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]

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.

It's extraordinary with or without the participation of a god. That still leaves the issue of establishing that the actual event really did occur.

[We_Are_VENOM]

It's extraordinary with or without the participation of a god. That still leaves the issue of establishing that the actual event really did occur.

The term "extraordinary" is based on a subjective spectrum relative to the individual who is making the assessment.

I explained my side of things. No need to split hairs.

Either it happened or it didnt.

I say it did.

You say it didnt.

And there lies the contention.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Well, you were just cosigning the idea that unless there is eyewitness testimony, it is unreliable.

So, based on that ridiculous standard, the entire field of history is flushed down the toilet.

There really isn't much to discuss after that, so..

Another Christian mind reader telling me what I think.

It is what I believe, and I stand by what I believe.

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.

Hey, do what you do.

A fact needs to be established as fact beyond just being hearsay.

That is your standard. I do not share your standard.

Some people have a very low threshold for what establishes something as a fact.

Eyewitness testimony can be faulty too. Because guess what, eyewitnesses can LIE.

So please, tell me what established something as a fact.

Trivial example.

No, it isn't trivial. It is hearsay. If hearsay can't be reliable (according to you), then you shouldn't (if you are consistent in your view) even accept your mother's word in the example.

But since you probably will accept her testimony, then obviously there is an exception to the rule...despite you making it seem as if the hearsay as it pertains to Bible authorship is a hard rule of thumb that applies in any given case.

Basically, what we have here is a double standard.

But I am here to make sure we play fair, all the way around.

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

?

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.

Yeah and the confirmation bias works both ways, don't it?

Because after all, "when the idea (that the Bible is false) has been inculcated into the mind as a fact from the get go, it's hard not to view everything without confirmation bias coming into play."

See how that works?

[brunumb]

Yeah and the confirmation bias works both ways, don't it?

Because after all, "when the idea (that the Bible is false) has been inculcated into the mind as a fact from the get go, it's hard not to view everything without confirmation bias coming into play."

See how that works?

Except that I started off being indoctrinated with the Bible and Christianity inculcated into my brain but somehow reasoned myself out of that mind trap.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Except that I started off being indoctrinated with the Bible and Christianity inculcated into my brain but somehow reasoned myself out of that mind trap.

Yeah, and you also have folks who weren't "indoctrinated" with the Bible and Christianity (such as William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias), but they've managed to find Jesus Christ and now have eternal life.

See what I did there?

[brunumb]

Except that I started off being indoctrinated with the Bible and Christianity inculcated into my brain but somehow reasoned myself out of that mind trap.

Yeah, and you also have folks who weren't "indoctrinated" with the Bible and Christianity (such as William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias), but they've managed to find Jesus Christ and now have eternal life.

See what I did there?

What you did was miss the point completely. Hope you didn't hurt yourself by patting yourself on the back too hard.

And, as someone often says here, moving on.

[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?

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

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

[We_Are_VENOM]

Except that I started off being indoctrinated with the Bible and Christianity inculcated into my brain but somehow reasoned myself out of that mind trap.

Yeah, and you also have folks who weren't "indoctrinated" with the Bible and Christianity (such as William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias), but they've managed to find Jesus Christ and now have eternal life.

See what I did there?

What you did was miss the point completely. Hope you didn't hurt yourself by patting yourself on the back too hard.

And, as someone often says here, moving on.

I did not miss your point. You stated you are one of those who started off as being "indoctrinated" and thankfully (according to you) was able to shake off that indoctrination and free yourself of the whole brainwashing thing.

I conceded your point, that there are those who were raised Christian but left the faith later in life.

But there are also those who weren't raised as Christian, yet they found the faith later in life.

That was my typical "on the contrary" approach...good tactic, because most unbelievers make it seem as if everything is black/white...and I am here to point out that there is also those gray areas.

Anywho...

[We_Are_VENOM]

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

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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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

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?

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.