Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

RFD On Who WroteThe Gospels Debate

Jerry947
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 1:23:07 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Here is a debate review of this debate: http://www.debate.org...

Part One:

Con starts off his case by showing that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not latter made up figures and then used the Bible as a source. Then Con goes on to quote several people who stated that the writers were in fact Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The quotes range from 125 AD to 200 AD.

Finally, Con gives two other proofs that indicate that the gospels were written by the original four. Con brings up the fact that the book of Hebrews was truly anonymous and if the church fathers made up the authors to the New Testament, we would also see them making up an author for that book. Then he mentions that the church fathers would have never said that Luke and Mark wrote a gospel (unless it actually happened) since they were not actual apostles of Jesus.

Part Two:

Pro starts off his case by saying that the gospels were too late to have been written by the original gospels. He says that since Matthew and Mark reference the Bar Kochba Revolt of 130 AD, the original four could not have written the gospels.

Pro then brings up that "in Mark the Transfiguration is offered as a reinterpretation of the promised coming of the kingdom of God, which only makes sense if the first generation of disciples have died."

Pro also brings up the fact that Matthew mentions a competing form of Judaism. The problem is that this sect of Judaism isn"t mentioned before 100 AD. Pro then talks about the use of Marcion"s gospel. This reference puts Matthew and Mark around 130 AD. Pro then states that Luke and Acts used Josephus as a source. And since Luke wasn"t mentioned until 180 AD, we can therefore conclude that the gospel was written between 160 AD and 180 AD.

Pro then brings up that the Gospels do not state who actually wrote them. This point would be crucial but it seems that both opponents in the beginning decided that the debate was solely about who wrote them. Pro then brings up that the writers couldn"t have written the gospels due to illiteracy, and due to the fact that they seem to use each other as a source.

Part Three:

Con starts to go on defense. He discusses the Abomination of Desolation and says that his opponent did not provide any sources. This is actually false since Pro did provide a source for this in his opening arguments. However, while Con was wrong about that, he did show that Bar Kochba fails qualification to be the AntiChrist.

Con also gets another source wrong. Con asserts that the book of Matthew does not state that the AntiChrist will do deceitful wonders. But it actually did"

Later...Con points out that Pro didn"t use sources showing that Matthew and Mark used Josephus as a source. Pro then points out that he did actually give a source showing that Luke used Josephus as a source. So again, Con seems to not read the debate properly.

Pro tries to refute the fact that Papias referenced the gospels early on. But his explanation is not great. He simply states that they are some verses that don"t translate well (Hebrew to Greek or vice versa). While he does provide an example, this fact only does not disprove that fact that the gospels were cited way before 140 AD. Con then lists several people that referenced the Gospels early on disproving Pro"s late dates. This to me, is crucial to the debate since early dates make it way more likely that the original men were alive to write the gospels.

Part Four:

So this is how I am going to vote. This debate was messy and it is not easy to vote on. However, Con gets the arguments points since he did establish that the gospels were written early on making it possible for them to be written by Matthew, Mark , Luke, and John. AS for his opening arguments much of them weren"t focussed on for the rest of the debate. The debate seemed to focus more on Pro"s arguments as the debate went on.

As for the conduct point, I am giving it to Pro since Con keep misrepresenting his case throughout the debate. It is Con"s job to read the other person"s side and to not consistently say that their opponent provided no sources when they actually did.

In the future, Con should read the entire debate before posting his argument. It actually isn't that hard to do...

And Pro should focus on his opponent's arguments more and to not try to cram so much information into one argument. I think Pro could have easily won this debate if he did those things.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 2:38:56 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 1:23:07 PM, Jerry947 wrote:
Here is a debate review of this debate: http://www.debate.org...

Part One:

Con starts off his case by showing that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not latter made up figures and then used the Bible as a source. Then Con goes on to quote several people who stated that the writers were in fact Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The quotes range from 125 AD to 200 AD.

Finally, Con gives two other proofs that indicate that the gospels were written by the original four. Con brings up the fact that the book of Hebrews was truly anonymous and if the church fathers made up the authors to the New Testament, we would also see them making up an author for that book. Then he mentions that the church fathers would have never said that Luke and Mark wrote a gospel (unless it actually happened) since they were not actual apostles of Jesus.

Part Two:

Pro starts off his case by saying that the gospels were too late to have been written by the original gospels. He says that since Matthew and Mark reference the Bar Kochba Revolt of 130 AD, the original four could not have written the gospels.

Pro then brings up that "in Mark the Transfiguration is offered as a reinterpretation of the promised coming of the kingdom of God, which only makes sense if the first generation of disciples have died."

Pro also brings up the fact that Matthew mentions a competing form of Judaism. The problem is that this sect of Judaism isn"t mentioned before 100 AD. Pro then talks about the use of Marcion"s gospel. This reference puts Matthew and Mark around 130 AD. Pro then states that Luke and Acts used Josephus as a source. And since Luke wasn"t mentioned until 180 AD, we can therefore conclude that the gospel was written between 160 AD and 180 AD.

