The testimony of the NT writers

[Left Coast]

No, I don't think so.

"2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"

Doesn't fit your narrative.

This was already addressed. Which eyewitnesses? Which details were provided by which of them? This preamble in Luke is just a bald claim.

If Luke is the result of independent investigation of the facts, why is so much of his narrative lifted literally verbatim from prior texts?

 

[Kenny]

I believe there are people capable of critical thinking on the religious side, because all the time droves of people are being educated in critical thinking and leaving religion, however that doesn't indicate that critical thought processes equally favour religious and non-religious thought.

In my opinion.

I see it at just two critical thinkers looking at the same evidence but arriving at different conclusions. One isn't better than the other.

 

[Kenny]

This was already addressed. Which eyewitnesses? Which details were provided by which of them? This preamble in Luke is just a bald claim.

If Luke is the result of independent investigation of the facts, why is so much of his narrative lifted literally verbatim from prior texts?

That is a personal viewpoint which you are welcome to believe.

Actually, the proper statement would be "If Luke derived his information from Matthew and Mark, why are they so different?"

as far as which, I think he was pretty clear...2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Did you want him to enumerate which people when the person already knew, for your personal edification?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Some of those stories are apocryphal. Some are more plausible, but none (that i know of) were because anyone cared in particular about supernatural claims of angelic visits and the like. Let's also separate the views of regular average Joe people from narcissistic authoritarian emperors.

There's other historical sources for these events and about Jesus.

 

[Left Coast]

That is a personal viewpoint which you are welcome to believe.

As is yours that the account is inerrant. Mine is supported by the evidence, though.

Actually, the proper statement would be "If Luke derived his information from Matthew and Mark, why are they so different?"

Any teacher who has ever caught a student plagiarizing can answer that question. Plagiarism routinely occurs in chunks, where words here or there are slightly edited and other portions are written de novo to mask the copying.

Further, each Gospel writer (or more plausibly, set of writers and editors) had an agenda in crafting their account. Thus they edited details to match their goals.

 

[Left Coast]

There's other historical sources for these events and about Jesus.

Indeed there are historical sources for the persecution of Christians. But the details match what I've said. As far as Jesus - no, there's really very little. Josephus makes a passing reference, though even that is suspect for later Christian editing. Everything else I've ever seen apologists produce is from too far past the events in question; they are not contemporary sources who had any direct knowledge of Jesus. No non-Christian ever endorses any of the New Testament's miraculous claims, nor even its technically not miraculous but still wildly implausible claims, such as Jesus being some sort of celebrity who everyone in entire regions knew about and went to see and hounded him by the thousands everywhere he went like a rock star.

 

[Kenny]

As is yours that the account is inerrant. Mine is supported by the evidence, though.

No... you have opinions but no evidence.

Any teacher who has ever caught a student plagiarizing can answer that question. Plagiarism routinely occurs in chunks, where words here or there are slightly edited and other portions are written de novo to mask the copying.

Further, each Gospel writer (or more plausibly, set of writers and editors) had an agenda in crafting their account. Thus they edited details to match their goals.

I think you are trying to implement modern western thought to early Judeo writing.

And you base "their agenda" from which writings of their times? Another modern conspiracy theory

Ohhh. its the writers of their times when they wrote their anti-Luke history... that got lost somewhere.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Indeed there are historical sources for the persecution of Christians. But the details match what I've said. As far as Jesus - no, there's really very little. Josephus makes a passing reference, though even that is suspect for later Christian editing. Everything else I've ever seen apologists produce is from too far past the events in question; they are not contemporary sources who had any direct knowledge of Jesus. No non-Christian ever endorses any of the New Testament's miraculous claims, nor even its technically not miraculous but still wildly implausible claims, such as Jesus being some sort of celebrity who everyone in entire regions knew about and went to see and hounded him by the thousands everywhere he went like a rock star.

Tacitus (56-120AD)
Cornelius Tacitus was known for his analysis and examination of historical documents and is among the most trusted of ancient historians. He was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. In his “Annals’ of 116AD, he describes Emperor Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and Nero’s claim that the Christians were to blame:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

(Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Christ.)

 

[Wandering Monk]

I perceive prejudice there .

You make think an event is not possible because you never saw any similar. Does that mean that it didn't happen?
Your believing or not won't change anything, right?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Indeed there are historical sources for the persecution of Christians. But the details match what I've said. As far as Jesus - no, there's really very little. Josephus makes a passing reference, though even that is suspect for later Christian editing. Everything else I've ever seen apologists produce is from too far past the events in question; they are not contemporary sources who had any direct knowledge of Jesus. No non-Christian ever endorses any of the New Testament's miraculous claims, nor even its technically not miraculous but still wildly implausible claims, such as Jesus being some sort of celebrity who everyone in entire regions knew about and went to see and hounded him by the thousands everywhere he went like a rock star.

