Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[Sparko]

I won't try to guess Tassman's response, but I'm not sure why I would need a source. Is eyewitness authorship supposed to be some kind of default supposition?

Yes. It has been accepted for 2000 years. Well, at least that the authors used eye witness accounts. John and Matthew were eye witnesses, Mark and Luke used eye witnesses, although Mark was probably actually there as rogue06 said earlier. He was also Peter's scribe. If you wish to challenge this it would be up to you (or Tassman) to provide proof.

[Sparko]

There are many sources that say this, Bart Ehrman for one and Raymond E Brown, who is considered one of the greatest New Testament scholars of our time, is another.

https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wor...f-the-gospels/

Quoting a blog of a book review is not evidence.

[Doug Shaver]

Yes. It has been accepted for 2000 years.

By some people, most of whom are committed to religious dogmas that need eyewitness authorship to defend those dogmas.

[Tassman]

Only one deity. Not deities. Can you definitively show that there is not only one actual/real deity?


Yes. And what they say prove true. You cannot prove uncaused Existence is not the identity of God. You have only proven to me, for one, that you do not understand the Christian good news of the unmerited favor God offers do to your refusal to do so. Yeah, so you know a story of a death, burial and claimed resurrection. But you do not understand how that story is true or why or how it is good news nor the unmerited favor.

Your argument comes down to demanding I prove your beliefs to be untrue. In short, no argument at all. The onus is yours to show why your beliefs are true.

[Tassman]

Quoting a blog of a book review is not evidence.

The "blog" at which you sneer, in the absence of any rebuttal one notes, represents the views of an acknowledged authority on the gospels namely Raymond E Brown, who in turn is reflecting the consensus view of biblical scholars on the dating of the gospels.

The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus.:

Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view, with conservative scholars arguing for a pre-70 date, particularly if they do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Mark: c. 68–73
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90–110. Dr Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition. Cited Wiki.

Also, from Boston College:

https://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/cross...hegospels.html

As for eyewitness reportage, the consensus view is that while eyewitnesses may have originated some of the traditions about Jesus, they were transmitted as anonymous traditions in the early Christian communities, developing in all sorts of ways in the process, and reached the gospel writers as the product of such community transmission and development.

[37818]

Your argument comes down to demanding I prove your beliefs to be untrue. In short, no argument at all. The onus is yours to show why your beliefs are true.

Historically the Hebrews worshipped God whose Name means the self Existent. And the only "thing" self existent is the uncaused Existence itself. I have argued that is God's identity. The argument stands irrefutable.

[Sparko]

By some people, most of whom are committed to religious dogmas that need eyewitness authorship to defend those dogmas.

By the church, Christians and a majority of historians.

[One Bad Pig]

Quoting a blog of a book review is not evidence.

A book review by Gary, no less. I thought he'd closed up shop after running away from Craig Keener's Miracles.

[Sparko]

A book review by Gary, no less. I thought he'd closed up shop after running away from Craig Keener's Miracles.

I didn't even catch that!

[Tassman]

Historically the Hebrews worshipped God whose Name means the self Existent. And the only "thing" self existent is the uncaused Existence itself. I have argued that is God's identity. The argument stands irrefutable.

"Historically" many peoples have worshipped many gods. So...?

[37818]

And whose fault is that? The only clues I can have are those provided by people who say he exists.

Saying God exists is not understanding what and who God is. God being the self Existent existence itself. "In Him we live and move and have our existence." -- the Apostle Paul.

I am an atheist because theists cannot give me a good reason to believe anything they say about God.

Yeah, most theists will mistakenly argue for the existence of God. Existence needs no proof, God does as they argue. Yet those who are genuine Christians know God through Christ. That really is the only argument they really need to make, they know God and you can too.

[Doug Shaver]

Yet those who are genuine Christians know God through Christ.

You say so.

That really is the only argument they really need to make, they know God and you can too.

That is no argument. That is an assertion, and you are giving me no reason to believe it.

[Tassman]

Saying God exists is not understanding what and who God is. God being the self Existent existence itself. "In Him we live and move and have our existence." -- the Apostle Paul.

How would Paul know?

Yeah, most theists will mistakenly argue for the existence of God. Existence needs no proof, God does as they argue. Yet those who are genuine Christians know God through Christ. That really is the only argument they really need to make, they know God and you can too.

That's no argument at all, it's merely a statement of faith unsupported by evidence.

[37818]

How would Paul know?

A number of reasons.

That's no argument at all, it's merely a statement of faith unsupported by evidence.

What attempt have you made to understand?

[37818]

You say so.

You at one time professed a Christianity. And you didn't know God.

That is no argument. That is an assertion, and you are giving me no reason to believe it.

Sure I have. Not in that post. I have cited in other posts that Jesus had argued one can know a teaching comes from God. Now how can one know a teaching came from God? Might it be that God does something by which that individual comes to know the teaching is really from God?