Pro then brings up that the Gospels do not state who actually wrote them. This point would be crucial but it seems that both opponents in the beginning decided that the debate was solely about who wrote them. Pro then brings up that the writers couldn"t have written the gospels due to illiteracy, and due to the fact that they seem to use each other as a source.

Not just that they use each other, that the "eye-witnesses" used the non-eye-witnesses. This point was also never addressed.

Part Three:

Con starts to go on defense. He discusses the Abomination of Desolation and says that his opponent did not provide any sources. This is actually false since Pro did provide a source for this in his opening arguments. However, while Con was wrong about that, he did show that Bar Kochba fails qualification to be the AntiChrist.

Con also gets another source wrong. Con asserts that the book of Matthew does not state that the AntiChrist will do deceitful wonders. But it actually did"

Later...Con points out that Pro didn"t use sources showing that Matthew and Mark used Josephus as a source. Pro then points out that he did actually give a source showing that Luke used Josephus as a source. So again, Con seems to not read the debate properly.

Pro tries to refute the fact that Papias referenced the gospels early on. But his explanation is not great. He simply states that they are some verses that don"t translate well (Hebrew to Greek or vice versa). While he does provide an example, this fact only does not disprove that fact that the gospels were cited way before 140 AD. Con then lists several people that referenced the Gospels early on disproving Pro"s late dates. This to me, is crucial to the debate since early dates make it way more likely that the original men were alive to write the gospels.

Wait, I disputed two things here:
1) That the quote was authentic (it is only "preserved" in the works of a known forger)
2) That the quote was referring the the canonical Gospels we have.
Especially number 2. It doesn't matter if A Gospel of Mark or Matthew gets mentioned if we cannot establish that it is OUR Gospels of Mark or Matthew, and with the information from Papias (if it is even authentic) being wrong about OUR Mark and Matthew, it decreases the chance of it actually being a reference to OUR Mark and Matthew.

Part Four:

So this is how I am going to vote. This debate was messy and it is not easy to vote on. However, Con gets the arguments points since he did establish that the gospels were written early on making it possible for them to be written by Matthew, Mark , Luke, and John.

Possible=/=probable.

I also don't see how such a thing was established. It is true that he did attempt to rebut my arguments, but the constant misrepresentation made it impossible to fully respond to the rebuttals (as they were simply incorrect). And I did respond to all his arguments, never misrepresenting, and the responses also, like the rebuttals, seemed to miss the point.

AS for his opening arguments much of them weren"t focussed on for the rest of the debate. The debate seemed to focus more on Pro"s arguments as the debate went on.

As for the conduct point, I am giving it to Pro since Con keep misrepresenting his case throughout the debate. It is Con"s job to read the other person"s side and to not consistently say that their opponent provided no sources when they actually did.

In the future, Con should read the entire debate before posting his argument. It actually isn't that hard to do...

And Pro should focus on his opponent's arguments more and to not try to cram so much information into one argument. I think Pro could have easily won this debate if he did those things.

Yes, I did stretch my arguments too thin (I am more used to writing papers with no upper limit than debate rounds).

But I really don't understand you awarding points the way you did.
His constant misrepresentation of arguments means that my arguments were not really refuted. He never even addressed all my arguments. I did address his.
And the reasons listed above.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
xXKorvexiusXx
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 2:51:42 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Although I was wrong about some points you made (deceitful wonders in Mark), you did in fact get a point for that.

In the end of the day, it came down to giving overwhelming evidence to indicate these were early writings, such as first century quotations of the documents. Once that was done, my initial argument showing the overwhelming external evidence that it was none other than the four traditional authors who wrote the Gospels came into play, which it seems to me was what decided it.
Jerry947
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 3:28:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 2:38:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/19/2016 1:23:07 PM, Jerry947 wrote:
Here is a debate review of this debate: http://www.debate.org...

Part One:

Con starts off his case by showing that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not latter made up figures and then used the Bible as a source. Then Con goes on to quote several people who stated that the writers were in fact Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The quotes range from 125 AD to 200 AD.

Finally, Con gives two other proofs that indicate that the gospels were written by the original four. Con brings up the fact that the book of Hebrews was truly anonymous and if the church fathers made up the authors to the New Testament, we would also see them making up an author for that book. Then he mentions that the church fathers would have never said that Luke and Mark wrote a gospel (unless it actually happened) since they were not actual apostles of Jesus.

Part Two:

Pro starts off his case by saying that the gospels were too late to have been written by the original gospels. He says that since Matthew and Mark reference the Bar Kochba Revolt of 130 AD, the original four could not have written the gospels.

Pro then brings up that "in Mark the Transfiguration is offered as a reinterpretation of the promised coming of the kingdom of God, which only makes sense if the first generation of disciples have died."

