Were there no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Were there no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events?

Post #1

Post by Goose »

Miles wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 8:58 pmAnd 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?
Last edited by Goose on Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Were there no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events?

Post #101

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 8:16 am
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.
You are WRONG.

"Jesus is not here, he has risen, as he told you".

That all comes down to a big fat "We do not know where he is", as Mary told Peter and John, doesn't it?

And again, the angel did not explain everything, because he didn't mention where they were to meet with Jesus, did he?

Which is why Mary kept that part from Peter and John, because she didn't stick around long enough to find out about that info, since the women received that info after they went inside the tomb and all.
And he invites them to go inside and look, though it isn't clear that they do so .
It isn't clear that they didn't do so, either. What we have in Matthew is..

"Come, see the place where the Lord lay".

Obviously, they went inside the tomb after being prompted to do so by the angel.

Matthew doesn't give the nitty gritty details of what occurred after they went inside, which is why we have the other accounts to plug in the details.

Again, it never fails.

When the Gospels have differences, the skeptics claim that the differences = contradictions.

But when the Gospels harmonize, the skeptics claim the harmonizations = plagiarism.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
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
Yeah, and going to the tomb and going inside the tomb are two different things, aren't they?
, had the angel tell them that Jesus had risen and was not there. They both run off and into Jesus.
That isn't what it says, though.
Both of them, it says. I have more respect or the Gospels than you do as I don't rewrite it to suit myself.
You don't rewrite it, you just interpret it in the worse way imaginable to justify your continual state of disbelief and to keep your skepticism sword sharp.

That's all. You don't rewrite it though.
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.
I already addressed this and refuse to do so again.
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. :wave: But thanks for giving me a lot of fun.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Put thing one on your long and growing list of L's that you suffered because of me.

You have so many L's under your belt that your last name should be "Cool J".
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Were there no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events?

Post #102

Post by TRANSPONDER »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:31 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 8:16 am
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.
You are WRONG.

"Jesus is not here, he has risen, as he told you".

That all comes down to a big fat "We do not know where he is", as Mary told Peter and John, doesn't it?

And again, the angel did not explain everything, because he didn't mention where they were to meet with Jesus, did he?

Which is why Mary kept that part from Peter and John, because she didn't stick around long enough to find out about that info, since the women received that info after they went inside the tomb and all.
And he invites them to go inside and look, though it isn't clear that they do so .
It isn't clear that they didn't do so, either. What we have in Matthew is..

"Come, see the place where the Lord lay".

Obviously, they went inside the tomb after being prompted to do so by the angel.

Matthew doesn't give the nitty gritty details of what occurred after they went inside, which is why we have the other accounts to plug in the details.

Again, it never fails.

When the Gospels have differences, the skeptics claim that the differences = contradictions.

But when the Gospels harmonize, the skeptics claim the harmonizations = plagiarism.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
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
Yeah, and going to the tomb and going inside the tomb are two different things, aren't they?
, had the angel tell them that Jesus had risen and was not there. They both run off and into Jesus.
That isn't what it says, though.
Both of them, it says. I have more respect or the Gospels than you do as I don't rewrite it to suit myself.
You don't rewrite it, you just interpret it in the worse way imaginable to justify your continual state of disbelief and to keep your skepticism sword sharp.

That's all. You don't rewrite it though.
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.
I already addressed this and refuse to do so again.
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. :wave: But thanks for giving me a lot of fun.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Put thing one on your long and growing list of L's that you suffered because of me.

You have so many L's under your belt that your last name should be "Cool J".
You are straining and pettifogging, old son. Bear in mind that the gospels are not describing different events, they are supposed to be describing the same ones, Therefore, if Mark and Luke say the women went inside, if you say that Matthew should be read as one of them them (Mary Magdalene) NOT going inside, you have just created another contradiction, haven't you.?

