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]

No. You are flipping and pretending you haven't. 'Where Jusus had risen' is just fiddling with words. You and I and everyone else knows that the debate here is whether Mary Magdalene had heard fron an angel first thing that Jesus had risen and was not there and that is why John having her run back and in so many words, say that she did not know what had happened to Jesus.

Matthew has the first angel that they (the women) encountered (who sat on the stone), telling them that Jesus was not there, and that he had risen.

John has Mary running back because that is what happened; she ran back.

What else you got? Nothing? I figured as much.

Total contradiction, and the more to tinker with words to try to make out they are the same, the worse you make the Gospel case look. Your attempt to wave it away and go onto something else, where no doubt you would claim that you'd already answered and explained in some previous post.

Sorry all the time you keep wangling the Bible to try to make it work, I am going to expose your fiddlement. Here's an example "No Gospel states that Mary Magdalene went inside the tomb." Well of course Mark does. The two women, Mary Magdalene being one , were both inside the tomb. Don't you know your own Bible, even when I quote it to you? The fiddlement would be 'It does not use those words', which is the only possible get out I see (1). No gospel,to turn your own words around, say that one woman did not go in the tomb, while Mark says they both did and (as I explain and pretend to not understand) support that by clues and implication. You have nothing but your own faithbased preferences.

Mark does not state that MM went inside the tomb.

Now sure, it would be logical to conclude that she did, if Mark was the only account of the event that we have.

But since it isn't, then we have to take all accounts into consideration and form a cohesive, one-story account...which is what I've done and what any good investigator would do if multiple accounts of a story is being analyze.

I don't expect you to do that, however, because after all; this is the Bible, and you are an unbeliever.

And the two are like water & electricity...they simply do not mix.

Of course Mary Magdalene saw everything that the other Mary and any others (only Luke says so) that were there.

Not according to John...and not even necessarily according to the synoptics.

Any argument that she ran away and didn't hear the message is refuited by the Gospel itself.

I am going by what John says, not super-skeptics.

That's why I say I treat the text with more respect than you do. The point is that Mark says that they both went inside and the three others imply agreement with that.

John does not say that MM went inside.

If you claim that Mary Magdalene did not go inside, you are merely having Mark contradict John, Luke and Matthew instead of John contradicting Mark, Matthew and Luke.

John says MM did not go inside, and the synoptics state that the others did.

The only issues that exist, are the ones in your brain.

There's the problem. Your position is based on partiality and bias; mine is based on wanting the truth. I know you will hoot at that as you cannot imagine objectivity.

Nonsense. We both have biases.

That's because you do not see or hear. I already said that I credit the crucifixion as credibly real because all 4 broadly agree.

They all agree on the resurrection, too. So how about viewing that as credibly real?

Can't go that far with it, huh?

I go on the evidence. You try to talk it away and then try to gaslight, smear and dismiss me. You ain't got a hope of winning that one.

Looks to me like I already won.

You pretend incomprehension. I think you don't want to listen.

Your super-duper skepticism has you all over the place, which makes it difficult to keep up with so much off-tracking.

Luke's Cleophas makes it clear that both women had seen the angel that said Jesus was alive. This contradicts John saying that she she didn't know where Jesus 'lain' body was.

If by "she", you are talking about MM, I already explained why John reads different.

Next...

The rest seems merely to be heckling and smokescreening an attempted escape. John is a gospel; it contradicts the synoptics.

I already explained why John reads different.

You have explained nothing credibly, You can run away if you want, but all the time you make false claims to try to debunk the contradiction, I shall debunk you. I stop when I say so, not you.

Of course the resurrection -claim is basic. That's a different debate. I even concede the empty tomb and women were basic. The point here is that the resurrection apppearances contradict so much, they cannot be basic but individually fabricated. And 'at the risk of being repetitive, you have only made this more clear trying to wangle that argument away. Despite you denial.

And I am laughing, and I suspect everyone else is, at the clumsily telegraphed attempt to change the subject to arguing about a resurrected messiah. If you think that you can flannel me into debating Theological claims, I have to laugh or I'd be offended that you'd think you could bamboozle me so easily.

(1) other than of course, claiming that Luke and Matthew don't actually say that the women went inside and dismiss Mark as a mistake, which of course won't wash. Just try it, you'll end up looking like a dishrag.

So, nothing new under the sun. I'm about ready to wrap this up.

Do you have anything new, sir?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Alternatively, the stories themselves are ridiculous and you are unable to support them?

Sure, as I see fit.

I focused on stories that have no apparent eye-witnesses to corroborate them.

