@nuclearboy: You sabi your guy Deep Sight naa. What did you expect? Less? 

Enigma:

A person presenting a case for court selects and decides his own witnesses as well as which evidence to present. It is for the other side, the opponent, to choose which witnesses they wish to put forward and which evidence they wish to present.

Further, in a case involving an event that took place in public among a large number of people - take even a small "large" number of fifty - it is not common at all that all the witnesses will be called by either or both sides.

[size=14pt]Relating it to the Bible canon, it is actually a rather lazy and pitiful argument to hark on that some books were excluded from the Bible and to imply a capricious motive for the exclusion. The task for those against the canon would be to delve into some of the excluded books that are still extant and to show, if they can, that they disprove the message of the established canon.[/size]

GBAM! GBAM!! GBAM!!! Pishaun!!!!  Gunshot in'a the air!!!!

Thank you jare, my learned Oga! Let him continue with his deep lies.

Me sef wey no be lawyer, the only adventure into law I ever had was my "Engineering Law" course in my final college year almost four years ago, some novels, and a couple of wikipedia articles, and they tell me all I need to know about this situation.

Wow where is Deep Sight?

Still waiting for Deep Sight to come and clean up his fraudulent mess.

InesQor:

Actually the mathematics here (read: boolean algebra) is not as complex as you say. Maybe your bias obturates your reasoning?

I guess going by this methodology it can be shown that Mohammed the prophet of Islam is truly the messenger of Allah who ascended into paradise on a winged beast. . . .I once saw a debate where William Craig was trying to show that the alleged story of resurrection of Jesus was true using some mathematical formula. . . .These guys are so funny. . . .

mazaje:

I guess going by this methodology it can be shown that Mohammed the prophet of Islam is truly the messenger of Allah who ascended into paradise on a winged beast. . . .I once saw a debate where William Craig was trying to show that the alleged story of resurrection of Jesus was true using some mathematical formula. . . .These guys are so funny. . . .

Please present your logical evidence that this can be done of Mohammed, and stop pussyfooting

InesQor:

Please present your logical evidence that this can be done of Mohammed, and stop pussyfooting

Logic, please. . .There is no such thing in what you have presented for Jesus, all I can see is just some comical ramblings that make no sense at all. . .I will address a few of them in my next post. . .

mazaje:

Logic, please. . .There is no such thing in what you have presented for Jesus, all I can see is just some comical ramblings that make no sense at all. . .I will address a few of them in my next post. . .

No logic here? 
Comical ramblings? 

Okay I'm waiting. 

P.S. I will like you to know that the OP is not my work, anyway. I placed the link to the PDF from which it is sourced. Im not appealing to authority, though. I understand the OP like it's mine.

(1) Jesus was not a man?

The existence of a man named Jesus was claimed by:
Josephus, the first century Jewish historian

This account is still disputed and there is evidence to show that it was an interpolation, even if Josephus talked about Jesus existing as a man he never claimed that he was what the bible says he was(son of God, died and was resurrected etc), so that destroys your argument. . . .

Tacitus, the first century Roman historian

Tacitus never mentioned any Jesus any where, he only talked about a Christus who was the founder of a religion, but also said that the whole narrative was a mischievous superstition. . . . .Mischievous superstitions aren't real are they?. . . .

The first century authors of the Gnostic gospels

These gospels were written in the 2nd to 4th century and are of no importance to the historical Jesus and the claims written about him. . . .They were written hundreds of years after the man Jesus died. . . .

The first century authors of the New Testament autographs

Non of the authors of the new testament has ever claimed to have seen Jesus, meet him or was together with him beside the author of 2nd peter a letter than has been shown to be a forgery. . . .None of the 4 authors you have up there even claim to be based on eyewitness account to anything Jesus did. That is just a fantasy made up by believers.

These four sets of authors did not share a common background, philosophy or religion. Why would they independently invent or perpetuate the invention of a fictitious character who would have been a virtual contemporary for each of them? Furthermore, even if one or more of them did invent such a character, why wasn't the hoax unmasked by eye-witnesses; why didn't someone stand up and say, "This man Jesus never existed"?

Are you arguing about the existence of the man Jesus or the accuracy of what was reported about him in the New testament? You seem to be confused. . . . .

@mazaje: Imma let you finish, but. . . haha just kidding. Finish up. I need to sleep. Will reply them all later.

InesQor:

Finally, if you and your associates decided to concoct a hoax, focusing on a person claiming one-ness with God, would you agree to the fabrication of details that made this person seem susceptible to the same human frailties as you and I? If you personally were going to play the part of an apostle in this hoax, would you tolerate the fabrication of details that made you look selfish and petty? Such details were incorporated into the New Testament autographs:

This is a very False premise because

1. NOBODY knows who wrote any of the gospels. . . .The gospels were written about 60-100 years after the death of Jesus, by very educated Greek speaking authors, whose identity remains UNKNOWN till this day. . . . . .So it is wrong to claim that the gospels were written by the disciples of Jesus, because the gosples do NOT make such claims themselves . . . .By the way, who was the first Christian to refer to all four gospels as holy scripture, and who was the first Christian to call all four gospels by their current names?. . . .  

