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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

I wouldn' take your word for what month it was. I suggest rather that you take MY word for how the discussion went. Because I at least repeated how it went. Oh yes you did try top pass off John's angels (after the Marys had gone back to the disciples) as the same thing as the angel giving the explanation 1st thing. And my rebuttalm of that 'stands'. But I have never been one to chin you to one utterance. If you want to change to a diffrent story, feel free. But you will have to do better than referring back to debunked claims as though they were valid and demeaning me, as though I needed your help with the gospels.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I wouldn' take your word for what month it was.

*Sigh* You bring this on yourself

I suggest rather that you take MY word for how the discussion went. Because I at least repeated how it went.

And I gave another breakdown of my case on this very thread.

Oh yes you did try top pass off John's angels (after the Marys had gone back to the disciples) as the same thing as the angel giving the explanation 1st thing. And my rebuttalm of that 'stands'.

What????

But I have never been one to chin you to one utterance. If you want to change to a diffrent story, feel free. But you will have to do better than referring back to debunked claims as though they were valid and demeaning me, as though I needed your help with the gospels.

[oldbadger]

Questions for debate:

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

Why is it true?

I don't think that is true. I think that the author of G-Mark was a witness at the arrest.
And although G-Mark is probably a collection of the memoirs of Cephas I think that is a fairly believable account, once the fulfilled prophesies, exaggerations, additions etc have been cut out.

[TRANSPONDER]

I wouldn' take your word for what month it was.

*Sigh* You bring this on yourself

I suggest rather that you take MY word for how the discussion went. Because I at least repeated how it went.

And I gave another breakdown of my case on this very thread.

Oh yes you did try top pass off John's angels (after the Marys had gone back to the disciples) as the same thing as the angel giving the explanation 1st thing. And my rebuttalm of that 'stands'.

What????

But I have never been one to chin you to one utterance. If you want to change to a diffrent story, feel free. But you will have to do better than referring back to debunked claims as though they were valid and demeaning me, as though I needed your help with the gospels.

I saw nothing of yours that reconciled John to the synoptics. Let me give THE breakdown, not mine, not yours

Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb, first thing. Sees the stone rolled away and runs to the disciples and says Jesus is gone and 'We' (implying the other Mary was with her) do not know where he is'. The disciples rush to the tomb and find it empty. Mary stys there, the angels appear inside and ask why she is crying and then Jesus appears.

This is not the same as the synoptic version where both Marys go to the tomb early and the angel is there to explain where Jesus is. For good measure, Matthew has them run into Jesus himself on the way to report to the disciples. There is a clear discrepancy in fact a total contradiction, here, and the only effort I can recall that angels appeared in John, is no kind of reconciliation of the contradiction. i can't recall the one you made a page or so back...let's have a look. oh yes.

"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)"

I already pointed out that this only underlines my point - John does not have an angel at the tomb explaining anything and Jesus appearing to explain it later on only means that you can't try the apologetic that the angel HAD appeared and explained everything but John didn't think it important to mention it. Plus, of course, Mary tells the disciples that they (She and the other Mary) don't know where Jesus' body is. Duck and dive as you like, i don't see how you can convincingly explain away this contradiction. This significant and severe contradiction that, together with all the others we find, terminally trash the reliability of the resurrection accounts and imply that, as Mark suggests by omission, there was originally no resurrection account and not even an angel explaining everything which (on the evidence of John contradicting this) was something added to the synoptic version.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I saw nothing of yours that reconciled John to the synoptics.

That is probably because you do not wish to see.

Let me give THE breakdown, not mine, not yours
Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb, first thing. Sees the stone rolled away and runs to the disciples and says Jesus is gone and 'We' (implying the other Mary was with her) do not know where he is'.

Oh, so where are you getting this idea that Mary ran to tell the disciples that Jesus is gone after she sees the stone ran away?

Woww.

Did you draw that conclusion before, or after I provided my breakdown...because you sure as heck wasn't saying that before our earlier discussions.

Are you jacking my hypothesis?

Second, she was not implying the other Mary was with her.

