Jesus of History and Myth

[cvanwey]

Similar but not the same.
Direct versus indirect.
If I accept. Matthews claims of having seen X?
Then maybe I should accept. All of those men's claims. That, they saw Golden plates.
assuming, of course that I trust them. As much as I Trust Matthew.

Hypothetically. In theory, There is a difference between seeing Golden plates, and those Golden plates actually having the Book of Mormon inscribed upon them. In and archaic language. That only Joseph Smith was miraculously able to decipher. That is yet one other. One more. Leap of logical faith. Unless you are saying that all of those gentlemen, swore on their honor that they saw Golden plates AND. Deciphered the Golden plates into the Book of Mormon.

Whereas Matthew had nothing, he had to decipher. He witnessed. His equivalent of Golden plates, he witnessed his Golden Miracle. Which required no further deciphering or any other effort on his part?

"Matthew" reports that the walking dead appeared to 'many'. Do we have testimony from those 'many'? No? Do we even know who these 'many' actually are? No? Okay. So we STILL have more, under the Book of Mormon, then we do here with the Bible passages don't we

Again, it appears extremely clumsy to hinge truth claims upon anecdotal reports, which are not well corroborated even under the lowest of standards. Again, witnessing a one-time event, if not witnessed from many differing and non-bias perspectives, especially when the claim is of such a large magnitude, appears very not-well-thought-out to perform (i.e.) clumsy.

 

[inquiring mind]

Eyewitness testimony can only be confirmed by eyewitnesses.

But it can be contradicted by present day scoffers... yeah right.

There exists NO way to refute what someone else saw, if the one refuting or not believing the claim was not there.

You're trying hard to do it.

However, and this is a HUGE however, the fact there exists no secular accounts of seeing the walking dead, the rising dead, or a post mortem Jesus, (as it's expressed in scripture of many seeing as such), is what's ACTUALLY odd.

Again, maybe there were no secular contradictions because they knew it was true, otherwise, you would expect to see some type of 'this didn't happen, this is crazy' document by some notable non-believer of the day. I don't see how anyone could have resisted commenting if they thought something of this magnitude was a lie.

Any secular later writings were simply reports of what was believed by others. No secular writings were even alive at the time such events were claimed (i.e.) Josephus, Tacitus, etc...

Oh, come on... you don't think there were educated people, religious leaders, government officials, etc. (who wanted their own personal history to live on) who wouldn't have recorded something in their memoirs about these remarkable events, if they thought they were untrue?

 

[cvanwey]

You're trying hard to do it.

You cannot prove a negative. If I claim I saw a legitimate UFO, could you REALLY disprove it if you weren't there? However, what's more likely...

I did see it, as there has been thousands of documented sightings of UFO related events; even documented mass sightings of such in the past?

Or...

I'm either lying, fibbing, delusional, or other, in lieu of the fact that I have no other corroborated reportings of the very same event?

Again, maybe there were no secular contradictions because they knew it was true, otherwise, you would expect to see some type of 'this didn't happen, this is crazy' document by some notable non-believer of the day. I don't see how anyone could have resisted commenting if they thought something of this magnitude was a lie.

Such documents were not combined and canonized until much later. By then, anyone and everyone whom would even possibly care to bother to even refute such claims are long dead. Prior to this, all we had were oral traditions, oral reportings, and random writings. None of which were declared authoritative in any manor.

Oh, come on... you don't think there were educated people, religious leaders, government officials, etc. (who wanted their own personal history to live on) who wouldn't have recorded something in their memoirs about these remarkable events, if they thought they were untrue?

You do understand that without Emperor Constantine, whom legalized Christianity because he was a believer, this is a large reason Christianity began to flourish. During this era, we did not have a democracy, like we do today here in the west. We had a theocracy

 

[inquiring mind]

You cannot prove a negative. If I claim I saw a legitimate UFO, could you REALLY disprove it if you weren't there? However, what's more likely...

I did see it, as there has been thousands of documented sightings of UFO related events; even documented mass sightings of such in the past?

Or...

I'm either lying, fibbing, delusional, or other, in lieu of the fact that I have no other corroborated reportings of the very same event?




Such documents were not combined and canonized until much later. By then, anyone and everyone whom would even possibly care to bother to even refute such claims are long dead. Prior to this, all we had were oral traditions, oral reportings, and random writings. None of which were declared authoritative in any manor.



