Patriot7

Can I ask you a question then? What does that prove? Again - I'm not a bible scholar, or an expert on ancient cultures. So the words, deeds and actions of Christ were written down 25-80 years after his death. I don't know if this is exactly correct or not.

But all that suggests to me is that the culture wasn't like ours - that they relied on oral transmission of their history. If they had our TV and internet culture, then I think the implied argument carries a lot of weight. If the events of the Gospels happened today then I'd be highly suspicious of why this stuff wasn't written down IMMEDIATELY. And by way of comparing the Bible to other ancient works I find that we could not accept any of them using the standards often used here to examine the Gospels.

The argument that the Gospels don't fit a certain criteria based on our own cultural bias, seems to put the cart before the horse. Why not simply accept the evidence on face value and then try to prove it wrong? As I understand it, people have been trying to prove the Bible wrong for a very long time. If it's the truth, if it is indeed God's Word, then I expect it to stand up to that reasoned critiscm. But arguing that since it wasn't written as it was happening and declaring with dogmatic certainty that on this reason alone it's false isn't really doing the evidence we do have justice.

mithy73

The phrase "handed down to us" suggests to me that Luke was writing from earlier (oral and/or written) tradition, rather than firsthand eyewitness testimonies. That's just my interpretation, though.

fromdownunder

The original argument by TomboyMom was:

Then Diogenes the Cynic added

To which Patriot7 replied

Following some side skirmishes, we come to this from Patriot7

So, Patriot7 has now validated the original statement. Mark is not an eyewitness to the events. Neither is Paul.

But, we have a shift in the goal posts. Having conceded that there are no eyewitness accounts, Patriot7 now asks us to prove something entirely different. That Paul and Mark claim to have talked to eyewitnesses and wrote down the texts on that basis.

I would suggest that knowing who Mark and Paul did or did not talk to can never be established. So, no eating crow, just a not so subtle shift in the original argument by Patriot7 from a perfectly legitimate "no eyewitnesses" to one that is impossible to respond to

Norm

Diogenes the Cynic

We don't really know the words, deeds and actions of Jesus. What we do know is that the Gospels were written down ~40-70 years (possibly later) after the alleged crucifixion and that none of them were written by witnesses.
Aside from a possible core sayings tradition, the Gospels cannot be products of oral transmission. They are demonstrably Greek literary creations. Many of the narrative claims are also provably false.
There is no such argument. Try a different tack.
What evidence?
Much of the Bible has been proven "wrong" incidentally or inadvertently (all tha pesky evidence keeps mucking things up), but I don't think that very many people are trying to prove it wrong.
I assure you, it does not. Not even close. Exceedingly little of the Bible has ever been confirmed as historical (a few relatively insignificant names and places) while huge swaths of important Biblical historical claims have been utterly debunked.
No one is arguing any such thing.

Patriot7

Ohhhh....I see. That's very good!...... change the claim to a strawman. You must really hate crow! Here's your claim again....

Do you really think I'm going to argue your strawman in reference to authorship for you?:Cheeky:

I'm not arguing that the entire NT was written by eyewitnesses, (and you know this) because I don't think that's the case. I'm simply asking you to prove your claim. I'm pressing you at this point, because I think it dangerously irresponsible of people who like to think of themselves as experts make claims like yours and then when pressed to back them up, retreat and throw out a bunch of ad hominems, red herrings and strawmen. If you're right, then I want to change my beliefs. If you're not, then kindly PM me your address and I'll send you some hot wing sauce for your bird.

Nothing personal DTC!! This is about truth - not about your intellect!!

Chris Weimer

It doesn't prove anything. You can't prove anything in historical studies. Proof is for math, I work with evidence.

But you still have to explain the lack of first-hand reports. There are plenty of first hand witnesses to many events - just not the Bible. And since there aren't first hand witnesses, we need to discern very carefully fact from fiction.

Again with the proving. No one is trying to "prove the Bible wrong" (well, perhaps some are, but by definition what they're doing is poor scholarship and ought to be rejected by academia). We shouldn't try to "prove" anything. We need to formulate theories based on the evidence.

I never made that statement. That is inference on your part.

TomboyMom

I should have been more clear, and stand mistaken on that count.
What I meant was that the mainstream consensus of modern scholarship is that no New Testament gospel was written by an eyewitness. That is, it is generally believed that none of the gospel authors were themselves eye-witnesses. Perhaps this is a less controversial claim.
I will accept if you tell me that they do not claim to have been so.

Patriot: My moniker is TomboyMom. No "s" in the middle.

As for why I believe the NT is false, it is not just for this reason, but because there is almost no evidence in support of its being true, and much against it. For example, there is virtually no extra-biblical corroboration of its central claims, including in instances when you would expect it. Further, it is internally inconsistent. In addition, there are some striking similarities to other religious myths and belief systems of the time and place in which it originated. It seems pretty clear that the decisions as to what to include and what to leave out were somewhat arbitrary and the result of committee decisions by those who happened to have control over it at the time. It has never struck me as having any greater claim to truth than any other holy book I am familiar with, which is to say, almost none.

Diogenes the Cynic

Strawman? Huh?

Do you actually know what that term means? I haven't changed the claim at all and I certainly haven't resorted to any strawmen.
I stand by that statement. I don't know what you think has been changed.
I never said you were. I'm telling you that most scholars believe that NOTHING in the NT was written by a witness.
Like I said, open up a textbook. This is an easy thing to verify. Have you looked at the ECW site?

You should also look up the definintions or "red herring," "strawman," and "ad hominem" while you're at it. I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
I agree completely. I apologize if my intellect was showing.

cajela

DtC, where is this link? I don't see it in this thread and it sounds interesting.
Thanks

Diogenes the Cynic

Here you go.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com