spamandham

Ok, so they were based on something else entirely, perhaps an HJ, but perhaps not.

...and if there was only a single source and it was nonprimary, we could say the same thing. ...and if all sources were dependent, we could say the same thing.

The only thing that multiple independent nonprimary sources tells us, is that the idea was popular and enough time passed to account for multiple writers.

Johnny Skeptic

Not a chance. In the first century, no one who lived in China ever heard about Jesus. Even today, in some remote jungle regions, some people have never heard of Jesus.

dog-on

If what we have are independent sources then the theory that one guy made it up and everyone else jumped on the wagon would be a more difficult position to defend, not that it would be falsified.

That's all.

Johnny Skeptic

Although I am an agnostic, not an atheist, I wish to say that God supposedly provided lots of empirical evidence that helped to convince people to become followers of Jesus. Consider the following:

John 2:23

“Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.”

John 3:2

“The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.”

John 10:37-38

“If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.”

John 11:43-45

"And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him."

John 20:30-31

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

Those texts show that some people would not accept Jesus based upon his words alone, and that he provided them with tangible, firsthand evidence that was needed to convince them to accept his words. Even after the Holy Spirit supposedly came to the church, in the NIV, Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.” Considering that Jesus had performed many miracles in front of thousands of people, including many miracles that were not recorded, and had appeared to hundreds of people after he rose from the dead, and had criticized his disciples for their unbelief, and that there were thousands of surviving eyewitnesses who were still around, and that the Holy Spirit had come to the church, I find it to be quite odd that God provided even more tangible, firsthand evidence. In my opinion, this brings into question the truthfulness of the claims.

In my opinion, a loving God would provide whatever kind of evidence was needed to prevent people from spending eternity in hell without parole.

spamandham

There are endless independent English Santa stories that are all ultimately rooted in a single work - "The Night Before Christmas". Even though Livingston didn't invent the idea of father Christmas, he effectively created the English speaking version.

The evidence we are discussing (multiple independent texts of Jesus) is not incompatible with the idea that somebody sat down and invented Jesus whole cloth, as long as we allow for sufficient time for the story to spread. It really is possible that Paul (or someone similar) invented Jesus as an allegorical figure representing the giving up of all hope of an earthly Jewish kingdom, and internalizing the Jewish scriptures instead, with later writers inventing a history for allegorical Jesus (possibly gnostics doing it intentionally to fool the common man).

dog-on

Perhaps, but perhaps not.

No one has shown that the texts we have are independent, the point of this thread. Then again, no one has shown that they are not.

John Kesler

Here is Matthew 16:16-19, 21-23:

In The Gospel of Jesus, William Reuben Farmer posits that Matthew 16:17-19 was omitted because it clashes so dramatically with a passage just four verses later. According to Farmer, Luke thought that giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, then calling him Satan, makes Jesus look too "volatile."

spamandham

The point I've been trying to make is that although determining dependencies might be an interesting historical exercise, they won't help at all in determining whether or not there is an "H" in "Jesus H. Christ".

andrewcriddle

For the benefit of those who are not familiar with his work, Farmer held a form of the Griesbach theory of synoptic relations. IE he regarded Matthew as original, Luke as based on Matthew and Mark as based on both Matthew and Luke.

Farmer's argument as to why Luke knew but left out the passage about the keys might be true, but closely juxtaposed positive and negative statements about Peter do occur in Luke see Luke 22 31-34.

Andrew Criddle

dog-on

Indeed, though it is more wood for the pyre...