Proof Jesus never existed

Some1 Else wrote:

<quoted text>
When were those passages written?
Those Anti-Christian Jewish rabbis may have been familiar with the NT, but not any time that Jesus supposedly lived. There was no NT until the ecumenical councils deemed what was to be canonized and what would not be about three centuries later. If it's not contemporaneous evidence, it is quite irrelevant.
And noone really knows who wrote any of the books in the NT, except the few known to be Paul's.

1) Not so. The early Church Fathers used three distinct criteria in determining what was and wasn't scriptural, and this happened as early as the opening decade of the second century. These criteria were:

1a) Authorship: Was the author a direct eyewitness or a scribe for an eyewitness?

1b) Truth: Does the book contradict what the Bible says anywhere else? If it did, it was thrown out.

1c) Nearly Universal Validation: Did Christians everywhere generally accept the book as scripture?

2) We can identify a majority of the authors of the NT with a high degree of confidence. Other books may not be as clear, so we have to place a degree of trust in the judgment of the early Church fathers.
Hebrews is a book that is contested as to the writer, and there seems to be a few viable choices in that area of concern. Some believe it was Apollos, while others attribute the writing of Hebrews to Barnabas. I lean towards Barnabas because he is mentioned in Acts as an apostle [albeit a minor apostle - not in the original 12].

3) Matthew was a tax collector before becoming a disciple of Christ. Tax collectors were notorious for dishonesty, and were generally despised by everyone. What possible motive would Matthew possess in choosing to write about a teacher who spoke out about abuse of power? What was there for Matthew to gain except more derision and contempt?

4) John was originally a Jewish fisherman, and disciple of John the Baptist before joining Jesus. John was the only disciple among the original twelve to witness the crucifixion, and was one of three who witnessed the Transfiguration. Peter and James were the other two. John's low social status as a blue collar fisherman surely wouldn't have been influential in the scholarly world of first century Palestine, and so we don't see any possible motive to write about something that wasn't true.

So Matthew and John are all but confirmed by the house, the senate, and DNA.[Joke]

5) Mark [John Mark] was a companion of Peter, and is believed to have been present at the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. So, we have at least three eye-witnesses to Jesus.

6) Luke was a companion of Paul, and a professional physician. He was also a first rate historian. He starts off his gospel with a preamble in which he states he has investigated everything carefully to insure it is the truth. Of the four Gospels, Luke is the only one who feels the need to do this, which means that the other three don't feel that need. Why? Because they were eye-witnesses.

7) At the Council of Laodicea in 363-364 AD, the church voted to confirm what was considered to be Canon. It had already been confirmed by oral consensus for 200 years. This council formalized it on paper.

Brother Marine wrote:

<quoted text>
There is evidence of Jesus in the Talmud. It was suppressed for centuries. A Princeton scholar by the name of Peter Schafer researched ancient Jewish texts and came to the shocking conclusion that passages in the Talmud are very clever, subtle parodies that mock the Gospels of Matthew and John. Anti-Christian Jewish rabbis were very familiar with the New Testament, and paid close attention to the writings of Matthew, a Jewish tax collector, and John, a Jewish fisherman. Of particular interest is Sanhedrin 43 from the Talmud:
On the eve of Passover Jesus was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of Passover. Ulla retorted: Do you suppose he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, "Neither shall thou spare nor shall thou conceal him?" With Jesus, however, it was different, for he was connected with the government.(Sanhedrin 43a)
It's understandable that Jewish rabbis would want to distance themselves from this embarrassing passage. The easy solution was to edit it out of existence. Questioning the authenticity of Jesus as a historical person is like closing the barn door after the horse is running free. The book by Peter Schafer is titled "Jesus in the Talmud" and is available at:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Talmud-Peter-Sch%...

At no point did the Talmud referenced anyone named Jesus equating him as Messiah. You are lying.

