[Wondergirl]

You do realize you are in disagreement with Athos? That's a first!!

No, I'm not.

[jlisenbe]

He says it’s hearsay. You say it’s not.

[Wondergirl]

He says it’s hearsay. You say it’s not.

No. Please read carefully.

Post #153:

The writings themselves say it: we haven't followed carefully crafted fables. We are following what people's eyes saw, ears heard, and hands touched. It's eyewitness testimony.

Athos: Actually, it's hearsay - third party sourced. It is testimony written down in a book that took centuries to arrive in its present condition.

[jlisenbe]

Athos wrote, IN POST 153, "Actually, it's hearsay - third party sourced. It is testimony written down in a book that took centuries to arrive in its present condition. However, let's not get far off the track - the issue here is evidence for the resurrection."

He wrote again, in post 156, "A book written centuries ago is NOT an eye-witness. It is hearsay. Do you understand now? Finally?" So Athos clearly is saying the Gospel accounts are hearsay.

Now WG, on the other hand, holds the opposite view. I wrote, "A book written by an eyewitness is eye witness testimony. It is certainly not hearsay." You responded, "Exactly! If you are saying I'm wrong, please reread what I posted."

So again, Athos believes the Gospel accounts are hearsay. You claimed to be in agreement (Exactly!) with a statement saying Matthew and John are NOT hearsay. So either you are completely confused, or you don't agree with Athos.

[Wondergirl]

You are cherrypicking and not understanding what he wrote. Context!

[jlisenbe]

You are running from his plain and clear statement. Are you that afraid??

[Wondergirl]

You are running from his plain and clear statement. Are you that afraid??

You are deliberately misunderstanding. Why?

[dwashbur]

Can you deny that just about every one over the years has come with a built-in prejudice of believing the NT? At least most of it. Much valuable criticism of the NT has come from non-biblical historians. I agree the problem there might be the opposite - a built-in anti-Bible prejudice.

That is why the arguments pro and con must be examined as closely as possible and using modern-day tools (like your own study of ancient Greek).

I've seen both. Scholars like Bart Ehrman, Spong, and others have a built in anti, while others, mainly evangelical scholars, have a built in pro. I try to be neither and let the text speak for itself. (TBH, I quit reading most evangelical scholars years ago.)

And I can attest that miracles do happen. I carry one in my body. I can't remember if I've told you about it or not, but it's the kind that people can try to find natural explanations for, demand x-ray comparisons (the damage happened when I was 15, healing happened at 55, so yeah, good luck with that) and all kinds of other stuff. But I'm the eyewitness to whom it happened and I know what happened.

As I read somewhere just today, miracles aren't violations of nature. They're violations of what we know about nature. We don't know everything yet.

[jlisenbe]

First you quote him. Then when your quote backfires on you, rather than be honest, you seem to run out the back door. Why is that? Are you saying that Athos believes that Matthew and John should be taken as eyewitnesses? Have you always been this confused?

[dwashbur]

Let's say Atticus was an eyewitness centuries ago. He wrote a book about his experience. Anyone who reads that book is not an eyewitness. That person's report about it is hearsay.

I don't follow this logic. The book is written by an eyewitness. The book is eyewitness testimony. If anyone can read the book for themselves and check what someone says about it, I don't see how that is written off as hearsay. The evidence isn't what someone says about the book the evidence is what's written in the book.

The vast majority o the New Testament was written by people who were there. 1 John makes that clear, they were there, they saw, they heard, they touched, they wrote it down. Luke is the odd man out because he didn't come into it until later under Paul's teaching, and became Paul's personal doctor. When they got to Jerusalem, he started studying the various accounts that had been written down. He interviewed people, talked with those who saw and heard, sifted through it, and gave us a genuinely historically researched book built on eyewitness testimony. For more on that, check out A. T. Robertson,Luke the Historian. I think it's out of print but a library should be able to get it.

The only book I tend to have serious doubts about regarding authorship is Revelation, but that's mainly because that book gives me a pain where I never had a window.

A book written centuries ago is NOT an eye-witness. It is hearsay. Do you understand now? Finally?