And I thought you might try the pettiffogg of 'we do not know were they have laid him' It is Not to be interpreted as 'we don't know where he is walking about', or even, We didn't believe the angel and we think that someone has stolen the body'. If that is what they meant, they would say so.

And damn' :D yet again you lose the thread of your own argument - ok, Matthew doesn't give all the details but they did BOTH go inside just as Mark and Luke say. So your point, as I remember is flipped. I'll check that. (1) :lol:

Ah. And you revert to canards and strawmans. In the context of this discussion, I have rather said the overall consistency of the crucifixion accounts suggests that it was a real event, whereas the inconsistency of the resurrection accounts, plus Mark evidentially didn't originally have one, is evidence there wasn't one and they made theirs up. Using memes, claims and what I call 'floating stories', but all contradictory. Your mud slinging won't stick on me.

I try to present it based on a reasonable reading of what it says. I invite - I welcome - criticism to see whether my conclusions stand up. You do the same. I just say that yours don't stand up. As I show.

(1) Yep here it is - "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?" Your argument (on the previous page) was that Mary Magdalene did not go into the tomb (as you read Matthew as saying), and that is why she talks in John as though she hadn't heard the angelic message.

Now you flipped your story. It is even richer since you accused me of doing the same thing (2) . Tell me, did you forget what your argument was or was this a wonderfully evil trick to try to force me into arguing something I never said?

Either way, you are not looking good, old sausage.

(2) "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."

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Were there no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events?

Post #103

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:59 pm You are straining and pettifogging, old son. Bear in mind that the gospels are not describing different events, they are supposed to be describing the same ones
Same event, with at least two different perspectives of the same event.

Happens all the time, you know, with eyewitness testimony.
, Therefore, if Mark and Luke say the women went inside, if you say that Matthew should be read as one of them them (Mary Magdalene) NOT going inside, you have just created another contradiction, haven't you.?
"The women"....that doesn't state which women went inside, does it?

No, it doesn't.

That is simply something you must assume in order to keep the skepticism alive, but not only is it unwarranted for you to assume such (based on the text), but it is fallacious for you to do so (based on the non sequitur as a result).

Next..
And I thought you might try the pettiffogg of 'we do not know were they have laid him' It is Not to be interpreted as 'we don't know where he is walking about', or even, We didn't believe the angel and we think that someone has stolen the body'. If that is what they meant, they would say so.
I do not know what you are talking about here.

"We do not know where they laid him" meshes up with Mary Magdalene being present when the angel told the women "He is not here, see where he lay".

Obviously, the women would not know where Jesus' body lay, because the body was not in the same location/place that they had last seen it when it was first laid to rest.

So Mary simply relayed her knowledge to Peter and John according to her knowledge and understanding at the time.

Next..
And damn' :D yet again you lose the thread of your own argument - ok, Matthew doesn't give all the details but they did BOTH go inside just as Mark and Luke say. So your point, as I remember is flipped. I'll check that. (1) :lol:
You are WRONG.

Mark and Luke does not state they BOTH went inside the tomb.

You are reading your own skeptical exegesis into the text.

John is clear that Mary Magdalene (MM) did not go inside the tomb, and the women that DID entered the tomb did not include MM.
Ah. And you revert to canards and strawmans. In the context of this discussion, I have rather said the overall consistency of the crucifixion accounts suggests that it was a real event, whereas the inconsistency of the resurrection accounts
The only inconsistencies which exists, are the ones inside your brain.
, plus Mark evidentially didn't originally have one, is evidence there wasn't one and they made theirs up.
You are WRONG.

As I pointed out to oldbadger, Mark makes it clear that Jesus had risen.

A risen Messiah is a resurrected Messiah.

Next..
Using memes, claims and what I call 'floating stories', but all contradictory. Your mud slinging won't stick on me.

