by the church, and that was my statement. ONE person mentioned the 4 winds idea, and that was Irenaeus. Papias, decades prior to Irenaeus, also mentioned four Gospels, though that is admittedly not completely reliable.

Yeah. You said, "No I have not declined (really, can you read?) In fact, I said I would answer your question depending on the reason you asked it. We both know why you're asking - to find a reason for you to condemn my belief if it doesn't match yours. Nothing could be more apparent." So you have not declined to answer, and yet you have not answered? Well, like I said, if that makes sense to you, then go for it, but it is plainly self-contradictory. It's like saying, "I have not declined to answer; I merely refused to answer." Hmmm.

I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange. But you don't want to answer (declined), so that's fine with me. I'm happy to answer questions, but not everyone feels that way.

Name one who questioned the authorship, remembering that silence on the issue does not equate to questioning authorship. You have named no one who did so.

Are you blind? I named several - go back and look. Do any research and you will find most Biblicists agree that the names attached to the gospels are put there to give them authenticity.


I don't depend on Wiki.

Maybe you should. You might learn something.


You said, "No I have not declined (really, can you read?) In fact, I said I would answer your question depending on the reason you asked it. We both know why you're asking - to find a reason for you to condemn my belief if it doesn't match yours. Nothing could be more apparent." So you have not declined to answer, and yet you have not answered? Well, like I said, if that makes sense to you, then go for it, but it is plainly self-contradictory. It's like saying, "I have not declined to answer; I merely refused to answer." Hmmm.

Good Lord! You even post what I wrote and you STILL don't understand it! When you find plain English self-contradictory, I really don't know how to help you. Encouraging you to re-read what has been written obviously hasn't worked. Now you're even posting it which makes you look even more foolish than I thought possible.


I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange. But you don't want to answer (declined), so that's fine with me.

Thank you - you just proved my contention. (Not for the first time.)

Your answer proved that you intended all along to find a reason to belittle whatever answer I would come up with. You did exactly what I predicted you would do. It's amazing how you often shoot yourself in the foot. (Not the first time you've done that, either).

1. You have no names. Period. That is settled.
2. You will not answer. Another period and another settled issue.
3. I have no intention of belittling your belief. I don’t even know what your belief is. But I think you do realize that the serpent speaking is nothing compared to the resurrection.
4. I enjoy answering questions but I know that not everyone does.

1. You have no names. Period. That is settled.

You cannot read. Period. That is settled.


2. You will not answer. Another period and another settled issue.

You did not give me a reason to answer. Another period and another settled issue.


3. I have no intention of belittling your belief.

Then why did you belittle my comments on your serpent belief.


I don’t even know what your belief is.

And it will stay that way because you are not trustworthy and your intention is to criticize/condemn whatever it may be.


But I think you do realize that the serpent speaking is nothing compared to the resurrection.

A talking reptile/serpent/snake is a figment of a writer's imagination. As an adult, you shoud know that. It has nothing to do with the resurrection.

1. I can’t read unposted names. Period.
2. At least you now admit you would not answer. Period.
3. I don’t think I have belittled your comments other than to say I find it strange that anyone who believes in the raising of the dead should not find the serpent speaking to be remarkable. Is that you? Who knows as you refuse to reply.
4. Honestly, I find your fear of answering questions to be…interesting. You seem to think you cannot defend your beliefs.

1. I can’t read unposted names. Period.

You have to look for them in order to read them. They're there. Keep looking. Period.


. At least you now admit you would not answer. Period.

Your reading comprehension problem again. Try again. Period.


3. I don’t think I have belittled your comments

In your own words - "...(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with". This is getting pathetic. Period.


4. Honestly

You have no idea what the word means. Period.


I find your fear of answering questions to be

LOL - I find your lack of ability to communicate funny, if it weren't so pathetic. Period.


You seem to think you cannot defend your beliefs.

Your failure to understand English is, well, pathetic. Period.

You have to look for them in order to read them. They're there. Keep looking. Period.Sure they are, just like little green men from Mars. You just have to look for them...on Mars.

In your own words - "...(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with". This is getting pathetic. Period.Yes, it's pathetic that now you are making up quotes. I guess you'll tell us that we have to look for that one, too.

We can sum this up as follows.

1. You can name no sources who questioned the authorship of the Gospel accounts.
2. The evidence concerning the beliefs of the early second century church fathers is inconclusive since scarcely any of their writings have survived, and what we do have is not completely reliable.
3. You will not state your belief about the resurrection.

Yes, it's pathetic that now you are making up quotes. I guess you'll tell us that we have to look for that one, too.

Nope. I'll do it for you. It's right there in YOUR post #366. In black and white. In your own words.


1. You can name no sources who questioned the authorship of the Gospel accounts.

I'll do it for you again. Re-read MY post #349. When you're finished with that one, re-read these: #s338 (Oxford), #340 (criticism), #361 (Justin Martyr). Then there's #331 (WGs examples), #s344, #346, #366 (all from an actual Bible scholar familiar with the ancient languages and right here on this board! Can't get more authoritative than that). Finish up with #342 - another summary.


2. The evidence concerning the beliefs of the early second century church fathers is inconclusive since scarcely any of their writings have survived, and what we do have is not completely reliable.

Is this a retraction of what you have written about the second century? If it is, consider it accepted.


3. You will not state your belief about the resurrection.

Why do you want to know? Why does it matter? Why is it any of your business? You ask this so often, you are sounding like an Inquisitor. Wrong answer according to you and it's off to the stake. Thank God the US is not a theocracy run by fundamentalists. Look what the fundie mindset has done to Islam.