How do you figure? The book was written BY an eyewitness, so it's eyewitness testimony. I don't follow the logic here.

A book written centuries ago is NOT an eye-witness. It is hearsay. Do you understand now? Finally?

How do you figure? The book was written BY an eyewitness, so it's eyewitness testimony. I don't follow the logic here.

[Wondergirl]

I don't follow this logic. The book is written by an eyewitness. The book is eyewitness testimony. If anyone can read the book for themselves and check what someone says about it, I don't see how that is written off as hearsay. The evidence isn't what someone says about the book the evidence is what's written in the book.

Let's say Atticus was an eyewitness centuries ago. He wrote a book about his experience. Anyone who reads that book is not an eyewitness. That person's report about it is hearsay.

Example: The book was written by Johnny, the eyewitness. The book was later read by Pete. Pete tells his friend Ray about the book. That transmission of information by Pete is heresay, Pete's own interpretation of what was in the book.

[Athos]

And I can attest that miracles do happen.

I think we have to define our terms to have a good discussion.

A miracle is an event that denies/defies/goes against scientific knowledge. It cannot be explained by the known laws of nature - laws that have been demonstrated as valid repeatedly.

Such an event is attributed to God or a supernatural (above/beyond nature) cause.

I carry one in my body. I can't remember if I've told you about it or not, but it's the kind that people can try to find natural explanations for, demand x-ray comparisons (the damage happened when I was 15, healing happened at 55, so yeah, good luck with that) and all kinds of other stuff. But I'm the eyewitness to whom it happened and I know what happened.

You wrote that you can't remember whether you already told us about the miracle you experienced. That tells me that you are not averse to telling us about it now. Please tell us now what that miracle was and include as much info as you can indicating its miraculous nature.

As I read somewhere just today, miracles aren't violations of nature. They're violations of what we know about nature. We don't know everything yet.

To say a miracle is NOT a violation of nature is incorrect. If it is considered a violation of what we know about nature because not everything is yet known about nature, then it is NOT a miracle. It is simply an event waiting for an explanation.

[Athos]

I don't follow this logic. The book is written by an eyewitness. The book is eyewitness testimony. If anyone can read the book for themselves and check what someone says about it, I don't see how that is written off as hearsay. The evidence isn't what someone says about the book the evidence is what's written in the book.

The vast majority o the New Testament was written by people who were there.

The only book I tend to have serious doubts about regarding authorship is Revelation, but that's mainly because that book gives me a pain where I never had a window.

How do you figure? The book was written BY an eyewitness, so it's eyewitness testimony. I don't follow the logic here.

Any written document (letter, book, etc.) is not considered eyewitness testimony if the authorship is disputed. Those are rules of evidence. The disputed authorship of the Gospels has been discussed here at great length with the result that Jl and myself were in disagreement. There is no need to do it all again.

Also - eyewitness testimony is not always valid testimony. People do not always see what they think they see. I'm not offering that as an argument in the present case - just noting a fact.

Interesting that you doubt authorship in a part (Revelation) of the NT.

Btw, please see my post # 155 where I questioned the claim you made as noted in that post. Do you have an answer?

[jlisenbe]

Let's say Atticus was an eyewitness centuries ago. He wrote a book about his experience. Anyone who reads that book is not an eyewitness. That person's report about it is hearsay.

Example: The book was written by Johnny, the eyewitness. The book was later read by Pete. Pete tells his friend Ray about the book. That transmission of information by Pete is heresay, Pete's own interpretation of what was in the book.

I'd have to say I don't get this either. The topic was Matthew, John, and Paul (and probably Mark) being considered to be eyewitnesses. They did not hear the story of the resurrection from someone else. They claimed to have seen the living Christ for themselves. It was not second hand.

As far as the authorship of the Gospels is concerned, my understanding is that not a single one of the early church fathers (first 3 or 4 centuries) ever questioned the traditional authorship of the Gospels. It would therefore seem to be an unspeakably weak argument.

[Athos]

As far as the authorship of the Gospels is concerned, my understanding is that not a single one of the early church fathers (first 3 or 4 centuries) ever questioned the traditional authorship of the Gospels. It would therefore seem to be an unspeakably weak argument.

