Johnny Skeptic

Great post #30, Amaleq. I would like to see Christians try to refute it.

Enda80

Sidebar: I never really found the idea of 500 eyewitnesses palatable. Who were these people? When did this happen? How come the Gospels don't mention it? Thanks for neatly reflecting my caveats.

Johnny Skeptic

[/quoteAmaleq13]Regarding the disciples, when the Gospel of Mark was released around 70 A.D., did the disciples defend their status as eyewitnesses?

At least two of the Big Three were dead, weren't they? IMO, the biggest problem with answering your question is that we don't have any evidence this story was circulating until the 2nd century.[/quote]

Amaleq, I agree with your arguments. I chose to ask my question the way that I did in order to have a common ground to debate Christians on these matters. I meant "Assuming that the Gospel of Mark that we have today was the same as it was back then, and if it was released by 70 A.D., did the surviving disciples defend their status as eyewitnesses?" I sometimes concede things to Christians for the sake of argument. Robert Price told me that he sometimes does the same thing. If skeptics never conceded anything to Christians for the sake of argument, they would never be able to get past debating the existence of the God of the Bible.

sharon45

If the book of john is a supposed official testimony, then what are matthew and mark? John's anointing at Bethany 12:1-8 is about different people being involved than that of matthew 26:6-13 and mark 14:3-9.

Johnny Skeptic

What do you mean by official testimony? The anonymous authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke do not claim to to eyewitnesses to anything. There is no indication that the writer of John 21:24 is claiming that he was an eyewitness.

Consider the following from the New International Bible Commentary, general editor F. F. Bruce:

"This is he who testifies: The beloved disciples remains to bear out the truth of Jesus' words, whether we understand 'these things' to refer only to the last few verses or to the whole Gospel. 'We know' is either an unidentified collective or possibly a joint statement from the elders of the church from which John originally wrote."

The Mircosoft Encarta Deluxe Encyclopedia 2005 says that John is the "fourth book of the New Testament. Ecclesiastical tradition, dating from the latter part of the 2nd century." By the time that John was released it would have been impossible for people to check out John 21:24.

GakuseiDon

But the Wikipedia Encyclopedia says, "Today, most critical scholars are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three), beginning at an unknown time (AD 50-70?) and culminating in the final edition (our Gospel of John) around AD 95-100. This final date is assumed in large part because John 21, the so-called "appendix" to John, is largely concerned with explaining the death of the "beloved disciple," probably the leader of the Johannine community that produced the gospel. If this leader had been a follower of Jesus, or a disciple of one of Jesus' followers, then a death around AD 90-100 is expected."

"Most critical scholars" vs "Ecclesiastical tradition" - which do you believe?

Johnny Skeptic

John 21:24 says "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." The only part of "these things" that I am interested in is the appearances of Jesus. Upon what evidence did "the disciple which testifieth of these things" and "we" base their claim that Jesus rose from the dead?