"How does this provide a parallel to the Bible? It is full of miraculous claims, so the phrase "not one who normally made up these kinds of claims" is not tangent."

You are thinking too small. The most glaring example is that the resurrection of Jesus was radically dissimilar from the resurrection generally expected by first century Jews. They were expecting a general resurrection. Moreover, Jesus was a very different messiah than even his own disciples were expecting. They expected a victorious conquering messiah, Jesus was a messiah who was executed in a very demeaning way, rejected by his own religious leaders. And the miracles in the New Testament are also dissimilar to his Jewish contemporaries. In short, Jesus is similar to, but at the same time, very different to Jewish expectations.

"Again where is the parallel? Where are your four or five independent witnesses who can testify to the miraculous claims of the Bible?"

Well, focusing on the New Testament, and as I have said before: Paul, Mark, M, L, Q, John, Josephus, the Bablyonian Talmud, and perhaps Hebrews.


Regarding the embarrassment. "Again, where is the parallel with the Bible?"

I mentioned it in the original text. John's baptism by Jesus. Peter's denial of Jesus. The disciples disarray and disbelieve after Jesus' death. The faith of a synagogue leader in Mark. Jesus' admission that he did not know the time of his return. Etc.


As for continuing despite being beaten. "Again, where's the parallel here?"

The early church faced persecution from the Jewish and, to a lesser extent, the Roman authorities. Paul reports of his many beatings, and of his own persecution of the Christians. Acts reports of the deaths of James the Disciple and Stephen, as well as the beating of Peter and John. Josephus tells us that Jesus' own brother James was martyred in Jerusalem by the Jewish authorities. Etc.

My point is and was that an author can include eyewitness evidence in his book without himself being an eyewitness.

I find this argument unconvincing. Can you give examples, or references, that indicate this is the case? Are you talking about people like Herodotus, when you mention "Greek historiagraphers"?

Again, unconvincing. What is your evidence that these names were unavailable to the general Roman world? Why should the names of places and individuals not be available?

The fact that Luke knows common place names is unremarkable. This is just as easily explained by Luke having access to well-traveled individuals.

You've severely overstated your case here. Getting a few place names and proper names correct does not prove that the entire document was the product of first-hand research.

You're suggesting that because the story of the resurrection was different than what was expected, therefore the story must be true. How did you come up with that?

Returning to the original analogy of the nextdoor neighbor, we were supposed to believe him because he wasn't prone to just making up wild stories about tooth fairies. I.e., miraculous events.

Besides being a non sequitir, your suggested explanation above does not map to the original analogy of the nextdoor neighbor.

I said independent source.

The other gospels are not an independent source. Neither is Q.
Josephus does not testify to the miracles, so no help for you there.
Hebrews is not an independent source.

And your original analogy indicated 4 or 5 other people separately confirming it, by telling you in person, I am assuming. Otherwise, they could just be repeating what your neighbor told you. In which case you do not have any independent witnesses at all. You just one neighbor who told five people, who are now comparing notes about what they were all told. But none of the five can verify the truthfulness of your neighbor's claim about fairies - they're all taking him at his word.

I hope you see the problem with that kind of situation; it's also relevant to the question about the Gulf War author, by the way. And I also hope you see why it causes problems here for the sources you provided.


These are not embarrassments to the author of Luke, however. And several of them aren't even embarassments (Jesus admits he doesn't know the time of his return?)

And since the gospel story has an "all's well that ends well" sense of closure at the end, items like Peter's denial are not the same as being caught in adultery.

Again, returning to the analogy, your neighbor was personally involved in adultery. Show me something of that magnitude of embarassment (not necessarily that same act).

Again, returning to the analogy: your neighbor was being beaten and you had proof of it. (Otherwise, you would not have gotten up out of your chair to go nextdoor to see what was happening).

But the incidents you report above contain church legends, and in some cases are not independent from the original source (Luke).




[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 14, 2001).]

No, all an author can do is include the text of his conversation with someone else, who claims to be an eyewitness.

The only thing the author can vouch for is the conversation between himself, and the person being interviewed. The author is not an eyewitness, validating source for anything that the interviewee has claimed.



[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 14, 2001).]

Now you are just being silly.

Independent means just that, Independent. John and Mark are independent of one another. In other words, the Gospel of John is NOT based on the gospel of Mark, but relies on a different source of information about Jesus (probably an eyewitness).

The same is also true of Paul. Since Paul wrote before Mark and John, his source of information is obviously not the gospels. And it also appears that Mark and John had no access to his letters, and that their sources of information about Jesus were independent of his.

