4 Gospels *not* an eye witness account of Jesus.
Offline I have, on a few occasions, got into a slight discussion with various people who try to prove the existence of Jesus. They often refer to the Bible's four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. They claim that these gospels show eye witness account of Jesus himself and due to the number and nature of the writings, he must have existed and been the son of the Judeo-Christian god.
I am of the opinion that there may have been a many named Jesus preaching and teaching during the suggested time, but that does not claim divinity nor does it actual prove the Jesus of the Bible existed, as the name was not an unpopular one (as was John, as you will note below). If there ever was a true eye witness of this man in the Bible stories, or of any sort of divinity, it has most likely since been destroyed and/or lost. Once again, though, this is hardly proof for him to be a "Son of God" and only indicates that someone in history may have existed. But I digress, as I stood to educate and refute the claims that the gospels were eye witness accounts of Jesus and here is why:
As for John the Apostle, he was a Jew, born in Bethsaida, and was an uneducated fisherman. The author of this particular gospel misquoted the location as there was confusion as there were two locations once known as Bethsaida, was not a practicing Jew although he knew of Jewish customs, and was a form of scholar based on his writings. For example, Pilate's title, Prefect. The term "Prefect" was explicitly abolished around mid-40 A.D. (10 years after Pilate had been removed from office). Tacitus, in 115 A.D., used the term Procurator as an error although it remained and circulated with this term. The Gospels refer to Pilate as a Procurator rather than as a Prefect, which is the only title he would have gone during the time of Jesus. Not to mentioned this author believe Jesus to be the "Son of God" whereas supposedly the Apostle John believed him to be a man.
Luke notes that the end of the age is supposed to come during his life, instead of the believed/indicated time of Jesus' followers or disciples. He would have known this had he been writing during the First Century, as even if there were followers of child/teenage aged, there would have been personal accounts had they even lived to 100. This is a indication he was writing at the end of First Century if not already in the Second century. It should also be noted that Luke's writing rely heavily on that of Jespehus' later work, which were not published until after 95 A.D.
It should also be noted that the epistles of Clement of Rome (approx 64-96 A.D.) made no mention of these gospels in circulation, although there is an indication of the epistles of Paul.
Matthew includes Mary having an affair with a Roman archer which did not actually circulate until Celsus in about 175 A.D. Matthew also makes claims of the story told by Jews of the stealing of Jesus' body although no mention of this "rumor" did not circulate until it is mentioned by Justin Martyr (c. 100 A.D.) and Tertullian (c. 155 A.D.).
Mark was the secretary of Bishop Papias who produced works in 130 A.D. He made many recounts of the disciple Peter to him. This is when the first mention of any of the gospels, namely The Gospel of Mark, was recording to have been in circulation... 140 A.D. Anything before this time is nonexistent and is importantly not referenced in many early Christian writings such as The Book of Hermas, Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, etc.
- Login to post comments
You were not my intended target, 12 was. So this hasn't worked the way I'd strategised. I shape my strategies for my target, so obviously you were immune to them. And this has now carried on long enough to innoculate 12 as well, so meh. Chalk one up for you.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
So let me get this right.
1. You have strong disbelief in God ("I view theism as an addiction of the mind") and equally strong disbelief in Jesus ("I hold the same view of jesus as I do any mythical being.") And you are happy to use dishonest and erroneous arguments to try to confound those who believe in them.
2. Yet at least one of the arguments you use to justify your disbelief in Jesus (that there is no historical reason to believe he was crucified) you have admitted to be wrong, and knowingly used by you even though you knew it was wrong.
3. All this is tactics, not based on truthfulness at all.
Is that correct?
One more point. You say "I have a very liquid strategy for debating theists, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest to be proven wrong on historical views as long as it allows me to prove them wrong on the science." Well here I am, a theist who has met the first part of your criteria, I've proved you wrong on history. I'd be interested to see how you would propose to prove me wrong from science.
thank you for clarifying your position. It also helps me in the thread on Dembski's kids showing up to get their grades.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
That is an impressive straw man you've constructed.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
No straw man, for it is based on what he said. I said I wanted to "get it right", and then I asked the question "Is that correct?" to test if I was right. If it is a straw man rather than a fair summary, I hope he will correct me.
He made a statement, I challenged it, and he admitted he didn't have any facts to back up his statement (#42). I said I hoped he didn't use the argument again then, (#44) and he explained (#45 onwards) that he used arguments that were effective and wasn't concerned whether he could back them up or not. He went on to explain that this was all a strategy.
What is your opinion on his approach in all this?
Best wishes.
I have a strong disbelief in gods that have been defined. I can't speak to a god that doesn't fit the definitions of mainstream religions. Mainstream religions propose gods that break the laws of physics, and are therefore impossible.
As to jesus, it is not that I disbelieve a carpenter wandered around teaching. I disbelieve that the man rose from death, performed miracles, and was the son of god. Leave that stuff out, and I'd accept he existed the same way I accept Ceasar and other figures from ancient history. Leave it in, and he becomes a mythical figure, akin to unicorns and noah.
To close, I have already injected science into our discussion regarding the resurrection. I have proven that there is no science to support such an occurrence, and plenty to dismiss it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Two points ....
1. You didn't correct me in my outline of your position. Can I assume I have summarised it correctly?
2. Can you please point out to me where you have injected some science? And can you show me where you have "proven that there is no science to support" the resurrection?