[list]
[li]Certain apostles argued about who among them should be most important when Jesus acquired his kingdom (Mark 9:33-37).[/li]
[li]The apostles deserted Jesus after his arrest (Mat 26:56).[/li]
[li]After the arrest of Jesus, one of the apostles denied even being acquainted with him (Mat 26:69-75).[/li]
[li]Some people thought Jesus was crazy (John 10:20).[/li]
[li]Jesus could not seem to perform miracles in a certain geographic location (Mark 6:1-5).[/li]
[li]Jesus spent his early life uncertain about the precise nature of his ministry (Luke 2:51-52; 3:23).[/li]
[li]Jesus confessed ignorance about certain future events (Mark 13:32).[/li]
[li]Jesus had moments of bitterness (Mat 26:36-46).[/li]
[li]Jesus uttered a cry of despair from the cross (Mark 15:34).[/li]
[/list]

If you were fabricating events for a text which you planned to stuff down the throats of gullible people, would you include these nine items?

But in the case of the gospels, Church tradition was what determined the authors of the gospels, not the authors themselves. . . .So your premise is faulty. . .

I contend that statements (1), (3) and (4) on our logic tree must be viewed as false based on all available evidence.

Therefore, the question asked at the beginning of this thread can be answered "yes" with near certainty.

If this is what you call logic, then am very sorry to say but your logic is a joke. . . .

InesQor:

@mazaje: Imma let you finish, but. . . haha just kidding. Finish up. I need to sleep. Will reply them all later.

You gonna do me like Kanye abi? Nothing do you. . .Sleep tight man. . need to get some sleep as well. . .We will continue tomorrow hopefully. . .

mazaje:

This account is still disputed and there is evidence to show that it was an interpolation, even if Josephus talked about Jesus existing as a man he never claimed that he was what the bible says he was(son of God, died and was resurrected etc), so that destroys your argument. . . .

Stop being so duplicitous. You know very well that Josephus is, in historical circles, agreed to have written about a MAN called Jesus. That is the argument at this point and not about whether he is/was Son of God or anything else he did. You are falling into the same dank hole that Deep Sight always falls into, which blinds him to reason.

mazaje:

Tacitus never mentioned any Jesus any where, he only talked about a Christus who was the founder of a religion, but also said that the whole narrative was a mischievous superstition. . . . .Mischievous superstitions aren't real are they?. . . .

Who else is the Christus of whom Tacitus wrote and spoke about the Christians [/i]who took after him? Are you serious? You know another [i]Christus [/i]who was crucified and a group of people called [i]Christians [/i]took after?

mazaje:

These gospels were written in the 2nd to 4th century and are of no importance to the historical Jesus and the claims written about him. . . .They were written hundreds of years after the man Jesus died. . . .

This point of yours is MOOT. The fact that they wrote [/b]about the man [b][i]at all lends credence to his existence.

mazaje:

Non of the authors of the new testament has ever claimed to have seen Jesus, meet him or was together with him beside the author of 2nd peter a letter than has been shown to be a forgery. . . .None of the 4 authors you have up there even claim to be based on eyewitness account to anything Jesus did. That is just a fantasy made up by believers.

You are either being ignorant here, or a plain liar. The gospels are either eye-witness accounts or ELSE second-hand eye-witness accounts.

No historian would say that all four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and neither am I doing so. Not even the earliest Church historians claimed as much. Mark's Gospel was written-according to a reliable very early tradition-by a companion, a disciple of the apostle Peter, who was an eyewitness. So you have a secondhand [/i]eyewitness account. [i]Luke says in his Gospel and in Acts that he wrote on the basis of eyewitness accounts. He interviewed eyewitnesses and collected written material on the basis of eyewitness accounts, and from this he wrote his own historical Gospel.

The only two Gospels that may be in the strict sense of the term eyewitness Gospels are Matthew-because he, according to a reliable tradition, was in fact the disciple Levi Matthew-and the Gospel of John, where the author himself and his epilogue at the end of the Gospel both say quite clearly that this was an eyewitness who wrote that Gospel.

So we can say that all four Gospels and the book of Acts were written during the eyewitness period-during the time when eyewitnesses were there, could comment on the text, could correct what was written, could refute it or accept it.

mazaje:

Are you arguing about the existence of the man Jesus or the accuracy of what was reported about him in the New testament? You seem to be confused. . . . .

The confusion is entirely yours, mazaje. It is a logical and progressive argument. We began by discussing the existence of the man, and then transitioned into the reports about him as recorded in the gospels.

mazaje:

This is a very False premise because

1. NOBODY knows who wrote any of the gospels. . . .The gospels were written about 60-100 years after the death of Jesus, by very educated Greek speaking authors, whose identity remains UNKNOWN till this day. . . . . .So it is wrong to claim that the gospels were written by the disciples of Jesus, because the gosples do NOT make such claims themselves . . . .By the way, who was the first Christian to refer to all four gospels as holy scripture, and who was the first Christian to call all four gospels by their current names?. . . .  

