Jesus of History and Myth

[Erik Nelson]

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

You're being preposterous. There is no way Matthew. A disciple is going to put words in the mouth. Papa John an Apostle and pillar of the church. Much less Mary the mother of Jesus and the mother of James and John the son of Zebedee 2 other Apostles senior to Matthew.

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?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.???????...????

We don't know what they wrote because all of the primary sources have been lost. Great tragedy that the Library of Alexandria was burned in. The Petrine Diocese of Alexandria. And all the universities at libraries in Rome. Also, which was sacked in numerous times in the fifth century and sixth century.

So we don't know what they wrote exactly maybe the road about it, maybe they didn't. But what about other miracles reported in the New Testament. Pieter was in prison. He was miraculously freed by the earthquake and an Angel. Nobody else recorded that event. Does that mean it didn't happen? Because if it didnt Peter would have languished in prison from 42ad on and wouldn't have made it to Rome to cause such a commotion to get everyone expelled in 49 AD. And so on.

You are misrepresenting the facts. It's not like we have the complete archives of the Library of Alexandria in which no reference is made to any of the miracles in the New Testament? Instead we have a scant few references to long lost works, which originally supported key elements of the New Testament and which citations Christian monks. And scribes maintained through the Middle Ages. The original source is burned in the Library of Alexandria, 1600 years ago. We have no idea what they contained or didnt.

You are arguing as if pouring through all of this scrolls and codices in the Ancient Library of Alexandria. We still come up empty and have no one corroborating Matthew. That's not the case, the whole library burned. We have no idea what people wrote or did it right. The only thing that comes down to us is Matthew and he said it happened.

Then you say that God should have preserved a second secular source? Which you would then trust. Stare up at the heavens and yell at the top of your lungs in complaint

but fine even if we can't corroborate this one point? What about all the others that we can. You seem to be missing the importance of timing. AT just exactly. The time of the crucifixion. A major earthquake just so happened to strike Jerusalem. And Judea and the surrounding regions. Darkness just so happens to descend over the entire Roman Empire.

Those corroborated events don't strike you as a novelist. And surprising? Surely. Peter and Paul were able to win converts. With their preaching in the first century because they asked people "so how many of you remember that day when the entire Roman Empire was darkened over" and half the people with raise their hands and they would say well. That was because of the crucifixion.

Or how about Jesus Prophesyings that the temple of her it would be destroyed and raised to the last stone. And it was. 40 years later in 70ad and so on.

Forest for the individual trees. Even if you can't convince yourself of a minor miracle here or there. How about the major miracles like Jerusalem, being destroyed. The Roman Empire being darkened over, earthquakes, striking the region at just exactly the time of the crucifixion and so on.

God in heaven can reveal his power on Earth by manipulating natural events to suit his purposes. Darkness earthquakes and so on.

 

[Erik Nelson]

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.

You're the one who makes an argument from ignorance. You're the one who looks at the Ashes of the Library of Alexandria. 1600 years dispersed to the wind. And claim that you know that no secular author ever corroborated Matthews account.

Then you stare up at the sky and start laying down terms for God. You swear you would believe in God If God preserved a secular secondary source.

But evidently God did preserve secondary secular sources. Corroborating other major miracles like the darkness befalling the Roman Empire earthquakes around the region. The destruction of Jerusalem and its physical temple and so on.

Maybe the anomalous darkness was just playing tricks on the eyes of Matthew and all the others who allegedly witnessed ghostly apparitions walking the streets of Jerusalem. For a few hours. But what about everything else. Which is corroborated by secondary secular sources you say you trust?

 

[Steve Petersen]

You're the one who makes an argument from ignorance. You're the one who looks at the Ashes of the Library of Alexandria. 1600 years dispersed to the wind. And claim that you know that no secular author ever corroborated Matthews account.

So, your rationale is that there MIGHT have been corroborating testimony in these destroyed libraries! That is pretty weak.

But evidently God did preserve secondary secular sources. Corroborating other major miracles like the darkness befalling the Roman Empire earthquakes around the region. The destruction of Jerusalem and its physical temple and so on.
Maybe the anomalous darkness was just playing tricks on the eyes of Matthew and all the others who allegedly witnessed ghostly apparitions walking the streets of Jerusalem. For a few hours. But what about everything else. Which is corroborated by secondary secular sources you say you trust?

How are earthquakes supernatural?
Crucifixion darkness - Wikipedia

 

[cvanwey]

We don't know what they wrote because all of the primary sources have been lost. Great tragedy that the Library of Alexandria was burned in. The Petrine Diocese of Alexandria. And all the universities at libraries in Rome. Also, which was sacked in numerous times in the fifth century and sixth century.

