News0 min ago
So who is the holy ghost then?.
65 Answers
On the Cross, Jesus said, 'Father forgive them, for they know not what they do'. If God is the father, and Jesus and God are one, who was he talking to?.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikebravo. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Clanad, there are only one or two things I’d like to bring back to the conversation at the moment.
//I think there are reasonable conclusions at which one can arrive without stretching credulity, Naomi. We allow that in everyday life quite often, no? //
Well, no, personally I don’t, at least not where something so fundamental is concerned. You either know the truth and are consequently confident that what you believe is true, or you have to concede that some of it at the very least isn’t true - and in that case how do you decide what you ‘choose’ to believe?
One’s world view must surely be irrelevant to records that are only rumoured to have existed in the Middle Ages. Bearing in mind our certain knowledge that religious texts have been altered time and time again over the years, there must be a likelihood that the rumoured records were always just that - a rumour begun by people with a specific agenda. How convenient that story is. It reminds me of Helena trailing around the Holy Land et al apparently coming across the ‘true cross’, and discovering the site of the crucifixion, etc. Proof? Not “probably not“. Definitely not.
I actually believe Jesus existed and I agree with you that we should apply the same standards to the study of scripture as those we apply to other historical documents - but for the majority of people that is impossible, because unlike other historical documents, religious texts, no matter how distorted they have become over the years, have an enormous influence on today’s world and most, whether faithful or atheist, would find complete impartiality impossible. I’ve dissected the story and I truly believe I’ve been completely honest in my efforts to reach my own conclusions. I think they make perfect sense - well at least they do to me - but I really would dearly love to know the truth.
//I think there are reasonable conclusions at which one can arrive without stretching credulity, Naomi. We allow that in everyday life quite often, no? //
Well, no, personally I don’t, at least not where something so fundamental is concerned. You either know the truth and are consequently confident that what you believe is true, or you have to concede that some of it at the very least isn’t true - and in that case how do you decide what you ‘choose’ to believe?
One’s world view must surely be irrelevant to records that are only rumoured to have existed in the Middle Ages. Bearing in mind our certain knowledge that religious texts have been altered time and time again over the years, there must be a likelihood that the rumoured records were always just that - a rumour begun by people with a specific agenda. How convenient that story is. It reminds me of Helena trailing around the Holy Land et al apparently coming across the ‘true cross’, and discovering the site of the crucifixion, etc. Proof? Not “probably not“. Definitely not.
I actually believe Jesus existed and I agree with you that we should apply the same standards to the study of scripture as those we apply to other historical documents - but for the majority of people that is impossible, because unlike other historical documents, religious texts, no matter how distorted they have become over the years, have an enormous influence on today’s world and most, whether faithful or atheist, would find complete impartiality impossible. I’ve dissected the story and I truly believe I’ve been completely honest in my efforts to reach my own conclusions. I think they make perfect sense - well at least they do to me - but I really would dearly love to know the truth.
I think chakka, your division of Clanad1 from Clanad 2 is indicative of a weakness in your well put-together exposition... that being that at once, a person who is lucid and (intelligent, your words not mine) can also allow religious beliefs to overcome the previosuly granted qualities. How can that be? Can one be introspective and investigative and yet exclude those qualities from only one area of life? I think not.
You, seemingly, reserve unto yourself the ability to be lucid and intelligent and yet have no bias... never affected by additionally examined evidence. Isn't that a little absurd?
I've stated before that I have many friends who hold doctorates and masters degrees in various fields (neither of which do I possess) and we agree that the evidence presented, as I have laid upon your table, can rationally support my premises for authenticity. I can and have also discussed the material with workmen (whom I admire greatly) and their care in examining evidence is equally to be commended. Some agree, others do not. But upon closer examination, it's clear that bias and worldview have a part in that.
Yet, you say "you stick to hard evidence and need no bias"... Problem is, I detect no "hard facts in your summarization(s). You state (as example) "There is not a shred of evidence that Peter ever went to Rome."
