Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sven · 02-02-2005, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Remember, the people who question the historicity are the same kind that riduculed the Bible because it mentioned the Hittites. They said that there never were such a people. When we discovered later that they were a major power in ancient history that we were just ignorant about, they didn't apologize and give the Bible credit for its accuracy, they just went looking for some other lame excuse to deny it.

:rolling:
IIRC, there were two cultures named "Hittites" (or similar. The first one, which was indeed a majot power in ancient history, was never denied to exist. The second one, which was a very minor culture, is actually the one mentioned in the bible.
So, nope, no massive conspiracy of historians.
Hmm, I wish I actually had a source for this

Killer Mike · 02-02-2005, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

I cannot count the number of times that Christians claim "eyewitness" testimony on behalf of their superstition.

Usually the way I see this handled is by addressing the dating of the texts, the anonymity of the authorship, the preposterousness of the event (miracles), the lack of attributed authorship, etc.

But I am interested in something else, after a very long thread of ridiculous "prove the easter bunny doesn't exist" demands from a true believer.

I do not see where the Bible itself claims any specific eyewitness accounts of any event.

Eyewitness testimony is when the author actually states that he witnessed something. I don't mean where in the opening of the fable known as "John" he says, for example:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes..."

There are a couple of elementary disqualifications here. There isn't a "we" in an eyewitness. Allowing the plural in the first place is a shifty way to pretend that "someone among us" may have seen the event in question. But that is automatically hearsay at best.

Even then though, to qualify as hearsay the actual witness still needs to be identified, and that the witness testified directly to the author. Saying that person XYZ witnessed an event is just a story without the author specifically saying that the witness gave him the testimony.

The terrible vagueness and generality of the first line also disqualifies it for any specific event insomuch as "from the beginning" would mean a person of many thousands of years age to be an eyewitness in a literal sense.

So apart from what we already know as reasonable critical thinkers knowledgeable about the history of these fables, what specific events, if any, are there where we have specific "eyewitness" testimony according to the Bible itself?

Look at it this way. How many "eyewitness" accounts could you find in the endless stories about Santa Clause? The fundamental problem is that Christians mistake the Gospels as some sort of historical narrative. They are neither biographies nor historical narratives, but rather reflections of the stories early Christians were telling about Jesus. Its not like in a court of law where the "eyewitnesses" can be questioned and cross examined so as to make a determination as to the reliability of their testimony.

Jehanne · 02-02-2005, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Nope. Sounds like National Enquirer to me. Sounded that way to the early church fathers who accepted the Bible, not the pseudepigrapha.

The Church fathers could not agree on the Canon, which was not decided upon until the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD, some three hundred years after the birth of Jesus!

Sven · 02-02-2005, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

:rolling:
IIRC, there were two cultures named "Hittites" (or similar. The first one, which was indeed a majot power in ancient history, was never denied to exist. The second one, which was a very minor culture, is actually the one mentioned in the bible.
So, nope, no massive conspiracy of historians.
Hmm, I wish I actually had a source for this

Quoting myself once again - sorry, too late for an edit.
I actually got it wrong - but the apologists still have no point. See this post by Sauron from long ago.

Alf · 02-02-2005, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

This article is absurd to me. The early Christians often proclaimed the resurrection and always treated it as a historical fact. There were plenty of eyewitnesses and plenty of claims to eyewitness testimony. Luke tells us that he interviewed many of them and carefully checked the facts out. Since Luke has been established as a reliable historian, his investigation carries great weight to an unbiased investigator.

Reliable historian? Err.. have you actually read Luke?

Let us see... Jesus was born when there was a Augustus had decreed a censu in all of rome.

The first such census as described happened around year 70 AD, nobody thinks that Jesus was born that late. The census he refer to is most likely the LOCAL census in Judea only.

He also record a lot of other things where he got things messed up - for example there are several passages which indicate that they are taken more or less directly from Josephus, yet they differ from Josephus versions in rather odd ways. Josephus - unlike Luke - is regarded as a fairly reliable historian so I guess that discredit Luke quite a lot.

I am afraid you are gravely misinformed.

For example, unlike Josephus, Luke doesn't bother to mention his sorces with one word. Even though it is clear that he has used both Mark and Josephus and most likely also Q.

A "reliable historian" would have stated something like:

"This bit of information is according to the gospel of Mark (*)/Josephus/Q(*) etc" here and there, especially on "important" information. Nowhere does Luke even make an attempt of providing such information. If you can call him a historian at all, he is one of the worst in history.

(*) Yeah, I know that the gospel of Mark and Q wasn't known by those names originally, but he would have provided the names as they were known to him at that time. That would even allow us to keep those names to modern times so we didn't have to make up "Gospel of Mark" and "Q" names for those writings.

Alf

johntheapostate · 02-02-2005, 04:51 PM

Has aChristian left, never to return?

aChristian · 02-02-2005, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Matthew and Mark were not written by eywitnesses.
.

Yea. Matthew was one of the disciples. Mark may have been one of the disciples, but at least probably got an eyewitness account from Peter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Luke knows Josephus as well as Mark and Q. Josephus puts it well into the 90's and probably later.

It's the written Greek source that he shared with Matthew.
.