It's very simple. It's just this again.
1. You can name no sources who questioned the authorship of the Gospel accounts.
2. The evidence concerning the beliefs of the early second century church fathers is inconclusive since scarcely any of their writings have survived, and what we do have is not completely reliable.
3. You will not state your belief about the resurrection.

This is what you stated as a ridiculous quote from me. "...(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with".

Well, here are my comments from 366. As anyone can see by simply looking, I never used the word "belittle". The phrases, "would belittle any answer" and "would come up with" are also nowhere to be found in my post. Hmmm. Very clearly you just made it up.


I don't depend on Wiki. There were other Gospels, as you say, "floating around", but they were not accepted by the church, and that was my statement. ONE person mentioned the 4 winds idea, and that was Irenaeus. Papias, decades prior to Irenaeus, also mentioned four Gospels, though that is admittedly not completely reliable.

Yeah. You said, "No I have not declined (really, can you read?) In fact, I said I would answer your question depending on the reason you asked it. We both know why you're asking - to find a reason for you to condemn my belief if it doesn't match yours. Nothing could be more apparent." So you have not declined to answer, and yet you have not answered? Well, like I said, if that makes sense to you, then go for it, but it is plainly self-contradictory. It's like saying, "I have not declined to answer; I merely refused to answer." Hmmm.

I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange. But you don't want to answer (declined), so that's fine with me. I'm happy to answer questions, but not everyone feels that way.

So after that nonsense, I will waste no further time looking up your posts other than the one name you posted which was Justin Martyr. Here is what you said. "Justin Martyr makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels." Now show me anywhere in there where he suggested someone else other that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote the four Gospels, because that is the question in discussion.

I have already said that your belief about the resurrection is your business. It's just curious that you would not want to answer and be so sensitive about it, but that's your deal. I'm fine with that. As I said, I enjoy answering questions and just assume everyone else does as well, but clearly that is not the case.


Is this a retraction of what you have written about the second century? If it is, consider it accepted.Hardly.

BTW, this is the post you plagiarized in your post 361. "The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: "The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin] -- do not occur once in all his writings" (Christian Records, p. 71)."

The underlined portion is clearly ridiculous as Polycarp, Clement, Tatian, and Irenaeus all quoted from the Gospels, so to say they were "unknown" to them is patently absurd. And bear in mind that Polycarp is about as early as you can get and certainly earlier that Justin Martyr. Now ask me if I intend to attach much credibility to what he wrote about Justin Martyr who, by the way, DID quote from the Synoptics.

It's very simple. It's just this again.
1. You can name no sources who questioned the authorship of the Gospel accounts.

Done. Not my fault you refuse to read it.


Well, here are my comments from 366. As anyone can see by simply looking, I never used the word "belittle". Very clearly you just made it up.

This may well be the best post revealing JL's mental faculties since he arrived here. Read Jl's claim above, then read the actual quote, which contains "... believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange." That, boys and girls, is how the mind of Jl operates. No further comment from me is necessary.


I will waste no further time looking up your posts

No surprise there. Denying the named scholar on this board, and the other named Bible scholars referenced in those posts does nothing for your credibility.


Now show me anywhere in there where he (Justin Martyr) suggested someone else other that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote the four Gospels, because that is the question in discussion.

That is NOT the question in discussion. As usual, you have tilted the question to suit your purposes. The question is, and always has been, about the authorship of the 4 gospels.

The overwhelming consensus of Bible scholars is that the named Evangelists did NOT write the gospels. Their names were used to provide authenticity.

NO ONE denies that except the literalists who want God or someone else to speak down from the clouds and say that the named Evangelists are the original authors. Lacking God or his representative speaking from heaven or earth, the literalists offer the absence of God et al speaking as a proof that the gospels are accurately named. That is what JL's argument boils down to. No matter how many times he is shown that, he refuses to believe it. Not rebuts it, mind you, but REFUSES to accept it.


I have already said that your belief about the resurrection is your business.

Then why do you keep asking about it?

Here's a piece of advice for JL similar to what others have already given him.

Tolle et lege.

believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange." That, boys and girls, is how the mind of Jl operates. No further comment from me is necessary.Just incredible. I put quotes around "belittle" because that is what you used ("In your own words - '...(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with' ".). "Belittling" is not "belittle" in any planet in the solar system. But even at that, where did you see the phrases, "would belittle any answer" and "would come up with"? Hmmm? Why did you make that up as you clearly did in claiming they were my, "own words"? This is why I don't bother to go back and read your posts. It always ends up being pointless as your past posts do not support your contentions at all. That is clearly seen from the two posts I wasted my time looking up and commenting on in post 374.


That is NOT the question in discussion.It's been posted eight or ten times. Can you name any one ancient source who questioned the traditional authorship of the Gospels? Plainly you cannot.


The overwhelming consensus of Bible scholars is that the named Evangelists did NOT write the gospels. You have no evidence for that at all. It is a ridiculous statement which flies in the face of the startling fact that NONE of the early church fathers questioned the traditional authorship of the Gospels. Now you want to argue that a handful did not affirm it, but of that handful, most of their writings have disappeared, so you really have no idea whether they did or didn't.


Then why do you keep asking about it?Because you attempted to say that you did not decline to answer the question ("No I have not declined") while, the entire time, you were refusing to answer. But as I said, that is now settled.