So we don't know what they wrote exactly maybe the road about it, maybe they didn't. But what about other miracles reported in the New Testament. Pieter was in prison. He was miraculously freed by the earthquake and an Angel. Nobody else recorded that event. Does that mean it didn't happen? Because if it didnt Peter would have languished in prison from 42ad on and wouldn't have made it to Rome to cause such a commotion to get everyone expelled in 49 AD. And so on.

You are misrepresenting the facts. It's not like we have the complete archives of the Library of Alexandria in which no reference is made to any of the miracles in the New Testament? Instead we have a scant few references to long lost works, which originally supported key elements of the New Testament and which citations Christian monks. And scribes maintained through the Middle Ages. The original source is burned in the Library of Alexandria, 1600 years ago. We have no idea what they contained or didnt.

You are arguing as if pouring through all of this scrolls and codices in the Ancient Library of Alexandria. We still come up empty and have no one corroborating Matthew. That's not the case, the whole library burned. We have no idea what people wrote or did it right. The only thing that comes down to us is Matthew and he said it happened.

Then you say that God should have preserved a second secular source? Which you would then trust. Stare up at the heavens and yell at the top of your lungs in complaint

but fine even if we can't corroborate this one point? What about all the others that we can. You seem to be missing the importance of timing. AT just exactly. The time of the crucifixion. A major earthquake just so happened to strike Jerusalem. And Judea and the surrounding regions. Darkness just so happens to descend over the entire Roman Empire.

Those corroborated events don't strike you as a novelist. And surprising? Surely. Peter and Paul were able to win converts. With their preaching in the first century because they asked people "so how many of you remember that day when the entire Roman Empire was darkened over" and half the people with raise their hands and they would say well. That was because of the crucifixion.

Or how about Jesus Prophesyings that the temple of her it would be destroyed and raised to the last stone. And it was. 40 years later in 70ad and so on.

Forest for the individual trees. Even if you can't convince yourself of a minor miracle here or there. How about the major miracles like Jerusalem, being destroyed. The Roman Empire being darkened over, earthquakes, striking the region at just exactly the time of the crucifixion and so on.

God in heaven can reveal his power on Earth by manipulating natural events to suit his purposes. Darkness earthquakes and so on.

Two major things to point out....

1. As I've stated many times now, God can apparently do anything, and intervene at any point; as written within the Holy Bible. If the Bible was God's preferred method to provide truth, then why would God not assure proper evidence was preserved? Christians love to boast of how such works of antiquity survived, where many others were lost. And yet, the only ones which would actually matter; reports from non-Bible writer's accounts of the 'walking dead' and the 'rising dead' left in circulation to compare against the Bible accounts are absent. Instead, all we have are the bias writings if the church, or the canonized writings sanctioned by the later theocracy.

Seems more logical that God might allow for preservation of accounts from non-believing people, whom speak of dead people walking the city streets... This would actually kind of cause one to think...

Heck, we apparently have Saul or Tarsus. He claimed to have a vision in the desert, and ultimately arguably 'started' the movement. He was a non-believer. Just think what an impact and PROOF Christians might actually have today, if Saul, along with a handful of other non-believers, reported that they saw the walking dead and the rising dead, which correlated with the accounts from the Bible?

Again, we would then have something to investigate.

Writings from a bias sect of already believing people carries little weight, when eyewitness attestation is the only form which may validate the claim.

2. As stated many times now, as I'm sure you also agree... There exists a difference between works of antiquity versus modern historical reports. As I've stated in many other posts, or in other topics, it's one thing to accept that Alexander the Great lived, fought in war, conquered nations, and died. It's a completely new set of assertions to accept that he was also the son of Zeus

At the end of the day, I would really like to drive home the fact that, once again, one time events REQUIRE eyewitness attestation! Otherwise, it can be concluded that it more likely is not supported, or even did not happen. And in such a case for the 'walking dead' and the 'rising dead', we have absolutely no accounts from witnesses outside the writers of the Bible. Which quite frankly, we honestly do NOT know who wrote them, and when. But the larger point, as already addressed, is that if such events were performed to prove God's glory, it would seem logical to perform as such in a way where ample people would report of such - (not just later bias writings from a unified, canonized, and 'theocracized', publication.)

 

[inquiring mind]

If the Bible was God's preferred method to provide truth, then why would God not assure proper evidence was preserved?

Well, it is faith based... if it was verified totally by evidence then scoffers would claim it as science.

 

[Erik Nelson]

So, your rationale is that there MIGHT have been corroborating testimony in these destroyed libraries! That is pretty weak.

No no no and once again no. All I have ever said is we have no other reports. About this particular alleged claimed. Miracle event.

What comes down to us after 2000 years is exactly one report in the Gospel of Matthew? Which says the ghostly apparitions of spiritually resurrected Saints in glorified bodies occured.

One of one surviving accounts says the miracle happened. That's all we know and that's all I stated.