If the stories had eye-witnesses to corroborate them, would you become a Christian?

Yes or no?

Im not claiming it can be. Im claiming that there exist stories within the Gospels that (conveniently) are impossible to verify because they cant be witnessed.

Yeah, but no dreams of any person can be verified. So, tell us something we don't know.

The dream that YOU had last night cannot be verified, but this is hardly something that needs to be announced on the 10:00 news as newsworthy.

Theres strong evidence of copying between different gospels contradicting passages

Again, if it is copying, it is plagiarism.

If it is different, it is contradictions.

The skeptic can never be satisfied.

, , and notable events in a particular gospel that are strangely omitted in the others.

And as I pointed out above, when there are differences between the Gospels (such as omitted events in a particular Gospel than that of others), that is STILL a problem for the skeptic.

LOL!!!

Cmon, you know how debate works. Put a bit of effort in, eh?

I was merely adding to your omissions of all Jesus did during his early ministry, and I successfully did so.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #111]


You may continue or leave it as you like but you won't flam your way out of this.

I'll try a different line though. I'll set out the whole thing relevant points or not.

The women arrived at the tomb, First thing. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (probably mother of Jesus but not really relevant). This is Mark, Matthew and John that say so. Luke also 23.10. agreed by all four.
There is the angelic message in Matthew, Mark and Luke, though Luke alters it.

Mark has this delivered by the angel in the tomb. They both went in and they both went out. Mark is specific. You may dismiss Mark as inconvenient. I have more respect for the text. Moreover, Luke confirms this. They both went in and the angel delivered the message. Matthew has the message delivered by an angel outside who invites them to go in. Now it does not say specifically that they did so, but Mark and Luke do so you have no basis for arguing that one Mary Magdalene) did not go inside. Mark and Luke make it clear they both did. ,

John has no angel nor message and we may reasonably suppose that she at least looked inside as what she (Mary Magdalene) - tells the disciples 'They have taken his body out of the tomb and we (we - both of them) do not know where they have laid him, would not make sense if she hadn't looked inside. The body was gone, she has no idea where, but she assumes Jesus is still dead and has been removed by other persons. However, as I said before, that's not the issue. The issue is, no angel, no message about resurrection.

The issue is a real contradiction and support for my argument that there was an empty tomb and the women seeing that it was empty, but there was not originally an angelic message 'explaining' as I say that Jesus had risen and wasn't there. John refutes that- no angel, no message.

Contradiction of synoptics by John done and dusted and all your irrelevancies and fiddling do not alter that. Set out clearly so your attempts of smokescreens and falsifying what it says fail, totally. You may now bow out as you are on a hiding to nothing, here.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #113]

Hmm. I cannot reply to this without repeating the same thing I've been saying from jump street.

You can have the last word.

[Diagoras]

If the stories had eye-witnesses to corroborate them, would you become a Christian?

Perhaps if we were told the names of the wise men from the East, and their own countries written histories recorded a journey at that time to witness a miraculous infant, I would take that into account. But this is of course just hypothetical.

Yeah, but no dreams of any person can be verified. So, tell us something we don't know.

Well there you go. Unverifiable, unwitnessed Gospel stories. Youre supporting my point very well.

Again, if it is copying, it is plagiarism.

If it is different, it is contradictions.

The skeptic can never be satisfied.

Context is of course key. Where we expect some slight differences, we see word-for-word copies. Where we expect some consistency and inclusion of particularly important details, we see contradictions and omissions.

I was merely adding to your omissions of all Jesus did during his early ministry, and I successfully did so.

You also made an unsupported claim right at the end, remember? You failed to address that.

[oldbadger]

So many cling to the gospel of John, yet it's authors had no clue about how long Jesus's campaign lasted, nor what really happened.

Instead they scattered total misinformation amongst the bundle of possibly true reports that they had collected.

They twisted the 'enemy from a Dishonest corrupted high priesthood in to 'the Jews' and most of Christianity actually believed that misinformation.

And they tried to distance themselves from the clearance and picketing in the Temple by ignoring that true cause completely.

And yet the author of G-Mark probably was a partial witness. Amazing!

[We_Are_VENOM]

Perhaps if we were told the names of the wise men from the East, and their own countries written histories recorded a journey at that time to witness a miraculous infant, I would take that into account. But this is of course just hypothetical.

It is nonsense, is what it is.

If we didn't have the names of any of the disciples, you would be on here saying "perhaps if we were told the names of the disciples, I would take that into account".

But since we have the names of the disciples, instead you focus on the lack of the names of the wise men from the East.

And if it isn't that, it would be something else.

