Jesus Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

Thats not proven though. But, even if they used mark to JOG there memories, they still are 4 independent accounts due to there variations and supplementations.

And i contend they are witness accounts. Even if there not written BY witnesses, they would have gotten it from the witnesses.

Look here for instence. Luke 1:1-4

"1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled a among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Since Matthew and Luke borrow heavily from Mark they are not independent sources. John does as well. None of the gospels are eyewitness accounts. There may have been people way back when that saw the supposed events but there is no reason to believe that any of them "testified" for the gospels.

 

[leroy]

Since Matthew and Luke borrow heavily from Mark they are not independent sources. John does as well. None of the gospels are eyewitness accounts. There may have been people way back when that saw the supposed events but there is no reason to believe that any of them "testified" for the gospels.

By your logic we should reject 99% of ancient documents because they were not written by eye witnesses.

You don't have a case against the gospels you have a case against the whole historical methodology.

As for the gospels, sure they all borrowed from Mark, but they also has other sources. This is why they are independent.

 

[Jollybear]

You could read for yourself but you're too big on believing for the sake of believing that the book is all to be taken literally, so I'll just leave you to your beliefs.

You could read for yourself but your too big on believing for the sake of believing that the book is all to be NOT taken litterally, so ill just leave you to your beliefs.

Does not help does it? You wont get me nor anyone who agrees with me to adopt your view with an additude like that.

 

[Jollybear]

Since Matthew and Luke borrow heavily from Mark they are not independent sources.

How do you know for sure they borrowed ? Plus, even IF they did, that dont equal evil committed. So what if they wanted to jog memory. When people today write a book, they do brain storming first, then add details. Brain storming helps jog more memories.

Also since all 4 gospels have various different details and additional stories, that shows in itself they ARE 4 independent sources.

John does as well. None of the gospels are eyewitness accounts.

They got it from witnesses. Like luke said.

There may have been people way back when that saw the supposed events but there is no reason to believe that any of them "testified" for the gospels.

Actually there is good reason to believe they testified. The gospels, epistles, church father successors and other sources say they did.

Why would they make it up and we have no sources saying they did not at a minimum claim it.

No sources saying they did NOT testify or claim. No sources saying they wer NOT persecuted.

ONLY sources saying they DID claim and WER persecuted.

I think thats GOOD reason to believe they claimed or testified.

 

[lukethethird]

You could read for yourself but your too big on believing for the sake of believing that the book is all to be NOT taken litterally, so ill just leave you to your beliefs.

Does not help does it? You wont get me nor anyone who agrees with me to adopt your view with an additude like that.

Why should I try to convince you of anything? Your job as a believer is to accept what preachers tell you, every word of it, so good on you, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By your logic we should reject 99% of ancient documents because they were not written by eye witnesses.

You don't have a case against the gospels you have a case against the whole historical methodology.

As for the gospels, sure they all borrowed from Mark, but they also has other sources. This is why they are independent.

You are not paying attention. It is Christians that try to claim that the gospels are written by "eyewitnesses" and try to claim that gives them validity. Please do not project your flaws onto others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know for sure they borrowed ? Plus, even IF they did, that dont equal evil committed. So what if they wanted to jog memory. When people today write a book, they do brain storming first, then add details. Brain storming helps jog more memories.

Also since all 4 gospels have various different details and additional stories, that shows in itself they ARE 4 independent sources.

When whole text is lifted it is a bit of a give away. Teachers recognize this when students copy each other papers. Biblical scholars recognize this when the study the Bible. And no, source that copy each other cannot by definition be "independent":

How Editorial Fatigue Shows That Matthew and Luke Copied Mark

As usual Wiki has a good write up on this:

Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia

They got it from witnesses. Like luke said.



Actually there is good reason to believe they testified. The gospels, epistles, church father successors and other sources say they did.

Why would they make it up and we have no sources saying they did not at a minimum claim it.

No sources saying they did NOT testify or claim. No sources saying they wer NOT persecuted.

ONLY sources saying they DID claim and WER persecuted.

I think thats GOOD reason to believe they claimed or testified.

Where is that unattributed quote from? You need a source. You appear to have lifted that out of context by doing so. Also you do not seem to understand the burden of proof. I don't need to prove that something did not happen. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that something did not happen. For example there are no sources that claim that Jesus was not carried out of the tomb by giant rabbit, the origin of the Easter Bunny.

 

[leroy]

You are not paying attention. It is Christians that try to claim that the gospels are written by "eyewitnesses" and try to claim that gives them validity. Please do not project your flaws onto others.