You're the one deny nying the possibility that corroborating secular accounts MAY once have existed in the Library of Alexandria You're the one acting as if. Secular accounts reject the miracle. But that is a misrepresentation of the remaining surviving evidence.

We have one surviving report it says the miracle happened I wish we still had the Library of Alexandria. We don't we have no idea what people said one way or the other all we know is Matthew says it happened.

The fact that secular reports don't confirm or corroborate is utterly unsurprising, given that there are exactly zero such relevant reports surviving until present

It is true that other people far away felt the earthquakes and witnessed the anomalous darkness The 2 more major large scale widespread miracles reported by Matthew were in fact, corroborated by secular historians from other parts of the Pagan Empire.

Of 3 alleged miraculous events. Matthew is 2 and O with one game cancelled

How are earthquakes supernatural?
Crucifixion darkness - Wikipedia

The issue is the timing. Timing is the central issue. An earthquake occurred at just the exact place at just the exact time. The supernatural aspect is the extremely improbable coincidence. Of an earthquake at exactly the place and time of the crucifixion.

 

[Erik Nelson]

God can apparently do anything, and intervene at any point; as written within the Holy Bible. If the Bible was God's preferred method to provide truth, then why would God not assure proper evidence was preserved?

Evidence was preserved the Gospel of Matthew.

, one time events REQUIRE eyewitness attestation! Otherwise, it can be concluded that it more likely is not supported, or even did not happen. And in such a case for the 'walking dead' and the 'rising dead', we have absolutely no accounts from witnesses outside the writers of the Bible. Which quite frankly, we honestly do NOT know who wrote them, and when. But the larger point, as already addressed, is that if such events were performed to prove God's glory, it would seem logical to perform as such in a way where ample people would report of such - (not just later bias writings from a unified, canonized, and 'theocracized', publication.)

You're still misrepresenting this issue. Everybody who witnessed the miracle. Would have become a Christian? The whole point of the miracle was to make people believe. Everybody who saw it became a believer became a Christian and helped Matthew write there collective reporting of the event into his gospel. Since he was the only one amongst them who was literate.

Matthew names numerous names. Like Mary, the mother of Jesus. The mother of James and John Zebedee. The Apostle John. Mary Magdalene. The Roman Centurion. And many others. Being impressed by the miracle virtually all of them became Christians. And supported Matthew writing his gospel.

Ironically enough you're the one almost demanding the impossible. if, the miracle actually occurred then, everyone who witnessed it would have been so impressed that they would have become Christians. Yet as soon as they become Christians. You lump them all together into a single biased witness in your mind. That's not fair.

Matthew names names. Witnesses included Witnesses plural included the mother of Christ the mother of 2, Apostles, another Apostle himself Mary Magdalene Jesuses favorite companion. The Roman Centurion and numerous others. The fact that all of those separate witnesses joined the Christian community having been so impressed does not render them all into a single biased witness. Matthew is writing on behalf of an entire larger community. He is not one individual. He speaks for thousands. Tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands by the time he wrote.

What you're demanding is that somebody saw the event? And yet was not impressed, and did not come to the conclusion. Everyone who did witness. The event came to which in the words of the Roman Centurion was "surely. This was the son of God."

Nevertheless. First century non Christian Jews. Did witness everything in the New Testament and did not accept Jesus as their Messiah? The Messiah of all humanity. And their memory and recollection of first century events as recorded in the Talmud. Includes. The statement. That Jesus was a "sorcerer."

Technically scullers call that "enemy attestation". Other people say judge a man by his enemies. if. Someone's political opponent acknowledges something to them. Most scholars consider that worth even more than the support of a neutral impartial witness. If somebody's political opponents can't even deny something they would want to deny if they could then that is enemy attestation and is the MOST convincing form of corroboration in support of claims.

So that Talmud. Is exactly the kind of witness you're seeking? Apparently first century Jews. Who did not join the Christian movement? Still witnessed supranormal paranormal events surrounding Jesus. They labeled the paranormal events as. Demonic sorcery = Matthew 12:24.

 

[cvanwey]

Evidence was preserved the Gospel of Matthew.

You've missed my point. No preserved secular reports of the walking dead or the rising dead For example, you stated earlier of secular historians whom spoke of earthquakes and eclipses. And yet, no such reports of the walking dead or the rising dead, the most important one of them all Seems a little suspicious.

You're still misrepresenting this issue. Everybody who witnessed the miracle. Would have become a Christian? The whole point of the miracle was to make people believe. Everybody who saw it became a believer became a Christian and helped Matthew write there collective reporting of the event into his gospel. Since he was the only one amongst them who was literate.

Matthew names numerous names. Like Mary, the mother of Jesus. The mother of James and John Zebedee. The Apostle John. Mary Magdalene. The Roman Centurion. And many others. Being impressed by the miracle virtually all of them became Christians. And supported Matthew writing his gospel.