You do understand that without Emperor Constantine, whom legalized Christianity because he was a believer, this is a large reason Christianity began to flourish. During this era, we did not have a democracy, like we do today here in the west. We had a theocracy

I'm talking about memoirs, not publicized works. I'm also talking about contradictions, not supporting statements.

 

[Erik Nelson]

This entire response just reinforces my position. Which is...

It seems convenient that the only report of such a miraculous event is from the bias report of the Bible writer itself. We have no other reported sightings; even though the Bible mentions MANY seeing as such. Seems odd. Don't you think?

So again, what's more likely?

a) It really happened because "Matthew" says so.
b) "Matthew" wrote of such a tale decades after the claimed event, and by the time there would be people literate enough to even read of such a claim, they would have not been alive during the claimed event anyways. And being that we have absolutely no surviving documentation in the first or second century of a report, option b) appears more highly likely.

You yourself have acknowledged that very few people were literate in the first century. Thus Matthew was one of the few Christians Literate. He wrote for his entire Christian community. He cited as witnesses no less than the mother of the Messiah. The mother of 2 of the other apostles. And we know from the Gospel of John. That the Apostle John was also with. Mary the mother of Jesus at the foot of the cross. So implicitly, Matthew is also citing the Apostle John the beloved disciple as yet another witness.

Widely acknowledged that John the beloved disciple survived until the turn of the second century. He lived until about 100 AD. No matter when you think Matthew wrote his gospel. John was still alive. Any Christian in doubt could in principle have asked the Apostle John residing in Ephesus in Asia Minor. Modern Turkey whether he really witnessed. The miracle with the mother of Jesus and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Mary the mother of Jesus.
The mother of the sons of Zebedee.
John the beloved Apostle.

For a Christian those are big names to be tossing around lately. It is highly unlikely that Matthew made up words and put them into the mouths Of John and the mother of 2 of the other Apostles and the mother of the Messiah himself.

Technically, it is not Christians fault that non Christian Jews rose up against Rome. Throwing it out of the country and destroying all of their. Records in headquarters. Nor is it the fault of Christians at the Romans eventually counter attacked and defeated the non Christian Jews in the first century.

Of course, it would be nice if more records survived from the first century. If we keep digging perhaps we will find. More records and more evidence from that time.

I still think you are misrepresenting the statistics.

What we have here and now? Yes, one of one surviving historical sources, claiming the miracle occurred. 100%. Of. 1 surviving document. Says so

I will acknowledge that the claim is uncorroborated -- Although again, Matthew implicitly sites John as a witness. Since Matthew cites, everybody else, John was with at the foot of the cross. And John lived until 100 AD after even skeptics acknowledge. the earliest copies of Matthew were written.

But it is in no way. Contradicted, denied. Or otherwise inconsistent with any other known. Sources.

 

[Erik Nelson]

You cannot prove a negative. If I claim I saw a legitimate UFO, could you REALLY disprove it if you weren't there? However, what's more likely...

I did see it, as there has been thousands of documented sightings of UFO related events; even documented mass sightings of such in the past?

Or...

I'm either lying, fibbing, delusional, or other, in lieu of the fact that I have no other corroborated reportings of the very same event?

If you're a trustworthy fellow. Most people would believe you. Or at least take you seriously.

But if you honestly prefer the "Mass Delusion, everybody is hallucinating, it" option. That's actually what the MacArthur Bible commentary claims. It says that the resurrected Saints had "glorified bodies". Which means they were immaterial ghostly apparitions like Obi Wan Kenobi in Star Wars (which movie evidently drew inspiration from biblical stories)

Of course, MacArthur would surely use the word "Vision" Not hallucination. According to Macarthur's interpretation of Matthews account. Then. It was a mass religious experience of shared Vision.

Trust you would find that description several steps less incredible than a physical resurrection of. Saints bodily Corporeally, emerging from. Their tombs outside of Jerusalem.

Such documents were not combined and canonized until much later. By then, anyone and everyone whom would even possibly care to bother to even refute such claims are long dead. Prior to this, all we had were oral traditions, oral reportings, and random writings. None of which were declared authoritative in any manor.

Homer didn't write down the story of the Trojan War. Until 700 BC. 500 years after the events they described. For those 5 centuries. The. Iliad and Odyssey were recited orally. From generation to generation from epic poet to epic poet. Until Homer put them into writing.

