Sven

I'm afraid that I don't see how the NT being false follows from the fact that they are no eye-witness accounts. Could you please explain?

ETA: This thread is ridiculous. The conversation can be summed up by:

Diogenes: Virtually all scholars agree on ...
Patriot: Show evidence that virtually all agree!
Diogenes: Here's a link. And look into any introductory textbook.
Patriot: Show evidence that virtually all agree!
Diogenes: Here's a link. And look into any introductory textbook.
Patriot: Show evidence that virtually all agree!
Diogenes: Here's a link. And look into any introductory textbook.
Patriot: Show evidence that virtually all agree!
Diogenes: Here's a link. And look into any introductory textbook.
Patriot: Show evidence that virtually all agree!
Diogenes: Here's a link. And look into any introductory textbook.
Patriot: Show evidence that virtually all agree!
Diogenes: Here's a link. And look into any introductory textbook.
Patriot: Show evidence that virtually all agree!
Diogenes: Here's a link. And look into any introductory textbook.
Patriot: Show evidence that virtually all agree!
Diogenes: Here's a link. And look into any introductory textbook.

:banghead:

fromdownunder

Sven, agreed, except that Patriot7 changed the required evidence halfway through from "no direct witnesses" to "heresay reports from direct witnesses"

Norm

Patriot7

Norm - that's clearly false. I didn't change DTC's claim. DTC did to get himself out of his appointed meal with a black bird. At least TommyboyMom (no S...yet she drops my 7!!) fessed up and retracted a non-sensical claim.

There is a difference between these two statements:


It is a subtle difference yet changes the evidence necessary to prove the claim. As I value happiness more then being right, this will be my last post in reference to pressing this point.

In either event to move the discussion along, (Saul) Paul seems to have had an eyewitness encounter with the Resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus. What historical evidence have any of you encountered that leads you to believe his claim is false?

post tenebras lux

How about Acts itself?

We have:andWhat sort of 'encounter' could it be given the above quotes, if we are to believe what Acts says about Saul/Paul and his 'Road to Damascus', as you request we do?

Patriot7

Very cheeky there Sven. I like your style.

If you are interested in switching views of the Gospels for sake discussion, I would love to engage is such a discussion! But you're not going to fault me when I resort to strawmen, ad hominem and red herring arguments are you?

TomboyMom

Hey, I didn't retract nuthin', I just clarified. So are we in agreement then that (the consensus of modern scholarship agrees that) no gospel was written by any eyewitness to any of the events described in them?

Uh, Paul says he encountered a dead man--you want me to discuss the veracity of his personal internal subjective experience?!? Like that guy who saw Elvis in a truckstop, something like that? No thanks.

Are you being deliberately annoying or can't you read? Do Christians get extra brownie points for rudeness? My user name is TomboyMom. Try typing it after me: TomboyMom. Like: I'm a Tomboy, and I'm a Mom, get it? Geez.

Patriot7

How would me agreeing with your error make your error right? In otherwords, why is your view that believing something is so, makes it so? Taking your view that belief=truth to it's logical conclusions leaves us in a rather uncomfortable position. For example, when we die and we see God face to face, how is our belief before death going to change who God is after death? God is going to be who God is regardless of my belief or yours. So the important question then becomes - is my view of God accurate or not? And it turns out that is a question we can answer with a higher degree of certainty. I can change my perception, but I can't change God.

And I apologize for misspelling your pseudonym. Obviously some history behind that name that I was unaware of and the offense was not intentional. It's interesting how context and a letter or two changes the meaning of something isn't it?.....hmmmm I wonder if we can apply that same reasoning to Acts 9 and 22?

Diogenes the Cynic

The "50%" thing came from you. I was only trying to clarify your question. As I said before, the number is much greater than 50%. It is, in fact, virtually unanimous. Have you bothered to crack a textbook or click a link yet?
The Damascus story is in Acts, not in the letters of Paul. Paul does claim to have believed that Jesus talked to him in visions but does not himself tell the Damascus story. Scholars do not doubt that Paul was telling the truth about his own hallucinations but hallucinations do not count as eyewitness accounts of Jesus- only as accounts of hallucinations. Obviously, Paul wasn't ACTUALLY talking to Jesus. Jesus was dead.

RED DAVE

From Patriot7:
Wrong question.

What evidence do you have that one living man met a dead man on the road other than a bunch of third-hand accounts written decades later?

I can provide you with first-hand accounts, written by living people, testifying that they have seen Elvis. Do you accept their claims? The evidence for their claims is a lot stronger than what you've got.

It bears repeating: extraordinary claims, like seeing a dead man walking around, require extraordinary proof.

Which you don't have.

RED DAVE

Patriot7

To defend your claim? No. For my own interest - yes. Again - your implied argument that education=truth, is fallacious and doesn't advance anyone's knowledege or the conversation.

I tell you what, since this is so important to you and seems to be a sticking point in the conversation, why don't you PM me your diploma, transcripts, a list of all the books, articles you've read and written and I'll marvel at them. :notworthy:

In all seriousness DTC, I'm sure you're a very smart person. But I don't see how it follows from your education, that everything you write on a discussion board is a fact. That line of reasoning is glaringly dangerous and is the antithesis of freethinking. I subscribe to an objective notion of truth commonly described as the correspondence theory. My view is if what you claim corresponds to reality - to the world as it real is, then your claim is true. To the best of my knowledge this theory was first formalized by Aristotle, but not really "his" in the sense that people think this way who have never heard of him! In otherwords, if I claim your fly is down, you'll most likely look, to see if my claim is true.

To use a different standard for truth, when investigating spiritual matters is done, in my opinion, at our own peril.