chrisengland

hello
Well I,ve certainly had a look to look at.
I'm going to write replys to the points I thought were relevent' if I miss anything important or if I misunderstand something I welcome people to point it out.
First it appears that there is a slight dissagreement on whether most New Testament scholars who are not Conservative think Luke knew Paul or not 'Toto said they don't Amaleq13 said their probably agnostic' I wondered if either have anything to show that their right or not.
Next I wondered where does Paul say Jesus came in the flesh?

Next even if the accounts are hear say' don't historians except other historical events even though their based on hear say or is that just something Christians say?

Next it appears that Robbins theory has problems and hasn't gained much support 'I,m unsure whether the theory that Luke copied some eyes witness accounts and thats why he says "we" is more simpler explination than him being there' thats was why I said before that I thought most schoalrs would think that he ment he was there, untill I looked at the evidence against that wich i,ll discuss shortly.

Now am I right that if Luke used Josephus then he probably couldn't have known Paul or is it that some people think he's using anti Markion philosophy?

Next someone said that he doesn't say "I" wich suggests he wasn't there' but if he was copying someone elses letters wouldn't you expect him to say who he was copying and stuff like that?
If you would could that count against Luke as a historian?

Next ' some people on here didn't seem to think that Luke copied Pauls or a companions letters if you don't I wondered why do you think he says "we"

Next ' Steven Carrs suggestion that Acts is taken from Homers Oddysie seems quite good' it would be interesting to find out how much scholary support it has. Although does it meen that Luke was lying or just writing simbolicly or something? Unfortunately I only maneged to look at that link a couple of times every time I click on it my computer freezes

Next' about the reasons Ninjay gave for why the Gospel writers might lie.
I go throught them shortly but what I wanted to know was would a first century Christian who didn't have alot of imformation about Jesus make up miricles and say he did them, make up other events like the slaughter of the innocents, over exagerate things like the reserection appearences' to spice up the story or would he consider that a mortal sin to make things up about somebody who he believed was the son of God.
As I said it would be forgery to write a letter and say someone else wrote it in now days but apparently it was exceptable back then so I wondered if making things up to spice up the story or for simbolism or something else would be acceptable back then.
But as Ninjay pointed out there could be other motives, what I just said is assuming their Christians' I suppose we can't be sure perhaps they did it for money like you suggested' I don't think it would be the first time somebody made upstuff up for money.
Perhaps they were just ridiculing the Jews, would have to be someone who had no fear of God though does it look like its written to riducule?
If it was done to preserve oral traditions' doesn't that meen they didn't make it up?
When you say to entertain oneself and other' who could be the other? not Jews shorly they would be offended' do you meen to entertain Gentiles possibly to ridicule.
To teach a philosophy seems like a reasonable explination' but again who to wouldn't Jews be offended.
All of these seems plausible' but is it more plausible that they said it because that is what they had heard happened, again if it were a natural event' instead of saying they may have made up for these reasons wouldn't you just beleive they were telling the truth?

Next I need to look more closely at Acts and Pauls letter people have said he has different ideas and there are contridictions so I would agree that may suggest he didn't meet him.

Next does Luke claim to be a physician I didn't know he did?

Next someone said if it were a naturl even historians could except it' are you saying they can't because its supernatural? Doesn't that meen that even if there was good evidence they still wouldn't except it?

Someone said they don't need to provide reasons why they don't believe in the ressurection' I would agree the burdon of proof is on the Christian to provide evidence' but if they do' don't you think you need to explain why you shouldn't except that evidence if you would for a natural event? Remember I said if' if you don't think the evidence is good enough even if it were a natural event it doesn't matter.

Finally does Luke actually say he met eye witnesses? I,m not to sure I thought many had doughts, in Luke 1 it appears as if he saying he did' if he does then it doesn't really matter whether he met Paul or not.
thankyou chris

Huon

Here is a supernatural event, Paul's conversion (Acts Chapter 9) :
The only possible witnesses of this event are the companions of Paul on his journey to Damascus. They have no name, in this passage, it is not said that they have seen anything. Paul says that they helped him because he was blinded (by his vision, or by the excessive sun of the desert ?). Is this story a "good evidence" for an historian ?

At best, an historian will write : Paul says that ... (the story). The historian will not write that Paul had really a vision. Possibly, Paul had a vision, possibly he made up the whole story, who can say ? What is important, in fact, is not the vision in itself, it is the preaching of Paul, later.

Huon

What evidence is there of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, except the word of the writers of the gospels ?

-Jay-

Understand why this is the crucial question, Chris.

The only evidence of the resurrection of Jesus is found in the Bible, and the Bible is a collection of books that exists in the form that we know it today precisely because those books contained therein supported the orthodoxy of the group with the power to select the books in the first place. Orthodoxy drives canon. (Taken a step further, one might argue that some of the books included in the canon, for example the Jacobite letters, conflict in perspective with others, in this case the Pauline letters. The unifying theme in such cases may not be that those books agreed with each other, but rather they each disagreed with certain unorthodox beliefs.)

Now, if the Resurrection of Jesus occurred as it is portrayed in any one of the Gospel accounts (the four Gospels differ significantly in the Resurrection accounts, and trying to harmonize them is something of a Quixotic task), it would have been quite a remarkable event. Yet there is absolutely no corroborating evidence to be found in any contemporary source - nary a mention. Isn't this puzzling?