As I have said twice now, this simply sums up what we have.
​1. You can name no sources who questioned the authorship of the Gospel accounts.
2. The evidence concerning the beliefs of the early second century church fathers is inconclusive since scarcely any of their writings have survived, and what we do have is not completely reliable.
3. You will not state your belief about the resurrection.

Just incredible. I put quotes around "belittle" because that is what you used. "Belittling" is not "belittle" in any planet in the solar system.

Dear Lord, he's worse than I thought. "Belittling" is not "belittle", says Jl. We are way beyond pathos here, folks.


It always ends up being pointless as your past posts do not support your contentions at all.

Having eyes, they cannot see.


Can you name any one ancient source who questioned the traditional authorship of the Gospels? Plainly you cannot.

Can you understand the following:

Lacking God or his representative speaking from heaven or earth, the Jl offers the absence of God et al speaking as a proof that the gospels are accurately named. That is what JL's argument boils down to. No matter how many times he is shown that, he refuses to believe it. Not rebuts it, mind you, but REFUSES to accept it.

The overwhelming consensus of Bible scholars is that the named Evangelists did NOT write the gospels. Their names were used to provide authenticity.


You have no evidence for that at all. It is a ridiculous statement.

The evidence is literally OVERWHELMING. It's the simplest of matters to verify it - all you need to is go to the internet and search. It's ALL THERE. Your refusing to do the work does NOT make it a "ridiculous statement". It makes YOU ridiculous.


3. You will not state your belief about the resurrection.

I thought you weren't going to ask about the resurrection again. It didn't take you long to break that promise.

Dear Lord, he's worse than I thought. "Belittling" is not "belittle", says Jl. We are way beyond pathos here, folks.Can't answer better than I did. You clearly don't understand the function of quotation marks. And, as usual, you didn't bother to answer the question of why you just made up the whole thing. Why did you? It's very obvious that you did. Can't you simply admit to it? Hmmm?
Just incredible. I put quotes around "belittle" because that is what you used ("In your own words - '...(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with' ".). "Belittling" is not "belittle" in any planet in the solar system. But even at that, where did you see the phrases, "would belittle any answer" and "would come up with"? Hmmm? Why did you make that up as you clearly did in claiming they were my, "own words"?




Lacking God or his representative speaking from heaven or earth, the Jl offers the absence of God et al speaking as a proof that the gospels are accurately named. That is what JL's argument boils down to. No matter how many times he is shown that, he refuses to believe it. Not rebuts it, mind you, but REFUSES to accept it.Nonsense. It would be nice if you could show it ONCE. Sadly for you, you cannot.


The overwhelming consensus of Bible scholars is that the named Evangelists did NOT write the gospels. Their names were used to provide authenticity.Unsupported foolishness. Your response is always to suggest someone else look it up for you since you evidently can't do so yourself.


I thought you weren't going to ask about the resurrection again. It didn't take you long to break that promise.Never promised that, but I'll be glad to drop it until you bring it up again as you just did.

As I have said three times now, this simply sums up what we have.
​1. You can name no sources who questioned the authorship of the Gospel accounts.
2. The evidence concerning the beliefs of the early second century church fathers is inconclusive since scarcely any of their writings have survived, and what we do have is not completely reliable.
3. You will not state your belief about the resurrection. (Not bringing it up. Just saying that this is where we are.)We can move on to something else if you'd like. You have no answers for any of this.

3. You will not state your belief about the resurrection. (Not bringing it up. Just saying that this is where we are.)We can move on to something else if you'd like. You have no answers for any of this.
JL had posted in #370: "3. I have no intention of belittling your belief. I don’t even know what your belief is. But I think you do realize that the serpent speaking is nothing compared to the resurrection."

The "discussion" was about belief in a talking serpent. How did the resurrection get into it?

Please keep up.

Please keep up.
I have. What does the resurrection have to do with Athos' nonbelief in a talking snake? (Btw, that serpent is one of the characters in an allegory.)

If God can raise a man from the dead, then a serpent that speaks becomes simple. Now see how easy it was to answer a question? So I have one or two for you. How about you? Do you believe in the resurrection?

How do you know Jesus was not simply a character in an allegory?

If God can raise a man from the dead, then a serpent that speaks becomes simple.
You're mixing apples and grapes. Are you saying God caused the serpent to speak?

Now see how easy it was to answer a question?
I thought you were past the insults and put-downs.

So I have one or two for you. How about you? Do you believe in the resurrection?
Yes.

How do you know Jesus was not simply a character in an allegory?
Because he used allegories to teach about His Father's agape (unconditional love).

How do you know Jesus was not simply a character in an allegory?


Because he used allegories to teach about His Father's agape (unconditional love).But how do you know it simply wasn't the allegorical character of Jesus teaching those allegories? How do you know that the Gospel and the resurrection are not just made up stories?

It's already been abundantly demonstrated that "agape" is not defined as unconditional love. I doubt there is a Greek lexicon anywhere that defines the word that way. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848377&p=3873327#post3873327 Not sure why you would want to continue on in such obvious error. Having nothing more that a Wiki article to appeal to is pretty shaky ground.


You're mixing apples and grapes. Are you saying God caused the serpent to speak?I'm saying that if God can raise a man from the dead and we believe that, then believing the serpent was used by the devil to speak to Eve suddenly becomes pretty unremarkable. They are both supernatural events of which the Bible is filled.



Now see how easy it was to answer a question?


I thought you were past the insults and put-downs.Just following your recent example. "This thread so far is a perfect example of why I don't cherry-pick and toss Bible verses around." But I do appreciate your forthright answers to the two questions and hope that trend continues.

