proof for xander and Jan H.

by RWC 21 Replies latest watchtower bible

Xander

RWC: Did you not read Jan's last post?
His information mirrors what I've found, although I think I can say with some certainty he knows more of the topic that I.
RWC

Jan-
Before you make a statement about the Gospels, you would do well to read them. John 21:24 : John claims to be an eyewitness. Matthew is a named disciple in the other Gospels as is Luke. Luke States his sources in 1:1 and makes the comment that things have been "fullfilled among us", thus he claims to have been an eyewitness.
As for authorship, what you call "tradition" was based upon information from people who knew who wrote the gospels. Early historians wrote about the authorship at or near the time the gospels were written. After two thousand years of study, the issue of authorship is universally accepted. Where the authors of certain books of the Bible is not known it is stated, such as the book of Hebrews.
I did not attempt to shift the burden of proof. I offered you proof of the early martyrs and then asked you to refute it. To date you have not.
God Bless
Xander

After two thousand years of study, the issue of authorship is universally accepted

*sigh*
You really are being thick headed here. We have said, again and AGAIN that because christians 'accept' something DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. Nor, does it make it 'universally accepted'.
Early historians wrote about the authorship at or near the time the gospels were written
NO!
That's the *entire point* we are making.
They DIDN'T.
You haven't even been able to find ONE that did.
You have provided a book that was written MUCH later using sources that had an agenda to lie. You've previously mentioned sources that were either obviously doctored or provably unreliable.
JanH

RWC,
It is glaringly obvious you are totally ignorant about the Bible and all modern scholarship about it. Further, you show gross ignorance in how to evaluate evidence.
Before you make a statement about the Gospels, you would do well to read them. John 21:24 : John claims to be an eyewitness.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the apostle John wrote the gospel that bears his name. John bears all the marks of a very late work, with a highly developed Christology and lots of embellished tales about Jesus that looks nothing like how he appears in the synoptics.
That an anonymous author of a work "testifies" it is correct counts for absolutely nothing. And no, read it again. He does not claim to be an eye witness.
Matthew is a named disciple in the other Gospels as is Luke. Luke States his sources in 1:1 and makes the comment that things have been "fullfilled among us", thus he claims to have been an eyewitness.
Yes, the name Matthew appears in the gospels, but nowhere does the gospel that carry his name claim to be written by him. Is this too hard to understand?
If you read Matthew, it is glaringly obvious it was not written by the disciple Matthew. That person is introduced in chapter 9, where we read the following:
Mt 9:9 "As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him."
No, who would refer to himself in the 3rd person like this? If Matthew wrote it, why not say so?
The spurious tradition of ascribing the authorship to Matthew is simply not accepted by modern scholars. The claims made by the Church Fathers have not stood up to evidence. They were, also, far removed in time and place.Where they offer sources, we see they are late, unverifiable and unreliable. The tradition through Papias, for example, that Matthew was written in Hebrew first is obviously false, considering the fact that Matthew copied phrases verbatim -- in Greek -- from Mark.
As for authorship, what you call "tradition" was based upon information from people who knew who wrote the gospels. Early historians wrote about the authorship at or near the time the gospels were written.
It is simply not true that they knew who wrote the gospels. The Church Fathers provide very flimsy evidence for their claims. The gospels were not widely known for decades after they were allegedly written, seriously undermining the claim they were written by contemporary eye witnesses to Jesus. Of course, it does not help that they are very self-contradictory.
After two thousand years of study, the issue of authorship is universally accepted.
Repeating an untruth does not make it a fact. The tradition regarding authorship is as far from "universally" accepted as it can be. Biblical scholars who accept the application of textual and historical analysis of the Bible are in fact near-universal in rejecting these claims.
I am willing to bet you can't off-hand name a single peer reviewed journal of Bible scholarship. Don't make blanket statements when you are so totally ignorant.
Where the authors of certain books of the Bible is not known it is stated, such as the book of Hebrews.
This is simply because the ancient, spurious tradition does not agree who is the author.
I did not attempt to shift the burden of proof. I offered you proof of the early martyrs and then asked you to refute it. To date you have not.
You have offered mere assertions, written long after all these people were dead and buried. That is not "proof" by any stretch of the imagination.
You are refuted. That you are too ignorant to understand it is your problem.
- Jan
ThiChi

