Were there no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events?

[Goose]

And the gospels aren't even that. There were no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospels events. Written works didn't arrive until quite a bit after the events described.

"The New Testament Gospels] were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later. Where did these people get their information from? After the days of Jesus, people started telling stories about him in order to convert others to the faith. When Christians recognized the need for apostolic authorities, they attributed these books to apostles (Matthew and John) and close companions of apostles (Mark, the secretary of Peter; and Luke the traveling companion of Paul). Because our surviving Greek manuscripts provide such a wide variety of (different) titles for the Gospels, textual scholars have long realized that their familiar names (e.g., "The Gospel According to Matthew") do not go back to a single "original" title, but were added later by scribes."*

* Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of a New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 248-249; B. Ehrman, Lost Christianities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 235; B. Ehrman and W. Craig, "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?: A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman" (March 28, 2006).

Questions for debate:

Is the claim by Miles, that there were no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events, true?

Why is it true?

[Hawkins]

[Replying to Goose in post #1]

There are 2 areas humans misunderstood the most.

#1 humans lack the ability to trace history down to, say, who the authors are!
Example, Is Sun Tsu Tactics really written by Sun Tsu? It is out of human capability to investigate that. The original document was written in bamboo pieces and is long gone. If humans can't (i.e., incapable of) even keep the original document, how can humans tell who wrote that document?
Answer: Sun Tsu Tactics is said (i.e., as a human testimony flowing around) to be written by a Sun Tsu and his grand grand son, both of them can be called Sun Tsu. Can humans confirm this, hardly!

#2 history is not written by eyewitnesses
History is written by a historian who take up the responsibility in gathering stories from the supposedly eyewitnesses accounts. Even today, reporters/journalists are not necessarily eyewitnesses. They sincerely report what they gathered from the supposed eyewitnesses. Sometimes they can be eyewitnesses themselves though, a bit unlike the historians.


Flavius Josephus - The Antiquities of the Jews:
Chapter 10, Section 2,
So Abram, when he had saved the captive Sodomites, who had been taken by the Assyrians, and Lot also, his kinsman, returned home in peace.


Typical, that's the way how 1st century Jewish historian Josephus wrote his history books. He's writing about Abram. What the heck, how can Josephus be the eyewitness of Abram?!! No, he can't but he's just written a piece of history that way.


Most Chinese histories are written at the same pattern. That is, histories occurred 5000 years ago, are actually written by a historian living 2000~3000 years later!

[We_Are_VENOM]

We have done this before, haven't we?

Correct, you have been owned on this subject before.

I pointed out that according to John, there was no angelic message at the tomb first thing.

I already addressed this in prior conversations.

Do you have anything new?

If you don't, then as far as I'm concerned, my original reply stands.

I recall that you tried to pass off the two pointless angels at the tomb after the Marys had rushed back to the disciples as the same thing, which clearly it isn't.

Not sure what you are talking about here.

What we got here is a failure to communicate that Jesus has risen first thing when the Marys arrive. What we have and All that we have is a (claimed) empty tomb which is agreed by all four, and we are expected to jump to the conclusion that, if the tomb was empty, the body must have come alive and walked.

That is what the narratives say.

And bear in mind that Mathew at least reports that the Jews in his day said that the disciples took the body.

That is what the authorities thought would happen, which is why guards were placed at the tomb in the first place.

Lets not have this conversation again, TRANSPONDER. I don't want to have to lay some logical haymakers on you again.

So, lets prevent that from happening again.

Please.

[POI]

Let me explain......... Once additions have been removed, G-Mark doesn't mention anything about rising from graves, etc.

Does this mean the Bible not a reliable source, as it pertains to "Jesus rising"? If so, do you still believe he did? If so, why?

[TRANSPONDER]

We have done this before, haven't we?

Correct, you have been owned on this subject before.

I pointed out that according to John, there was no angelic message at the tomb first thing.

I already addressed this in prior conversations.

Do you have anything new?

If you don't, then as far as I'm concerned, my original reply stands.

I recall that you tried to pass off the two pointless angels at the tomb after the Marys had rushed back to the disciples as the same thing, which clearly it isn't.

Not sure what you are talking about here.