Brother Marine wrote:

<quoted text>
1) Not so. The early Church Fathers used three distinct criteria in determining what was and wasn't scriptural, and this happened as early as the opening decade of the second century. These criteria were:
1a) Authorship: Was the author a direct eyewitness or a scribe for an eyewitness?
1b) Truth: Does the book contradict what the Bible says anywhere else? If it did, it was thrown out.
1c) Nearly Universal Validation: Did Christians everywhere generally accept the book as scripture?
2) We can identify a majority of the authors of the NT with a high degree of confidence. Other books may not be as clear, so we have to place a degree of trust in the judgment of the early Church fathers.
Hebrews is a book that is contested as to the writer, and there seems to be a few viable choices in that area of concern. Some believe it was Apollos, while others attribute the writing of Hebrews to Barnabas. I lean towards Barnabas because he is mentioned in Acts as an apostle [albeit a minor apostle - not in the original 12].
3) Matthew was a tax collector before becoming a disciple of Christ. Tax collectors were notorious for dishonesty, and were generally despised by everyone. What possible motive would Matthew possess in choosing to write about a teacher who spoke out about abuse of power? What was there for Matthew to gain except more derision and contempt?
4) John was originally a Jewish fisherman, and disciple of John the Baptist before joining Jesus. John was the only disciple among the original twelve to witness the crucifixion, and was one of three who witnessed the Transfiguration. Peter and James were the other two. John's low social status as a blue collar fisherman surely wouldn't have been influential in the scholarly world of first century Palestine, and so we don't see any possible motive to write about something that wasn't true.
So Matthew and John are all but confirmed by the house, the senate, and DNA.[Joke]
5) Mark [John Mark] was a companion of Peter, and is believed to have been present at the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. So, we have at least three eye-witnesses to Jesus.
6) Luke was a companion of Paul, and a professional physician. He was also a first rate historian. He starts off his gospel with a preamble in which he states he has investigated everything carefully to insure it is the truth. Of the four Gospels, Luke is the only one who feels the need to do this, which means that the other three don't feel that need. Why? Because they were eye-witnesses.
7) At the Council of Laodicea in 363-364 AD, the church voted to confirm what was considered to be Canon. It had already been confirmed by oral consensus for 200 years. This council formalized it on paper.

From: http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/gospels.p...

"..... the canonical Gospel of Mark is an anonymous book written outside of Palestine in a Gentile language to a Gentile audience sometime during or after the Jewish-Roman War. The author is hostile to Jews and to the apostles. He does not know Jewish laws or customs. He does not know the geography of Palestine. He does not like Peter. He never makes any claim to have known Peter or to have ever been to Palestine. "

"To sum up for Matthew:

Papias claims that an apostle named Matthew compiled a sayings Gospel in Hebrew.

The Canonical Gospel of Matthew is written in literary Greek and is not a sayings gospel. The author never claims to have been an apostle or an eyewitness. It relies heavily on secondary Greek sources as well as the Septuagint. Once again, an eyewitness would not rely on the accounts of non-witnesses to recount events that he had supposedly seen for himself. It was written at least 50 years after the alleged crucifixion. The author includes demonstrable fictions which can clearly be shown to have been derived from the Septuagint.

Papias' Logia, if it existed, has never been found. "

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
At no point did the Talmud referenced anyone named Jesus equating him as Messiah. You are lying.

The Talmud doesn't claim Jesus as the Messiah. I never said it did. That's the whole point. But it does reference Jesus. The latest Judaic scholars who are honest have now admitted that this is true. That's the point of the book I provided as a reference. Only the hyper-fanatical skeptics reject the very existence of Jesus. It's like burning a book just because you don't like the ending.

Lyon of Judah wrote:

<quoted text>
So, what kind of history do you specialize in? Do you work in Classical period, Antiquities, or perhaps Biblical studies?

Which has nothing to do with his post. So here, try again:

"Ooogah Boogah wrote:

I do not need that kind of back ground to know that an individual can not record historical events that occurred before he was born and anyone who does think that is a moron."