Pure comedy and about as ridiculous display of goal post moving I've ever seen.

Aint fooling nobody.

Well there you go. Unverifiable, unwitnessed Gospel stories. Youre supporting my point very well.

Ok, so no one has ever had a dream, because no dreams can be verified by eyewitness testimony.

Fallacious logic & reasoning.

Context is of course key. Where we expect some slight differences, we see word-for-word copies. Where we expect some consistency and inclusion of particularly important details, we see contradictions and omissions.

First of all, who is "we"? Careful with generalizing, because there are those like me who disagree with your assessment.

What "we" have are consistent biographies of Jesus' life.

The bottom line is; you cant please everyone, especially those who are hell-bent on proving it wrong..something that they fail to do no matter how hard they try.

You also made an unsupported claim right at the end, remember? You failed to address that.

Yeah, and I remember rejecting your standard of what is/isn't supported as it relates to Biblical matters.

And I am continuing to reject it, right at the end.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #113]

Hmm. I cannot reply to this without repeating the same thing I've been saying from jump street.

You can have the last word.

Ok, it's this: you cannot repeat the same things you've been saying from Jump street, because I've shown that none of those things work; Mary Magdalene had to have heard the angelic explanation of where Jesus was. You cannot appeal to the bleary old apologetic excuse of witness error, nor, the effort you used the previous time that the angels popping up after Mary followed the disciples back to the tomb and not giving the message is the same as the angel giving the message at the tomb, first off. The contradiction is real and fatal to the claim of an angelic message at all.

Thus, the argument I've had since before I came here so is not a kneejerk apologetic as you accused me of, is that (with all the many many other contradictions in the resurrection account) the resurrection appearances contradict fatally and cannot be reliable eyewitness, not even the angelic message. The only thing they agree on is the empty tomb and the women going there first thing, which is agreed by all four, so none of those accusations of bias, please; I give gospel agreement fair weight. It is the apologists trying every excuse, far -fetched explanation and in the end, denial, who display bias.

So, bottom line, there was no original resurrection appearances story as is clear from Mark, where the women run away and that's all there originally was, minus the explanatory message, which is refuted by John. The apologetics excuse that it 'got lost' will not wash, as it is the start of scroll or codex that gets used and goes missing, not the end.

So, the implication is that there were indeed no witnesses to any resurrection appearance by Jesus. That is why the stories had to be made up to add some weight to the empty tomb. - claim (and I have a hypothesis about that, too).

I have also done a bit about the appearances mentioned by Paul. They do not match the gospels so are not confirmation of them,

Jesus appeared first to Simon. Which is not the case, though Luke (evidently with access to Paul's letters) alters the synoptic narrative to wangle an appearance to Simon in there. Something that - so far as I know - has been totally never mentioned by any of these vaunted Bible experts. No wonder I prefer to rely on my own work and am unimpressed by appeals to their authority.

The Jesus appears to the twelve. Very well. Except it refutes the idea that Judas was gone, never mind John who says that Thomas wasn't there, either. But I'm aware that 'the twelve' was a general name, like they were a boy - band, even if only ten were there. Then 500 at once. Which is hardly to be related to resurrection night. Finally to James, who I always thought was one of the 12 - James the less, brother of Jesus and head of the Nazorene party after Jesus was executed.

I suspect the clue is in Paul seeing the same vision of Jesus after all the rest and sees no difference between their vision and his. Thus all the evidence is that Corinthians refers to appearances of Jesus in their heads or imagination and is nothing to do with any solid body resurrection on the Sunday.

Another bottom line - despite what has been taught for 2,000 years, preached from the pulpit and indoctrinated into kids' heads in far too many schools, there is no valid case for eyewitness for the resurrection, and as Paul says 'Your faith is in vain' and they are the most pitiable of men, or would be if they did not have so much power and use it to try to direct our lives.

From the House of Lords to the Vatican and from the White House to African witch - finding, it's time that ended and they had no power over society, the law and politics.

Here endeth the Rant.

[TRANSPONDER]

Perhaps if we were told the names of the wise men from the East, and their own countries written histories recorded a journey at that time to witness a miraculous infant, I would take that into account. But this is of course just hypothetical.

It is nonsense, is what it is.

If we didn't have the names of any of the disciples, you would be on here saying "perhaps if we were told the names of the disciples, I would take that into account".

But since we have the names of the disciples, instead you focus on the lack of the names of the wise men from the East.

And if it isn't that, it would be something else.

Pure comedy and about as ridiculous display of goal post moving I've ever seen.

Aint fooling nobody.

Well there you go. Unverifiable, unwitnessed Gospel stories. Youre supporting my point very well.

