Page 3 of 4

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:53 am
by 1over137
Im Fat wrote:Why do so many intermediates exist for humans?
hell it's even better for the horse, soooo much evidence for evolution in the fossil record for the horse but yet we ignore this because it threatens christianity.

And you not answered my question to authenticity of the bible. You sent me on a wild goose chase, and from what I saw on that slide show on the main site, the arguements for bible authenticity are weak.

And my purpose here is to discuss bible authenticity, and that hasn't got anywhere has it?
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html:

"Luke is mentioned a few times by name in the NT, a very obscure personage. Mark was a rotten kid; he abandoned Paul (Acts 15). Matthew was an apostle, but he was also a tax collector - would you pick the IRS man, and an obscure apostle, to author your Gospel?"

"Why would the church (or John) have created such a difficult faith to follow?"

"One would think get the impression (from such theories) that throughout the first Christian generation there were no eyewitnesses to act as a check on fertile imaginations, no original-disciples-now-become-leaders who might exercise some control over the developing tradition, and no striking deeds and sayings of Jesus that stuck willy-nilly in people's memories."

"...its basic trustworthiness is beyond doubt; for it rests, not upon one man's recollections - say Peter's - or those of two or three persons, but upon the whole group of earliest disciples whose numbers are reflected in the hundreds referred to by Paul and the thousands described in Acts. The early church did not grow up in isolation, in some corner, but in the full glare of publicity in the great cities of the Roman Empire."

I am just a fresh Christian, Fat, so I do not have all the aswers. But I will read more on the topic.

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:20 pm
by Proinsias
There is an interesting William Craig Lane and Bart Erhman debate on youtube which delves into this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:10 am
by 1over137
Proinsias wrote:There is an interesting William Craig Lane and Bart Erhman debate on youtube which delves into this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac
I like what Craig said at 1:27:08:
If Christ is really risen from the dead, as the evidence indicates, that means that Jesus, is not just some ancient figure in history, or a pricture on a ... glass window. It means that he is alive today and can be known experiencely. For me, Christianity ceased to be just a religion, or a code to lived by. When I gave my life in Christ in experience, a spiritual rebirth in my own life, God became a living reality to me. The light went on where before there was only a darkness, and God become an experiencal reality. ... ... overwhelming joy, peace and meaning that came into my life. And I would simply say, if you are looking for that sort of meaning, purpose in life, then look at not only on the historical evidence, but also pick up the New Testament, begin to read it and ask yourself whether or not this could be the truth. I believe it
can change your life in the same way as it changed mine.


(Sorry, if this is little off topic)

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:59 am
by 1over137
Im Fat wrote:How can you guys relly on a book that is based of oral history written 30 years after the man died? Nobody was writting things down as jesus spoke so how do we know they are even close to accuarate.
John 14:25 : “These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."

(I am reading the John's gospel and that verse got my attention and I recalled this thread.)

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:06 am
by narnia4
Im Fat wrote:How can you guys relly on a book that is based of oral history written 30 years after the man died?
Well we have four Gospels. It wasn't like it was handed down for dozens of generations, it was based off eye witness testimony. I do find it interesting that you're implying a much earlier date than most skeptics would, since an earlier date would mean that they're reliable unless there's an obvious reason to believe they aren't... and the only reason I see to not believe the basic facts are because of theistic implications and implications about Jesus.

But I picked out this part because I think a nice example could be made. Let's say four different books, with reliance on the same witnesses and some drawing upon each other were all telling a story about the same man... let's say John Lennon. If four books were written about John Lennon today, would you scoff at those who trust that there is historicity in the events described in those books? Say that it was ignorant or stupid to rely on them? I kind of doubt it. You wouldn't even have to believe they were inerrant, but believe the basic facts communicated.

Believe me, historians have inferred things that are now considered historical fact based off much, much less. So you, like the vast majority of skeptics, are obviously holding the Bible to a completely different standard than you would anything else.