"The idea that “Mark” was a disciple of Peter was invented by Bishop Eusebius"... yet produce no corroboration. Where are the hard facts? Your simply stating of such? That's incongruous and unworthy of your abilities to present cogent argument... at least that which I've witnessed from the sidelines. Reams of scholarly research support both as being fact
Every argument you've presented has been displayed on numerous sceptical blogs, web sites or book reviews. Nothing wrong with that, but unless your curriculum vitae is equal to the task, I doubt very
You, seemingly, reserve unto yourself the ability to be lucid and intelligent and yet have no bias... never affected by additionally examined evidence. Isn't that a little absurd?
I've stated before that I have many friends who hold doctorates and masters degrees in various fields (neither of which do I possess) and we agree that the evidence presented, as I have laid upon your table, can rationally support my premises for authenticity. I can and have also discussed the material with workmen (whom I admire greatly) and their care in examining evidence is equally to be commended. Some agree, others do not. But upon closer examination, it's clear that bias and worldview have a part in that.
Yet, you say "you stick to hard evidence and need no bias"... Problem is, I detect no "hard facts in your summarization(s). You state (as example) "There is not a shred of evidence that Peter ever went to Rome."
"The idea that “Mark” was a disciple of Peter was invented by Bishop Eusebius"... yet produce no corroboration. Where are the hard facts? Your simply stating of such? That's incongruous and unworthy of your abilities to present cogent argument... at least that which I've witnessed from the sidelines. Reams of scholarly research support both as being fact
Every argument you've presented has been displayed on numerous sceptical blogs, web sites or book reviews. Nothing wrong with that, but unless your curriculum vitae is equal to the task, I doubt very
Contd.
much that you authored all of them as the originator.
I'll say that a tenant of study of ancient documents is to give as much latitude as possible to those closest to the events, especially if they've proven themselves reliable in other writings (such as Luke). That doesn't imply blind fealty, only an acceptance of their superior historical position. Done all the time in other document study, as I've already pointed out.
Each of us brings a vast background of experiences that provide a backdrop for our belief system, you my retrodictive friend, are not excluded. In my opinion...
much that you authored all of them as the originator.
I'll say that a tenant of study of ancient documents is to give as much latitude as possible to those closest to the events, especially if they've proven themselves reliable in other writings (such as Luke). That doesn't imply blind fealty, only an acceptance of their superior historical position. Done all the time in other document study, as I've already pointed out.
Each of us brings a vast background of experiences that provide a backdrop for our belief system, you my retrodictive friend, are not excluded. In my opinion...
Of course I didn't author all those documents, Clanad. I came to the same conclusions as many of them because that I where the facts and evidence lead!
When someone says that there is no evidence for something the only valid riposte is to supply that evidence. So where is your evidence that Peter went to Rome?
If you look up any account of Eusebius and the many things he invented about Christianity out of thin air you will discover his Mark/Peter idea there.
Instead of dealing in general vagaries and talking about the weakness in my exposition why don't you try taking my points one by one and refuting them?
But why on earth do I do this? i should have learnt by now that no committed religionist is moved by fact, evidence, reason, logic, argument and commonsense; they form a language that religion does not speak. Blind faith's rose-entwined motto on the wall is "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts."
So I'll just finish where I started: since you like quoting "Mark", Luke", Matthew" and "John", who were they? Let's just stick to that, eh?
When someone says that there is no evidence for something the only valid riposte is to supply that evidence. So where is your evidence that Peter went to Rome?
If you look up any account of Eusebius and the many things he invented about Christianity out of thin air you will discover his Mark/Peter idea there.
Instead of dealing in general vagaries and talking about the weakness in my exposition why don't you try taking my points one by one and refuting them?
But why on earth do I do this? i should have learnt by now that no committed religionist is moved by fact, evidence, reason, logic, argument and commonsense; they form a language that religion does not speak. Blind faith's rose-entwined motto on the wall is "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts."
So I'll just finish where I started: since you like quoting "Mark", Luke", Matthew" and "John", who were they? Let's just stick to that, eh?