After 500 years. Of oral tradition. Plus, another 2500 years. Of written transmission. Heinrich Schliemann. Was still able to use the precise geographic clues in the Iliad to locate the ruins of Troy

I hear you saying that we can't trust what people say today. But we evidently used to be able to trust? What epic poets and Apostles said & wrote in ancient times?

You do understand that without Emperor Constantine, whom legalized Christianity because he was a believer, this is a large reason Christianity began to flourish. During this era, we did not have a democracy, like we do today here in the west. We had a theocracy

Apples and oranges.

Constantine lived in the FOURTH century AD.

Thought we were discussing here FIRST century AD witnesses to this particular miracle.

 

[cvanwey]

Apostle John the beloved disciple as yet another witness.

Some scholars seem to conclude the 'beloved disciple' was actually 'Lazarus' If true, the later few paragraphs do not need further addressing....

What we have here and now? Yes, one of one surviving historical sources, claiming the miracle occurred. 100%. Of. 1 surviving document. Says so

You are again not addressing my observations from many responses in the recent past...

1. If God is all powerful, why not preserve all collaborating documents; if anecdotal eyewitness testimony is so paramount for truth?

2. Seems convenient that the only one reporting of such a high profile event, is the claim from the canonized book itself.

3. Why base such a claim of truth, on an unfounded eyewitness claim?

I will acknowledge that the claim is uncorroborated --

Thank you for at least acknowledging that much. I have to tell you that most Christians I have spoken to, in the past, have not been nearly as intellectually as honest

 

[Erik Nelson]

"Matthew" reports that the walking dead appeared to 'many'. Do we have testimony from those 'many'? No? Do we even know who these 'many' actually are? No? Okay. So we STILL have more, under the Book of Mormon, then we do here with the Bible passages don't we

Again, it appears extremely clumsy to hinge truth claims upon anecdotal reports, which are not well corroborated even under the lowest of standards. Again, witnessing a one-time event, if not witnessed from many differing and non-bias perspectives, especially when the claim is of such a large magnitude, appears very not-well-thought-out to perform (i.e.) clumsy.

Wait a minute, what??

Matthew names names.

Mary Magdeleine. Mary the mother of Jesus. The mother of the sons of Zebedee. John the beloved Apostle.

John lived until 100 AD -- Any Christian in the first century could have. Verified Matthews report. by traveling to Ephesus and asking John himself in person in the flesh.

Now you are no longer accurately quoting Matthew. You are holding up a Straw Man, which you have labeled Matthew. But, which is not the real Matthew.

Matthew named names. Please read the next few verses.

 

[cvanwey]

If you're a trustworthy fellow. Most people would believe you. Or at least take you seriously.

But if you honestly prefer the "Mass Delusion, everybody is hallucinating, it" option. That's actually what the MacArthur Bible commentary claims. It says that the resurrected Saints had "glorified bodies". Which means they were immaterial ghostly apparitions like Obi Wan Kenobi in Star Wars (which movie evidently drew inspiration from biblical stories)

Of course, MacArthur would surely use the word "Vision" Not hallucination. According to Macarthur's interpretation of Matthews account. Then. It was a mass religious experience of shared Vision.

Trust you would find that description several steps less incredible than a physical resurrection of. Saints bodily Corporeally, emerging from. Their tombs outside of Jerusalem.

My doctor, whom is very smart, and very trustworthy, is a Hindu. He claims to speak directly with his Gods in prayer. He is trustworthy. Therefore, Vishnu is real You see what I'm getting at....?

Homer didn't write down the story of the Trojan War. Until 700 BC. 500 years after the events they described. For those 5 centuries. The. Iliad and Odyssey were recited orally. From generation to generation from epic poet to epic poet. Until Homer put them into writing.

After 500 years. Of oral tradition. Plus, another 2500 years. Of written transmission. Heinrich Schliemann. Was still able to use the precise geographic clues in the Iliad to locate the ruins of Troy

The fate of my possible eternity does not hinge or rest upon the assertions of such stated writings Furthermore, I have acknowledged that there can be some truth to ANY told story. It just becomes much more difficult to believe the miraculous claims. Maybe there was a man named Achilles. Maybe he was killed by an arrow to his achilles tendon. But does this mean he must have been born directly from the descendants of a God?

This is where all we can investigate is the evidence left behind.

Again, you cannot (re-verified) a one-time claimed event. So the question remains, if such anecdotal claims ONLY come from the bias told source, and we have NO corroborated unbiased accounts of someone stating, 'hey, I was walking into town to get by fruit for the day and happened to stumble across some walking dead people.'

