The testimony of the NT writers

[lukethethird]

The existence of Jesus is an establish fact , it is also an establish fact that he did stuff that some interpreted as miracles,

Weather if there were real miracles or just illusions is a different discussion

Jesus existing is a faith belief, and a bit of a yawner at that.

Well we simply have different standards,

To me the fact that we have multiple independent sources confirming the crucifixion is enough to establish it as an “almost certain historical fact”

If your standards are higher than that, then all I can say is that you should be agnostic about everything in ancient history Because nearly no other event form ancient history is supported with more evidence

The gospels and Acts read like fables because they are. They are not a part of history.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Just to rectify one thing: there is another apostles in the a): Matthew. So they were:

a) three apostles:Matthew, John and Peter
b) two half-brothers of Jesus: Jude and James
c) two disciples: Luke and Mark
d) Paul

8 Jews, all of them related to Jesus or to someone who met Jesus directly.

This is my last post on this forum. I have not been treated with respect, and yet the very ones who have disrespected me are continually demanding what they do not provide. However, while no one calls those others out (usually atheists or impostors pretending to be believers), the forum moderation has been constantly calling me out... same discrimination as they do to the NT, so nothing new . I already ask for my account to be deleted from this website. Hopefully they will respect my wish.

My time is priceless and if they don't value it, I do. See you somewhere else. The network is huge.

Sorry, but you have not been pleasant. You seem to like to fight.

 

[danieldemol]

Do you really think that "research into memory recollection" is a modern technique?

Yes, we have scientific publications discussing the results of modern scientific research into memory recollection. What papers discussing memory research did the ancients publish?

Didn't you read the post about Luke research?

This is how the Gospel of Luke starts:

Luke 1:1 Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent The·ophʹi·lus, 4 so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.
5 In the days of Herod, king of Ju·deʹa, there was a priest named Zech·a·riʹah of the division of A·biʹjah. His wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth ...

And he said later:

... 3:1 In the 15th year of the reign of Ti·beʹri·us Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Ju·deʹa, Herod was district ruler of Galʹi·lee, Philip his brother was district ruler of the country of It·u·raeʹa and Trach·o·niʹtis, and Ly·saʹni·as was district ruler of Ab·i·leʹne, 2 in the days of chief priest Anʹnas and of Caʹia·phas, God’s declaration came to John the son of Zech·a·riʹah in the wilderness.

I believe none of that discusses research into memory recollection.

In my opinion

 

[danieldemol]

The application of Clement of Rome and others that I mentioned was that they did quote the Gospels and letters validating that what was written was accepted by the people of that time. (Not to mention that basically there aren't any evidence of anybody disputing it during that time)

The problem with 2,000 years later is that although there may be more tools they also apply personal opinions at the expense of those who were closer to the event.

So, if the fathers said "Matthew wrote the Gospel that has its name" and 2000 years later a "scholar says" no he didn't or I'm not sure, one would be more logical in accepting those closest to the event.

I believe that Clement knew Paul and knew Peter.
Philippians 4:3
Indeed, true companion, I ask you also, help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement as well as the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

How do we know that that Clement was the same Clement of Rome? Was there only one Clement in the entire early Christian community?
And even if Clement knew Peter (Paul never met Jesus so I don't even see the relevance of adding him in), how can we feel confident that Clement's or even Peter's recollection decades after the event is an accurate protrayal of what was said?
Then there is the elephant in the room that I believe you haven't addressed, if myself, @Left Coast , @Subduction Zone , @lukethethird and even up to a dozen others were to claim for example that Subduction Zone's father raised the dead and fulfilled thousands of prophecies and could grant you eternal life, I still feel confident that you would dismiss our claim of miracles without even giving it much of a second thought. This suggests to me that you either have been culturally indoctrinated into christianity, or that you had some other motive to your acceptance of it.

I also believe that St Ignatius of Antioch knew Peter and John. Polycarp, if I am not mistaken, knew John.

So if these quote any scriptures, should we give it value as a witness to who wrote it?