But how do you know it simply wasn't the allegorical character of Jesus teaching those allegories?
In other words, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

It's already been abundantly demonstrated that "agape" is not defined as unconditional love. I doubt there is a Greek lexicon anywhere that defines the word that way.
I'll stick with over 60 years of Bible study with many ministers and professors plus my own personal experiences. God's love is truly unconditional!
(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848377&p=3873327#post3873327)
I'm saying that if God can raise a man from the dead and we believe that, then believing the serpent was used by the devil to speak to Eve suddenly becomes pretty unremarkable. They are both supernatural events of which the Bible is filled.
In addition to a number of allegories, the Bible contains poetry (e.g., "the hills clapped their hands") and exaggerations (e.g., "The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky") to make a point so of course, yes! we certainly must understand all those literally. Because, after all, the entire Bible MUST be read snd understood literally. JL has spoken!

In addition to a number of allegories, the Bible contains poetry (e.g., "the hills clapped their hands") and exaggerations (e.g., "The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky") to make a point so of course, yes! we certainly must understand all those literally. Because, after all, the entire Bible MUST be read snd understood literally. JL has spoken!


If God can raise a man from the dead, then hills clapping their hands and treetops touching the sky are child's play for Jl's God.

Because, after all, the entire Bible MUST be read snd understood literally. JL has spoken!Did you and Athos attend the same school of deception? I've never said that nor implied it. And, of course, you are again violating your own rules of civility which you tend to stray from frequently.


But how do you know it simply wasn't the allegorical character of Jesus teaching those allegories?



In other words, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?Sadly, you have reverted back to your previous pattern of avoiding questions you find to be uncomfortable.

So if Greek scholars say agape means something other than unconditional love, then you simply ask us to accept your 60 years of study, where you evidently did not study the Bible, and, of course, your personal experiences. No thanks. But if you can remember that scripture where the Bible says God's love is unconditional, then by all means post it. You know, the one you learned in your sixty years of study.

Athos still needs to address this. I would think that, having appeared to have no concern for the truth, he would want to quickly correct himself. Guess not. I mean anyone can make a mistake, but when that person refuses to clear his "mistake" up, then what conclusion is left?


Just incredible. I put quotes around "belittle" because that is what you used ("In your own words - '...(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with' ".). "Belittling" is not "belittle" in any planet in the solar system. But even at that, where did you see the phrases, "would belittle any answer" and "would come up with"? Hmmm? Why did you make that up as you clearly did in claiming they were my, "own words"?

Did you and Athos attend the same school of deception?

No, we attended the school of truth - a school you could not get into.


you are again violating your own rules of civility which you tend to stray from frequently.

She is reacting to the incivility you brought to these pages. Turnabout's fair play.


Greek scholars say agape means something other than unconditional love,

The in-house resident Greek scholar confirmed the meaning of agape to be unconditional. Interesting you failed to name your Greek scholars - you who obsesses over names otherwise.


if you can remember the scripture where the Bible says God's love is unconditional

Not all things pertaining to God is found in your Bible. An important lesson you never learned.


Athos still needs to address this. I would think that, having appeared to have no concern for the truth, he would want to quickly correct himself. Guess not.


Just incredible. I put quotes around "belittle" because that is what you used ("In your own words - '...(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with' ".). "Belittling" is not "belittle" in any planet in the solar system. But even at that, where did you see the phrases, "would belittle any answer" and "would come up with"? Hmmm? Why did you make that up as you clearly did in claiming they were my, "own words"?

Jl, this is the saddest thing you ever posted - that "belittling" is not the same meaning as "belittle". It's impossible to answer such ignorance other than how I have done.

The in-house resident Greek scholar confirmed the meaning of agape to be unconditional. Interesting you failed to name your Greek scholars - you who obsesses over names otherwise.Except that Greek lexicons do not agree with him. Oh well. There is but very little support for the idea that agape means unconditional love. Looked it up again this morning on a third lexicon. "brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence"

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/agape.html


Jl, this is the saddest thing you ever posted - that "belittling" is not the same meaning as "belittle". It's impossible to answer such ignorance other than how I have done.Slowly for your benefit. where...did... you... see... the... phrases, "would... belittle... any... answer..." and... "would... come... up... with"? Hmmm? Why... did... you... make... that... up... as... you... clearly ...did... in... claiming... they... were... my, "own... words?"

Hopefully that will prove to be helpful to you. I had hoped that bold text and underlining would do the trick.

Also, study...quotation...marks...more...carefully.

One more thing. Learn to be honest. I did not say, " 'belittling' is not the same meaning as 'belittle'." Now you have two falsehoods to deal with. Is there no end to it?


Not all things pertaining to God is found in your Bible. An important lesson you never learned.I agree with that, and much more importantly the Bible agrees with that. But the opinions of WG, JL, and Athos are NOT legit sources.

This now sums up what we have.
​1. You can name no sources who questioned the authorship of the Gospel accounts.
2. The evidence concerning the beliefs of the early second century church fathers is inconclusive since scarcely any of their writings have survived, and what we do have is not completely reliable.
3. JL and WG are willing to express their views concerning the resurrection.

Except that Greek lexicons do not agree with him. Oh well.
John 3:16, refers to God's agape, His divine/unconditional love: "For God so loved the world" -- loved, ēgapēsen (https://biblehub.com/greek/e_gape_sen_25.htm)

God loved THE WORLD unconditionally (no conditions) and sent His Son Jesus to die and take away the sins of each human.

JL, do you love your children unconditionally?

