Archaeology of the New Testament

[Ichabod Stain]

So you haven't read Acts or the Epistles of Paul

haven't I?

 

[Cypress]

Ok. That doesn't change anything.

It raises questions about the reliability of your claims, when they are wildly different from the established facts.

Which writings are you referring to?

You claimed nobody wrote anything about Jesus until 40 to 90 years later. Paul knew the eyewitness Peter, James, John, and in Corinthians Paul references an older Christian creed that corroborates the death and resurrection of Jesus which he obviously leaned from the apostles. This means we have a very early confirmation of the Christian belief in the resurrection that goes all the way back to the earliest days of the Church in Jerusalem in the 30s or 40s AD. That's only shortly after Jesus was crucified.

What 'witness accounts' are you referring to specifically?

Accounts that are written/dictated by eyewitnesses, or written down by their students. Mark, Luke, Paul, Matthew, John, Clement.

But you aren't suspicious when they vary so dramatically that they are incompatible?

What's an example of massive incompatibility that points to massive confusion on the part of the canonical authors? All the discrepancies I am aware of do not change the basic facts fundamental tenets of Christian belief and practice.

Any police detective will tell you there will be differences and discrepancies in witness accounts.

I would be very suspicious of the canon if there weren't discrepancies and they matched up perfectly.

What people "believe" they saw isn't relevant. Paul "believed" he saw Jesus after his death despite never meeting Jesus. Does that make sense?

Good, so you finally agree with me that the disciples of Jesus genuinely believe they saw him again after the crucifixion. You no longer believe they just sat around with bottles of wine and lied their asses off in fabricating a fake story.

 

[Cypress]

haven't I?

No you haven't, if you were unaware that Acts and the Epistles describe the lashings, beatings, stonings, shipwrecks Paul endured as he carried out his ministry.

 

[ZenMode]

Good, so you finally agree with me that the disciples of Jesus genuinely believe they saw him again after the crucifixion.

We've been through this several times....

First, if it's true that Jesus disciples believed they saw Jesus after his death, that doesn't mean they actually saw him after his death.

Second, since the gospel writers, who lived in other countries and very likely never met the disciples or met anyone who met any who met anyone who met a disciple, they're either a) working off of 10th hand information or simply making up things that sound good, like Matthew made up the story of the virgin birth because he wanted Jesus birth to fulfill OT prophecy.

You no longer believe they just sat around with some bottles of wine and lied their asses off in fabricating a fake story.

I've never said they "lied their asses off". I did say, because there's reasons to believe it, they they made up some events or the details of some events.

Matthew misunderstood an OT verse and as a result, made up a story about Mary being a virgin. The story about the census was very likely made up.

I can go on and on.....

 

[Cypress]

We've been through this several times....

First, if it's true that Jesus disciples believed they saw Jesus after his death, that doesn't mean they actually saw him after his death.

I never said anything of the sort.
We'll never know what the truth is. All an intelligent person can do is decide what is the best explanation which fits the evidence. If you think the apostles all simultaneously had mass hallucinations, I can't prove you wrong. I just question how good of an explanation that really is.

I am just making sure you abandon the claim that the apostles lied their asses off and made up a fake story so they could acquire money, fame, and chicks.

Second, since the gospel writers, who lived in other countries and very likely never met the disciples or met anyone who met any who met anyone who met a disciple, they're either a) working off of 10th hand information or simply making up things that sound good, like Matthew made up the story of the virgin birth because he wanted Jesus birth to fulfill OT prophecy.

False. Who told you they lived in other countries and never met the apostles? That sounds like guesswork to me.

The strongest available evidence points to the fact that Luke and Mark were assistants to Paul and Peter, and that the apostles John and Matthew were known to have authored or dictated gospels.

I've never said they "lied their asses off". I did say, because there's reasons to believe it, they they made up some events or the details of some events.

Matthew misunderstood an OT verse and as a result, made up a story about Mary being a virgin. The story about the census was very likely made up.

I can go on and on.....

Yes, your entire argument basically invokes the argument they they're all lying their asses off or just making stuff up.

I don't think it's a convincing argument to claim everyone is lying their asses off.

