Has the claim of "Seven eyewitness accounts" been

[Zzyzx]

.
Has the claim of "Seven eyewitness accounts" been convincingly substantiated?

One of the members has repeatedly referred to his research as demonstrating that there are seven accounts by eyewitnesses to the proposed empty tomb.

Has he demonstrated to your satisfaction that:

1) The accounts are actually from eyewitnesses?

2) The stories about eyewitness accounts are true and accurate?

3) His proposals are taken seriously by scholars and theologians (or debaters on various websites)?

4) There was a tomb and it was empty?

[Divine Insight]

1) The accounts are actually from eyewitnesses?

No. At the very best all he has shown is there exist stories that are claimed to have been from eyewitnesses. That doesn't establish that they actually were. Moreover, that's not even news. Anyone who has read the New Testament Gospels already knows that these stories make claims of eyewitnesses. So nothing on in that regard has been offered.

2) The stories about eyewitness accounts are true and accurate?

No. At best his arguments appear to have simply been along the lines of claiming that these stories can be historically traced back to the actual time that these events were supposed to have happened rather than having been written decades later as most scholars believe.

I'm not personally convinced that he has even succeeded in this particular claim. But even if I were to grant success in that ideal, that still wouldn't support the idea that these claims are true and accurate. In fact, it's pretty much impossible to claim that they are accurate since they don't all tell the same story. It seems to me that any serious scholar is going to need to accept that at the very best these stories have become corrupt over time as they don't agree on details and therefore can never be said to be "accurate". They can't all be true with precision simultaneously since they say conflicting things.


3) His proposals are taken seriously by scholars and theologians (or debaters on various websites)?

It seems to me that he was basically making TWO proposals.

1. The New Testament eyewitness accounts can be dated earlier than the scriptures. (i.e. back to the time of the actual claimed events)

AND

2. That he feels that this should indicate that they are actually true and accurate.

I don't know if his first claim should be taken seriously or not. I have my own serious doubts about that. However, his second claim does not automatically follow by any stretch of the imagination anyway. It doesn't matter when a rumor is started it is still just a rumor.

4) There was a tomb and it was empty?