Slowly for your benefit. where...did... you... see... the... phrases, "would... belittle... any... answer..." and... "would... come... up... with"? Hmmm? Why... did... you... make... that... up... as... you... clearly ...did... in... claiming... they... were... my, "own... words?"

Hopefully that will prove to be helpful to you. I had hoped that bold text and underlining would do the trick.

Also, study...quotation...marks...more...carefully.

Jl, this is what you wrote - WORD FOR WORD.

"I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange ."

Give it up, Jl - you're beating a dead horse.

John 3:16, refers to God's agape, His divine/unconditional love: "For God so loved the world" -- loved, ēgapēsen (https://biblehub.com/greek/e_gape_sen_25.htm)Except, of course, that it does not use the word "unconditional". Sorry. Strike one. Your own link also provided no support. Strike two. Only one swing left. Be careful with the next one!

Except, of course, that it does not use the word "unconditional".
What conditions had God levied on His love for humanity before He would sent His Son to suffer and die?

John 3:16, refers to God's agape, His divine/unconditional love:
Where did you get this from? we've picked it up, and it is a misleading phrase. The adjective- "unconditional love" can mean a whole lot of different things...it is nonjudgmental. Example: You should be like the God you preach, God's love is unconditional, he loves everybody just as they are...therefore you shouldn't raise any problems about christening our baby, gay marriage, etc. That is how that phrase comes across to unbelievers.

God's love is unconditional, which means he does not judge people, he loves them just as they are so come to him just as you are...what about repentance??? Isn't repentance the First step when coming to God?



"For God so loved the world"
Do you take that as; "God sooooo loved the World"? Also, there is the Word "Loved" past tense? Meaning God loved the world at one time???

Thank you for providing the evidence of your own deception! You claimed I wrote, "I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with". Anyone looking at the quote below can clearly see I did not. Case closed by your own evidence. Well done!!
Jl, this is what you wrote - WORD FOR WORD.

"I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange ."

This is so funny. It's all there except for these words. "would, belittle, any, answer, come, up, with" I mean other than those seven words, which is nearly ALL OF THEM, your quote is exactly right! It just doesn't get any funnier than this. Please, please study quotes and learn more. You have a long ways to go.

Give it up, Jl - you're beating a dead horse.
Maybe we should move to the allegory of Jonah and the Great Fish.

Where did you get this from?Walter, she got it from the same place she gets a lot of what she posts. It seems to come from her own imagination. It is the product of a careless attitude towards truth. I think WG does care for people, but her political persuasions dictate her beliefs, and not the Bible. She is asked to show us in the Bible where it says God's love is unconditional. So she posts a text where it does NOT say that. It's just hard to describe that.

Walter, she got it from the same place she gets a lot of what she posts. It seems to come from her own imagination. It is the product of a careless attitude towards truth. I think WG does care for people, but her political persuasions dictate her beliefs, and not the Bible.
Then waltero continued with:

***The adjective- "unconditional love" can mean a whole lot of different things...it is nonjudgmental. Example: You should be like the God you preach, God's love is unconditional, he loves everybody just as they are...therefore you shouldn't raise any problems about christening our baby, gay marriage, etc. That is how that phrase comes across to unbelievers.

God's love is unconditional, which means he does not judge people, he loves them just as they are so come to him just as you are...what about repentance??? Isn't repentance the First step when coming to God?***

This is so conclusive it bears repeating.

Thank you for providing the evidence of your own deception! You claimed I wrote, "(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with". Anyone looking at the quote below can clearly see I did not. Case closed by your own evidence. Well done!!


Jl, this is what you wrote - WORD FOR WORD.

"I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange ."

This is so funny. It's all there except for these words. "would, belittle, any, answer, come, up, with" I mean other than those seven words, which is nearly ALL OF THEM, your quote is exactly right! It just doesn't get any funnier than this. Please, please study quotes and learn more. You have a long ways to go.

Then waltero continued with:

***The adjective- "unconditional love" can mean a whole lot of different things...it is nonjudgmental. Example: You should be like the God you preach, God's love is unconditional, he loves everybody just as they are...therefore you shouldn't raise any problems about christening our baby, gay marriage, etc. That is how that phrase comes across to unbelievers.

God's love is unconditional, which means he does not judge people, he loves them just as they are so come to him just as you are...what about repentance??? Isn't repentance the First step when coming to God?***

Yes, and I also indicated that Preaching God's Love to unbelievers is like casting pearls among Swine...They don't understand or know God's love.

In preaching the love of God, especially unconditionally to unbelievers, are we in fact doing what the Lord wanted us to do?

Yes, and I also indicated that Preaching God's Love to unbelievers is like casting pearls among Swine...They don't understand or know God's love.
Nor did we understand. What changes the human heart?

Thank you for providing the evidence of your own deception! You claimed I wrote, "I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with". Anyone looking at the quote below can clearly see I did not. Case closed by your own evidence.

Jl, I know you have difficulty understanding the written word, but this is ridiculous. To keep repeating your failure to understand is pretty pathetic. I will repeat what you wrote and which you claim does not show you belittling my post on talking serpents.

"I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange ."


This is so funny.

What is funny - more sad than funny - is you contradicting your own words even when they're quoted for you.


It's all there except for these words. "would, belittle, any, answer, come, up, with" I mean other than those seven words, which is nearly ALL OF THEM, your quote is exactly right! It just doesn't get any funnier than this.

Jl, I left this part in so others can see your confusion. I'm becoming uncomfortable pointing out your mental frailties but when you keep repeating the same thing over and over, you leave me no choice.

