Eyewitnesss accounts.

[playhavock]

Again and again I see that people will fall back on the written words in the gospels and say that Paul saw such and such, or thought/belbelievedat he did - and that other nameless people totaly a wopwhopping0 saw things - but are never interviewed or named oddly enough, and that others also saw things - but again those others are offoffent named, and for unknown reareasonsver wrote a thing about it.

Now of course, the question I have is why none of the hishistorians the day ever wrote a thing about any of these occoccurencest seems to me that Jesus poppopping to say hi to a few hishistoriansuld have made a much stronger case, but I guess it was just not part of the "plan" or something.

Then, we have the fact that some documents are dated earearlerat have strange storys that are non-cannon, it is onyonlye latter storys that are conconsiderednnon, when earearyerpreportingd/or writing would be more accurate. Strange things going on!

Still - let me focus on the so called eyewitnesses and make this clam:
None of them existed.

Without the gosgospelsu have nothing at all about anyone - no single writing of any of these people, of course illilliteracy rampant during this time (you think Jesus could have granted littericy to a few more people as he was healing them to make a stronger case) but still - you would think we would have SOMETHING.

Alas, we have nothing at all. Without prepresumingat the gosgospelse true, something I see NO rearation do - what accounts do we have of any of this?

As far as I know there might have been Paul - sure, I will grant this. Here is my thetheoryen - Paul wanted to make his own relreligionnd found or knew of writings of others who had written a new rereligionased on Jewish mymythologynd pagan myths. Paul dedecidedhat he would make a rereligioncult) based on these writings, sat down and wrote his own story, and then found a few people to boboldlyie to that these events had happened. He got people to belive him. People insulted them by calling them "ChChristensfor Paul had been very cunning rather then have himself as the savor, he had used the writings and ideas alalreadyritten as a platform. No one ever checked the 500 - in fact, they could not. They were simply TOLD that there was 500 people, and that number might have been impressive back then, and no one bothered to ask ccriticalquestions.

Think of it, you are a Jewish person , who must give 10% of EVERYTHING to the RRabbi- man that is just too much! Converting to this "Christ" rreligonfrees you of this bburden The ggentlesmmeanwhilewere pprobablyvery tired of the Jewish people telling them that THEY were right - and no one eelsewas, if you were not Jewish you were not saved, tough on you! Being a Christ follower would make you part of something that said THE JEWS WERE WRONG! Awesome! Who could resist?!

So, my thrust of this debate is that - there were no eyewitness. None. They are never named, never listed, never interviewed, never wrote a thing. No one is ever mentioned to have checked on the tales. No ccriticalquestions are ever rased.

I do belive that early writings that Paul did write letters to early cchirch as control of rreligion slowly sliped from his hands - Paul must have felt very powerless at that time, feeling his control pulled from him - the cchurchesof course ccondoneto split ffurtherand ffurtherfrom whatever the eearlyteachings were today - they could not agree then, they can not agree now - and the rrationis very easy to understand, no leader - Paul was probley a very effective cult leader, at first - but as people progressed to tell the storys - the powerbase was pulled from him, and he probley never saw it ccoming

He probley did meet his end in a hhorribleway, mmanycult leaders do.

But, still - granting that Paul wrote these storys does not show the storys to be true, Paul made them up. Can you show that he did not? Can you?

Can you show me anything outside the ggospelsthat mentions anything about Jesus or CChristensthat is not a fforgery

Were are the writings of others who saw the mirricals - why did NO ONE bother to write it down?

Why did not Jesus bother to pop in on the current hhistoriansof the day?

There are no eeyewitinessreports. Just a hhandfulof three manuscripts written by unknown people that Paul knew about or found or both, and made a cult on.

Now, I could be wrong in my theory here, sure - I'll accept a rebuttal of my theory, show me that I'm wrong! I'd love that, I'd learn something new. Teach my the history- but you can not use the gospels to do so as I sugest that they were made up, you will have to find some other way to prove that I am wrong in this.

[Morphine]

I support you claim.