We don't know if the authors where etewieyewi or not.


But this is what we do know
1 the authors intended to write realiable documents.

2 the authors had access to realiable sources

 

[Subduction Zone]

We don't know if the authors where etewieyewi or not.


But this is what we do know
1 the authors intended to write realiable documents.

2 the authors had access to realiable sources

Actually we are very sure that they are not. The date that the gospels were written make "eyewitness" testimony rather unlikely. And the authors may have had good intentions. Hmm, isn't there a saying about roads and good intentions?

 

[Jollybear]

Why should I try to convince you of anything? Your job as a believer is to accept what preachers tell you, every word of it, so good on you, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Why should i try to convince you of anything? Your job as a naturalist is to accept what naturalists with PHDs behind them tell you, every word of it, so good on you, and dont let anyone tell you otherwise.

Look in the mirror hypocrite.

Furthermore, your wrong, i dont listen or agree with preachers all the time. Alot of times i dont.

I think critically and thats that.

 

[Jollybear]

When whole text is lifted it is a bit of a give away. Teachers recognize this when students copy each other papers. Biblical scholars recognize this when the study the Bible. And no, source that copy each other cannot by definition be "independent":

How Editorial Fatigue Shows That Matthew and Luke Copied Mark

As usual Wiki has a good write up on this:

Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia

Ok, like i said though, even if they coppied sections, they obviously did not copy everything because of the supplementational stories and details, THUS MAKING THOSE PARTS INDEPENDENT.

Where is that unattributed quote from? You need a source.

You missed it. It was given to the other guy.

But, here it is again.

Luke 1:1-4

"1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled a among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

You appear to have lifted that out of context by doing so.

And im sure youl say it means something else. Go ahead.

Also you do not seem to understand the burden of proof. I don't need to prove that something did not happen. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that something did not happen. For example there are no sources that claim that Jesus was not carried out of the tomb by giant rabbit, the origin of the Easter Bunny.

The data does not belong to me, nor to you, nor to anybody. The data is what it is and says what it says. Both of us have a job in this debate to account for issues within and surounding the data, IF WER BOTH SERIOUS.

 

[lukethethird]

Why should i try to convince you of anything? Your job as a naturalist is to accept what naturalists with PHDs behind them tell you, every word of it, so good on you, and dont let anyone tell you otherwise.

Look in the mirror hypocrite.

Furthermore, your wrong, i dont listen or agree with preachers all the time. Alot of times i dont.

I think critically and thats that.

You believe the preachers that have been interpreting these gospels for a long time and as a believer you dismiss critical analyses that can be demonstrated to be objectively true out of hand. As far as the gospels go a lot of people swallow the story, hook, line, and sinker, you're not alone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, like i said though, even if they coppied sections, they obviously did not copy everything because of the supplementational stories and details, THUS MAKING THOSE PARTS INDEPENDENT.



You missed it. It was given to the other guy.

But, here it is again.

Luke 1:1-4

"1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled a among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."



And im sure youl say it means something else. Go ahead.



The data does not belong to me, nor to you, nor to anybody. The data is what it is and says what it says. Both of us have a job in this debate to account for issues within and surounding the data, IF WER BOTH SERIOUS.

You have a very flawed concept of independent.

And as you see, Luke openly admits that his accounts are not from eyewitnesses. It is hearsay at best.

 

[Jollybear]

You believe the preachers that have been interpreting these gospels for a long time and as a believer you dismiss critical analyses that can be demonstrated to be objectively true out of hand. As far as the gospels go a lot of people swallow the story, hook, line, and sinker, you're not alone.

You can say all that crap lies about me till your blue in the face man, it dont work on me.

Oh and where does plutarch mention the angel, son of God, jashua at?

 

[Jollybear]

You have a very flawed concept of independent.

Hows what i said flawed?

And as you see, Luke openly admits that his accounts are not from eyewitnesses. It is hearsay at best.

Heres what luke says:

Many made an account. Thats saying independent sources, thats what that claim means.

Secondly, luke made the claim that he got it from eyewitnesses, because he looked into it from the "beginning" and it was handed down from the eyewitnesses.

 

[leroy]

Actually we are very sure that they are not. The date that the gospels were written make "eyewitness" testimony rather unlikely. And the authors may have had good intentions. Hmm, isn't there a saying about roads and good intentions?

Never heard about that saying.......

We know that the authors where honestly trying to report what really happened because the gospels are fool of embarasing details that nobody would invent + the fact that the gospels have the same style as Greko- Roman biographies. Legends, myths, poems had different styles.