God's love is unconditional, which means he does not judge people, he loves them just as they are so come to him just as you are...what about repentance??? Isn't repentance the First step when coming to God?***Why should people repent when God loves them just as they are?


Jl, I know you have difficulty understanding the written word, but this is ridiculous. To keep repeating your failure to understand is pretty pathetic. I will repeat what you wrote and which you claim does not show you belittling my post on talking serpents.

"I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange ."Naw. You're toast. Everyone can see that I did not say what you claimed I said. Everyone can see you don't understand quotes. It's over. Try honesty next time. If you claim I wrote, "(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with," then you need to find some place where I said those words. That you clearly don't understand that explains a lot of your problems. It is a weird as me claiming you said, "JL knows a lot more about quotations than I do." Now that's evidently true, but you never said that so I wouldn't post it.

Now if you want to say I MEANT that, then we can discuss it, but those were not my words or my quote.

I just can't get over you posting the conclusive evidence of your own deceit or, more likely, lack of understanding of how quotations work. Unbelievable!! And then reposting it! I've seen some wild things in my life, but you take the cake with that. I'm all for you and hope you do well, but this is like a man saying that black is white and then refusing to back off of it.

Why should people repent when God loves them just as they are?
Exactly!

Why should people repent when God loves them just as they are?
I had asked you, do you love your children unconditionally? If yes, then why did they repent (say "I'm sorry") to you after doing something bad?

Naw, you're toast. Everyone can see that I did not say what you claimed I said. Everyone can see you don't understand quotes. It's over. Try honesty next time.

I just can't get over you posting the conclusive evidence of your own deceit. Unbelievable!!

"Everyone" can make their own decision reading your words. That's fine with me.

You're getting a bit hysterical with your words about me - "lack of honesty", "don't understand", "deceit", "Unbelievable!". All that is a dead giveaway.

"The Lady doth protest too much!"


but those were not my words or my quote.

Case closed.

"Everyone" can make their own decision reading your words. That's fine with me.


You're getting a bit hysterical with your words about me - "lack of honesty", "don't understand", "deceit", "Unbelievable!". All that is a dead giveaway.Now you're catching on with those quotation marks. Much better, my friend. There is hope for you. Makes me just downright proud of you.

As to admitting to mistakes? Well, you have a ways to go there. We'll keep working on it.

Oh wait! I wrote too soon. You do see it now!!


but those were not my words or my quote.

Case closed.We can take that as an admission of a mistake. Much better.

I had asked you, do you love your children unconditionally? If yes, then why did they repent (say "I'm sorry") to you after doing something bad?To restore fellowship.

Now my question. Are all children in your family, or just some children? And please give a serious answer.

Well done, Athos! You seem to now understand quotation marks.


This is what Jl is referring to


but those were not my words or my quote.

Case closed.

The reference is to Jl's words/quote, not mine. A good example of his dissembling - even in the face of so much contrary information publicly posted in this thread.

This is why I'm feeling so uncomfortable about him. He digs it deeper and deeper with each post. I wish he would stop, so I could stop.

To restore fellowship.
If a neighbor's kid or your child's school friend did something bad to you or on your property, and said "I'm sorry", would fellowship be restored?

Now my question. Are all children in your family, or just some children? And please give a serious answer.
All children -- and adults -- are in God's family and in mine.

You did not answer my question. I answered yours, but you bailed out. It just reminds me of how much I hate trying to have a discussion with you. If your beliefs get challenged, you just run to some other subject. Give an honest answer or talk with someone else.

You did not answer my question. I answered yours, but you bailed out. It just reminds me of how much I hate trying to have a discussion with you. If your beliefs get challenged, you just run to some other subject. Talk with someone else.
Look again.

All children -- and adults -- are in God's family and in mine.Neither answer is true. Your own children have privileges other children do not have. They live in your house. You are responsible for their clothing, school, food, and so forth. They have your name. They will inherit your wealth.

The answer is "no" and you know it. If all children and adults are in your family, then why aren't you housing, feeding, and clothing all of them? Are they in your will? Do they sleep in your house? Did you send them through college? Your answer is an attempt to sound noble, but is in no way true. I'm sure you try to care for many of them, but they are not in your family.


The reference is to Jl's words/quote, not mine. A good example of his dissembling - even in the face of so much contrary information publicly posted in this thread.

This is why I'm feeling so uncomfortable about him. He digs it deeper and deeper with each post. I wish he would stop, so I could stop.Yes. Case closed since, as you admitted and pointed out, the words you posted were not mine.

You got my hopes for you up and then squashed them. But I still have hope for you. You did manage to use quotation marks successfully on one occasion ("lack of honesty", "don't understand", "deceit", "Unbelievable!"), so I have hope you can do it again.

At any rate, your quote of me was a deceitful mess and you got caught in it. Get over it and move on.

Allegory of Jonah Does an allegory write a song?

Neither answer is true. Your own children have privileges other children do not have. They live in your house. You are responsible for their clothing, school, food, and so forth. They have your name. They will inherit your wealth.
You have absolutely NO idea of how I'm spending my inherited (from my son) wealth and my influence to help as many adults and children as possible. My surviving son is almost 51 and doesn't have my name nor will he inherit wealth from me.

Does an allegory write a song?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SlQVF3gnPdg

You have absolutely NO idea of how I'm spending my inherited (from my son) wealth and my influence to help as many adults and children as possible. My surviving son is almost 51 and doesn't have my name nor will he inherit wealth from me.I have no idea where your wealth came from and don't care. I do know that you will not go out and pick out the next twenty strangers you come across and put them in your will. Your family benefits from...being your family in many ways that strangers don't. And I can hardly believe we are even having such a discussion as this. The truth it is very plain.