What we got here is a failure to communicate that Jesus has risen first thing when the Marys arrive. What we have and All that we have is a (claimed) empty tomb which is agreed by all four, and we are expected to jump to the conclusion that, if the tomb was empty, the body must have come alive and walked.

That is what the narratives say.

And bear in mind that Mathew at least reports that the Jews in his day said that the disciples took the body.

That is what the authorities thought would happen, which is why guards were placed at the tomb in the first place.

Lets not have this conversation again, TRANSPONDER. I don't want to have to lay some logical haymakers on you again.

So, lets prevent that from happening again.

Please.

My memory is better than yours. You had no response to the point that John does not have the angelic message, so you pointed to the one appearance of the angels in John (later on, as I said) and tried to pretend that was the same thing. I'll bet you wouldn't like to have the conversation again, but if you don't explain credibly (not with 'John didn't think it w important' or some such) why John has no angel at the tomb saying that Jesus had risen, you will be 'owned'. And I don't credit Matthew's tomb - guard. None of the others mention it after all, and it gets a bit thin when some notable saying or event that is ignored by all three is 'explained' by 'They forgot', or 'they didn't know about it'. No, having herd the Jewish explanation (which they may just have invented to debunk the resurrection -claim) Matthew invented the tomb - guard to scotch any such explanation.

You'll deny that, no doubt, but, as always, others must judge (if they can) whether Matthew had heard about the tomb - guard and nobody else had or whether, as with so much else, he made it up to suit his narrative.

Let me explain......... Once additions have been removed, G-Mark doesn't mention anything about rising from graves, etc.

Does this mean the Bible not a reliable source, as it pertains to "Jesus rising"? If so, do you still believe he did? If so, why?

The Badger doesn't. He has his own ideas, and we differ a bit. He reckons Mark is the synoptic original and I reckon it isn't as he has his own additions, though not as much as Matthew or Luke. But we seem to agree that there was originally no account of the risen Jesus, just as in Mark, or rather, Not in Mark, (the freer logion being muddled together to put that right later on). And the others inventing their own because there was none, originally explains why the three accounts contradict each other, as I am always willing to demonstrate. After all, Christianity stands or falls (faithbased denial aside) on the credibility of the resurrection - claim.

[oldbadger]

See, that is where you are WRONG.

Mark 16:6-7

6 "Dont be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.

The tomb is empty, and they were told "He has risen"....thus, it is mentioning something about rising from the graves.

Now sure, Mark doesn't have the post mortem appearances of Jesus (without the additions), but the very least you have a resurrected Jesus.

Now, how do you love those apples?

OK....... But that doesn't have to mean that Jesus was resurrected...true?
You've heard (?) the proposals that Jesus didn't die on that cross, that the spear thrust which caused his lung to clear of blood and fluid kept him alive? I've seen an A/E doctor do that to a kid who had bashed his side on a bike footrest. And there is a fine account of a convict being taken down from a cross and living in Josephus's life. After all, Jesus had only been put up on it for a few hours, not the 2-3 that it usually took to die.

So later, up North, he did get seen by mates....? The Cornish people have a tradition that he went there. A tradition from Kashmir says he went there. He could have gobne to Gaul or anywhere.

Things is, telling Christians that it's all a myth doesn't seem to have much impact on Christians, whereas (imo) proposals that he was a man who trashed the burea-de-change in the Temple and picketed the Temple Courts, etc.......

I was wrong to use the word 'risen'.....I should have challenged the claim of 'resurrected'. My bad.

[oldbadger]

We have done this before, haven't we? I pointed out that according to John, there was no angelic message at the tomb first thing. I recall that you tried to pass off the two pointless angels at the tomb after the Marys had rushed back to the disciples as the same thing, which clearly it isn't. What we got here is a failure to communicate that Jesus has risen first thing when the Marys arrive. What we have and All that we have is a (claimed) empty tomb which is agreed by all four, and we are expected to jump to the conclusion that, if the tomb was empty, the body must have come alive and walked. And bear in mind that Mathew at least reports that the Jews in his day said that the disciples took the body.

You haven't mentioned the Gospel of Mark, there.
We have to overlook angelic messages, guidance to conclusions, fulfilled prophesies, etc etc, if there is any real wish to dig through all that bulldust and come to something that really might have happened.
Although I do take interest in some incidents, pericopes etc from Mat, Luke and John, I don't take notice of the timelines, the extended calendars, super miracles, lengthy speeches.

