This does not follow at all. Especially if you take the traditional christian view that Luke was a follower of Jesus.

In that case, then Luke would have been overjoyed to have John baptize Jesus - it would have been a fulfillment of prophecy, and a necessary first step towards Messiah-hood.

No, I'm sorry. Your explanation is severely busted.

Which does not prevent it from being a fabrication.

Two people can report the same erroneous story. Or the same folk myth. Doesn't prove that it happened, however, just because two people tell the same story.

And considering that the details differ between the stories of Peter's denial, I consider that to be a valid possibility.


Except that the story also records that Peter regained the approval of Christ, and subsequently rose to stature in the church. As I said: it has an "all's well, that ends well" ring to it. Minor embarassments early in Peter's career are compensated by huge positive strokes later in the story.

Your example does not qualify.


No, I fully understand the principle. You simply haven't provided anything that qualifies as an embarrassment.

Don't blame your own inadequacies on other people, Layman. The problem isn't with your audience's education; it's with the examples you've brought forth so far.


As I said: I fully understand the principle. You just haven't successfully applied it anywhere.


Except that if you take the traditional christian view, this was all necessary.

Furthermore, this story was necessary, in order to prop up the legitimacy of the church - they needed these events to fulfill prophecy.

By the way, Layman. I am still waiting on you to provide some evidence for these claims of yours:

#1

#2

The problem I see with Luke-Acts is the information that the writer leaves out. There are traditions in the other gospels that are not mentioned by Luke and divergent stories are given about certain accounts. If Luke had in fact investigated this thoroughly in the manner that he says in the beginning of the gospel of Luke, why does he not have all the details about the stories--or at least important ones?

And to coincide with Omnedon a bit, I think that Nomad needs to provide more evidence of Luke's writing style. I know that Luke is the most sophisticated writer of the New Testament, and he writes in the highest level of Greek, but whether or not he actually writes in the way Nomad describes is not evident as far as I can tell.

Hi, Le Pede. Actually, it was Layman who made these claims.

I know, I know. Nomad and Layman have similar abusive, arrogant writing styles, so it's easy to confuse them. But I had to step in here, because - hey - we skeptics care about the details, even if the other side does not.




[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 15, 2001).]

"What about the other gospels? If you know anything about Q, you know that the synoptic gospels are not independent. So why did you offer those other gospels? In any event, the NT is not an independent source for claims found inside the NT."

I don't include Matthew and Luke generally. If you really knew anything about the study of the New Testament, then you would know what I mean by "M" and "L." Matthew and Luke both have information not derived from Mark or Q, but from other sources. For Luke, this "L" source is up to half of his gospel. In other words, it is independent of Mark, Q, and John.

And your last statement is ridiculous. Because these books happen to have been collected together by a church committee three hundred years later they are no longer independent? It is a question of source and literary criticism, not about how close together they are in your Bible. Sheesh.

"1. What is your proof of this? Can you produce the eyewitness? 2. The NT is not an independent source for claims found inside the NT."

Again you show the ridiculous extent to which you will go to deny anything "positive" about the New Testament. Can I produce the eyewitness? Of a book that was written almost 2000 years ago? Get real. If you really want to know the basis behind this belief, accepted by many respected New Testament scholars, I AGAIN suggest that you read Raymond Brown's New Testament Essays and/or Introduction to the New Testament, Ben Witherington's John's Wisdom, or J. P. Meier's A Marginal Jew, Volume 1.

As for your repeated, and still ridiculous statement that the New Testament cannot be an independent source, I addressed that above.

"How do you know that? What if they both relied on the same individuals, such as talking to Peter? Or talking to the same, unnamed individual?"

Paul may very well have received some of his information from Peter. As I have stated I believe that Mark, in fact, did receive his information from Peter. But Paul also had access to other apostles and eyewitnesses in Jerusalem. So it wasn't just one individual. But I'm glad to see you concede that the traditions are based on eyewitness testimony.

"Again, what is your evidence that they had no such access? And what is the evidence that the source of information was independent?"

Literary and source criticism has caused a rather solid consensus that neither Mark nor John had access to Paul's letters. If you wish to dispute such a wide ranging and accepted conclusion, please demonstrate why. Additionally, source and literary criticism also suggest the independence of Mark and John, although the consensus is not as established. Again, if you want to read about the independence of Mark and John, I suggested Brown, Witherington, or J.P. Meier's A Marginal Jew, Volume 1.

As for Hebrews. I believe I have posted on it on this forum. In it I discuss authorship, date, and theological focus of Hebrews.

If the authorities didn't have Jesus killed, then how did he die?

And as for my use of Josephus, I was using him to demonstrate that you, again, don't know much about early Church history. There is strong evidence of its persecution at the hands of Roman and Jewish authorities. The reference to Josephus was to demonstrate some support for this. He records the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, at the hands of the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem. You also ignore the first hand accounts of Paul of both his persecution of Christians, and his being persecuted after his conversion to Christianity. I might also add that the epistle of the Hebrews suggests the persecution of Christians as well. Finally, the evidence in Acts supplements and confirms what was independently attested by Paul, Hebrews, and Josephus.