I don't see much point adding to your claims until we can gain resolution on your initial claim.

 

[Kenny]

How do we know that that Clement was the same Clement of Rome? Was there only one Clement in the entire early Christian community?
And even if Clement knew Peter (Paul never met Jesus so I don't even see the relevance of adding him in), how can we feel confident that Clement's or even Peter's recollection decades after the event is an accurate protrayal of what was said?
Then there is the elephant in the room that I believe you haven't addressed, if myself, @Left Coast , @Subduction Zone , @lukethethird and even up to a dozen others were to claim for example that Subduction Zone's father raised the dead and fulfilled thousands of prophecies and could grant you eternal life, I still feel confident that you would dismiss our claim of miracles without even giving it much of a second thought. This suggests to me that you either have been culturally indoctrinated into christianity, or that you had some other motive to your acceptance of it.

First, you took the Clement issue out of context. The context was that they knew the Apostles and confirmed who wrote the Gospels.

Second, you won't accept any testimony even if it is from Matthew, John, Mark and Peter that have been confirmed as written by them by those who knew them

Last, you are right, after 50 years, I don't remember when my dad saw us off (without warning) shipping us off to Spain. I don't remember when he manipulated my life at 16. Time has made me forget the home that my wife lived in and how I caught 20+ mice living in home in one night. YUP! My recollection of how my dad did speak reason into my life to not pick up smoking like he and my brothers did. My memory is real foggy on accounting principles that I still used today. You are so right that my Spanish has left the coup of my mind as I continue preaching in that language even as Peter and the others continued to preach the message that was given to them year after year after year.
Yes, if you keep preaching the same message and rehearsing what you saw and heard, it simply leaves your mind decades later as you continue preaching the same message and rehearsing what you saw. After all, everyone forgets the miracles they saw and did. I have forget how God healed my back 30 years ago and removed my reoccurring bout with an instant fever and sneezing that lasted for 48 hours. You have such sound logic.

So, in reality, the issue is yours and you haven't proved that my position is wrong (as did the others that you mentioned). You have been culturally brain washed IMO

 

[danieldemol]

First, you took the Clement issue out of context. The context was that they knew the Apostles and confirmed who wrote the Gospels.

I'm asking how we know Clement of Rome knew the apostles?

Second, you won't accept any testimony even if it is from Matthew, John, Mark and Peter that have been confirmed as written by them by those who knew them

I think I missed the part where we actually established that Clement of Rome knew Peter let alone the others you are now adding to your claim (are you trying to do a gish gallop or seeking a resolution?) I would accept testimony as testimony of eye witnesses if I could know that it was the testimony of eyewitnesses, but I would not accept that their testimony accurately reflected actual events without sufficient evidence, which considering the miraculous nature of the claims being handed down I don't believe you have provided.

Last, you are right, after 50 years, I don't remember when my dad saw us off (without warning) shipping us off to Spain. I don't remember when he manipulated my life at 16. Time has made me forget the home that my wife lived in and how I caught 20+ mice living in home in one night. YUP! My recollection of how my dad did speak reason into my life to not pick up smoking like he and my brothers did. My memory is real foggy on accounting principles that I still used today. You are so right that my Spanish has left the coup of my mind as I continue preaching in that language even as Peter and the others continued to preach the message that was given to them year after year after year.

Talk about strawmen, although I can't confirm any of the details of your personal life, I have not disputed everything in your memory.

Yes, if you keep preaching the same message and rehearsing what you saw and heard, it simply leaves your mind decades later as you continue preaching the same message and rehearsing what you saw. After all, everyone forgets the miracles they saw and did. You have such sound logic.

First of all there are elements of Jesus message that according to my understanding He is only alleged to have said once such as the sermon on the mount.
Second of all I'm disputing that eyewitness testimony is sufficient for claims of miracles, it appears to me you didn't even address the statement I made about if 12 of us made the claim of miracles etc you would dismiss it without a second thought.

