Archaeology of the New Testament

[Cypress]

As far as I know, none of the claims involved nonsensical stories about him performing miracles or coming back from the dead aft 3 days. If those claims existed, hopefully all reasonable people would question them.

What evidence points to that?

Yes.

Yes

Yes.

We know one person, Paul, believed that because there's sufficient evidence that we have Paul's writings.

We have no idea if anyone else actually believed they saw him alive after being killed.

I'm satisfied with how this discussion ended.

You acknowledged the historicity of Jesus' life and execution, and you have conceded that his students genuinely believed they saw him after the crucifixion.

At that point it just comes down to whether they were mistaken or deluded about what they believed they saw.

 

[Cypress]

What evidence points to that?

Analysis of the probability Matthew, Mark, Luke, John authored or dictated the canonical gospels.

Gospel	Evidence for authorship by apostle or evangelist	Alternative explanation​	Probability the gospel was written or dictated by the person the gospel is named after​
Gospel of Mark	Mark is identified by Bishop Pappias in late first/early second century as a secretary to the apostle Peter and the author of a gospel. It is improbable Church leaders would randomly name a canonical gospel after a low-ranking and obscure Christian.	Pappias was confused about what he was told by people who knew the disciples of Jesus. Pappias was referring to a different Mark, not the Mark of the canonical gospel.	More probable than not​
Gospel of Luke	Luke is identified by Bishop Iranaeus in mid to late second century as author of the gospel of Luke. It is improbable Church leaders would randomly name a canonical gospel after a low-ranking and obscure Christian.	First surviving attestation for the authorship of Gospel of Luke is about 100 years after it was written, reducing the reliability of this attestation.	As probable as not​
Gospel of Matthew	Matthew is identified by Bishop Pappias in late first/early second century as an author of an Aramaic-version of a gospel.	Even if Matthew wrote an Aramaic-version of a gospel, Greek translators in the late first century or second century could have completely re-worked it.	As probable as not​
Gospel of John	Bishop Iranaeus in mid-second century was told by Polycarp (a disciple of the apostle John) that John authored a gospel. That makes Iranaeus only one person removed from a disciple of Jesus.	Iranaeus could have been confused about what Polycarp told him, or it could have been a different John, not the apostle John, who authored the canonical gospel.	Probable​

 

[ZenMode]

I'm satisfied with how this discussion ended.

You acknowledged the historicity of Jesus' life and execution, and you have conceded that his students genuinely believed they saw him after the crucifixion.

I didn't concede that. I said that whoever wrote the Gospels, who very likely never met any of those near to Jesus, claimed that Jesus followers said they saw Jesus.

Big difference.

At that point it just comes down to whether they were mistaken or deluded about what they believed they saw.

Not mistaken. Making up stories as was normal at the time and in that situation.

 

[Cypress]

I didn't concede that. I said that whoever wrote the Gospels, who very likely never met any of those near to Jesus, claimed that Jesus followers said they saw Jesus.

Post your proof that supports your claim.
I posted my evidence about the authorship of the gospels.

Even the atheist religious scholar Bart Ehrman concedes that Bishop Pappias' attestation that Mark wrote a gospel is serious circumstantial evidence, although it's not proof.

Not mistaken. Making up stories as was normal at the time and in that situation.

Very weak logic. People aren't willing to die to cover up a lie or fabrication they made up.
The evidence that Jesus' followers were willing to die rather than disavow their belief is powerful evidence they didn't conspire to fabricate a fake story while drinking wine in the tavern.

 

[ZenMode]

Analysis of the probability Matthew, Mark, Luke, John authored or dictated the canonical gospels.

