The Gospel Accounts Are Anonymous

"He first appeals to the Abomination of Desolation (desolating sacrilege) annotated in the Gospel of Mark and Matthew, from Daniel 12, which was written around 530 BC." The desolating sacrilege from Daniel was an event where a statue of Zeus was erected on a holy site. Mark and Matthew both make reference to this when talking about their event, which they also call the desolating sacrilege. It is, therefore, more likely that the event being talked about in Mark and Matthew is similar to the event in Daniel. When we look for events between the terminus post quem and terminus ante quem of Mark and Matthew, we can find three events in which this could work. Some say it is the threat to erect a statue in the holy of holies, the Caligula Crisis. This doesn't work however as the erection never happened, and many places in Mark and Matthew presuppose the first generation of Christians are dead. It could be the destruction of the Jewish Temple, aka the Olivet Discourse. This, however, is only an event of tragedy to the Jews and does not parallel well with Daniel. Which leaves the Bar Kochba Revolt, which was sparked when a Roman Temple and statues were erected on the site where the Temple once stood. This is a tragedy to the Jews and parallels with Daniel perfectly. "He then says Bar Kochba was attributed with doing miracles. Again, we see no sources" You might want to look at the section that says "Sources"... Included in there is the academic paper by Dr. Detering that details this exact thing. "and what's worse is that the Antichrist is supposed to literally claim to be God and sit in the Holy Temple, create a one world government" This is appealing to other writings than what is specifically being talked about. It presupposes that there existed a unified Christianity to have these unified ideals. The authors of Mark and Matthew do not necessarily have to hold the same views as the authors of the other books. "My opponent claims that the Gospel of Matthew says the Antichrist will do deceitful wonders, but the only thing deceitful is this very claim, as the Gospel of Matthew does not say this" Matthew 24:24 specifically says that the Antichrist will perform deceitful wonders. Matthew 24:23 also says that the antichrist will say that he is the Christ, and uses the exact same words that are attributed to Bar Kochba. "According to my opponent, the Transfiguration only makes sense if the Apostles died. Now, what's the problem with this? He completely fabricated it, such a thing has no implication whatsoever." Not even close. I said that the Transfiguration is offering a reinterpretation from earlier Christianity. There is evidence within early Christian sources, like Paul and even some remnants in Mark, that the coming of the kingdom of God was taught to be coming in the lifetime of those that heard of it from Jesus, the first generation. The only reason to reinterpret this is if the first generation has died out. "He gives us no reference to where Matthew makes it seem as if these titles are common, he gives us no evidence that it actually became common in the second century, and the idea that it can't be first century because we don't have surviving records on it is an Argument from Silence." Matthew uses these terms without ever explaining what these mean to the audience, which presupposes that they know what these terms are. This presupposes that these terms are common. There are also indications that sitting on the seat of Moses was common as well. We also see from many documents that talk about first century Judaism that sitting on the seat of Moses was not common. And arguments from silence in historical studies are not things that can just be dismissed out of hand. "He then accuses Mark and Matthew of using material from Josephus, again, without any evidence." I never said Mark or Matthew used Josephus, but Luke-Acts, and saying not a single historian thinks that is true is simply ridiculous as it is the views of the Acts-Seminar, a group of historians who specialize in the field. http://advancementofsciencesociety.weebly.com... "The next ridiculous thing my opponent says is that John references the Samaritan Temple (again, he gives us no reference to the Gospel of John to prove this), and concludes John was written in the second century. Now, let's pretend for a second John references this. It is still irrelevant, as we know the Samaritan Temple existed since at least 500 BC [5], and thus anyone from the 1st century AD could easily reference it as it would have existed for many centuries." John 4:21 has Jesus talking to a Samaritan women and telling them: that the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the father. It is strongly implied that the mountain in question is Mount Gerizim. The first Temple was destroyed in the 2nd century BCE, as pointed out in your own source. The second temple finished reconstruction around 140CE. "He says Papias cannot be used as evidence, as he references Matthew wrote his Gospel in the original Hebrew, however internal evidence shows Matthew wrote in the original Greek." Simply wishing away reality does not make it go away. There are many examples of phrases that work in Greek but lose their meaning in Hebrew (similar to how the Peter Piper alliteration loses meaning in Spanish). For one example, there is a petra/petros wordplay in Matthew16:18 that works in Greek but not in Hebrew. "For example, the Gospel of Matthew is directed to a Jewish audience , but after the Roman Jewish War of 70 AD, the Jews were completely removed and scattered. Thus, Matthew could only have written it to his audience if he was writing before 70 AD." Except that Matthew was intended for a Jewish audience in the sense that it taught that the Law was to be kept, contrary to other forms of Christianity. Jews also were not really all that scattered after 70CE. "Secondly, Clement of Rome, around 95 AD, tells us Paul was martyred for his faith." Except that 1 Clement is anonymous, there is no reason to suspect that it was actually written by Clement, and has a range of dates from the late 1st to mid 2nd century. "However, the Book of Acts documents through Paul's life, and it ends with him living in Rome for 2 years, proclaiming Christ [15]. This means that Acts must be before 95 AD. Also, we also know Paul died 67 AD [16], and thus that would put Acts before 67 AD. Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before Acts, meaning all the Gospels are extremely early." Non-sequitor. The author of Acts could have known about 1 Clement's existence but disagreed with it. There is no real reason to suspect that Paul was martyred. We also have no reason to suspect that the death of Paul was all that relevant to the author of Acts and his intended purpose. If we suspect that the tradition of Paul's death is true, then there would be reason to leave it out (Acts is intended for a Roman audience, Paul is traditionally thought to have been killed by the Romans). Furthermore, just because it does not explicitly talk about the death of Paul doesn't mean it doesn't hint at it. Acts 20:25"38 hints that Paul was dead. Furthermore, this does not make the other points for late dating the Gospels to just go away. "Thus, as we have seen, the claim of later imposters writing in the name of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John is unwarranted and without evidence, and contradicts all our early historical attestation." Except that isn't the debate topic. It was already conceded by you that the authors are anonymous, so it isn't later imposters, it is false attribution. Furthermore, we know that church figures got things wrong (many said Hebrews was by Paul!). These documents are too late, anonymous, etc. All sources used are same as previous round.