Hebrews is somewhat more problematic, but the author does seem to have some independent source regarding the resurrection, since he does not show literary dependence on Paul's letters, and was likely written before the gospels.

And I'm afraid that the only explanation for your dismissal of the persecution of the early church as "legend" is your bias. Do you really think that the authorities had Jesus killed and then paid no attention to his aggressively evangelistic followers? We have Paul's own writings confirming that he persecuted, and that he was persecuted, for his faith.

Josephus records the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus. Do you believe that he invented it?

Acts. What evidence do you have that Acts is merely legendary? The evidence is strong that the author of Acts was actually a participant for many of the events he describes in Acts. And, considering that one of his purposes was to enhance the legitimacy of Christianity, the fact that he records its persecution by the Jewish and Roman authorities is counter to his purpose. The best explanation for it is that it is true.

You really doubt that the early church was persecuted or are you just getting desparate?

So that dude just invented the Persian Gulf war eh? Wow. He really pulled a fast one.

You apply an absurd standard that no historian or New Testament scholar applies. Was Tacitus an eyewitness to everything he wrote? Josephus? Philo? Give me a break and try to be consistent instead of playing historical armaggedon.

"These are not embarrassments to the author of Luke, however. And several of them aren't even embarassments (Jesus admits he doesn't know the time of his return?)

And since the gospel story has an "all's well that ends well" sense of closure at the end, items like Peter's denial are not the same as
being caught in adultery.

Again, returning to the analogy, your neighbor was personally involved in adultery. Show me something of that magnitude of embarassment (not necessarily that same act)."

The embarrasment was to the early church. Since one of Luke's purposes was to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus to John the Baptist, it was VERY embarassing to his purpose to record that John baptized Jesus. And Luke didn't invent the story about Peter's denial, it was recorded in Mark. By all accounts Peter was one of the primary leaders in the early church. It would be embarassing for the early church to invent a story about the radical failure of its principle leader to even affirm that he knew Jesus.

The criterion of historical embarassment is one of the most established and accepted criterions of inquiry for scholars. The fact that you don't seem to understand it, or accept its utility, just further demonstrates that you are engaging in historical armeggedon. You are willing to flush commonly accepted tools of historical inquiry down the toilet because they just might establish some realibity on the part of the New Testmant authors.

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.

Ah, the ad hominems. Well, that didn't take long.

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.


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.


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?

Sorry; you can't simply say that because they wrote at different time periods, that proves that they were not using the same source material.


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


Proof?


And I'm afraid you're just on a fishing expedition now.


I don't believe the authorities had him killed.
And the evidence suggests that they couldn't care less about his followers.


*Sigh*
1. I originally asked for independent confirmation of the miracles.
2. You quoted Josephus.
3. I responded that Josephus does not confirm any miracles.
4. Your response above is still not an answer to my question about miracles. Try again.


I did not say that. Of course, because your are overly emotional you cannot see that.


Your logic is flawed.
1. The fact that events are described in Acts does not argue that said events were true.
2. The fact that the author of Acts records persecution enhances the legitimacy of Christianity, it does not detract from it. It is important to remember who the audience of Acts was, and as we all know: everyone loves an underdog.
3. The best explanation for Acts is that someone (the author) wanted people to convert to Christianity - not necessarily that Christianity was true, or the particular events happened.

I doubt that it happened the way it was recorded.

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 14, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 14, 2001).]

BZZT. Logical fallacy on your part, Layman. I did not claim that the entire war was a fabrication of the author.
I merely indicated that a scribe cannot verify the particular testimony he is writing down.

Those are entirely different items, but in your rush to engage in sarcasm you totally ignored the differences.
If that is your normal mode of operation, no wonder people are weary of your posts.

But, as we are talking about the Gulf War, let me remind you that:

• A young Kuwaiti princess gave "eyewitness testimony" before Congress in order to get the Congress to vote a resultion of support for Desert Storm. As it turned out, the claims she made about Iraqi atrocities were total fabrications.
• Initial eyewitness reports of the accuracy and effectiveness of Patriot missiles and so-called "smart bombs" turned out to be substantially in error. This was not made public until AFTER the war.

Both events were kept quiet during the conflict, because it was in the interests of the US to keep American public opinion unified. So the various details of a particular event can most certainly be wrong, even when eyewitnesses are involved.


Most historians don't make claims for miracles, either. The NT does.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary amounts of proof.


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

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.

Your example is not parallel. Try again.




Give me a break and provide the evidence for some of these comfortable assumptions of yours.

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 14, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 14, 2001).]