Juststeve

I think Luke makes it clear that he was not an eyewitness. So what? Is that the test for historical reliability, it must be written by an eyewitness? If that's the test then we know practically nothing about first century Palestine, including but not limited to Jesus. That is to say that merely observing that Luke was not an eyewitness is kind of a silly way to make a point.

On the subject I don't think any of the other gospel writers were eyewitnesses either.

Steve

spamandham

Reliability clearly diminishes with time and length of the chain of retelling. But without at least eyewitness, why should we classify these stories as historically reliable in the first place?

Is historical reliability the exception or the rule for religious texts of this time period?

Elijah

Maybe Toto knows which scholar is responsible for popularizing this idea; in order to see if there is any evidence besides Christians saying they give should help out financially. I would need something that states that it is unusual for the time and not something other movements were already doing.

:wave: at Toto. Do you know?

I’m not sure about there being evidence for them using the texts in a mystical way or to promote mysticism. Also, I don’t know about the “initiated” be considered a “few” like it’s a mystery religion, which is more likely to be in the mystic area. Being “initiated” in a philosophical/platonic sense just meant you weren’t a materialist.

This was in the link that Show No Mercy put up actually.
I also don’t think you need to hear people say that the martyrs influenced them as specifically as it is done there. You can argue that the martyrs were made up or that the Stoics were martyring themselves as well so the impact would have been less impactful but if they were sacrificing their life and that wasn’t in the norm, then it really shouldn’t be a question if it had an impact.

Mysticism and spiritual speculation had been around forever… what makes you think it was on the rise during the formation of Christianity?

Chili

Yes I agree very much with that and they still have people wonder what their seclusion is all about.

I should have been more precise and write: "is it not stupid to die for the Lord if you are the Lord [in becoming] by following the footsteps of Jesus instead of worshiping him? . . . and my point here is that the end of religion is to be a Christ of your own in Christendom.

Chili

No, and is why I wrote that "those who say do not know and those who know do not say" simply because the test of a mystic is how well he can keep it a secret.

I agree with all you write and I just said that it should say "traced" so it can be read as a first hand account because of the insight Luke showed to have.

Now I understand your problem to accept that since Luke was supposed to have been written much later than Mark or Matthew but to me it does not matter if it was 200 years later or 20 years later because the metaphysical details are not visible to the outsider anyway.

To this in particular I am thinking of Jesus and John being bossom buddies representing water and blood in the transformation of the mind, soul and body at midlife in the life of Joseph the upright [wily carpenter] Jew who himself is the subject matter of these gosples. Iow, it happened to him and can happen to you/us and so it happened to Luke who provided us with the details as he saw them in the life of Joseph the Jew.

So i am not a historicist nor am I a mythicist but just somebody who presents it the way i read it.

Toto

All I know is that Rodney Stark in The Rise of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) records some pagans who noted that Christians did good works, and took in abandoned children. The Emperor Julian tried to revive the pagan charities to compete with Christians.

spamandham

This is a good point and one that is generally just glossed over. In fact, if we examine pagan temple practices of the time, IIRC, what we see is that they had practically become supper clubs funded by the well to do, but providing feasts to all members. The wealthy sought tribute from eachother, which was ultimately collected via taxes and conquest, but then they provided patronage to the less wealthy in exchange for social status.

The idea that Christians were helping *all* the poor, rather than just their own, is not really indicated by the evidence.

bacht

I'm not convinced that you've done much study in the basic history of the period. I'm no expert, but the observation that Mediterranean culture evolved after Augustus is non-controversial afaik.

The Catholics used Judaism as a model. The synagogue, where diaspora Jews met for worship and social networking, was the forerunner of the churches. The directives to care for the poor came from the Old Testament and were carried on by the Christians. As spamandham points out, the pagans had their own version of social welfare.

Jewish martyrs were honoured in their tradition, though whether they drew new converts might be unprovable. Jesus became "our" (gentile) Jewish martyr, this was part of the appeal. In the NT believers are encouraged to imitate Christ, even to the point of death.

Jewish mysticism manifested in early kabala and apocalyptic, and probably fed into gnosticism. Catholics were working to develop an institutional framework for their beliefs, though Christian mystics continued down through the centuries.

You should be reading the gnostics, mystics and heretics, they seem closer to your pov.

Kapyong

Gday,

How do you explain all the Christians who believe he WAS ?


No.
Nor has anyone here argued that, please pay closer attention Juststeve.

It's NOT the test !
Please pay attention.

Anyway - we DO have 1st hand accounts from 1st century for various people.


Did you win that argument by calling it 'silly'?
No.

The real point is - the total LACK of witnesses to Jesus argues against historicity, just as HAVING witness accounts would ADD to it.


Yes - the fact is -
NOT ONE Christian claimed to have met Jesus. (Just the forged 2nd century 2 Peter.)
And if they HAD they would surely have said so, as it would greatly increase their stature in Christian eyes.

Nor did anyone ever claim to have met Mary, or Joseph, or Lazarus, or Martha, or indeed ANY Christian in the Gospels.

The people IN the Gospels were competely UNKNOWN to Christian writers.

How do YOU explain that Juststeve?


K.

Juststeve

Kapyong:

You really don't advance your argument much by pointing out the obvious. As to your questions, I don't know who the Christians who think Luke was an eyewitness are. Never met one. If there are some they must not have read his gospel very closely. He says where he got his information and it wasn't as an eyewitness.

Your statement that the people in the Gospels were unknown to Christian writers is simply false. Whoever wrote the Gospels were Christian writers and Paul says he met Peter and James who are in the Gospels.

As to why no one claims to have met Jesus, the answer is quite obvious. The only extant christian documents we have were written by people who didn't personally know Jesus while he was alive. With the exception of Paul's letters there is little reason to believe that they were written during the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses If any of his original companions wrote anything about him those documents are lost. Again, everyone knows that but since your argument isn't based on the lack of eyewitness accounts it isn't a big deal.

Just so you don't need to repeat yourself, I do not think there are any eyewitness accounts of the doings of Jesus while he was alive. We have Paul's own account but I consider that an hallucination.

Steve