Claims about the NT

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear shiloh357,

Thank you for your response to my comments.

The point is, if Mark is also an eye witness anyway, then it pretty much deflates any argument against His gospel not being an eyewitness account. It may not have been Mark's eyewitness account, but it may likely have been Peter's.

Sorry to disagree with you. However, whether Mark is an eyewitness of not, we cannot know, for he was writing (as mentioned before) Peter's account. We do not have Mark's own account. If somehow Mark was writing for himself and Peter, then we do not have independent sources. If that is the case, it seems to me that Mark/Peter are conflated and collaborated, and certainly not independent. In the search for truth, we need to have as many independent, non-biased primary first-hand sources that are contemporaneous (at the same time) of the alleged events.

The book of Acts shows these men willing to suffer and die for their testimony that they had encountered the ressurrected Jesus. No one would die for something they lied about. The fact that they were willing to face imprisonment, torture and even death for simply claiming they are witnesses of the resurrected jesus was alive is a powerful indicator to the truthfulness of that claim. The ressurection of Jesus turned them from being cowards afraid for their lives, to men willing to face down the most brutal torture and demise man would throw at them.

The difference is that while many will die for a belief or a faith, the apostles were not dying for that. They were not dying for a religion, either. They were dying for refusing to be silenced about their eyewitness testimony that Jesus was ressurrected. Either they were lying or they were telling the truth.

I don't pretend to know the intention of the writers back then, and I don't it furthers knowledge to speculate. You provide only two alternatives: either they were lying or they were telling the truth. Those are not the only alternatives. Consider this one: They thought they were telling the truth. However, they were deceived, and what they were really telling were lies. No one knows what they thought for sure, and there is no way to interrogate them since they are long dead.

In fact, the NT claims that at least 500 people witnessed Jesus after his ressurrection.

Of the 500 people who witnessed the resurrected Jesus, how many wrote down what they saw at the time they saw it?

Regards,

UF

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

UF, I don't know what your purpose is with this.

Dear nebula,

Thank you for your response to my comments.

My purpose with this is to understand which of the books of the NT are from independent, primary (first-hand) sources, and which are not. It is as simple as that.

As I mentioned, Mark could have been recording sermons that were already written down, thus compiling first hand recordings. You see, as a traveling rabbi, Jesus would repeat sermons. Thus you the Beatitudes that are recorded in Matthew also recorded in Luke, but at a different point in time.

That said, if you don't consider newspaper reports as primary sources, how do you research primary sources for current news events, for many of them are recordings from what people have said rather than their own eye witness?

I consider newspaper accounts written at the time of the events (contemporaneous) secondary sources that cite primary sources (the witnesses). Unless the newspaper reporter is reporting his/her personal experience (such as 9-11), and they are just interviewing a witness (as is the case in Mark, where the alleged witness is Peter), it is at best a secondary source.

If Mark was recording sermons already written, then Mark is not a primary source for those sermons.

Luke was straight forward that he was recording what he researched when writing the Gospel. Acts, however, is a mixture of research and first-hand account (when "they" is changed to "we" it is first hand.)

I see. So which parts of Luke are first-hand accounts, and which parts are not? Is there any way to unmix the mixture?

Matthew was indeed an eye witness. If he borrowed from what Mark wrote, why does that change his being a primary source? There are recordings of Jesus given by Matthew that are not recorded in Mark. But it is also likely that if the sermons of Jesus had been written down previously, Matthew could have used these as well, thus the overlap between Mark and Matthew but with variations in the presentation, plus the many additions and the few eliminations. (Why would Matthew have not recorded all of the things that Mark recorded if he was copying Mark's work?)

If Matthew copied from Mark (who wrote for Peter), Matthew cannot be considered a primary source, nor could Matthew be considered independent.

But the fact that Matthew contains many things that Mark does not should give it credence as first-hand, don't you think?

Perhaps, but it could also mean that the older gospel (Mark) could have been tampered with to produce something different in the newer version (Matthew).

So, to go back this claim we are arguing:

2) by people who did not know Jesus, did not see anything he did or hear anything he taught. (by deduction, could not be eyewitnesses)

True for Luke

May or may not be true for Mark, we don't know

False for Matthew - even if he borrowed from Mark for his writing, that does not negate his own first hand accounts

False for John

I am not arguing this. I just wanted some perspectives, which you have kindly provided. Much thanks.

Regards,

UF

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Here is what it says in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

Luke's Method.

Luke has announced his methods of work in a most classic introduction (Luk_1:1-4). Here we catch a glimpse of the author's personality. That is not possible in Mark nor in Matthew, and only indirectly in passing shadows in the Fourth Gospel. But here the author frankly takes the reader into his confidence and discloses his standpoint and qualifications for the great task. He writes as a contemporary about the recent past, always the most difficult history to interpret and often the most interesting. He speaks of

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Hi good to meet you

Let me first address the good Doctor's credentials... first of all, no number of degrees guarantees 'no bias', would you agree? Neither do the number of credentials guarantee 'no agenda' other than presenting the truth... again can we agree on these 2 points?

