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?

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Is your memory better than mines? Because I recall offering a rational response to why John's Gospel reads different.

Please pay a visit to that last conversation.

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'.

TRANSPONDER....sir.

The reason John has no angel at the tomb saying that Jesus had risen, was because Jesus APPEARED TO MARY HIMSELF, IN PERSON, AT THE TOMB (John 20:14)

Why would an angel have to tell Mary that Jesus had risen, if Jesus himself appeared before Mary at the tomb?

Makes no sense.

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.

Syllogism test...

1. Matthew mentions tomb guards.

2. No other Gospel mentions tomb guards.

3. Therefore, there were no tomb guards and Matthew invented the tomb guard narrative.

Non sequitur. It does not follow.

Test; FAILED.

I advised you to cease your fruitless pursuit of trying to discredit the Gospels...but you insist.

Please, do not insist.

[oldbadger]

Have you read the narrative?

Hi Venom, I can't answer on depth until tomorrow morning, am on a mobile.

No, I don't think Jesus did die.
Convicts could live three days on a cross.
The spear thrust could clear aung of blood and fluids.
Falling unconscious is not death .
They didn't bury Jesus but left him in a cave like tomb.
The cave waseft from Friday evening until Sunday morning when Magdalene found him gone.
He turned up on Nazareth not that long after and saw his friends.
The main ports put are just up from there, Tyre and Sidon.
There are reports that Jesus and Joseph we t away together.

I don't think Pilate wanted him dead at all .

There's more.

But thank you for your kind compliment. )

[We_Are_VENOM]

Hi Venom, I can't answer on depth until tomorrow morning, am on a mobile.
No, I don't think Jesus did die.

Paul seems to think he did. I'm rocking with Paul, you know, the earlier source that isn't writing 2,000 years later on a religious debate forum.

Convicts could live three days on a cross.

So what? Cancer patients can live up to 5 years with cancer, but Patrick Swayze didn't. And?

The spear thrust could clear aung of blood and fluids.

And?

Falling unconscious is not death .

Yeah, but breathing your last breath, you know, like the narratives state that Jesus did...is death.

They didn't bury Jesus but left him in a cave like tomb.

Burials are not limited to being covered underground.

The cave waseft from Friday evening until Sunday morning when Magdalene found him gone.
He turned up on Nazareth not that long after and saw his friends.
The main ports put are just up from there, Tyre and Sidon.
There are reports that Jesus and Joseph we t away together.

I don't think Pilate wanted him dead at all .

There's more.

But thank you for your kind compliment. )

A complete butchering of history.

It is amazing the lengths people will go through to discredit the Bible/Gospels.

Smh.

[historia]

There are a few Christian hj researchers but not many.

I think this is simply mistaken.

Just off the top of my head, I'm thinking of N. T. Wright, John P. Meier, Richard Bauckham, Luke Timothy Johnson, Dale C. Allison, John Dominic Crossan and Gerd Theissen. There are a slew of evangelical scholars whose names escape me at the moment.

You're right to note that there are also Jewish scholars of the historical Jesus, like Geza Vermes and Amy-Jill Levine, as well as secular or atheist scholars, including James Crossley, Bart Ehrman, Gerd Ldemann, Paula Fredriksen, and E. P. Sanders.

But it seems quite evident to me that a majority of historical Jesus researchers are Christians.

[oldbadger]

Paul seems to think he did. I'm rocking with Paul, you know, the earlier source that isn't writing 2,000 years later on a religious debate forum.

I don't think Paul was the least bit interested about Jesus or what he actually did or said. Apart from referrals to that last meal and resurrection Paul didn't write a sentence about his actions or sayings.

So what? Cancer patients can live up to 5 years with cancer, but Patrick Swayze didn't. And?

Let's stick to crucifixion.......

And?

That spear thrust could have been a lifesaver, and not a killer.

Yeah, but breathing your last breath, you know, like the narratives state that Jesus did...is death.

Such detail........ who actually saw that? Saw that and wrote about it? Where?
The only friends of Jesus there were watching from afar.
You don't believe that claim about being at the foot of the cross during a crucifixion, do you?

Burials are not limited to being covered underground.

And?

A complete butchering of history.

It is amazing the lengths people will go through to discredit the Bible/Gospels.

Smh.

I could go much further......
...much further.

Them gospels need a good shaking up, I reckon.
The fulfilled prophesies, many of the miracles, references to the Jews as enemy to Jesus, the contradictions, the additions, etc etc, all need to be fetched out to leave a real account about what a real man probably did.

[oldbadger]

There are a few Christian hj researchers but not many.

I think this is simply mistaken.

Just off the top of my head, I'm thinking of N. T. Wright, John P. Meier, Richard Bauckham, Luke Timothy Johnson, Dale C. Allison, John Dominic Crossan and Gerd Theissen. There are a slew of evangelical scholars whose names escape me at the moment.