The Apostles could have very well been involved in this situation:
The "Rise And Fall of the Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbon:
Proof?
See the rescript of Trajan, and the conduct of Pliny. The most authentic Acts of the Martyrs abound in these exhortations.
In particular, see Tertullian (Apolog. c. 2, 3) and Lactantius (Institut. Divin. v. 9).
See Tertullian (Apolog. c. 40). The Acts of the Martyrdom of Polycarp exhibit a lively picture of these tumults, which were usually fomented by the malice of the Jews.
Humanity of Roman magistrates The total disregard of truth and probability in the representation of these primitive martyrdoms was occasioned by a very natural mistake. The ecclesiastical writers of the fourth or fifth centuries ascribed to the magistrates of Rome the same degree of implacable and unrelenting zeal which filled their own breasts against the heretics or the idolaters of their own times. It is not improbable that some of those persons who were raised to the dignities of the empire might have imbibed the prejudices of the populace, and that the cruel disposition of others might occasionally be stimulated by motives of avarice or of personal resentment.(66) But it is certain, and we may appeal to the grateful confessions of the first Christians, that the greatest part of those magistrates who exercised in the provinces the authority of the emperor or of the senate, and to whose hands alone the jurisdiction of life and death was intrusted, behaved like men of polished manners and liberal education, who respected the rules of justice, and who were conversant with the precepts of philosophy. They frequently declined the odious task of persecution, dismissed the charge with contempt, or suggested to the accused Christian some legal evasion by which he might elude the severity of the laws. (67) Whenever they were invested with a discretionary power,(68) they used it much less for the oppression than for the relief and benefit of the afflicted church. They were far from condemning all the Christians who were accused before their tribunal, and very far from punishing with death all those who were convicted of an obstinate adherence to the new superstition. Contenting themselves, for the most part, with the milder chastisements of imprisonment, exile, or slavery in the mines,(69) they left the unhappy victims of their justice some reason to hope that a prosperous event, the accession, the marriage, or the triumph of an emperor, might speedily restore them by a general pardon to their former state. Inconsiderable number of martyrsThe martyrs, devoted to immediate execution by the Roman magistrates, appear to have been selected from the most opposite extremes. They were either bishops and presbyters, the persons the most distinguished among the Christians by their rank and influence, and whose example might strike terror into the whole sect;(70) or else they were the meanest and most abject among them, particularly those of the servile condition, whose lives were esteemed of little value, and whose sufferings were viewed by the ancients with too careless an indifference. (71) The learned Origen, who, from his experience as well as readings, was intimately acquainted with the history of the Christians, declares, in the most express terms, that the number of martyrs was very inconsiderable.(72) His authority would alone be sufficient to annihilate that formidable army of martyrs, whose relics, drawn for the most part from the catacombs of Rome, have replenished so many churches, (73) and whose marvellous achievements have been the subject of so many volumes of holy romance.(74) But the general assertion of Origen may be explained and confirmed by the particular testimony of his friend Dionysius, who, in the immense city of Alexandria, and under the rigorous persecution of Decius, reckons only ten men and seven women who suffered for the profession of the Christian name.(75)
Example of Cyprian bishop of Carthage During the same period of persecution, the zealous, the eloquent, the ambitious Cyprian governed the church, not only of Carthage, but even of Africa. He possessed every quality which could engage the reverence of the faithful, or provoke the suspicions and resentment of the Pagan magistrates. His character as well as his station seemed to mark out that holy prelate as the most distinguished object of envy and of danger. (76) The experience, however, of the life of Cyprian is sufficient to prove that our fancy has exaggerated the perilous situation of a Christian bishop; and that the dangers to which he was exposed were less imminent than those which temporal ambition is always prepared to encounter in the pursuit of honours. Four Roman emperors, with their families, their favourites, and their adherents, perished by the sword in the space of ten years, during which the bishop of Carthage guided by his authority and eloquence the councils of the African church. It was only in the third year of his administration that he had reason, during a few months, to apprehend the severe edicts of Decius, the vigilance of the magistrate, and the clamours of the multitude, His danger and flight. who loudly demanded that Cyprian, the leader of the Christians, should be thrown to the lions. Prudence suggested the necessity of a temporary retreat, and the voice of prudence was obeyed. He withdrew himself into an obscure solitude, from whence he could maintain a constant correspondence with the clergy and people of Carthage; and, concealing himself till the tempest was past, he preserved his life, without relinquishing either his power or his reputation. His extreme caution did not however escape the censure of the more rigid Christians, who lamented, or the reproaches of his personal enemies, who insulted, a conduct which they considered as a pusillanimous and criminal desertion of the most sacred duty. (77) The propriety of reserving himself for the future exigencies of the church, the example of several holy bishops,(78) and the divine admonitions which, as he declares himself, he frequently received in visions and ecstacies, were the reasons alleged in his justification. (79) But his best apology may be found in the cheerful resolution with which about eight years afterwards, he suffered death in the cause of religion. The authentic history of his martyrdom has been recorded with unusual candour and impartiality. A short abstract therefore of its most important circumstances will convey the clearest information of the spirit and of the forms of the Roman persecutions.(80)