 

[ZenMode]

I never said anything of the sort.
I am just making sure you abandon the claim that the apostles lied their asses off and made up a fake story so they could acquire money, fame, and chicks.

False. Who told you they lived in other countries and never met the apostles? That sounds like guesswork to me.

Well, Matthew lived in Syria. I don't recall where the others lived.

The strongest available evidence points to the fact that Luke and Mark were assistants to Paul and Peter, and that the apostles John and Matthew were known to have authored or dictated gospels.

There may have been assistants to Paul named Luke and Mark. That doesn't mean they are the ones who wrote the books named after them.

Nowhere in Matthew, Mark or Luke does the writer say they are Matthew, Mark or Luke. The titles of the books were added after the fact, not by the authors. In fact, they books are written in the 3rd person. The author isn't saying "I" did this or "we" did that, which you would expect if there was first hand knowledge.

Yes, your entire argument basically invokes the argument they they're all lying their asses off or just making stuff up.

I don't think it's a convincing argument to claim everyone is lying their asses off.

I've never said anyone is lying their asses off. Why do you keep saying I did?

There is clear evidence that some of them made up stories because you have stories that both can't be true and/or simply don't make sense, like the story of the census as the reason Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem.

 

[Cypress]

Well, Matthew lived in Syria.

What's your source on that? The apostle Matthew was from Capernium in Galilee, and the first century Bishop Pappias said he was told by associates of the apostles that Matthew authored a gospel in Hebrew. The only question is whether or how his Hebrew gospel was translated into Greek.

I don't recall where the others lived.

There may have been assistants to Paul named Luke and Mark. That doesn't mean they are the ones who wrote the books named after them.

The first century Bishop Pappias claims he was told by associates of the apostles that Mark was a secretary to Peter and wrote a gospel based on Peter's teachings.

It's irrational to believe that early church fathers would have named two canonical gospels after two low-ranking obscure Christians who didn't even know Jesus, unless it were true. If the goal was to make a splash with gospel accounts that seemed authoritative and utterly reliable, they would have named them after actual apostles like Andrew, Phillip, or James.

Nowhere in Matthew, Mark or Luke does the writer say they are Matthew, Mark or Luke. The titles of the books were added after the fact, not by the authors. In fact, they books are written in the 3rd person. The author isn't saying "I" did this or "we" did that, which you would expect if there was first hand knowledge.

I've never said anyone is lying their asses off. Why do you keep saying I did?

There is clear evidence that some of them made up stories because you have stories that both can't be true and/or simply don't make sense, like the story of the census as the reason Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem.

Obviously the gospels are not strictly historical biography as we are accustomed to. Historical biography did not exist as a literary genre on the ancient Near East.

The gospels are clearly literature that encompasses allegory, parable, hyperbole, theology, and some historical narrative.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

No you haven't, if you were unaware that Acts and the Epistles describe the lashings, beatings, stonings, shipwrecks Paul endured as he carried out his ministry.

am I unaware of that?

 

[Cypress]

am I unaware of that?

You implied the biographical details of Paul's life I mentioned were "made up"

​

make something up like usual.

 

[ZenMode]

What's your source on that? The apostle Matthew was from Capernium in Galilee, and the first century Bishop Pappias said he was told by associates of the apostles that Matthew authored a gospel in Hebrew. The only question is whether or how his Hebrew gospel was translated into Greek.

The question of where Matthew lived and where the writer of the book of Matthew lived are two separate questions.

Though dating the Gospel maybe difficult or complicated, it is even more problematic to determine where Matthew wrote the Gospel. Most scholars conclude that Matthew was written in either Palestine or Syria because of its Jewish nature. Antioch of Syria is usually the most favoured because many in the early church dispersed there (Acts 11:19, 27). Another reason for favouring Antioch is that the earliest reference to Matthew's Gospel was found in Ignatius' (the Bishop of Antioch) Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (ca. 110).

Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew - Study Resources

The Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew approx. 50-100 A.D. to the Jews. '...he focuses on the fulfillment of the Old Testament' quoting from it 62 times

www.blueletterbible.org

The first century Bishop Pappias claims he was told by associates of the apostles that Mark was a secretary to Peter and wrote a gospel based on Peter's teachings.