Apples and oranges.

Constantine lived in the FOURTH century AD.

Thought we were discussing here FIRST century AD witnesses to this particular miracle.

Such claimed stories were not canonized until around this time, (give or take). Prior to this, theocracy placed no importance upon such claims. Hence, it would be absurd to think anyone would go out of their way to actually go on record to refute such claims. I'm sure there were many claims of the supernatural, in scant writings and in oral tradition. Especially during these times....

 

[Erik Nelson]

Some scholars seem to conclude the 'beloved disciple' was actually 'Lazarus' If true, the later few paragraphs do not need further addressing....

Well, 2000 years of church tradition acknowledges John as the beloved disciple. The fact that he was beloved is the reason why he'll loan was preserved until 100 AD dying in his old age instead of being martyred earlier in life. He was beloved because he didn't betray Jesus and stayed with his mother at the foot of the cross.

But anyway, Even if you stripped him of his title "beloved disciple." He was still an Apostle. He was still at the foot of Jesus is cross. He was still an eyewitness to these events described in Matthew. He is implicitly being cited as a witness by Matthew. Along with Mary the mother of Jesus, the mother of the sons of Zebedee Mary Magdeleine and others. Who were there at the foot of the cross with him?

So I'm the one who doesn't have to address this issue. I'm the one that doesn't have to deal with whether or not, he was or was not the luved disciple. He was an Apostle. He was one of the pillars of the church. He was a major author of the New Testament and he was a witness to these events.

If he really does have the title beloved disciple, then it just makes my case, even stronger. But the lack of such title does not make my case weaker.

You are again not addressing my observations from many responses in the recent past...

1. If God is all powerful, why not preserve all collaborating documents; if anecdotal eyewitness testimony is so paramount for truth?

2. Seems convenient that the only one reporting of such a high profile event, is the claim from the canonized book itself.

3. Why base such a claim of truth, on an unfounded eyewitness claim?



Thank you for at least acknowledging that much. I have to tell you that most Christians I have spoken to, in the past, have not been nearly as intellectually as honest

The accompanying earthquake and darkening of the sun were widely recorded in reported by secular sources.

Thallus, Phlegon, and Africanus
Thallus wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trojan War. Thallus wrote his regional history in about AD 52... he is specifically quoted by Julius Africanus, a renowned third century historian. Africanus states, ‘Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun...’ Apparently, Thallus attempted to ascribe a naturalistic explanation to the darkness during the crucifixion.

Phlegon was a Greek historian who wrote an extensive chronology around AD 137:

In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., AD 33) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea

...

Tertullian, the famous second century apologist, also hails the darkness as a ‘cosmic’ or ‘world event’.

Appealing to skeptics, he wrote:

At the moment of Christ’s death, the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noonday, which wonder is related in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day.

Apparently, Tertullian could state with confidence that documentation of the darkness could be found in legitimate historical archives.

Darkness at the crucifixion: metaphor or real history? - creation.com

so Matthew claims 3 things happened. Darkness earthquake. Resurrected St.

2 of the 3 are overwhelmingly confirmed even in secular sources from the time

if EARTHQUAKES shook Judea. And DARKNESS covered the Roman Empire. Why is it so hard to believe? That many Judeans had a religious experience at the time?

Penny Wise Pound Foolish. We acknowledge earthquakes and continents spanning darkness. But not an accompanying religious experience of highly religious individuals?

 

[cvanwey]

Wait a minute, what??

Matthew names names.

Mary Magdeleine. Mary the mother of Jesus. The mother of the sons of Zebedee. John the beloved Apostle.

John lived until 100 AD -- Any Christian in the first century could have. Verified Matthews report. by traveling to Ephesus and asking John himself in person in the flesh.

Now you are no longer accurately quoting Matthew. You are holding up a Straw Man, which you have labeled Matthew. But, which is not the real Matthew.

Matthew named names. Please read the next few verses.

Re-quote:

Do we have testimony from those 'many'? No?????? (And we don't)

Do we even know who these 'many' actually are? No? Okay. (Women did not count under the law). Furthermore, the 'beloved disciple' could very well have been Lazarus.