Ironically enough you're the one almost demanding the impossible. if, the miracle actually occurred then, everyone who witnessed it would have been so impressed that they would have become Christians. Yet as soon as they become Christians. You lump them all together into a single biased witness in your mind. That's not fair.

Matthew names names. Witnesses included Witnesses plural included the mother of Christ the mother of 2, Apostles, another Apostle himself Mary Magdalene Jesuses favorite companion. The Roman Centurion and numerous others. The fact that all of those separate witnesses joined the Christian community having been so impressed does not render them all into a single biased witness. Matthew is writing on behalf of an entire larger community. He is not one individual. He speaks for thousands. Tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands by the time he wrote.

What you're demanding is that somebody saw the event? And yet was not impressed, and did not come to the conclusion. Everyone who did witness. The event came to which in the words of the Roman Centurion was "surely. This was the son of God."

Nevertheless. First century non Christian Jews. Did witness everything in the New Testament and did not accept Jesus as their Messiah? The Messiah of all humanity. And their memory and recollection of first century events as recorded in the Talmud. Includes. The statement. That Jesus was a "sorcerer."

Technically scullers call that "enemy attestation". Other people say judge a man by his enemies. if. Someone's political opponent acknowledges something to them. Most scholars consider that worth even more than the support of a neutral impartial witness. If somebody's political opponents can't even deny something they would want to deny if they could then that is enemy attestation and is the MOST convincing form of corroboration in support of claims.

So that Talmud. Is exactly the kind of witness you're seeking? Apparently first century Jews. Who did not join the Christian movement? Still witnessed supranormal paranormal events surrounding Jesus. They labeled the paranormal events as. Demonic sorcery = Matthew 12:24.

I already addressed this... We have the Gospel of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, -- the synoptic Gospels. Which, by all accounts, really only counts as one, as each of the three were written for three differing groups of people, for the same event. You then have 'John', whom is a further elaborated account of the very same event. --- Growing legend in the making...

And to directly address one of your main points, writings which state they 'receive permission' means nothing really. So what.?! Anyone could later write tales and stories, and state that others 'approved this message.' Furthermore, women were considered second class citizens and therefore using such testimony would be very easy to do, as no one really cared one way or another of what they (women) might state.

I find it bazaar, once again, that if the objective was to spread 'truth', why provide proof to people whom could not validate the event?????? He (Jesus) might as well have resurrected on Mars. The amount of credible eyewitness attestation, is sparse to none. Why? We have the bias works of the church; a bias recording, hand selected by individuals whom already believed by way of repeated and heard oral tradition.

And as for the Orthodox Jews, they spoke of witches as well. They were very superstitious as well. This adds nothing really....

 

[cvanwey]

No no no and once again no. All I have ever said is we have no other reports. About this particular alleged claimed. Miracle event.

What comes down to us after 2000 years is exactly one report in the Gospel of Matthew? Which says the ghostly apparitions of spiritually resurrected Saints in glorified bodies occured.

One of one surviving accounts says the miracle happened. That's all we know and that's all I stated.

You're the one deny nying the possibility that corroborating secular accounts MAY once have existed in the Library of Alexandria You're the one acting as if. Secular accounts reject the miracle. But that is a misrepresentation of the remaining surviving evidence.

We have one surviving report it says the miracle happened I wish we still had the Library of Alexandria. We don't we have no idea what people said one way or the other all we know is Matthew says it happened.

The fact that secular reports don't confirm or corroborate is utterly unsurprising, given that there are exactly zero such relevant reports surviving until present
.

Say we had one surviving record of a claimed supernatural event in history. We then had absolutely no opposing secular reports. Would this mean the stated claimed supernatural event actually happened? As you would say in the beginning of post #166... 'No no no and no'.

You would have one claim of a supernatural event, with no corroboration. So it most likely is false, as it is not validated by multiple unbiased or unaffiliated contemporaneous sources, with no agenda.

Again, lets go back to the situation in which you never addressed, responded, or answered.

My primary doctor is a Hindu. He is honest, trustworthy, and I have never caught him in a lie. He has practiced for years and many trust him with their lives wholeheartedly.

He claims to of had visions of his God(s). Saul claimed to of had visions of Jesus/God.

So using your rationale, how might one determine which one is correct?

 

[inquiring mind]

Say we had one surviving record of a claimed supernatural event in history. We then had absolutely no opposing secular reports. Would this mean the stated claimed supernatural event actually happened? As you would say in the beginning of post #166... 'No no no and no'.

You would have one claim of a supernatural event, with no corroboration. So it most likely is false, as it is not validated by multiple unbiased or unaffiliated contemporaneous sources, with no agenda.