Pro also brings up the fact that Matthew mentions a competing form of Judaism. The problem is that this sect of Judaism isn"t mentioned before 100 AD. Pro then talks about the use of Marcion"s gospel. This reference puts Matthew and Mark around 130 AD. Pro then states that Luke and Acts used Josephus as a source. And since Luke wasn"t mentioned until 180 AD, we can therefore conclude that the gospel was written between 160 AD and 180 AD.

Pro then brings up that the Gospels do not state who actually wrote them. This point would be crucial but it seems that both opponents in the beginning decided that the debate was solely about who wrote them. Pro then brings up that the writers couldn"t have written the gospels due to illiteracy, and due to the fact that they seem to use each other as a source.

Not just that they use each other, that the "eye-witnesses" used the non-eye-witnesses. This point was also never addressed.

There were a couple of points that I never addressed. This was one that I didn't think mattered all that much since you only used two sentences to talk about it. I tried to focus on the main arguments presented in the debate.

I did look at your two sentences, yet the source was most likely one of the books you listed. And I wasn't that impressed by your sources since almost all scholars would disagree with those. But I didn't want to talk about sources...

Part Three:

Con starts to go on defense. He discusses the Abomination of Desolation and says that his opponent did not provide any sources. This is actually false since Pro did provide a source for this in his opening arguments. However, while Con was wrong about that, he did show that Bar Kochba fails qualification to be the AntiChrist.

Con also gets another source wrong. Con asserts that the book of Matthew does not state that the AntiChrist will do deceitful wonders. But it actually did"

Later...Con points out that Pro didn"t use sources showing that Matthew and Mark used Josephus as a source. Pro then points out that he did actually give a source showing that Luke used Josephus as a source. So again, Con seems to not read the debate properly.

Pro tries to refute the fact that Papias referenced the gospels early on. But his explanation is not great. He simply states that they are some verses that don"t translate well (Hebrew to Greek or vice versa). While he does provide an example, this fact only does not disprove that fact that the gospels were cited way before 140 AD. Con then lists several people that referenced the Gospels early on disproving Pro"s late dates. This to me, is crucial to the debate since early dates make it way more likely that the original men were alive to write the gospels.

Wait, I disputed two things here:
1) That the quote was authentic (it is only "preserved" in the works of a known forger)

You said we have no evidence that it was authentic. You didn't mention that it is found in the works of a forger. That may have helped you.

2) That the quote was referring the the canonical Gospels we have.
Especially number 2. It doesn't matter if A Gospel of Mark or Matthew gets mentioned if we cannot establish that it is OUR Gospels of Mark or Matthew, and with the information from Papias (if it is even authentic) being wrong about OUR Mark and Matthew, it decreases the chance of it actually being a reference to OUR Mark and Matthew.

This point is ridiculous in my opinion. You would have to show evidence that two other gospels were written. I know you talked about him getting references wrong (difference in language) but I feel that your opponent properly responded to all of that. I think your first point is better.

Part Four:

So this is how I am going to vote. This debate was messy and it is not easy to vote on. However, Con gets the arguments points since he did establish that the gospels were written early on making it possible for them to be written by Matthew, Mark , Luke, and John.

Possible=/=probable.

Well, it was also the quotes he gave from people establishing who wrote the gospels. But I also included that in my RFD.

I also don't see how such a thing was established. It is true that he did attempt to rebut my arguments, but the constant misrepresentation made it impossible to fully respond to the rebuttals (as they were simply incorrect). And I did respond to all his arguments, never misrepresenting, and the responses also, like the rebuttals, seemed to miss the point.

Well, to be fair, you never responding to anything in his third contention. And yes, I realize your case was misrepresented (I don't think intentionally), but it is still your job to address your opponents arguments and to defend yours as best you can. I do think your downfall was all the information you tried to cram in. You would have been able to respond to your opponent's arguments/misrepresentation if you had kept things more simple. But...that is just my take on it.

AS for his opening arguments much of them weren"t focussed on for the rest of the debate. The debate seemed to focus more on Pro"s arguments as the debate went on.

As for the conduct point, I am giving it to Pro since Con keep misrepresenting his case throughout the debate. It is Con"s job to read the other person"s side and to not consistently say that their opponent provided no sources when they actually did.

In the future, Con should read the entire debate before posting his argument. It actually isn't that hard to do...

And Pro should focus on his opponent's arguments more and to not try to cram so much information into one argument. I think Pro could have easily won this debate if he did those things.

Yes, I did stretch my arguments too thin (I am more used to writing papers with no upper limit than debate rounds).

Yeah, honestly, I think things could have gone your way if you maybe had three main arguments to focus on.

But I really don't understand you awarding points the way you did.

Hope this helps a little.

His constant misrepresentation of arguments means that my arguments were not really refuted. He never even addressed all my arguments. I did address his.

The parts he misrepresented were really just about sources. He did go after your main arguments. And no, neither one of you addressed every single point that each of you made.

And the