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?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 29 by DanieltheDragon]
WHOSE position?
I don't count Luke among the seven eyewitnesses.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Korah]

Goodwithoutgod's position the post just above yours.

Sorry, I know you have a list somewhere of your seven eyewitnesses, perhaps I got some threads mixed up. Could you please list them out specifically who they were. I don't really want to hunt and peck through a variety of threads. Please don't reference another thread it will simply discourage me from investigating further. In the mean time I will sift through your posts again and will edit this if I find my answer sooner.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

I see where my mental lapse occurred you contend that Simon as the source for Luke. So correct me if I am wrong, you contend that Luke transcribed the Testimony of Simon?

[Korah]

[Replying to Korah]
Goodwithoutgod's position the post just above yours.

How could you regard "conjecture and wishful thinking" as enough of a refutation for seven long posts of mine plus supplemental posts? I already replied that the 99% of his post giving myths GwoG cited from Carrier are inapplicable to my seven eyewitness SOURCES (not including editorial additions or verses not identified by scholars as from my eyewitnesses).

Sorry, I know you have a list somewhere of your seven eyewitnesses, perhaps I got some threads mixed up. Could you please list them out specifically who they were. I don't really want to hunt and peck through a variety of threads. Please don't reference another thread it will simply discourage me from investigating further. In the mean time I will sift through your posts again and will edit this if I find my answer sooner.

Herei's the link to my Post #155 in "How can we determine which parts of scripture are true" that lists the main seven posts in that thread giving the seven eyewitnesses.#43, 59, 62, 82, 83, 97 and 101.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=150
The logical start is at #59 where I extract from Howard Teeple's S source in the Gospel of John the Passion Narrative source. I call it the Passion Diary, because I regard it as John Mark telling about his first week to experience Jesus closely. Notice how believable it is because no miracles are listed.

The second eyewitness is at #62 where I extract from the same S source the earlier twelve chapters of John that scholars from Bultmann onwards call the Signs Source. The name Andrew appears frequently here, and the Muratorian Canon lists him as integral to the Gospel of John. For some of us, of course, the miracles will not seem believable.

Post #43 gives Nicodemus as the person who transcribed Jesus's long Discourses, and that his two changes of attitude indicate that he wrote during Jesus's lifetime

The fourth eyewitness at #82 is no surprise, the apostle Peter. However, I don't say he wrote all of Mark. John Mark collaborated with him in writing this early portion of Mark in 44 A. D.

In Post #83 I show that the rest of the early version of Mark was written in tandem with Q. The latest scholars (particularly Dennis R. MacDonald) have shown that Mark did use Q (or at least Q1) as a source. As the materials in both my Post #82 and #83 got transcribed into Matthew, I see good reason to state Matthew as an eyewitness--and see Mark 2:14 (Mt. 9:9).

Post #97 gives my case for showing Simon the son of Cleopas as the author of the Proto0-Luke used as the prime source for the Gospel of Luke. I argue that he was the second disciple in the Walk to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-34).

That the Apostle John wrote a gospel is still widely believed. The arguments against him as author of John largely disappear if he wrote only small parts of John, like as an editor. (Perhaps he was the only resource person available for a late reworking of the gospel.) See Post #101 for the verses I attribute to him, like about the Beloved Disciple in John 13.

All these arguments are in that one thread, no need to hunt elsewhere.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 33 by Korah]

1.Simon

2.Peter

3.Nicodemus

4.Andrew

5.John

6.Matthew

I have gone over it and over it and I think you double counted Simon

In http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/

you only have 6 that I can find. I have ADHD and I can only go over the same document so many times. Can you simply tell me who the seventh witness is? I mean surely you have this memorized and your last post was over 500 words surely 7 simple words would be a lot easier to write and for me to understand. In fact I am not asking for a whole sentence just 1 name. Please I don't think its asking to much to grant this request. I want to have this dialogue but I struggle when there is not a clear organizational context for me to read.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 34 by DanieltheDragon]

Sorry, Daniel,
My Post #33 in this thread listed the seventh eyewitness, John the Apostle, but omitted that it was Post #101, the last on my list on the other thread.

