JoeWallack

JW:
Hullo. I fear that you will continue to trade unsupported assertions with your Skeptical detractors here until Jesus returns so I'm going to try and speed things up here. Your main assertion here is that there were guards at Jesus' supposed tomb:

Matthew 27

JW:
Right now this is just an assertion. You need to try and convert it into history by analyzing the evidence. Here are some criteria to use:

1 - Credibility of source. Greater = more weight. Potentially the most important criterion and one that authority largely ignores.

2- Common sense. Potentially one of the most important criteria if there is a common sense issue.

3 - Applicability (general vs. specific). General = more weight. Does the source refer to the issue or just a reference to a text? One of the most important criteria due to its comprehensive and direct nature. Generally under-estimated by authority.

4 – Age. Older = more weight. The most commonly identified criterion and an important one.

5 - Confirmation – width. Wider = more weight. The context is geographical. Confirmation is an important quality as it helps reduce sampling bias.

6 - Confirmation – quantity. Larger = more weight.

7 - Direction (of change). Away from = more weight. What is the direction of change over time.

8 – Variation. Lesser = more weight. What is the quantity of variation.

9 - External force. Lesser = more weight. What external force, if any, is affecting the assertion.

10 – Consistency. Greater = more weight. Does the evidence for the assertion coordinate with the evidence for other assertions?

11 – Directness. Direct = more weight. Reduces opportunity for bias.

12 – Simplicity. Simpler = more weight. Reduces opportunity for bias.

Good luck.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

sschlichter

Luke says

(Luke 1:1) Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, (Luke 1:2) like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning.(Luke 1:3) So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:4) so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.

you think that the author of Luke actually beleives that 1) there were many eyewitnesses to the life of Christ, 2) that he interviewed them following all things closely from the beginning 3) so he could create this orderly account.

aa5874

So, how do you intend to show that your belief about the gospel writers is true? How do you to show they were ALL mistaken?

Once there are lies in the gospels, the writers who claimed the lies are to be believed as truth are indeed liars, until there is evidence to contradict.

There is no evidence that any writer of the Gospels was martyred for writing anything found in the Jesus stories. The church writers claimed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels but did not claim they were martyred for writing obvious lies when they all claimed Jesus rose from the dead.


Now, in reality, the authorship of the Gospel stories are anonimous and the stories themselves fiction. The people that were martyred were those who believed the lies that the anonimous liars wrote.

It should be noted some people fabricate lies for others to believe as true, not realising that one day they will die for the very lies they propagated as truth.

David Koresh was one.

Deus Ex

Do I think that the author of Luke believed what he (or she) wrote was the truth?
Yes, I think the author believed that.

Does the author's belief mean the narrative actually happened exactly as it was written?
Not necessarily.

Nowadays, how many conspiracy nuts write pure crap and believe every word of what they are writing? Belief is no guarantee of veracity.

Even if 'Luke' believed what he wrote, it does not guarantee that what he wrote truly happened.

sschlichter

I am trying to figure out who you think is lying. is it your position that Luke beleives what he is writing but the eyewitnesses he interviewed are the ones lying? or do you beleive Luke is lying?

I can prance out all sorts of examples of people that were not lying as well, David Kroesh is a moot point. he controlled people and it is easy to identify. Jesus was hung on a cross and I am having a hard time figuring out who you think is the cult leader. Every example suggested here has a personality who amassed power and/or wealth (Joseph Smith, Mohammed, David Koresh). Why is it so hard to identify the liar here and the motive? If it is not Luke then who? the alleged eyewitnesses he interviewed?

~steve

Kapyong

Gday,

But why does someone have to be LYING ?

I see this argument all the time - that if they weren't true, then someone MUST have lied.

Well, that's not true at all - there are many reasons for something not to be true apart from being a deliberate lie.

Such as :
* fiction
* allegory
* misunderstanding
* exaggeration

There are many sceptical views expressed here about the Gospels, but none of them are based on the idea of them being LIES (well, there is one person around here who claims a vast forgery, but no-one takes him seriously.)


K.

Amaleq13

Mark seems early enough.

aa5874

Please name one of the eyewitrnesses that the author of gLuke interviewed? And who was Luke? When was gLuke written?

Who told the author of gLuke that Jesus was resurrected and was not found in the tomb after he was supposed to be dead for three days, but was eating fish and honeycomb with the disciples and walking through a building with closed doors?

Luke 24
Tell me who were the eyewtitnesses of gLuke and the dead and resurrected Jesus.


Who witnessed Jesus on a cross, then later placed in a tomb and told the author of gLuke? The author of gMatthew or gMark? Please state some eye-witnesses for the author of gLuke.

The first time it is written that there was a Gospel according to Luke was late in the 2nd century, based on Irenaeus' Against Heresies".

I need witnesses for gLuke. Do you have any?

Petergdi

Now you are just being silly. Your argument requires that the empty tomb is something that anyone who knew of it would normally mention during a discussion of the resurrection.

The empty tomb has had this central position in writing on the resurrection from the mid-19th century onwards. Modern discussions of the resurrection of Christ, both sermons and theology books, normally give a central position to the empty tomb. IME older discussions do not do this nearly as often.

Peter.

sschlichter

I noticed that. I am trying to figure out why. None of these other positions makes any sense to me. you have to ignore the text and ignore history to beleive any one of those.

It is evident internally that Luke either thinks he is writing non-fiction or wants us to think he is writing non-fiction. it is also evident from history that his audience also thought it was non-fiction. One example is Justin Martyr. At ~150 AD, he thought the memoir of the apostles was non-fiction, to the point of death. You cannot argue that he, or his Christian contemporaries saw the gospels as fiction, misunderstanding (whatever this means), or exaggeration. Where allegory is sought, it was as a deeper meaning, never an alternate meaning.

You have something true or something not true - if not true, then what is the motive. You have to ignore the fact that this occurred in history where you can view the lives of the audience of the gospels (and what they say about the authors) if you choose to beleive that the motive was a bit of fiction.