She said "we do not know where he is", because when she (and the others) arrived at the tomb, the angel sitting on the stone clearly stated "He (Jesus) is not here".

So obviously, she was speaking on herself and on behalf of the other women who were with her at the tomb before she ran away when she said "we do not know where he is", because obviously, the other women didn't know where Jesus was either.

I pointed this out to you in our earlier discussion...and either you forgot it, or it didn't quite resonate, which is why I dare repeat it again.

The disciples rush to the tomb and find it empty. Mary stys there, the angels appear inside and ask why she is crying and then Jesus appears.

Yeah, pretty much.

This is not the same as the synoptic version where both Marys go to the tomb early and the angel is there to explain where Jesus is.

You are right, it is not the same as the synoptic version, because it isn't meant to be the same as the synoptic version.

It was meant to be exactly what it was, which was the story from Mary Magdalene's perspective.

And since Mary Magdalene had already fled the scene before the other women had went inside the tomb, then obviously, her version wouldn't have parts which include going inside the tomb, would it?

No, it wouldn't. Which is why it wasn't included and why it differs than the other versions.

Again, this was explained to you in our earlier conversation, and you offered no rational objections and as far as I'm concerned, it stands.

For good measure, Matthew has them run into Jesus himself on the way to report to the disciples. There is a clear discrepancy in fact a total contradiction, here, and the only effort I can recall that angels appeared in John, is no kind of reconciliation of the contradiction. i can't recall the one you made a page or so back...let's have a look. oh yes.

I already addressed this in the earlier conversation.

Notice, I keep referring to the earlier conversation.

"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)"

I already pointed out that this only underlines my point - John does not have an angel at the tomb explaining anything and Jesus appearing to explain it later on only means that you can't try the apologetic that the angel HAD appeared and explained everything but John didn't think it important to mention it.

I already explained this.

Plus, of course, Mary tells the disciples that they (She and the other Mary) don't know where Jesus' body is. Duck and dive as you like, i don't see how you can convincingly explain away this contradiction. This significant and severe contradiction that, together with all the others we find, terminally trash the reliability of the resurrection accounts and imply that, as Mark suggests by omission, there was originally no resurrection account and not even an angel explaining everything which (on the evidence of John contradicting this) was something added to the synoptic version.

All of this has been explained, and until I see an adequate response to what I said, then it stands.

[historia]

John Dominic Crossan? A Christian?

Well, yeah, he's a practicing Roman Catholic.

It's funny, I've had this same conversation a few times on this message board, but from the other side, where atheists are arguing that historical Jesus scholars are nothing but Christian "theologians," and that even John Dominic Crossan is somehow beholden to Catholic tradition.

That's all nonsense, of course. But It seems to me you've gone over to the other extreme here.

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.

I'm not sure why any of that would mean Crossan is not a Christian.

His theology is very liberal, to be sure. He doesn't believe in the Virgin Birth, a physical Resurrection, the deity of Christ, and so on. But that just makes him a liberal Christian.

Maybe that's what you mean here: there are not many conservative Christian historical Jesus scholars. I'm not sure that's true, either, but the more prominent historical Jesus scholars do tend to be liberal Christians, as I said above.

That throws your list in to doubt, imo.

I'm not sure why that would be the case, either. If you are familiar enough with the field of historical Jesus research to be able to make proclamations about its authors, as you did above, then you should already be familiar with the authors in my list, and know that they are Christians.

We can add more, if you like: Marcus Borg, Bruce Chilton, Ben F. Meyer, Richard Horsley, and James Charlesworth. I finally remembered some evangelical scholars, too: Darrell Bock, Craig Keener, and Craig Evans.

[TRANSPONDER]

I saw nothing of yours that reconciled John to the synoptics.

That is probably because you do not wish to see.

Let me give THE breakdown, not mine, not yours
Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb, first thing. Sees the stone rolled away and runs to the disciples and says Jesus is gone and 'We' (implying the other Mary was with her) do not know where he is'.

Oh, so where are you getting this idea that Mary ran to tell the disciples that Jesus is gone after she sees the stone ran away?

Woww.