And you are wrong about Josephus, he does attest to Jesus' miracle working. He records that Jesus was a performer of "startling deeds."

And you have yet to demonstrate, rather than assume, why Acts should not be trusted. As I explained previously, its author was trying to establish Christianity's legitimacy, and no, its persecution at the hands of Romans or Jews would mitigate against that, not for it.

You would save us both some time if you would explain your theory of the relationship of the New Testament books to each other. Do you believe in Markan priority? John's independence? Which of Paul's letters do you accept? Which parts of Acts? Who wrote them? What was there purpose and audience?

Because so far you have demonstrated almost no knowledge of even the most accepted facts of New Testament scholarship. And, your questioning of these facts wastes both our times because I have to respond to things that even a reasonably well informed skeptic should be aware of. Of course, if you are just interested in bogging down the discussion in tangents, then you are succeeding. If you really want to have an informed discussion, then get informed.

If you weary of my posts, feel free to stop anytime and do some historical research. It is very easy to just keep asking "why" and "how do you know" and "proof." Cheap shots.

"No, but then again, we do not label them as eyewitnesses either -like you are trying to do with the gospel writers."

Have you been reading my posts? I have expressly stated several times that I do not believe that Matthew, Mark, or Luke were eyewitnesses to the events described in their respective gospels. I do argue that Luke was an eyewitness for some of the information recorded in Acts. How have you missed this point?

"Furthermore, when the evidence suggests that Tacitus, Josephus, or Philo are (a) wrong, or (b) engaged in propaganda, we have no qualms in stating that - unlike how you want the gospels treated."

When you demonstrate that they are wrong or merely engaging in propaganda, then I will accept it.

And my point was not that the New Testament should be treated differently from a historical standpoint as the above, my point was that we accept them as good historical sources EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT EYEWITNESSES. You have continually implied that because the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, then they have no useful historical information. That is the point I was responding to. That is just plain stupid. As the references to Philo, Josephus, and Tacitus demonstrates.

"By the way, Layman. I am still waiting on you to provide some evidence for these claims of yours"

Hold your horses, such things take time.

"This does not follow at all. Especially if you take the traditional christian view that Luke was a follower of Jesus.

In that case, then Luke would have been overjoyed to have John baptize Jesus - it would have been a fulfillment of prophecy, and a necessary first step towards Messiah-hood."

I don't suppose it would do any good to tell you that this is one of the most accepted facts in New Testament studies? That Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist? And precisely which prophecy does Luke say that Jesus fulfilled by being baptized by John?

The reason it is embarrassing is twofold: 1) John is shown in a somewhat authoritarians light compared to Jesus; and 2) the baptism, according to Luke, was the for forgiveness of sins, which is something the early church denied Jesus had to worry about.

"Which does not prevent it from being a fabrication.

Two people can report the same erroneous story. Or the same folk myth. Doesn't prove that it happened, however, just because two people tell the same story.

And considering that the details differ between the stories of Peter's denial, I consider that to be a valid possibility."

Certainly it could be, but the fact that independent sources attest to it makes it likely true. And I would expect some divergence in details from independent sources. In this case, because I believe that Mark had access to Peter, I believe this story comes from Peter himself. You have constructed a scenario that is possible, but that is rather unlikely. That Peter invented his own denial of Jesus, not once, but three times.


So let me get your story straight. The early church invented Jesus? They invented his rejection by Jewish and Roman authorities? They invented stories about what miserable failures they were as disciples? They even invented his crucifixion? Then invented their own persecution? And, Paul lied about his persecution of Christians, and about his persecution by Jewish authorities? And Josephus lied about the death of James, the brother of Jesus. And then Luke lied, for some unknown reason, that he accompanied Paul on a couple of trips. And then he lied about how the early church faced persecution? And at the center of it all, according to you, is one individual who fabricated the whole thing, thus explaining what actually appears to be independent accounts by the New Testament authors? This is quite a conspiracy.

Me:

"Heck, the fact that Jesus was crucified itself was very embarrasing for the early Church. The Jews were expecting a victorious messiah, the Romans viewed crucifixion as a method of execution reserved for lowly criminals. Not the best place to go when you want to intent a new movement based in large part of your former leader's legitimacy and character."


You:

"Except that if you take the traditional christian view, this was all necessary.

Furthermore, this story was necessary, in order to prop up the legitimacy of the church - they needed these events to fulfill prophecy."

Me again:

You are begging the question here. Why would the early church invent a story that supposedly fulfills prophecy that their Jewish contemporaries interpreted differently? In other words, how did this become the traditional Christian view?

Layman -
Thank you for the reply,
but you have not really answered my question.

You cite all the Biblical sources as "strong evidence" yet admit that they are not inerrant:
Ok
How do you know what's an error and what isn't?
How do you know that just at the points which exercise your 'faith' the most (miracles, resurrection, etc..), they are not the errors?

By what criterion do you judge?

at least the Jesus Seminar guys came up with a criterion - do you agree with them?

what kind of criterion is it and why ought anyone accept it?

Look, you already admitted the 'subjective' in this - so, then, why should anyone accept your word on it?

Thank you again, JMAC