Amaleq13

There doesn't appear to be any reliable evidence to support that belief so I'm not inclined to accept it.

Then you must also agree that it is senseless to suggest that anyone could have offered an identifiable body to dispute such claims.

If you would be more specific in identifying the fragment, it shouldn't be too difficult to disabuse you of your misconception. This dating wouldn't come from Theide, by any chance? His efforts have been pretty soundly debunked and the consensus estimate of Mark's authorship continues to be c.70CE.

Since no such "knowledge" could exist, this is meaningless. According to your own Bible, the claims weren't publicly made until over a month after the fact. Miraculous healings and other amazing demonstrations appear to have been, if not common, not exactly atypical of the times.

I don't just believe that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, I know it for a fact. Repeated studies have established it but even a brief check of recent news will provide several examples of death row convicts who have been freed subsequent to DNA evidence despite the fact that eyewitness tesimony helped get them convicted. I even have personal experience. A former girlfriend and I witnessed a crime but her description of the offender differed significantly from my own. I know too much about psychology to trust eyewitness testimony.

So your credulity seems unreasonable since the presence of guards would clearly be important to any attempt to tell the story.

What does concern about Jewish uprisings have to do with concern about a corpse rising from the dead?

Since there is no good reason to think this version of the story was written by an actual disciple, this protest lacks credibility.

Assuming they did, I can only conclude they did so in response to the story and, since it doesn't appear to have existed until the last two decades of the 1st century, you can't blame them for the effort.

First, the claim wasn't made for half a decade. Second, how would they know where to look? Third, even it was made when the disciples started preaching and they knew where to look, a body over a month old isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

Personally, assuming there was a body, I don't think the disciples stole it. Within the context of that assumption, I tend to agree with Crossan that the location of the body was not known to anyone because it was thrown in a common grave along with all the other crucifixion victims.

Because nobody took the claims of gullible, superstitious fools seriously enough to bother. Keep in mind that the only claims we have evidence for, prior to the publication of the Gospel stories, is "Christ crucified and risen".

If you can specifically identify the passage, you would appear to have located a contradiction in your Bible though the bribe story is pretty obviously fabricated so that isn't going to work either way.

No, I'm saying that, even if they had, any body within would have been unidentifiable so your assertion to the contrary is not credible.

No, that isn't the point at all. The point is your assertion that the early Christians were persecuted because they wouldn't deny the Gospel story is without merit.

This clearly could not be true of every persecuted Christian so your assertion is specious. They didn't deny their beliefs because they honestly believed them. No other conclusions may be made from that fact.

Also, you didn't answer several of my earlier questions:

Why would God have to give eyewitnesses any information?

So all the Christian scholars who disagree with the conservative Christian scholars, with regard to whether the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, are deliberately lying?

What, specifically, convinces you that the conservative Christian scholars are being more honest with the evidence when it comes to identifying the Gospel authors as eyewitnesses?

Why would these other Christian scholars "desperately want" people to not believe the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses?

Do you have specific evidence that Meier, for example, denies the need for repentance because the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses?

rlogan

The statement in question does not say what is alleged. You initially stated that it was clear in 1 John 1-4.

You see, it is so simple for the author to state he is an eyewitness to Jesus. But he does not.

You have not supplied this additional evidence, and contrary evidence is supplied below:



no, it's metaphorical gibberish. Subject: Word of Life. Plain as day.

BZZZT. Can't change meaning in the middle of a passage. To "Shew" what they have "seen" requires its physical presence if it is a physical thing. otherwise the language would be "tell you about" what we have seen.




Uh - where's the part in there about seeing his life and resurrection? That is you reading into the text.

It's just wishful thinking. One should not have to "interpret". What is the point of writing, if it is some mysterious code that must be "interpreted"?

I'm afraid we disagree completely about the use of words. That they should have the same meaning in adjacent sentences is pretty obvious.



I realize that is what you wish. But it does not actually say that he lived with him. Ate with him. Etc. Does not say he had so much as one conversation with him.

It is metaphorical. So easy to see.


I know you have a lot on your plate. Thank you for addressing this. We do not have to agree. I just want the best evidence you have put out for consideration.

- cheers.

ex-preacher

In other words, none of them claims to be an eyewitness. Later church tradition claimed that they were.

Diogenes the Cynic

Matthew was not written by an apostle and does not claim to be written by an apostle. It is dependent on secondary Greek sources and the Septuagint which means it cannot be a first hand account. The tradition that it was written by an apostle comes from a claom by Papias that Matthew had compiled a sayings gospel in Hebrew. No such sayings gospel has ever been found. If it ever existed it was not canonical Matthew which is not a sayings Gospel nor was it written in Hebrew.

Luke never claims to have interviewed witnesses.