Ok. I tend to believe the opinion of experts studying the topic today.

It's irrational to believe that early church fathers would have named two canonical gospels after two low-ranking obscure Christians who didn't even know Jesus, unless it were true. If the goal was to make a splash with gospel accounts that seemed authoritative and utterly reliable, they would have named them after actual apostles like Andrew, Phillip, or James.

Like with the writers of the Gospels, many people had an agenda and one agenda could be giving legitimacy to a writing by attributing it to someone close to Jesus, Paul, etc.

Obviously the gospels are not strictly historical biography as we are accustomed to. Historical biography did not exist as a literary genre on the ancient Near East.

Which is why we should trust the experts who study the topic today.

The gospels are clearly literature that encompasses allegory, parable, hyperbole, theology, and some historical narrative.

You forgot fairytales. There's no reason, for example, to believe the census, that had Mary and Joseph traveling to Bethlehem, ever happened.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

You implied the biographical details of Paul's life I mentioned were "made up"

​

you had yet to present your argument at that point.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

The only thing worth saving is the golden rule; it's the sum of the law and the prophets.

 

[Cypress]

The question of where Matthew lived and where the writer of the book of Matthew lived are two separate questions.

If you are agreeing that the author was actually Matthew, I don't see why you think it's significant that he wrote it in Syria. The whole Levant was under Roman control, and people could travel from Galilee to Judah, to Lebanon, to Sidon, to Syria, to Asia Minor, to Greece.

Ok. I tend to believe the opinion of experts studying the topic today.

Even an expert like atheist Bart Ehrman has written that Bishop Pappas confirmation that Mark and Matthew wrote gospels is solid circumstantial evidence which has to be taken seriously, though it can't be considered definitive.

First you have to explain what evidence you have that Bishop Pappias is either lying or mistaken that Mark and Matthew wrote gospels.

Then you have to give evidence that Bishop Iraneus is lying or mistaken that the apostle John's disciple Polycarp told him that John authored/dictated a gospel.

Then after you prove that somehow everyone is lying, you have to provide alternate evidence that people in the first century knew that the authorship of the gospels were faked, and they were actually write by random obscure people at least ten steps removed from anyone associated with Jesus' ministry.

So far you have just been making claims and guesses without providing any evidence

Like with the writers of the Gospels, many people had an agenda and one agenda could be giving legitimacy to a writing by attributing it to someone close to Jesus, Paul, etc.

Which is why we should trust the experts who study the topic today.

You forgot fairytales. There's no reason, for example, to believe the census, that had Mary and Joseph traveling to Bethlehem, ever happened.

You don't have to believe in the virgin birth, that the book of Job is a historical biography, or that Genesis 1 is a scientific report to be a Christian. I have no doubt there is hyperbole, exaggeration, myth, and theological agenda in the gospels. Ancient people used myth, hyperbole, allegory all the time to frame certain truths.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

If you are agreeing that the author was actually Matthew, I don't see why you think it's significant that he wrote it in Syria. The whole Levant was under Roman control, and people could travel from Galilee to Judah, to Lebanon, to Sidon, to Syria, to Asia Minor, to Greece.

Even an expert like atheist Bart Ehrman has written that Bishop Pappas confirmation that Mark and Matthew wrote gospels is solid circumstantial evidence which has to be taken seriously, though it can't be considered definitive.

First you have to explain what evidence you have that Bishop Pappias is either lying or mistaken that Mark and Matthew wrote gospels.

Then you have to give evidence that Bishop Iraneus is lying or mistaken that the apostle John's disciple Polycarp told him that John authored/dictated a gospel.

Then after you prove that somehow everyone is lying, you have to provide alternate evidence that people in the first century knew that the authorship of the gospels were faked, and they were actually write by random obscure people at least ten steps removed from anyone associated with Jesus' ministry.

So far you have just been making claims and guesses without providing any evidence

You don't have to believe in the virgin birth, that the book of Job is a historical biography, or that Genesis 1 is a scientific report to be a Christian. I have no doubt there is hyperbole, exaggeration, myth, and theological agenda in the gospels. Ancient people used myth, hyperbole, allegory all the time to frame certain truths.

oh there was high speed rail like the E.U.

that explains everything.