Ok, so no one has ever had a dream, because no dreams can be verified by eyewitness testimony.

Fallacious logic & reasoning.

Context is of course key. Where we expect some slight differences, we see word-for-word copies. Where we expect some consistency and inclusion of particularly important details, we see contradictions and omissions.

First of all, who is "we"? Careful with generalizing, because there are those like me who disagree with your assessment.

What "we" have are consistent biographies of Jesus' life.

The bottom line is; you cant please everyone, especially those who are hell-bent on proving it wrong..something that they fail to do no matter how hard they try.

You also made an unsupported claim right at the end, remember? You failed to address that.

Yeah, and I remember rejecting your standard of what is/isn't supported as it relates to Biblical matters.

And I am continuing to reject it, right at the end.

The thing about assessing old texts is that 'If you don't trust the Bible, you cannot trust any book' has a point. We can see 'spin' in events like the battle of Kadesh, or the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, yet we can have confidence that such things happened. We may doubt some dubious stories about the campaigns of Alexander or the Jugurthine war, yet we can be confident that these things happened, though objections can be raised about anything. There was so much Lost Cause (yes, they had one, as well) in French accounts of the battle of Waterloo so that I did a study to check whether they really did win it or not.

Yet there are a few helpful parameters. 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. O.w known as 'miracles don't happen'. While I have no doubt that Herod Agrippa did die rather soon after his visit to Tyre, which of course had not become a place for drying nets, but was still thriving, I doubt the account (Josephus) of an ominous Owl appearing as a portent, and thus even more, Acts borrowing the same story but turning an owl into an angel. Historians and also me, have to make such calculations always, which is why multiple accounts are handy.

Thus the claim that God smote the Assyrians at Jerusalem can be doubted as a miracle, but on its' own one could assume that some disaster struck the Assyrians, and was simply credited to God.

Except that the Assyrians have a different version, as I discussed with otseng, some time ago. The Assyrians say that they reduced Lascich and threatened to do the same to Jerusalem if Hezekiah did not submit, which he did and the Assyrians lifted the siege of Libnah and continued their campaign, unsmitten. In addition to which the Bible says that Hezekiah submitted, but it puts this at the start and then has Sennacherib, having got what he wanted, carriying on with the siege. It makes more sense to put that where the Godsmiting was and discount the Extraordinary miracle. Thus the two accounts agree and make sense. Bottom line, I couldn't not convince Otseng, but there is no reason now for me to credit the Biblical miracle, even though I credit the history.

So, the point is that I reckon we are lucky to have 4 gospels to contradict each other and suggest the way things actually were. It helps enormously to have Josephus, too.

Thus we can assess the nativities, aided by the two contradictory tales and the silence of Mark and John, and the absurd fantasies of Matthew and his floating star and the surely improbable Wise men, whose names are Melchior, Caspar and Balthazar, at least in pantomime, or the (less credible) church claims.

The Nativities are concocted bosh and the resurrections are fabricated tales; and they drag the rest of the Bible, like Pippin's suit of armor falling down the well, down to discredit, from the baptism, start of mission, calling of disciples, sermon on the mount, most of the parables, all the Galilee teachings and healings, chapters 8 -10 inclusive......and most of the rest of the Book.

[Diagoras]

If we didn't have the names of any of the disciples, you would be on here saying "perhaps if we were told the names of the disciples, I would take that into account".

But since we have the names of the disciples, instead you focus on the lack of the names of the wise men from the East.

And if it isn't that, it would be something else.

Look, if Id gone looking for every example from the Gospels of unwitnessed events, I would have needed to invest more time into this than its worth. My very simple point is this: there are plenty of unwitnessed stories in the Gospels.

Pure comedy and about as ridiculous display of goal post moving I've ever seen.

My very simple point is this: there are plenty of unwitnessed stories in the Gospels.

Im directly addressing the OP.

Ok, so no one has ever had a dream, because no dreams can be verified by eyewitness testimony.

Fallacious logic & reasoning.

What "we" have are consistent biographies of Jesus' life.

Compare the two different genealogies, then. Support a claim of consistency there, please.

The bottom line is; you cant please everyone, especially those who are hell-bent on proving it wrong..something that they fail to do no matter how hard they try.

The Evolutionary Kettle just called

The bottom line for me is: there are plenty of events described in the four Gospels that demonstrably werent (and, yes - in the case of dreams - couldnt) be witnessed.

Now, someone who believes the Bible is Gods Word is going to accept any story found there as true. Anyone who considers the Bible to be simply a human-made collection of writings is going to want to examine its claims more critically.