All of the writers on your list are well after Jesus purported physical time on the earth - they all quote from other sources and none of them have first hand information nor were any of them eyewitnesses to the events that they ‘believe’.
Is there anything in this world isn’t proof of the god you believe in?
I disagree with that; Ignatius , the 3rd bishop of Antioch, was a personal student of the Apostle John.
Polycarp lived not long after Christ, he was in fact the first recorded martyrdom in post new testament history. The Romans killed him he was the Bishop of Smyrna.
Both were only 69 years after Christ.
Yes, your sarcasm.
key word being AFTER - they had no personal first hand knowledge - Ignatiius may have been a student of John - but that still means he was quoting John - not Jesus.
You said " All" the writers I listed were " Well after Jesus", I disagreed with that, because it simply is not true. Phlegon of Marathon lived only 80 years after Christ.
Mickiel, there are a ton of statements in that post that should be cited. People aren’t going to agree they’re true just because you say they’re true.
The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion.
Cite please?
We know that. The question here is whether your argument stands up to any kind of logical analysis.
Again, cite?
Maybe consider reading about evolution before you try (and fail) to summarize it.
Matthew, Mark , Luke and John had first hand knowledge. Those writers walked with him.
1 day is ‘well after’ as far as first hand knowledge is concerned. - But, since you disagree with the ‘well after’ qualifier - we’ll just say that ’
ALL of the writers on your list were AFTER the events and NONE had first hand knowledge or personally witnessed any of the events for which they write.
That help?
None of the Gospels date back to having been written by the first hand apostles - - secondly, I thought we were looking for extra=biblical resources to ‘prove’ the bible - using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular.
Cite, I’ll give you the best cite on Consciousness that I know of in life, " The Julian Jaynes Society." I’ll go better than that, get Dr. Jaynes book, " The Origin of Consciousness in the breakdown of the Bicameral mind." The best work on consciousness I ever read. I don’t agree with everything Jaynes believes.
You don’t know what your talking about, Matthew wrote Matthew only 50 years after Christ, Mark wrote Mark 68 years after Christ, Luke wrote Luke 60 years after Christ and John wrote John only about 85-90 years after Christ. The Lockman foundation and the New Scofield study material provide these dates.
Lets talk about John -
[QUOTE=Gospel of John - Wikipedia]
The Gospel According to John (Greek τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγέλιον), commonly referred to as the Gospel of John or simply John,** is an anonymous account of the public ministry of Jesus. **It begins with the witness and affirmation of John the Baptist and concludes with the death, burial, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. This account is fourth of the canonical gospels, after the synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke), and is often referred to in New Testament scholarship as the Fourth Gospel.
Chapter 21 states that the book derives from the testimony of the 'disciple whom Jesus loved.’ Along with Peter, the unnamed disciple is especially close to Jesus, and early church tradition identified him as John the Apostle, one of Jesus’ Twelve Apostles. The gospel is closely related in style and content to the three surviving Epistles of John such that commentators treat the four books,[1] along with the Book of Revelation, as a single body of Johannine literature. According to most modern scholars, however, John was not the author of any of these books.[2]
[/QUOTE]
lets talk about Mathew -
[QUOTE=Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia]
he Gospel of Matthew was composed between 70 and 110,** with most scholars preferring the period 80-90.[2] The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, **intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle as the source of much of the tradition.[3] He drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community,[4] all of which probably derived ultimately from earlier oral gospel traditions.[5]
[/QUOTE]
Shall I continue? Or is this enough to show who knows what ther’re talking about and who does’nt ?
Lets talk about him, he signed off as the writer of his own book, explain that to me if he did not write it. John 21:24 " This is the disciple who bears WITNESS of these things, AND WROTE these things, and we KNOW this WITNESS is true." The man is literally signing his own book here, why would some other writer say that?
Lets talk about Matthew, in fact all the books of the NT, it was obvious tradition that the writer of the letter named it after himself, except Paul.
Matthew wrote Matthew
Mark wrote Mark
Luke wrote Luke
John wrote John
Peter wrote 1st and 2nd Peter
James wrote James
Jude wrote Jude
Since we haven’t the slightest idea who those writers were, there’s no way we can say they “walked with Jesus,” even if the time frame makes that possible. There’s no evidence that the book of Luke was written by a disciple named Luke, or Mark by Mark, etc. And we have no original copies of any of them.
What got changed since they were first written? We can only speculate. It’s unlikely that the stories were dumbed down, more likely they were pumped up by pious promulgators.
Besides, it is well known by biblical scholars that these books drew heavily upon each other. They are not independent sources and cannot be used to corroborate stories.
If you haven’t yet read the excellent Staff Report on who wrote the bible, it is high time you do so. In Part 4, it says:
(bolding mine)
No, they didn’t.
Would you please attempt to be specific? I’m not reading an entire book - nevermind that you just made reading it pointless by saying you agree with some (unnamed) parts and don’t agree with others.Tell me how you know consciousness can only arise from consciousness.
And you seem to be ignoring this, but in your post you get the Big Bang and evolution 100% wrong. You could not be any more wrong than “an explosion in space” and “a rock creating an animal.”
I totally disagree with that. Matthew, also called Levi, was the writer of the first gospel. His name appears seventh or eighth in the NT list of Apostles, Matt. 10:3, we know he was a Jew who collected taxes for the Roman government.
We know Mark was a native of Jerusalem, his mothers name was Mary, Acts 12:12. His uncle was Barnabas, Acts 13:13. Mark walked with Paul, Col. 4:10.
We know Luke was a Physician, Col. 4:14, he walked with Paul too. He alone tells of Christ boyhood.
John, the son of Zebedee, it was to John that Jesus commended his mother to while dying on the cross. John walked with Peter. I personally think he was a deep writer and man.
I read the entire book, but I gave it away as a gift. Anyhow, I believe life can only come from life, I do not believe life can be birthed by componants that are not alive. Which is why I say life could not have derived from magic matter and miracle chemicals that evolved from an explosion, or slowly evolved from absolute nothing over the years. Consciousness IS life, its alive! Its a Spirit in man, and I do not believe it has any location within the body, its just there. The ability to think did not come from unthinking matter. Nothing in matter could increase in complexity to finally achieve consciousness. If so, you explain how consciousness evolved from nothing.
That it came from a conscious God is the best explination I have ever considered.