Patriot7

That's just my point. I'm familiar with modern biblical scholarship. But I would hardly consider myself an expert. So, I would like to further understand your position of dogmatic certainty. In otherwords, please prove the truth claim Tommyboysmom has made and now you and DTC are defending. That "According to the mainstream consensus of Modern biblical scholarship, the New Testament does not contain a single eye-witness account of any aspect of Jesus' life, death, or resurrection, although it says it does. Which is to say - the New Testament is false!

I'm very suspicious of wide, sweeping, all encompassing, dogmatic claims like that. It's very procrustean-esque. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes) I don't think the evidence fits as neatly as you're claiming it does. I think there are problems with both views. But as history is about probabilities, the rational course is to decide which view is more likely. By playing your hand as though it is the only view possible, it makes me wonder what you've done to the evidence to make it fit your view. The real world never conforms to our preconceived notions so neatly - that's what makes it the real world!

Everytime we think we've got a portion of it figured out and we formulate our theory - BANG! - experience happens and the "real world" bumps up against our theory and we have to add an adjustment. We have to add a subsection to the rule. Newton was right about mass, energy and speed, up to a point. Then Einstein picked up where he left off.

From DTC's point of view there is only a small, Christian fringe that holds the view that the Gospels are reliable.

That's what I'm asking. Who are you talking about? Please back up your claimn. Please name some names here. Why are you suggesting I accept your assertion on faith instead of demonstrated evidence?

In the world today (Modern Scholars right?) there are X number of biblical scholars. In set "X" there may be sub-set "Y" which is, as you've put it - the small Christian fringe that holds that the Gospels are reliable. Also in set "X" there may be a sub-set "Z" which may also be a small fringe that holds the Gospels were written by aliens. Also in set "X" there may be a sub-set "W" which must be the "mainstream consensus" you are talking about.

Prove the claim - empahsis mine.

Diogenes the Cynic

No. you obviously are not.
Take any college class on the New Testament. Go to the site I linked in my last post. Go to the thread I linked to in my first post in this thread to get a run down on the evidence. I'm sorry this is all such a shock to you personally but it's pretty uncontroversial in contemporary NT scholarship. I should also point out to you that the burden of proof rests with the person who wants to claim that anything in the NTwas written by a witness, not on anyone else to disprove it. You should also be aware that none of the Gospel authors even claim to have been witnesses of Jesus, so to make that assertion yourself is to claim something those authors don't even claim for themselves.
There's nothing "dogmatic" about it. It's not an expression of an opinion or belief, it's a simple recognition of fact. If you did even a little bit of research you would quickly find that out for yourself.
We really need an irony smiley.
That's correct when it comes to credentialed scholars.
Names of who? You want the names of the vast majority of scholars who reject traditional authorship traditions for the NT or do you want the names of some who still cling to those spurious traditions in the face of all evidence?

You really need to take a breath and cruise Kirby's site a little bit. I don't think you have any idea how truly uninformed you are right now.

Patriot7

Have you? And if you have, how does your diploma prove your truth claim? Should I believe you if you got an "A" but not believe you if you got a "B"? Education does not equal truth my friend. Education and credentials do not trump rational thinking! Education, degrees and years of study may add credibility to a person's opinion, but authority does not prove truth! Critical thinking and asking questions get us much further, instead of simply restating "I'm right!" By your standards the president is never wrong and the pope speaks for God!

The burden of proof most certainly does NOT rest on me to prove your truth claim. Why are you dodging the question? If the truth and facts are important to you, then I think you should welcome this challenge. If your view is the right one and you have the truth and facts on your side as you claim, then you should be eager to demostrate these "facts". Maybe you're right DTC and if you are, I want to adjust my beliefs. But you need to prove your claim.

By dodging the question, it appears that you value your ideaology more then the truth. Simply restating that what you say is a fact doesn't advance your view, or prove that what you said is a fact. If what you said is fact then certainly the evidence will support your view. Essentially, you're arguing that the vast majority of NT scholars unanimously agree that the Pauline epistles are frauds. You're appealing to authority here. You're appealing to scholars. You're appealing to the research of people who study this stuff as their life's work.

Look - I'll cut to the chase. I think you are either woefully misinformed, or you are simply stating your opinion, which is merely based on the scholars "you have read" and not on the opinion of "mainstream consensus". It is a function of human nature and vanity to puff up our claims in the public arena, to appeal to authority to give weight to our opinion. So, I'll leave it at that. You can take this as a friendly challenge or you can continue to dodge the question to protect your religion. Either way I won't fault you for it and I won't praddle on about this anymore if you return with more ad hominems and red herrings.

Maybe Tommyboysmom will prove the claim....but I won't hold my breath!:Cheeky:

Diogenes the Cynic

Yes. For what it's worth (which isn't terribly much), I have a BA in Religious Studies and Classical Languages. I think I've learned more studying independently than I did in college, though.
It doesn't. I never said it did. I never even mentioned it until this very post. I can tell you that I was taught as fact (by a Religion Department which included two Catholic priests) that the mainstream of NT scholarship does not believe the NT contains any eyewitness accounts of Jesus. Years of reading and research have confirmed that to be the case. The evidence just doesn't support any other conclusion.
I don't know what all this is supposed to prove, but I haven't made any arguments from authority.
You are mistaken. We have a number of books in the NT with unknown authors. If you want to assign a particular author to a given book, it is your burden to prove it. You are the one making a positive assertion -- a "truth claim" -- it is you who needs to demonstrate why your attribution of authorship is correct.
What question am I dodging?
What "challenge" are you making? I have no idea what you're asking for.
I've dodged no questions and I've made no ideological claims.
No, they agree that the Pauline Epistles are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus. Even the most conservative religious traditionalists have to concede that much. Paul never met Jesus. However, most schoalrs do agree that some of the Epistles attributed to Paul were pseudoepigraphical.
No I'm not. I'm only telling you what the consensus is. I'm not saying scholarly consensus proves "truth," per se, nor do these scholars themselves argue frome their own authority. They show the evidence. Click on my first link in this thread to see a summation of the evidence itself as it pertains to the canonical Gospels. Click on the ECW site to see for yourself what scholarly consensus is regarding each and every book of the NT.
Wrong on every count. Sorry to disappoint you, but you simply don't know what you're talking about. I have stated nothing from personal opinion and you're showing what appears to be a complete lack of knowledge as to what mainstream consensus actually is.
I still don't know what the hell "challenge'" you're talking about. Be specific. hat do you want me to prove.