Two things, chakka; first, I believe it's important to understand where each proponent of an argument is "coming from", hence my emphasis on one's bias (and we all have one). One essay states "When we go about the task of making sense out of life, we always rely on a set of beliefs that we already hold. These beliefs act as a grid or filter: they help us figure out which experiences are more meaningful, important, or relevant than others. These basic beliefs, even if we are not consciously aware of them, are among the most important things about us".
So, Ok, once that's established, it's equally important to understand the place of "inductive inference" when studying or discussing ancient documents (or any other form of reasoned argument).
Inductive inference, simply stated is "...an inference is a step or process of reasoning. In deductive inference, we make explicit what is already contained implicitly in our current stock of information, however, inductive inference often consists in discovering the underlying causes beneath the observed effects, which process is sometimes called the "inference to the best explanation." We conclude that a certain structure or entity really exists when the hypothesis that it does exist provides the best possible explanation for what we observe." Used all the time in everyday life as well established in law.
So... there's no Biblical reference to Peter being in Rome... but there's no Biblical reference to Peter NOT being in Rome... the old argument from silence routine. But, are there other salient facts? Sure there are;
1. There's no argument made that Peter was not in Rome until after the middle ages and the rise of Protestanism. Why is that important? Simply because of the controversy between RC and Protestanism re: the primacy of Peter's Bishopric in Rome and the support gained by the RC for the Papacy.
Having said that I don'
So, Ok, once that's established, it's equally important to understand the place of "inductive inference" when studying or discussing ancient documents (or any other form of reasoned argument).
Inductive inference, simply stated is "...an inference is a step or process of reasoning. In deductive inference, we make explicit what is already contained implicitly in our current stock of information, however, inductive inference often consists in discovering the underlying causes beneath the observed effects, which process is sometimes called the "inference to the best explanation." We conclude that a certain structure or entity really exists when the hypothesis that it does exist provides the best possible explanation for what we observe." Used all the time in everyday life as well established in law.
So... there's no Biblical reference to Peter being in Rome... but there's no Biblical reference to Peter NOT being in Rome... the old argument from silence routine. But, are there other salient facts? Sure there are;
1. There's no argument made that Peter was not in Rome until after the middle ages and the rise of Protestanism. Why is that important? Simply because of the controversy between RC and Protestanism re: the primacy of Peter's Bishopric in Rome and the support gained by the RC for the Papacy.
Having said that I don'
Contd.
as they say around my part of the US, have a dog in this hunt. I don't really care if Peter was or wasn't in Rome, since it wasn't an important enough subject to the writers of the New Testament to address.
2. Having said that, there's a plethora of evidence that seems to support his being there, including fairly recent investigation into his burial site. You can certainly "Google" any of that. I think "inductive inference" would lead one to support the conclusion he was, but it's not important one way or the other.
We can go anywhere you'd like in this argument and I'll discuss any of them singularly, but I think you already know most of the arguments and are only seeking support from like minded non-believers, but in the process display your own commitment to not being "... moved by fact, evidence, reason, logic, argument and commonsense; they form a language that religion does not speak. My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts." No amount of "inductive inference" or other evidence will ever provide "proof" enough...
I've already covered several good reasons to "infer" the Gospels were written by those so named, espcially the "fact" that they were readily accepted as such by the earliest receivers of the documents. To which you have no countering argument, except to say you are right and I am wrong.
I bet we could, though, sit down over a cup of Starbuck's Pike Place (room for cream please) (I'd buy) and come away with a better understading of the humanity of the other... I'd find your British accent interesting and you could comment on my Tony Lama elephant skin boots... Up for it?
as they say around my part of the US, have a dog in this hunt. I don't really care if Peter was or wasn't in Rome, since it wasn't an important enough subject to the writers of the New Testament to address.
2. Having said that, there's a plethora of evidence that seems to support his being there, including fairly recent investigation into his burial site. You can certainly "Google" any of that. I think "inductive inference" would lead one to support the conclusion he was, but it's not important one way or the other.