All he has suggested is that, at best, those rumors started earlier than when they were actually written down. I don't doubt that at all. That doesn't do anything toward validating their truth value.

~~~~~~~

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.
Has the claim of "Seven eyewitness accounts" been convincingly substantiated?

One of the members has repeatedly referred to his research as demonstrating that there are seven accounts by eyewitnesses to the proposed empty tomb.

Has he demonstrated to your satisfaction that:

1) The accounts are actually from eyewitnesses?

2) The stories about eyewitness accounts are true and accurate?

3) His proposals are taken seriously by scholars and theologians (or debaters on various websites)?

4) There was a tomb and it was empty?

None of the accounts which are available to us can be established to have been written by direct eyewitnesses.

None of the individuals described as personal eyewitnesses in the accounts which are available to us left any such accounts themselves.

1. Conclusion: There are no direct eyewitness accounts.

2. Conclusion: Stories which attest to the truth of claims which contradict all observation and common experience are invariably the very definition of false claims and as such are overwhelmingly unlikely to be true.

3. The tenets of every religious belief are invariably taken seriously by those who subscribe to that religious belief. This is the very definition of "religious belief." It has no effect on plausibility however.

4. A plausible claim and therefore possibly true.

[Korah]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]
It's hardly surprising that Post #3 in this thread takes no account of the topic for discussion, as the OP failed to state the name of the member nor was any thread topic named nor was any link provided to what the member had posted (either here or in other websites). Let me correct those omissions.
A. I, Korah (Dale Adams) am the DC&R member.
2. I posted the relevant material here in this sub-forum in the thread "How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?", starting (out of order) with my third part at Post #43:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/
with seven subsequent (or preceding!) posts labeled (Post #1, etc,) spread thereafter among other posts of mine and other participants.

3. As that is hard to follow, you might want to go to one website where my "Gospel Eyewitnesses" thread is presented in sequence without interference from me or anyone else. (Don't let that stop you from posting there if you so desire.)
http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/
It's also published at a more scholarly website Oct. 10, 2013, where you should go if you wish to post on a more open forum (not limited to Christians only):
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... p?f=3&t=14

Now about my reply to #3 on this thread:
I have never claimed that any gospel we have, canonical or apocryphal, was written by an eyewitness in the form we now have it. The Gospel of John had a final Redactor who wrote after John the Apostle finished his editing, and he did not himself write most of the Gospel of John. (He used written sources from eyewitnesses, only one of whom, Andrew, was a apostle--pretty much as told in the Muratorian Canon.) John Mark wrote most of the Gospel of Mark, most likely, but he himself was not an eyewitness for much of it and had to depend upon Peter and the Apostle Matthew (who did not write the Gospel with his name, but wrote something more like Q plus added narrative portions, the Twelve-Source).

Reply #3 asserts the well-know ECREE Principle, that Extra-ordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence. True, each of the four gospels tells of extra-ordinary events which if true might lead one to become a Christian. Notice, however, that philosophic naturalism is not itself a scientific principle--historians work instead with the principle of methodological naturalism, that we tend to accept as historical true what ordinary rules of evidence would support. Historians thus might not readily accept any of the gospels as true in full by their principles. However, even accepting this principle is merely a psychological block here in this forum where ECREE is misapplied. That is, the constituent parts of the four gospels I propose as from eyewitnesses do not all include (or the same degree of) miracles. The ball got rolling with (apparently) John Mark writing a Passion Diary for the week he met Jesus. No miracles are recorded in this source. The Discourses in the Gospel of John I say were recorded initially by Nicodemus as a criminal case against Jesus, and this does not include miracles except by inference. The Q Source according to most scholars (not including me) is limited to sayings only, so ECREE does not apply here either. The L Source in Luke is likewise mostly limited to sayings, though I see it as concluding with the Walk to Emmaus written down by its author, Simon the son of Cleopas. Historians would not scratch out the whole L just for one part they found beyond confirmation.

So apply ECREE if you will to certain of the seven written eyewitness sources, if you like. The Signs Source (that I attribute to Andrew as in the Muratorian Canon) is all miracles, so any atheist would automatically reject that. The Triple Tradition that comes from Peter and Matthew (Q plus some narrative) would be subject of scrutiny as well. But no, the argument in #3 is just not applicable to whether we can count at least some of the sources in the four gospels as coming from eyewitnesses.

[Korah]

1) The accounts are actually from eyewitnesses?

No. At the very best all he has shown is there exist stories that are claimed to have been from eyewitnesses. That doesn't establish that they actually were. Moreover, that's not even news. Anyone who has read the New Testament Gospels already knows that these stories make claims of eyewitnesses. So nothing on in that regard has been offered.

Yikes! Here again it is apparent that D. I. has not read my stuff, but in addition he claims that the gospels make claims of eyewitnesses. It's commonly said that the Gospel of John does, but these seem more like parenthetical notations by a later Redactor, not like the eyewitness telling us he is writing his own eyewitness testimony. I did not make that mistake, nor did I make the mistake of claiming that all (or any) of my seven written gospel eyewitnesses wrote down that he was writing as an eyewitness. (He may well have, I would suppose, but his initial "I went" would have been changed to "Peter went" or whatever.)