I try to present it based on a reasonable reading of what it says. I invite - I welcome - criticism to see whether my conclusions stand up. You do the same. I just say that yours don't stand up. As I show.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your conclusions not stand up :lol:
(1) Yep here it is - "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?" Your argument (on the previous page) was that Mary Magdalene did not go into the tomb (as you read Matthew as saying), and that is why she talks in John as though she hadn't heard the angelic message.

Now you flipped your story. It is even richer since you accused me of doing the same thing (2) . Tell me, did you forget what your argument was or was this a wonderfully evil trick to try to force me into arguing something I never said?

Either way, you are not looking good, old sausage.
Don't know what you are talking about here. Everything that I said, even going back to our first conversations about this stuff...have been consistent...and you can check the archive because it speak for itself.
(2) "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."
?
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Were there no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events?

Post #104

Post by TRANSPONDER »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 5:25 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:59 pm You are straining and pettifogging, old son. Bear in mind that the gospels are not describing different events, they are supposed to be describing the same ones
Same event, with at least two different perspectives of the same event.

Happens all the time, you know, with eyewitness testimony.
, Therefore, if Mark and Luke say the women went inside, if you say that Matthew should be read as one of them them (Mary Magdalene) NOT going inside, you have just created another contradiction, haven't you.?
"The women"....that doesn't state which women went inside, does it?

No, it doesn't.

That is simply something you must assume in order to keep the skepticism alive, but not only is it unwarranted for you to assume such (based on the text), but it is fallacious for you to do so (based on the non sequitur as a result).

Next..
And I thought you might try the pettiffogg of 'we do not know were they have laid him' It is Not to be interpreted as 'we don't know where he is walking about', or even, We didn't believe the angel and we think that someone has stolen the body'. If that is what they meant, they would say so.
I do not know what you are talking about here.

"We do not know where they laid him" meshes up with Mary Magdalene being present when the angel told the women "He is not here, see where he lay".

Obviously, the women would not know where Jesus' body lay, because the body was not in the same location/place that they had last seen it when it was first laid to rest.

So Mary simply relayed her knowledge to Peter and John according to her knowledge and understanding at the time.

Next..
And damn' :D yet again you lose the thread of your own argument - ok, Matthew doesn't give all the details but they did BOTH go inside just as Mark and Luke say. So your point, as I remember is flipped. I'll check that. (1) :lol:
You are WRONG.

Mark and Luke does not state they BOTH went inside the tomb.

You are reading your own skeptical exegesis into the text.

John is clear that Mary Magdalene (MM) did not go inside the tomb, and the women that DID entered the tomb did not include MM.
Ah. And you revert to canards and strawmans. In the context of this discussion, I have rather said the overall consistency of the crucifixion accounts suggests that it was a real event, whereas the inconsistency of the resurrection accounts
The only inconsistencies which exists, are the ones inside your brain.
, plus Mark evidentially didn't originally have one, is evidence there wasn't one and they made theirs up.
You are WRONG.

As I pointed out to oldbadger, Mark makes it clear that Jesus had risen.

A risen Messiah is a resurrected Messiah.

Next..
Using memes, claims and what I call 'floating stories', but all contradictory. Your mud slinging won't stick on me.

I try to present it based on a reasonable reading of what it says. I invite - I welcome - criticism to see whether my conclusions stand up. You do the same. I just say that yours don't stand up. As I show.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your conclusions not stand up :lol:
(1) Yep here it is - "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?" Your argument (on the previous page) was that Mary Magdalene did not go into the tomb (as you read Matthew as saying), and that is why she talks in John as though she hadn't heard the angelic message.

Now you flipped your story. It is even richer since you accused me of doing the same thing (2) . Tell me, did you forget what your argument was or was this a wonderfully evil trick to try to force me into arguing something I never said?

Either way, you are not looking good, old sausage.
Don't know what you are talking about here. Everything that I said, even going back to our first conversations about this stuff...have been consistent...and you can check the archive because it speak for itself.
(2) "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."
?
I don't think that anyone is going to buy the excuse that the Marys were told by the angel first ting at the tomb where Jesus was (risen) and eyewitness testimony erxplains how John apparently forgot and instead has Mary say that they didn't know where Jesus was. After all, if witness testimony is as unreliable as that the whole Gospel is unreliable, yes?