We can go anywhere you'd like in this argument and I'll discuss any of them singularly, but I think you already know most of the arguments and are only seeking support from like minded non-believers, but in the process display your own commitment to not being "... moved by fact, evidence, reason, logic, argument and commonsense; they form a language that religion does not speak. My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts." No amount of "inductive inference" or other evidence will ever provide "proof" enough...
I've already covered several good reasons to "infer" the Gospels were written by those so named, espcially the "fact" that they were readily accepted as such by the earliest receivers of the documents. To which you have no countering argument, except to say you are right and I am wrong.
I bet we could, though, sit down over a cup of Starbuck's Pike Place (room for cream please) (I'd buy) and come away with a better understading of the humanity of the other... I'd find your British accent interesting and you could comment on my Tony Lama elephant skin boots... Up for it?
Naomi, let me say that I often see your argument that "Bearing in mind our certain knowledge that religious texts have been altered time and time again over the years" used and is one of the more easily refuted positions. But I do appreciate the opportunity t address it... thanks!
As an one example only, The Rylands collection in the John Rylands University Library, Manchester, UK contains one of the oldest Biblical fragments extant. Known as St. John's fragment it contains a copy of the Gospel of John 18:31–33 and is generally placed at between 100 AD past 150 AD. The fragment is important in a number of ways, but germane to our subject, the fragment, itself a copy of an older document, is essentially the same as that found in any modern Bible.
I'll try to be brief... The availability of ancient manuscripts (mid- 1st Century to 400AD) is truly overwhelming... some 24,000 examples in many different languages. Very few discrepancies or disagreements exist throughout the examples... usually easily identifiable scrible errors.
Compare that to the extant examples of Herodutus, Thucydides, Aristotle and Caesar at no more than 5 to 10 each and seperated from the actual events to the first copies average around 1,000 years.
Distorted Christian (not to mention even more ancient Jewish Old Covenant) documents is not a reality. This is part and parcel of the demand for "real proof" from the sceptical... a demand they do not force upon far less reliable documents... (Don't get me started on Vercingetorix).
Hey, I sincerely hope you're having a great mid-winter day... it's only -11 F and gonna get all the way up to +8 degrees F later today here in the inter- mountain western U.S.
As an one example only, The Rylands collection in the John Rylands University Library, Manchester, UK contains one of the oldest Biblical fragments extant. Known as St. John's fragment it contains a copy of the Gospel of John 18:31–33 and is generally placed at between 100 AD past 150 AD. The fragment is important in a number of ways, but germane to our subject, the fragment, itself a copy of an older document, is essentially the same as that found in any modern Bible.
I'll try to be brief... The availability of ancient manuscripts (mid- 1st Century to 400AD) is truly overwhelming... some 24,000 examples in many different languages. Very few discrepancies or disagreements exist throughout the examples... usually easily identifiable scrible errors.
Compare that to the extant examples of Herodutus, Thucydides, Aristotle and Caesar at no more than 5 to 10 each and seperated from the actual events to the first copies average around 1,000 years.
Distorted Christian (not to mention even more ancient Jewish Old Covenant) documents is not a reality. This is part and parcel of the demand for "real proof" from the sceptical... a demand they do not force upon far less reliable documents... (Don't get me started on Vercingetorix).
Hey, I sincerely hope you're having a great mid-winter day... it's only -11 F and gonna get all the way up to +8 degrees F later today here in the inter- mountain western U.S.
Clanad, with all due respect, you're talking about documents originating over a period of 300 years, and although the new Christians were no doubt very eager and very prolific, there is absolutely nothing emanating from any witness to the events. I don't know why I should be shocked by your naivety, but I am. I think you've been reading the Evidence for God website.
I hope you're having a nice day too.
I hope you're having a nice day too.
Somehow or another, Naomi, we have a miscommunication going hee. I really don't understand what you mean by "you're talking about documents originating over a period of 300 years..."
I thought it was fairly clear that there are documents that scholars are quite sure in dating to say 100AD. Even earlier in some cases. These are known to be copies, not the originals. Since subsequent copies are nearly identical it's appropriate to "infer" that the documens from which these in hand were copied would have contained the same information as well...