Thanks again.
Vastar, does what he does, for sheer enjoyment, he doesn't have much to offer in terms of intellectual stimulation, nor is he seeking to learn, or think himself, he's sort of a wasted cause, living in his own delusion of grandeur. He can barely form an argument without falling all over the place.
1: I did correct you, by rewriting it.
2: I listed two specific medical conditions and a law of physics that more than adequately proves there is no justification to believe resurrection ever happened. Now you're dodging.
12, please do continue to come back every now and then to keep making a fool of yourself. It pleases me.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
So does that mean you now repudiate this statement, where you say that you have "no problem with spouting proven lie after proven lie", or still believe it?
"Fact is that, as I mentioned above, the average theist who I come across has no problem spouting proven lie after proven lie after unsupported assertion. I have absorbed their tactics to mirror against them, coupled with the tactics of the scientist. Even if I'm way off, it has been a successful tactic, and I don't stop using successful tactics."
Agree with that statement, and my summary is fair. Repudiate that statement and my summary is no longer fair. Which is it?
Not dodging at all. I have never on this thread argued that the resurrection occurred, only that (1) historians tell us Jesus's followers believed it occurred right from the beginning, and (2) that you couldn't justify your statement that science had disproved the resurrection. I still haven't seen that proof.
In particular, you made this statement: "I can point at the entire accumulated knowledge of medicine, with how long after a lack of oxygen it takes before the brain is irreversably dead. Rigor mortis is another preventative factor. Once these things have set in, the brain has been destroyed beyond repair of todays technology, let alone the technology of 2000 years ago, or even technology of the future. Once the neural pathways have degraded, they're gone forever."
That tells us that, in the natural course of events, what will happen. I have no argument there. But those who believe in the resurrection don't believe that events were allowed to run their natural course. They believe God intervened.
So, how does science prove that God didn't intervene?
Best wishes.
Your summary is based on one excerpt that does not contain the context or the clarifications made to assist your understanding of my position, so it is a strawman. It's called quote mining.
Regarding the resurrection, as you acknowledge, I proved it is impossible to occur naturally. In order to continue you must, and did, assert that there must be more than the natural, which shifts the burden of proof to you. So yes, you are dodging.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I am honestly unable to tell from this statement whether you endorse or retract your statement, nor are you apparently willing to clarify it. So it stands written, without any modification, that you "have absorbed their tactics" of "spouting proven lie after proven lie after unsupported assertion." They are your words.
And I see now, what I didn't realise before, that it might make little difference if you did retract those words. For I wouldn't know if the retraction was genuine, or just another strategic "proven lie". So now the words are written, it is very difficult for me, or anyone else who reads those words, to take you seriously again.
What a sad situation to get oneself into. It is truly said: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."
And so we come to your admitted tactic of "unsupported assertion". I have made just one statement about the resurrection - that historians say that Jesus "was believed by his followers to have risen from the dead". I can support that statement with quotes if you contest it. But I have never chosen to "continue" from there (in fact I clearly said: "I don't intend to get into a discussion on the resurrection beyond that"), and so I have no burden of proof.
You too have made a clear statement about the resurrection: "We know from science the probability of rising from the dead is 0". You have shown how science tells us that in the natural course of events people who die stay dead, but as no-one who believes in the resurrection believes that events followed their natural course, that is no proof. But you are unable to prove from science that God didn't intervene.
Conclusion:
I think we have had enough bickering about who is dodging, and all that adversarial stuff. Let's sum up.
I have avoided making statements, preferring to question your statements (it's an elementary fact of discussion that the more you claim, the more you have to justify). But I have made two clear statements (historians believe Jesus existed and that his followers believed he rose from the dead). They are both correct statements - I have supported one and can support the other.
You have made two clear statement (that the lack of written records proves that Jesus wasn't crucified, and that science can prove the resurrection didn't happen). You have been unable to support either statement. What's worse, you have admitted to using "proven lies and unsupported assertion" to try to argue your position.
Do you realise where this leaves you? No arguments (so far), a reputation as dishonest (by your own admittance), and no success with your arguments on this thread.
But when I returned to the discussion, it wasn't with the purpose of renewing an argument, but with the purpose of offering you an opportunity to choose differently. So how about it?
You could choose to give up a strategy that involves "proven lie after proven lie after unsupported assertion"; you could choose to avoid a belief that requires you to make claims you cannot support and use arguments that are based on untruths to support your own position. You could choose to re-think your beliefs according to evidence and reason.
I don't expect you to tell me you will do that - that would be asking too much. But you could do it, and base your life on the truth. What have you got to lose?
Best wishes.
Your unwillingness to understand basic English is disheartening. Hopefully you'll understand one day. Until then, your comments are there for all to see, so I have no need to quote them to display your masterful, but futile, attempts to dodge your own dilemma.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I didn't really expect anything else, but I did try. Remember, you can still change after I've gone, and I need never know.
Farewell.
Right back at you. Though as our conversation is apparently over, I would like to thank you for a civil discussion that didn't degenerate into a flame war, regardless of our opinions on each others positions. Especially so as I can see how my frustration boiled into my posts. It is very rare indeed that I have encountered such patience and willingness to turn the cheek, as it were, from theists. 99% of the time I don't even come close to making the first dig. I appreciate the change of pace. I don't know if you will read this, but I hope you do.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Thanks.