FrenchyBearpaw
Take time for granite.
It's obvious you're unwilling to provide sources for your claims. We'll have to leave it at that, I guess.
Night.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Historical criteria, epistemology, personal experience are three that come to mind.
John
NZ
Correct, as I previously pointed out, historical events and myth are indeed two separate styles in their development and style. I pointed out how the NT parallels in every way how it's beginnings are mythical in nature. I made the claim that you cannot provide any contemporary extrabiblical evidence or documentation of Jesus and his supposed exploits. I made that claim that every reference Paul makes to Jesus in his epistles occurs strictly in the heavenly or spiritual dimension. Please feel free to provide sources and prove me wrong. That would be much more constructive and compelling than simply stating your opinion of my NT understanding.
Mark, as did other gospel writers, used earlier materials.
Luke 1:1-4 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Luke 2:1-3 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to his own town to register.
Acts 1:1-5 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 0until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
Acts 23:25-27 He wrote a letter as follows:
Claudius Lysias,
To His Excellency, Governor Felix:
Greetings.
This man was seized by the Jews and they were about to kill him, but I came with my troops and rescued him, for I had learned that he is a Roman citizen.
Acts 24:27 When two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, but because Felix wanted to grant a favor to the Jews, he left Paul in prison.
Just a few references. Luke is regarded by classical historians as an excellent historian who rewrote the genre of ancient history.
Once again I repeat the criteria for assessing the NT records are historical, not some modern reconstructions that are more philosophically presumed as yours are.
John
NZ
I'm not sure how you can make this claim when Matthew copied about 90% from Mark, and John's account is wholly different. Additionally, both Mt. and Jn. are pseudonymous, and written in third person, not what you would expect from and "eyewitness."
I'm not familiar with any contemporary eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection. The earliest gospel was Mark, and was written 60-70 CE, by a pseudonymous author, in a language Jesus nor his disciples spoke, from a country Jesus had never been to. So that's about thirty years after Jesus died, by an unknown author who never met Jesus. Hardly a reliable eyewitness account.
As is Joseph Smith's testimony, and yet you reject it. History is littered with claims of eyewitness testimonies of one god or another, most of which I would assume you reject out of hand.
The synoptic gospels copy heavily from one another, and there is no real agreement than they were directly written by eyewitnesses. On top of that, claiming to be an eyewitness does not guarantee that they were eyewitnesses. It is still physically possible for someone to write down that they were an eyewitness and yet not be.
You are unwittingly supporting my claim. First, you have not provided an extrabiblical source, and the source you did provide admits that "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word." So already, you have an anonymous author, one who doesn't claim to be Luke, admitting that this account is compiled by committee based on hearsay. Additionally, there is serious scholarly discussion about the book of Acts, and given how much Acts contradicts Paul's writings, is considered to be whole cloth fabrication, with the intent of the author being to rally support for the idea of Christianity, attempting to give it a pedigree.
The primary source is Christian writings. Those writings can be subject to historical evaluation. Anthropologists accept oral tradition as a source of information, and in pre printing days was a common way to transmit one's heritage.
"A committee based on hearsay." That about describes your familiarity with NT scholarship.
We only know of Socrates through Plato, yet there is little debate about his contribution to human thought. Much of the Greek philosophy we have comes from documents well after their authors were dead - some by some centuries. The NT fares well in comparison.
As for the census of Quirinius, there is no Roman record of this happening, Josephus mentions a census by Cyrenias in 6/7 CE in Syria, and it was not customary for the Romans to require anyone to return to their ancestral home for census purposes. Then you're left with having to reconcile Matthew's account which states that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, who died 4 BCE. What is common among these accounts, is the attempt of the writers to get Jesus to Bethlehem for his birth, in a clumsy attempt at retrofitting Micah 5:2 to support a Messianic archetype in Jesus. It get's even more problematic for Christians, given the fact that there is no mention of Bethlehem in Jewish writings until the fourth century CE. This would indicate strongly, that the accounts of Mt. and Lk. we have today weren't compiled until at least the fourth century! This alone would make your claim that " Luke is regarded by classical historians as an excellent historian who rewrote the genre of ancient history" spurious, to say the least.
There is unanimous agreement from the first few centuries of the church.
Even Paul preached against the emergence of the gnostic movement and other christian movements. The whole point of the Nicene council in the 5th century was to settle disagreements that had existed since the emergence of christianity, including which accounts would be considered cannon and which would not. Agreement? Hardly.