TomboyMom

Actually, I have no first-hand knowledge of this subject whatsoever, as readers of this forum well know. However, if you will click on the basic questions sticky above, I am relying on the goodwill and apparent erudition of regular posters to this forum who have educated me as to what the mainstream consensus is on some of these basic questions of biblical authorship. Relying on these second hand accounts, my limited understanding is that it is most widely believed that none of the gospels were written by eye-witnesses to the events described in them. Do you disagree? If so, why?

I am sorry that I am not sufficiently well-grounded myself to do the same; I am a newbie on the subject.

Patriot7

I stated it already, that's why I accused you of dodging it. I apologize for the accusation if you simply missed it. I'll post it again:

In the world today there are X number of biblical scholars. In set "X" there may be sub-set "Y" which is, as you've put it - the small Christian fringe that holds that the Gospels are reliable. Also in set "X" there may be a sub-set "Z" which may also be a small fringe that holds the Gospels were written by aliens....or some other view. Also in set "X" there may be a sub-set "W" which must be the "mainstream consensus" you are talking about.

In order for your claim to be considered fact, or truth, subset "W" would have to be more then 50% of the whole set "X", or at least more then any other subset of the group, especially subset "Y" to be considered "mainstream consensus" by definition.

There have actually been two claims made: Tommyboysmom stated that.....
"According to the mainstream consensus of Modern biblical scholarship, the New Testament does not contain a single eye-witness account of any aspect of Jesus' life, death, or resurrection, although it says it does. In otherwords, the New Testament is false, because it claims something that the mainstream consensus of Modern biblical scholarship says isn't so. To defend Tommyboysmom's claim you further buttressed with.....
emaphsis mine

Luke writes in the opening of his gospel...
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

The gospel writer is making the claim that what he is writing down is from eyewitnesses. That is the clear meaning. There is also the appearance of Christ to the apostles, and to the 500 eyewitnesses written down in the NT.

Kindly prove that (I'm paraphrasing here)...."the mainstream consensus from modern biblical scholarship unanimously agrees that these claims are false".

Chris Weimer

This is false.

Luke is saying that he received the testimony of many, and that those testimonies go back to eyewitnesses. The appearances of Christ to the apostles and the 500 is a claim made by Paul, who didn't witness the events. In both cases, you still do not have first-hand eyewitness reports.

colin

So, you're an atheist now? Welcome aboard!:wave:

Seriously though, you may want to try lurking and researching on your own for awhile. I know I’ve learned a lot that way.

Oh, and if your sick, leeches don’t work most of the time.

Failing that, change feet and resume chewing.
:thumbs:

Patriot7

As am I. And because I value the truth, I think in the course of learning and investigating the "facts" it's important to ask questions. Especially when the "facts" are wrapped in a thin veil of dogmatic certainty! I mean - why not just be honest and say something like...."it's debated among scholars, but I believe that the NT is false, because it's not written by eyewitnesses". When somebody claims that virtually all the scholars (the good ones anyways) agree with their position, it's an appeal to an almost unproveable claim. It's similar to me arguing that the NT is true because it's the Word of God and the Word of God can't err. It's begging the question! Clearly the evidence for the claim must come from other sources.

I strongly suspect that DTC will be eating crow. To prove his claim with the certainty he's boasting of will require considerable research. I don't know, maybe he'll surprise us and I'll be eating my crow with a Newcastle and some hotwing sauce.

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm sorry. I found this to be incoherent the first time you posted it and I still do. Are you asking for proof that "more than 50%" of NT scholars hold that the New Testament contains no eyewitness accounts of Jesus? The number is far greater than 50% and you can find this information (as you have been repeatedly told) in any introductory textbook or University course on the NT. I also linked to a website which gives a short summation of the mainstream views for each and every book in the NT and provides plenty of links to other commentaries.
TomboyMom is actually mistaken that the NT contains any primary claims to any eyewitness accounts of Jesus.
1. Even if Luke really did claim to have interviewed witness (he didn't but we'll get to that in a second), that still does not make Luke himself a witness. Are you tracking this conversation at all. Do you actually understand what you're arguing against? The Gospel of Luke is not an eyewitness account.
2. Luke makes no claim to have interviewed witnesses, just that he investigated what was "handed down to us" by people he believed (or at least claimed to have believed) were witnesses of Jesus. What Luke's "careful investigation" actually amounted to was cribbing from previous written sources (at least Mark and Q and possibly another), reading some Josephus and making up a Nativity story which couldn't possibly be true and therefore couldn't possibly have come from any witnesses.
Luke does not make the claims that you wish to attribute to him. Mainstream scholars do not doubt that Luke went out and read some books and based much of his Gospel (copied it really) from whatever written sources he was able to get his hands on. He didn't interview witnesses, though. His book is too late, too secondary, too mythologized and in some cases, too historically incorrect to support such a contention (a contention which is uncorroborated by Luke himself).