Again, lets go back to the situation in which you never addressed, responded, or answered.

My primary doctor is a Hindu. He is honest, trustworthy, and I have never caught him in a lie. He has practiced for years and many trust him with their lives wholeheartedly.

He claims to of had visions of his God(s). Saul claimed to of had visions of Jesus/God.

So using your rationale, how might one determine which one is correct?

Just how would you corroborate a supernatural event occurring in the first century? As I alluded to earlier, any connected (super)natural events (i.e. earthquakes, eclipses, etc.), with surviving details, are going to be explained by scoffers scientifically. And as you note with your doctor, how would supernatural visions be corroborated? If you don’t believe one person would you believe two... three, four, a hundred... how many? If enough trustworthy people claimed it, and it was relevant to the story you’re telling, then someone like Matthew would write about it. Again, what possible written corroboration would it take for you to believe it? If everyone in Jerusalem that day had attested to the events in surviving memoirs... would you believe it, or would you still say they were all just freaked-out over the whole thing?

 

[cvanwey]

First of all, thank you for your response! I really appreciate it!

Just how would you corroborate a supernatural event occurring in the first century?

When asked about eyewitness testimony (outside) the Bible writers/authors, Christians have very little to go upon. Thus, you would almost certainly hear the name Josephus. Therefore, let's at least start there. What can we confirm from Josephus? Well....

1. Such an example proves that writings, other than the writings from the Bible, were/are able to survive from the same time period.
2. Such writers could still report what they saw, regardless of whether they deduced the same conclusion or not. (i.e.) 'I was in town and saw dead people rise from their graves?!' Or, 'I saw an apparition flying around claiming to be named Christ.'
3. However, this goes horribly wrong, because Josephus was born right AFTER Jesus dies, so none of this would be possible.
4. However, all other early sanctioned NT docs were written around the same time period as Josephus'.
5. And yet, in the case for Josephus, we have conformation that later scribes added text to later recopies of the same writings to 'hornswoggle' claimed events that Josephus never originally wrote about (i.e) the 'golden paragraph'.

So the question is.... WHY?

But to directly answer your specific question, the answer is remarkably simple. Secular and contemporaneous accounts of any kind.... We have NONE for the claims of the 'walking dead' or the 'rising dead' - (Jesus). If Jesus wanted to demonstrate His glory, as He stated he did so to thousands, seems very odd we do NOT have any surviving memoirs, writings of simply seeing the observed event - (whether they concluded such a reality or not), etc...????

As I alluded to earlier, any connected (super)natural events (i.e. earthquakes, eclipses, etc.), with surviving details, are going to be explained by scoffers scientifically.

Writing about earthquakes and eclipses are never '(super)natural'. But the 'rising dead' and the 'walking dead' ARE Seems odd that none of these writers wrote of such.

And as you note with your doctor, how would supernatural visions be corroborated?

Please understand my very pointed conclusion, from this vary statement. The poster attempted to demonstrate that 'Matthew' is trustworthy. My point is that very honest and trustworthy people make all sorts of large anecdotal claims, which directly oppose your very specific beliefs. My POINT is that honesty, integrity, and being trustworthy, really has no bearing or relevancy to whether such an anecdotal event happens or not. What begins to validate such a claim, is corroborated accounts of the vary same event. (i.e.) multiple points of reference from unbiased perspectives.

In the case for the Bible, which states that 1,000's saw the rising dead and the walking dead, to only have accounts written about by Bible writers, carries little/no weight to the assertion.

If you don’t believe one person would you believe two... three, four, a hundred... how many? If enough trustworthy people claimed it, and it was relevant to the story you’re telling, then someone like Matthew would write about it. Again, what possible written corroboration would it take for you to believe it? If everyone in Jerusalem that day had attested to the events in surviving memoirs... would you believe it, or would you still say they were all just freaked-out over the whole thing?

Not when a claim states it came from '500+ people', but only one actually writes about it (i.e.) Matthew 27:52-53, no

If some or every Jew wrote of seeing zombies in the city streets for 'many to see', then YES; I would then have to reconcile that something COULD have happened - (out of the mundane ordinary).

 

[inquiring mind]

When asked about eyewitness testimony (outside) the Bible writers/authors, Christians have very little to go upon.

True, but my guess is that any eyewitness testimony produced, regardless of the source, would be considered pro-Christian and pro-Bible by scoffers.

Thus, you would almost certainly hear the name Josephus. Therefore, let's at least start there. What can we confirm from Josephus? Well....
1. Such an example proves that writings, other than the writings from the Bible, were/are able to survive from the same time period.

But, again this period (of Josephus) was after Christ’s time and apparently Matthew was one of the few writers to have access to eyewitnesses, and John was actually one, biased or not.