But I just want to point out that there were some very annoying errors in you post. Like someone words were combined and some letters were left out somehow. Made it hard to continue reading.

No offense. I'm only pointing it out just in case you didn't notice it. It may be deterring others from commenting.

[playhavock]

Spelling thing in my sig. *shurg*

[hERICtic]

Not only do the gospel authors never claim to be a witness to the events, its obvious that many of the stories are made up...they're borrowed from the OT.

Also, the one who should have been a witness, NEVER wrote a single thing!

Philo

Philo (~20 BCE - ~40 CE) was a Hellenized Jew who lived in Alexandria, Egypt. He visited the Temple in Jerusalem, and corresponded with family there. He wrote a great many books on religion and philosophy which survive to this day, and mentioned many of his contemporaries. His main theological contribution was the development of the Logos, the "Word" that opens the Gospel of John. Yet Philo not once mentions Jesus, anybody who could be mistaken for Jesus, or any of the events of the New Testament. His last writings come from 40 CE, only a few years after the end of Pontius Pilate's reign, when he was part of an embassy sent by the Alexandrian Jews to the Roman Emperor Caligula.



Philo wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre (which also has no independent corroboration) supposedly occurred. He was personally very interested in the concept of resurrection. He was there when Christ supposedly would have made his triumphal entry in Jerusalem. He was there when the Crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead would have taken place--when Christ himself supposedly would have risen from the dead. Yet, none of these events are ever mentioned by him.
"Much as Josephus would, a half century later, Philo wrote extensive apologetics on the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. About thirty manuscripts and at least 850,000 words are extant. Philo offers commentary on all the major characters of the Pentateuch and, as we might expect, mentions Moses more than a thousand times. Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus, Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all this work, Philo makes not a single reference to his alleged contemporary "Jesus Christ", the godman who supposedly was perambulating up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, raising the dead and causing earthquake and darkness at his death. With Philo's close connection to the house of Herod, one might reasonably expect that the miraculous escape from a royal prison of a gang of apostles (Acts 5.18,40), or the second, angel-assisted, flight of Peter, even though chained between soldiers and guarded by four squads of troops (Acts 12.2,7) might have occasioned the odd footnote. But not a murmur. Nothing of Agrippa "vexing certain of the church" or killing "James brother of John" with the sword (Acts 12.1,2). "[4]


It simply makes no sense that Philo would not have recorded something about Jesus, vis-a-vis the Jesus described in the book of Mark. Those who argue that Philo would have merely ignored a crowd drawing, miracle working godman because he could not have conceived of the 'logos' in human form merely beg the question that Philo's position would never change, even in the face of negating evidence!

Philo never reports ever seeing the god-man represented in the Gospels. His silence is glaring. And Philo may well have even provided us with a positive rule out for a real Jesus Christ:
"And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel."[5]

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/A_ ... ams#note-4

[Mithrae]

As far as I know there might have been Paul - sure, I will grant this. Here is my thetheoryen - Paul wanted to make his own relreligionnd found or knew of writings of others who had written a new rereligionased on Jewish mymythologynd pagan myths. Paul dedecidedhat he would make a rereligioncult) based on these writings, sat down and wrote his own story, and then found a few people to boboldlyie to that these events had happened. He got people to belive him. People insulted them by calling them "ChChristensfor Paul had been very cunning rather then have himself as the savor, he had used the writings and ideas alalreadyritten as a platform.

Which earlier writings and ideas do you think Paul used? Both he himself (Galatians 1) and his companion Luke (Acts 9) agree that Paul was a latecomer to an existing movement proclaiming Jesus as Christ.

So, my thrust of this debate is that - there were no eyewitness. None. They are never named, never listed, never interviewed, never wrote a thing. No one is ever mentioned to have checked on the tales. No ccriticalquestions are ever rased.

Paul names Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and the Twelve as witnesses of the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15). By naming them apostles he also suggests that Barnabas (1 Cor. 9) and possibly Apollos (1 Cor. 1), Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16) were witnesses. Alongside Peter and James, John is named as one of the three most prominent leaders of the early church (Galatians 2) implying that he was one of the twelve, as the gospels say.