Even Paul preached against the emergence of the gnostic movement and other christian movements. The whole point of the Nicene council in the 5th century was to settle disagreements that had existed since the emergence of christianity, including which accounts would be considered cannon and which would not. Agreement? Hardly.
Is that your "summary" of what the Nicene Council was formed for?
If so, you might want to revise it.
variant said:We have verified eye witness accounts of the holocaust down to name, date of birth, and family history of the people making the accounts. So, direct eye witness testimony written into the record, and our historical methods for investigating such claims are beyond reproach by known historians. With the New Testament Gospels we have an unknown author using unknown documents for support. It's basically hear say, where, anyone could make any claim they wish divorced from all consequence.
Seems acceptance (perhaps even knowledge) of accepted historical data) is beyond you ken. Never mind.
When it references miracles we generally do.
Only because you are thinking within a post-Enlightenment (modern) story, very much a latecomer to history, and now under significant challenges from Postmodernism because of its failure to provide an adequate account of the reality of human life, and the social sciences, which see all theories and values as culturally conditioned. Feel free to express your views as from one sect, but please don't assume their universality or unquestioned veracity.
Of course Christians have the same challenges placed onto them. But we can contend from within a very holistic story that relates to life on planet earth with significant cohesion in its worldview, extreme fundamentalism probably excepted.
John
NZ
Even Paul preached against the emergence of the gnostic movement and other christian movements.
The whole point of the Nicene council in the 5th century was to settle disagreements that had existed since the emergence of christianity, including which accounts would be considered cannon and which would not. Agreement? Hardly.
Authored by which eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and death? Please be specific.
Interesting how the claims go from written by multiple of eyewitnesses to copied from other materials so quickly when pressed on the facts.
First.
I am saying that you are making a preposterous comparison between the history of event A and event B. Not believing A is particularly well evidenced casts no doubt on event B which is very well evidenced.
This has nothing to do with my view of history, it has to do with my view of historical evidence of two events and the strength there of.
a) Good evidence is not necessarily related to numbers. It's the quality of the evidence that matters most. Ask any lawyer.
b) Quantities of external evidence are there for the NT records - names, locations, cultural consonance, local variations of custom, politics, audience, artefacts, contemporary records as examples are all faithfully recorded. Nothing mythical about any of that.
c) The early evidence for Jesus needs careful evaluation. He lived entirely within a remote Roman province amongst Jewish people. He was just another possibly troublesome Jew to the local authorities with experience of past and future Jewish troublemakers. Post resurrection there are mentions of Christians in Roman records, but they were initially viewed as another Jewish sect (incidentally verifying attesting to Jesus being a Jew, as the gospels have Him). By the end of the first century the total Christian population was about 10-15K, or not much more. But there is a steadily increasing mention of people called Christians in Roman records during that century. A comparative situation in terms of a lack of records is those we have about the poor. Many billions of people have lived without very much being known about them. Only a privileged few could read and write, and their output was confined to their own circles, often under patronage of some kind. In fact in Western societies we knew very little about the daily lives of the poor until that began to slowly change in the late 19th century. But they did exist, pretty much without what you might ask for by way of 'proof'. (I am talking about the details of their lives, not that such a large number of people were not recognised as part of society). There was no reason for significant members of Roman society to know about, let alone write about, a man executed as a common criminal in a faraway province known for its difficulties and resentment of Roman rule. I imagine you don't know much about Korean emperors for much the same reason - they are outside the ambit of your interest.
John
NZ
Right, the quality and quantity is much higher for the holocaust, to the extent that the comparison is laughable.
Thanks for playing though.
Not at al laughable, unless you want to discount most of human history. And the quality is fine too.
And not a single verifiable first hand account among them.
Not one.
We can convict a criminal without first had accounts. Many murders are not enacted as public performances.
The evidence is such that Jesus went practically unnoticed in his time.
As I have stated and why that was the case.
The accounts you speak of of thousands having visions are all second hand, and quite reasonably taken to be made up or exaggerated.
brightlights said:This is true. But Paul's vision was not the sort of vision that he would have expected or wanted to have. It wasn't a vision that was confirming a previous prejudice but a vision that flew in the face of everything he stood for. Once he "came to his senses" couldn't he have reasoned that his "vision" was just a temporary lapse of sanity? Yet he doesn't. This unexpected, unwanted vision changed the entire course of his life.
Yes theophanies are common, but Paul's theophany is unique because it changed the course of western history.
And Mohammad's didnt?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?