Brother Marine wrote:

<quoted text>
The Talmud doesn't claim Jesus as the Messiah. I never said it did. That's the whole point. But it does reference Jesus. The latest Judaic scholars who are honest have now admitted that this is true. That's the point of the book I provided as a reference. Only the hyper-fanatical skeptics reject the very existence of Jesus. It's like burning a book just because you don't like the ending.

Ha, typical fundie deceit.

Any self proclaimed "scholars" who agree with whatever lie you are trying to palm off as the "truth", you call "honest". While those real scholars who disagree with the liars you falsely call "hyper-fanatical skeptics". Now that is >>>FUNNY<<<!

Yet there is not the slightest bit of conclusive physical evidence that your demonic man-"god" ever even existed on earth. That says it all.

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
From: http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/gospels.p...
"..... the canonical Gospel of Mark is an anonymous book written outside of Palestine in a Gentile language to a Gentile audience sometime during or after the Jewish-Roman War. The author is hostile to Jews and to the apostles. He does not know Jewish laws or customs. He does not know the geography of Palestine. He does not like Peter. He never makes any claim to have known Peter or to have ever been to Palestine. "
"To sum up for Matthew:
Papias claims that an apostle named Matthew compiled a sayings Gospel in Hebrew.
The Canonical Gospel of Matthew is written in literary Greek and is not a sayings gospel. The author never claims to have been an apostle or an eyewitness. It relies heavily on secondary Greek sources as well as the Septuagint. Once again, an eyewitness would not rely on the accounts of non-witnesses to recount events that he had supposedly seen for himself. It was written at least 50 years after the alleged crucifixion. The author includes demonstrable fictions which can clearly be shown to have been derived from the Septuagint.
Papias' Logia, if it existed, has never been found. "

You accept this as true? Wow Ooogah. Seriously? You seem to put faith in the conclusions of this author, Diogenes the Cynic, and that it is somehow all true. That's a very strong statement coming from somebody who's tagline reads “There is no Truth in Faith.” I noticed that you didn't bother to put up any substantial rebuttal on your own, but that you posted a link to a website that agrees with your pre-justified bias and anti-Christian worldview.

1) Diogenes the Cynic is obviously out of his element. I'll go point by point, and show you exactly how far out both you and he really are. Let's start with his motive:

"Only two of the canonical Gospels, Matthew and John, are alleged by tradition to have been written by eywitnesses but I'm going to address Mark and Luke as well because I feel like wrecking those authorship traditions just to be thorough."

I could discredit him as a scholar just on this alone. True scholarly research and writing doesn't set out to wreck something. It looks at the evidence as objectively as possible, and considers every point as well as it's opposing argument.

2) Mark knew Peter very well, and was a disciple of Peter. Mark was also very likely in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of Jesus' arrest. This comes from the passage in Mark 14:51-52

"51 And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked."

3) Now who is this young man, and why does only Mark mention him? None of the other accounts of Jesus' arrest includes this interesting little detail. It is interesting details like this that add credibility to any historical account. There is a reason why it's mentioned. Mark is that young man. Nobody else seems to notice this person fleeing in the night, stark naked, and there's no reason to mention it if it didn't happen. It's not crucial to the account for any other reason than to confirm that the author is a witness to the events. It's embarrassing for the author. That's understandable, but it's included anyway.

4) Next, the author states that Papias got his information from John. Papias was not overly intelligent. We know he didn't put much stock in reading, and preferred to listen to oral histories.

"What about John or Matthew or any of the other disciples of the Lord? And the things that Aristion and John the elder say, who were also disciples of the Lord? For I thought that things from books did not benefit me as much as the sayings of a living & abiding voice." (Hist. Eccles. 3.39.3-4).

Now, Ooogah, if you want me to dismantle the rest of your cynical author's arguments, I gladly will, because I can. Are you sure you want that?

Seentheotherside wrote:

<quoted text>
Ha, typical fundie deceit.
Any self proclaimed "scholars" who agree with whatever lie you are trying to palm off as the "truth", you call "honest". While those real scholars who disagree with the liars you falsely call "hyper-fanatical skeptics". Now that is >>>FUNNY<<<!
Yet there is not the slightest bit of conclusive physical evidence that your demonic man-"god" ever even existed on earth. That says it all.

