Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 02-05-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I should have made my intention more clear in the opening post. My intention was to show that the authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not claim that they saw Jesus perform miracles, if that was the case, which would mean that their evidence regarding the miracles was second hand, and therefore is much less reliable than it would have been if they had claimed to be eyewitnesses.

And the epistle writers who supposedly walked with Jesus (Peter, James, John) never mention any of these wondrous events, we have to wait for Mark and his imitators before the special effects kick in...

aa5874 · 02-05-2009, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

If you are merely saying that Luke is not here claiming to be an eyewitness, that is super, and almost everybody will agree with you. But he is writing in first person.

Thanks, I should have made my intention more clear in the opening post. My intention was to show that the authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not claim that they saw Jesus perform miracles, if that was the case, which would mean that their evidence regarding the miracles was second hand, and therefore is much less reliable than it would have been if they had claimed to be eyewitnesses.

And perhaps it was intentional, that is, these authors only wanted to write stories that were believable. They used other figures of history that were known or written about and incorporated these figures with their make-believe character Jesus to make their stories appear credible.

Joan of Bark · 02-09-2009, 03:34 AM

I'm just re-reading The Unauthorized Version (or via: amazon.co.uk)by Robin Lane Fox, and he points out that authors of that time tried to give their writings more authenticity by leaving them anonymous. That is, their writings would read more like 'real history' if there was no name attached, thereby drawing less attention to the author and making them seem more objective.

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

02-09-2009, 03:34 AM	#23
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	I'm just re-reading The Unauthorized Version (or via: amazon.co.uk)by Robin Lane Fox, and he points out that authors of that time tried to give their writings more authenticity by leaving them anonymous. That is, their writings would read more like 'real history' if there was no name attached, thereby drawing less attention to the author and making them seem more objective.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.