On Martyrdom and other things........

[Logicman]

But you are calling just about all modern theologians and scholars lousy too.

Nope. Just the liberal theologians. They're akin to regular liberals who tend to screw everything up.

 

[ataraxia]

Nope. Just the liberal theologians. They're akin to regular liberals who tend to screw everything up.

But “liberal theologian” is just anyone who disagrees with your most current opinions, aren’t they? How else would you define them?

 

[Questerr]

Another poor argument.

Take, for instance, the New Testament. The Gospels / New Testament are not circular logic / reasoning. In fact, they weren't even "the Bible" in the first century. What they were, were some two dozen individual manuscripts, written by mostly different authors at different times in different locales. As such, those manuscripts constitute MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATIONS for the life of Christ, etc. So, the "circular reasoning" claim is not only sophomoric, but disingenuous as well. It just shows the stunning shallowness of thought and knowledge of the skeptic in question.

They aren't "independent" when they were all written by members of the same (then) cult.

 

[DataPoint]

"This I know because the Bible tells me so" is, if talking about the truth of Biblical scripture, is a circular argument. The separate early writings constitute MULTIPLE CONTRADICTORY ACCOUNTS of the life of Christ and the early Christians. Many of them were written long after the deaths of the supposed writers.

 

[Logicman]

They aren't "independent" when they were all written by members of the same (then) cult.

They were individual manuscripts. Not part of the Bible at the time, so your circular reasoning argument is baloney.

 

[Questerr]

They were individual manuscripts. Not part of the Bible at the time, so your circular reasoning argument is baloney.

But they weren’t “independent”. That would be like claiming every tract that comes out of the JW Cult is “independent”.

Independent sources would be EXTERNAL to the cult they refer to.

 

[Logicman]

But they weren’t “independent”. That would be like claiming every tract that comes out of the JW Cult is “independent”.

Independent sources would be EXTERNAL to the cult they refer to.

Nope. They would just write individual manuscripts, which were written by different people at different times in different places.

 

[Questerr]

Nope. They would just write individual manuscripts, which were written by different people at different times in different places.

But those writers knew of the other documents and based their writing off them. Have you never heard of the “Q document”?

 

[Logicman]

But those writers knew of the other documents and based their writing off them. Have you never heard of the “Q document”?

There's no evidence the Q Document ever existed.

Ten Reasons to Question Q: http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/ten.htm

Fallacies at the Heart of Q : http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/fallacy.htm

Also,

There's simpler explanations than having to posit the theory that the other Gospel authors copied Mark, or whoever. One is that Matthew and Peter and John most likely sat around campfires together after Jesus' resurrection and recalled what Jesus said and did. No doubt Jesus went over everything with them in the 40 days after his resurrection and before his ascension. The disciples may have even taken notes on parchment to be used later in their separate Gospels. In addition, in John 14 John clearly cites the Holy Spirit as helping them recall what Jesus taught. That's the source skeptics ALWAYS sweep under the rug because they can't stand to admit the supernatural.


John 14:26 - "But the Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have told you."

 

[Questerr]

There's no evidence the Q Document ever existed.

Ten Reasons to Question Q: http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/ten.htm

Fallacies at the Heart of Q : http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/fallacy.htm

Also,

There's simpler explanations than having to posit the theory that the other Gospel authors copied Mark, or whoever. One is that Matthew and Peter and John most likely sat around campfires together after Jesus' resurrection and recalled what Jesus said and did. No doubt Jesus went over everything with them in the 40 days after his resurrection and before his ascension. The disciples may have even taken notes on parchment to be used later in their separate Gospels. In addition, in John 14 John clearly cites the Holy Spirit as helping them recall what Jesus taught. That's the source skeptics ALWAYS sweep under the rug because they can't stand to admit the supernatural.


John 14:26 - "But the Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have told you."

So now you've found another random asshole's apologetics blog. Why do you think this is good evidence of anything?

 

[Logicman]

So now you've found another random asshole's apologetics blog. Why do you think this is good evidence of anything?

Way to kick good information to the curb. No wonder you're out in left field.

 

[devildavid]

Way to kick good information to the curb. No wonder you're out in left field.

It is not good information. It is just propaganda that you swallow whole.

 

[Logicman]

So now you've found another random asshole's apologetics blog. Why do you think this is good evidence of anything?

You want to know one of the really amusing things about you skeptics? Every day you guys trash the traditional gospels, and THEN you trot out the imaginative Q Document - for which there is ZERO archaeological or traditional evidence - as your prize bull for explaining where the story of Jesus really came from. That's stunning.

It's hard for me as a college graduate to grasp the dilettante makeup of such a jester that in a serious mood produces that kind of a shaggy-dog story.

 

[devildavid]

You want to know one of the really amusing things about you skeptics? Every day you guys trash the traditional gospels, and THEN you trot out the imaginative Q Document - for which there is ZERO archaeological or traditional evidence - as your prize bull for explaining where the story of Jesus really came from. That's stunning.

It's hard for me as a college graduate to grasp the dilettante makeup of such a jester that in a serious mood produces that kind of a shaggy-dog story.

I don't trot out any documents. All religious texts are just made up stories. It's hard for a rational adult to grasp how any adult could actually think any of it is literally, objectively factual. There is a reason religions are called beliefs.

 

[Questerr]

You want to know one of the really amusing things about you skeptics? Every day you guys trash the traditional gospels, and THEN you trot out the imaginative Q Document - for which there is ZERO archaeological or traditional evidence - as your prize bull for explaining where the story of Jesus really came from. That's stunning.

It's hard for me as a college graduate to grasp the dilettante makeup of such a jester that in a serious mood produces that kind of a shaggy-dog story.