If God's goal was to spread truth by way of eyewitness attestation in a resurrection, why then would God choose to present himself in resurrection form to individuals whom carry no authority over the masses? It seems more logical to fully represent his resurrected self to vast non-believing individuals, whom are affluent in language, and with the ability to write and travel abroad to spread the messages globally and immediately. Because, after all, the Bible was God's preferred method to spread God's truth. And also, eyewitness testimony is really the only method to verify the supernatural claims to Jesus. And since eye witness testimony was paramount, and women's testimony carried little weight, this method for attempts in spreading 'truth' appears bazaar.?.?.?.?

 

[inquiring mind]

Re-quote:

Do we have testimony from those 'many'? No?????? (And we don't)

Do we even know who these 'many' actually are? No? Okay. (Women did not count under the law). Furthermore, the 'beloved disciple' could very well have been Lazarus.

If God's goal was to spread truth by way of eyewitness attestation in a resurrection, why then would God choose to present himself in resurrection form to individuals whom carry no authority over the masses? It seems more logical to fully represent his resurrected self to vast non-believing individuals, whom are affluent in language, and with the ability to write and travel abroad to spread the messages globally and immediately. Because, after all, the Bible was God's preferred method to spread God's truth. And also, eyewitness testimony is really the only method to verify the supernatural claims to Jesus. And since eye witness testimony was paramount, and women's testimony carried little weight, this method for attempts in spreading 'truth' appears bazaar.?.?.?.?

Isaiah 55:8-9

 

[Erik Nelson]

My doctor, whom is very smart, and very trustworthy, is a Hindu. He claims to speak directly with his Gods in prayer. He is trustworthy. Therefore, Vishnu is real You see what I'm getting at....?

According to Judeo Christian tradition. Humans on Earth have been communicating. With Godlike beings from heaven. Since Adam and Eve in The Garden of Eden.

Excepting what you tell me on behalf of your doctor. His claims of. Religious experience and communion with and Contact from God like beings from the heavens. Is not new? Nor particularly extraordinary. Just one more in a persistent pattern of such claims spanning the world. From present back through. All of human history into the Misty. Depths of pre history.

The fate of my possible eternity does not hinge or rest upon the assertions of such stated writings Furthermore, I have acknowledged that there can be some truth to ANY told story. It just becomes much more difficult to believe the miraculous claims. Maybe there was a man named Achilles. Maybe he was killed by an arrow to his achilles tendon. But does this mean he must have been born directly from the descendants of a God?

Achilles was a contemporary of the Biblical Joshua. They both lived about 1200 BC. They were both Warriors claiming to fight for God in heaven.

Fast forwarding 1200 years to the first century. We know that allegedly. God in heaven can commune with and contact Greek Gentiles in the eastern Mediterranean just as well as Hebrews in Canaan.

So if God in Heaven inspired Joshua to do what he did. Then God in heaven could have inspired akilles to do what he did also.
You should also not minimize this point. According to middle easterners the Greek attack on Troy was the first European Crusade against the Middle East. So interpreted. They use it as a justification for. The invasions of Darrius and Xerxes against Greece in revenge.

But the Greeks use the invasions of Darrius and Xerxes to justify the counter attack of Alexander the Great. The Romans took over for Alexander's Empire. The Persians and Muslim Arabs drove out. The Romans. Until the crusades. Then the Muslims drove out of The Crusaders. And invaded Europe. A third of which they occupied for the past 500 years.
The Ottomans were largely driven out of Europe, 100 years ago.

But this issue, obviously still affects modern geopolitics. If you're paying the slightest attention. To anything whatsoever at all happening in Europe and present.

So you should in no way think that the "crusade" of "God inspired Achilles" against Troy has no impact on your life or that of the world today.

Arguably it has almost as much influence over world politics today as Joshua's contemporary invasion of Canaan.

Again, you cannot (re-verified) a one-time claimed event. So the question remains, if such anecdotal claims ONLY come from the bias told source, and we have NO corroborated unbiased accounts of someone stating, 'hey, I was walking into town to get by fruit for the day and happened to stumble across some walking dead people.'

Numerous other secular historians verified the more major miracle events of the darkness and earthquake. If you believe secular historians and hence except the big miracles? Why not the more minor, local miracle also.

Darkness at the crucifixion: metaphor or real history? - creation.com

 

[cvanwey]

Well, 2000 years of church tradition acknowledges John as the beloved disciple.

It never ceases to amaze me what believers will state, without even possibly even realizing WHAT they are actually saying

You openly admit it is the confirmed consensus of the CHURCH; that this is what indeed happened. I hope you at least acknowledge that this is the position of an extreme bias. Because without a 'risen Jesus', the entire doctrine is in haste and vain.

