bleubird

Since 1707,maybe earlier, scholars have pondered the veracity of what we call the bible.
One would think an omnipotent being could at least tell us what it is saying without error ?
As many have stated here,god is a human invention to make us feel better about a careless universe.
Time to get over it,dude.

Sheshbazzar

The 'Jesus Seminarare' <sic> 'skeptics' are a frigging joke. Nothing more than a contrived gathering of a -Christian scholars- 'good ol boys club' to 'examine', protect and continue their religions pre-assumptions.
Anyone holding or publicly expressing any real skeptic views were NOT invited, and were from the git-go excluded from being allowed any voice or participation.
Those observations, evidences, and positions offered by real world skeptics were deliberately excluded, suppressed and never even allowed to be heard.

Horatio Parker

The problem is that the texts are designed to stimulate the mind, they're not a recipe or a set of directions. Reading them from an empirical perspective is spiritually counterproductive.

For theology and history to be codependent is a bad idea. Bad history and bad theology.

Adam

Now the fifth eyewitness, Matthew. Note how much the separation of Q here in Mark depends upon the preceeding paragraphs in Post #52.
Thus the next eyewitness source I recognize would as likely be as early or earlier. That it is early is also evidenced by it being found in Matthew as well as in Luke. Yes, I am talking about Q. In Mark these verses are:

1:9-15,x. 1:29-2:17,lii. 3:13-4:41,lv. 6:2-16,xii. 9:14-29,xxv. 9:33-37,iii. 10:41-11:11,xxv. 11:15-19,vi. 12:1-17,vi. 24-34,vii. 13:18-23,iii. 33-37,ii. 14:10-25,x. 14:43-45, 62-72, 15:29-32, 15:42-16:8. (The Roman numerals represent the number of times I found details in that passage that could indicate eyewitness testimony.)
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Underlying

In addition to which I should have added Matthew 28:16-20 that probably corresponds to the lost ending of Mark. Beyond this, of course, add in all the Double-Tradition verses commonly ascribed to Q. Why would we say these are from an eyewitness? Well, they begin only shortly before we read about the call of Levi at Mark 2:14, so we have internal evidence that all of this may stem from Matthew. External evidence states that the Apostle Matthew wrote the Logia of Jesus, identified by many scholars as Q. This does create an additional problem in extending the Double Tradition to include much Triple Tradition material found in Mark, but we know that much apparently Q material in Thomas is also in Mark. All the Q-Twelve Source material in Mark can be determined by the lack of exact word correspondence between Mark and Luke, as well as by the frequent use of the word “Twelve” to denote the Apostles. (This lack of verbal exactitude means that the Aramaic Q or copies thereof were used at least four different times on the way to the Greek versions in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Thomas, with the copy used for Thomas apparently being the most different from the others.)

There may be reason to differentiate Q from Twelve-Source, in spite of what I have said here. The Q sayings could have been written down at the time Jesus said them, but it is rare that historical narrative is written while it is taking place. Nothing in Mark (or Matthew or Luke) looks like diary entries. Thus we can suppose that the narrative was added later, particularly if we suppose that Q itself (or at least notes for it) was written during Jesus’s lifetime. But the narrative includes the call of Matthew, so it is eyewitness material as well, our fifth eyewitness in the gospels.

bleubird

copy and paste does not make an augment.

andrewcriddle

The account by Josephus of the imprisonment of Agrippa by Tiberius and his subsequent release seems modeled to some extent on the story of Joseph in Genesis.

Does this undermine the basic historicity of Agrippa's imprisonment ?

Andrew Criddle

Sheshbazzar

The narrative also includes the conversational exchange between Jebus and Satan while on the pinnacle of the Temple. (Matt 4:5 & Luke 4:9)
Does that likewise make it 'eyewitness material as well' ?

Do you wish to profess that Satan and or Jebus just levitated 'ol Matthew on up to that same pinnacle to be there as an 'eyewitness' and scribe?

You have exactly as much evidence for any of your other so called 'eyewitness material' as being 'eyewitness', as you do for this pinnacle of the Temple conversation.
That is to say, absolutely none.

Both your argument and its conclusions are nothing more than verbose holey-hooey.

Adam

I wrote it and all the four articles by Dale C. Adams in that issue of Noesis. Only the bolded text is new.

Adam

Technically I am saying that the person I identify as an eyewitness wrote the text I attribute to him, which may include portions he did not see directly. Think how difficult it would be to write a coherent account of anything without including some elements you either inferred or heard from someone else. Thus in the Passion Narrative in John 18 to 20 that I say in Post #1 that John Mark wrote, he had to hear from Peter what happened out in the courtyard while he (John Mark) was in with the priests, Jesus, and Pilate.
As for the Temptation in the Wilderness, whatever Jesus told Matthew about it may have been less literal than what is written down. That's the point of Higher Criticism, to help us evaluate what is best attested and thus most likely true.

Sheshbazzar

I see and evaluate it quite differently. Inferred, heard, or just plain invented, it is not a true accounting, nor the truth.
Apply 'Higher Criticisim' to what is a steaming pile of fabricated horse-shit and what remains will still remain a steaming pile of fabricated horse-shit.