The copies were made for a number of possible reasons, including one copy becoming so worn it was nearly useless or the desire to send a copy to some other newly established church.
I've, as clearly as possible suggested that the same rulesof study apply to al ancient documents, not just Biblical ones. In doing so, it is significant that 1,000 years separate the originals and the first known copies of the secular works listed. Scholars find that important in verifying authenticity.
I'm unfamiliar with the website you mention... what websites do you frequent for your infomation?
I'm unfamilar with the web site you mention... which ones do you frequent for information?
I thought it was fairly clear that there are documents that scholars are quite sure in dating to say 100AD. Even earlier in some cases. These are known to be copies, not the originals. Since subsequent copies are nearly identical it's appropriate to "infer" that the documens from which these in hand were copied would have contained the same information as well...
The copies were made for a number of possible reasons, including one copy becoming so worn it was nearly useless or the desire to send a copy to some other newly established church.
I've, as clearly as possible suggested that the same rulesof study apply to al ancient documents, not just Biblical ones. In doing so, it is significant that 1,000 years separate the originals and the first known copies of the secular works listed. Scholars find that important in verifying authenticity.
I'm unfamiliar with the website you mention... what websites do you frequent for your infomation?
I'm unfamilar with the web site you mention... which ones do you frequent for information?
Sorry Clanad, I don't suppose you do know what I mean - but since there are no eye-witness accounts it follows that everything we have came later - within the 300 years you mention - but all of that has already been said.
I read books, so I don't use any particular websites. The most I do is look at an on-line version of the King James Bible really - and that's for ease of reference. How about you?
I read books, so I don't use any particular websites. The most I do is look at an on-line version of the King James Bible really - and that's for ease of reference. How about you?
Problem is, Naomi (such a pleasant sounding name... which it is, literally, in Hebrew) surely you and chakka (and others) know there's no "proof" in your statement. Granted, there are studies aplenty that will support that conclusion, but those conclusions are no more deserving of being ganted the title of "Proof" than my own. They can be properly called evidence, however. Then it becomes the individuals choice on what evidence one relies, no?
What I'm trying (with little success) is to suggest that the choice of the above one makes is largely driven by "world view" and bias. Certainly not superior scholarship of one side over the other.
I reference a number of journals, focusing, usually on the latest in astronomy and astrophysics, as well, of course the current state of ancient historical investigation.
Jean-Paul Sarte, in his book "Being and Nothingness", summarized what has be the end result of denying the possibility of God like this: "Man is a useless passion. It is meaningless that we live and it is meaningless that we die."
Peter Kreeft, in his very thoughtful book "Making Sense Out of Suffering", says ii far better than I ever could: "...Make this issue simple and concrete... is the universe a meaningless darkness in which we desperately erect little artificial theatres, light them up with little artificial lights (our reasons), and put on little artificial plays (our lives), whose sole meanings are assigned by their sole authors (ourselves)? The really ultimate question, much more important than the scientific question, is: Who's there? That's why myth is more important than science. Myth is an answer, though an unsatisfactory one, to the deeper question, Who's there? Science only answers the question, How does it work? Or at the most, What's there? Science asks what and how, philosophy asks why, myth and religion ask who. Who's in charge her
What I'm trying (with little success) is to suggest that the choice of the above one makes is largely driven by "world view" and bias. Certainly not superior scholarship of one side over the other.
I reference a number of journals, focusing, usually on the latest in astronomy and astrophysics, as well, of course the current state of ancient historical investigation.
Jean-Paul Sarte, in his book "Being and Nothingness", summarized what has be the end result of denying the possibility of God like this: "Man is a useless passion. It is meaningless that we live and it is meaningless that we die."
