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?

[brunumb]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #47]
Dodgy syllogisms aside, if someone is not a direct witness of an alleged event then the best we can say about what they have written is that it is hearsay.

Ok, so lets just call the entire field of history hearsay.

Because no living historian was a direct witness of any alleged event which preceded his/her birth.

As long as you apply that ridiculous standard to any alleged account of history and not just to the Biblical claims, then I can at least give you kudos for being fair and consistent.

Yep. Why not? It makes no difference to me whether unverified stories about people and events in history are true or not. I'm not required to structure my life around them or take part in rituals and celebrations associated with them. It is, of course, most irritating when people who do accept hearsay as fact try to dictate how I should live and how society should function because of that.

[oldbadger]

Edited out........... a double post.

[oldbadger]

I think the Gospel of Mark was written by a man who was a partial witness. I think he was there at the arrest.
But I also think that his gospel is mostly based upon the memoirs of Cephas. That isn't primary testimony but it's fairly close.

Well then... This all sounds plenty sufficient to reasonably believe a man rose from a grave and contacted hundreds or more

G-Mark with the extra 'bits' we know about removed, doesn't mention any of the above.
Have you read G-Mark and about the additions?

[POI]

First, I need a clear definition of what is considered "extraordinary".

Do we agree that rising from a grave, after 3 days of being dead, is a pretty 'extraordinary' claim?

Syllogism test...

1. Unless the writer of a historical event was a direct eyewitness to the event...

2. Then the writer cannot be trusted.

Welp. That pretty much flushes the entire historical method down the toilet.

Speaking of historical method, what makes an account "reliable"? Well, what factors are up for consideration -- (in this set of 'extraordinary' Bible claims)? I'm feeling a <yes> for the (4) questions below...

Do such claims defy the laws of physics?
Are the reports politically and/or socially bias?
Is it plausible any of the records have been corrupted/modified/changed?
Is it plausible that the parts about the 'extraordinary' were later added legendary tales?

[MissKate13]

[Replying to Goose in post #1]

Matthew was one of Jesus chosen apostles. So was John. They were both eyewitnesses and were with Him from the beginning.

[POI]

I think the Gospel of Mark was written by a man who was a partial witness. I think he was there at the arrest.
But I also think that his gospel is mostly based upon the memoirs of Cephas. That isn't primary testimony but it's fairly close.

Well then... This all sounds plenty sufficient to reasonably believe a man rose from a grave and contacted hundreds or more

G-Mark with the extra 'bits' we know about removed, doesn't mention any of the above.
Have you read G-Mark and about the additions?

In light of my last response, I'm not sure how your given reply is relevant?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Yep. Why not? It makes no difference to me whether unverified stories about people and events in history are true or not.

What is and what isn't verifiable is the point of contention. And again, as long as you apply that standard equally across the board...then fine.

History is just a subject that there is no point in discussing with you, then.

I'm not required to structure my life around them or take part in rituals and celebrations associated with them.

Nor are you required to be held accountable for some of your life decisions...that is what this is really about.

It is, of course, most irritating when people who do accept hearsay as fact try to dictate how I should live and how society should function because of that.

First off, you are committing the genetic fallacy. A fact is a fact, regardless of where the information is coming from.

Second, I sincerely doubt that if your Mother told you, "Your sister wants me to ask you if you can give her a ride to the store later", that you would call your Mother's account into question...despite it being hearsay.

No.

If it the information is coming from what you believe to be a trusted source, then you will rock with it.

I view the sources we have for the Bible to be trusted...you don't.

And there lies the contention.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Do we agree that rising from a grave, after 3 days of being dead, is a pretty 'extraordinary' claim?

Sure, at face value, it is extraordinary.

But then when I think about how the feat was accomplished by an all powerful God and not just some average humanoid Joe Schmoe, then it becomes less extraordinary and more on the norm side of things.

Speaking of historical method, what makes an account "reliable"? Well, what factors are up for consideration -- (in this set of 'extraordinary' Bible claims)? I'm feeling a <yes> for the (4) questions below...