A.D. 257. His banishment. When Valerian was consul for the third, and Gallienus for the fourth time, Paternus, proconsul of Africa, summoned Cyprian to appear in his private council chamber. He there acquainted him with the imperial mandate which he had just received,(81) that those who had abandoned the Roman religion should immediately return to the practice of the ceremonies of their ancestors. Cyprian replied without hesitation that he was a Christian and a bishop, devoted to the worship of the true and only Deity, to whom he offered up his daily supplications for the safety and prosperity of the two emperors, his lawful sovereigns. With modest confidence he pleaded the privilege of a citizen in refusing to give any answer to some invidious and indeed illegal questions which the proconsul had proposed. A sentence of banishment was pronounced as the penalty of Cyprian's disobedience; and he was conducted without delay to Curubis, a free and maritime city of Zeugitana, in a pleasant situation, a fertile territory, and at the distance of about forty miles from Carthage.(82) The exiled bishop enjoyed the conveniences of life and the consciousness of virtue. His reputation was diffused over Africa and Italy; an account of his behaviour was published for the edification of the Christian world;(83) and his solitude was frequently interrupted by the letters, the visits, and the congratulations of the faithful. On the arrival of a new proconsul in the province the fortune of Cyprian appeared for some time to wear a still more favourable aspect. He was recalled from banishment, and, though not yet permitted to return to Carthage, his own gardens in the neighbourhood of the capital were assigned for the place of his residence.(84)
His condemnation. At length, exactly one year (85) after Cyprian was first apprehended, Galerius Maximus, proconsul of Africa, received the imperial warrant for the execution of the Christian teachers. The bishop of Carthage was sensible that he should be singled out for one of the first victims, and the frailty of nature tempted him to withdraw himself, by a secret flight, from the danger and the honour of martyrdom; but, soon recovering that fortitude which his character required, he returned to his gardens, and patiently expected the ministers of death. Two officers of rank, who were intrusted with that commission, placed Cyprian between them in a chariot, and, as the proconsul was not then at leisure, they conducted him, not to a prison, but to a private house in Carthage, which belonged to one of them. An elegant supper was provided for the entertainment of the bishop, and his Christian friends were permitted for the last time to enjoy his society, whilst the streets were filled with a multitude of the faithful, anxious and alarmed at the approaching fate of their spiritual father. (86) In the morning he appeared before the tribunal of the proconsul, who, after informing himself of the name and situation of Cyprian, commanded him to offer sacrifice, and pressed him to reflect on the consequences of his disobedience. The refusal of Cyprian was firm and decisive, and the magistrate, when he had taken the opinion of his council, pronounced, with some reluctance, the sentence of death. It was conceived in the following terms: "That Thascius Cyprianus should be immediately beheaded, as the enemy of the gods of Rome, and as the chief and ringleader of a criminal association, which he had seduced into an impious resistance against the laws of the most holy emperors Valerian and Gallienus."(87) The manner of his execution was the mildest and least painful that could be inflicted on a person convicted of any capital offence: nor was the use of torture admitted to obtain from the bishop of Carthage either the recantation of his principles or the discovery of his accomplices.
His martyrdom. As soon as the sentence was proclaimed, a general cry of "We will die with him" arose at once among the listening multitude of Christians who waited before the palace gates. The generous effusions of their zeal and affection were neither serviceable to Cyprian nor dangerous to themselves. He was led away under a guard of tribunes and centurions, without resistance and without insult, to the place of his execution, a spacious and level plain near the city, which was already filled with great numbers of spectators. His faithful presbyters and deacons were permitted to accompany their holy bishop. They assisted him in laying aside his upper garment, spread linen on the ground to catch the precious relics of his blood, and received his orders to bestow five-and-twenty pieces of gold on the executioner. The martyr then covered his face with his hands, and at one blow his head was separated from his body. His corpse remained during some hours exposed to the curiosity of the Gentiles, but in the night it was removed, and transported, in a triumphal procession and with a splendid illumination, to the burial place of the Christians. The funeral of Cyprian was. publicly celebrated without receiving any interruption from the Roman magistrates; and those among the faithful who had performed the last offices to his person and his memory were secure from the danger of inquiry or of punishment. It is remarkable that, of so great a multitude of bishops in the province of Africa, Cyprian was the first who was esteemed worthy to obtain the crown of martyrdom.(88)
Various incitements to martyrdom. It was in the choice of Cyprian either to die a martyr or to live an apostate, but on that choice depended the alternative of honour or infamy. Could we suppose that the bishop of Carthage had employed the profession of the Christian faith only as the instrument of his avarice or ambition, it was still incumbent on him to support the character which he had assumed,(89) and, if he possessed the smallest degree of manly fortitude, rather to expose himself to the most cruel tortures than by a single act to exchange the reputation of a whole life for the abhorrence of his Christian brethren and the contempt of the Gentile world. But if the zeal of Cyprian was supported by the sincere conviction of the truth of those doctrines which he preached, the crown of martyrdom must have appeared to him as an object of desire rather than of terror. It is not easy to extract any distinct ideas from the vague though eloquent declamations of the Fathers, or to ascertain the degree of immortal glory and happiness which they confidently promised to those who were so fortunate as to shed their blood in the cause of religion. (90) They inculcated with becoming diligence that the fire of martyrdom supplied every defect and expiated every sin; that, while the souls of ordinary Christians were obliged to pass through a slow and painful purification, the triumphant sufferers entered into the immediate fruition of eternal bliss, where, in the society of the patriarchs, the apostles, and the prophets, they reigned with Christ, and acted as his assessors in the universal judgment of mankind. The assurance of a lasting reputation upon earth, a motive so congenial to the vanity of human nature, often served to animate the courage of the martyrs. The honours which Rome or Athens bestowed on those citizens who had fallen in the cause of their country were cold and unmeaning demonstrations of respect, when compared with the ardent gratitude and devotion which the primitive church expressed towards the victorious champions of the faith. The annual commemoration of their virtues and sufferings was observed as a sacred ceremony, and at length terminated in religious worship. Among the Christians who had publicly confessed their religious principles, those who (as it very frequently happened) had been dismissed from the tribunal or the prisons of the Pagan magistrates obtained such honours as were justly due to their imperfect martyrdom and their generous resolution. The most pious females courted the permission of imprinting kisses on the fetters which they had worn, and on the wounds which they had received. Their persons were esteemed holy, their decisions were admitted with deference, and they too often abused, by their spiritual pride and licentious manners, the pre-eminence which their zeal and intrepidity had acquired. (91) Distinctions like these, whilst they display the exalted merit, betray the inconsiderable number, of those who suffered and of those who died for the profession of Christianity.
Ardour of the first Christians. The sober discretion of the present age will more readily censure than admire, but can more easily admire than imitate, the fervour of the first Christians, who, according to the lively expression of Sulpicius Severus, desired martyrdom with more eagerness than his own contemporaries solicited a bishopric. (92) The epistles which Ignatius composed as he was carried in chains through the cities of Asia breathe sentiments the most repugnant to the ordinary feelings of human nature. He earnestly beseeches the Romans that, when he should be exposed in the amphitheatre, they would not, by their kind but unseasonable intercession, deprive him of the crown of glory; and he declares his resolution to provoke and irritate the wild beasts which might be employed as the instruments of his death.(93) Some stories are related of the courage of martyrs who actually performed what Ignatius had intended, who exasperated the fury of the lions, pressed the executioner to hasten his office, cheerfully leaped into the fires which were kindled to consume them, and discovered a sensation of joy and pleasure in the midst of the most exquisite tortures. Several examples have been preserved of a zeal impatient of those restraints which the emperors had provided for the security of the church. The Christians sometimes supplied by their voluntary declaration the want of an accuser, rudely disturbed the public service of paganism,(94) and, rushing in crowds round the tribunal of the magistrates, called upon them to pronounce and to inflict the sentence of the law. The behaviour of the Christians was too remarkable to escape the notice of the ancient philosophers, but they seem to have considered it with much less admiration than astonishment. Incapable of conceiving the motives which sometimes transported the fortitude of believers beyond the bounds of prudence or reason, they treated such an eagerness to die as the strange result of obstinate despair, of stupid insensibility, or of superstitious frenzy.(95) "Unhappy men !" exclaimed the proconsul Antoninus to the Christians of Asia, "unhappy men! it you are thus weary of your lives, is it so difficult for you to find ropes and precipices?"(96) He was extremely cautious (as it is observed by a learned and pious historian) of punishing men who had found no accusers but themselves, the imperial laws not having made any provisions for so unexpected a case; condemning therefore a few as a warning to their brethren, he dismissed the multitude with indignation and contempt.(97) Notwithstanding this real or affected disdain, the intrepid constancy of the faithful was productive of more salutary effects on those which nature or grace had disposed for the easy reception of religious truth. On these melancholy occasions there were many among the Gentiles who pitied, who admired, and who were converted. The generous enthusiasm was communicated from the
Edited by - thichi on 22 July 2002 19:16:35
Edited by - thichi on 22 July 2002 19:41:34
RWC

Xander and Jan.H-
Both of you can call be ignorant all you want but I will not lower this discussion to a personal attack.
Jan.H. you would lose your bet on being able to list scholarly works on the Bible. I have done far more study than you seem to understand and being a trial lawyer by trade I am more than capable of understanding evidence. In fact, in the responses by both you and Xander I see a glaring lack of it. What you both present is mere conjecture and opinions. You have yet to name one scholar that agrees with you.
Xander, who do you think would be discussing the authorship of the Gospels but Christians? Christians, more than anyone want to know the validity of their faith. I trust that you have limited knowledge of how the canons were selected and want went into those decisions. Authorship was one of the tests to determine if certain works were considered to be part of the canon. Please name a mainstream Christian scholar who rejects the accepted authorship of any of the Gospels.
Biblical scholars have been studying this issue for centuries. The opinions that you have both presented have been discarded over and over again. Some of them are being raised again at this time through the Jesus seminar and others but these are not accepted premises.
What you discount as "tradition" cannot be thrown out so readily. Accepted "traditions" in the church are tested based upon the other evidence available. Those that don't stand up are noted as such. They are not accepted blindly.
You are wrong that there is no evidence that "John" wrote the gospel that bears his name. There is both extrinsic evidence and internal evidence to support this conclusion. For example, the writing style of Revelation which was written by John is strikingly similar to that of the Gospel. Additionally, early writings by other apostolic writers accept this as the case.
Your quote from Matthew 9 does nothing to destroy the authorship. One reference to Matthew in the third person is not evidence that he did not write the gospel. The gospel makes it clear that he was writing an historical text. He was not writing to tout his own accomplishments.
Let me ask you some questions: If the Gospels were anonymous, why is there no surviving tradition of another author for the Gospels? Second century testimony is unanimous in attributing the four gospels to the persons that now carry their name. This is different from the apocryphal gospels. As one writer put it, "It is hard to believe that the Gospels circulated anonymously for 60 or more years and then someone finally thought to put authors on them-- and managed to get the whole church across the Roman Empire to agree."
Why then were such unlikely persons chosen to be the authors? Matthew was a reviled tax collector who the jewish peoplpe hated, Luke was only mentioned breifly by name in the new testament, Mark is described as a person who abandoned Paul in Acts 15. Highly unlikely people to attribute the basis for a religion on when there were other more sutiable people, such as Andrew or Peter.
The premises that you set out are not logical, are mere speculation and do not refute the accepted evidence of authorship.
I would also ask if you raise the same questions and skepticisms about other secular ancient texts. There are countless secular ancient texts that are internally anonymous but whose authorship is accepted by external references and tradition.
ThiChi

To apply the standard of "outside independent secular conformation" to every historical event or writing would essentially disrupt most recorded history as we know it. This type of "burden of proof" would deny historical figures and happenings to such a magnitude that it would render most useful information meaningless.
Edited by - thichi on 23 July 2002 13:56:52
Satanus

*GASP* A lawyer, a jw lawyer who believe the bible and the wt are correct!! That's it boys. Fold you cards. If a lawyer says they are right, then it must be true.
Everyone knows that lawyers settle for nothing less than truth. They never sell their services to the highest bidders.
SS
RWC

Saint Satan- I have never been a JW but I do believe in the Bible. I only pointed out my occupation to show Jan H. that I am very familar with the standards of evidence. The fact tht I am a lawyer doesn't make anything I say right, but the evidence looked at objectively makes it right. Your sarcasm aside, the evidence stands on its own merit regardless of my profession.
ThiChi- you make an excellent point
L_A_Big_Dawg

More ad hominem from the "free thinkers?"

proof for xander and Jan H.

Share this