2) The stories about eyewitness accounts are true and accurate?

No. At best his arguments appear to have simply been along the lines of claiming that these stories can be historically traced back to the actual time that these events were supposed to have happened rather than having been written decades later as most scholars believe.

"A" for effort on this one. I'm not yet convinced that he read my specific quote-posts, maybe just picked this up from my many summaries, however.

I'm not personally convinced that he has even succeeded in this particular claim. But even if I were to grant success in that ideal, that still wouldn't support the idea that these claims are true and accurate. In fact, it's pretty much impossible to claim that they are accurate since they don't all tell the same story. It seems to me that any serious scholar is going to need to accept that at the very best these stories have become corrupt over time as they don't agree on details and therefore can never be said to be "accurate". They can't all be true with precision simultaneously since they say conflicting things.

Close, but no cigar. Where initial sources are from eyewitnesses and the source gets included in more than one gospel, then we have good reason for thinking the agreed components come from the eyewitness. And where they agree we cannot easily attribute the basics to corruption over time.

[Zzyzx]

.

Yikes! Here again it is apparent that D. I. has not read my stuff,

Many have read your stuff (including me and probably DI) and have dismissed it as CONJECTURE and personal opinion.

Referring to one's previous posts as though they carried some authority is simply restating one's OPINOIN. If the "seven written eyewitness accounts thesis" had been taken seriously by the academic, scholarly, theology communities it might have some bearing in debate. Since no one other than the author appears to hold it in high regard, it is merely OPINION.

but in addition he claims that the gospels make claims of eyewitnesses. It's commonly said that the Gospel of John does, but these seem more like parenthetical notations by a later Redactor, not like the eyewitness telling us he is writing his own eyewitness testimony.

Since NONE of the original documents survive, ALL is subject to revision / copying / transcribing / editing / pious fraud during later transcription.

I did not make that mistake, nor did I make the mistake of claiming that all (or any) of my seven written gospel eyewitnesses wrote down that he was writing as an eyewitness. (He may well have, I would suppose, but his initial "I went" would have been changed to "Peter went" or whatever.)

Do you KNOW who wrote the accounts and KNOW that they wrote from [b[first-hand[/b] actual eyewitness personal testimony?

Christian scholars and theologians do NOT know the identity of gospel writers and do NOT know their sources of information. If you have such information in verifiable form it would be welcome. If you have conjecture it will probably not be taken seriously.

Where initial sources are from eyewitnesses and the source gets included in more than one gospel, then we have good reason for thinking the agreed components come from the eyewitness. And where they agree we cannot easily attribute the basics to corruption over time.

When stories appear in more than one gospel we can legitimately conclude that it is POSSIBLE that they copied from one another or both used an earlier source (that no longer exists). To conclude "because two people said it, it must be true" is irrational.

[goodwithoutgod]

"The Gospel of John had a final Redactor who wrote after John the Apostle finished his editing, and he did not himself write most of the Gospel of John. (He used written sources from eyewitnesses, only one of whom, Andrew, was a apostle--pretty much as told in the Muratorian Canon.) John Mark wrote most of the Gospel of Mark, most likely, but he himself was not an eyewitness for much of it and had to depend upon Peter and the Apostle Matthew (who did not write the Gospel with his name, but wrote something more like Q plus added narrative portions, the Twelve-Source). "

Unfortunately there are a few items I wish to point out...

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

Note: "johannine community".

Mark: Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

Note: unknown author, parables etc

[DanieltheDragon]

If you could some how prove the gospels are eye witness accounts you sir have done what no other archaeologist has ever been able to do. Please can you point me to the evidence that proves the identities of the anonymous writers of the gospel?

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Has the claim of "Seven eyewitness accounts" been convincingly substantiated?

Yes. If the claimant gets to vote.

No. If anyone cares what I think.

Has he demonstrated to your satisfaction that:

1) The accounts are actually from eyewitnesses?

I was an eyewitness to his failure to have showed it.

2) The stories about eyewitness accounts are true and accurate?

No more'n me telling a girl I love her, just so's I can get me some loving from her for having told 'er I did.

3) His proposals are taken seriously by scholars and theologians (or debaters on various websites)?

I've come to expect some religious folks, who call themselves scholars about a god they can't show exist, well they might be right proud to hear another'n tell all about how there was eyewitnesses to that which they can't show occurred.

I also expect that "debaters on various websites" might side with it, but really, I ain't ever thought that since a bunch of folks think it, I oughta think it too.

4) There was a tomb and it was empty?

Any space is an empty tomb, if there ain't nothing dead there to entombenate in the first place.

[wiploc]

The eyewitnesses proving that The Princess Bride is a true story are:

- The Princess Buttercup of Hammersmith

- Inego ("You killed my father, prepare to die") Montoya.

- ("Impossible!") Vizzini the Sicilian criminal genius.

- Fezzic the rhyming giant

- The Dread Pirate ("No Survivors") Roberts.

- Count ("Six Fingers") Rugen

- Prince Humperdink, the world's greatest hunter.

If you can prove the truth of a book by having seven of it's characters witness the book's events, then The Princess Bride is a true book.

Note: this doesn't even count the martyred rats of unusual size.