Setting up a straw-man fallacy by asking for physical evidence isn't going to work. Neither is your assertion that "your demonic man-"god" ever even existed on earth". If you wish to make that claim, then it's on you to show why that's true. Remember- the title of this thread. The burden is on those who make the claim or advocate that claim.

Brother Marine wrote:

<quoted text>
The Talmud doesn't claim Jesus as the Messiah. I never said it did. That's the whole point. But it does reference Jesus. The latest Judaic scholars who are honest have now admitted that this is true. That's the point of the book I provided as a reference. Only the hyper-fanatical skeptics reject the very existence of Jesus. It's like burning a book just because you don't like the ending.

You have not established it was the same Jesus of the NT. The name is very common in the region and time, dummy.

Brother Marine wrote:

<quoted text>
You accept this as true? Wow Ooogah. Seriously? You seem to put faith in the conclusions of this author, Diogenes the Cynic, and that it is somehow all true. That's a very strong statement coming from somebody who's tagline reads “There is no Truth in Faith.” I noticed that you didn't bother to put up any substantial rebuttal on your own, but that you posted a link to a website that agrees with your pre-justified bias and anti-Christian worldview.
1) Diogenes the Cynic is obviously out of his element. I'll go point by point, and show you exactly how far out both you and he really are. Let's start with his motive:
"Only two of the canonical Gospels, Matthew and John, are alleged by tradition to have been written by eywitnesses but I'm going to address Mark and Luke as well because I feel like wrecking those authorship traditions just to be thorough."
I could discredit him as a scholar just on this alone. True scholarly research and writing doesn't set out to wreck something. It looks at the evidence as objectively as possible, and considers every point as well as it's opposing argument.
2) Mark knew Peter very well, and was a disciple of Peter. Mark was also very likely in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of Jesus' arrest. This comes from the passage in Mark 14:51-52
"51 And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked."
3) Now who is this young man, and why does only Mark mention him? None of the other accounts of Jesus' arrest includes this interesting little detail. It is interesting details like this that add credibility to any historical account. There is a reason why it's mentioned. Mark is that young man. Nobody else seems to notice this person fleeing in the night, stark naked, and there's no reason to mention it if it didn't happen. It's not crucial to the account for any other reason than to confirm that the author is a witness to the events. It's embarrassing for the author. That's understandable, but it's included anyway.
4) Next, the author states that Papias got his information from John. Papias was not overly intelligent. We know he didn't put much stock in reading, and preferred to listen to oral histories.
"What about John or Matthew or any of the other disciples of the Lord? And the things that Aristion and John the elder say, who were also disciples of the Lord? For I thought that things from books did not benefit me as much as the sayings of a living & abiding voice." (Hist. Eccles. 3.39.3-4).
Now, Ooogah, if you want me to dismantle the rest of your cynical author's arguments, I gladly will, because I can. Are you sure you want that?

Sure, feel free, but I hope you do a better job than you have done so far, you've only offered supposition and conjecture. You have not provided even one factual "scratch" on his thesis.

Shattering the Jesus Myth.

http://www.cross.tv/24457

lightbeamrider wrote:

Shattering the Jesus Myth.
http://www.cross.tv/24457

I don't have a video codec on this machine. But I do know if you have to have a video to support your ideas, it's pretty weak.

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
You have not established it was the same Jesus of the NT. The name is very common in the region and time, dummy.

1) Yes that name was very popular. Even the son-in-law of the High Priest Caiaphas was named Yeshua. In 1990, a tomb was discovered in Jerusalem, containing some limestone ossuaries that contained bones. Some of these bones are of a man approximately 60 years old, and in such an ornate ossuary that it would be well within probability to say that this is the ossuary of the man who presided over the trial of Jesus.