Did you draw that conclusion before, or after I provided my breakdown...because you sure as heck wasn't saying that before our earlier discussions.

Are you jacking my hypothesis?

Second, she was not implying the other Mary was with her.

She said "we do not know where he is", because when she (and the others) arrived at the tomb, the angel sitting on the stone clearly stated "He (Jesus) is not here".

So obviously, she was speaking on herself and on behalf of the other women who were with her at the tomb before she ran away when she said "we do not know where he is", because obviously, the other women didn't know where Jesus was either.

I pointed this out to you in our earlier discussion...and either you forgot it, or it didn't quite resonate, which is why I dare repeat it again.

The disciples rush to the tomb and find it empty. Mary stys there, the angels appear inside and ask why she is crying and then Jesus appears.

Yeah, pretty much.

This is not the same as the synoptic version where both Marys go to the tomb early and the angel is there to explain where Jesus is.

You are right, it is not the same as the synoptic version, because it isn't meant to be the same as the synoptic version.

It was meant to be exactly what it was, which was the story from Mary Magdalene's perspective.

And since Mary Magdalene had already fled the scene before the other women had went inside the tomb, then obviously, her version wouldn't have parts which include going inside the tomb, would it?

No, it wouldn't. Which is why it wasn't included and why it differs than the other versions.

Again, this was explained to you in our earlier conversation, and you offered no rational objections and as far as I'm concerned, it stands.

For good measure, Matthew has them run into Jesus himself on the way to report to the disciples. There is a clear discrepancy in fact a total contradiction, here, and the only effort I can recall that angels appeared in John, is no kind of reconciliation of the contradiction. i can't recall the one you made a page or so back...let's have a look. oh yes.

I already addressed this in the earlier conversation.

Notice, I keep referring to the earlier conversation.

"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)"

I already pointed out that this only underlines my point - John does not have an angel at the tomb explaining anything and Jesus appearing to explain it later on only means that you can't try the apologetic that the angel HAD appeared and explained everything but John didn't think it important to mention it.

I already explained this.

Plus, of course, Mary tells the disciples that they (She and the other Mary) don't know where Jesus' body is. Duck and dive as you like, i don't see how you can convincingly explain away this contradiction. This significant and severe contradiction that, together with all the others we find, terminally trash the reliability of the resurrection accounts and imply that, as Mark suggests by omission, there was originally no resurrection account and not even an angel explaining everything which (on the evidence of John contradicting this) was something added to the synoptic version.

All of this has been explained, and until I see an adequate response to what I said, then it stands.

You are making yourself look ridiculous.

John says that Mary Magdalene ran to the disciples where she says that she does not know where Jesus is. This could not have been the case if the angel had explained everything as the synoptics have it, let alone Mathew saying that the women ran into Jesus on the way. This is Mary Magdalene and the synoptics are clear that she heard the message and went into the tomb (Mark and Luke, though the perched angel in Matthew invites her to peek in. You cannot wriggle you way out of this contradiction, no matter how you try.

You haven't explained anything other than you are a persistent wriggler. Including your attempt to award yourself the win through fingers in the ears denial and trying to close the discussion off. You should know that I am not so easily cancelled.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You are making yourself look ridiculous.

John says that Mary Magdalene ran to the disciples where she says that she does not know where Jesus is.

This could not have been the case if the angel had explained everything as the synoptics have it, let alone Mathew saying that the women ran into Jesus on the way.

Nonsense. The first (and only) angel that she encountered (before she fled) was the one that sat on the stone...and that angel did not "explain everything", and all you have to do is simply read the narrative and you will see as much.

The other women ran into Jesus on the way, but Mary Magdalene was not with them BECAUSE SHE HAD ALREADY FLED THE SCENE EARLIER.

This is Mary Magdalene and the synoptics are clear that she heard the message and went into the tomb (Mark and Luke, though the perched angel in Matthew invites her to peek in. You cannot wriggle you way out of this contradiction, no matter how you try.

You haven't explained anything other than you are a persistent wriggler. Including your attempt to award yourself the win through fingers in the ears denial and trying to close the discussion off. You should know that I am not so easily cancelled.