And the synoptics (Mark and Luke) are clear about the two women that went inside, Mary Magdalene and the other mary. Thus when invited to go inside in Mathew, they must have, and also in John. or how would they know the body was gone? You can add on Luke's other women, but Mary Magdalene definitely went in the tomb, according to the story.

You do know what I am talking about. Mary saying 'we do noit know where they have laid him' implies that no angel had said that he had risen and was walking about. Moreover, Luke has Cleophas say that the women went to the tomb and saw angels who said that Jesus was alive. That's not what she says in John and 'meshes up' with John not having an angelic message, or even an angel. The contradictions that exist in my head shouls also exist in yours, were you not so intent on explaining them away. Unfortunately it is your conclusions that do not stand up and are being refuted, not mine.

Mark 16.5 says 'they' entered the tomb. Now, the others don't say so specifically, but Matthew and Luke have the angelic invitation see where jesus had lain. John implies that they looked inside or how wouldn't they know he wasn't still there?

In any case, whether they went in or not is not the issue but that the synoptics have an angel and explanation thatbJesus has risen and John doesn't. You were attempting to explain that by claiming that Mary Magdalene ran off without hearing the explanation. That is a wangle in your own head and has no support in the gospels. Both should have heard that Jesus had risen and wouldn';t be 'laid' anywhere. This is not what is in John.

No, you are wrong. The resurrection claim in Mark is what the resurrection accounts are supposed to prove. They contradict, and so badly they are on evidence, made up. Eben the angelic message is contradicted by John, as shown by me at length despite your attempts to talk your way out of it. Nobody is saying that a risen messiah is not a resurrected messiah, though that claim is also debatable.

You cannot go back to claims that you explained everything in past posts because you decline to go back, and you cannot make those claims stand up here. You are not making yourself look very good. nor do your question marks I showed that you flipped your story.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Were there no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events?

Post #105

Post by Diagoras »

Questions for debate:

Is the claim by Miles, that there were no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events, true?
I’d argue ‘partly true’. There are several purported events in Matthew and Luke, for example, where no eye witnesses exist:

Matthew 1:20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not…

Matthew 2:1
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

No further details (precise number, names, from which countries?) provided.

Matthew 2:12
And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

Matthew 2:13
And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child…
(Similarly verses 19 and 22)

Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain…

Luke 1:26
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

Did the angel just get teleported there, or did he have to hire a camel, do you think?

Luke 2:8-9
And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them…

Again, no further details offered. You’d think the people chosen to receive the world’s most important news might be dignified by remembering their names, but apparently not.

Unverifiable stories like ’dreams’ and unnamed supporting characters (even the Devil!) strongly suggest a series of embellishments. If they were true, then we might expect to see similar corroborating accounts in the other Gospels - but there are none.

Eye witnesses to some of Jesus’ teachings and journeys probably did exist, but for many other Gospel claims, including the examples I’ve given above, the statement that there were no eye-witnesses is true.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Were there no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events?

Post #106

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 8:01 pm I don't think that anyone is going to buy the excuse that the Marys were told by the angel first ting at the tomb where Jesus was (risen)
No one claimed that the angel told the Marys at the tomb where Jesus had risen.

No one has claimed that, so why are you saying no one is going to buy such excuse, when no one is making the claim in the first place?

This is gaslighting, and straw manning, and it is disgusting.
and eyewitness testimony erxplains how John apparently forgot and instead has Mary say that they didn't know where Jesus was. After all, if witness testimony is as unreliable as that the whole Gospel is unreliable, yes?
Why John had Mary say what she said was already explained to you.

You know, I grow wearing of refuting the same ole lines time and time again.