Dear WolfBitn,

Thank you for your response to my comments.

I agree with you that no number of degrees guarantees non-bias.

I agree that the number (or lack of) of credentials do not guarantee presentation of truth.

I was only presenting Professor Erhman's credentials as a response to TrustingJesus implication that he was not a "true" bible scholar:

I wonder how Mr. Ehrman can call himself a Biblical scholar. He certainly does not have his "facts" right.

<>< ><>

Nathele

From his credentials and his position, it seems he has spent a lot of time studying the bible.

Regards,

UF

[WolfBitn]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Hi good to meet you

Let me first address the good Doctor's credentials... first of all, no number of degrees guarantees 'no bias', would you agree? Neither do the number of credentials guarantee 'no agenda' other than presenting the truth... again can we agree on these 2 points?

Dear WolfBitn,

Thank you for your response to my comments.

I agree with you that no number of degrees guarantees non-bias.

I agree that the number (or lack of) of credentials do not guarantee presentation of truth.

I was only presenting Professor Erhman's credentials as a response to TrustingJesus implication that he was not a "true" bible scholar:

Regards,

UF

I Thank you UF, for your response and your agreement that credentials don't neccessarily guarantee a lack of agenda, after all we all have our agendas in doing what we do. I'm not accusing the good doctor, but i think we should also agree that credentials do not guarantee infallibility either.

Do you know his sources? How is he arriving to his conclusion, what is his basis for this charge, because its contrary to everything ive personally studied?

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

I Thank you UF, for your response and your agreement that credentials don't neccessarily guarantee a lack of agenda, after all we all have our agendas in doing what we do. I'm not accusing the good doctor, but i think we should also agree that credentials do not guarantee infallibility either.

Do you know his sources? How is he arriving to his conclusion, what is his basis for this charge, because its contrary to everything ive personally studied?

Dear WolfBitn,

No problem. Professor Erhman's credentials are only evidence that he's been studying this field for a lot of time. I do not personally know the sources he used to come to his conclusions. However, I do know that he has written many books, the most recent entitled "Misquoting Jesus". I have not read any of his books, but I am assuming that his books are footnoted and bibliographied.

I would advise you to google his lecture as part of the Heyn series of lectures where he went into the specifics of the example I provided earlier to pokemaughan regarding the insertion of John 7 and 8 in the 10th century. I will not provide any links to that lecture, since I think the administrators of this forum will consider it against the TOS.

Regards,

UF

[georgedrw81]

30-35 years or even more was considered fast at the time.Many times we tend to compare today's speed with the ones 1000 or 2000 years ago.One can debate the Bible accuracy and question it on every line,word,translation but humans are ready to accept the sayings of another without second thought. The Bible is as contemporary today as it was then and the most widespread. The instructions inside the Bible are there for one to follow and to arrive to God and Jesus.

We humans read many books in our life but many of us fail to read,listen and see the Bible.The word Bible means book.

Blessings

[WolfBitn]

UF i will take his work a bit at a time here so asa to be a little more understandable

"The Gospels "were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus' death by people who did not know him, did not see anything he did or hear anything that he taught, people who spoke a different language from his and lived in a different country from him."

This is far from the truth. Matthew Mark Luke and John were contemporary with Christ, all but Luke knew Him personally, travelled with Him, were taught by Him, and were very near when He was crucified. All but Luke would have spoken Aramaic, the same language Christ spoke. They saw and partook in his miracles, and they travelled together through the same lands. There is nothing here this good Doctor has correct.

Luke is the one exception, however he too was a contemperary of Christ and most likely spoke several languages including Aramaic and greek. Though he never travelled with Christ or heard Him preach, he did indeed travel with Paul, noting all the miracles performed by Paul, for he was a contemporary of Christ too. He just came into the picture a few years after the resurrection.

They are not disinterested accounts of what "really" happened, an impartial record of an infallible oral tradition. The anonymous authors were often biased "in light of their own theological understandings". Nor are the Gospels independent - "Mark was used as a source for Matthew and Luke" - and for many of the stories about Jesus there is no "corroboration without collaboration". And yet they are still "widely inconsistent, with discrepancies filling their pages, both contradictions in details and divergent large-scale understandings of who Jesus was."

There is no way in the world he can say with any assurance any of this and much of it is just weirdly worded bunk. IF for instance Matthew and Luke were just revisions of Mark then why in the next breath does he say they contradict one another? It makes no sence at all. If YOU or I were going to copy a work to make it appear that it had more than one witness wouldnt you or i know to remove what some might construe as contradictions before we spread it far and wide?

How about we give credence to these men as having as much commen sence as we do

Also there IS historical proof from other nonchristian sources, historical sources, recording such events as we read in the gospels....

the good doctor should be aware of this if he is competent

Professor Ehrman makes several claims:

1) Gospels were written 35-65 years after Jesus' death

Even if this were so, and its very questionable, but lets give it to him... Mark was a very young man when Jesus was crucified. He lived to a very old age. He even taught in Egypt and there is record og him being there.