Your list, however, does not include John Mark, the first of my seven in logical order. He was my Post #59, with the Passion Diary. The rest of the four gospels were built around it.

[Korah]

For what it's worth, my critic in this Post #27in this thread I quote at full below has not posted in DC&R ever after nor has he even looked in here. He did inform me by PM that his grad study interferes with his attempt to refute me. (I answered him in the next post #28)
Also please note an other thread in which I was active, such as at Post #139:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=130
Please also note (regarding some recent ridicule of my Thesis) that in Post #341
that I clearly stated my division of "Q" into at least two parts by DIFFERENT AUTHORS

[Replying to Korah]

sigh. I stopped bothering to chase the post because after compiling it together in some semblance of order, reading it, I find it filled with conjecture and wishful thinking.

Mythology has always fascinated me. When you research mythology, you find the common strains, a rhythm, a philosophical skeletal system where the hero god is constructed, and the same system is used time and time again. It is almost as if one borrowed from another throughout time. It is impossible to ignore the implication of systematic fabrication. The jesus story, however, was not original. The entire story seems to have been plagiarized in bits and pieces, and sometimes blatantly intact, from ancient god/man mythology passed down by Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures.

The list is long, from Horus in 3000 BCE Egypt all the way to jesus, but I will focus on just oneRomulus 771 BCE. In Plutarchs biography of Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told he was the son of god, born of a virgin; an attempt is made to kill him as a baby, and he is saved, and raised by a poor family, hailed as King, and killed by the conniving elite; that he rises from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people, and ascends to heaven to rule from on high. Sound familiar? Just like Jesus.

Plutarch also tells us about annual public ceremonies that were still being formed, which celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. The story goes as follows: at the end of his life, amid rumors he was murdered by conspiracy of the Senate, the sun went dark, and Romuluss body vanished. The people wanted to search for him but the Senate told them not to, for he had risen to join the gods. Most went away happy, hoping for good things from their new god, but some doubted. Soon after, Proculus, a close friend of Romulus, reported that he met Romulus on the road between Rome and a nearby town and asked him, why have you abandoned us?, To which Romulus replied that he had been a God all along but had come down to earth and become incarnate to establish a great kingdom, and now had to return to his home in heaven. Then Romulus told his friend to tell the Romans that if they are virtuous they will have all worldly power (Carrier 56).

Does any of this ring any bells? You do realize this story predates Jesus by 800 years right? Fabricators of religion borrow from previous religions Man/God/hero constructs and have all the way back to 3000 B.C.E.

So the fact that the jesus son of god myth story has clearly been plagiarized from older Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures, coupled with the fact that no one who wrote of Jesus actually knew him should make a thinking person take a pause, and reflect on the basis of their faith.

Work cited:

Carrier, Richard. On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

So in closing, not only does the fact stand that no one who wrote of jesus actually knew him, but the historicity of jesus is now under close scrutiny as well.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 36:

...
that I clearly stated my division of "Q" into at least two parts by DIFFERENT AUTHORS

Until you present this "Q" source for analysis, all we can reasonably conclude is that you're dividing by zero.

Do you wanna destroy the universe? 'Cause that's how you destroy the universe.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 37 by JoeyKnothead]
Joey, I did this in Post #4 and 5 here:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/ ... s.7594923/
Well, yes, it's all very difficult. If it were easy, so one else would have figured it out long ago.
Sure, I'm uncertain at places. Shouldn't I be? It's not rocket science, but no one else has the answers better than I do, that's all I'm saying.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 38:

Joey, I did this in Post #4 and 5 here:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/ ... s.7594923/

Please point to the specific parts of those posts that are the actual, non-hypothesised "Q" source.

Well, yes, it's all very difficult. If it were easy, so one else would have figured it out long ago.
Sure, I'm uncertain at places. Shouldn't I be? It's not rocket science, but no one else has the answers better than I do, that's all I'm saying.

I dare say, if one had this "Q" source, it'd be easy just to present it.

Unless they ain't got it, then we set to understand why this is so "difficult".