I yearn for more objections to dismantle.

Do you have anything new for me? What do you have?

I am starving.
And the synoptics (Mark and Luke) are clear about the two women that went inside, Mary Magdalene and the other mary.
Neither states that Mary Magdalene went inside.
Thus when invited to go inside in Mathew, they must have, and also in John. or how would they know the body was gone?
It all began with the angel which on the stone, who stated "He is not here. He has risen. See where his body lay".
You can add on Luke's other women, but Mary Magdalene definitely went in the tomb, according to the story.
No Gospel states that Mary Magdalene went inside the tomb.
You do know what I am talking about. Mary saying 'we do noit know where they have laid him' implies that no angel had said that he had risen and was walking about.
Bad exegesis. I can provide you the correct understanding of this stuff...but I can't make you understand it.
Moreover, Luke has Cleophas say that the women went to the tomb and saw angels who said that Jesus was alive.
Point?
That's not what she says in John and 'meshes up' with John not having an angelic message, or even an angel.
That is because she did not see the angels that the other women saw at the tomb.
The contradictions that exist in my head shouls also exist in yours, were you not so intent on explaining them away. Unfortunately it is your conclusions that do not stand up and are being refuted, not mine.
My job is to defend it, your job is to attack it. My job is to remain saved, your job is to remain unsaved.

You know how the game goes.
Mark 16.5 says 'they' entered the tomb.
They = those who went inside....excluding those that didn't.
Now, the others don't say so specifically, but Matthew and Luke have the angelic invitation see where jesus had lain.
Point?
John implies that they looked inside or how wouldn't they know he wasn't still there?
Point?
In any case, whether they went in or not is not the issue but that the synoptics have an angel and explanation thatbJesus has risen and John doesn't. You were attempting to explain that by claiming that Mary Magdalene ran off without hearing the explanation. That is a wangle in your own head and has no support in the gospels.
It does have support, in G-John.

And last I checked, G-John is one of the...gospels.
Both should have heard that Jesus had risen and wouldn';t be 'laid' anywhere. This is not what is in John.
It was explained to you why John reads different. Not gonna keep repeating myself unless you got something new...which you don't.
No, you are wrong. The resurrection claim in Mark is what the resurrection accounts are supposed to prove.
All Gospels support the claim that Jesus resurrected.
They contradict, and so badly they are on evidence, made up. Eben the angelic message is contradicted by John, as shown by me at length despite your attempts to talk your way out of it.
As much as you tried and continue to try, you will never reach the point of "contradiction".

You see, what had happened was, you've spent X amount of time building your case against the Gospels, only for me to come along and destroy your entire theory...and it is difficult for you to come to grips with.
Nobody is saying that a risen messiah is not a resurrected messiah, though that claim is also debatable.
Ahhh, there ya go. That is something new I can play with.

What is so debatable about that?
You cannot go back to claims that you explained everything in past posts because you decline to go back, and you cannot make those claims stand up here. You are not making yourself look very good. nor do your question marks I showed that you flipped your story.
We've identified something new above...lets abandon the old, played out objections which are dead horses that continue to be beaten.

Lets focus on the new...now, about the risen/resurrected Messiah thing...what about it?
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Were there no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events?

Post #107

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

.

Never mind the specifics (scriptures) in your post which are ridiculous and are not worthy of comment...
Diagoras wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 8:20 pm Again, no further details offered. You’d think the people chosen to receive the world’s most important news might be dignified by remembering their names, but apparently not.
Funny, of all the names that were mentioned in the Gospels, you focus on the ones that weren't mentioned.

Laughable.
Unverifiable stories like ’dreams’ and unnamed supporting characters (even the Devil!) strongly suggest a series of embellishments.
How can a dream be "verified"? Laughable.
If they were true, then we might expect to see similar corroborating accounts in the other Gospels - but there are none.
Hmm. The synoptics are known for being terribly similar to each other...in other words, they corroborate one another.