 

[ZenMode]

If you are agreeing that the author was actually Matthew, I don't see why you think it's significant that he wrote it in Syria.

I'm not agreeing with that. Nowhere in the Book of Matthew does it say who it was written by. If an apostle of Jesus actually wrote a book, that would surely be something worth mentioning, right? And it is widely believed that the titles of the books were added much later.

Even an expert like atheist Bart Ehrman has written that Bishop Pappas confirmation that Mark and Matthew wrote gospels is solid circumstantial evidence which has to be taken seriously, though it can't be considered definitive.

Ehrman is clear that he believes that none of the gospelsnwas written by who they are attributed to.

First you have to explain what evidence you have that Bishop Pappias is either lying or mistaken that Mark and Matthew wrote gospels.

Not really. When there is so much evidence to support the belief that the books weren't written by anyone close to Jesus, it's up to those claiming that they were to prove their side.

Then you have to give evidence that Bishop Iraneus is lying or mistaken that the apostle John's disciple Polycarp told him that John authored/dictated a gospel.

Then after you prove that somehow everyone is lying, you have to provide alternate evidence that people in the first century knew that the authorship of the gospels were faked, and they were actually write by random obscure people at least ten steps removed from anyone associated with Jesus' ministry.

So far you have just been making claims and guesses without providing any evidence

Like I've said earlier, you are emotionally invested in Christianity and want to believe that the Bible is as it says. You will see what you want to see.

You don't have to believe in the virgin birth, that the book of Job is a historical biography, or that Genesis 1 is a scientific report to be a Christian. I have no doubt there is hyperbole, exaggeration, myth, and theological agenda in the gospels. Ancient people used myth, hyperbole, allegory all the time to frame certain truths.

I'm not talking about hyperbole or myth. I'm talking about contradictions between gospels, that you believe were written by people closest Jesus, that are impossible to make sense of. If Luke was close to Jesus, why would he write about an empire-wide census that never happened? Surely Jesus would have told such an amazing birth story to his closest people, right? Why did only one gospel write about the census.....a census that isn't referenced in ANY other historical writing, despite the fact that it would be a massive undertaking and disruption of society and the economy if Augustus actually required it?

 

[Ichabod Stain]

I'm not agreeing with that. Nowhere in the Book of Matthew does it say who it was written by. If an apostle of Jesus actually wrote a book, that would surely be something worth mentioning, right? And it is widely believed that the titles of the books were added much later.

Ehrman is clear that he believes that none of the gospelsnwas written by who they are attributed to.

Not really. When there is so much evidence to support the belief that the books weren't written by anyone close to Jesus, it's up to those claiming that they were to prove their side.

Like I've said earlier, you are emotionally invested in Christianity and want to believe that the Bible is as it says. You will see what you want to see.

I'm not talking about hyperbole or myth. I'm talking about contradictions between gospels, that you believe were written by people closest Jesus, that are impossible to make sense of. If Luke was close to Jesus, why would he write about an empire-wide census that never happened? Surely Jesus would have told such an amazing birth story to his closest people, right? Why did only one gospel write about the census.....a census that isn't referenced in ANY other historical writing, despite the fact that it would be a massive undertaking and disruption of society and the economy if Augustus actually required it?

cypress lies all the time.

he's a huge fucking satan-worshipping liar.

 

[ZenMode]

cypress lies all the time.

he's a huge fucking satan-worshipping liar.

I don't think he's been honest about his religious beliefs/leanings. He's portrayed himself a objective and non-Christian. That doesn't seem to be the case at all.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

I don't think he's been honest about his religious beliefs/leanings. He's portrayed himself a objective and non-Christian. That doesn't seem to be the case at all.

he's religious, but he worships Satan and only emphasizes the ways Christianity has been hijacked for evil.

like making people swear belief in miracles off the rip, paralyzes critical thinking.

and morality, the point of religion, is rational in the end.

he emphasizes the cult-like negative aspects.

