The Gospel Accounts Are Anonymous

"First, my opponent says that the Abomination of Desolation (desolating sacrilege) is the erection of the Zeus statue in 160 AD" Never said this. Complete strawman. Daniel refers to the erection of a Zeus Statue centuries before the Gospels. The Synoptic Apocalypse refers to the construction of a Roman Temple and Statues around 130CE. "Mark and Matthew do not presuppose the first generation of Christians are dead -- rather imply that they are alive by referencing them throughout scripture. All Gospels are a biography of 30-33 AD of Jesus ministry, and reference nothing more." They write about the supposed life of someone from 30-33CE, but they also add much to the stories. All that has happened to refute this point is saying "no it isn't!", meaning that no real argument has been given. " Ignatius, who died around 103 AD and wrote in the last first century quotes both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke" Ignatius' supposed quotations of Matthew are too poor to actually be able to determine if it is accurate. Luke could easily have quoted Ignatius instead of the other way around. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that these references, or all of the Ignatian Epistles, are interpolations[1]. "Clement of Rome in the first century quotes Matthew and Mark" Which assumes that it was written by Clement and during the 1st century. This has not been substantiated yet. "We have a fragment of the Gospel of John dating towards 120 AD [4], confirmed through paleography and papyrology, with an absolutely maximized date of 135 AD" Which was later redated more accurately to being from between 125-175CE. Even then, "The original editor proposed a date range of 100-150 CE; while a recent exercise by Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse, aiming to generate consistent revised date estimates for all New Testament papyri written before the mid-fourth century, has proposed a date for P52 of 125-175 CE. But a few scholars say that considering the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows the possibility of dates outside these range estimates, such that "any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries.""[2]. "and we even have a fragment of the Gospel of Mark from 90 AD, which was confirmed by over three dozen Scholars dating it (notably including the renowned Craig Evans) completely refuting any idea that these Gospels are late and out of the lifetime of the Apostles ." Except that the supposed fragment from this time has only had these claims made, nothing through academia. No one knows what the fragment says, what it looks like, and there is no real confirmation of its date. "Next, my opponent continues to reinstate that Bar Kochba was said to do miracles. There is one major problem however. My opponent seems to think that because Bar Kochba died in 130 AD, that the myth of miracles he did also dates to 130 AD, however this is highly in error." Here it is assumed that when a document is written is when that information originated. There is strong evidence that the sources of Bar Kochba's miracles used early traditions. Furthermore, this ignores other reasons to place this at the time of Bar Kochba. "My opponent says that because the audience of Matthew knows what rabbis are, and thus Matthew does not explain what they are, it therefore means that rabbis are shown as common in Matthew. However, this is false, Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience as I have shown in my previous arguments, and a Jewish audience would be easily familiar with what a rabbi is. " Only in the 2nd century. Rabbinical Judaism started at the end of the 1st century, after the destruction of the Jewish Temple. It was not widespread until the 2nd century, even among Jewish circles. So, for gMatt to assume his audience knows what a Rabbi is, and other Rabbinical Judaism traditions, means that it is written in the 2nd century. "My opponent claims that again, Luke-Acts uses Josephus material, but if you go to his source, there are a number of problems. One, it both admits that the author of this is not an expert, and that this hypothesis is not accepted in the Scholarly community. " Completely misrepresentation here. It is, actually, accepted by the scholarly community as both my initial source comes from a PhD historian and the 2nd, which has a table detailing some of the parallel areas, uses a source from a PhD historian. "Furthermore, we have no reason to believe it wasn't Josephus who used Luke-Acts rather than the other way around." This connection is not reversible at all. Josephus tends to get information correct and Luke puts information in the order that Josephus used, but gets things wrong. For one example (out of the many times things like this happened), Josephus is the first person to use the word "sicarii" to refer to Jewish revolutionaries. He writes of three different events in the order of: 1) Describing the sicarii 2) Some deceivers persuaded the masses to follow them into the desert 3) The Egyptian led a multitude to the Mount of Olives All of these are historically accurate events. Luke then combines all of these into one account, by saying that the Egyptian lead a massive amount of sicarii into the desert. If Josephus used Luke, it doesn't show here. If they each came up with this on their own, there are too many coincidences. If Luke-Acts used Josephus, then it makes perfect sense. "He uses John 4:21 to prove John references a Samaritan Temple on Mount Gezirim, but this literally only references a talk with a Samaritan women about worshipping devilish things on a mountain." Worship on a mountain when gJohn heavily implies this mountain is Mount Gerizim. Where would one go to worship on said mountain? "My opponent claims Papias from 120 AD cannot confirm Matthew's authorship because petros/petra does not work in hebrew in Matthew 16:18. First of all my opponent has no rebuttal for Papias confirming Mark's authorship as well. Secondly, both Petros and Petra have a Hebrew equivalent" There is a Hebrew equivalent, but the verse loses its meaning. Just like the "Peter Piper" alliteration can be translated into Spanish word-for-word, but it loses its meaning. ________ He also dropped my argument about how both of the supposed eye-witnesses used the non-eye-witness as sources. He has misrepresented my arguments numerous times in which I have had to correct him. He even has tried insulting my sources, once by insulting Dr. Carrier (which was only a source of a source), but uses sources from Christian Apologetic sites, which have a bias for the conclusion he is arguing. He doesn't even attempt to refute certain arguments, like the gMatt being Greek, except by saying that it CAN be translated into Hebrew so it was Hebrew, ignoring all the reasons it is said to originally be in Greek. I have successfully refuted the arguments he has presented while many of mine still stand. Vote for me. ___________________ Sources: [1] http://vridar.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...