About those gospel writers

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The whole religion business relies on the fact that stupid people think that eyewitness accounts of impossible feats are worthy of consideration. They are not.

Stupid? Yes, simply stated. Religion is also the refuge of the otherwise unloved and insecure, which explains why so many flock to its perceived safety and comfort.

 

[Trodon]

But you also assert that people who prefer the later dates are motivated by the conclusions they want to draw, rather than the evidence.
Wouldn't this be even MORE likely in the case of the Christians who would want to be able to treat the gospels as eyewitness accounts or accounts with eyewitness sources?

Yes of course. I pointed that out too:

Non Christians prefer late dates for the gospels and the writings of Acts, because late dates make the miracle stories less plausible. For that same reason, Christians prefer early dates.

 

[Trodon]

You asserted "I cannot prove that [the miracle stories] happened or not. I do not know. I was not there". This is a very stupid assertion; If it was not your intention to assert this, then you need to be clearer about what you mean, because that is the plain meaning of what you wrote.

It doesn't matter one whit whether any piece of text describing a breach of physical law is an eyewitness account; eyewitness accounts are piss-poor evidence of anything. They are insufficient evidence for a miracle even if they are direct and first-hand. I have seen a man saw a woman in half, without harming her; I have seen a man pull a rabbit from an empty top hat; I have seen many things that I know for sure didn't actually break the laws of physics, despite happening in front of my eyes.

The whole religion business relies on the fact that stupid people think that eyewitness accounts of impossible feats are worthy of consideration. They are not.

My explanation of the writing of the gospels and the book of Acts, which I acknowledge is necessarily theoretical, does not require Divine intervention, or even the existence of a Divine Reality (perhaps of a non Christian religion). It leaves open the possibility.

Dismissing Christians as "stupid people" should in my opinion be recognized as religious bigotry.

 

[Juma]

Yes of course. I pointed that out too:

Non Christians prefer late dates for the gospels and the writings of Acts, because late dates make the miracle stories less plausible. For that same reason, Christians prefer early dates.

Reapeting it doesnt make it more true.

Non-christians prefer later dates because that is more plausible according to the evidens. The so called miracles doesnt matter at all.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Dismissing Christians as "stupid people" should in my opinion be recognized as religious bigotry.

He did not dismiss all Christains as stupid. He was talking about all religion. And he said the entire industry of religion USES stupid people, and depends on them being stupid.
For example, the sales of Strobel's books capitalizes on people who are stupid enough to accept his lies uncritically. The success of creationism also tailors their product based on this model of their chosen demographic.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The range we're talking about is only a century or so. None but literalists argue for dates before mid first century. So the range is something like 70-170. Not that much considering how little evidence there is.

But it's true Christians favor early dates and skeptics favor late dates.

There's now a claim for a fragment of Mark found in an Egyptian funeral mask that's supposedly from AD90. But that's not peer reviewed. Anyway, that's not an early enough date to confound mythicist arguments.

 

[bilby]

You asserted "I cannot prove that [the miracle stories] happened or not. I do not know. I was not there". This is a very stupid assertion; If it was not your intention to assert this, then you need to be clearer about what you mean, because that is the plain meaning of what you wrote.

It doesn't matter one whit whether any piece of text describing a breach of physical law is an eyewitness account; eyewitness accounts are piss-poor evidence of anything. They are insufficient evidence for a miracle even if they are direct and first-hand. I have seen a man saw a woman in half, without harming her; I have seen a man pull a rabbit from an empty top hat; I have seen many things that I know for sure didn't actually break the laws of physics, despite happening in front of my eyes.

The whole religion business relies on the fact that stupid people think that eyewitness accounts of impossible feats are worthy of consideration. They are not.

My explanation of the writing of the gospels and the book of Acts, which I acknowledge is necessarily theoretical, does not require Divine intervention, or even the existence of a Divine Reality (perhaps of a non Christian religion). It leaves open the possibility.

Dismissing Christians as "stupid people" should in my opinion be recognized as religious bigotry.

I didn't dismiss Christians as 'stupid people'. I dismissed all religious believers as stupid people (Christians are included, but in no way special or different). And that isn't bigotry, it is observably and definitionally true. Religion is, by definition, the belief in the reality of things that are not real. To believe such things requires stupidity.

If that is 'religious bigotry', then we need a lot more of it.

If I said that adults who believe in Santa Claus are stupid, would that also be 'religious bigotry'?

Most of the problems caused by religion in the developed world (and I exclude the USA from that description) are due to non-religious people giving respect to religion. Religion is not worthy of the slightest respect. The religious would have no influence on modern society at all if they were ignored, in the same way that people who claim to have been abducted by aliens are ignored. And yet Members of Parliament nod gravely when someone says that this or that legislation must take account of religious sensibilities. They would burst out laughing if someone suggested that the law should account for the sensibilities of those who believe they were abducted by aliens; so why no giggling in the chamber when religion is mentioned?

 

[thentian]

Most of the problems caused by religion in the developed world (and I exclude the USA from that description) are due to non-religious people giving respect to religion. Religion is not worthy of the slightest respect. The religious would have no influence on modern society at all if they were ignored, in the same way that people who claim to have been abducted by aliens are ignored. And yet Members of Parliament nod gravely when someone says that this or that legislation must take account of religious sensibilities. They would burst out laughing if someone suggested that the law should account for the sensibilities of those who believe they were abducted by aliens; so why no giggling in the chamber when religion is mentioned?

People who claim to have been abducted by aliens don't usually blow things up or shoot people when they are being ridiculed?

