Amillennialist wrote on Dec 30, 2009, 07:23:
That's entia multiplicanda praeter necessitatem!
What were you thinking when you paraphrased my argument so incorrectly ?
Yes, in places the wording is so similar that it appears that authors borrowed from one another. Rather than argue that (which is reasonable, but just speculation), you claim it was "ONE" author.
No - I claim that for matters where the text coincides so strongly the sensible explanation is that they all drew from the same WITNESS or source. Which makes them not witnesses themselves to great parts of their narratives. Which returns to my original point about there not actually being that many witnesses.
Here's what Luke wrote regarding his Gospel. Note the eyewitness testimony:
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses . . . have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account . . . " (Luke 1).
them/us. its a clear distinction, in this translation and in most of the translations, and translation is also an issue here.
But John says he was present during the crucifixion:
"Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek . . .
"When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved [John] standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home" (John 19:20, 26-27).
And at the empty tomb:
"Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb . . . the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead" (John 20).
The beloved disciple is a deliberate ploy to hide the authorship of Johns. Someone else tells me its Lazarus. Who do I believe, and why ?
Resoundingly, demonstrably false, as shown above and in this: Besides Luke and John taking credit for their work, we have also Aristion and John the Presbyter (first-century); Clement of Rome (c. AD 96); and Papias (c. AD 60-130)
And we know all the problems with Papias, namely his work is gone, and only exists in quotes in other reconstructed or retranslated works. Others chain from there.
As far as I can see, Clement doesn't attest authorship, merely existence, at a date that I have not disputed. Happy for you to point out the relevent part of Clement if you know it, as its ugly to read and reference.
As noted above: Matthew, AD 50; Mark, AD 50-60; Luke, AD 55-60; and Paul's letter to the Galatians, AD 51.
Which are largely contentious dates.
So, even if it were "the oldest" -- which it may not be -- you still have eyewitness testimony from the others regarding the Resurrection.
as you point out yourself, the dates are contentious.
(What do you think Peter, whose testimony Mark records, was preaching all those years?)]
Since the "issues" with Mark are either factual errors, misunderstandings, or faulty reasoning, that should settle it.
Well you'll have to actually explain the faulty reasonings or misunderstandings.
Yes, the ending of Mark and the account of the woman caught in adultery do not appear in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts we possess, so they should not have been included.
None of which means they are necessarily fabrications, for John writes that "there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (John 21:25).
Yes, the bible doesn't disprove many thesis's. Otherwise it would be non contentious, and we'd all be Christians via deductive reasoning.
Significantly, these (apparent) additions do not contradict Scripture.
You'd hope not if it was a post-edit!
The point I was making was that typos alter or abolish neither the authorship, message, nor value of a text.
And the point I was making is that demonstrable error is far larger than typo's. Which can alter meaning.
That's the simplest logical explanation only if you exclude all the other evidence we possess.
First, Romans knew how to crucify a person.
Which oddly enough, according to gospels, the procedure was much abridged in this case - 6 hours, no leg breaking to ensure suffocation, and both men alongside Jesus were apparently not dead, and needed leg breaking.
Second, according to the accounts, the Jewish authorities who had Christ murdered asked for and received a Roman guard to prevent the theft of Christ's body.
Third, the Apostles were in hiding for fear of the authorities after the Crucifixion. What could have motivated them to go out and "turn the world upside down" -- even to the point of death -- but the resurrected Christ?
You're not the first with this fiction:
"some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place [the Resurrection]. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, "Tell people, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.' And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day" (Matthew 28:11-15).
So the guards are reliable witnesses, but on the take at the same time ?
You're two thousand years too late.
You mean it was obvious even to the author at the time ?
You only need one part -- the living Christ -- and on numerous occasions He appeared to His followers, including 500 at one time.
and how many of those 500 people were sufficiently close, wrote down what they saw, or could tell Jesus from a superficially similar person ?
In other words this could be interpreted as "Luke wrote that Peter said that he witnessed 500 people saw floating animated Jesus at the same time". (insert suitable authors/figures to taste). Realistically we probably come back down to 1 witness account, written 25 years+ afterwards.
Not according to Matthew:
Nor Mark:
Nor Luke:
Nor John; see the twentieth and twenty-first chapters of his Gospel.
By Luke, the author.
We've already gone over why this is not many eye-witness accounts, you've even quoted where Luke makes the distinction, and Luke was a companion of Paul, and Paul is only clearly an eyewitness to Jesus after the death, which means nobody is sure if he could actually identify a voice as belonging to Jesus other than by accepting the words as he heard them as true. Round and round we go. The gospels won't prove your assumptions about authors anymore than it will mine, which remains my fundamental point.
Complete fabrication.
"and it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance"
q[Have you no shame?
apparently not, no, but i could find the reference.