Gospels are eyewitness accounts

[HypnoToad]

However, remember that the crowd often called him Son of David.

That doesn't make Him actually David's son. Like I said, it has to be stretched.

 

[Steve Petersen]

That doesn't make Him actually David's son. Like I said, it has to be stretched.

It is a title for Messiah in the Jewish world.

 

[HypnoToad]

It is a title for Messiah in the Jewish world.

Great. Still doesn't make Him David's actual son.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Great. Still doesn't make Him David's actual son.

I know. You are arguing with the other guy, not me.

 

[HypnoToad]

I know. You are arguing with the other guy, not me.

Ok, but looking at how you're quoting me & replying to me, it sure looks like you're disagreeing with me.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Ok, but looking at how you're quoting me & replying to me, it sure looks like you're disagreeing with me.

Not my intention.

 

[HitchSlap]

David wasn't Jesus' father.

Understood.

What's the point of mentioning Jesus' lineage then, if not to name drop?

Was "King of the Jews" an appropriate moniker?

 

[HypnoToad]

Understood.

What's the point of mentioning Jesus' lineage then, if not to name drop?

Doesn't matter, Jesus was not the son of a king.

Was "King of the Jews" an appropriate moniker?

Doesn't matter. A figurative title still doesn't make Jesus the son of a king.

 

[HitchSlap]

Doesn't matter, Jesus was not the son of a king.


Doesn't matter. A figurative title still doesn't make Jesus the son of a king.

So, Jesus is not "King of Kings"?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[HypnoToad]

So, Jesus is not "King of Kings"?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The R-R point is, since you seem to still be ignoring it, is "son of a king". No matter how many figurative titles Jesus has, it will never change the fact that Jesus was not actually the son of any king.

 

[RDKirk]

Quantity =\= quality.

I didn't say "more," I said "better."

 

[RDKirk]

So, the gospels are not eyewitness accounts?

When discussing ancient history sources, "eyewitness account" isn't much of a player. If you throw away everything that wasn't written by someone who actually witnessed the event "eyewitness account" you have no ancient history at all...except arguably some of the New Testament.

 

[RDKirk]

Surely that the apostles and companions of such are direct witnesses or quoting from direct witnesses adds to the credibility of the accounts. They spoke of things they had seen and heard not had passed down from centuries before as with Islam. Also what we know of these witnesses shows integrity and honesty and reliability as witnesses. All ,including Mark and Luke ,but excluding John, would die a martyrs death for the sake of the faith they professed.

I didn't say the gospels are not eyewitness accounts. I'm saying that "eyewitness account" is not an essential criterion for ancient history. The vast majority of ancient history are records by people who were not eyewitnesses.

 

[Steve Petersen]

When discussing ancient history sources, "eyewitness account" isn't much of a player. If you throw away everything that wasn't written by someone who actually witnessed the event "eyewitness account" you have no ancient history at all...except arguably some of the New Testament.

Except our eternal salvation doesn't depend on whether or not Aristotle lived.

Extraordinary claims for Jesus require extraordinary evidence.

 

[HypnoToad]

Extraordinary claims for Jesus require extraordinary evidence.

Vox Popoli: Pop illogic and "extra proof"

 

[RDKirk]

Except our eternal salvation doesn't depend on whether or not Aristotle lived.

Extraordinary claims for Jesus require extraordinary evidence.

Our eternal salvation does not depend on extraordinary evidence of 2000 years ago.

And even with that, there are people who don't believe the earth is round or that astronauts went to the moon...so even extraordinary evidence is debatable.

"Proven by extraordinary evidence" is not faith, and that would not be salvational, either.

 

[Not David]

Our eternal salvation does not depend on extraordinary evidence of 2000 years ago.

And even with that, there are people who don't believe the earth is round or that astronauts went to the moon...so even extraordinary evidence is debatable.

"Proven by extraordinary evidence" is not faith, and that would not be salvational, either.

I mean, there are people who claim the Holocaust never existed, and it only happened like 70 years ago.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Are the gospels eyewitness testimonies to the life of Jesus?

Almost certainly not. Mark, which the other Gospels draw from, is written with a story structure that reads like intentionally constructed mythology.

Even if you believe that it is inspired by real world events, these aren't "eyewitness testimonies" to real world events. It's a story.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[klutedavid]

Almost certainly not. Mark, which the other Gospels draw from, is written with a story structure that reads like intentionally constructed mythology.

Even if you believe that it is inspired by real world events, these aren't "eyewitness testimonies" to real world events. It's a story.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I do believe that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul, hence Luke would have conversed with the apostles. Luke as far as I am concerned is a very reliable guide to the life of Christ. In addition to being a direct eyewitness of the early church.

All I need is one of the gospel accounts to be authentic and Luke's account fits the bill.

 

[RDKirk]

I mean, there are people who claim the Holocaust never existed, and it only happened like 70 years ago.

With hundreds of American soldiers as eyewitnesses--a good number still alive.

But here is a point to the OP: If, say, PBS does program on the Holocaust in 2018 examining all current documentation, interviewing remaining eye-witnesses, et cetera...then 1,000 years from now should that program be rejected as not being itself an "eyewitness" account?

Frankly, the Gospel of Luke is probably the very best account by modern standards of any event in ancient history.