But, still - granting that Paul wrote these storys does not show the storys to be true, Paul made them up. Can you show that he did not? Can you?

Can you show me anything outside the ggospelsthat mentions anything about Jesus or CChristensthat is not a fforgery

The Sanhedrin's killing of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others" is mentioned by contemporary Jewish historian Josephus as the reason for the appointment of a different high priest. This lines up with information from Paul that James was Jesus' brother and a leader of a divergent sect which considered Jesus the Christ.

Were are the writings of others who saw the mirricals - why did NO ONE bother to write it down?

Why did not Jesus bother to pop in on the current hhistoriansof the day?

There are no eeyewitinessreports. Just a hhandfulof three manuscripts written by unknown people that Paul knew about or found or both, and made a cult on.

Asserting that there are no eyewitness reports and asking why no-one bothered to write anything down is quite circular.

Despite writing in 3rd person the author of John and 1 John identifies himself as a witness of Jesus' life and death (John 1:14, 19:35, 1 John 1:1-3). It's noteworthy that in the synoptics Jesus' three main disciples are Peter, John and James - James died fairly early on (Acts 12:2), but both Paul (Galatians 2) and Luke (early chapters of Acts) confirm the ongoing prominence of Peter and John. So it's curious that of the three, only Peter is named in the fourth gospel; John called himself the 'beloved disciple' and avoided mentioning his dead brother.

The appendix to the gospel (21:24) provides additional confirmation that the author was a disciple, written shortly after his death. Proto-orthodox Justin Martyr (c150 CE) quotes from the fourth gospel along with the other three as from the "memoirs of the apostles," and the unorthodox Valentinians Ptolemy (c150 CE) and Heracleon (c170 CE) both concurred that the gospel was written by John. Early support from such diverse sources weighs heavily against authorship by a 2nd or 3rd generation nobody. More information here.

[Student]

Proto-orthodox Justin Martyr (c150 CE) quotes from the fourth gospel

The problem with using Justin Martyr as evidence for the early composition of John is that he [Justin] makes no specific reference to a Gospel written by John, nor does he clearly quote from the fourth gospel. At best the evidence shows that Justin and the author of John shared certain themes and ideas in common.

Or have you discovered a Greek text of Justin that shows otherwise?

[Mithrae]

Proto-orthodox Justin Martyr (c150 CE) quotes from the fourth gospel

The problem with using Justin Martyr as evidence for the early composition of John is that he [Justin] makes no specific reference to a Gospel written by John, nor does he clearly quote from the fourth gospel. At best the evidence shows that Justin and the author of John shared certain themes and ideas in common.

Or have you discovered a Greek text of Justin that shows otherwise?

By around 200CE the Muratorian canon mentions four gospels (two names missing, and Luke and John); around the same time Tertullian in Carthage also accepted and used the four canonical gospels, as did Clement in Alexandria a little earlier, as did Irenaeus in Lyons (c. 180CE). A few decades before Irenaeus, Justin Martyr also quotes from each of the four canonical gospels:

• Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.
  ~ Dialogue with Trypho 106 (cf Matthew 2:1)
  
  And that He would rise again on the third day after the crucifixion, it is written in the memoirs that some of your nation, questioning Him, said, ‘Show us a sign;’ and He replied to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and no sign shall be given them, save the sign of Jonah.’
  ~ Dialogue with Trypho 107 (cf Matthew 12:38ff)
  
  And when it is said that he changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that he changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder
  ~ Dialogue 106 (cf Mark 3:16-17; does "written in the memoirs of him" mean memoirs about Jesus, or the memoirs of Peter?)
  