Your argument here is baseless and a little childish, sorry. The POINT being made with you and your associates was that if I must play the devil's advocate here, whoever wrote the gospels (whoever they really were) definitely intended to tell a story about this man Jesus, and also make references that they WERE the ones with Him (e.g. Matthew and John the beloved). So if I am to craft an impersonating story, will I leave so many loopholes to paint[b] myself, my accomplices and my own cause[/b] in a bad light?

Here again:

Certain apostles argued about who among them should be most important when Jesus acquired his kingdom (Mark 9:33-37).
The apostles deserted Jesus after his arrest (Mat 26:56).
After the arrest of Jesus, one of the apostles denied even being acquainted with him (Mat 26:69-75).
Some people thought Jesus was crazy (John 10:20).
Jesus could not seem to perform miracles in a certain geographic location (Mark 6:1-5).
Jesus spent his early life uncertain about the precise nature of his ministry (Luke 2:51-52; 3:23).
Jesus confessed ignorance about certain future events (Mark 13:32).
Jesus had moments of bitterness (Mat 26:36-46).
Jesus uttered a cry of despair from the cross (Mark 15:34).

As you have said, they were very educated Greek speaking authors. Even Homer in the Iliad and other great works, for instance won't make such a stupid blunder. And now we have a group of (obviously talented) individuals. Have you not thus shot yourself in the belly by making such a claim? The devil's advocate should crumble at that point, then.

mazaje:

But in the case of the gospels, Church tradition was what determined the authors of the gospels, not the authors themselves. . . .So your premise is faulty. . .

No, you are wrong. John the beloved, at least, clearly states that he wrote that book. Luke said same. And that is[b] in the least[/b].

mazaje:

If this is what you call logic, then am very sorry to say but your logic is a joke. . . .

Hold your own, man. Show me what you've got cos your arguments here are more spurious.

mazaje:

You gonna do me like Kanye abi? Nothing do you. . .Sleep tight man. . need to get some sleep as well. . .We will continue tomorrow hopefully. . .

Haha the Kanye West thing was a joke on the moment's spur.

Meanwhile I hope your arguments will at least be honest this time. I guess that's something you are/were known for.

InesQor:
Still waiting for Deep Sight to come and clean up his fraudulent mess. 

Do you think I have the time for such. Y'all are making absolutely no sense and even the blind can see that.

You attempt to draw a logical construct proving the accuracy of the accounts of Jesus. It is simply fraudulent to derive any such construct whilst ignoring the vast majority of the accounts of Jesus' life.

More-so because you limit yourself to the four accounts chosen by Christians! That is more than biased. Any truly logical construct would not commit such brazen bias: the logical thing to do will be to derive a construct based on all accounts of his life. That is simple and fair.

Like i said before, it's called corroborative evidence: and Enigma should know that all too well, if he were not so biased in favour of his Jewish inspired and European - delivered mythical fantasies.

Your post is frankly embarrassing because you could not even read the extract you sourced yourself in order to see that it actually argues my point and not yours.

Eyewitness testimony is generally presumed to be more reliable than circumstantial evidence. Studies have shown, however, that individual, separate witness testimony is often flawed, and parts of it can be meaningless. This can occur because of flaws in Eyewitness identification (such as faulty observation and recollection, or bias), or because a witness is lying. If several people witness a crime, it is probative to look for similarities [size=16pt]in their collective descriptions[/size] to substantiate the facts of an event, keeping in mind the contrasts between individual descriptions.

If you do not have a problem with English language please read the bolded in red and recognise that it makes an exact case in favour of what I am saying and not in favour of your exclusionary attempt! Abi you no sabi read oyinbo again? ? ?

It says 'collective descriptions' - why are you then looking at the four selected by christians only? ? ?

And you call that logical!

Poof!

Deep Sight, come on, use your head and stop embarrassing your profession here. 

If several people witness a crime, it is probative to look for similarities [/b]in their [size=18pt]collective descriptions[/size] to substantiate the facts of an event, keeping in mind the contrasts between individual descriptions

I already have my SIMILARITIES in the collective descriptions to substantiate the facts. If you believe there are no similarities, please show us rather than foaming at the mouth.

My collective description is [b]fine with 4 people, because THOSE [/b]four have [b]ENOUGH evidence to prove my points here. I don't need to call in a thousand others because it is sufficient. As far as I am concerned, the other witnesses are not credible, but whatever truth they have to present is already contained in these 4 gospels.

The BURDEN OF PROOF is on you to present one of the other witnesses if they have CONTRARY evidence.

Indeed, I have chosen 4 witnesses of the man Jesus, howbeit two are eyewitnesses and two are second-eye witnesses. I KNOW (by study) that they do not have contrary views to the ones I didn't [/b]choose [size=14pt][b]as to[/size] the existence [/i]of a man called Jesus, and as to [i]significant events in his life as recorded in the four Gospels.