2. Such writers could still report what they saw, regardless of whether they deduced the same conclusion or not. (i.e.) 'I was in town and saw dead people rise from their graves?!' Or, 'I saw an apparition flying around claiming to be named Christ.'

Or, this is all nuts… nothing of the sort happened. Why do you think no one made that comment?

3. However, this goes horribly wrong, because Josephus was born right AFTER Jesus dies, so none of this would be possible.

Yes, and given the atmosphere regarding Christians during the time of Josephus (Roman-Jewish), he may not have been too willing to comment extensively on them, especially in a favorable light.

4. However, all other early sanctioned NT docs were written around the same time period as Josephus'.

But, they either knew eyewitnesses, or was one themselves, and unlike Josephus, were willing to speak out despite dangerous times for them.

5. And yet, in the case for Josephus, we have conformation that later scribes added text to later recopies of the same writings to 'hornswoggle' claimed events that Josephus never originally wrote about (i.e) the 'golden paragraph'.

May be true, but it’s funny how you whole-heartedly accept this as confirmation, no question, and don’t accept the gospel eyewitnesses.

So the question is.... WHY?
But to directly answer your specific question, the answer is remarkably simple. Secular and contemporaneous accounts of any kind.... We have NONE for the claims of the 'walking dead' or the 'rising dead' - (Jesus). If Jesus wanted to demonstrate His glory, as He stated he did so to thousands, seems very odd we do NOT have any surviving memoirs, writings of simply seeing the observed event - (whether they concluded such a reality or not), etc...????

Demonstrating a supernatural event in a worldly way may have received even more ridicule, since it would have been limited only to those who observed it, and it’s evident that scoffers today wouldn’t believe them either.

Writing about earthquakes and eclipses are never '(super)natural'.

I meant whether you consider them supernatural or natural events.

Please understand my very pointed conclusion, from this vary statement. The poster attempted to demonstrate that 'Matthew' is trustworthy. My point is that very honest and trustworthy people make all sorts of large anecdotal claims, which directly oppose your very specific beliefs. My POINT is that honesty, integrity, and being trustworthy, really has no bearing or relevancy to whether such an anecdotal event happens or not. What begins to validate such a claim, is corroborated accounts of the vary same event. (i.e.) multiple points of reference from unbiased perspectives.

Well, you have four different perspectives from biased perspectives… the unbiased perspectives were no shows, which is confusing to me especially in a time when authorities would have welcomed such writings condemning Christians. Don’t you find that odd?

 

[cvanwey]

True, but my guess is that any eyewitness testimony produced, regardless of the source, would be considered pro-Christian and pro-Bible by scoffers.

False. Using textual criticism, one could conclude how such claims derived. It is absolutely no secret the writings from the Bible were later hand selected by the church. There exists an extreme bias there...

But, again this period (of Josephus) was after Christ’s time and apparently Matthew was one of the few writers to have access to eyewitnesses, and John was actually one, biased or not.

You have avoided my large observation. If the intent was to demonstrate God's glory, why only present to the one's whom already were believers? Such an event would not be persuasive to current non-believers.

Like I stated elsewhere, look how effective the provided 'vision' to Saul was He is half the reason Christianity exists.

Or, this is all nuts… nothing of the sort happened. Why do you think no one made that comment?

False. Common sense tells us you cannot prove a negative. No one of intelligence would write about how something did not happen, especially when you could count the claims of it 'happening' on one hand. Furthermore, the accounts of "Matthew" were not made 'important" by the church until many decades/centuries later; (well after the lives of anyone there to refute it). No one of the contemporaneous time period would have even have known that this particular claim, roaming around in circulation, was any more or less significant than the many other claims of the supernatural surely floating around (before, during, or after), especially during these ancient times of widely believed superstition.

Yes, and given the atmosphere regarding Christians during the time of Josephus (Roman-Jewish), he may not have been too willing to comment extensively on them, especially in a favorable light.

Josephus' intent was to report what others believed. That's all. Later scribes added the 'golden paragraph'. Why is that ?.?.?.?

But, they either knew eyewitnesses, or was one themselves, and unlike Josephus, were willing to speak out despite dangerous times for them.

Following your logic, so would have Josephus, as he wrote his accounts the same time period as Matthew. And yet, Josephus was not a believer. He was merely a reporter of what OTHERS believed.

Furthermore, we have no credible accounts that such believers/writers were martyred. This is wishful thinking to support your believed conclusion.

May be true, but it’s funny how you whole-heartedly accept this as confirmation, no question, and don’t accept the gospel eyewitnesses.

It's as if you did not read my last response. Josephus' early writings did not have the golden paragraph. Furthermore, when you read the golden paragraph, and compare this paragraph against the rest of his writings, it's obvious such a writing was an addition; as the literary style differs widely.

