Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 11-11-2008, 03:23 PM

Another problem I have with the "eyewitness testimony" thing, besides the ridiculous miracle claims, is that all the gospels were written in third person - which makes it more of a story (most people here say that it's a "hero biography") instead of an eyewitness account. And then reading them, it looks like the authors weren't even Jewish! I thought Jesus' followers were Jews - if they were Jews, then they wouldn't be ignorant of Jewish laws, the geography of ancient Palestine, or talk about Jews as though they were some foreign, mysterious third party.

Petergdi · 11-11-2008, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

If there were a few hundred people in their 20s who were witnesses to Jesus around the year 28
then there would likely still be dozens by the year 80.

Peter.

Except that there had been a huge war in the intervening years.

Sure, you have to factor in the percentage of 50-60 year olds who you think were likely to have been killed in the conflict. I'm sure a lot of people did die from the war that resulted in the destruction of the temple, but even terrible wars usually leave some portion of the population alive. Make an estimate of that portion and then we can made an estimate of what percentage of young people who met Jesus would have been alive in AD80.

Bretpalmers comment ignored the bathtub curve shape of life expectancy before modern medicine and sanitation. It is a very common error.

Peter.

spamandham · 11-11-2008, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Another problem I have with the "eyewitness testimony" thing, besides the ridiculous miracle claims, is that all the gospels were written in third person - which makes it more of a story (most people here say that it's a "hero biography") instead of an eyewitness account.

I really don't understand how anyone beside Christians could read those stories and think they were eyewitness accounts. It's crazy, yet we have even self declared atheists making such absurd claims. I can only guess it's because they are reluctant to dispense with 2000 years worth of propaganda passed off as scholarship.

mountainman · 11-11-2008, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Another problem I have with the "eyewitness testimony" thing, besides the ridiculous miracle claims, is that all the gospels were written in third person - which makes it more of a story (most people here say that it's a "hero biography") instead of an eyewitness account.

I really don't understand how anyone beside Christians could read those stories and think they were eyewitness accounts. It's crazy, yet we have even self declared atheists making such absurd claims. I can only guess it's because they are reluctant to dispense with 2000 years worth of propaganda passed off as scholarship.

Dear S&H and Johnny Skeptic,

Two thousand seems alot of years. Are you sure its that many? I thought we had agreed at least to put a line right though the first one hundred. So in the very maximum we'd need to say 1900 years worth of propaganda passed off as scholarship. I'd say at least 1683 years.

Best wishes,

Pete

spamandham · 11-11-2008, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Two thousand seems alot of years. Are you sure its that many?

eh, give or take.

I know you prefer the idea it was ~1700 years. I prefer the idea it was ~1900. But 2000 is good enough for government bailout work.

chrisengland · 11-25-2008, 08:44 AM

I wonder if I looked hard enough if I could find eye witness testimony of supernatural events.
I probably could.
But alot of people probably would not except it' including Christians.

So eyewitness testimony is not enough to establish the supernatural normally for some people.
Chris

Vinnie · 11-25-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I am primarily starting this thread because the Reasons to Believe ministry is one of arnoldo's favorite ministries. Consider the following:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff...#jesus_gospels

Quote:

Originally Posted by reasons.org

No Eyewitnesses?

Most scholars believe that Mark, the first Gospel, was written between A.D. 70 and A.D. 100—40 to 70 years after Jesus’ death. Many non-evangelical scholars assume that the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have died by this time and that the Gospels, therefore, were written too late to provide good historical information about Jesus. This is simply an inaccurate assumption. We know of many people in the ancient world who lived to old age. For example, Cicero, Livy, Augustus, Tiberius, Seneca, Plutarch, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus were all said to have lived beyond their sixtieth birthday. Juvenal and Epictetus apparently lived into their 70’s, and Polycarp even lived into his 80’s.

Regarding the assumption that the Gospels were written too late to provide accurate historical information, the critics are often inconsistent. For example, they rely on Jewish historian Josephus to provide them with important information about the historical, social and religious climate during Jesus’ life, knowing full well that Josephus wrote from A.D. 70-100—the same dates they assign to the Gospels![15] Furthermore, Roman historians think nothing of using Tacitus, Suetonius, or Dio Cassius to reconstruct Roman history, but these writers were often further removed in time from the events they wrote about than the Gospel writers were from Jesus! Historians do not disregard these sources simply because they were written 40 or more years after the fact. Incidentally, good reason exists to believe that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written less than 40 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, but that will have to be pursued in a separate article.