The reason why we know that the authors had access to reliable sources is because the gospels are correct in a multitude of geografical, political, demografic, historical etc. Details. Only someone with access to proper sources would have known all those details.

If I ask you to invent a story about a guy who lived in jerusalem 40 years ago......how likely is it that you would get these sorts of details correct? Would you know who was de Governor? Would you know who was the high priest? Would you know the names of the town's and the cities nearby? , would you know which cities where in the cost? .would you know about the political structure? ......


John died when he was 96 years old, he was probably living when his gospels was written. And it was the last gospel.

I don't know if the gospels where written by eye wirwitnes or not, but there where eye witnesses when the documents where written, any relevant lie or mistake would have been exposed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hows what i said flawed?



Heres what luke says:

Many made an account. Thats saying independent sources, thats what that claim means.

Secondly, luke made the claim that he got it from eyewitnesses, because he looked into it from the "beginning" and it was handed down from the eyewitnesses.

Luke specifically said in the verse that you quoted that they were handed down from eyewitnesses. Once they are handed down they are no longer eyewitness accounts. They are hearsay. Do you not know the definitions of those terms?

And he clearly copied from Mark, any school teacher could spot the plagiarism. Why do you have such a problem with this fact? Biblical scholars are very clear on this. Why are you so desperate to hang onto the independent account claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Never heard about that saying.......

We know that the authors where honestly trying to report what really happened because the gospels are fool of embarasing details that nobody would invent + the fact that the gospels have the same style as Greko- Roman biographies. Legends, myths, poems had different styles.

The reason why we know that the authors had access to reliable sources is because the gospels are correct in a multitude of geografical, political, demografic, historical etc. Details. Only someone with access to proper sources would have known all those details.

If I ask you to invent a story about a guy who lived in jerusalem 40 years ago......how likely is it that you would get these sorts of details correct? Would you know who was de Governor? Would you know who was the high priest? Would you know the names of the town's and the cities nearby? , would you know which cities where in the cost? .would you know about the political structure? ......


John died when he was 96 years old, he was probably living when his gospels was written. And it was the last gospel.

I don't know if the gospels where written by eye wirwitnes or not, but there where eye witnesses when the documents where written, any relevant lie or mistake would have been exposed.

Hardly, the so called "embarrassing details, like most Christian claims, are incredibly overblown. And how about the historical errors in the gospels? Does that make them unreliable? That someone that lived in an area and wrote a tail of it that is somewhat accurate does not help make that story "real". By that standard Spiderman should be taken seriously.

And no, most scholars do not think John wrote the gospel that bears his name. It is rather thought to have come from a community of the followers of John:

"C. K. Barrett,[4][Notes 2] and later Raymond E. Brown,[6] suggested that a tradition developed around the "Johannine Community", and that this tradition gave rise to the gospel.[7] The discovery of a large number of papyrusfragments of manuscripts with Johannine themes has led more scholars to recognize that the texts were among the most influential in the early Church.[8]

Gospel of John - Wikipedia

 

[lukethethird]

You can say all that crap lies about me till your blue in the face man, it dont work on me.

There is nothing to lie about, you believe on faith that the gospel stories are true just like so many others, miracles and all.

 

[leroy]

Hardly, the so called "embarrassing details, like most Christian claims, are incredibly overblown. And how about the historical errors in the gospels? Does that make them unreliable? That someone that lived in an area and wrote a tail of it that is somewhat accurate does not help make that story "real". By that standard Spiderman should be taken seriously.

And no, most scholars do not think John wrote the gospel that bears his name. It is rather thought to have come from a community of the followers of John:

"C. K. Barrett,[4][Notes 2] and later Raymond E. Brown,[6] suggested that a tradition developed around the "Johannine Community", and that this tradition gave rise to the gospel.[7] The discovery of a large number of papyrusfragments of manuscripts with Johannine themes has led more scholars to recognize that the texts were among the most influential in the early Church.[8]

Gospel of John - Wikipedia

But the author of Spiderman does not intend to write historical events.

In the case of the gospels we have authors with access to proper sources and the intention of reporting real historical events.

I agree maybe John did not write the document with his own hands, but he and many other witnesses where alive when the gospels where written, and could have expose any lie or mistake.

Is there any relevant historical error? In any case the number of historical truths are larger in numbee than the historical errors, this proves that the authors had access to reliable sources.

The point of the embarasing details is that only someone with the honest intention of reporting truth would have had included those details. For example woman being the most important witnesses of the resurrection is something that nobody would have invented.