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:21 pm
by Amalric
narnia4 wrote:
Im Fat wrote:How can you guys relly on a book that is based of oral history written 30 years after the man died?
Well we have four Gospels. It wasn't like it was handed down for dozens of generations, it was based off eye witness testimony. I do find it interesting that you're implying a much earlier date than most skeptics would, since an earlier date would mean that they're reliable unless there's an obvious reason to believe they aren't... and the only reason I see to not believe the basic facts are because of theistic implications and implications about Jesus.

But I picked out this part because I think a nice example could be made. Let's say four different books, with reliance on the same witnesses and some drawing upon each other were all telling a story about the same man... let's say John Lennon. If four books were written about John Lennon today, would you scoff at those who trust that there is historicity in the events described in those books? Say that it was ignorant or stupid to rely on them? I kind of doubt it. You wouldn't even have to believe they were inerrant, but believe the basic facts communicated.

Believe me, historians have inferred things that are now considered historical fact based off much, much less. So you, like the vast majority of skeptics, are obviously holding the Bible to a completely different standard than you would anything else.
As is often the case people make assertions but what they are really saying is “I believe”.

If we assume Im Fat is taking about the gospels I believe that Mark was written in the late 60’s AD. I had believed it was written after 70 AD but I need to examine the cases for each again. I agree with Im Fat that the gospels are based on oral traditions and it is unlikely that the gospel writers spoke to eye witnesses. Plus of course when someone remembers something that happened years ago the story can be modified over time, it isn’t a static thought. It also has to be remembered that the gospel writers were not writing a pure historical account of the life of Jesus but were looking back on the traditions they had and interpreting them in light of the Resurrection experience and these traditions also had been interpreted in light of their Greek copies of the Old Testament.

I will give an example - Matthew 21:1-9 has been influenced by Zechariah 9:9 making it read as if Jesus sat on an "donkey" and a colt. Matthew has changed the story from what was in Mark.

Narnia4’s example of John Lennon is not without its problems. John Lennon died in 1980 and I believe that Jesus was crucified in 30 AD. If we relate the likely dates of the gospels to John Lennon we get Marks account of John Lennon in 2018, Matthew copies large parts of Mark and adds new information and could be written in 2035, Luke does the same and is a little latter maybe about 2043 and then John is written by 2055. Therefore if in 3961 the only information you have about the life of John Lennon is these four accounts you may wish to question if John Lennon was a real person and if everything related about him is likely to have happened.

The problem becomes worse if a religion grew up about John Lennon that said the rest of the Beatles had seen a resurrected John Lennon and you thought Mark believed this to be true as well as Matthew, Luke and John. It then becomes a case of arguing that the accounts given in the gospels go back to a historical tradition based on what you think is reasonable. And for me it is trying to decide which bits are likely to be historical and which bits not and which bits are theological truths.

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:53 pm
by Murray
I wish our fat friend would come back :crying:

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:45 pm
by narnia4
Amalric wrote: Narnia4’s example of John Lennon is not without its problems. John Lennon died in 1980 and I believe that Jesus was crucified in 30 AD. If we relate the likely dates of the gospels to John Lennon we get Marks account of John Lennon in 2018, Matthew copies large parts of Mark and adds new information and could be written in 2035, Luke does the same and is a little latter maybe about 2043 and then John is written by 2055. Therefore if in 3961 the only information you have about the life of John Lennon is these four accounts you may wish to question if John Lennon was a real person and if everything related about him is likely to have happened.
Well the four books wouldn't be all you have. Just like questioning whether Lennon existed would be poor scholarship, so is questioning the existence of Jesus when you have other sources like Josephus. I also wonder why Paul's epistles are often ignored, when they're generally accepted even by secular scholars to have been written only a couple dozen years after Christ's death and there's relatively little controversy over the authorship for about half of them. My general point isn't to establish the inerrancy of the Bible here, or even establish who the authors definitely were. My point is more that if you're going to be bringing your own worldview to the table and judging the Bible by standards that you aren't going to be judging anything else by, then of course you can cast the Bible into doubt.

