Evolution vs. Creationism

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Sorry, it doesn't wash. The first gospels were written decades after these alleged events...all of the eye-witnesses would have long since died. Timelines get screwed up, either accidentally or deliberately. Your evidence is heresay...inadmissible.

Two of the eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) wrote two of the accounts... long since dead, huh?

Matthew's gospel was written about 35-40 years after the fact. However, Matthew had been preaching about the events for decades prior to that. Besides, it's not like you would forget the public execution and subsequent resurrection of someone that close to you.

And if you are so sure that the timelines are screwed up, I'm sure you have the correct ones?

Sorry, Bully, I am going to listen to the people who were there, not someone second-guessing it 2000 years later.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
It's amazing how one person's heresay is another's heresy.

One man's heresy is anothers joke!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Two of the eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) wrote two of the accounts... long since dead, huh?

Matthew's gospel was written about 35-40 years after the fact. However, Matthew had been preaching about the events for decades prior to that. Besides, it's not like you would forget the public execution and subsequent resurrection of someone that close to you.

And if you are so sure that the timelines are screwed up, I'm sure you have the correct ones?

Sorry, Bully, I am going to listen to the people who were there, not someone second-guessing it 2000 years later.

All right then...Back down the rabbit-hole with you! Have a good time.

 

[Reilly]

Today, I have already been called a blasphemer who only desires to prove the Bible wrong , so I wish to make clear here, that I am not in anyway making a suggestion one way or another about the accuracy of the Bible.

That said, it is generally believed that the books of Matthew and John were not written by the disciples Matthew and John, for the following reasons:

First, they were written anonymously. They were not ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John until some time in the second century.

Second, Jesus and his disciples spoke aramaic and the gospels were written in Greek.

Third, Jesus' disciples were mostly lower-class uneducated peasants (according to Acts 4:13, both Peter and John were known to be illiterate). It is obvious that the Gospel writers were both educated and literate.

Fourth, all of the books were written in the third person, making no direct reference to the authors' own involvement with Jesus.

The dates on which the Gospels were written are as follows:
Mark - 65-70 A.D.
Matthew - 80-85 A.D.
Luke - 80-85 A.D.
John - 90-95 A.D.

All of this information has been taken from the work (books and lectures) of Prof. Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. I wish I had more specific cites for you, but I am sure that this information (with cites) is also accessible on the net.

Once again, I am making no statements concerning the veracity of the Gospel accounts themselves.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
All right then...Back down the rabbit-hole with you! Have a good time.

Way to dodge the argument Bully!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Way to dodge the argument Bully!

He's been doing this a lot lately. Very sad.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Way to dodge the argument Bully!

What argument? You believe in a thing, and I don't. No point in wasting anymore bandwidth.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Reilly
Today, I have already been called a blasphemer who only desires to prove the Bible wrong , so I wish to make clear here, that I am not in anyway making a suggestion one way or another about the accuracy of the Bible.

That said, it is generally believed that the books of Matthew and John were not written by the disciples Matthew and John, for the following reasons:

First, they were written anonymously. They were not ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John until some time in the second century.

Second, Jesus and his disciples spoke aramaic and the gospels were written in Greek.

Third, Jesus' disciples were mostly lower-class uneducated peasants (according to Acts 4:13, both Peter and John were known to be illiterate). It is obvious that the Gospel writers were both educated and literate.

Fourth, all of the books were written in the third person, making no direct reference to the authors' own involvement with Jesus.

The dates on which the Gospels were written are as follows:
Mark - 65-70 A.D.
Matthew - 80-85 A.D.
Luke - 80-85 A.D.
John - 90-95 A.D.

All of this information has been taken from the work (books and lectures) of Prof. Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. I wish I had more specific cites for you, but I am sure that this information (with cites) is also accessible on the net.

Once again, I am making no statements concerning the veracity of the Gospel accounts themselves.

Reilly, here are the problems I have with your post (not with you, BTW),

1. While the names Matthew and John do not appear in the text of their respective gospels, it was common knowledge when the copies of the gospels were being spread around whose gospel it was. If there was not overwhelming proof/knowledge of the authorship, the gospels would not have ended up in the Bible.
2. Most people in that time spoke at least two languages. It would not be uncommon for people to know Greek along with their native tongue (Aramiac in this example) and even Latin.
3. Acts 4:13 says that Peter (not Matthew) and John were uneducated, not illiterate. Most Jews who grew up in the temple learned to read in the temple/synagouge. And Matthew would have to know how to read if he was to keep accounts of people's taxes (he was a tax collector before being called as a disciple).
4. Your dating of the Synoptic Gospels is very late. Most scholars I have read date Mark at about 55-60, Matthew around 65-70, and Luke at around 70-75.

 

[Reilly]

Fair enough. I think it is enough to say that the dates and authorship of the Gospels is still being debated, and one may take either position they like. In fact, for anyone who wants more information, type "authorship" and "Gospels" into yahoo.com and you will get a long list of sites discussing it.

 

[Hobbit]

Fair enough. I hate to take a "you're both right" stance, but I'm afraid I have to. I think the earlier dates were when they were recorded while the later dates are the times when they were officially recorded. After the original text was written down, it was passed around in segments to keep the Romans from discovering it. After the Romans finally realized that Christians posed no threat to the Empire and stopped executing Christians, they gathered together the pieces and re-recorded the gospels.

On a side note, it's kinda funny how logic wins through sometimes. The Romans hated Christians and executed every one they found until they realized a few basic facts. Christians, as a whole:

Paid their taxes
Aided Roman authorities in most matters
Were kind and courteous
Were non-violent
Would back down from most forms of opposition
and
Obeyed the law

After they realized this, they saw no reason to kill them.