Gospel	Evidence for authorship by apostle or evangelist	Alternative explanation​	Probability the gospel was written or dictated by the person the gospel is named after​
Gospel of Mark	Mark is identified by Bishop Pappias in late first/early second century as a secretary to the apostle Peter and the author of a gospel. It is improbable Church leaders would randomly name a canonical gospel after a low-ranking and obscure Christian.	Pappias was confused about what he was told by people who knew the disciples of Jesus. Pappias was referring to a different Mark, not the Mark of the canonical gospel.	More probable than not​
Gospel of Luke	Luke is identified by Bishop Iranaeus in mid to late second century as author of the gospel of Luke. It is improbable Church leaders would randomly name a canonical gospel after a low-ranking and obscure Christian.	First surviving attestation for the authorship of Gospel of Luke is about 100 years after it was written, reducing the reliability of this attestation.	As probable as not​
Gospel of Matthew	Matthew is identified by Bishop Pappias in late first/early second century as an author of an Aramaic-version of a gospel.	Even if Matthew wrote an Aramaic-version of a gospel, Greek translators in the late first century or second century could have completely re-worked it.	As probable as not​
Gospel of John	Bishop Iranaeus in mid-second century was told by Polycarp (a disciple of the apostle John) that John authored a gospel. That makes Iranaeus only one person removed from a disciple of Jesus.	Iranaeus could have been confused about what Polycarp told him, or it could have been a different John, not the apostle John, who authored the canonical gospel.	Probable​

The Gospels were originally written in Greek. That is widely acknowledged as being true. The people closest to Jesus, like the disciples, were day laborers in the rural town of Galilee, which means they spoke Aramaic. Given their social status, it is HIGHLY unlikely that they knew how to read or write in their bative language and basically impossible that they would have learned to read/write, at at a high level, in Greek.

As someone who regularly reference Bart Ehrman, I'm surprised you are taking the position you are taking.

 

[Cypress]

The Gospels were originally written in Greek. That is widely acknowledged as being true. The people closest to Jesus, like the disciples, were day laborers in the rural town of Galilee, which means they spoke Aramaic.

Wow, such a low level of knowledge.
Luke was a gentile doctor. Mark was a secretary to Peter. Paul was an educated Pharisee. Matthew operated a customs house for the Romans. There is no reason to think they weren't literate in Greek. Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. Educated Jews and Jews involved in business and trade would generally be expected to be literate in Greek. Are you aware Palestine and the Levant were ruled by Greeks for centuries?

The type of Greek used in Mark, Matthew, John is not a sophisticated literary Greek. It is a simple Koine Greek. We're not talking about high-end literary artists here.

Luke the doctor and Paul the Pharisee were educated enough to have a more sophisticated Greek literary style.

It would also be a simple matter to dictate a gospel or letter to someone who could write Greek. Paul likely dictated some of his letters to an assistant.

Given their social status, it is HIGHLY unlikely that they knew how to read or write in their bative language and basically impossible that they would have learned to read/write, at at a high level, in Greek.

You're showing a low level of knowledge. Again, Luke, Mark, Paul were not peasants from Galilee.

As someone who regularly reference Bart Ehrman, I'm surprised you are taking the position you are taking.

Bart Ehrman is a serious scholar who doesn't cover up or ignore evidence when it is inconvenient to militant atheists.

I've read more Ehrman probably than anyone on this board. Anyone who is interested in looking for the truth reads multiple perspectives. They don't just listen to atheist podcasts or to Bible thumpers.

 

[ZenMode]

Wow, such a low level of knowledge.
Luke was a gentile doctor. Mark was a secretary to Peter. Paul was an educated Pharisee. Matthew operated a customs house for the Romans. There is no reason to think they weren't literate in Greek. Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. Educated Jews and Jews involved in business and trade would generally be expected to be literate in Greek. Are you aware Palestine and the Levant were ruled by Greeks for centuries?

The type of Greek used in Mark, Matthew, John is not a sophisticated literary Greek. It is a simple Koine Greek. We're not talking about high-end literary artists here.

Luke the doctor and Paul the Pharisee were educated enough to have a more sophisticated Greek literary style.

It would also be a simple matter to dictate a gospel or letter to someone who could write Greek. Paul likely dictated some of his letters to an assistant.


You're showing a low level of knowledge. Again, Luke, Mark, Paul were not peasants from Galilee.

Bart Ehrman is a serious scholar who doesn't cover up or ignore evidence when it is inconvenient to militant atheists.