2) As I've already pointed out, the Talmud does speak of Jesus, whether you agree with it or not. Your disapproval of that doesn't nullify it as being true. If you want to go a step further, the Mishneh Torah does explicitly mention Jesus of Nazareth as a heretic. That's still an admission of existence.

"Even Jesus the Nazarene who imagined that he would be Messiah and was killed by the court, was already prophesied by Daniel."

This is seen in Hilkhot Melakhim 11:10

Brother Marine wrote:

<quoted text>
1) Yes that name was very popular. Even the son-in-law of the High Priest Caiaphas was named Yeshua. In 1990, a tomb was discovered in Jerusalem, containing some limestone ossuaries that contained bones. Some of these bones are of a man approximately 60 years old, and in such an ornate ossuary that it would be well within probability to say that this is the ossuary of the man who presided over the trial of Jesus.
2) As I've already pointed out, the Talmud does speak of Jesus, whether you agree with it or not. Your disapproval of that doesn't nullify it as being true. If you want to go a step further, the Mishneh Torah does explicitly mention Jesus of Nazareth as a heretic. That's still an admission of existence.
"Even Jesus the Nazarene who imagined that he would be Messiah and was killed by the court, was already prophesied by Daniel."
This is seen in Hilkhot Melakhim 11:10

More likely it was more "embellishments" of the original work by the likes of Eusebius. Lying Christians.

U r all pretty smart. Interesting.

Brother Marine wrote:

<quoted text>
1) Yes that name was very popular. Even the son-in-law of the High Priest Caiaphas was named Yeshua. In 1990, a tomb was discovered in Jerusalem, containing some limestone ossuaries that contained bones. Some of these bones are of a man approximately 60 years old, and in such an ornate ossuary that it would be well within probability to say that this is the ossuary of the man who presided over the trial of Jesus.
2) As I've already pointed out, the Talmud does speak of Jesus, whether you agree with it or not. Your disapproval of that doesn't nullify it as being true. If you want to go a step further, the Mishneh Torah does explicitly mention Jesus of Nazareth as a heretic. That's still an admission of existence.
"Even Jesus the Nazarene who imagined that he would be Messiah and was killed by the court, was already prophesied by Daniel."
This is seen in Hilkhot Melakhim 11:10

And so in 2000 years when they dig up my bones in a mausoleum, if my first name is Bill, then by golly, I must have been Bill Clinton.

Brother Marine wrote:

<quoted text>
1) Not so. The early Church Fathers used three distinct criteria in determining what was and wasn't scriptural, and this happened as early as the opening decade of the second century. These criteria were:
1a) Authorship: Was the author a direct eyewitness or a scribe for an eyewitness?
1b) Truth: Does the book contradict what the Bible says anywhere else? If it did, it was thrown out.
1c) Nearly Universal Validation: Did Christians everywhere generally accept the book as scripture?
2) We can identify a majority of the authors of the NT with a high degree of confidence. Other books may not be as clear, so we have to place a degree of trust in the judgment of the early Church fathers.
Hebrews is a book that is contested as to the writer, and there seems to be a few viable choices in that area of concern. Some believe it was Apollos, while others attribute the writing of Hebrews to Barnabas. I lean towards Barnabas because he is mentioned in Acts as an apostle [albeit a minor apostle - not in the original 12].
3) Matthew was a tax collector before becoming a disciple of Christ. Tax collectors were notorious for dishonesty, and were generally despised by everyone. What possible motive would Matthew possess in choosing to write about a teacher who spoke out about abuse of power? What was there for Matthew to gain except more derision and contempt?
4) John was originally a Jewish fisherman, and disciple of John the Baptist before joining Jesus. John was the only disciple among the original twelve to witness the crucifixion, and was one of three who witnessed the Transfiguration. Peter and James were the other two. John's low social status as a blue collar fisherman surely wouldn't have been influential in the scholarly world of first century Palestine, and so we don't see any possible motive to write about something that wasn't true.
So Matthew and John are all but confirmed by the house, the senate, and DNA.[Joke]
5) Mark [John Mark] was a companion of Peter, and is believed to have been present at the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. So, we have at least three eye-witnesses to Jesus.
6) Luke was a companion of Paul, and a professional physician. He was also a first rate historian. He starts off his gospel with a preamble in which he states he has investigated everything carefully to insure it is the truth. Of the four Gospels, Luke is the only one who feels the need to do this, which means that the other three don't feel that need. Why? Because they were eye-witnesses.
7) At the Council of Laodicea in 363-364 AD, the church voted to confirm what was considered to be Canon. It had already been confirmed by oral consensus for 200 years. This council formalized it on paper.

