Jesus followers. Before we can consider them being eyewitnesses we have to first establish that they actually were. Yet as far as I know, none of Gospel writers claim to have been eyewitnesses or even suggest that they have spoken to some.
Luke 1:1-4
1 Since many people have attempted to write an orderly account of the events that have transpired among us,
2 just as they were passed down to us by those who had been eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning,
3 I, too, have carefully investigated everything from the beginning and have decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Its pretty clear that Luke at least, does not consider those before him to have been able to do this. And that these were not written by eyewitnesses but rather passed down to them, by those that were.
Luke. How many Gospel writers were they again?
I think everyone knows that Luke never claimed to be an actual eyewitness to Jesus activities. He became a disciple some time after Jesus' death, and before Paul's conversion. So likely 34/35.
Matthew and John were eyewitnesses.
(John 21:24) This is the disciple who gives this witness about these things and who wrote these things, and we know that his witness is true.
Mark was not, but his information was apparently gathered mostly from Peter.
Contrary to popular opinion, it is evident that Matthew did not copy, or borrow from Mark. Nor vice versa.
An examination of Matthew’s account shows that more than 40 percent of his record, is not found in the other three Gospels.
Not 100% sure I understand what you mean. But if I do, I would consider the lack of observation and experience of something as being evidence for it not being possible. And would consider that a reasonable standpoint until proven differently.
Scientists make inferences of things they don't observe. They rely on their experience and previous observations. Do you consider that solid evidence?
When I write "we" I refer to what the main scholars seem to agree on. Obviously you will always have someone that disagree.
From the article:
I should stress that the views I lay out here are not unique to me, as if I’m the one who thought all this up. On the contrary, the views I will be laying out here are those held by virtually every professor of biblical studies who teaches at every major liberal arts college or research university in North America. Take your pick: Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, University of Chicago, University of Kansas, University of Nebraska, University of Minnesota, University of Florida, Amherst, Middlebury, Oberlin — literally, pick any top liberal arts college or state university in North America, and the views that I will be sketching here are pretty much the sorts of things you will find taught there.
Can you explain what a main scholar is? I don't know of any such thing.
Im sorry but that is absolutely bullocks
Whatever that means to people who use it. I haven't a clue.
Try to read what you are claiming:
1. when this ruler left his daughter, she was alive, but he knew she was dying, and had little time left.
2. So he obviously believe that by the time he found Jesus, his daughter would be dead.
3. the daughter did not live a stone's throw away from where Jesus was, so they had to travel.
Just from a logical point of view, if you read the above 3 sentences as if it were a real story.
A person whos knows his daughter is about to die, chooses to travel a long time to reach Jesus, knowing that his daughter will die in the meantime, Yet he still does, so he can't be with his daughter when she dies? Are you really suggesting that this explain the differences in the story and that they are in fact the same?
And you called it what?
Obviously you don't understand much about the life of Jesus. I wish you did though. At least I would feel better if you knew what you were talking about. Sorry. That was a swift uppercut in response to the bull...o
x?
Go learn your Bible and come back. Oops. Sorry. Couldn't help a second.
Actually, you went away from the point, but no problem, it just means I can help you in two areas.
1. The accounts compliment each other. That's important to emphasize.
2. When one understands what faith is, they have no problem with a man traveling to the ends of the earth to find a man he heard about, that can not only heal the sick, but raise the dead.
If people knew of one doctor who could do both, they would leave the bedside of their dying relative, in search of that doctor. That is sensible.
Its been so long so not sure, I think you referred to this guy in Acts as speaking wise words, which to me didn't sound all that wise. Anyway not sure if it was about that
.
I could remind you, but that's chicken feed, compared to what I am about to throw at you.
So it would have been possible for Jesus to have been killed by a random person when he were a young boy, so we would never have heard of him? And in that case God would just have made a new Jesus?
No. You are speculating, big time... and you have nothing substantial.
Any action made to stop the fulfillment of God's purpose would be met with God's intervention. That did occur. Matthew 2.
Nothing could stop God's will from taking place, and man could still exercise his own free will.
I believe I already answered this before. But basically I think the bible hold some historical accounts that are exaggerated to serve a purpose for the Jewish people at the time. So you will find city names, battles, some people that have existed, but mixed with a lot of supernatural and religious stuff that I think is made up.
Sorry. I just wanted to be doubly sure. Thanks.
But you could claim the same for the terrorists? Obviously those people wouldn't do it if it were a lie. The issue is not whether its a lie or not, but whether a person is convinced that what they believe is true.
So I wouldn't compare the apostles with that of terrorists, when it comes to motive, because there doesn't seem to be any historical support (At least as far as I know) that Paul or any of the other writers would see killing as an option to make their case. The punishment and suffering of nonbelievers seems to be handed over to God in the NT, compared to the OT where a lot of people that God do not like or that is considered to have false God, should be killed. So as far as I can see, there is a shift between the OT and NT. And it is first later in history that we have all the inquisitions, conversion, crusades, witch hunting etc.
However none of this prevent the followers to be committed to what they believe in and therefore have a motive, you have evidence of this from cults, but also established religions.
You have examples of JWs not wanting to take blood, because of this conviction in what they believe. You have that guy that travelled to the Andaman Islands trying to spread the word of Jesus to the Sentinelese people and ending up being killed by them. People do not do this if they are not committed to what they believe in. So there are lots of examples of people doing things that have nothing to do with them becoming martyrs, but purely due to faith.
I think you missed the point.
Secondly, you are assuming that anything someone believes contrary to what you accept, is a lie.
Those people all believe in their cause.
(John 16:2) . . .Men will expel you from the synagogue. In fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think he has offered a sacred service to God.
The point being made, is that they would not have taken such a course for something they believed to be a lie.
If you could demonstrate an ulterior motive, then you would be making a valid argument.
Just for clarification.
What do you mean that it gives us a complete picture of every aspect of life?
What do you mean by, secular worldviews being filled with gaps, in what way do you see this?
That will be a long post, so I will return to this later.