I've read more Ehrman probably than anyone on this board. Anyone who is interested in looking for the truth reads multiple perspectives. They don't just listen to atheist podcasts or to Bible thumpers.

I think you misread what I was saying. I'm not necessarily saying that the writers of the Gospels didn't read/write Greek. They clearly did. I'm saying that the writers were not people close to Jesus. The people close to Jesus a) were very likely not educated in reading/writing their native language much less a second language and b) lived in/near Galilee... not Syria, which is where Luke lived. Luke was allegedly close to Paul. Paul never even met Jesus.

Luke's writings were based on stories of stories of stories of stories of stories of stories of stories and it's already widely believed that the stories written in the gospels were modified from actual events to create various narratives.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Wow, such a low level of knowledge.
Luke was a gentile doctor. Mark was a secretary to Peter. Paul was an educated Pharisee. Matthew operated a customs house for the Romans. There is no reason to think they weren't literate in Greek. Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. Educated Jews and Jews involved in business and trade would generally be expected to be literate in Greek. Are you aware Palestine and the Levant were ruled by Greeks for centuries?

The type of Greek used in Mark, Matthew, John is not a sophisticated literary Greek. It is a simple Koine Greek. We're not talking about high-end literary artists here.

Luke the doctor and Paul the Pharisee were educated enough to have a more sophisticated Greek literary style.

It would also be a simple matter to dictate a gospel or letter to someone who could write Greek. Paul likely dictated some of his letters to an assistant.


You're showing a low level of knowledge. Again, Luke, Mark, Paul were not peasants from Galilee.

Bart Ehrman is a serious scholar who doesn't cover up or ignore evidence when it is inconvenient to militant atheists.

I've read more Ehrman probably than anyone on this board. Anyone who is interested in looking for the truth reads multiple perspectives. They don't just listen to atheist podcasts or to Bible thumpers.

they spoke Aramaic.

 

[Cypress]

I think you misread what I was saying. I'm not necessarily saying that the writers of the Gospels didn't read/write Greek. They clearly did. I'm saying that the writers were not people close to Jesus. The people close to Jesus a) were very likely not educated in reading/writing their native language much less a second language and b) lived in/near Galilee... not Syria, which is where Luke lived. Luke was allegedly close to Paul. Paul never even met Jesus.

Luke's writings were based on stories of stories of stories of stories of stories of stories of stories and it's already widely believed that the stories written in the gospels were modified from actual events to create various narratives.

If random people who were were ten degrees separated from Jesus ministry were just fabricating fake stories, then explain how they got away with it.
When they were writing, some of the apostles were still alive or their students were still alive. Those people would have been in a position to challenge fake stories that random obscure people made up and circulated throughout the Mediterranean region

By the standards of ancient history, the witness accounts of Jesus live are quite good.

You've provided no evidence the early Christian writings were fake stories made up by random people.

I've provided evidence that the canon were written or dictated by people who either knew Jesus or by authors who interviewed the people who knew Jesus.

This is further corroborated by early church bishops who knew and spoke to students of the original disciples.

Further, the church would have never intentionally named two gospels after obscure, low-ranking Christians, unless it was true. If they wanted to give the gospels authority and visibility they would have named them the Gospel of James or the Gospel of Andrew, rather than identifying the low-ranking Mark and Luke as authors

The fact that there is no alternative first century attestations claiming the canon were fabricated by random people ten degrees separated from Jesus' ministry is quite telling just in itself.

 

[Cypress]

they spoke Aramaic.

That's not the issue.

The issue raised was the NT being written in Greek.

Greek was the international language of trade and commerce, and many educated Jews in Palestine were fluent in it. The Jews were ruled by the Greeks for centuries. It would have been no problem for a Jew who only spoke Aramaic to find a Jew literate in Greek for help with the composition of letters and testimony

 

[Ichabod Stain]

That's not the issue.

The issue raised was the NT being written in Greek.