 

[Cypress]

I'm not agreeing with that. Nowhere in the Book of Matthew does it say who it was written by. If an apostle of Jesus actually wrote a book, that would surely be something worth mentioning, right?

You are retroactively applying modern standards to ancient people.
Also, once again you are holding Christian authors to a different standard than you hold other ancient authors.

In antiquity it was common for an author not to write their name on a work. We don't don't have a name written on Gilgamesh, The Iliad, The Odyysey, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, not to mention the Book of Job or Ecclesiastes.

But we have enough circumstantial evidence to make informed guesses.

1) The first century Bishop Pappias claims he was told by associates of the apostles that Mark was a secretary to Peter and wrote a gospel based on Peter's teachings. He was also told that Matthew authored a gospel in Hebrew.

2) The early second century Bishop Iraneus reported that he was told by the apostle John's disciple Polycarp that John authored a gospel.

3) It's irrational to believe that early church fathers would have named two canonical gospels after two low-ranking obscure Christians like Mark and Luke who didn't even know Jesus, unless it were true. If the goal was to make a splash with gospel accounts that seemed authoritative and utterly reliable, they would have named them after actual apostles like Andrew, Phillip, or James.

4) The evidence clearly shows the early church fathers genuinely attempted (not always successfully) to keep material written by frauds and fakes out of the canon. There were dozens of gospels written, but many of them were recognized to be frauds, and the church only selected four they were reasonably certain were written by eyewitnesses or those who knew the eyewitnesses.

Ehrman is clear that he believes that none of the gospelsnwas written by who they are attributed to.

He doesn't think we have definitive proof. As a scholar he is careful to assert only what he can prove. Now, he doesn't generally like to admit it, but he has written that the evidence first century Bishop Pappias claiming Mark was Peter's secretary and wrote a gospel based on Peters teachings has to be taken seriously. Pappias also claimed Matthew authored a gospel in Hebrew.

Not really. When there is so much evidence to support the belief that the books weren't written by anyone close to Jesus, it's up to those claiming that they were to prove their side.

You haven't provided a shred of evidence to support your claim the gospels were written by obscure random people ten steps removed from anyone associated with Jesus' ministry.

In contrast, I have provided an extensive compilation of circumstantial evidence and logical inference to support my claims.

There was no benefit to writing a gospel claiming Jesus was the messiah resurrected. The early Christmas did not acquire power, wealth, or chicks for their claims. Paul gave up the comfortable! life of a Pharisee for a life of beatings, lashings, stonings, shipwrecks, pirate attacks, imprisonment, and execution.

Like I've said earlier, you are emotionally invested in Christianity and want to believe that the Bible is as it says. You will see what you want to see.

I'm not talking about hyperbole or myth. I'm talking about contradictions between gospels, that you believe were written by people closest Jesus, that are impossible to make sense of.

Any police detective will tell you that the testimony of eyewitnesses are always filled with differences and discrepancies.

I would be suspicious of any set of testimonies that matched up perfectly.

On the big questions of Christian belief, the gospels are remarkably similar about the overall teachings, arrest, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

If Luke was close to Jesus,

How many times do I have to tell you Luke didn't know Jesus at all? He was a gentile companion of Paul. What on earth keeps making you think Luke was one of the original disciples?

It's illogical to think the Church would have named a canonical gospel after an obscure low-ranking Christian who didn't even know Jesus, unless it were true. If they really had an agenda to dupe people, they would have named the gospel after an actual apostle like Andrew or James.

why would he write about an empire-wide census that never happened?

You don't have to believe the census took place to be a Christian.

Most knowledge from ancient history has been lost, so I'm not going to sit here in the 21st century and claim I am one thousand percent certain a census never took place.

Surely Jesus would have told such an amazing birth story to his closest people, right? Why did only one gospel write about the census.....a census that isn't referenced in ANY other historical writing, despite the fact that it would be a massive undertaking and disruption of society and the economy if Augustus actually required it?

You don't have to believe in the virgin birth to be a Christian. Paul never mentions it. Neither do Mark or John.