Yet, you aren't a Christian.

Hmm. Must not be really about things corroborating now, are we?
Eye witnesses to some of Jesus’ teachings and journeys probably did exist, but for many other Gospel claims, including the examples I’ve given above, the statement that there were no eye-witnesses is true.
Yeah, Jesus' teachings, journey's, miracles, arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, appearances, ascension.

All of that stuff is true.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Were there no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events?

Post #108

Post by TRANSPONDER »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:25 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 8:01 pm I don't think that anyone is going to buy the excuse that the Marys were told by the angel first ting at the tomb where Jesus was (risen)
No one claimed that the angel told the Marys at the tomb where Jesus had risen.

No one has claimed that, so why are you saying no one is going to buy such excuse, when no one is making the claim in the first place?

This is gaslighting, and straw manning, and it is disgusting.
and eyewitness testimony erxplains how John apparently forgot and instead has Mary say that they didn't know where Jesus was. After all, if witness testimony is as unreliable as that the whole Gospel is unreliable, yes?
Why John had Mary say what she said was already explained to you.

You know, I grow wearing of refuting the same ole lines time and time again.

I yearn for more objections to dismantle.

Do you have anything new for me? What do you have?

I am starving.
And the synoptics (Mark and Luke) are clear about the two women that went inside, Mary Magdalene and the other mary.
Neither states that Mary Magdalene went inside.
Thus when invited to go inside in Mathew, they must have, and also in John. or how would they know the body was gone?
It all began with the angel which on the stone, who stated "He is not here. He has risen. See where his body lay".
You can add on Luke's other women, but Mary Magdalene definitely went in the tomb, according to the story.
No Gospel states that Mary Magdalene went inside the tomb.
You do know what I am talking about. Mary saying 'we do noit know where they have laid him' implies that no angel had said that he had risen and was walking about.
Bad exegesis. I can provide you the correct understanding of this stuff...but I can't make you understand it.
Moreover, Luke has Cleophas say that the women went to the tomb and saw angels who said that Jesus was alive.
Point?
That's not what she says in John and 'meshes up' with John not having an angelic message, or even an angel.
That is because she did not see the angels that the other women saw at the tomb.
The contradictions that exist in my head shouls also exist in yours, were you not so intent on explaining them away. Unfortunately it is your conclusions that do not stand up and are being refuted, not mine.
My job is to defend it, your job is to attack it. My job is to remain saved, your job is to remain unsaved.

You know how the game goes.
Mark 16.5 says 'they' entered the tomb.
They = those who went inside....excluding those that didn't.
Now, the others don't say so specifically, but Matthew and Luke have the angelic invitation see where jesus had lain.
Point?
John implies that they looked inside or how wouldn't they know he wasn't still there?
Point?
In any case, whether they went in or not is not the issue but that the synoptics have an angel and explanation thatbJesus has risen and John doesn't. You were attempting to explain that by claiming that Mary Magdalene ran off without hearing the explanation. That is a wangle in your own head and has no support in the gospels.
It does have support, in G-John.

And last I checked, G-John is one of the...gospels.
Both should have heard that Jesus had risen and wouldn';t be 'laid' anywhere. This is not what is in John.
It was explained to you why John reads different. Not gonna keep repeating myself unless you got something new...which you don't.
No, you are wrong. The resurrection claim in Mark is what the resurrection accounts are supposed to prove.
All Gospels support the claim that Jesus resurrected.
They contradict, and so badly they are on evidence, made up. Eben the angelic message is contradicted by John, as shown by me at length despite your attempts to talk your way out of it.
As much as you tried and continue to try, you will never reach the point of "contradiction".

You see, what had happened was, you've spent X amount of time building your case against the Gospels, only for me to come along and destroy your entire theory...and it is difficult for you to come to grips with.
Nobody is saying that a risen messiah is not a resurrected messiah, though that claim is also debatable.
Ahhh, there ya go. That is something new I can play with.

