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]

Look, if I’d gone looking for every example from the Gospels of unwitnessed events, I would have needed to invest more time into this than it’s worth.

Look, if you'd gone looking for every example from ANY historical document or literature from antiquity as it pertained to unwitnessed events, you will need to invest more time than you are willing to put in.

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

My very simple point is this: hold every piece of historical literature or document to the same standard that you hold the Bible/the Gospels.

If you aren't willing to do that, then it is a taxi cab double standard fallacy.

In other words, it goes far beyond just "the wise men's names aren't mentioned". It is a deep, personal, disgusting prejudice against the Bible/Gospels.

Soul-shaking disgustingness.

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

I’m directly addressing the OP.

I already addressed the OP.

I am addressing YOU now.

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

Plenty commentaries have been written on that subject. Do your research and take your pick.

The Evolutionary Kettle just called…

The bottom line for me is: there are plenty of events described in the four Gospels that demonstrably weren’t (and, yes - in the case of dreams - couldn’t) be witnessed.

No dreams can be witnessed by second/third parties...so again, based on your standards, no dreams are true.

If your sister told you that she had a dream that she flew a kite, you wouldn't question the validity of her dream, would you? No, you wouldn't.

But dreams in the Bible are not valid because they are unwitnessed?

Makes no sense. Not only is a fallacious non sequitur, but it is just flat out inconsistent logical reasoning.

Now, someone who believes the Bible is God’s Word is going to accept any story found there as true.

Yeah, just like anyone who believes that evolution is true is going to accept any new finding/discovery as evidence for evolution.

Anyone who considers the Bible to be simply a human-made collection of writings is going to want to examine its claims more critically.

Yeah, just like I examine claims of evolution critically...and I critically reject it.

[Diagoras]

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

My very simple point is this: hold every piece of historical literature or document to the same standard that you hold the Bible/the Gospels.

If you aren't willing to do that, then it is a taxi cab double standard fallacy.

In other words, it goes far beyond just "the wise men's names aren't mentioned". It is a deep, personal, disgusting prejudice against the Bible/Gospels.

Soul-shaking disgustingness.

Since I’m holding the Gospels to the same standard as I would other historical writings, there’s no double standard. If that seems ‘disgusting’ to you, then perhaps civil debate isn’t your thing?

I am addressing YOU now.

Yes, the change of tone is quite apparent.

Plenty commentaries have been written on that subject [the two different genealogies]. Do your research and take your pick.

Aren’t you worries that I’d only cherry-pick articles that support my claim of inconsistencies due to my ‘deep, personal, disgusting prejudice’? Maybe you’ve heard of another logical fallacy: ‘poisoning the well’.

No dreams can be witnessed by second/third parties...so again, based on your standards, no dreams are true.

<bolding mine>

Replace ‘true’ with ‘provable’ and you’re getting closer. The point remains: those dream stories are unwitnessed and unprovable, therefore as ‘gospel events’, support my claim about eye-witnesses to the same.

If your sister told you that she had a dream that she flew a kite, you wouldn't question the validity of her dream, would you? No, you wouldn't.

I’d be a witness to her telling me about a dream. I could at least be satisfied that she believed she’d dreamt about something.

But if you told me that my sister had had a dream, then I wouldn’t believe you for a second. That’s mainly because I don’t have a sister.

But dreams in the Bible are not valid because they are unwitnessed?

They are impossible to verify, and - by the same standards as I’d use for other historical writings - therefore not particularly reliable. Especially when claiming to be communicating with God, rather than flying kites or what have you.

Yeah, just like anyone who believes that evolution is true is going to accept any new finding/discovery as evidence for evolution.

<bolding mine>

Provisionally, depending on how it fits with existing theories. But this isn’t an evolution thread…

[TRANSPONDER]

I've already posted about assessing historical sources with a certain amount of caution. The Bible should be treated the same way and when two sources contradict, that should not be wavwed away bu making up explanations. To do that is the biased arguments of Bible apologetics, not the supposed double standards of Bible critics.

But of course there is another difference. Aside from lost cause bias (many historical critics may try to wangle the records to make their country or politics look better) it does not matter whether the mutiny on the Bounty is down to Capt. Bligh being a martinet or Fletcher Christian wanting to get his end away in Tahiti (My money's on the latter) other than academically. Gospel reliability and Christianity with it has a hefty social knock - on in Western society and other Christian influenced societies. This debate matters.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Since I’m holding the Gospels to the same standard as I would other historical writings, there’s no double standard.