Peter Kreeft, in his very thoughtful book "Making Sense Out of Suffering", says ii far better than I ever could: "...Make this issue simple and concrete... is the universe a meaningless darkness in which we desperately erect little artificial theatres, light them up with little artificial lights (our reasons), and put on little artificial plays (our lives), whose sole meanings are assigned by their sole authors (ourselves)? The really ultimate question, much more important than the scientific question, is: Who's there? That's why myth is more important than science. Myth is an answer, though an unsatisfactory one, to the deeper question, Who's there? Science only answers the question, How does it work? Or at the most, What's there? Science asks what and how, philosophy asks why, myth and religion ask who. Who's in charge her
Clanad, I can't understand the point of either of us listing books we've read - not that impressive or useful to anyone who hasn't read them surely? However, I do realise that you're pretty sure you know, which actually, in my estimation, is the saddest thing because you CHOOSE to ignore the facts that are actually staring you in the face, beginning with the most fundamental - the virgin birth.
Not to worry. I don't believe in magic and I have therefore clearly been dismissed - and frankly I don't have the enthusiasm to protest. As you say 'Sayonara' - even though that's a bit off the beaten track.
I would like to thank you ED and Spare for listening to me and for reinstating this thread. It's been interesting to say the least. :o)
Not to worry. I don't believe in magic and I have therefore clearly been dismissed - and frankly I don't have the enthusiasm to protest. As you say 'Sayonara' - even though that's a bit off the beaten track.
I would like to thank you ED and Spare for listening to me and for reinstating this thread. It's been interesting to say the least. :o)
Clanad, two brief things before I drag you back from your meanderings to the main issue I raised:
1.It is not for me to explain to you, for example, where the idea came from that “Mark” was Peter’s story or why “John” could not possible have been written by the apostle of that name (though I have kindly done both). It is for you, if you believe such things, to supply the evidence.
2.I have long noticed that believers, while knowing full well what “evidence” means in everyday life, go all coy about it when asked to produce it in support of their beliefs. They mould and stretch the term to include conjecture, assumption, received wisdom, Church dogma and quotations from authors who cannot know any more about the subject than anyone else. So back to the point:
You talk about the gospels having been written by “those so named”. But who were “those so named” other than just names allocated at about AD180? Who were they? Where were they born and what lives did they have? What where their characters and occupations? Most importantly, how did they know so much about Jesus while writing years after he was dead, having never met him and with no eye-or ear-witnesses to consult? (And – I can’t resist adding – why do two of them give completely contradictory accounts of Jesus’ birth?)
Just stick to that for now, please.
1.It is not for me to explain to you, for example, where the idea came from that “Mark” was Peter’s story or why “John” could not possible have been written by the apostle of that name (though I have kindly done both). It is for you, if you believe such things, to supply the evidence.
2.I have long noticed that believers, while knowing full well what “evidence” means in everyday life, go all coy about it when asked to produce it in support of their beliefs. They mould and stretch the term to include conjecture, assumption, received wisdom, Church dogma and quotations from authors who cannot know any more about the subject than anyone else. So back to the point:
You talk about the gospels having been written by “those so named”. But who were “those so named” other than just names allocated at about AD180? Who were they? Where were they born and what lives did they have? What where their characters and occupations? Most importantly, how did they know so much about Jesus while writing years after he was dead, having never met him and with no eye-or ear-witnesses to consult? (And – I can’t resist adding – why do two of them give completely contradictory accounts of Jesus’ birth?)
Just stick to that for now, please.
Thanks for your post, chakka...
I'll try to be as succinct as possible. I realize full well that presentation of evidence cannot be adequately expressed in a forum of this nature and also recognizing that the audience is looking for clear, concise "proof" of the nature that does not exist for these document nor any documents of equal antiquity.
I have to point out that I really don't think it's my responsibility to defend your premises.
You're the one that stated unequivocally and without supporting evidence that the writers of the Gospels were unknown, not me.
However, that aside, you also don't quote any sources for any of your contentions, seemingly inferring that you've come to your conclusions entirely independently. This allows you to criticize, out-of-hand, any sources I quote, notwithstanding those sources standing in the academic community, implying logic and "common sense" on your part and lack on mine.
Regardless, I've never claimed the type of "proof" demanded since it, nor anything approaching such is available. However, such "proof" is also not available for the vast majority of equally ancient documents. (See my references to Vercengetorix).