I don't accept the Gospel witnesses because all such writings, which one can count on one hand, are all from the very same bias perspective. For eyewitness attestation to be grounded and founded, perspectives from unbiased accounts need to corroborate the event. And in the case of the Bible, which claims that MANY saw as such, seems peculiar that no one reported as such?

Demonstrating a supernatural event in a worldly way may have received even more ridicule, since it would have been limited only to those who observed it, and it’s evident that scoffers today wouldn’t believe them either.

Not necessarily. 'Scoffers" would have little to no merit if reports came from many differing locations, speaking about 'walking dead people' and a 'risen person claiming to be Christ'.

Well, you have four different perspectives from biased perspectives… the unbiased perspectives were no shows, which is confusing to me especially in a time when authorities would have welcomed such writings condemning Christians. Don’t you find that odd?

I trust my response above have already addressed these statements.

 

[inquiring mind]

False. Using textual criticism, one could conclude how such claims derived. It is absolutely no secret the writings from the Bible were later hand selected by the church. There exists an extreme bias there...



You have avoided my large observation. If the intent was to demonstrate God's glory, why only present to the one's whom already were believers? Such an event would not be persuasive to current non-believers.

Like I stated elsewhere, look how effective the provided 'vision' to Saul was He is half the reason Christianity exists.



False. Common sense tells us you cannot prove a negative. No one of intelligence would write about how something did not happen, especially when you could count the claims of it 'happening' on one hand. Furthermore, the accounts of "Matthew" were not made 'important" by the church until many decades/centuries later; (well after the lives of anyone there to refute it). No one of the contemporaneous time period would have even have known that this particular claim, roaming around in circulation, was any more or less significant than the many other claims of the supernatural surely floating around (before, during, or after), especially during these ancient times of widely believed superstition.



Josephus' intent was to report what others believed. That's all. Later scribes added the 'golden paragraph'. Why is that ?.?.?.?



Following your logic, so would have Josephus, as he wrote his accounts the same time period as Matthew. And yet, Josephus was not a believer. He was merely a reporter of what OTHERS believed.

Furthermore, we have no credible accounts that such believers/writers were martyred. This is wishful thinking to support your believed conclusion.



It's as if you did not read my last response. Josephus' early writings did not have the golden paragraph. Furthermore, when you read the golden paragraph, and compare this paragraph against the rest of his writings, it's obvious such a writing was an addition; as the literary style differs widely.

I don't accept the Gospel witnesses because all such writings, which one can count on one hand, are all from the very same bias perspective. For eyewitness attestation to be grounded and founded, perspectives from unbiased accounts need to corroborate the event. And in the case of the Bible, which claims that MANY saw as such, seems peculiar that no one reported as such?



Not necessarily. 'Scoffers" would have little to no merit if reports came from many differing locations, speaking about 'walking dead people' and a 'risen person claiming to be Christ'.



I trust my response above have already addressed these statements.

Lets try to fine-tune the comments. I think they're too long... we're repeating ourselves, and a couple times you referred to me not addressing a question when I did later in my comment (or I thought I did anyway). Tit for tat, but I think it would be better to just address one or two points at a time.

 

[inquiring mind]

Let’s start with the first two sentences of the OP... “I think there are obvious examples of how legends grow around historical figures. I suspect that this also occurred around a historical Jesus.” How about that? What’s your thoughts there?

 

[cvanwey]

Let’s start with the first two sentences of the OP... “I think there are obvious examples of how legends grow around historical figures. I suspect that this also occurred around a historical Jesus.” How about that? What’s your thoughts there?

Uum, mkay... Let's completely switch gears... Why not...

The original account ends at Mark 16:8. Later additions disclose Mark 16:9-20. They are both diametrically contradictory to one another. They cannot both be correct. Nor is either confirmed regardless. As each Gospel arises, more supernatural claims are added. By the time John is written, we have much wider tales added.

Conclusion.... Repeated tales, told exclusively in oral tradition alone for decades, before anyone writes them to paper, is the absolute starting point. People are very superstitious; especially during this era.

Let's start there.

 

[inquiring mind]

Uum, mkay... Let's completely switch gears... Why not...

The original account ends at Mark 16:8. Later additions disclose Mark 16:9-20. They are both diametrically contradictory to one another. They cannot both be correct. Nor is either confirmed regardless. As each Gospel arises, more supernatural claims are added. By the time John is written, we have much wider tales added.

Conclusion.... Repeated tales, told exclusively in oral tradition alone for decades, before anyone writes them to paper, is the absolute starting point. People are very superstitious; especially during this era.

Let's start there.

Fair enough... but let’s be practical, and I'm trying to stick to the first two sentences of the OP here... even as God, how could He take the form of man and interact in this world, and not be subject to human ways and interpretations (the legend thing), even if He is above them (rhetorical question of course)? So, yes, the average person no doubt would have interjected a certain amount of legendary status to repeated stories. But, here’s the question, “Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do it (impeccable men having talked to witnesses and representing them, or actually being one)?” I don't think so.