And I do not believe it one bit.

I ain't saying you are lying, I am saying that what you are saying ain't true.

If that seems ‘disgusting’ to you, then perhaps civil debate isn’t your thing?

Nah because when you partake in a debate, unfortunately, it involves another person..and dishonesty, biases, prejudices....it all comes with the territory.

Yes, the change of tone is quite apparent.

The tone reflects how sick I am of those^ things mentioned prior.

And we can go ahead and add fallacies and double standards to that list.

Aren’t you worries that I’d only cherry-pick articles that support my claim of inconsistencies due to my ‘deep, personal, disgusting prejudice’? Maybe you’ve heard of another logical fallacy: ‘poisoning the well’.

Nah, because I know full well that even if the genealogies matched to a T, your war wouldn't be waged on the genealogies, but rather on something else.

If something like the genealogies was the only thing that was holding you back, then that would be a conversation that we can have...but since we both know that it isn't, then it ain't worth the time.

Replace ‘true’ with ‘provable’ and you’re getting closer.

Either one, take your pick.

My point stands either way.

The point remains: those dream stories are unwitnessed and unprovable, therefore as ‘gospel events’, support my claim about eye-witnesses to the same.

Syllogism test...

1. Person X had a dream of Y event.
2. Y event (the dream) is unprovable and unwitnessed.
3. Therefore, Y event (the dream) did not occur.

Non sequitur. Fallacious reasoning.

Test; Failed.

I’d be a witness to her telling me about a dream. I could at least be satisfied that she believed she’d dreamt about something.

You wouldn't question the validity of her claim that she had the dream, though....but that is exactly what you are insinuating with the Gospels.

Again, it is a prejudiced double standard, and disgusting.

Second, you claim that you can be at least satisfied that she believe she'd dreamt about something.

But you aren't willing to give the Gospels the same respect.

Double standard.

Disgusting.

But if you told me that my sister had had a dream, then I wouldn’t believe you for a second. That’s mainly because I don’t have a sister.

It was a hypothetical. You do know what a hypothetical is, don't you?

They are impossible to verify

So would your sisters. But you wouldn't tell her "Your dream is impossible to verify".

So stop it.

, and - by the same standards as I’d use for other historical writings - therefore not particularly reliable. Especially when claiming to be communicating with God, rather than flying kites or what have you.

The nature of the dream is irrelevant to whether or not it can be proven/witnessed...or even have occurred.

Provisionally, depending on how it fits with existing theories. But this isn’t an evolution thread…

Of course it isn't...

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not going to stick my nose into someone else's debate, but as part of the smearing, needling and personals, this needs pointing up.

"Syllogism test...

1. Person X had a dream of Y event.
2. Y event (the dream) is unprovable and unwitnessed.
3. Therefore, Y event (the dream) did not occur.

Non sequitur. Fallacious reasoning.

Test; Failed."

Failed indeed. Because it is a strawman. The actual form is this

Syllogism test...

1. Person X claims to have had (1) a dream of Y event.
2. Y event (the dream) is unprovable and unwitnessed.
3. Therefore, Y event (the dream) had not made its' case for credibility.

Sequitur, logical reasoning.

Venom's argument, failed.

And we know why - because the faither-brained cannot get away from this idea of 'believe or not'. The idea of suspending belief and a sliding scale of credibility is beyond their grasp. It's why even their use of logical forms fail because the basic premise (godfaith) is logically invalid.

Over and out.

(1) I had to hint at this flaw in Theistic analogies. They apply a priori faithclaims even to analogies where the extraordinary act is Assumed to have really occurred and the skeptic looks foolish for not believing it (see also 'skeptics laughed at powered flight' apologetic). The flaw will be obvious to anyone with a modicum of marbles.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I'm not going to stick my nose into someone else's debate

Too late for that.

, but as part of the smearing, needling and personals, this needs pointing up.

I attack arguments, not persons.

Failed indeed. Because it is a strawman. The actual form is this

Syllogism test...

1. Person X claims to have had (1) a dream of Y event.
2. Y event (the dream) is unprovable and unwitnessed.
3. Therefore, Y event (the dream) had not made its' case for credibility.

Funny, because Paul claimed that he witnessed the resurrected Jesus...so there is your witness right there...yet, that isn't good enough for you or Dia to become believers...and I do not know how you can "prove" whether or not a person did/didn't witness something (all things equal), any more than you can prove whether or not there were witnesses to General Hannibal riding war elephants to battle.

Yet, no one is questioning whether or not General Hannibal rode war elephants to battle.