Do such claims defy the laws of physics?

And I can argue that some naturalistic claims defy the laws of physics (macroevolution, natural originating consciousness, abiogenesis, SLOT violated).

Are the reports politically and/or socially bias?

And I can argue that arguments against it are based upon political or social biases.

Is it plausible any of the records have been corrupted/modified/changed?

Fair enough. Something to dive in to. I argue no.

Is it plausible that the parts about the 'extraordinary' were later added legendary tales?

Fair enough. Something to dive in to. I argue no.

BTW, check out the pdf below on the historical method.

History has always been my favorite subject in school.

Let me know what you think about the historical method and where you think the case for the historical resurrection of Jesus fails.

https://edwardseducationblog.files.word ... method.pdf

[POI]

(VM) And I can argue that some naturalistic claims defy the laws of physics (macroevolution, natural originating consciousness, abiogenesis, SLOT violated).

(POI) I thought we were speaking about the historicity of a claim? Does the claim have parts in it, which defy the law of physics? The answer is yes. Hence, it's a bit more suspect, for rational reasons alone. Just like if your mom claimed that last year, while driving somewhere, her car levitated all the way home. You may accept that she has a car, and drives it places, etc.... But the (levitation) part needs further inquiry? Do we have corroborated eyewitnesses, for starters? We usually do not. And this would only be step one. You may still not immediately believe her if there were corroborated eyewitnesses?.?.?.?.?

(VM) And I can argue that arguments against it are based upon political or social biases.

(POI) I see what you are saying, but allow me elaborate. The accounts themselves are bias. Just like you might watch a political commentary from (Fox vs MSNBC).

My a prior belief is to doubt all 'extraordinary' claims; whether it be Jesus rising, alien abductions, people levitating, etc etc etc. And thus far, these set of extraordinary claimed have not met their burden of proof.

(VM) Fair enough. Something to dive in to. I argue no.

(POI) Why would you argue no, that they have not been altered in any way?

(VM) Fair enough. Something to dive in to. I argue no.

(POI) How so, when the stories become more and more 'extraordinary', from Mark to John?

(VM) BTW, check out the pdf below on the historical method.

History has always been my favorite subject in school.

Let me know what you think about the historical method and where you think the case for the historical resurrection of Jesus fails.

https://edwardseducationblog.files.word ... method.pdf

(POI) Honestly, I don't know if I have the energy...? We already have enough to address here.

[brunumb]

Yep. Why not? It makes no difference to me whether unverified stories about people and events in history are true or not.

What is and what isn't verifiable is the point of contention. And again, as long as you apply that standard equally across the board...then fine.

History is just a subject that there is no point in discussing with you, then.

I don't know how you reach that conclusion. As long as unverified stories about people and events in history are not merely accepted as undeniable facts, there is much to discuss.

I'm not required to structure my life around them or take part in rituals and celebrations associated with them.

Nor are you required to be held accountable for some of your life decisions...that is what this is really about.

Another Christian mind reader telling me what I think. I am accountable for everything I do in the here and now where it matters, unlike those indoctrinated with religious beliefs that model their lives based on a fear of afterlife repercussions for their actions.

It is, of course, most irritating when people who do accept hearsay as fact try to dictate how I should live and how society should function because of that.

First off, you are committing the genetic fallacy. A fact is a fact, regardless of where the information is coming from.

A fact needs to be established as fact beyond just being hearsay. Some people have a very low threshold for what establishes something as a fact.

Second, I sincerely doubt that if your Mother told you, "Your sister wants me to ask you if you can give her a ride to the store later", that you would call your Mother's account into question...despite it being hearsay.

Trivial example. In what way would calling that into question affect me and the rest of society in any significant way?

If it the information is coming from what you believe to be a trusted source, then you will rock with it.

I view the sources we have for the Bible to be trusted...you don't.

And there lies the contention.

As I said, some people have a very low threshold for what establishes something as a fact. When the idea has been inculcated into the mind as fact from the get go, it's hard not to view everything without confirmation bias coming into play.