On the big questions of Christian belief, the gospels are remarkably similar about the overall teachings, arrest, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

 

[ZenMode]

You are retroactively applying modern standards to ancient people.
Also, once again you are holding Christian authors to a different standard than you hold other ancient authors.

In antiquity it was common for an author not to write their name on a work. We don't don't have a name written on Gilgamesh, The Iliad, The Odyysey, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, not to mention the Book of Job or Ecclesiastes.

But we have enough circumstantial evidence to make informed guesses.

1) The first century Bishop Pappias claims he was told by associates of the apostles that Mark was a secretary to Peter and wrote a gospel based on Peter's teachings. He was also told that Matthew authored a gospel in Hebrew.

2) The early second century Bishop Iraneus reported that he was told by the apostle John's disciple Polycarp that John authored a gospel.

3) It's irrational to believe that early church fathers would have named two canonical gospels after two low-ranking obscure Christians like Mark and Luke who didn't even know Jesus, unless it were true. If the goal was to make a splash with gospel accounts that seemed authoritative and utterly reliable, they would have named them after actual apostles like Andrew, Phillip, or James.

4) The evidence clearly shows the early church fathers genuinely attempted (not always successfully) to keep material written by frauds and fakes out of the canon. There were dozens of gospels written, but many of them were recognized to be frauds, and the church only selected four they were reasonably certain were written by eyewitnesses or those who knew the eyewitnesses.


He doesn't think we have definitive proof. As a scholar he is careful to assert only what he can prove. Now, he doesn't generally like to admit it, but he has written that the evidence first century Bishop Pappias claiming Mark was Peter's secretary and wrote a gospel based on Peters teachings has to be taken seriously. Pappias also claimed Matthew authored a gospel in Hebrew.


You haven't provided a shred of evidence to support your claim the gospels were written by obscure random people ten steps removed from anyone associated with Jesus' ministry.

In contrast, I have provided an extensive compilation of circumstantial evidence and logical inference to support my claims.

There was no benefit to writing a gospel claiming Jesus was the messiah resurrected. The early Christmas did not acquire power, wealth, or chicks for their claims. Paul gave up the comfortable! life of a Pharisee for a life of beatings, lashings, stonings, shipwrecks, pirate attacks, imprisonment, and execution.

Any police detective will tell you that the testimony of eyewitnesses are always filled with differences and discrepancies.

I would be suspicious of any set of testimonies that matched up perfectly.

On the big questions of Christian belief, the gospels are remarkably similar about the overall teachings, arrest, death, and resurrection of Jesus.


How many times do I have to tell you Luke didn't know Jesus at all? He was a gentile companion of Paul. What on earth keeps making you think Luke was one of the original disciples?

It's illogical to think the Church would have named a canonical gospel after an obscure low-ranking Christian who didn't even know Jesus, unless it were true. If they really had an agenda to dupe people, they would have named the gospel after an actual apostle like Andrew or James.

You don't have to believe the census took place to be a Christian.

Most knowledge from ancient history has been lost, so I'm not going to sit here in the 21st century and claim I am one thousand percent certain a census never took place.


You don't have to believe in the virgin birth to be a Christian. Paul never mentions it. Neither do Mark or John.

On the big questions of Christian belief, the gospels are remarkably similar about the overall teachings, arrest, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Like I said, you are going to believe what you want to believe. I couldn't care less who wrote any part of the Bible. It's all based on fairy tale nonsense and superstition from men who couldn't explain where the Sun went at night.

By referencing Papias and other people, whose accounts are heresay on their own, you are showing your clear bias. Papais said he heard from somebody else that that person heard that so-and-so wrote a book. Never mind that we don't know if that hearsay was accurate or if the writing attributed to Matthew Mark or Luke was even the writing they were referring to, you are going to believe precisely what you want to believe.

"You don't have to believe the census took place to be a Christian.

Most knowledge from ancient history has been lost, so I'm not going to sit here in the 21st century and claim I am one thousand percent certain a census never took place."

If the writers of the New Testament were so willing to make up stories to support their cause, why would you believe any of the stories? Why believe that Jesus came back to life? Why believe that Mary was a virgin? Why believe any of it..... Unless you simply want to because it makes you feel good?