So, it comes down to either you believe it, or you don't.

And it also comes back to the taxi cab double standard fallacy that is obvious and disgusting.

And we know why - because the faither-brained cannot get away from this idea of 'believe or not'.

Well, Biblically speaking, after being presented with the Gospel, either you accept Christ (believe) or you don't (disbelieve).....John 3:16, actually.

It is black/white...no gray area.

The idea of suspending belief and a sliding scale of credibility is beyond their grasp. It's why even their use of logical forms fail because the basic premise (godfaith) is logically invalid.

Over and out.

(1) I had to hint at this flaw in Theistic analogies. They apply a priori faithclaims even to analogies where the extraordinary act is Assumed to have really occurred and the skeptic looks foolish for not believing it (see also 'skeptics laughed at powered flight' apologetic). The flaw will be obvious to anyone with a modicum of marbles.

Yeah, just like the extraordinary act of evolution is assumed to have really occurred and the disbeliever of the theory are stupid for not believing.

Kinda the same thing, ain't it?

[otseng]

It is a deep, personal, disgusting prejudice against the Bible/Gospels.

Soul-shaking disgustingness.

Moderator Warning



Personal comments are not allowed on the forum.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[brunumb]

I'm not going to stick my nose into someone else's debate, but as part of the smearing, needling and personals, this needs pointing up.

"Syllogism test...

Debates are open to all and your contribution here was most welcome. Please continue demolishing those very dodgy syllogisms that WAV seems to give undue credit.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not going to stick my nose into someone else's debate

Too late for that.

, but as part of the smearing, needling and personals, this needs pointing up.

I attack arguments, not persons.

Failed indeed. Because it is a strawman. The actual form is this

Syllogism test...

1. Person X claims to have had (1) a dream of Y event.
2. Y event (the dream) is unprovable and unwitnessed.
3. Therefore, Y event (the dream) had not made its' case for credibility.

Funny, because Paul claimed that he witnessed the resurrected Jesus...so there is your witness right there...yet, that isn't good enough for you or Dia to become believers...and I do not know how you can "prove" whether or not a person did/didn't witness something (all things equal), any more than you can prove whether or not there were witnesses to General Hannibal riding war elephants to battle.

Yet, no one is questioning whether or not General Hannibal rode war elephants to battle.

So, it comes down to either you believe it, or you don't.

And it also comes back to the taxi cab double standard fallacy that is obvious and disgusting.

And we know why - because the faither-brained cannot get away from this idea of 'believe or not'.

Well, Biblically speaking, after being presented with the Gospel, either you accept Christ (believe) or you don't (disbelieve).....John 3:16, actually.

It is black/white...no gray area.

The idea of suspending belief and a sliding scale of credibility is beyond their grasp. It's why even their use of logical forms fail because the basic premise (godfaith) is logically invalid.

Over and out.

(1) I had to hint at this flaw in Theistic analogies. They apply a priori faithclaims even to analogies where the extraordinary act is Assumed to have really occurred and the skeptic looks foolish for not believing it (see also 'skeptics laughed at powered flight' apologetic). The flaw will be obvious to anyone with a modicum of marbles.

Yeah, just like the extraordinary act of evolution is assumed to have really occurred and the disbeliever of the theory are stupid for not believing.

Kinda the same thing, ain't it?

Ok you want to make an issue of it, and aside that smearing and misrepresenting doesn';t have to be Personal but is just as bad when directed at arguments, you fall into your own trap by referencing Paul's vision. Now I am never going to claim that Paul was not telling the truth that he thought he had seen or experienced Jesus, but that does not mean that it was true. It could be all his imaginatuon, just as I suspect that the sightings of the resurrected Jesus was all their own imaginations, especially the 500 all at once.

No, on the evidence it is not unreasonable that Hannibal took war elephants into battle. But if the records said that the God Moloch of Carthage led the charge and defeated the Romans, I doubt you'd beleive that. Nor would I. That's what I mean by evaluating old records and in fact tending to be skeptical of supernatural claims.

Now it's interesting that A4G and I loked at ctitical thinking and I posted a vid on it where it specifically said that black and white thinking is a typical sympton of dogmatic and ilogical thinking.

"Well, Biblically speaking, after being presented with the Gospel, either you accept Christ (believe) or you don't (disbelieve).....John 3:16, actually.