 

[inquiring mind]

The original account ends at Mark 16:8. Later additions disclose Mark 16:9-20. They are both diametrically contradictory to one another.

How do the added details of verses 9-20 change what Mark said originally (in verses 6-7)?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Say we had one surviving record of a claimed supernatural event in history. We then had absolutely no opposing secular reports. Would this mean the stated claimed supernatural event actually happened?

If the source is credible, then, yes, they apparently experienced what they reported to have experienced.

So, Mary the mother of Jesus, the mother of James & John Zebedee, John the Apostle, other followers at the foot of the cross, as well as the Roman centurion and his soldiers, all apparently experienced a Religious Vision of resurrected saints.

If you seek a super-skeptical science-only explanation, then there's one of those also -- in the rumbling darkness, their eyes & minds started playing tricks on them. They experienced a frightening confusion of sights & sounds, that their minds tried to make sense of.

There is no reason to impugn Matthew's integrity, and claim he made it all up.

He said, in the rumbling darkness and the stress & fear of the moment, they experienced a Vision. Violates no laws of physics. No justification to impugn Matthew.

My primary doctor is a Hindu. He is honest, trustworthy, and I have never caught him in a lie. He has practiced for years and many trust him with their lives wholeheartedly.

He claims to of had visions of his God(s). Saul claimed to of had visions of Jesus/God.

Like I already said -- evidently, your doctor reports to experience the "Religious experience" of communicative Contact from godlike beings in the heavens, which experiences have been widely reported throughout human history, world-and-species-wide -- as far & wide & far back as anyone recorded or remembers.

Do you pay your doctor more to hear his wondrous claims? What incentive does your doctor have to lie, fabricate, make up such reports?

Saint Paul followed his Vision for 30 years until he was beheaded by Nero. What was the incentive or "pay off" there ?

World-wide-spread reports of communicative Contact events, from godlike beings in the heavens, deserve to be seriously considered.

If you flat out dismiss what other people say, out of hand, with no inquiry or investigation... why can't people dismiss what you say, out of hand? Fair would be fair.

Your doctor's (alleged) first hand report of direct experience warrants more consideration than your second hand counter-report that "no, couldn't be, don't believe him".

If we can't trust a trained doctor, into whose care you yourself trust your fate... why could anyone trust you? What would be more nonsensical -- a "crazy doctor hallucinating" or something... or somebody else subjecting themselves voluntarily to the "crazy hallucinating doctor's" care?

I don't see how you are supporting your case.

I don't take your doctor's reported Contact experiences lightly or dismissively, especially in the context of world-wide-spread reports of similar Contact experiences spanning all of human history -- Saint Paul on the road to Damascus being just one of many many more.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Repeated tales, told exclusively in oral tradition alone for decades, before anyone writes them to paper, is the absolute starting point. People are very superstitious; especially during this era.

Let's start there.

How much do you think the "story" or "party line" changed, from the 30s AD (Crucifixion) to the 60s AD (Gospels) ?

Just how exaggerated do you think the "yarn" or "tale" got?

Many of the people alive in 30 AD were still alive in the 60s AD:

• Saint Peter
• Saint Paul
• Rabbi Tzadok "who [in 70 AD, had] fasted 40 years to stave off the destruction of Jerusalem"

Saint Paul visited his churches repeatedly, writing to the Corinthians over & over & over.

If Saint Paul kept changing his story, "embellishing" the tale each time through...

• why didn't people stand up and say, "hey wait a minute man, that's not what you said last time you were here?"
• why is there no evidence of a changing Christology in Paul's letters, which span almost two decades?
• why is there no evidence of changing Christology in the Gospels, which span three decades?

Your argument just makes no sense.

George H.W. Bush said, "read my lips, no new taxes". Then he raised taxes. Then he was voted out of office.

Your allegation of "Chinese whispers / telephone game" may apply to kindergarteners whispering quietly in each others' ears with no oversight about some made up sentence they know nothing about.

Saints Peter & Paul were adults, speaking on their honor, in public... about life-changing events they lived through and witnessed with their own eyes.

No, you don't have to believe a kindergartner at the end of a "telephone game" line in preschool.

If a WWII veteran tells you about D-Day, you have to take them seriously.

If Saint Peter & Paul changed their tune each time around, surely some of those thousands & thousands of detractors all around would have shouted out, "hey, this dude is making this hokum all up -- he didn't say half of this last time!" And somebody else would have said, "yeah, that's right, I didn't hear any of this before!" And so on, and nobody would have ever taken them seriously.

What Saint Paul actually preached was this --

Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

No, the Gospels are not kindergarten "telephone whispering game" gossip.