Luke was far from a first rate historian, though I do hold his book in higher esteem than most. John is only in the canon because of Irenaeus' four-formed gospel concept, and noone really knows who wrote the book, but it wasn't John. Perhaps Polycarp or Irenaeus himself, or someone close to them though.

As for the first canon, about 140 CE, let's not forget it contains the Gospel of Marcion. Why? Because Marcion was the one piecing the canon together. Never underestimate the power of ego.

"The 60th canon listed these books, with the New Testament containing 26 books, omitting the Book of Revelation, and the Old Testament including the 22 books of the Hebrew Bible plus the Book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy.[1]

The authenticity of the 60th canon is doubtful[2] as it is missing from various manuscripts and may have been added later[1] to specify the extent of the preceding 59th canon. Around 350 AD, Cyril of Jerusalem produced a list matching that from the Council of Laodicea.[3]"---Wiki

You do realize the purpose of the council of Laodicea was regulation of church members' conduct because Julian had to be such a butt and wage war against the Persians? The Persians won BTW.

Brother Marine wrote:

<quoted text>
There is evidence of Jesus in the Talmud. It was suppressed for centuries. A Princeton scholar by the name of Peter Schafer researched ancient Jewish texts and came to the shocking conclusion that passages in the Talmud are very clever, subtle parodies that mock the Gospels of Matthew and John. Anti-Christian Jewish rabbis were very familiar with the New Testament, and paid close attention to the writings of Matthew, a Jewish tax collector, and John, a Jewish fisherman. Of particular interest is Sanhedrin 43 from the Talmud:
On the eve of Passover Jesus was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of Passover. Ulla retorted: Do you suppose he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, "Neither shall thou spare nor shall thou conceal him?" With Jesus, however, it was different, for he was connected with the government.(Sanhedrin 43a)
It's understandable that Jewish rabbis would want to distance themselves from this embarrassing passage. The easy solution was to edit it out of existence. Questioning the authenticity of Jesus as a historical person is like closing the barn door after the horse is running free. The book by Peter Schafer is titled "Jesus in the Talmud" and is available at:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Talmud-Peter-Sch%...

You never answered...When were these passages written?

Brother Marine wrote:

<quoted text>
1) Not so. The early Church Fathers used three distinct criteria in determining what was and wasn't scriptural, and this happened as early as the opening decade of the second century. These criteria were:
1a) Authorship: Was the author a direct eyewitness or a scribe for an eyewitness?
1b) Truth: Does the book contradict what the Bible says anywhere else? If it did, it was thrown out.
1c) Nearly Universal Validation: Did Christians everywhere generally accept the book as scripture?
2) We can identify a majority of the authors of the NT with a high degree of confidence. Other books may not be as clear, so we have to place a degree of trust in the judgment of the early Church fathers.
Hebrews is a book that is contested as to the writer, and there seems to be a few viable choices in that area of concern. Some believe it was Apollos, while others attribute the writing of Hebrews to Barnabas. I lean towards Barnabas because he is mentioned in Acts as an apostle [albeit a minor apostle - not in the original 12].
3) Matthew was a tax collector before becoming a disciple of Christ. Tax collectors were notorious for dishonesty, and were generally despised by everyone. What possible motive would Matthew possess in choosing to write about a teacher who spoke out about abuse of power? What was there for Matthew to gain except more derision and contempt?
4) John was originally a Jewish fisherman, and disciple of John the Baptist before joining Jesus. John was the only disciple among the original twelve to witness the crucifixion, and was one of three who witnessed the Transfiguration. Peter and James were the other two. John's low social status as a blue collar fisherman surely wouldn't have been influential in the scholarly world of first century Palestine, and so we don't see any possible motive to write about something that wasn't true.
So Matthew and John are all but confirmed by the house, the senate, and DNA.[Joke]
5) Mark [John Mark] was a companion of Peter, and is believed to have been present at the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. So, we have at least three eye-witnesses to Jesus.
6) Luke was a companion of Paul, and a professional physician. He was also a first rate historian. He starts off his gospel with a preamble in which he states he has investigated everything carefully to insure it is the truth. Of the four Gospels, Luke is the only one who feels the need to do this, which means that the other three don't feel that need. Why? Because they were eye-witnesses.
7) At the Council of Laodicea in 363-364 AD, the church voted to confirm what was considered to be Canon. It had already been confirmed by oral consensus for 200 years. This council formalized it on paper.