[size=18pt]IF you think any of the other witnesses (non-canonical books) has information AGAINST the logic presented here, just present it already and stop dancing around  !!!.[/size]

What you are saying here is like saying a murder happens on a street and four people witness it (two first-hand, two others as reported by their siblings who didn't go to the police themselves) and they report it to the police but some dude on the street claims [/i]he saw it too, and presents [i]the same significant evidence that the other four presented PLUS some other information that is considered irrelevant to the case. How does his extra witness detract from the four witnesses' accounts?

The problem with you is that you think this thread is about the Deity of Christ or any other such thing and so you are already shivering like a demon. [b]Think again[/b]. We are discussing his existence and whatever significant physical events that made him renown.

nuclearboy:


So here's a science major (Inesqor) trouncing you at "law" just because you see red at the mention of Christ and thus refuse to use truth backed by your thinking cap?

Lol, sir, don't  make me laugh! Did you see the funny chap even produced an extract that argued my point for me, and could not even read the extract to see what it was saying. If that's what you call trouncing, be my guest and trounce me everyday!

POOF!

InesQor:

Deep Sight, come on, use your head and stop embarrassing your profession here. 
I already have my SIMILARITIES in the collective descriptions to substantiate the facts. If you believe there are no similarities, please show us rather than foaming at the mouth.

My collective description is fine with 4 people, because THOSE [/b]four have [b]ENOUGH evidence to prove my points here. I don't need to call in a thousand others because it is sufficient. As far as I am concerned, the other witnesses are not credible, but whatever truth they have to present is already contained in these 4 gospels.

The BURDEN OF PROOF is on you to present one of the other witnesses if they have CONTRARY evidence.

Indeed, I have chosen 4 witnesses of the man Jesus, howbeit two are eyewitnesses and two are second-eye witnesses. I KNOW (by study) that they do not have contrary views to the ones I didn't [/b]choose as to the [b]existence [/i]of a man called Jesus, and as to [i]significant events in his life as recorded in the four Gospels.

[size=18pt]IF you think any of the other witnesses (non-canonical books) has information AGAINST the logic presented here, just present it already and stop dancing around !!!.[/size]

What you are saying here is like saying a murder happens on a street and four people witness it (two first-hand, two others as reported by their siblings who didn't go to the police themselves) and they report it to the police but some dude on the street claims [/i]he saw it too, and presents [i]the same significant evidence that the other four presented PLUS some other information that is considered irrelevant to the case. How does his extra witness detract from the four witnesses' accounts?

The problem with you is that you think this thread is about the Deity of Christ or any other such thing and so you are already shivering like a demon. [b]Think again[/b]. We are discussing his existence and whatever significant physical events that made him renown.

Lol, you dont even have the grace to admit that what you extracted made a case in favour of my comments. Enjoy your "logical" construct that selects its logic only from the books christians chose. Abeg Jaare.

". . . look for similarities in their collective descriptions to substantiate the facts of an event, keeping in mind the contrasts between individual descriptions. . ."

I thought this was English and not Greek.

Deep Sight:

Lol, you dont even have the grace to admit that what you extracted made a case in favour of my comments. Enjoy your "logical" construct that selects its logic only from the books christians chose. Abeg Jaare.

This insistence of yours is rather shameful. I would have thought more of you

The extract argues my case and not yours. If it argues YOURS, then you need to show us the non-similarities in the non-canonical gospels, compared with the canonical, and how it argues against the existence and significant events of Christ's life.

". . . look for similarities in their collective descriptions to substantiate the facts of an event, keeping in mind the contrasts between individual descriptions. . ."

Similarities in the collective descriptions ALREADY applies to the four gospels because the four of them don't discuss the matter from the same perspectives. You claim there were other witnesses, I say they are not credible. If you believe they are credible, let us see what they have to say. It will be either
[list]
[li]AGAINST what my witnesses say here: here you will have a case[/li], or
[li]FOR what my witnesses say. In this case, you have wasted our time by all your chicanery.[/li]
[/list]

Unfortunately, you are still revelling in those ignoble conceptions that blind you to reason whenever Christ Jesus is mentioned.

Have fun wallowing blindly in this self-constructed morass of yours! 



Deep Sight? Don't make me laugh please.

By the way, I should have recalled your various arguments with viaro. You are known to go on and on dancing around for days and posts without producing valid posts to support your crappy ideas.  My friend would keep asking you to reply to some question and you will dance round for days rather than say you have no answer.

If you believe that by omitting the non-canonical gospels I have missed a significant argument AGAINST my own logic, present it. I have been asking for ONE WEEK now, and Nairaland is my witness. 

Stop wasting our time if you have nothing to do or say on this thread. Its not compulsory to win every argument. You should concede when you make a silly error in your thinking.

enjoy yasef jaare. logical construct from four accounts indeed. the others are not credible indeed. simply by your say-so abi?

Lol, enjoy yasef.

small advise, go brush up on english comprehension so you dont bring extracts that contradict your argument in future.

Deep Sight:

enjoy yasef jaare. logical construct from four accounts indeed. the others are not credible indeed. simply by your say-so abi?