John outlived ALL the apostles, dying about 98 AD, so even if he wrote the book of John in his very old age, this is 65 years after the resurrection of Christ... so whats his beef here?

2) by people who did not know Jesus, did not see anything he did or hear anything he taught. (by deduction, could not be eyewitnesses)

Most people know who they live and travel with

3) They are not disinterested accounts of what really happened. (implying that the writers had an agenda beyond recording history)

Of COURSE they arent a disinterested account... these men had a mandate from Jesus Christ after His resurrection. He commanded them to go into all the world with His good news. OF COURSE they had an agenda, they had the same agenda I DO... or any other christian should... to see people saved... so again whats his beef when he himself has an obvious agenda?

4) Gospels are not independent, Mark was used as source for Matthew and Luke.

I'm tempted to just say 'lol' but I'll just say he has no source whatsoever proving this... they are all quite differant and there is ancient testimony attributing these works to their authors.... all i can say is source please.

Are these claims true to your understanding?

Regards,

UF

The few claims that ARE true are used in a very misleading manipulative way as i have shown. This reveals the good Doctors own agenda.

As for the rest, its rubbish and he certainly cant provide any credible sources proving any such thing

Best regards my friend

(please dont take my words for argumentive against you at all... just being honest)

Edited July 24, 2009 by WolfBitn

[Guest shiloh357]

Sorry to disagree with you. However, whether Mark is an eyewitness of not, we cannot know, for he was writing (as mentioned before) Peter's account. We do not have Mark's own account. If somehow Mark was writing for himself and Peter, then we do not have independent sources. If that is the case, it seems to me that Mark/Peter are conflated and collaborated, and certainly not independent. In the search for truth, we need to have as many independent, non-biased primary first-hand sources that are contemporaneous (at the same time) of the alleged events.

There is no clear historical indication that Mark was a follower of Jesus prior to meeting Peter, but as a contemporary with Peter, it is not at all unlikely that he may have seen Jesus and even witnessed his miracles or teachings.

The problem with non-biased sources is that Jesus' particularly in His ministry was extremely controversial, and with respect to his life and teachings, there are almost no accounts that were "unbiased" either for or agaisnt Him. Jesus was someone you loved or you hated. Jesus' claims about Himself force a person to make a decision. Jesus did not offer Himself as a good teacher, a or a mere prophet, but rather He offered Himself as the Son of God and the Son of Man (a messianic title). He claimed to be the giver of etenal life, and the only way to God. The Bible presents Jesus as Divine and as preexisent with God Himself. Mankind is forced to either accept or reject Jesus based on the way He is presented. So one's opinon about Jesus based on how Jesus presented Himself leaves little room for a dispassionate, unbiased opinions or accounts of His life.

The internal evidence of Mark is found in the way it is written. Mark is actually far too detailed and uses a lot of graphic language that would not be characteistic if Mark were not based on an eyewitness account. For one thing, Mark is written from the prespective of a Galilean and in addition, the book of Mark gives insights into what Peter was thinking and feeling at times, which would indicate Peter as the source. The intimate and vivid details of the experiences the apostles had with Jesus would not be characteristic of an account that is just relating the events of Jesus life. It is written from the perspective of someone who was there and contains details that would only be known to a someone who was really there.

I don't pretend to know the intention of the writers back then, and I don't it furthers knowledge to speculate. You provide only two alternatives: either they were lying or they were telling the truth. Those are not the only alternatives. Consider this one: They thought they were telling the truth. However, they were deceived, and what they were really telling were lies. No one knows what they thought for sure, and there is no way to interrogate them since they are long dead.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. For 40 days after Jesus' resurrection they saw Him, talked to Him touched Him, ate with Him, etc. And in some cases, they encountered Him independent of each other, such as on the Road to Emmaus and Mary of Magdeline, the first to see Jesus after His resurrection.

Had they been deceived, their enemies could have easily proven it. Jesus burial location was known to the religious leaders and to the Roman authorities. Had they simply been deceived, their enemies would have simply proven them wrong by producing the body of Jesus and ending the deception of any ressurection. The ONLY alternatives is that they were lying (which again, would have been easily proven) or that they had actually encounered the resurrected Jesus.

Their enemies could not disprove or discredit their testimony so their only alternative was to attempt to silence them by means of torture, imprisonment, death.

[Guest shiloh357]

And yet they are still "widely inconsistent, with discrepancies filling their pages, both contradictions in details and divergent large-scale understandings of who Jesus was."

That actually adds to the credibility of the gospel accounts. Someone here posted a while back that when law enforcement examines multiple witness accounts to a situation, variation. contradictions and discrepancies are expected. Witness accounts that are too similar raise suspiscion because it gives the appearance that the witnesses were coached. There is an expected range of discrepancies and inconsistencies that are applied in determining the accuracy of multiple witnesses testifying to a law enforcment official or as a witness in a court of law.

So to argue that discrepancies between accounts detracts credibility simply doesn't work. The discrepancies actually demonstrate that we are dealing with independent accounts, and not copycats.