This does not preclude, however, a vast body of scholarlly study, based on well accepted criteria and applicable to all documents of antiquity, that arrive at a conclusion of agreement that these Gospels were written by "those so mentioned".
It would take several chapters of a book to enumerate the types of studies and their results... and I don't quite know how to proceed with any semblance of brevity.
At the very least, the evidence is clear in supporting the authorship much earlier than the AD 180 you quote. One of the best sources I have is by Professor Barry D. Smith, Crandall University "The New Testament and its Context". Smith states as only one in a lis
I'll try to be as succinct as possible. I realize full well that presentation of evidence cannot be adequately expressed in a forum of this nature and also recognizing that the audience is looking for clear, concise "proof" of the nature that does not exist for these document nor any documents of equal antiquity.
I have to point out that I really don't think it's my responsibility to defend your premises.
You're the one that stated unequivocally and without supporting evidence that the writers of the Gospels were unknown, not me.
However, that aside, you also don't quote any sources for any of your contentions, seemingly inferring that you've come to your conclusions entirely independently. This allows you to criticize, out-of-hand, any sources I quote, notwithstanding those sources standing in the academic community, implying logic and "common sense" on your part and lack on mine.
Regardless, I've never claimed the type of "proof" demanded since it, nor anything approaching such is available. However, such "proof" is also not available for the vast majority of equally ancient documents. (See my references to Vercengetorix).
This does not preclude, however, a vast body of scholarlly study, based on well accepted criteria and applicable to all documents of antiquity, that arrive at a conclusion of agreement that these Gospels were written by "those so mentioned".
It would take several chapters of a book to enumerate the types of studies and their results... and I don't quite know how to proceed with any semblance of brevity.
At the very least, the evidence is clear in supporting the authorship much earlier than the AD 180 you quote. One of the best sources I have is by Professor Barry D. Smith, Crandall University "The New Testament and its Context". Smith states as only one in a lis
Contd.
...list of supporters, this:
1.2.1. The earliest piece of external, direct evidence comes to us from Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, (c. 60-130) who quotes someone he identifies as "the elder" (ho presbuteros), probably John the elder, an authoritative figure among the churches in the province of Asia (H.E. 3.39.4, 15). Eusebius quotes from what he identifies as the five treatises written by Papias, entitled, Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord, which are no longer extant:
"And the elder used to say this, Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them."
Realizing this and similar are unsatisfying to you, it nevertheless is an example of high scholarship and years of study that could have come to a different conclusion had the evidence supported it.
I've found there are sound, hard, fast rules (some of them called Laws) that must be adhered to during ancient document study that, without their use, denigrates ones study and publishing. Be it Gaius Julius Caesar or John Mark... intellectual honesty demands the same adherence to the rules... regardles of your statements to contrary al la "...authors who cannot know any more about the subject than anyone else..."
So, tell me about the contradictory accounts...etc. I'll be glad to discuss those with
...list of supporters, this:
1.2.1. The earliest piece of external, direct evidence comes to us from Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, (c. 60-130) who quotes someone he identifies as "the elder" (ho presbuteros), probably John the elder, an authoritative figure among the churches in the province of Asia (H.E. 3.39.4, 15). Eusebius quotes from what he identifies as the five treatises written by Papias, entitled, Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord, which are no longer extant:
"And the elder used to say this, Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them."
Realizing this and similar are unsatisfying to you, it nevertheless is an example of high scholarship and years of study that could have come to a different conclusion had the evidence supported it.
I've found there are sound, hard, fast rules (some of them called Laws) that must be adhered to during ancient document study that, without their use, denigrates ones study and publishing. Be it Gaius Julius Caesar or John Mark... intellectual honesty demands the same adherence to the rules... regardles of your statements to contrary al la "...authors who cannot know any more about the subject than anyone else..."
So, tell me about the contradictory accounts...etc. I'll be glad to discuss those with
Latest Posts
Nothing Is Unbelievable Anymore.
News0 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.