And I also trust that you may realize that there exists many accredited historians whom disagree, but of course, they are not believers, so they MUST be wrong And yet, the very same historians confirm some factual accounts from the very same Bible. Because like I stated in the past... Most told stories carry at least some truth.

The accompanying earthquake and darkening of the sun were widely recorded in reported by secular sources.

Thallus, Phlegon, and Africanus
Thallus wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trojan War. Thallus wrote his regional history in about AD 52... he is specifically quoted by Julius Africanus, a renowned third century historian. Africanus states, ‘Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun...’ Apparently, Thallus attempted to ascribe a naturalistic explanation to the darkness during the crucifixion.

Phlegon was a Greek historian who wrote an extensive chronology around AD 137:

In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., AD 33) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea

...

Tertullian, the famous second century apologist, also hails the darkness as a ‘cosmic’ or ‘world event’.

Appealing to skeptics, he wrote:

At the moment of Christ’s death, the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noonday, which wonder is related in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day.

Apparently, Tertullian could state with confidence that documentation of the darkness could be found in legitimate historical archives.

Darkness at the crucifixion: metaphor or real history? - creation.com

so Matthew claims 3 things happened. Darkness earthquake. Resurrected St.

2 of the 3 are overwhelmingly confirmed even in secular sources from the time

if EARTHQUAKES shook Judea. And DARKNESS covered the Roman Empire. Why is it so hard to believe? That many Judeans had a religious experience at the time?

Penny Wise Pound Foolish. We acknowledge earthquakes and continents spanning darkness. But not an accompanying religious experience of highly religious individuals?

But the part that actually matters, being 'the walking dead'?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?????????????

You do understand that eclipses and earthquakes happen right? These are mundane claims.

 

[cvanwey]

According to Judeo Christian tradition. Humans on Earth have been communicating. With Godlike beings from heaven. Since Adam and Eve in The Garden of Eden.

Excepting what you tell me on behalf of your doctor. His claims of. Religious experience and communion with and Contact from God like beings from the heavens. Is not new? Nor particularly extraordinary. Just one more in a persistent pattern of such claims spanning the world. From present back through. All of human history into the Misty. Depths of pre history.

Based upon your response, I have to ask....

How might one confirm that my doctor's vision is false, while Saul's vision in the desert was true?

 

[Erik Nelson]

You openly admit it is the confirmed consensus of the CHURCH; that this is what indeed happened.

For 2000 years, many people have trusted Matthew. And the other witnesses, he cited. They have trusted Jesus and his mother, they have trusted John. Possibly the Beloved. They have trusted. James and John the son of Zebedee and their mother. They have trusted Mary Magdeleine. They trusted the witness of all of those people. On whose behalf Matthew wrote his account of the events.

No Matthew did NOT plausibly write. An account. At ODDS with the memory of James and John the sons of Zebedee John the Apostle. Their mothers. The mother of Jesus and Mary Magdeleine the close. Companion of Jesus.

What Matthew wrote he wrote FOR and ON BEHALF OF? Mary the mother of Jesus the mother of James and John the son of Zebedee Mary Magdeleine John the Apostle. And all the others mentioned.

He wrote with their permission. Their assent their blessing.

I hope you at least acknowledge that this is the position of an extreme bias. Because without a 'risen Jesus', the entire doctrine is in haste and vain.

So that's where you're trying to go with this.

Most told stories carry at least some truth.

Agreed.

But the part that actually matters, being 'the walking dead'?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?????????????

You do understand that eclipses and earthquakes happen right? These are mundane claims.

Well, there were earthquakes and aftershocks and darkness, it was hard to see. Perhaps a skeptic like yourself could acknowledge, say. Shadows in the unusual darkness played tricks on their eyes and they all thought they saw something unusual.

The unusual and frightening events "spooked" them. Put their minds on hyper alert. And they all started thinking they were seeing things. That often happens to people in frightening situations like that. They get jumpy. And start seeing things. Because their minds are paying hyper attention. To all of the sounds? And sites that they are be holding. And their minds start putting pieces together. And coming up with things being here and there, even when there might, not actually be.

So it's easy to explain what could have happened, even from a hyper sceptical. Perspective. Nevertheless, Matthew makes 3 claims. Darkness earthquake. Ghosts. 2 of the 3 claims were widely reported and recorded by secular historians.