'...unspeakably weak..." Indeed! Since you wouldn't leave it alone, here's one for you.

The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - are doubted among the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars. Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith. 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.

Unfortunately, much of the general public is not familiar with scholarly resources and methods in order to argue that the Gospels are the eyewitness testimonies of either Jesus’ disciples or their attendants.

The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus after a substantial gap of time by unknown persons compiling and redacting various traditions in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the faith of their communities.

[jlisenbe]

https://thegodlessplace.blogspot.com...l-authors.html

The article you plagiarized is found at "thegodlessplace.blogspot.com. It was written by "author unknown". It was a very, very long article, more likely a chapter from a book (the entire book?) that they copied with no acknowledgment, and included no citations at all. And we're supposed to take that seriously?

It was also found here, a no doubt thoroughly academic site named Internet Infidels. They at least did give an author named Matthew W. Ferguson. The article was heavily cited, but not the statement posted below about the supposed "majority of mainstream New Testament authors." No wonder.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/...ospel-authors/

As I said, no early church father is on record as doubting the traditional authorship of the Gospels. Do you really believe that an anonymous person, 100 years after the life of Christ, would have been able to pen those Gospels, lying blatantly, and get away with it with no one questioning it, and do that four times no less? That would be a bigger miracle than the resurrection!!

The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - are doubted among the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars.

How would anyone know that? Is there any hard documentation other than the Internet Infidels?

[Athos]

The article you plagiarized is found at "thegodlessplace.blogspot.com. It was written by "author unknown". It was a very, very long article, more likely a chapter from a book that they copied with no acknowledgment, and included no citations at all.

That was an excellent article. Thanks for posting it.

no early church father is on record as doubting the traditional authorship of the Gospels.

That's an argument from silence. Not valid. For the reasons that no early church father is on record, read the article you linked. It's all there.

Do you really believe that an anonymous person, 100 years after the life of Christ, would have been able to pen those Gospels, lying blatantly, and get away with it with no one questioning it?

Nope, I don't believe that. Has somebody said that?

How would anyone know that?

You would have to inform yourself about how that is done. It's not hard to do, but takes time to do it. Plenty of info at your local library or the internet now that we know you can link to the net.

[jlisenbe]

Summary.
1. You plagiarized.
2. You provided no answers.
3. There is no documentation for this silly claim. "The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - are doubted among the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars."
4. Argument from silence? Hardly.

"This is one of those very interesting topics that worth sharing. Our early church fathers had quite a bit to say about our four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Of the four Gospels alone, there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on."

Early second century Papias wrote, "Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without however recording in order what was said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow him; but afterwards, as I said, (attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers) but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord’s oracles. So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein."

Iranaeus, later second century, said this. "“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

Clement of Alexandria, late second century, said this. "As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel."

There are many more. Hardly an argument from silence.

https://cyberpenance.wordpress.com/2...t-the-gospels/

Now here are the quotes from all of the early church fathers who QUESTIONED the traditional authorship.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..

Do you really believe that an anonymous person, 100 years after the life of Christ, would have been able to pen those Gospels, lying blatantly, and get away with it with no one questioning it?


Nope, I don't believe that. Has somebody said that?

Did "somebody" say that? Really, you're asking that? Well, from your own plagiarized post we can quote this. "The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus after a substantial gap of time by unknown persons compiling and redacting various traditions in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the faith of their communities."

[Athos]

Hardly an argument from silence.

You misunderstood - what else is new?

The argument from silence is your argument that since no early church father is on record as doubting the authorship of the Gospels, the authorship is thereby confirmed. That's not a valid argument.

Half my time with you is explaining the basics of whatever the discussion of the day is. It really gets tiresome.

I'll wait until DW returns, if he does, for some intelligent conversation. I want to give him a chance to answer some questions I put to him. As for you, you've outworn your welcome. Good night.

[jlisenbe]

I'll wait until DW returns, if he does, for some intelligent conversation. I want to give him a chance to answer some questions I put to him. As for you, you've outworn your welcome. Good night.

In other words, you are out of answers and hitting the road. I don't blame you. Good night indeed.