With the Lennon example, you have four books, some may have some basis on earlier oral traditions or a hypothetical document... but are you going to dismiss all four books? No.

Some of the specifics are matters of debate, I tend to be conservative on them and feel like Evangelical scholarship in recent years has been much better than it used to be but is consistently ignored. Often the claim is that its "bias", when you could easily level the same criticism toward, well, anybody. What most liberal and conservative Christians would agree on is that the Gospels agree on the "essentials" in a unique and amazing way.

This is just "a feeling" and not really a cohesive argument, but I also feel like scholars and church fathers and early Christian communities are instantly dismissed as either pursuing an agenda or else just backward, stupid people who couldn't discern what the truth was or they didn't care. Maybe some of these ancient figures weren't stupid and, having more information than us, came to warranted conclusions based off evidence? There are secular scholars that I respect of course and find honest, but then there are those that seem prone to wild speculation and inventing entire groups of people and sides just to explain issues that they have with the Gospels or other scripts.

The problem becomes worse if a religion grew up about John Lennon that said the rest of the Beatles had seen a resurrected John Lennon and you thought Mark believed this to be true as well as Matthew, Luke and John. It then becomes a case of arguing that the accounts given in the gospels go back to a historical tradition based on what you think is reasonable. And for me it is trying to decide which bits are likely to be historical and which bits not and which bits are theological truths.
Well I know skeptics hate this example by now, but we do know that Christians definitely believed in Christ or else they wouldn't be dying in his name. We know that churches had been established pretty early.

So yeah, all of this takes close scrutiny and attention, I think we can all readily admit that. Some like to bring up Ockham's Razor, I'll do it here. The simplest explanation is not some mass conspiracy, but there there is some historical fact in the Gospels that can be debated upon. It certainly will take more than a few "hit and run" posts by Im Fat to deal with that, and I think enough facts have been brought to the table to put the ball in his court and explain why the Gospels shouldn't be trusted in any way or Jesus didn't exist or whatever.

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:58 pm
by Amalric
I think you narnia4 have answered Im Fat’s question,
Im Fat wrote:How can you guys relly on a book that is based of oral history written 30 years after the man died?
We both agree that the Gospels can’t be dismissed as having no historical traditions in them even if we disagree on how much we find there.

It is possible to conclude that originally Josephus’ works had no references to Jesus Christ.

Paul’s epistles can’t be ignored and I think the case from them that he created Jesus Christ is very weak; however the amount of facts about Jesus the man contained in them is very limited.

Doubts have been raised concerning the evidence that the very early Christians were killed because of their beliefs. However Paul states that he has suffered (2 Cor 11:24-27) and we may conclude he was not unique in this. I would not dispute that it was possible for some early Christians to be killed and feel Stephen is an example.

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:33 pm
by narnia4
I'm not an expert, but whenever I do study I realize that there are many, many possibilities and ways to interpret this stuff. If a person wants to distrust Josephus and others and all four Gospels and Paul and early church tradition, to me the evidence is clearly mounted against them and Ockham's Razor becomes even more relevant.

If I remember correctly many think that Josephus' references to Christ were tampered with BUT the general consensus is that its at least partially authentic.

There's others too, Tacitus' writing on Christians and the crucifixion is very well-accepted as genuine (unlike a passage from Josephus that seems to call Jesus "the Christ", Tacitus doesn't necessarily seem fond of Christians) and he records the persecution of Christians around AD 60 as well. One of the most reliable historians of the period.

John Dominic Crossan isn't necessarily loved by conservative Christians, but he had this to say- "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."

Then you have Pliny the Younger who says in his letters that he persecuted Christians and forced them to curse Christ (that was early 2nd century). Don't know of any legitimate complaints to the authenticity of this one, it fits in with all his other letters.