  For when Christ was giving up His spirit on the cross, He said, ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit,’ as I have learned also from the memoirs. For He exhorted His disciples to surpass the pharisaic way of living, with the warning, that if they did not, they might be sure they could not be saved; and these words are recorded in the memoirs: ‘Unless your righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’
  ~ Dialogue 105 (cf Luke 23:46, Matthew 5:20)
  
  For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, ‘If it be possible, let this cup pass:’
  ~ Dialogue 103 (cf Luke 22:42, 44)
  
  For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, ‘Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,’ is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, ‘Worship me;’ and Christ answered him, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.’
  ~ Dialogue 103 (Matthew and Luke)
  
  For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.�
  ~ 1 Apology 61 (cf John 3:3&5)
  
  For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs.
  ~ Dialogue 105 (John and Matthew/Luke)

As you're no doubt aware some folk suggest that he may have been using some kind of otherwise unknown combination of the gospels, but pending some evidence for that I'd say it's more likely that the four-gospel tradition developed over the decades rather than suddenly originating with Irenaeus and becoming so popular with everyone else.

But as you point out JM doesn't say who wrote the fourth gospel, so all we can learn from his use of it is that it was accepted by rather divergent streams of Christian thought - proto-orthodox as well as gnostic, the latter attributing it to John - well before Irenaeus' more famous attribution.

[Morphine]

Spelling thing in my sig. *shurg*

Ohhhhhhh ok. Gotcha. My bad, dude.

[playhavock]

Mithrae, I can only say that I thought Paul was perhaps the only person who I could think was an actual person - I have no real reasion to afferm that he is, only that my theroy that he was and came up with this relgion based on other writings is just that, a theroy, I've learned more about the actual history of that time then I ever did as a christan - showing that my former faith is based on zero facts, AGAIN. The more I learn about the REAL history and studys done into the gosples the more I realise that I knew very little. I supose that my theroy is flawed due to that? I think you all make a better case then I have.

It also seems that aside from the spelling there seems to have been a strange glitch in the post where several words are not spaced right, I have no idea why that happened and my "edit" button seems to have vanished. O_O;

So, the question then is "who wrote this stuff?" I do reading a book called who wrote the bible, and skipping to the end - the answer : no one knows! Well... okay.

So, who were the first people that wrote this down - someone that heard the story I supose, I've heard that this type of story writing was typical in those days, that fantastic storys would be writen as if they were fact.

Someone must have gotten the writings and/or storys and began the Jesus cult - who -? My theroy was Paul - seems the most likely person, but - again - I am not sure, I'm working out of ignorance clearly.

I still have a lot to learn about the real history of the real events during that time, I have to get ahold of the conteparys and read them.

I am reminded that one of the anoyances that an athest said made her mad was that athests have to know more about the relgion of those they want to debate then those in the relgion!

Still, to make the best argument possible, I should expect to have to learn more.
It is nice to know the truth after so meny years of beliving a lie.
I'd like to learn more real things please

[Student]

Proto-orthodox Justin Martyr (c150 CE) quotes from the fourth gospel

The problem with using Justin Martyr as evidence for the early composition of John is that he [Justin] makes no specific reference to a Gospel written by John, nor does he clearly quote from the fourth gospel. At best the evidence shows that Justin and the author of John shared certain themes and ideas in common.

Or have you discovered a Greek text of Justin that shows otherwise?

By around 200CE the Muratorian canon mentions four gospels (two names missing, and Luke and John); around the same time Tertullian in Carthage also accepted and used the four canonical gospels, as did Clement in Alexandria a little earlier, as did Irenaeus in Lyons (c. 180CE). A few decades before Irenaeus, Justin Martyr also quotes from each of the four canonical gospels:

• Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.
  ~ Dialogue with Trypho 106 (cf Matthew 2:1)
  
  And that He would rise again on the third day after the crucifixion, it is written in the memoirs that some of your nation, questioning Him, said, ‘Show us a sign;’ and He replied to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and no sign shall be given them, save the sign of Jonah.’
  ~ Dialogue with Trypho 107 (cf Matthew 12:38ff)
  
  And when it is said that he changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that he changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder
  ~ Dialogue 106 (cf Mark 3:16-17; does "written in the memoirs of him" mean memoirs about Jesus, or the memoirs of Peter?)
  