Greek was the international language of trade and commerce, and many educated Jews in Palestine were fluent in it. The Jews were ruled by the Greeks for centuries. It would have been no problem for a Jew who only spoke Aramaic to find a Jew literate in Greek for help with the composition of letters and testimony

the issue is you completely missing the point of everything. religion, life, morality, truth v. lies.

you;re just a revisionist zionist shill-bot retard.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

If random people who were were ten degrees separated from Jesus ministry were just fabricating fake stories, then explain how they got away with it.
When they were writing, some of the apostles were still alive or their students were still alive. Those people would have been in a position to challenge fake stories that random obscure people made up and circulated throughout the Mediterranean region

By the standards of ancient history, the witness accounts of Jesus live are quite good.

You've provided no evidence the early Christian writings were fake stories made up by random people.

I've provided evidence that the canon were written or dictated by people who either knew Jesus or by authors who interviewed the people who knew Jesus.

This is further corroborated by early church bishops who knew and spoke to students of the original disciples.

Further, the church would have never intentionally named two gospels after obscure, low-ranking Christians, unless it was true. If they wanted to give the gospels authority and visibility they would have named them the Gospel of James or the Gospel of Andrew, rather than identifying the low-ranking Mark and Luke as authors

The fact that there is no alternative first century attestations claiming the canon were fabricated by random people ten degrees separated from Jesus' ministry is quite telling just in itself.

hearsay

 

[Ichabod Stain]

how they got away with it?

so stupid.

 

[Cypress]

hearsay

Once again, not a shred of evidence provided to support the claim that the gospels were written by random obscure people who were ten degrees separated from anyone in Jesus' ministry.

In stark contrast, I provided a medley of multiple types of supporting evidence.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Once again, not a shred of evidence provided to support the claim that the gospels were written by random obscure people who were ten degrees separated from anyone in Jesus' ministry.

In stark contrast, I provided a medley of multiple types of supporting evidence.

all you bullshit means nothing.

its all hearsay, from a legal perspective.

 

[ZenMode]

If random people who were were ten degrees separated from Jesus ministry were just fabricating fake stories, then explain how they got away with it.
When they were writing, some of the apostles were still alive or their students were still alive. Those people would have been in a position to challenge fake stories that random obscure people made up and circulated throughout the Mediterranean region

The better question is how they would get caught? If Luke writes a book in Syria, it would seem to be incredibly lucky if a hand-copied version ever get into Mark's hands in Jerusalem?

By the standards of ancient history, the witness accounts of Jesus live are quite good.

Based on what? Despite his parents supposedly knowing that he was the son of God, and the Bible claiming he was performing miracles as a child, there's basically no documentation of his childhood or really any part of his life until he jumps onto the scene in his 30s.

BTW, The writings about his childhood are widely believed to be made up because people asked "If he was born to a virgin and people knew that he was the son of God, why isn't there any information on his childhood? Seems like something people would be talking about!"

You've provided no evidence the early Christian writings were fake stories made up by random people.

It's not on me to prove anything. The person making the claims, in this case about a human coming back from the dead, needs to prove their claim.

I've provided evidence that the canon were written or dictated by people who either knew Jesus or by authors who interviewed the people who knew Jesus.

You've provided speculation that even Ehrman says are just guesses. What evidence you've provided shows how distant Jesus disciples likely were from the gospel writers.

This is further corroborated by early church bishops who knew and spoke to students of the original disciples.

Oh sure.....

Further, the church would have never intentionally named two gospels after obscure, low-ranking Christians, unless it was true.

They absolutely would, and did, if it benefitted their cause.

If they wanted to give the gospels authority and visibility they would have named them the Gospel of James or the Gospel of Andrew, rather than identifying the low-ranking Mark and Luke as authors

The fact that there is no alternative first century attestations claiming the canon were fabricated by random people ten degrees separated from Jesus' ministry is quite telling just in itself.

The gospels themselves have 100 contradictions because they were written by people working from 10th person information!

View: https://youtu.be/rhM5lbVBgkk?si=1hyu5fkrqZDkWWIN

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

You must have posted this to the wrong person because I have repeatedly stated Genesis is not historical biography nor witness accounts. Genesis 1 has the literary structure of Hebrew poetry.

That's an opinion! Don't write it as fact! You don't have a theology degree.