So, in reality, the issue is yours and you haven't proved that my position is wrong (as did the others that you mentioned). You have been culturally brain washed IMO

Ok, so let's put this claim to the test, if I can show you an actual video of a Hindu "miracle" will you accept that Hinduism is the true religion? I think even witnessing it yourself will not be enough to convince you that an actual God-given miracle occcured - or that such a miracle would prove all the other claims in the religion in question.

So here is a link of a Hindu priest praying and an island allegedly moves across the water in response to his prayer

Questions for you Kenny;
Has an actual God-given miracle occurred here?
Is this enough to convert you to Hinduism?

In my opinion

 

[pearl]

Hmm, well I don't think "modern critics" wrote the Bible I have, that flat out says the Gospels are anonymous.

Yes. The only Gospel that states a name is John. All others were anonymous with the names, attributed by the Church.

 

[leroy]

Wow! I offered to support my claims. You ran away not me. As a courtesy I accepted your post where you made a bunch of unsupported claims. My acceptance included similar claims that to be consistent you needed to accept. When you did not accept my claims then you put the burden of proof for your claims back on you. I offered to support mine once you supported yours. You ran away at that point.

You need to be consistent. Don't be a jerk and demand of others what you refuse to do yourself. This sort of behavior is why you are in corrections only mode.

If there is a claim that I haven’t support, please quote it and I will be happy to support it

Why can´t I get the same courtesy from you?


Quite frankly I don’t even know why you think I am being a Jerk

 

[leroy]

The gospels and Acts read like fables because they are. They are not a part of history.

and your evidence is????????????????????

 

[lukethethird]

and your evidence is????????????????????

I read them. I've read historians from the time and other fables, they're fables. The gospels contain a storied plotline just like any other fiction. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

 

[leroy]

I don't agree, but I can stipulate to the idea that somebody resembling the description of Jesus less the miracles lived in that time and place. As I've said before, it doesn't matter to me if that is true or not if Jesus was just another man.



Same answer. It doesn't matter to an unbeliever.



I am. That doesn't mean that I don't consider some claims more likely than others. I don't know who actually wrote Shakespeare, but it also doesn't matter. It might be interesting to know, but what if Shakespeare is the work of two women? OK. Same plays, no better, no worse. That's the important difference between words said to come from a deceased human being and those said to come from a god, where the words might matter here and now in an important way and should not be lightly tossed aside. Other words can be violently flung across the room without much cost if it suits one.



I doubt that Pilate was doing favors for the Jews. Jesus was accused of calling himself the king of the Jews. The Jews saw that as blasphemy against their god, whereas the Romans considered it treason against their emperor. The Romans didn't care if the Jews thought Jesus was a blasphemer. Had his blasphemy been something irrelevant to the Romans, such as saying that Jehovah didn't exist, why would the Romans even take interest? It was no doubt the treason that got the Romans' attention, not the Jews' complaint.

But this brings to mind something interesting. Was Jesus the only defendant convicted of two different capital crimes by two different courts?

Well we know from other sources (Josephus for example) that Pilate was flexible and accommodating towards the demands of the Jewish leaders.

So the claim that Pilate crucified Jesus just to please the Jewish leaders is consistent with what we know about Pilate.

Pilate Attitude towards the Jewish leaders seemed to have been

“just pay your taxes and don’t rebel against Rome, and you can do whatever you want with your people

Romans considered it treason against their emperor.

Jesus told his people to pay taxes, and not to revel against Rome, this would have been enough for Pilate to consider him an innocent person .

Pilate was just pleasing the Jewish leaders.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see anything modern in not realizing that the New Testament writings circulated through most of the territories of the Roman Empire without any resistance during all the years that followed the events they recount. There were people contemporary to the events that were still alive, for God's sake!!! Copies and mre copies; translations and more translations ...

Don't you realize how ridiculous it is that more than 20 centuries later someone is making excuses not to believe something that could have been denied just when those writings began to circulate?

What scientific is there in that?