I just find the historical evidence for Jesus' existence to be overwhelming. To make the case that Jesus didn't exist you really, really have to be setting out with that in mind from the beginning. If you treated Jesus like a "John Doe" of history with little importance, there would be ZERO controversy, none, they're just begging for exceptions to fit an agenda. Even some hardcore atheists admit he probably existed, imo its just an issue of some wanting to have their cake and eat it too. If you want to make Christianity sound as improbably as possible, then what better way than to say that he not only didn't rise from the dead but he wasn't crucified and he didn't even exist. ut the burden is on them to show that Christians mid-first century were preaching and spreading around news about a figure they knew didn't exist and also fooled careful secular scholars into taking the existence of Christ pretty much for granted not long afterward and some even died for what they knew wasn't true. Good luck to them I guess.

But I'm starting to rant since nobody here is denying the historicity of Christ, so I'll stop now. :oops:

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:32 pm
by Murray
The only person doubting them was our pleasantly plump friend. But sadly he has left us.

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:35 pm
by narnia4
Murray wrote:The only person doubting them was our pleasantly plump friend. But sadly he has left us.
That happens all too often, doesn't it? I like a comfortable atmosphere here, a safe haven of sorts, but I would also like some sustained discussions to take care of some objections. Those atheists/agnostics who stick around and want to learn about the Christian worldview or debate for extended lengths of time are in the vast minority. I guess the Christians here aren't as easy to target as they think or something.

It would actually be easier to understand if it was one "You're all stupid!" post and then they were gone, a true hit and miss. Instead the pattern seems to be a question that they don't think we can answer or else an accusation, then when its answered well they often soften their position or else say we misunderstood them and offer a weak reply. Its explained again why their question/accusation can be answered, THEN its the "This is pointless!" or "You're all stupid!" post followed closely be the "run" part of the hit and run.

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:12 pm
by StMonicaGuideMe
Im Fat wrote:Didn't Bart Ernham, an ex- devout christian, do years of research and come to that exact conclusion
Even though he's gone, this is the perfect place to post this. Ernham was utterly demolished in his misrepresentations during the most recent debate on Oct 1st.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/booksto ... spx?id=175

Complete disregard for science, no integrity in his research, it's disgusting.

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:35 am
by Amalric
narnia4 wrote:John Dominic Crossan isn't necessarily loved by conservative Christians, but he had this to say- "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
I am not sure that Crossan’s conclusion can be drawn from what he wrote as evidence. As already stated there is considerable debate about any references to Jesus Christ in Josephus.

The chief evidence for the Testimonium Flavianum being in the original text of Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews is that it is in lots of the copies we have of it. However this not very strong evidence because as there are three families of text of Acts of the Apostles and one family (Western) is likely to go back to one version that has 10% more than the version generally accepted as original it is possible that all our copies of Testimonium Flavianum go back to the one which was accepted by Christians who were the people making copies of it. It is quoted in various forms none of which are accepted as the most likely original form. Scholars therefore try to make out that what Josephus did write about Jesus and which parts were either added or changed by Christian copyists.

The case against includes the following. A Christian writing in the fifth century lists contents of this work and it does not include this topic and this is strong evidence that earlier versions didn’t have it. The Testimonium Flavianum is not in line with the other topics that surround it and which are clearly meant to be a unified whole about upheavals of Jewish rebels and trouble makers. The next section does not refer to this one but refers to the previous one with, “another outrage”. The early Christian writers do not refer to it. Origen (c 230 AD) refers to Josephus on John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus while not referring to this. I believe this is strong evidence that this didn’t exist at that time.

It is only after Eusebius that the Testimonium Flavianum is quoted and it follows the thinking of Eusebius while not being in line with Josephus’ thinking. We also have the evidence of the Slavonic Josephus where Christians have added other sections about Jesus. It has been said that the Testimonium Flavianum follows the wording and ideas in Luke 24:19-27, but I have found few identical words but the Greek phrasing of “the third day” only exists here and in Luke 24:21.

Antiquities 18.3.3. “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.”

Those who say that there was an original reference to Jesus that has been added to by Christians remove, “if it be lawful to call him a man”, “for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him” and “He was the Christ”. They say it works in this form, but I am not convinced it is smooth any more.

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.”