I did respond to this, but don't see it posted yet. I will see if it shows up in a bit and repost if needed.

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure, feel free, but I hope you do a better job than you have done so far, you've only offered supposition and conjecture. You have not provided even one factual "scratch" on his thesis.

Okay, buckle up "Sparky". It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

Here's where Diogenes the Cynic goes from bad to worse in his analysis.

1) His challenge:

"First of all, I should say that none of the four canonical Gospels names its own author, none of them claim to be eywitness accounts or even to have spoken to eyewitness of Jesus. All are written in the third person and none of the authors tell us anything about themselves. All of the traditional ascriptions of authorship come from 2nd century tradition."

My rebuttal:

Of the four gospels, John was an eye-witness to Jesus. Matthew was an eye-witness to Jesus. Mark was a known disciple of Peter, and was likely present the night of Jesus' arrest. Yes John spoke in third-person,[and only John - not "ALL"] but that doesn't mean that it's not John's words. It was likely a scribe working for John. Luke wasn't an eye-witness to Jesus, and he tells us that in the preamble to his gospel. Why would Luke write such a preamble if he was an eye-witness? He wouldn't. None of the other 3 give such a preamble. If they are eye-witnesses, they don't have to. They expected their accounts to be taken seriously.

There is no obligation for any of the gospel writers to speak of themselves in their accounts. Ancient writers of Christianity didn't feel a need to include an "About The Author" section at the end of the gospels. Why? They were humble. The purpose of the gospels was to introduce us to Jesus.

2) His challenge:

The basis for this tradition stems from a single claim by Papias who said (c. 130 CE) that he got the information from John the Presbyter (not to be confused with John the Apostle). That's it. That's the entire case for Mark as a secretary of Peter.

Now let's examine the credibility of this claim.

First, Mark does not say that he knew Peter, talked to Peter, ever met Peter or got any information from any eyewitness.

Secondly, the author is extremely hostile to Peter. Mark is a decidedly Pauline, anti-Jewish and anti-Petrine diatribe. Mark is very hostile to the apostles in general and to Peter in particular. He takes every opportunity to depict the apostles as being dense and not getting Jesus' true message (reflecting the tension between Pauline communities and the Jerusalem cult in the last half of the first century). More to the point (and this is important) Mark does not give Peter any redemption after his betrayal. Mark does not grant Peter an appearance from Jesus. Mark's Peter denies Jesus, runs away and that's it. Now why would a Petrine memoir not include a Petrine witness of the resurrection? Wouldn't that be the most important part? How does it make any sense to exclude it?

My rebuttal:

No, Mark doesn't say he knew Peter or talked to Peter. He didn't have to. The fact that Mark was a disciple of Peter was presumed to be enough. Written in a time when witnesses were still alive who could and would refute any lie, it wasn't a requirement to say he knew Peter. It would have gotten around by word of mouth. Mark was very gracious towards Peter. I don't know where Diogenes the Cynic gets his information [he doesn't list his sources very well] but it's obvious he is guilty of selective reading.

to be continued