If there is a claim that I haven’t support, please quote it and I will be happy to support it

Why can´t I get the same courtesy from you?


Quite frankly I don’t even know why you think I am being a Jerk

Use the back arrows, When you can't follow along in a conversation you can't make demands of this sort.

Do you understand what I am talking about?

 

[leroy]

I read them. I've read historians from the time and other fables, they're fables. The gospels contain a storied plotline just like any other fiction. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

The gospels contains verifiable facts form history (showing that the authiors where well informed and had acces to good sources)

The gospels contain embarrassing details, things that work again their “agenda” of promoting Christianity (this shows that the authors where honest and honestly tried to report what they thought was true)


So if the authors where well informed and the authors where honestly trying to report what actually happen then the sources are reliable ……….. please tell me exactly where is your disagreement

 

[leroy]

Use the back arrows, When you can't follow along in a conversation you can't make demands of this sort.

Do you understand what I am talking about?

And we are back

You can’t support your claims, you can’t support your accusation ……………. All you have are lies

 

[Subduction Zone]

The gospels contains verifiable facts form history (showing that the authiors where well informed and had acces to good sources)

The gospels contain embarrassing details, things that work again their “agenda” of promoting Christianity (this shows that the authors where honest and honestly tried to report what they thought was true)


So if the authors where well informed and the authors where honestly trying to report what actually happen then the sources are reliable ……….. please tell me exactly where is your disagreement

And verifiable errors too.

And what "embarrassing details"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And we are back

You can’t support your claims, you can’t support your accusation ……………. All you have are lies

No. You refused to do your homework. You lost the ability to demand evidence as a result.

It is not that hard. Your mistake was explained to you as soon as you made it. You then started to run away again.

 

[lukethethird]

The gospels contains verifiable facts form history (showing that the authiors where well informed and had acces to good sources)

The gospels contain embarrassing details, things that work again their “agenda” of promoting Christianity (this shows that the authors where honest and honestly tried to report what they thought was true)


So if the authors where well informed and the authors where honestly trying to report what actually happen then the sources are reliable ……….. please tell me exactly where is your disagreement

Not one single scene written of in the gospels can be verified nor would a non believer expect there to be when reading a fable.

What is or is not embarrassing is a subjective exercise and a futile, fallacious argument.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

You wrote " That is funny. How do you know there were 12 if you say you "only supposedly hear from two"?
You did hear about the twelve ... but you don't believe."

Simple, Christianity tells us 12. However the gospels were anonymous at least until well into the second century when they were assigned "writers"

Four Evangelists - Wikipedia.

I suspect that there were far fewer. Since the fish and bread imagery was used prior to the crucifix, I suspect we are looking at no more than 7 in the inner circle. Later, when Christianity tried to seem like Judaism, they switched to 12 to match the supposed twelve tribes.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Tell me: do you think that some men of the first century agreed to invent a story like that of Jesus Christ that is recorded in the four gospels, even if the events were recent and easily refuted?

Given that they often complain that no one believes them, clearly the people thought they were lying.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Pilate Attitude towards the Jewish leaders seemed to have been “just pay your taxes and don’t rebel against Rome, and you can do whatever you want with your people

There is evidence to the contrary. The Sanhedrin would have executed Jesus after convicting him of blasphemy were it permitted. According to the story, the were forced to take him to Pilate for judgment and punishment. They understood that the same statements that they considered blasphemy against their god would be seen as treason against the emperor, and they could get him executed that way.

The gospels contains verifiable facts form history

Why would that matter? Do you think that that is enough to make them reliable? A Tale of Two Cities has verifiable facts form history, but it is still fiction.

The gospels contain embarrassing details, things that work again their “agenda” of promoting Christianity (this shows that the authors where honest and honestly tried to report what they thought was true)

A good tax cheat always includes a few "mistakes" in the government's favor. It looks better when you are accused of tax fraud due to 18 phony deductions totaling $300,000 if you also include two totaling $1000 that cost you money. It's called plausible deniability.