Lol, enjoy yasef.

small advise, go brush up on english comprehension so you dont bring extracts that contradict your argument in future.

Ah, he runs away. 

Small [i]advise [/i]right?  Why not take your own advice and apply it to simple spelling?

But really, you should consider a refund on your University Education. I'm an engineer arguing plain logic with you - a Lawyer - and you cant even present witnesses to save your scrawny neck. 

Good riddance to bad rubbish. 

@Deepsight, no Inesqor, na so dem they behave they go first claim logic but when you don corner them de go claim spirit.

@Inesqor, u raised certain issues that at best showed you are truly not answering the core issues

1. some  Christians claim that the writers of the 4 gospel wrote by inspiration not by being eyewitness

2. Other claim they were actually eyewitnesses, to the event of Jesus A.S life

Now which is it, inspiration business or eyewitnesses

Any of the two directs the following questions at us:

1. when was the Nt actually written?
 this questions has long been answered by Biblical Scholars and they claim the NT came to existence about 70 -100 years after Jesus but we read the following : That the most ancient Manuscript in existence today were written some 200 - 400 years after Jesus they are known as the codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinitcus. Now clearly non of this were written by any of Jesus desciple or any eyewitness in his time and as often said, the NT was composed out of Oral traditions then the 4 came and started books out of the oral traditions.

2. Who wrote the NT?
 Looking at the time it was composed the NT was likely written by anonymous individuals and funny u think that this validated you eyewitness claims:
Certain apostles argued about who among them should be most important when Jesus acquired his kingdom (Mark 9:33-37).
The apostles deserted Jesus after his arrest (Mat 26:56).
After the arrest of Jesus, one of the apostles denied even being acquainted with him (Mat 26:69-75).
Some people thought Jesus was crazy (John 10:20).
Jesus could not seem to perform miracles in a certain geographic location (Mark 6:1-5).
Jesus spent his early life uncertain about the precise nature of his ministry (Luke 2:51-52; 3:23).
Jesus confessed ignorance about certain future events (Mark 13:32).
Jesus had moments of bitterness (Mat 26:36-46).
Jesus uttered a cry of despair from the cross (Mark 15:34).

couldn't they have gotten all this stories from other sources such as the oral traditions I talked about?

Again you wrote about his disciples forsaking him, the question comes how do they now become eyewitness to the event that occur before Jesus alledged crucifxion? since we read they deserted him. this would mean they were not eyewitness atleast to the event before his crucifixion.

3. you simply Ignored the Fact that there are contradiction between certian naratives u just go and read the Geneaology of Christ where two different list ends at the same name, at one point we the number of names between Abraham to David differs for mathew and Luke, again we from david downwards we Read an ancestry through Solomon for Mathew and an ancestry through Natan for Luke, the question is what is going on? isn't this an indication that one of them must be lying?
doesn't this logically invalidate your false claims?

InesQor:

Stop being so duplicitous. You know very well that Josephus is, in historical circles, agreed to have written about a MAN called Jesus. That is the argument at this point and not about whether he is/was Son of God or anything else he did. You are falling into the same dank hole that Deep Sight always falls into, which blinds him to reason.  

This statement is not entirely true because the writing about Jesus from Josephus is still in dispute. . . .But lets move on, so what if Josephus says that a man name Jesus lived? How does what he wrote about Jesus come close to what is found in the gospels?. . . .

Who else is the Christus of whom Tacitus wrote and spoke about the Christians [/i]who took after him?   Are you serious? You know another [i]Christus [/i]who was crucified and a group of people called [i]Christians [/i]took after?

Its clear that you don't want to touch the point where Tacitus said that the whole story was a mischievous superstition.

This point of yours is MOOT. The fact that they wrote [/b]about the man [b][i]at all lends credence to his existence.  

I am not interested in his existence, I am more interested in the claims of what people wrote about him in the gospels, his existence is completely different from the claims that were written about him by other, I hope you know that there is a VERY BIG difference. Back during the 1st century people were busy making all kinds of claims about themselves, even Josephus wrote that the Roman emperor Vespasian was the messiah and we know that Vespasian existed, but I am more interested in the claims not the existence of the figure, Mohamed the prophet of Islam truly existed no doubt, but does that mean that all that was written about him in the hadith is true?. . . .

You are either being ignorant here, or a plain liar. The gospels are either eye-witness accounts or ELSE second-hand eye-witness accounts.

Not true, The story was first widely published long after the alleged events by a publishers and promoters who had a vested interest in the "Leadership by Four People" then known as the "Tetrarchy". The 4 gospels were commensurate with the political environment, and the legal environment in a Roman court of law in which "Eyewitness status" might be challenged. Historical propaganda authored and published at that time would have us believe the stories were legitimate, but the Arian controversy suggests otherwise.

No historian would say that all four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and neither am I doing so. Not even the earliest Church historians claimed as much. Mark's Gospel was written-according to a reliable very early tradition-by a companion, a disciple of the apostle Peter, who was an eyewitness. So you have a secondhand [/i]eyewitness account. [i]Luke says in his Gospel and in Acts that he wrote on the basis of eyewitness accounts. He interviewed eyewitnesses and collected written material on the basis of eyewitness accounts, and from this he wrote his own historical Gospel.