  For when Christ was giving up His spirit on the cross, He said, ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit,’ as I have learned also from the memoirs. For He exhorted His disciples to surpass the pharisaic way of living, with the warning, that if they did not, they might be sure they could not be saved; and these words are recorded in the memoirs: ‘Unless your righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’
  ~ Dialogue 105 (cf Luke 23:46, Matthew 5:20)
  
  For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, ‘If it be possible, let this cup pass:’
  ~ Dialogue 103 (cf Luke 22:42, 44)
  
  For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, ‘Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,’ is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, ‘Worship me;’ and Christ answered him, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.’
  ~ Dialogue 103 (Matthew and Luke)
  
  For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.�
  ~ 1 Apology 61 (cf John 3:3&5)
  
  For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs.
  ~ Dialogue 105 (John and Matthew/Luke)

As you're no doubt aware some folk suggest that he may have been using some kind of otherwise unknown combination of the gospels, but pending some evidence for that I'd say it's more likely that the four-gospel tradition developed over the decades rather than suddenly originating with Irenaeus and becoming so popular with everyone else.

But as you point out JM doesn't say who wrote the fourth gospel, so all we can learn from his use of it is that it was accepted by rather divergent streams of Christian thought - proto-orthodox as well as gnostic, the latter attributing it to John - well before Irenaeus' more famous attribution.

I did not question your use of the Muratorian Canon as evidence of an early date of composition of John however since you raise the issue again it is worth noting that it [the Muratorian Canon] cannot be adequately dated, with scholars suggesting various dates ranging from late 2nd century to the 4th century.

It was discovered in 1740 by L.A. Muratori, librarian in the ‘Bibliotheca Ambrosiana’ in Milan, in a manuscript of the eighth / ninth century CE. It reproduces a text possibly translated from the Greek into barbarous Latin; it is mutilated at the beginning and perhaps also at the end.

It is never referred to by anyone, and would have remained thoroughly unknown if it had not been recovered by Muratori. Even Eusebius shows no awareness of it.

Consequently it is inappropriate to use the Muratorian Canon as a means of determining the date of John.

As for your comparison of Dialague 105.1 and John 1:1-3, 1:18, 3:16-18, we have been here before. As before I must point out that selectively picking the odd word or phrase from over half a dozen verses of John cannot be construed as a quotation. Furthermore whilst it might be possible to ‘manipulate’ English translations to provide some sort of congruity it fails completely when we compare the Greek texts. For example

From Dialogue, 105.1
“only begotten for that was of the father of all things�
μονογενὴς γὰ� ὅτι ἦν τῷ πατ�ὶ τῶν ὅλων οὗτος
From John 3:18
“of the only begotten son of the god�
τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ.

Same idea, different words, different declensions, so not a quotation of John by Justin.

The same applies when comparing 1 Apology 61.4 and John 3:3

Justin – “Unless you are born again you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven�.
ἂν μή ὰναγεννηθῆτε ο� μή εισελθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλειαν τῶν οὺ�ανῶν

John – “If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God�
�ὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, ο� δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

There are any number of differences, for example in one we have “entering the kingdom of heaven� and in the other “seeing the kingdom of God�, but most significantly we cannot ignore how differently each author expresses the idea of being born again. Justin uses ὰναγεννηθῆτε “be born again�, whereas John uses the more unusual phrase γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν to “be born from above�. If Justin was quoting John, word-for-word, why doesn’t he adopt John’s more peculiar idiom?

Put simply the only conclusion that can be safely drawn is that while Justin and the author of John had certain ideas in common, Justin did not quote from the gospel of John. Perhaps John and Justin simply shared the same source materials.

Justin therefore cannot be used as evidence of an early date of composition of John.

Furthermore “There are such differences between the Synoptic and Johannine narrative, in content as well as order, that it is impossible to suppose that both derive from the original apostolic witness.� (Marsh; St. John; p.22) In other words, if the Synoptic accounts contain eye witness materials, then John cannot, and vice versa.