Originally Posted by CX

I apologize for making my point too subtle. I do that. I'm an extremely subtle guy. In fact I am the most in your face subtle guy alive. I'm also very self-deprecating. I LOVE that about me. Anyway, my point, as others have already pointed out, is that just because the characters in a text claim something doesn't make it true. Even if the author of a text claims something in the context of the narrative that doesn't make it true. Pointing to examples of characters in the NT saying they are eyewitnesses to events is not evidence that the text itself actually reflects eyewitness testimony. A little bit of study (you could even do it at a good seminary if you want to stay away from secular education) shows that the vast preponderance of the evidence indicates that none of the gospel texts, nor Acts, are written by eyewitnesses or people who knew eyewitnesses. All the authorial attributions come from Ante-nicene church fathers who are mostly speculating about their particular favored texts because they needed "apostolic authority" (kind of like an "Intel Inside" logo for Xian texts) to prove that their books were better than the dozens of other gospels being widely distributed at the time.

Originally Posted by jackrabbit

Well, he's trying, but he can't get liftoff. Hey, if they cross the streams, they can get rid of him entirely, like they did Gozer, and we will all be better off.

Originally Posted by Richbee

Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses to the evidence - blah - blah.

If the four Gospel accounts were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (as the earliest evidence indicates), then Matthew certainly was a witness, as was John – the two being apostles of Jesus. Moreover, Mark was the son of Mary (Acts 12:12), and a companion of Peter (1 Pet. 5:13); he thus stands in close proximity to the events of Calvary if not literally FRONT ROW!

Finally, Luke was a first-class historian who investigated the matter with the greatest of care (Lk. 1:1-4). And since he was a physician (Col. 4:14), thus of a scientific background, he would have been persuaded of a resurrection from the dead only on the ground of the most compelling evidence, and gathered from the actual first-hand eyewitnesses to the crufixion, resurrection, etc. (e.g. John, Peter, Mary, and more)

Originally Posted by RUmike

Originally Posted by Richbee

An old canard:

Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses to the evidence - blah - blah.

Originally Posted by Richbee

Originally Posted by RUmike

This is the 3rd thread inside of about 10 minutes where you have copied and pasted (or more sadly, memorized) this exact post. PLEASE STOP. No one buys it. And start coming up with more original posts/ideas. Saying word for word the same thing over and over does not persuade people.

EDIT: So it's come to my attention Richbee has copied and pasted that paragraph (3 times, mind you) from an external source without giving proper credit. Is this a bannable offense? ::wishful thinking::

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

That's your Christian other-cheek turning for you.

Originally Posted by Richbee

Why should I turn the other cheek?

He didn't insult me, he just wandered off topic!

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

As I keep saying, this is the consensus of modern scholarship, which is what your thread is supposed to be about, and which you have not denied. (Whether it is true I don't know, as I am not a modern scholar myself.)