2 things:

1. How do you know that the tradition is reliable? How do you know that the author of the gospel wasn't telling lies? The author of the gospel of mark which is the first gospel that was written and from which all the others were copied from, did not state who he was, he did not say where he got his information from and never mentioned any of his sources, so why accept what others wrote and ascribed to the author, when the author himself never made any such claims?. . . .

2. Who ever the author of Mark is wasn't writing any actual history, he was writing an account based on hear say which is very unreliable since he never stated that he was an eye witness to any of the events he wrote 50-60 years after they had happened.

The only two Gospels that may be in the strict sense of the term eyewitness Gospels are Matthew-because he, according to a reliable tradition, was in fact the disciple Levi Matthew-and the Gospel of John, where the author himself and his epilogue at the end of the Gospel both say quite clearly that this was an eyewitness who wrote that Gospel.

Again how do you know that the tradition is reliable?. . . .The author of the book of Matthew never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by an apostle - but it never says so, and it mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that HE was writing it. Was "Matthew" present at the manger when Jesus was supposedly born? Did he witness the 14 generations between Abraham and David, the 14 between David and the Babylonian Captivity, and the 14 between the Babylonian captivity and baby Jesus? Did he sleep between Joseph and Mary so he'd be sure that Joseph never actually had sex with Mary until after Jesus was born?

Was he privy to the conversation between Herod and the wise men? Did he, too, get to watch the dream Joseph had that he should flee to Egypt?

Did Matthew watch "the Transfiguration" he records in Matthew 17? Perhaps he forgot to include himself in the list of disciples Jesus took to that mountain.

It is not just disingenuous, but downright deceitful to claim that the writers of the four canonical gospels were eyewitnesses of what they wrote. There's no freaking way they could have witnessed much of what they wrote, assuming any of it actually happened. But the most damning fact of all with regard to claims of "eyewitness testimony" is that all of the documents are anonymous. They do not reveal who claims to have written them. They are not signed, and they do not bear any chain of custody. They just appeared anonymously and began circulating some 50-60 (being generous) to ninety or more years after the dates of the events they allegedly cover.

So we can say that all four Gospels and the book of Acts were written during the eyewitness period-during the time when eyewitnesses were there, could comment on the text, could correct what was written, could refute it or accept it.

None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts, but the gospel of Luke explicitly is not an eyewitness account in the very first passage. By analogy, this significantly reduces the probability that any of the other gospels were eyewitness accounts. All four of them claim events that are unlikely to have happened but are very likely to fit the wishful thinking of Christians.

The confusion is entirely yours, mazaje. It is a logical and progressive argument. We began by discussing the existence of the man, and then transitioned into the reports about him as recorded in the gospels.

How do you know that the reports about him in the gospels are true, when the gospels have already been shown not to be reliable accounts?. . . .The inconsistencies and contradictory account of events in the gospels alone is enough to show that the authors of the gospels do not know what they were writing about. . .

Your argument here is baseless and a little childish, sorry. The POINT being made with you and your associates was that if I must play the devil's advocate here, whoever wrote the gospels (whoever they really were) definitely intended to tell a story about this man Jesus, and also make references that they WERE the ones with Him (e.g. Matthew and John the beloved). So if I am to craft an impersonating story, will I leave so many loopholes to paint[b] myself, my accomplices and my own cause[/b] in a bad light?

The part I highlighted is completely false, read the gospels again and you will see that non of what you have written is true, the gospel of Matthew is a second or third person narrative, and the author in NO way or form implies that he was close of Jesus or has ever meet him, he was just reporting a story that's all. . . . The gospel mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that he was writing it or wanted people to know that the author was ever with Jesus at any time. . . .He is a passage from the gospel of Matthew. . .

Mat 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.

Does this look like Matthew writing about himself or some body writing about Matthew?. . . .

Here again:

uainted with him (Mat 26:69-75).
Some people thought Jesus was crazy (John 10:20).
Jesus could not seem to perform miracles in a certain geographic loc[b]Certain apostles argued about who among them should be most important when Jesus acquired his kingdom (Mark 9:33-37).
The apostles deserted Jesus after his arrest (Mat 26:56).
After the arrest of Jesus, one of the apostles denied even being acqation (Mark 6:1-5).
Jesus spent his early life uncertain about the precise nature of his ministry (Luke 2:51-52; 3:23).
Jesus confessed ignorance about certain future events (Mark 13:32).
Jesus had moments of bitterness (Mat 26:36-46).
Jesus uttered a cry of despair from the cross (Mark 15:34).[/b]

You are yet to establish that any of the gospels were written by any disciples of Jesus so your point here is MOOT, NON of the gospels says tat it was written by any of the disciples of Jesus.

As you have said, they were very educated Greek speaking authors. Even Homer in the Iliad and other great works, for instance won't make such a silly blunder. And now we have a group of (obviously talented) individuals. Have you not thus shot yourself in the belly by making such a claim?  The devil's advocate should crumble at that point, then.