You're right to note that there are also Jewish scholars of the historical Jesus, like Geza Vermes and Amy-Jill Levine, as well as secular or atheist scholars, including James Crossley, Bart Ehrman, Gerd Ldemann, Paula Fredriksen, and E. P. Sanders.

But it seems quite evident to me that a majority of historical Jesus researchers are Christians.

John Dominic Crossan? A Christian?
After boring me to death with his detailed explanation of Roman patronage, when 90% of the Galilean population were down there in the peasant classes, and after describing his opinions about Jesus as a 'Magic for Meal' itinerant shuffling from community to community with 3/4 assistants going ahead to sell him up, I think you need to pop Crosson out of the Christian list. That throws your list in to doubt, imo.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #85]

You can have the last word. I cant take anyone serious who continues to butcher history to such large degrees.

I chimed in on the convo to set you straight on a thing or two, and now I am OUT.

Stick and move.

Stick and move.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Is your memory better than mines? Because I recall offering a rational response to why John's Gospel reads different.

Please pay a visit to that last conversation.

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'.

TRANSPONDER....sir.

The reason John has no angel at the tomb saying that Jesus had risen, was because Jesus APPEARED TO MARY HIMSELF, IN PERSON, AT THE TOMB (John 20:14)

Why would an angel have to tell Mary that Jesus had risen, if Jesus himself appeared before Mary at the tomb?

Makes no sense.

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.

Syllogism test...

1. Matthew mentions tomb guards.

2. No other Gospel mentions tomb guards.

3. Therefore, there were no tomb guards and Matthew invented the tomb guard narrative.

Non sequitur. It does not follow.

Test; FAILED.

I advised you to cease your fruitless pursuit of trying to discredit the Gospels...but you insist.

Please, do not insist.

If you care to give a link to the previous conversation, we could revisit it, but as I recall, it was trying to pass off the angels after Mary had reported back to the disciples as the same a the angel explaining everything to May before she reports back to the disciples. It is not.

Don't you see that in claiming that Jesus telling Mary (after she's run back to the disciples) that he has risen, it is confirming what I argued - that John refutes the synoptic version. As you say, the angel doesn't need to explain anything to Mary, or rather John having Jesus explain everything underlines that he has no angel explaining everything.

Sequitur. That nobody other than Mathew even hints at a tomb guard makes it the go - to hypothesis that Matthew made it up. VALID. You are never going to make a case to reconcile John's refutation of the angelic message at the tomb, nor that only Mathew writing about the tomb guard implies that Matthew invented the tomb -guard. No more than your pleading for me to stop talking about it is going to work. Yet you persist.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #85]

You can have the last word. I cant take anyone serious who continues to butcher history to such large degrees.

I chimed in on the convo to set you straight on a thing or two, and now I am OUT.

Stick and move.

Stick and move.

G-John butchered truth when its authors wrote that gospel, Venom.

They twisted Jesus's anger away from the corrupted, hypocritical priesthood in to 'the Jews'.
They extended the timeline of campaign from 11/12 months in to three years.
They had Jesus popping in to the Temple as if it was a half-hour walk and not a two day journey, when G-Mark showed that he was a rare visitor.
They pretended to be John the boatman yet didn't know about one of the most exciting events in his life. Omitted it.
They tried to downplay the picketing of the Temple Courts and Trashing of the money bazaar as the real reason for his arrest.
And on............. the evidence is all there.

If you want a more genuine history you should read G-Mark without the additions.

[We_Are_VENOM]

If you care to give a link to the previous conversation, we could revisit it

I am too lazy to dig for it...just take my word for it; it is there, and it happened.

, but as I recall, it was trying to pass off the angels after Mary had reported back to the disciples as the same a the angel explaining everything to May before she reports back to the disciples. It is not.

First off, not only did I not say that...but I don't even agree with it

Don't you see that in claiming that Jesus telling Mary (after she's run back to the disciples) that he has risen, it is confirming what I argued - that John refutes the synoptic version. As you say, the angel doesn't need to explain anything to Mary, or rather John having Jesus explain everything underlines that he has no angel explaining everything.

Again, my original reply to your objection stands.

Sequitur. That nobody other than Mathew even hints at a tomb guard makes it the go - to hypothesis that Matthew made it up. VALID.

Syllogism test (for the umpthteenth time).

1. Matthew mentions tomb guards.

2. No other Gospel mentions tomb guards.

3. Therefore, there were no tomb guards.

The conclusion simply does not follow from the premises, making it a faulty conclusion.

You are never going to make a case to reconcile John's refutation of the angelic message at the tomb,

Been there, done that.

nor that only Mathew writing about the tomb guard implies that Matthew invented the tomb -guard.

See a couple of steps above^.

No more than your pleading for me to stop talking about it is going to work. Yet you persist.

Hey, I am only trying to help you out...for I am not without mercy.

However, if you persist, then I persist.