I do know this. You do not receive the benefits from being in God's family until you get in that family, and you get in that family by trusting Christ. Either that, or WG knows more than the Apostle John did. John 1:12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.

Your family benefits from...being your family in many ways that strangers don't.
Yeah, my husband and son get to push my wheelchair when I leave the house for a hematologist visit.

Yes. You benefit from being in your family. You don't go out to the street and try to enlist a stranger to do it. My wife benefits me in many ways. We benefit our children in many ways. We are helpful to strangers as well, and to other Christian brethren, but my wife does not fix them supper every night.

What are you so mad about?

What are you so mad about?
Huh? I never get mad. Never have, never will.

Does an allegory write a song?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SlQVF3gnPdg

Where do we come to the understanding that Jonah was dead while inside the belly of the whale?

Where do we come to the understanding that Jonah was dead while inside the belly of the whale?
It's an allegory, reflecting Jesus' being dead for three days in the tomb and being resurrected on the third day. (Do you understand the activity of the hydrochloric acid in a great fish's stomach, and the lack of oxygen?)

Most People Don't know that Jonah (literally)Died (while in the belly of the Fish)?
If not for psalms we could assume he was alive the entire time.

Yes. Case closed since, as you admitted and pointed out, the words you posted were not mine.

At any rate, your quote of me was a deceitful mess and you got caught in it. Get over it and move on.


Here is the quote - AGAIN!

"I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange ."

These are Jl's words - lifted direct from his post #366. The deceit is all Jl's. He wants me to get over it and move on.

A talking reptile would be less deceitful than Jl. At least, the reptile would exhibit intelligence.

A talking reptile

I'm sure this has been already brought up? What about the talking Donkey?
Or is that another one of your allegories?

Here is the quote - AGAIN!

"I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange ."

These are Jl's words - lifted direct from his post #366. The deceit is all Jl's. He wants me to get over it and move on.And once again, the quote you attributed to me ("(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with".) is not in there. But this will help you. It is a site that explains the concept of direct quotations. I suggest you read it several times because you REALLY need to. It will help you to stop making a public fool of yourself. I'm really surprised WG, the grammar expert (I guess) has not stepped in to rescue you. Good grief you sure need it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark

Now should you reach the place where you can show in that paragraph any place I said, "(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with," then we can pick this back up. Until then I am done with arguing about a concept my fourth graders understood. And I am very sure that any person reading this will come to the same conclusion.

Now should you reach the place where you can show in that paragraph any place I said, "(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with," then we can pick this back up. Until then I am done with arguing about a concept my fourth graders understood.

Here is your quote, word for word:

"I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange ."

No matter what nonsense you post, you can't get away from the fact these are YOUR words. As was said elsewhere, you are simply playing games with words in a desperate attempt to deny what you said.


And I am very sure that any person reading this will come to the same conclusion.

Of course, they will. You can't undo what has been done - see the last paragraph in your post # 366.

"I'm asking about the resurrection to point out that believing in that event while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3 strikes me as strange ."

No matter what nonsense you post, you can't get away from the fact these are YOUR words. As was said elsewhere, you are simply playing games with words in a desperate attempt to deny what you said.I am happy to report you have finally figured quotes out. You have stopped insisting that these are my words ((I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with,") and figured out what my words really were. I feel as though we've had a minor victory in your education. Now that is not, of course, what you were insisting upon for the past few days. This is what we had then.

In your own words - "...(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with". It's in post 371 if anyone wants to check it out. Now that was outrageous on the face of it since you had to supply "I" and "you" to complete my supposed quote. But now you have at least posted what I said to begin with. And in that quote, if you pay anything even approaching careful attention, you will note that I said YOU were the one doing the belittling. "...while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3..."

Whew!! I'm glad you finally learned that lesson. It's been a hard pull, but I think it's been worth it.

The serpent was a character in an allegory. The resurrection was the real deal.

I am happy to report you have finally figured quotes out. You have stopped insisting that these are my words ((I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with,") and figured out what my words really were. I feel as though we've had a minor victory in your education. Now that is not, of course, what you were insisting upon for the past few days. This is what we had then.

In your own words - "...(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with". It's in post 371 if anyone wants to check it out. Now that was outrageous on the face of it since you had to supply "I" and "you" to complete my supposed quote. But now you have at least posted what I said to begin with. And in that quote, if you pay anything even approaching careful attention, you will note that I said YOU were the one doing the belittling. "...while belittling the serpent in Genesis 3..."

Whew!! I'm glad you finally learned that lesson. It's been a hard pull, but I think it's been worth it.


Too funny for words!

Bottom line - Jl has admitted what he wrote. All's well that ends well.

And Athos has admitted that he made up the first quote he attributed to me. So yes, it has ended well. BTW, I never denied saying what you finally managed to figure out were my actual words. It was only the part where you said, "In your own words," but it was actually your made up words, including words you had to supply yourself in parenthesis, that I objected to. Now the real deal, where I said YOU were belittling a topic, was indeed mine, and I like it a lot!

And Athos has admitted that he made up the first quote he attributed to me.


I admitted nothing of the sort. In fact, I have been consistent from the start of this idiocy you practice so well.

The rest of your reply is the usual discombobulation, not worthy of a response.

You mean you’re not capable of one. Just when I think you are starting to understand quotations, you disappoint me again. It’s back to the fourth grade for, young fella! Can’t promote you until you get it!!