All four of the gospels are written in Greek, and the direct disciples of Jesus were Aramaic speakers, generally uneducated, and it is unlikely that they knew Greek. The gospels of Matthew and Luke were apparently spin-offs of the previous gospel of Mark, a point that can be discerned by examining their shared structure, something that independent eyewitnesses would be very unlikely to do unless they were plagiarists of each other.

No, you are wrong. John the beloved, at least, clearly states that he wrote that book. Luke said same. And that is[b] in the least[/b].

The author of Luke never stated who he was, church tradition says the author of the book was Luke, the author never says who he was. . . .According to tradition this Gospel was written by the apostle John, and the last chapter says :
" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was added to the Gospels, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.

Hold your own, man. Show me what you've got cos your arguments here are more spurious.
Haha the Kanye West thing was a joke on the moment's spur.

Spurious, eh? Interesting. . . .Nothing do you my man. . .

Meanwhile I hope your arguments will at least be honest this time. I guess that's something you are/were known for. 

My arguments are honest enough for me. . .I doubt if they can ever be honest enough for you, but all the same nothing do you. . .

vedaxcool:

@Deepsight, no Inesqor, na so dem they behave they go first claim logic but when you don corner them de go claim spirit.

@Inesqor, u raised certain issues that at best showed you are truly not answering the core issues

1. some  Christians claim that the writers of the 4 gospel wrote by inspiration not by being eyewitness

2. Other claim they were actually eyewitnesses, to the event of Jesus A.S life

Now which is it, inspiration business or eyewitnesses

Any of the two directs the following questions at us:

1. when was the Nt actually written?
 this questions has long been answered by Biblical Scholars and they claim the NT came to existence about 70 -100 years after Jesus but we read the following : That the most ancient Manuscript in existence today were written some 200 - 400 years after Jesus they are known as the codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinitcus. Now clearly non of this were written by any of Jesus desciple or any eyewitness in his time and as often said, the NT was composed out of Oral traditions then the 4 came and started books out of the oral traditions.

2. Who wrote the NT?
 Looking at the time it was composed the NT was likely written by anonymous individuals and funny u think that this validated you eyewitness claims:
Certain apostles argued about who among them should be most important when Jesus acquired his kingdom (Mark 9:33-37).
The apostles deserted Jesus after his arrest (Mat 26:56).
After the arrest of Jesus, one of the apostles denied even being acquainted with him (Mat 26:69-75).
Some people thought Jesus was crazy (John 10:20).
Jesus could not seem to perform miracles in a certain geographic location (Mark 6:1-5).
Jesus spent his early life uncertain about the precise nature of his ministry (Luke 2:51-52; 3:23).
Jesus confessed ignorance about certain future events (Mark 13:32).
Jesus had moments of bitterness (Mat 26:36-46).
Jesus uttered a cry of despair from the cross (Mark 15:34).

couldn't they have gotten all this stories from other sources such as the oral traditions I talked about?

Again you wrote about his disciples forsaking him, the question comes how do they now become eyewitness to the event that occur before Jesus alledged crucifxion? since we read they deserted him. this would mean they were not eyewitness atleast to the event before his crucifixion.

3. you simply Ignored the Fact that there are contradiction between certian naratives u just go and read the Geneaology of Christ where two different list ends at the same name, at one point we the number of names between Abraham to David differs for mathew and Luke, again we from david downwards we Read an ancestry through Solomon for Mathew and an ancestry through Natan for Luke, the question is what is going on? isn't this an indication that one of them must be lying?
doesn't this logically invalidate your false claims?

Shut up and get out of here, who wrote the koran?. . . .Hope you know that the koran also started appearing long after the death of mohammed the cradle robber. . . .

@vedaxcool: Okay.

@mazaje: Its good to see you have an agenda and you are not too bothered about the existence of Jesus but rather the "messiah claims". Even the non-canonical gospels called him Messiah. Unfortunately, some disputes entertain a lack of adequate evidence on either side and this one is an example. But like I told Chrisbenogor, it is not the FINAL proof, the OP is an exercise in reasoning, an auxilliary to faith if you may, geared to enable a minor jump of faith to believe rather than a giant leap.

If everything about Christianity could be logically and historically proven then of what essence would faith be? If all possible advancement in science was achieved, of what use will research be?

As for the historians, your argument here hardly holds a bucket of water. All we know as history today is de facto truth. How do you know your views on history were not doctored? No, we work with what we have, unless there is glaring contrary evidence. If you have some, rather than these denials, please lets have them.

mazaje:

Shut up and get out of here, who wrote the koran?. . . .Hope you know that the koran also started appearing long after the death of mohammed the cradle robber. . . .

Oh, did someone hear my goat bleat? it sounds very nasty and happens to be an atheist?

vedaxcool:


Oh, did someone hear my goat bleat? it sounds very nasty and happens to be an atheist?

Did some one happen to see or hear about a cradle robber that consummated a marriage with a 9 year old baby girl? It sounds very nasty but it happens to be the founder of Islam the delusion you have been brain washed to be holding tightly unto. . .