Did you talk to Luke about this? Josephus just records some of the same history although he doesn't get the details as well as Luke who had God to help him. Just because Mark and Luke witnessed the same thing (or possibly Peter and Luke, but I suspect Mark) and wrote it down doesn't mean one copied the other. I still haven't seen the book of Q. It is probably a figment of scholars imagination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

We can SEE that he copied.
.

Oh, did you watch him write it? It really isn't too tough for God to help three people remember the same words. Although it is possible that they may have both used another source ("Q") to remind them of the exact words that they had heard, I don't think they did. If they did, using notes does not mean you did not witness something with your own two eyes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

They've been apologized for with some incredibly specious arguments. They haven't been answered.

In my opinion they have been answered with reasonable arguements. As I said earlier, the fact that the Bible has proved the liberal scholars wrong numerous times and numerous times the liberal scholars have failed to apologize for their ignorance, but just go to the next lame excuse makes me doubt the sincerity of the liberal scholars. I've read some of their arguements and to be frank, they sound nonsensical to me.

aChristian · 02-02-2005, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Most of us have. Also liberal, and radical, and right and left wing, and everyone in between. Nobody seriously dates Luke to the 60s except a few right-wing conservatives. Luke is generally dated in the 90s, as the writer of Luke depends on Mark, who certainly wrote after 70. Thus, Luke cannot possibly be from the 60s. The writer of Luke is also aware of the destruction of Jerusalem as well. Acts also appears to depend on Josephus Antiquities and is probably from after 95. See Steve Mason's Josephus and the New Testament, especially Chapter 6. A new edition is out, but if you email me at turtonm@yahoo.com, I'll be happy to forward you an e-version placed on the internet by the publisher several years ago.
Vorkosigan

Your dates are wrong. The right-wing conservatives arguements are sound. Why do you think Luke is aware of the destruction of Jerusalem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Obviously, Matt and Luke and John felt that Mark needed reworking and supplementing. Mark contained numerous ideas that were embarrasing and even heretical to later writers, such as the baptism of Jesus by John, and an Adoptionist Christology (the writer of Mark seems to think Jesus was adopted, rather than born, as God's Son). Mark was almost lost because it was incorporated into those later texts.
Vorkosigan

Matthew and Luke did not rework Mark, they just wrote their own accounts. As with any history, different people can accurately tell different parts of the story.
Nothing embarrassing about the baptism of Jesus, just good old historical fact.
What do you mean about Mark thinking Jesus being adopted rather than born as God's son.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Au contraire, aChristian. The Patristic fathers were aware that there was a relationship between the texts (witness Augustine's remark that Mark was a simple-minded summary of Matt that added nothing; you can see more about Augustine's position on Steve Carlson's website below) but they got the evolution of the texts wrong, is all. The ancients were in no position to know who wrote the texts and when either; all of the stories we have about their composition are apocryphal.
Vorkosigan

I would have to read Augustine's comment, but if he said that Mark added nothing, he was wrong. I've read them both and both contribute significantly to the historical record.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Meanwhile, modern scholarship has conclusively shown that Matt and Luke both depended on Mark. For information on this see Steve Carlson's Synoptic Problem Home Page. if you have specific issues to discuss, by all means bring them forward. But simply saying "read any good conservative scholar" is just pointless piffle. Everyone here has. Instead, bring forth an argument that refutes all of modern mainstream scholarship.
Vorkosigan

Shown conclusively? The good scholars have refuted the liberal claims. As I said before, these guys used to ridicule the Bible because it mentions the Hittites, they are not very credible.

Vorkosigan · 02-02-2005, 06:56 PM

It looks like we're simply getting a lot of repetition of nonsense. Let us know when you have some actual arguments to deploy against the understanding that Matt and Luke both copied Mark.

Vorkosigan

aChristian · 02-02-2005, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

hello aChristian. What I am looking for please are specific citations we can inspect as opposed to "Luke said it" or "John was there" and the like.

I am still hoping that the individual who was crowing on about eyewitness tesimoiny will show up and carry his own water. But if you are willing, then great.

I realize that some of the heavyweights are on here throwing power punches all at the same time, so it's a lot to contend with. They are also bringing in material that was decisive for me in dating the gospels later & etc.

But I think it is more than that. I don't see that even if we give the NT the benefit of the doubt that it even proclaims specific eyewitness testimony to Jesus. Where are those passages so indicating?

Thank you.

Several of them have already been mentioned. 2 Peter 1:16 is a good example. Liberal scholars have tried to say Peter didn't write it, but he did and they have no evidence to show he didn't.
I John 1:1-4 is obviously claiming eyewitness stature.
Read the apostles' accounts recorded by Luke in Acts, they constantly refer to what they have seen with their own eyes. Paul even points out to King Agrippa that he knew the things that Paul was saying were true becuase they were not done in a corner. There are many more.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-02-2005, 04:51 PM	#36
johntheapostate Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Manitoba Canada Posts: 343	Has aChristian left, never to return?

02-02-2005, 06:56 PM	#39
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	It looks like we're simply getting a lot of repetition of nonsense. Let us know when you have some actual arguments to deploy against the understanding that Matt and Luke both copied Mark. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.