What is “traditional evidence”?

 

[Somerville]

Nope. They would just write individual manuscripts, which were written by different people at different times in different places.

And then those "individual manuscripts" were edited, with redactions and interpolations by later 'authorities' who also ordered the destruction of those "individual manuscripts" which didn't comply with the accepted theology.

The curious do wonder about the beliefs prior to the time when Rome exerted total control over which texts were to be accepted. It did take a few years - well into the 5th-6th centuries at least.

For something a bit more academic than the nonsense on Goodacre's website - The Lost Sayings Gospel Q

Then - I will quote one old guy who mentions early writings before the Gospels

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

One might also wish to look up information on the Secret Gospel of Mark.

 

[Logicman]

And then those "individual manuscripts" were edited, with redactions and interpolations by later 'authorities' who also ordered the destruction of those "individual manuscripts" which didn't comply with the accepted theology.

Yawn. You need a primer on this. J. Warner Wallace, a cold case detective and former atheist, speaks out on “Why I Know the Story of Jesus Wasn’t Changed Over Time.”

https://coldcasechristianity.com/.../why-i-know-the.../

Then - I will quote one old guy who mentions early writings before the Gospels

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Nice quote from Luke 1. Who was he referring to? Early eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Glad you're warming up to the Gospels, Somerville!

Then there's John W. Wenham -

Wenham was a Professor of New Testament Greek and Biblical scholar. He wrote “Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem” and concluded that the gospels were written early by comparing them to one another and examining their relationship to the early writings and traditions of Church Fathers from the first to third century. He concluded that the Gospel of Matthew was written near 40AD, that the Gospel of Mark was written near 45AD, and that the Gospel of Luke was written by the mid-50’s.

Wenham's analysis leaves little doubt in his mind that Luke could well have quoted Mark and even Matthew.

How Early are the Biblical Accounts?

How Early Are the Biblical Accounts of Jesus? | Cold Case Christianity

There is more than sufficient evidence to believe that the gospels appeared very early in history, well within the lives of the original eyewitnesses who watched Jesus and learned at His feet.

coldcasechristianity.com

 

[Somerville]

Logicman, why do you continue using J. Warner Wallace, for support on your theological views. The man is not qualified in any shape, fashion or form to make the claims that you and others believe. His argument for a "chain of custody" for the passing on of stories about Jesus is sheer and utter nonsense with ZERO support by the vast majority of trained scholars.

Who first mentioned the Four Gospels with the titles we know today?

What is the oldest known Biblical manuscript that we have today?

 

[Logicman]

Logicman, why do you continue using J. Warner Wallace, for support on your theological views. The man is not qualified in any shape, fashion or form to make the claims that you and others believe. His argument for a "chain of custody" for the passing on of stories about Jesus is sheer and utter nonsense with ZERO support by the vast majority of trained scholars.

You don't have any credibility on that.

Who first mentioned the Four Gospels with the titles we know today?

What is the oldest known Biblical manuscript that we have today?

Pray about it.

 

[Somerville]

You don't have any credibility on that.

I don't have any credibility? I take the time to do a bit of research and you quote, "a former atheist, retired homicide detective" with ZERO academic training on the subject - origins of the New Testament

Somerville said:
Who first mentioned the Four Gospels with the titles we know today?

What is the oldest known Biblical manuscript that we have today?


Pray about it.

What should I pray about? That you take the time do a bit of online research?

Quote some of the trained academicians who hold similar religious views to yours - THEN, there may be some rational debate but I doubt it.

 

[Logicman]

I don't have any credibility? I take the time to do a bit of research and you quote, "a former atheist, retired homicide detective" with ZERO academic training on the subject - origins of the New Testament

What makes you think you're more informed than FORMER ATHEIST J. Warner Wallace, who did his homework too? According to 1 John 2:22 you're deficient in your views.

 

[devildavid]

What makes you think you're more informed than FORMER ATHEIST J. Warner Wallace, who did his homework too? According to 1 John 2:22 you're deficient in your views.

Former atheist does not make him qualified in any way. And he is only in it for the money.

 

[Somerville]

What makes you think you're more informed than FORMER ATHEIST J. Warner Wallace, who did his homework too? According to 1 John 2:22 you're deficient in your views.

A few years in university studying history helps me a bit.

Interesting. The author of a religious text written a couple thousand years ago composed a prophecy that told the believers about me. WOW!! Reading the entire chapter, it strikes me as being rather anti-Jewish. There are a few of those scholarly types who have written about the origins of anti-Semitism among Christians.

Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

Anti-Semitism and the New Testament​

Gentile worship of Jesus as a divine figure who did away with the need for law observance marks perhaps the most important shift in early Jewish/Christian relations, a shift that led to anti-Semitic/anti-Jewish defenses of Christianity and increasingly polemical rhetoric of Christians against Jews and Jewish tradition.

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.

That "last hour" has failed to appear for 2000 years. I do wonder why - nah, not really.

 

[Logicman]

A few years in university studying history helps me a bit.

Interesting. The author of a religious text written a couple thousand years ago composed a prophecy that told the believers about me. WOW!! Reading the entire chapter, it strikes me as being rather anti-Jewish. There are a few of those scholarly types who have written about the origins of anti-Semitism among Christians.

Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.


Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.

That "last hour" has failed to appear for 2000 years. I do wonder why - nah, not really.

Jesus is Resurrected in all four Gospels and various epistles. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

 

[Somerville]

Jesus is Resurrected in all four Gospels and various epistles. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

Not surprised. Logicman remains unable or unwilling to actually respond to comments.

Preaching his faith is not answering questions. I do wonder about those theology degrees he claims to have earned.