So basically, you've got nothing new to offer besides the same old tired objections that I've responded to on more than one occassion.

Do you have anything new to offer before we put this one to bed?

[oldbadger]

I'm not sure why any of that would mean Crossan is not a Christian.

His theology is very liberal, to be sure. He doesn't believe in the Virgin Birth, a physical Resurrection, the deity of Christ, and so on. But that just makes him a liberal Christian.

Where I live a lot of my neighbours would tick the 'Christian' box if they were filling in some form or other.
Maybe John Dominic Crosson might?
But by the average Christian church's definition of what a Christian is....he can't be!

I popped in to google and grabbed this quote of his:-

Does Crossan believe in the resurrection?
"I do not think anyone, anywhere, at any time brings dead people back to life," says John Dominic Crossan, an energetic liberal now retired from the Roman Catholic DePaul University in Chicago.15 Apr 2006

I could trawl through any list of HJ researchers who claim to be Christians, and then read through their search findings, and I reckon I would discover that they would be either genuine HJ researchers, or Christians.....but I don't know how they could be both together.

I'm not sure why that would be the case, either. If you are familiar enough with the field of historical Jesus research to be able to make proclamations about its authors, as you did above, then you should already be familiar with the authors in my list, and know that they are Christians.

We can add more, if you like: Marcus Borg, Bruce Chilton, Ben F. Meyer, Richard Horsley, and James Charlesworth. I finally remembered some evangelical scholars, too: Darrell Bock, Craig Keener, and Craig Evans.

I stopped reading the HJ authors a long time ago, because only one of them was really really useful for me back then. And I pinch myself when I remember spending 18 quid to read Crosson's stuff......... I was hijacked!

But after three decades of private research I have few doubts that there was a Jesus, and Baptist, but Christianity was spun in to life after both of them imo.

[TRANSPONDER]

You are making yourself look ridiculous.

John says that Mary Magdalene ran to the disciples where she says that she does not know where Jesus is.

This could not have been the case if the angel had explained everything as the synoptics have it, let alone Mathew saying that the women ran into Jesus on the way.

Nonsense. The first (and only) angel that she encountered (before she fled) was the one that sat on the stone...and that angel did not "explain everything", and all you have to do is simply read the narrative and you will see as much.

The other women ran into Jesus on the way, but Mary Magdalene was not with them BECAUSE SHE HAD ALREADY FLED THE SCENE EARLIER.

This is Mary Magdalene and the synoptics are clear that she heard the message and went into the tomb (Mark and Luke, though the perched angel in Matthew invites her to peek in. You cannot wriggle you way out of this contradiction, no matter how you try.

You haven't explained anything other than you are a persistent wriggler. Including your attempt to award yourself the win through fingers in the ears denial and trying to close the discussion off. You should know that I am not so easily cancelled.

So basically, you've got nothing new to offer besides the same old tired objections that I've responded to on more than one occassion.

Do you have anything new to offer before we put this one to bed?

You don't know your Bible as well as I do. The angel in Mathew explained everything. Jesus is not here, he has risen, as he told you Matth. 28. 5.6. And he invites them to go inside and look, though it isn't clear that they do so . Though Luke and Mark do say so. Matthew also says that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (mother of Jesus, for sure) went to the tomb, had the angel tell them that Jesus had risen and was not there. They both run off and into Jesus. Both of them, it says. I have more respect or the Gospels than you do as I don't rewrite it to suit myself. Upshot, Both Marys knew where Jesus was supposed to have gone. John refutes that and Mary says "We do not know where they have laid him" This supports the conclusion that John has no angelic message at the tomb , which is the way it is. You have no case, not even when you shout it in block capitals.

Neither do you do yourself any favors by appeal to "the same old tired objections". Which are valid and we don't have to keep trying on new ad hoc ones like you do, and "that I've responded to on more than one occassion." doesn't help you when I had refuted them, just as I did here.

Sunshine, you are done, dusted, sunk, hung, filed and delivered and not even Jesusgod can save you. Now you can go to bed and your terrible attempts at apolugetics with you. But thanks for giving me a lot of fun.