It is black/white...no gray area." you posted. I have always evaluated John on its' merits. At one time I thought it was the most eyewitness of the gospels, and it stil might be, but I now doubt it, on evidence. That being the raising of Lazarus not appearing in any of the gospels and it being inexplicable that they don't even hint at it - unless they never heard of it. That heavily implies that John made it up. That takes down a lot of other circumstantially descriptive stuff and I now think that he was a better scriptwriter than I had thought, and of course it explains a great many puzzles, including why his palsied man is in Jerusalem, not Galilee, and why he has Jesus setting off alone to Jerusalem for tabernacles, when the synoptics have him leaving with the disciples at Passover.

This is not 'believe or not' but evaluation, which is what we do with any other book and we should do so with the Bible, too.

And evolution. If you reject it, it is rejecting evidence on Faith. Black and white,flawed, faithbased thinking. I would love to see your arguments based on assessing the evidence to conclude that they did Not support evolution.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Ok you want to make an issue of it, and aside that smearing and misrepresenting doesn';t have to be Personal but is just as bad when directed at arguments

Then that says a lot about the arguments, doesn't it?

, you fall into your own trap by referencing Paul's vision. Now I am never going to claim that Paul was not telling the truth that he thought he had seen or experienced Jesus

Not so fast. Paul never claimed that he thought he had seen or experienced Jesus. Paul claimed that he actually SEEN Jesus.

You are claiming that he thought it, not him.

, but that does not mean that it was true.

Yeah but it doesn't mean that it isn't true, either.

It could be all his imaginatuon

Maybe you rejecting the idea that Paul actually saw the risen Jesus; maybe that is all in your imagination, and Paul actually saw the risen Jesus.

See what happens when we play those kind of games?

, just as I suspect that the sightings of the resurrected Jesus was all their own imaginations, especially the 500 all at once.

Why would Paul, who was an admitted skeptic and persecutor of Christians, suddenly imagine that Jesus had resurrected? Same question for James?

Makes no sense.

Plus, even if it all was in their imaginations (which I don't for one second believe), that wouldn't explain the empty tomb, does it?

Of course, you can deny the validity of the empty tomb narrative, but if you do that, you may as well deny the entire account as a whole.

Which you probably have no problem doing..but hey, do what you gotta do.

No, on the evidence it is not unreasonable that Hannibal took war elephants into battle.

Well, a super-skeptic of Hannibal may find it unreasonable, just as a super-skeptic of Christianity finds certain elements of Christianity unreasonable.

What is/isn't reasonable is subjective, unless there are laws of logic being violated.

Because guess what, Christians don't find the resurrection to be unreasonable.

But if the records said that the God Moloch of Carthage led the charge and defeated the Romans, I doubt you'd beleive that.

True, but I believe that the God of the Bible will lead the charge and defeat Satan.

I doubt you'd believe that.

Nor would I. That's what I mean by evaluating old records and in fact tending to be skeptical of supernatural claims.

Funny, because I find the idea of abiogenesis and evolution to be said naturalistic claims that I do not believe in and are skeptical of.

Now it's interesting that A4G and I loked at ctitical thinking and I posted a vid on it where it specifically said that black and white thinking is a typical sympton of dogmatic and ilogical thinking.

John 3:16 is more black and white than a zebra.

I can care less what skeptics think about Biblical matters.

"Well, Biblically speaking, after being presented with the Gospel, either you accept Christ (believe) or you don't (disbelieve).....John 3:16, actually.

It is black/white...no gray area." you posted. I have always evaluated John on its' merits. At one time I thought it was the most eyewitness of the gospels, and it stil might be, but I now doubt it, on evidence. That being the raising of Lazarus not appearing in any of the gospels and it being inexplicable that they don't even hint at it - unless they never heard of it.

Similar = plagiarism.

Differences = contradictions.

Never fails.

That heavily implies that John made it up.

No. It heavily implies that John mentioned an event that the others did not.

That takes down a lot of other circumstantially descriptive stuff and I now think that he was a better scriptwriter than I had thought, and of course it explains a great many puzzles, including why his palsied man is in Jerusalem, not Galilee, and why he has Jesus setting off alone to Jerusalem for tabernacles, when the synoptics have him leaving with the disciples at Passover.

This is not 'believe or not' but evaluation, which is what we do with any other book and we should do so with the Bible, too.

And evolution. If you reject it, it is rejecting evidence on Faith. Black and white,flawed, faithbased thinking. I would love to see your arguments based on assessing the evidence to conclude that they did Not support evolution.

Ok. The Bible/Gospels/Christianity just ain't for you. It is for the folks who seek eternal life through Jesus Christ...and not everyone wants that.

So hey.