John 20:24-29 (English Standard Version)
Jesus and Thomas
24Now(A) Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin,[a] was not with them when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them,(B) "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe."
26Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them.(C) Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." 27Then he said to Thomas, (D) "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." 28Thomas answered him,(E) "My Lord and my God!" 29Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me?(F) Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
All I can say is the way some of you put the gospels you all have better evidence then poor old Thomas.
What the gospel of John does show us is that there was more then one way to retell a story and change its meanings. It is also the gospel the Bible-Believer and Evangelical like minded us to interpret the other gospels because of its high Chrstology.
Cathar1950 wrote:There were a number of people killed that were anointed and killed such as Judas the Galilean and I don't think they were liars or lunatics.
You don't think that the "liar" and "lunatic" option are good explanations for the many self proclaimed messiah figures back then? My only objection is to your suggestion that a legend explanation might work, it's certainly an option but it's not as tenable as the others. There is good historical evidence for the historical existence of Jesus and his death by crucifixion.
Cathar1950 wrote:You can't just dismiss everything that doesn't make him your Lord and then claim he must be Lord because I don't accept any other explanations.
I'm not dismissing anything, I'm simply saying that the option that Jesus was actually who he claimed to be best accounts for all the facts then the other options Bart Ehrman presents.
Ehrman presents his option in the context of historical facts and possibility and all of explanation are more possible then the supernatural by definition.
There is very little â€�good historical evidence for the historical existence of Jesus and his death by crucifixionâ€�. While given the number f Jews crucified by Romans there is a good possibility the same thing could have happened to Jesus. The death and or crucifixion are not the issue and you know it.
Most historians wouldn't accept that all ancient narratives are true and accurate simply by virtue of being written down.
I never suggested this. If you think that the New Testament is literally inaccurate then please give reasons to support that view rather then trying to shift the burden.
He is not shifting the burden of proof, he is placing it back in your lap where it belongs as it is you that is making a specific claim about the writings that do not measure up to the facts. There is no reason to take them literally and I doubt the writers did either or those that listen to them being read to them.
I have challenged elsewhere your strange claims that the gospels are eyewitness accounts. You've yet to respond.
I said that the fact that the Gospels were written only a few decades after the alleged events gives a more credence to the belief that they were written by eye-witnesses. Do you take issue with that claim?
The day after hearsay is still hearsay and there is nothing in the writings that suggest ay eye-witnesses which includes the writers.
The fact that they are anonymous is enough to dismiss them as eyewitness accounts.
The reason why John is different from the others is because John copy from Mark. If John did use Mark as a source, and still was drastically different, then you might have an argument. However, John is thought to have developed indepently of the Synoptics, so there is no contradiction.
Point A: John did not use the other Synoptic Gospels as a source.
Point B: John's Gospel is significantly different from the Synoptics in areas such as style, emphasis and demeanor, but agrees with the synoptics on major events in Christ's ministry.
Point C: Since John did not copy from the Synoptics, but lists many events of Jesus' life that agree with the Synoptics (such as the passion narratives), it is reasonable to assume that John wrote from the perspective as an eye-witness.
I think you meant â€œJohn didnâ€™t copy Markâ€�.
Given the words and tone of John I think he still has a point.
The scholarship sees the author of John as having Mark available as he actually writes against it or points the writer made which is itself a contradiction. The author of Matthew even corrects points where the author of Mark gets it wrong which is another contradiction. The day Jesus dies is also a contradiction between the Synoptic and John.
John and Mark share Markâ€™s outline, innocentsâ€™ defense and the Passion Narrative.
WinePusher wrote:I think that the options are fine the way they are. Jesus was either who he claimed to be, or he was lying about his nature, or he really believed believed he was God but was actually just insane. Those are the three most logical options we have, and the legend option is dismissed because we have pretty good evidence pertaining to Jesus' life and ministry.
Druijf wrote:The gospels do not give us immediate access to what Jesus said. They reflect a developing tradition. The discourses in the gospel of John are not very likely to go back to the historical Jesus.
Gospel of Mark: Approximate Date Written-AD 70
Gospel of Matthew: Approximate Date Written-AD 85
Gospel of Luke: Approximate Date Written-AD 85
Gospel of John: Approximate Date Writte-AD 90
Are you suggesting that the oral tradition between 33AD-70AD leave room for error? Do you consider those dates to be to far back, automatically making the Gospels unreliable?
Sometimes the author in John has Jesus doing puns in Greek and even the â€œI Amâ€� stories are invention where the Hebrew is better translated as â€œI will beâ€� Or â€œI will become that which I will becomeâ€�. I always thought that fit the more Process ideas of God.
John 21:24-25 (English Standard Version)
24This is the disciple(A) who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and(B) we know(C) that his testimony is true.
25Now(D) there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that(E) the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.