Please also consider that appealing to one part of the Bible to prove stories in another part of the Bible is circular reasoning - you're defining it in terms of itself. One need only consider the many works of fiction written in styles that suggest they're recounting actual events to realize that for a book to claim itself to be true doesn't mean it is. (Go read Dracula. It's written as a series of letters and journal entries composed by the main characters in the narrative. It internally supports its own truthfulness pretty well, but nobody in 2007 is claiming the events in it actually happened.)

regards,

NinJay

Toto

They have nothing.

The particular phrase "came in the flesh" is not in the Pauline letters. It is in

1 John 4:2
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

But Paul does say

Galatians 4:4
But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,

Which seems about the same.

Hearsay is a legal term. Much of history is based on hearsay in a strict legal definition, but historians look for indications that the accounts are accurate. The gospels do not pass many tests for accuracy.

These are not the only alternatives. I don't think there is any scholarly consensus on what Luke meant by using "we."

If Luke used Josephus he was probably too old to have known Paul. Alternatively, if Luke was writing in opposition to Marcion, it is also the case that he was probably too old to have known Paul.

It depends on what you think Luke was doing. If he were writing history, you would expect him to say I saw this, or people have said that. . . But if he is telling a story, or repeating legends, he would just copy good stories.

Not sure what the question is here.

Not much, but that doesn't mean it isn't correct.

I don't think it is a sin to write a novel.

-Jay-

The point was that the Gospel writers had the same pool of potential motivations to compose fictional works as anyone else. Read the Gospels carefully. Each one has a different set of subtexts and themes to it that can give you clues about the motivations of the author. Consider GMark, for example. The author of Mark portrays the apostles as being, well, losers. They dont get it, despite everything Jesus does. The author of Mark also relies heavily on OT types to define Jesus and what he did, suggesting that Mark was using the OT to indicate what a Messiah would do, in the absence of firsthand accounts of what Jesus did. In other words, Jesus and the apostles in GMark look a lot like characters in a fictional story.

Now, look at what you're saying:
You're asking if it's not more reasonable to assume that the Gospel writers reported what they'd heard rather than making it up, if I understand you correctly.

If we were talking about mundane things - the otherwise unremarkable life of one street preacher out of hundreds or thousands - then you might be safe to assume that those writing about it were reporting what they'd heard.

The Gospels are different, though. They contain accounts of some rather remarkable events - events that not only fly in the face of observable reality, but also fly in the face of a wide range of science. They must be held to a more rigorous standard of evidence precisely because they report such extraordinary events. The fact that the only evidence for the veracity of the Gospels comes from within the Gospels themselves is not very strong evidence at all.

regards,

NinJay

Roger Pearse

Not quite sure what the point at issue is, but most of us are dependent on the word of witnesses for almost everything we know about everything. So I would guess that this comment needs to be more nuanced?

I hope that people are not arguing in this thread that because a professional salaried and tenued historian in a US university in the late 20th century would not feel free to say "a miracle happened" in an academic text, that this tells us something about miracles? Surely it rather tells us something about the standards and conventions of this profession. It wouldn't be a true statement in other countries, or in other periods, for instance. Let's argue from data, not from veiled (or not so veiled) appeals to authority, if that is what is happening here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

We can always find or imagine reasons to suppose people are lying, surely? What we need, therefore, is *evidence* that they are doing so.

I am unclear as to whether there is any practical difference between this position and stating "whatever I do not wish to believe must be held to a higher standard that I don't apply to things I do believe."

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I'm afraid that I don't believe an ancient historian would endorse these statements. The compilation of vast inventories of 'bible difficulties' has nothing to do with this.

Rather more importantly, whatever we say, shouldn't we argue from *data* rather than appeal to some vague authority?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Vivisector

Your post reminded me of the last time I read GMk, when I indulged in an exercise of striking through all the text having obvious (to me) apologetic motivation, being centered around a miraculous event, or both, to see what was left. What was really interesting to me was that, not only are you correct about GMk's portrayal of the disciples, you can almost say the same thing of Jesus's family (in terms of not getting it). Of course, there's also the Messianic Secret theme, but also - and I've seen much less written on this - there is a significant amount of explanation as to why Jesus avoided the larger cities - Jesus seems not to have enjoyed the rock star treatment he got when word of his miracles made its way around. This is why Jesus often charged the beneficiary of the miracle with not telling anyone.

If we put all this together, then "Mark" seems to be saying:

1. Jesus did many miraculous deeds, but he often required the beneficiary to keep it a secret.
2. Jesus was active primarily, if not exclusively, in the less populated regions, because he tended to attract large crowds when he went into large cities where secrecy regarding miracles was much harder to maintain.
3. Successful miracles required faith.
4. Jesus's disciples really struggled to "get" what Jesus was about.
5. Jesus's family members held no special position.
6. Jesus knew all along that he was the Christ, but it didn't suit his purposes to have it known.

Which could be an attempt to explain to his readers why:

1. He wasn't widely (if at all) known in his lifetime as a miracle worker.
2. Few, if any, in the large cities (e.g., Sepphoris, Tiberias) ever heard of him.
3. People in his hometown, who should know him best of all, remember him as an ordinary guy, not a miracle-worker.
4. The disciples views on Jesus's life, death and deeds aren't necessarily trustworthy/authoritative.
5. Ditto for Jesus's family members.
6. Nobody associated Jesus with the Christ during his lifetime (e.g., no messianic movement).

Seems to me that "Mark" had a very tough task.

Cheers,

V.