Out of 3 games, Matthew is 2 and 0 and the third game has been rained out. By the vagaries of time giving us no other. Surviving records or report's, which give us no other angle on the alleged event one way or another.

Jesus was crucified. Just exactly then. Within a window of no more than 3 hours. Major earthquakes shook. Judea. And darkness descended across the Roman Empire. You provisionally accept. The plausibility of those accounts.

The additional claim that in the rumbling darkness. Dozens of people. Thought they saw. Unusual. sights. Is not particularly surprising?

 

[Tom 1]

Another thing that supports the idea that the stories about Jesus are at least partly made up: How do we know what he said and did when he was supposedly alone? The Temptation in the Wilderness, the prayer in Gethsemane, the events at the Transfiguration etc.

Given that the apostles and Jesus spent 3 yrs together, and developed unusually close relationships - e.g you can read through the last few chapters of John - there wouldn’t be anything surprising in that. In Gethsemane the disciples were right there- dozing on and off - a short distance away. One or more of them noticed the bloody sweat on his face when he walked over to speak with them. Jesus was with 2 of his closest followers at the transfiguration.
The other issue is how the gospels are written, that is using the literary tools and conventions that were available to the writers, i.e the highly stylised and conventionally structured writing of the OT. The temptation in the wilderness narrative has elements that would speak directly to a 1st Century Jew. The idea that because it is not written in a modern realist style, or not written in a way that makes it immediately accessible to a person in the 21st C, then it is ‘made up’ is a bit daft, as there is no reason why it should make immediate sense. It is different to anything else that we read. Like the rest of the bible, understanding what is being said and why it is being said in that particular way requires first understanding what it meant at the time of writing.

 

[cvanwey]

He wrote with their permission. Their assent their blessing.

Yes, I saw the certified permission slip in the Gospel of Luke I believe

Well, there were earthquakes and aftershocks and darkness, it was hard to see. Perhaps a skeptic like yourself could acknowledge, say. Shadows in the unusual darkness played tricks on their eyes and they all thought they saw something unusual.

The unusual and frightening events "spooked" them. Put their minds on hyper alert. And they all started thinking they were seeing things. That often happens to people in frightening situations like that. They get jumpy. And start seeing things. Because their minds are paying hyper attention. To all of the sounds? And sites that they are be holding. And their minds start putting pieces together. And coming up with things being here and there, even when there might, not actually be.

So it's easy to explain what could have happened, even from a hyper sceptical. Perspective. Nevertheless, Matthew makes 3 claims. Darkness earthquake. Ghosts. 2 of the 3 claims were widely reported and recorded by secular historians.

Out of 3 games, Matthew is 2 and 0 and the third game has been rained out. By the vagaries of time giving us no other. Surviving records or report's, which give us no other angle on the alleged event one way or another.

Jesus was crucified. Just exactly then. Within a window of no more than 3 hours. Major earthquakes shook. Judea. And darkness descended across the Roman Empire. You provisionally accept. The plausibility of those accounts.

The additional claim that in the rumbling darkness. Dozens of people. Thought they saw. Unusual. sights. Is not particularly surprising?

I thought I already addressed this... We have absolutely no reports of the walking dead. Which, quite frankly, is the only claim that matters. If we had secular reports of the walking dead, or of seeing a post mortem Jesus, then we can start the discussion. Otherwise, there is very little to speak about in such a case. We have later writings from the Gospel account(s) itself/themselves. And that is it...

Again, to verify accountability for eyewitness testimony, requires actual eyewitnesses If many saw as such, seems likely that people would go out of their way to report as such. You are making a great effort to demonstrate how secular writers wrote of mundane events. And yet, they all deliberately omitted the one and only fact, which would actually substantiate an actual supernatural event?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.???????...????

 

[cvanwey]

If it was, and I don't believe that for one second, but if it was... I still think I'm better-off than I would've been without believing.

This answer speaks volumes.... (i.e.):

Comfort, psychology of belief in God, faith, indoctrination, belief preservation, appeals to emotion, conformation bias, fear of the unknown, fallacious reasoning (most notably - argument from ignorance), and a need for cognitive closure.

 

[inquiring mind]

This answer speaks volumes.... (i.e.):

Comfort, psychology of belief in God, faith, indoctrination, belief preservation, appeals to emotion, conformation bias, fear of the unknown, fallacious reasoning (most notably - argument from ignorance), and a need for cognitive closure.

I prefer thinking of it as ‘blessed assurance.’