outhouse

But lets get this straight, your not a proffessional, and you have no real education on the subject.

And scholars all claim the material in all 4 gospels are from people who never witnessed anything. These are educated proffessionals paid for their work on this subject.


and yet somehow your opinion stands above because they missed something :constern01:



They were not written by eyewitnesses, its questionable if the inner 4 could even read and write.


Like it or not there is not enough historicity on the subject to make "your" claim, and what historicity there is points to the exact opposite of what your stating :facepalm:

Huon

And these so-called eyewitnesses were alive just in good times, did not lie, or give erroneous testimonies, and their names were never used to make fake records, until 325 CE.

outhouse

Moses never existed, ever.


dont take what I posted out of context. your being rediculous.


oral tradition is not in dispute here by any "real" scholar or historian.



jesus very well could have stated his prayer or parables in different ways. Odds are though that these parables were told in different circles different ways.

All we are getting from the gospels is the jist of it all. We are getting jesus enemies version of himself. jesus did not start a movement for gentiles. he started a movement in judaism FOR judaism. so yes alot was changed. After these changes there was even more redactions.


like it or not oral tradition relayed information, no one said it was 100% accurate. But it could very well have been close. Problem is the roman version we are left with didnt use to much of the original traditions for their hellenistic version. We have the core story buried under roman clothes

Adam

Sorry, Jay,
There is nothing you said in Post #121 that you can back up. Want to try again, or shall we just assume you were blowing smoke?

Adam

Whoops, that was John whose post #121 I was questioning. John was responding to my reply to Jay in #120, so I thought he was Jay making his response.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Adam,

What features of the text make you believe it represents eyewitness testimony?

Take this statement. "President Obama said, "the bailout of the auto industry saved more than one million jobs during the country's worst recession since the Great Depression." Can you tell if I read that in a newspaper, read it on the internet, heard it on the radio, saw it on television or I actually was present when he said that?" How does this statement differ from the hundreds of statements about Jesus sayings in the gospels?

In Ancient times eyewitness testimony was highly regarded as the most accurate testimony. It therefore makes sense in ancient times that Early Christians would call the gospels "eyewitness testimony." These same people also believed that the myths about Moses were eyewitness testimony by Moses himself.

There must be some criteria besides lack of miracles and early Christian belief to suggest that this material was eyewitness testimony.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

outhouse

actually its easy to back up that none of the gospel authors were witness to jesus.

None of the gospels were signed, authors were at a much later date, attributed. Now thats a fact.

How many romans did jesus hang out with preaching only to poor jewish peasants?

Is it even said jesus had even one roman friend??



Or is it said that he traveled and taught judaism to only jews, and healed in the poor villages in Galilee.


Were any of jesus disciples roman??

Adam

I have named seven or eight eyewitnesses who wrote about Jesus, none of whom are Romans, so of what relevance are your last four points?
"Call me Ishmael" starts off Moby Dick, but no one thereby regards the novel as a true first-person account.

For Jay and John both, my thread on "Gospel Eyewitnesses" ran to 628 posts, but my argument without interruption can be found here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/


Note that my Post #1 there has an amendment that argues that the Passion Narrative describes the most recent week in the life of the author, presumably John Mark.
It's not consensus scholarship (though eyewitness arguments are currently popular as by Richard Bauckham), but few here on FRDB accept consensus scholarship anyway. You can't dismiss me here by appealing to consensus scholarship.

outhouse

with no credibility or scholarships

but mainly, no validity.


The author of gmark is unknown, and written for a roman audience, probably by a roman.


claiming known authorship is a epic fail with no backing.

Adam

Still no backing for what you are saying. So I'll reply to it regardless.
Nor is there an argument, even descending to ad hominem. (I do have two master's degrees, but being a contrarian I did not ingratiate myself well towards a doctorate.)
Partly my fault there for not mentioning lately my secondary thread, "Significance of John". I wrote it thirty years when I was already touting eyewitnesses, but not proclaiming it so radically. It was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in Biblical Theology Bulletin, but wound up published elsewhere. See my Post #2 for my argument that Nicodemus must have writtten the Johannine Discourses while Jesus was still preaching. See Post #45 for Andrew or Philip as the author of the Signs Source.
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=307897&page=2

Nothing has been accomplished in source criticism of John in the last 30 years, so my article is still as relevant. The problem seems to be that Howard M. Teeple had the key answers, but was not himself in an academic position to get due attention. His chief detractor, Robert Kysar, retracted his criticism only recently, too late to do any good.

Establishing eyewitnesses for the Synoptics is an easier task, and I have done that here:
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Common

and in three other articles there.