[oldbadger]

Does this mean the Bible not a reliable source, as it pertains to "Jesus rising"?

Yes. Of course.

If so, do you still believe he did? If so, why?

I'm not any kind of Christian, POI.
I think that there was a Jesus who (like the Baptist) caused a hell of a lot of trouble against a corrupted Priesthood, mayhem in the Temple, and picketed the Temple Courts. Somehow Jesus Barabbas and Jesus BarYosef could be the same person..... Most HJ researchers are not Christians even if they were when they commenced research.

Reall bloke thing is all possible.
But Miracle working Son of God coming to little old Earth in a Universe with countless trillions of solar systems in billions of galaxies and after 13+ billion years ........? No!

[historia]

Most HJ researchers are not Christians even if they were when they commenced research.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

From my survey of the literature, most historical Jesus scholars are liberals Christians.

[oldbadger]

Most HJ researchers are not Christians even if they were when they commenced research.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

From my survey of the literature, most historical Jesus scholars are liberals Christians.

Hello historia.
What I meant was that most HJ researchers are not Christians, even if they were when they commenced research.
There are a few Christian hj researchers but not many.
A typical example of an HJ researcher leaving Christianity might be Bart Ehrmann, or Geza Vermes who was previously a priest, that's a glaring example.
Of course there are those who always have been what I call 'mythers', like Carrier.

I debate against 'mythers' because I believe that there definitely was a Jesus who took up a campaign against outrageous Temple corruption from the Baptist after his arrest. But I reckon he was a man, no more.

[We_Are_VENOM]

OK....... But that doesn't have to mean that Jesus was resurrected...true?

Have you read the narrative?

You are an intelligent man, oldbadger...don't get all spooky on me.

Mk 15:37 "And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed His last."

Jesus was dead.^
----------------

Mk 15:46 "And he (Joseph) laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock, and rolled a stone against the door of the tomb."

Jesus was buried in tomb^.
-----------------

Mk 16:6 "But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here."

Jesus' empty tomb and resurrection, all in one verse^.
-----------------

Mk 7 "But go, tell His disciplesand Peterthat He is going [a]before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you."

This insinuates a promissory resurrection appearance of Jesus^.

So we have a death, burial, empty tomb, resurrection, and presumed resurrection appearance in Mark.

You've heard (?) the proposals that Jesus didn't die on that cross, that the spear thrust which caused his lung to clear of blood and fluid kept him alive?

No evidence supporting this whatsoever.

I've seen an A/E doctor do that to a kid who had bashed his side on a bike footrest. And there is a fine account of a convict being taken down from a cross and living in Josephus's life. After all, Jesus had only been put up on it for a few hours, not the 2-3 that it usually took to die.

I have a few things to say about this...first, the Lord just revealed to me a key piece of information that confirms the Gospels internal credibility.

You see, it isn't just the obvious things which stand out to us when it comes to scriptural harmonization..but it is often the off-the-cuff stuff which we should all appreciate.

First off, if Jesus was alive when he was taken from the cross, that doesn't explain why he was buried in the first place, does it? Nope.

And Mark states that the Jesus body was taken from the cross in the evening (Mk 15:22), but he was crucified at or around dawn.

That is a longgg time to be hanging up there, and despite that, the scripture CLEARLY states that Pilate was surprised that Jesus was "already" dead. So apparently, a crucifixion was a very slow, painful, agonizing death.

But why did Jesus die earlier than expected? Well, the scripture tells us (Matt 27:50), that Jesus gave up his spirit..

He died when HE was ready die, and not according to how things would normally go. And that is why he died sooner than the norm, and that is why Pilate was surprised.

Just a little something

So later, up North, he did get seen by mates....? The Cornish people have a tradition that he went there. A tradition from Kashmir says he went there. He could have gobne to Gaul or anywhere.

Cornish people? Kashmir tradition? I am following the Pauline-early disciple tradition.

How about that?

Things is, telling Christians that it's all a myth doesn't seem to have much impact on Christians, whereas (imo) proposals that he was a man who trashed the burea-de-change in the Temple and picketed the Temple Courts, etc.......

?

I was wrong to use the word 'risen'.....I should have challenged the claim of 'resurrected'. My bad.

Risen/resurrected. Same thang.