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Early Christians were also described in early, non-Christian history. Pliny the Younger, in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the lifestyles of early Christians:

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

 

[Wandering Monk]

Not interested on continue to talk with you.
Good bye.

The sound of your mind slamming shut.

 

[Left Coast]

No... you have opinions but no evidence.



I think you are trying to implement modern western thought to early Judeo writing.

And you base "their agenda" from which writings of their times? Another modern conspiracy theory

Ohhh. its the writers of their times when they wrote their anti-Luke history... that got lost somewhere.

Per usual, you're confidently wrong.

Please read some New Testament scholarship from non-fundamentlist sources.

If you'd like evidence of the verbatim copying from Mark and Matthew to Luke I'm happy to provide it. Though it should be pretty obvious to anyone who has studied the Gospels with any degree of attention.

 

[Left Coast]

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Early Christians were also described in early, non-Christian history. Pliny the Younger, in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the lifestyles of early Christians:

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

Cool. But that doesn't corroborate any of the details of the New Testament insofar as Jesus or the Apostles are concerned. Yeah, Christians existed in the first century. No one denies that.

 

[Kenny]

Per usual, you're confidently wrong.

Please read some New Testament scholarship from non-fundamentlist sources.

If you'd like evidence of the verbatim copying from Mark and Matthew to Luke I'm happy to provide it. Though it should be pretty obvious to anyone who has studied the Gospels with any degree of attention.

Perhaps you need to read the contemporaries viewpoint of their time who were in the know vs the conspiracy theorists who were never there?

If you studied with a little more critical thinking....

 

[Kenny]

.

Everything else I've ever seen apologists produce is from too far past the events in question; they are not contemporary sources who had any direct knowledge of Jesus.

This is quite funny. Even as you quote the "secularist scholars" that are WAAAAY past the events in question.

Double standard even.

 

[Nakosis]

Talking about the apostles someone said:
... and I answered:


If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, would its authenticity be more widely accepted? I think it would.

Then, what is the criterion by which the testimony of first-century Christians who wrote the NT is dismissed as true, while other testimonies of old times are considered more seriously?

Is it religious prejudice and discrimination?

No, not for me. I tend to not believe in secular writers of today with any less prejudice. That is part of critical thinking. There also exists plenty of evidence in the potential errors of eyewitness testimony so even if they are simply reporting events from "eyewitness" accounts I see no reason to automatically believe what is reported as current events on the basis of what any individual writes.

Even scientific papers require peer review. Secular writers are under a great deal more scrutiny. Religious authors can be/are generally accepted on faith. Secular authors are not afforded that luxury. It would certainly be a mistake just because an writer is non-religious to automatically assume what they write is more reliable.

 

[Left Coast]

Tacitus (56-120AD)
Cornelius Tacitus was known for his analysis and examination of historical documents and is among the most trusted of ancient historians. He was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. In his “Annals’ of 116AD, he describes Emperor Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and Nero’s claim that the Christians were to blame:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

(Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Christ.)

Let me ask you this. Have you ever read what actual, non-apologist historians have to say about these quotes you're pulling?

Firstly, you should know that there is a legitimate scholarly debate as to whether the section, "Christus....Pontius Pilate" is a later Christian interpolation into the text.

Secondly, if authentic, we don't know where Tacitus got this information. From Pliny? From what Christians told him? He doesn't say.

Thirdly, even if we just assume that he's right...it doesn't corroborate any miraculous claims of the New Testament. It corroborates at best that some guy named Christus was executed and his followers were later also persecuted. Okay. That doesn't make the New Testament writ large believable or reliable. Not even close.

 

[Left Coast]

.


This is quite funny. Even as you quote the "secularist scholars" that are WAAAAY past the events in question.

Double standard even.

Apples and oranges. Again, you really should consult some legitimate non-fundamentalist academic scholarship.

 

[Kenny]

Apples and oranges. Again, you really should consult some legitimate non-fundamentalist academic scholarship.

you ought to read history. If you don't, you will continue to make the same error that others in the past have made.

 

[Left Coast]

Perhaps you need to read the contemporaries viewpoint of their time who were in the know vs the conspiracy theorists who were never there?

If you studied with a little more critical thinking....

Which contemporaries? What did they know?

I'll leave your insults to the side.