What is so debatable about that?
You cannot go back to claims that you explained everything in past posts because you decline to go back, and you cannot make those claims stand up here. You are not making yourself look very good. nor do your question marks I showed that you flipped your story.
We've identified something new above...lets abandon the old, played out objections which are dead horses that continue to be beaten.

Lets focus on the new...now, about the risen/resurrected Messiah thing...what about it?
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. 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.

Of course Mary Magdalene saw everything that the other Mary and any others (only Luke says so) that were there. Any argument that she ran away and didn't hear the message is refuited by the Gospel itself. 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. 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.

Do you have anything new for me? What do you have?

I am starving. "

:D "I think this food would do you good, if you coukd just try, but perhaps you can't even try, yet" (LoR).

I feed you but you spit it out.

"My job is to defend it, your job is to attack it. My job is to remain saved, your job is to remain unsaved. You know how the game goes."

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. 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. 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.

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

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

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Were there no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events?

Post #109

Post by TRANSPONDER »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:40 am .

Never mind the specifics (scriptures) in your post which are ridiculous and are not worthy of comment...
Diagoras wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 8:20 pm Again, no further details offered. You’d think the people chosen to receive the world’s most important news might be dignified by remembering their names, but apparently not.
Funny, of all the names that were mentioned in the Gospels, you focus on the ones that weren't mentioned.

Laughable.
Unverifiable stories like ’dreams’ and unnamed supporting characters (even the Devil!) strongly suggest a series of embellishments.
How can a dream be "verified"? Laughable.
If they were true, then we might expect to see similar corroborating accounts in the other Gospels - but there are none.
Hmm. The synoptics are known for being terribly similar to each other...in other words, they corroborate one another.

Yet, you aren't a Christian.

Hmm. Must not be really about things corroborating now, are we?
Eye witnesses to some of Jesus’ teachings and journeys probably did exist, but for many other Gospel claims, including the examples I’ve given above, the statement that there were no eye-witnesses is true.
Yeah, Jesus' teachings, journey's, miracles, arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, appearances, ascension.

All of that stuff is true.
"How can a dream be "verified"? Laughable." laugh is on you. "Contradiction? How can a contradiction be confirmation? LoL" Everyone is laughing at you, at least now I pointed out your blunder.

Nobody is laughing with you; they may be laughing at you. Of course the contradictions are noted. In fact the agreements flag up a gospel problem - copying. Yes, Bible apologists shot themselves in both feet - the gospels are both contradictory and show signs of copying. In fact 'synoptics' is a mealy -mouthed way of saying 'all copied from the same original'. As in your final remark.

The copying is known - as your remark shows. This merely serves to mark in red the changes and additions, the way that believers do in Seminary Bible redaction class before they deconvert. So deconversion stories say. That's why we are not Christians.

I need hardly comment on your final defiant faithclaim, which does noting other than flag up your denialist bias. We knew that.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Were there no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events?

Post #110

Post by Diagoras »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:40 am Never mind the specifics (scriptures) in your post which are ridiculous and are not worthy of comment...
Alternatively, the stories themselves are ridiculous and you are unable to support them?

Funny, of all the names that were mentioned in the Gospels, you focus on the ones that weren't mentioned.
I focused on stories that have no apparent eye-witnesses to corroborate them.

How can a dream be "verified"? Laughable.
I’m not claiming it can be. I’m claiming that there exist stories within the Gospels that (conveniently) are impossible to verify because they can’t be witnessed.

Hmm. The synoptics are known for being terribly similar to each other...in other words, they corroborate one another.
There’s strong evidence of copying between different gospels, contradicting passages, and notable events in a particular gospel that are strangely omitted in the others.

Yeah, Jesus' teachings, journey's, miracles, arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, appearances, ascension.

All of that stuff is true.
C’mon, you know how debate works. Put a bit of effort in, eh?

Post Reply