 

[bilby]

Most of the problems caused by religion in the developed world (and I exclude the USA from that description) are due to non-religious people giving respect to religion. Religion is not worthy of the slightest respect. The religious would have no influence on modern society at all if they were ignored, in the same way that people who claim to have been abducted by aliens are ignored. And yet Members of Parliament nod gravely when someone says that this or that legislation must take account of religious sensibilities. They would burst out laughing if someone suggested that the law should account for the sensibilities of those who believe they were abducted by aliens; so why no giggling in the chamber when religion is mentioned?

People who claim to have been abducted by aliens don't usually blow things up or shoot people when they are being ridiculed?

People who blow things up or shoot people when their delusions are not respected, require treatment in secure psychiatric facilities; not respect, nor the deference of legislators.

 

[thentian]

I think I see what the problem is now: While we do have enough facilities for treating other delusions, there will never be enough to treat the religiously deluded, and our legislators know it!

 

[Kharakov]

People who claim to have been abducted by aliens don't usually blow things up or shoot people when they are being ridiculed?

People who blow things up or shoot people when their delusions are not respected, require treatment in secure psychiatric facilities; not respect, nor the deference of legislators.

I'm sure Bilby loves God.

 

[bilby]

I think I see what the problem is now: While we do have enough facilities for treating other delusions, there will never be enough to treat the religiously deluded, and our legislators know it!

"If you went to a hospital for the feeble-minded, and told them God was speaking to you, they wouldn't even let you go home to collect your pyjamas" - Billy Connolly

 

[Trodon]

The fact that none of the gospels nor Acts specifically mention the Jewish Uprising of 66 to 73 AD indicates, although it cannot prove, that all of them were written before the Uprising. I am unaware of anything in the gospels or Acts that could not have been written before 66. If anyone else is aware of something, please post it.

After the Uprising Christians argued that the failure of the Uprising was God's punishment to the Jews for rejecting their Messiah. A gospel writer could have strengthened his argument that Jesus was the Christ by mentioning the Uprising.

 

[thentian]

Or he could have strengthened his argument by making Jesus prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple? Oh, wait...

 

[fta]

The fact that none of the gospels nor Acts specifically mention the Jewish Uprising of 66 to 73 AD indicates, although it cannot prove, that all of them were written before the Uprising. I am unaware of anything in the gospels or Acts that could not have been written before 66. If anyone else is aware of something, please post it.

My history book about World War II (1939-45) doesn't mention the Korean War (1950-53). This indicates, but does not prove, that the book was written between 1945-1950.

Richard Carrier suggests that the author of Luke-Acts used the writings of Josephus (37-c.100CE). If so, then Luke-Acts must have been written no earlier than 93-100 CE.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A gospel writer could have strengthened his argument that Jesus was the Christ by mentioning the Uprising.

If we don't know who wrote a gospel or when, it's a little difficult to establish his motive in writing the gospel. Thus, we can't really use what we think his motive might have been in order to figure out when he wrote it... It's just a little circular.

 

[funinspace]

The fact that none of the gospels nor Acts specifically mention the Jewish Uprising of 66 to 73 AD indicates, although it cannot prove, that all of them were written before the Uprising. I am unaware of anything in the gospels or Acts that could not have been written before 66. If anyone else is aware of something, please post it.

After the Uprising Christians argued that the failure of the Uprising was God's punishment to the Jews for rejecting their Messiah. A gospel writer could have strengthened his argument that Jesus was the Christ by mentioning the Uprising.

Meh…I think (as someone who no longer believes in this stuff) I’ll take the word of mainstream Christian theologians over your vague opinion.

Mark is by most all accounts the earliest written. And according to the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV), in its introduction to Mark states:
“Although the Gospel is anonymous, an ancient tradition ascribes it to John Mark, who is supposed to have composed it at Rome as a summary of Peter’s preaching. Modern scholars, however, find little evidence to support this tradition. Mark is by far the shortest of the four canonical Gospels and is generally thought to be the earliest, and to have been used in the composition of both Matthew and Luke. Because of the vague and indefinite references to the destruction of Jerusalem in Mark 13, the Gospel is thought to have been composed just prior to the widespread Jewish popular revolt that began in 66CE…”

The introduction to Matthew states:
“Matthew was written following the first Jewish revolt against Rome and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE by the Roman general and eventual emperor, Titus. This monumental historical event is most likely referred to in 21.43-44 and 22.7.”

The introduction to Acts states:
“It is reasonable to date Acts sometime after Luke’s Gospel, which may be placed around 85-95CE.”

This same Bible estimates Luke to have been written circa 70-95CE; John to have been written circa 80-90CE.

 

[Trodon]

Or he could have strengthened his argument by making Jesus prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple? Oh, wait...

He could mention these prophesies, and then point out that they happened after the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah.

 

[Keith&Co.]

He could mention these prophesies, and then point out that they happened after the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah.

Of course, it's just too bad that Jesus didn't qualify as the messiah...

You'd think that after God sent all the prophecies to tell people how to recognize the messiah, he wouldn't be so petty as to punish those who actually paid attention.

 

[Trodon]

The fact that none of the gospels nor Acts specifically mention the Jewish Uprising of 66 to 73 AD indicates, although it cannot prove, that all of them were written before the Uprising. I am unaware of anything in the gospels or Acts that could not have been written before 66. If anyone else is aware of something, please post it.

My history book about World War II (1939-45) doesn't mention the Korean War (1950-53). This indicates, but does not prove, that the book was written between 1945-1950.

Richard Carrier suggests that the author of Luke-Acts used the writings of Josephus (37-c.100CE). If so, then Luke-Acts must have been written no earlier than 93-100 CE.

If your history book about World War II has a copyright of 1946 it would prove that it was written before the Korean War. Copyrights did not exist back then.

Because Josephus and the author of Luke and Acts, who many if not most Bible scholars think was St. Luke, write about many of the same events one should not be surprised by similarities.