The phrase “Now there was about this time” is one used frequently by Josephus to start a section. The phrase “a wise man” is used by Josephus regarding Solomon and Daniel and the phrase “wonderful work” is used about the miracles of Elisha. However these phrases are also used by Eusebius.

Josephus is unlikely to use the term, “the principal men amongst us” he would disassociate himself and other Jews by using either “the principal men of Jerusalem” or “the principal men of the city”

Eusebuis often used the argument that because Christians still existed that meant that their faith was true. Also Josephus does not use the term “Gentiles” but by Eusebuis’ time there was a belief that Jesus had gentile followers.

Christians believed that they formed a tribe and it was applied to Christians by Justin Martyr. Josephus’ use of the word tribe is used to describe an ethnic group – Jews, Taurians and Parthians.

If Josephus had had a section on Jesus who was crucified by the Roman governor Pilate then he would have drawn Jesus in a bad light as he does everyone else who rebelled against Roman authority and who were executed by the Romans but here he says good things.

So if I remove even more I am only left with,
“Now there was about this time Jesus. He drew over to him many of the Jews, and Pilate, had condemned him to the cross.”

This is such a short section as to be highly unlikely to go back to Josephus.

The other reference to Jesus is the one concerning James who was stoned to death. It seems to have been quoted by Origen (c 230 AD) and this is strong evidence that this was included in the original Antiquities.

Antiquities 18.3.3. “AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.”

It has been suggested that Christians have added, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,” to “someone named James, and some others”. The Greek for “who was called Christ,” is λεγόμενος Χριστός which is from Mt 1:16 “one named Christ”. Therefore the original could have been just “the brother of Jesus someone named James”. Hegesippus, the 2nd-century Church historian has a story about the death of James and this is placed before the fall of Jerusalem and involved him being stoned. Therefore Christians could have just believed that this James because he was the brother of a man called Jesus had to be the same one as referred to in Christian tradition as the brother of the Lord and so add the Matthean phrase “who was called Christ”. There are about 5 James referred to by Josephus and about 15 people called Jesus. It is possible that this James was the brother of Jesus the son of Damneus who succeeded Ananus as high priest.

However there is another place where Josephus identifies a person as a brother of another person, but doesn’t say who this person is – “After this Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea, and removed Agrippa from Chalcis unto a greater kingdom;” which means it is possible that the original was “the brother of Jesus someone named James”.

It has been argued that Tacitus might be repeating what was generally know about the founder of Christianity from what Christians said rather than independent Roman records. It is argued that Tacitus is not quoting from the Roman records because he called Pilate a Procurator (who didn’t govern provinces until after 44 AD) and not Prefect. All that can be stated is that assuming as most people do that the passage was written by Tacitus that by about 116 AD it was generally accepted that Christians believed Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate and that the 64 AD fire of Rome was blamed on the Christians and Tacitus was not disputing that the Christ was crucified by Pilate.

Pliny the Younger says in his letter (and I will assume that it was written between 100 and 117 AD) that he executed some Christians and tortured two Christian slaves and Christians told him about what they did and that they had a “depraved, excessive superstition”.

Suetonius appears to have written about 121 AD and he was a friend of Tacitus. He wrote that during the reign of Claudius 41-54 AD “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Claudius) expelled them from Rome" (On the Life of the Caesars - Clau., xxv). It should be noted that Chrestus was a common name, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful and this passage may not refer to Christ. Acts 18:2 agrees that all the Jews were ordered by Claudius to leave Rome.

Suetonius also wrote, “Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.” (On the Life of the Caesars - Nero, xvi).This happens before the fire of Rome, which Suetonius also records but doesn’t state any Christians were either blamed or executed. Therefore an appeal to the evidence of Suetonius for Jesus is mistaken, all that can be confidently stated in that before 64 AD there were Christians and they were punished in some way by Nero and during the reign of Claudius Jews were expelled from Rome either because of the trouble aroused by their leader Chrestus or Christ.

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:32 pm
by Murray
StMonicaGuideMe wrote: Complete disregard for science, no integrity in his research, it's disgusting.
Sounds like a couple atheist I know
:lol: