Ted Hoffman

Helen
Actually, the "battle" is set to take place in three weeks time.
I am still marshalling all info I can get, before I forge all of it into a formidable battering ram.

Then I strike.

HelenM

Oh, lol I thought in your last post you meant he was 'outside the door' that moment...silly me!

That makes sense, to prepare ahead of time as much as you can. If you read what Jeff Lowder has written as a rebuttal of ETDAV that ought to help you deal with the arguments set forth in that book, specifically.

Ok, so in three weeks...let us know how it went! Best wishes in preparing and then effectively presenting what you have prepared...

love
Helen

RyanS2

Far as I know, John is denied from being an eyewitness because of the dating of John, which was put very late. John would have had to be exceptionally old at the time to have written it, and I also though it was commonly accepted he died about 68 CE. Also, he is at a chronological war with the Synoptic Gospels in the order of events, their significance, where Jesus preached, how long Jesus preached, etc.

For Matthew, the biggest piece of evidence I can remember was a part where Matthew refers to himself in the third-person, which was almost never done. (Think G.A. Wells wrote about this, I'm not sure). Matthew himself may or may not have been an eyewitness, but at the very least, there are pieces from other anonymous disciples in there.

Concerning credentials, who cares? That's my thoughts on it. Unless you are referencing them as an opinion, not as a source. For instance, it doesn't matter who says:

"If we look at Ugaritic Tablet 1.25 C, we find an almost exact replica of the Psalm found in..."

That's an example, it doesn't matter who says that, the question is that if you look at that tablet I made up, would it in fact be a replica of what's in Psalms? Now, on the other hand, if it's:

"The reliability of the Gospels is beyond questioning"

That's an opinion, how valuable is this person's opinion?

Ed: Also cross-reference all of that, I'm tired, don't feel like looking anything up, and grumpy, take it with a pinch of salt.

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: RyanS2 ]</p>

aikido7

Each gospel account is different on what was written on the sign above the crucified Jesus. If any gospel writer had been present at the scene, they would have gotten this elementary and simple detail right.

Did Jesus bear "his own cross" (John 19:17) or have help from Simon as Mark 15:21 attests?

And don't even get me started about Easter! Who came to the tomb first? And which gospel author is correct in describing who or what was seen?

An overwhelming consensus of scholarship shows what any "blue collar" scholar can determine for themselves: reading the New Testament accounts in parallel shows that Matthew and Luke are not primary accounts of Jesus' ministry but are in fact variations of Mark.

Eyewitness evidence--as well as "divine inspiration"--gets blown out of the holy water at this point....

Common sense and careful scholarship trumps theology every time.

NFLP

I played guitar with John Lennon. Prove that I didn't. I've been telling that lie so long that there are scores of people who now say "I played guitar with a guy who played with John Lennon."

That's exactly how legends grow.

"Outrageous claims require outrageous proof."

Ted Hoffman

Thanks Ryan and Aikido
Ryan, please try pointing me to sites that support what you have said.

Especially about John. AFAI am concerned, the snoptic problem pretty much wraps it up for Mathew and Luke, Mark was creating a Jewish version of the Homeric epics as well demonstrated by Dennis R. MacDonald in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark.

How do I deal with Peter? I mean it is claimed that Peter was written by Simon Peter - Jesus' disciple. Anyone got any info ?

TheDiddleyMan

How do I deal with Peter? I mean it is claimed that Peter was written by Simon Peter - Jesus' disciple. Anyone got any info ?[/QB][/QUOTE]

Are you referring to the epistles of Peter? Well, for one thing, 1st Peter doesn't really have anything important from an eyewitness point of view if I recall correctly. It is thought to be written (even by non-conservative scholars I believe) by Peter himself, but I could be wrong.

2 Peter, which contains the claim to seeing Christ transfigured on the mountain, is largely considered pseudonymous. See Peter Kirby's
<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com" target="_blank">www.earlychristianwritings.com</a> for info. There is another place as well, I'm trying to remember where it is, that argues against the authenticity.....I'll post it when I remember it.

Kevin

Alexis Comnenus

Intencity - the Homeric stuff, while good fun, is highly controversial and not widely accepted. You will need to do a bit more work on Mark rather than just putting all your trust in one recent and not widely accepted book.

Regards

Alex

Ted Hoffman

Thanks, the name is Intensity, with an s not with a c. There is no such a word as Intencity - is there?
Thanks for the advice. I know the unpopularity (where is it unpopular?) of MacDonalds' book may take away the persuasive value my argument(s) may otherwise havee but I do not intend to rely on it alone. There is the synoptic problem too and the dating of the Gospels.
Even though my objective is to disprove, casting a shadow of doubt must be done every step of the way.
I think also that besides the familiarity, the strength of the arguments have to be considered. It doesn't have to be popular for it to be potent.

And thanks Diddleyman. Sources would go a long way.

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Alexis, are you a christian? if so, what kind of christian are you Catholic?