Comments please.

The article is correct when it states that the Gospels are not too late to have accurate information if they were written from 70-100. Such arguments should be dropped by any that actually use them. It would be absurd to even posit this as lines of transmission are certainly possible and even plausible in such a short time.

This of course, does not mean the gospels do or do not contain more fact than fiction. The time span of forty years can allow for both. Source evaluation is a necessity, of course and the only problem with the article as quoted here (I didn't read it) is that it doesn't seem to distinguish between the different genres it mentions. Though, Josephus and Tacitus had their own biases as well, their regard for factual history seems to be stronger than that of the authors pushing the Good News.

Vinnie

Toto · 11-25-2008, 03:32 PM

Hey Vinnie - long time no see. Welcome back!

aa5874 · 11-25-2008, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilly54

Even if there were eyewitnesses, it doesn't explain why there are no documented extra-biblical accounts. People back then were not illiterate, many were multi-lingual. All those throngs of admirers, watching wondrous feats, and nobody wrote anything down? That is another unbelievable aspect about Christianity.

I think your expectations are unrealistic. Any reasonably critical reading of the New Testament suggests that Jesus and John the Baptist had followings of a comparable size, and yet all the sources for John the Baptist (NT, Josephus, Mandaean) also mention Jesus.

The Jesus in Josephus was a forgery and secondly the Jesus in Josephus was somekind of ghost or supernatural entity, he rose from the dead, according to the author of the forgery.

Now, if the information supplied by those who forged the passage is false, it is futile to guess the true scenario. There are no other source except those sources that claim Jesus rose from the dead and ascended through the clouds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

There were probably some people of comparable fame we don't know anything about at all.

You mean that there were people described like Jesus, conceived through the Holy Ghost, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds. There were people like him that we don't know about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

In any case Christianity is about the good news that you can be a child of God and an inheritor of the kingdom of God by following the way of Jesus and not about miracles interpreted as paranormal events.

Peter.

What are the ways of Jesus ? You mean his conception, the transfiguration, the resurrection, the ascension through the clouds? What ways are you talking about?

Jesus was presented as a God, the son of a God, I don't think any human is made that "way" or can follow that "way".

Jesus. "No way"!

gilly54 · 11-25-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilly54

Even if there were eyewitnesses, it doesn't explain why there are no documented extra-biblical accounts. People back then were not illiterate, many were multi-lingual. All those throngs of admirers, watching wondrous feats, and nobody wrote anything down? That is another unbelievable aspect about Christianity.

I think your expectations are unrealistic. Any reasonably critical reading of the New Testament suggests that Jesus and John the Baptist had followings of a comparable size, and yet all the sources for John the Baptist (NT, Josephus, Mandaean) also mention Jesus.

There were probably some people of comparable fame we don't know anything about at all.

In any case Christianity is about the good news that you can be a child of God and an inheritor of the kingdom of God by following the way of Jesus and not about miracles interpreted as paranormal events.

Peter.

I don't think it unreasonable at all. It is a glaring hole in Christianity, Islam and Mormonism, that there are no eye-witness accounts of all these miraculous happenings. To point to the NT as evidence is the old chestnut of circular reasoning, Josephus' accounts have been dismissed due to Christian tampering. I had never heard of the Mandaeans, but a quick read of their website and Wiki left me with the opinion that they are just another cult spouting unsubstantiated assertions. I could not find any Mandaean writings that offered evidence of Jesus and his miracles.

Can you point to where you got the idea that there were others 'of comparable fame'.?

Finally, your preaching has no relevance to the OP that I can see.

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

11-11-2008, 03:23 PM	#11
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	Another problem I have with the "eyewitness testimony" thing, besides the ridiculous miracle claims, is that all the gospels were written in third person - which makes it more of a story (most people here say that it's a "hero biography") instead of an eyewitness account. And then reading them, it looks like the authors weren't even Jewish! I thought Jesus' followers were Jews - if they were Jews, then they wouldn't be ignorant of Jewish laws, the geography of ancient Palestine, or talk about Jews as though they were some foreign, mysterious third party.

11-25-2008, 08:44 AM	#16
chrisengland Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Bristol' England Posts: 2,678	I wonder if I looked hard enough if I could find eye witness testimony of supernatural events. I probably could. But alot of people probably would not except it' including Christians. So eyewitness testimony is not enough to establish the supernatural normally for some people. Chris

11-25-2008, 03:32 PM	#18
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hey Vinnie - long time no see. Welcome back!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.