Study this very carefully. Test tomorrow!

https://www.thoughtco.com/direct-quotation-composition-1690461 (https://www.thoughtco.com/direct-quotation-composition-1690461)

Study this very carefully. Test tomorrow!

Will you be covering talking reptiles? And a fictitious monstrosity of a God who creates people only to gleefully watch them burn in eternal pain and punishment?

No wonder the "God" you worship can't love unconditionally - what monster could?

You are wasting time! Study tonight. I hope to help you get to the place where you no longer publicly disgrace yourself in this manner. And trying to change the subject?? Looks really, really suspicious.

Remember now. Test tomorrow! Burn the midnight oil, young man.

Remember now. Test tomorrow!

No comment on talking reptiles? Or your monster "God"?

Are you finally feeling ashamed? Growing up? Good for you. Better late then never.

Study!! Test tomorrow, little fella. You want to end up in third grade??

Here are some study notes. I'm doing all I can to help you. It's one of the biggest challenges I've ever had, but I'm doing the best I can with you.


A direct quotation is a report of the exact words of an author or speaker and is placed inside quotation marks in a written work. For example, Dr. King said, "I have a dream."

Now you know this by tomorrow.

Sample item. "If someone foolishly tries to represent this as a quote, "(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with," but then can't show where the quoted material occurred or can't explain why he had to supply words to make the supposed quote make sense, then can that person claim to understand anything at all about direct quotations?

a. Nope
b. Hardly
c. Nada
d. Nein
e. No way
f. All of the above

Not feeling good about your chances. Oh well. Good night, all.

A direct quotation is a report of the exact words of an author or speaker and is placed inside quotation marks

You mean like this - "talking reptile"? Or, ""God"?

Are quotation marks now one of your many obsessions, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"?

Sample item. "If someone foolishly tries to represent this as a quote, "(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with," but then can't show where the quoted material occurred or can't explain why he had to supply words to make the supposed quote make sense, then can that person claim to understand anything at all about direct quotations?

a. Nope
b. Hardly
c. Nada
d. Nein
e. No way
f. All of the above

#2. If the person in the question above refuses to admit his error, then could his attempted deception be classified as a lie?

a. yes
b. yes
c. yes

#3. If the person in the question above attempts desperately to change the subject, would that show that he realized his error and is trying to run from it?

a. absolutely
b. absolutely
c. absolutely

Sample item. "If someone foolishly tries to represent this as a quote, "(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with," but then can't show where the quoted material occurred or can't explain why he had to supply words to make the supposed quote make sense, then can that person claim to understand anything at all about direct quotations?

a. Nope
b. Hardly
c. Nada
d. Nein
e. No way
f. All of the above.

I missed your edit first time around.

Many thanks for posting this. Anyone confused by your discombobulation can now see the problem. Ordinarily, it wouldn't be remarkable, but for a self-proclaimed teacher, it makes us all wonder about your self-proclamation.

Well, enough of this. Your lie (or whatever the motive or cause is) is out there for everyone to see. I tried to let you correct yourself, but you are just too stubborn or ignorant to do it. Rest assured that of the seven billion people on the planet, you are the only one unable to see your plain error. I'll let you prattle on by yourself. I'll use your error to help fourth graders learn about direct quotes. It'll be a fame of sorts for you. But man do I feel sorry for you. It must be terrible to be so ignorant.

It's just this simple. "If someone foolishly tries to represent this as a quote, "(I) would belittle any answer (you) would come up with," but then can't show where the quoted material occurred or can't explain why he had to supply words to make the supposed quote make sense, then can that person claim to understand anything at all about direct quotations?"

It's really difficult for me to imagine what level of ignorance, stubbornness, or even hatred would prevent a person from simply saying, "What I represented as a direct quote was, in fact, not a direct quote." It's just amazing to me. I don't know that I've ever seen anything quite like this in my lifetime. To be so ignorant and yet be unwilling to move beyond it is just stunning. Again, it has been a truly unique experience. Just incredible.

And over what basically amounts to nothing! Let it go, for goodness sake. Get a life.

Well, enough of this.

About time you gave up. Some day you will learn that repeating your errors (not excluding talking snakes and killer Gods) is in exercise in futility.

Every so often you give hints of coming around, but then you soon revert to your old ways. Sort of like a bi-polar poster. Not the best analogy, but until a better one comes along, it will have to do.

Another edit I missed first time around.



Rest assured that of the seven billion people on the planet, you are the only one unable to see your plain error.

WOW! You seem upset. Seven billion? Really?


It's really difficult for me to imagine what level of ignorance, stubbornness, or even hatred would prevent a person from simply saying,

WOW! Getting upset-er. Smoke coming out of his ears and nose in great long streams.


I don't know that I've ever seen anything quite like this in my lifetime.

WOW! You are sure having a boring life.


To be so ignorant and yet be unwilling to move beyond it is just stunning.

WOW! He's stunned!


it has been a truly unique experience.

WOW! Does that mean you're enjoying it? (There's that bi-polar stuff again).


Just incredible.

WOW! Sorry to put you in such a rage. Try to understand it's self-inflicted. You'll feel better.



And over what basically amounts to nothing!

The obsession has been all yours, my friend. I'm just along for the ride.


Let it go, for goodness sake. Get a life.

Physician, heal thyself! (That means - take your own advice).


Jl, you really, really need to calm yourself. A lot of people are reading this thread. This post of yours with all its over the top hysteria is marking you as a crazy person.