@mazaje:

My reply above was for post #52. I was mobile at the time (went for lunch) so I didn't see post #53.

My reply to post #53? There is too much to say about it. . . but I guess I have nothing more to say except this:

InesQor:

All we know as history today is de facto truth. How do you know your views on history were not doctored? No, we work with what we have, unless there is glaring contrary evidence. If you have some, rather than these denials, please lets have them.

and this, from an old thread of mine, talking about truth and facts and how we can or cannot work with them:

InesQor:

@Pastor AIO: thanks for joining us. You have made very profound points, so I will have to take this in chunks.

This question assumes that meaning is transferred only by a distinction of identity. I believe meaning translates between the de jure situation (what is right) and the de facto situation (what is fact) through a separation of identity and separation of time. The entire De jure situation and the de facto situation will only coincide at infinity, so to speak.

Take for instance the MEANING of truth. De jure aspect of truth is the inaugural meaning which can only occur ONCE,  if a truth is to be truth, it must be absolute and independent of any other point of view. De facto aspect of truth on the other hand is deferred in a separation of time from De jure truth, it has undergone a delay in perspective, so it needs to have its meaning conferred upon it by the observer, who in turn has also undergone a delay in perspective (since the observer was not present  in that form at the de jure position, unless we refer to God, and in that special case, God's de jure and de facto truth are coincidental).

Thus I conclude that meaning is both intrinsic (de jure) and conferred (de facto). For example, if something is the FIRST (intrinsic) of its kind, then it is a first by consequence of a second (intrinsic) that follows it. The second is therefore the prerequisite of the first, it defines the FIRST because of its delayed arrival, it has permitted the first to be a first. The first, thus recognizable only after the second has existed, is in this respect a third (conferred) since the second defines it, and in turn the second would be a fourth, etc etc.This illustrates conferring of meaning by the separation of identity even in the face of intrinsic value. Each addition to the mix is also a FIRST. Each "original", then, is only a copy except at infinity.

As for God, for whom de jure and de facto truth, being and meaning are totally coincidental, He is in a class of his own, He is not the/a FIRST but the/a ONLY.

Again, if we look at the Great Sphinx at Giza, we can assume the meaning it portrayed for the Egyptians; but we cannot know for certainty the inaugural, De jure meaning. We cannot make our available, De facto meaning coincide with the inaugural, De jure meaning, yet we know that when that past was a present, it had all the properties of a present. Meaning has been conferred here, by a separation of time. Maybe even if we travelled back in time, the advent of time will corrupt the De facto meaning because of the shift in "origin", the present (in the past) De facto meaning will still fail to be identical with its inaugural De jure meaning, because the De facto meaning gave rise to the time-travel in the first case.

We work with what we have (de facto truth). Anyone can claim that our de facto is not de jure, but we need better evidence than these denials.

Do you have contrary evidence (rather than denials) to the existence or life of the man called Jesus the Christ? Please let us have it.

vedaxcool:

@Deepsight, no Inesqor, na so dem they behave they go first claim logic but when you don corner them de go claim spirit.

Na wah o, e tire me. I dont know how somebody can cite an extract which itself talks about "collective descriptions" and then turn about to insist that he needs only stick to four descriptions selected by Christians - inorder to build a "logical" construct!

Mind boggling!

It blows the mind, such illogical logic, but if i talk now, the whole christian world go talk say na becos i no like Jesus.

Make i kukuma shat my mouth.

InesQor:


Small [i]advise [/i]right?  Why not take your own advice and apply it to simple spelling?

Okay, clearly you've never been to the United States. No problem.

But really, you should consider a refund on your University Education. I'm an engineer arguing plain logic with you - a Lawyer - and you cant even present witnesses to save your scrawny neck. 

Good riddance to bad rubbish. 

Wont do your homework for you son, not in the mood. Enjoy.

Deep Sight:

Okay, clearly you've never been to the United States. No problem.

Oh poor Deep Sight! Is this guy alright in the head?     

[s]Yeah you would say so, I guess maybe you are in the United States right now, and if true it only sheds some more light on an earlier surmise of mine. . .[/s].
For me, I have not been to the United States yet but I can thump my chest and say I have a sound education nonetheless, and that is no mean boast. . ,  and it's ENOUGH to know that ALL OVER THE WORLD wherever English is spoken, [size=15pt]advice[/size] is the noun and [size=15pt]advise[/size] is the verb.

You might want to revisit that English Primer of yours? 

Keep digging your own grave, man.  The more you post on this thread the greater the fool you are making out of yourself. 

okay o. e do, oga adviser. enjoy ya tree, no need to get so bitter over a simple debate, ehn?

though context and usage seem lost on you there! u didnt even get what i meant about the states!

bros, enjoy

InesQor:


[s]Yeah you would say so, I guess maybe you are in the United States right now, and if true it only sheds some more light on an earlier surmise of mine. . .[/s].

Just out of curiosity. . .are you referring here to what you emailed me about? I dont get the connection tho.