The written records as evidence

[Neo-Scholastic]

Aractus, you should know better. Even if the Glorified Jesus came down from the sky and shook their hand, this band of atheists would find some reason not to believe it was true.

[FallentoReason]

Aractus, you should know better. Even if the Glorified Jesus came down from the sky and shook their hand, this band of atheists would find some reason not to believe it was true.

I wish I could believe that Matthew actually wrote a diary of his adventures with Jesus, but God is so set on testing my faith, that he scripted the unfolding of history against the odds of Christianity. Go figure.

[Captain Colostomy]

Aractus, you should know better. Even if the Glorified Jesus came down from the sky and shook their hand, this band of atheists would find some reason not to believe it was true.

Challenge accepted!

Give him a call, and let's see...

[Aractus]

I think it's a safe assumption to say the order is Mark -> Matthew/Luke -> John. Mark is the crudest of them all while John seems to be the most polished.

No that isn't a safe assumption. I think that Peter dies before Paul - what do you say to that? If Peter and Paul both died c. 64 AD, then John has to be written after that, but if Peter dies c. 54 AD then John could have been written anytime from 54 AD and then you could have Mark > John > Matthew > Luke or Mark > Matthew > John > Luke.

The other question that you have to ask, if you doubt that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John is - if it wasn't written by the apostle why didn't the author make use of Mark/Matthew/Luke/"Q"/etc?

And as I pointed out before, it still remains possible that Mark used Matthew. Unlikely, but possible.

My apologies. I do have to admit I'm not sure where we're heading in our discussion. I'm just answering you a sentence for a sentence.

Ok, that's an example of consistency. *shrugs* it would be rather silly of me to assert that the Gospels have 0% consistency. I'm not going to that extreme.

Well, consistency isn't my agenda, it's historical reliability. I'll grant you that not everything can be corroborated, but that never automatically means that it's wrong, it simply means we don't have enough pieces of the puzzle to see the big picture.

If you say it could be dated anywhere between 50AD and 90AD, then I'd say there's a lot of goddamn speculation going on!

Well if you look at most ancient writings from these times, we don't know exactly when they're written either. We do have examples of NT books which strongly support early dates (earlier than 70 AD) and we have John who's date is fairly ambiguous. And no, if you said that John was written between 50-90AD that's not speculating, that's based on the evidence - narrowing it down further requires some degree of speculation, but you never know we may some day figure out the exact day that the book was written.

I think it's a damn good argument. The author's intent: to write an account of the events that have unfolded. Naturally, what would be your approach? To retell what you've experienced? But of course. Thus, if "Matthew" has had to rely on a second-hand document, then what's that telling you?

If we knew for 100% certain that Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew then it would tell us that he believed Mark's account to be a genuine and reliable order of events, that's all it would tell you. You could speculate that it means Matthew and Peter were very close and developed a shared narrative to Evangelize.

That he didn't have any experiences to share? Almost certainly. Then why even entertain the idea he was a witness? Do away with the tradition that the Gospel of Matthew was indeed written by the Apostle Matthew.

I think that "Matthew" did make use of Mark's gospel, and furthermore I think Luke made use of them both. As for John, he didn't make use of them, that doesn't automatically mean that he didn't know about them (since he is an eyewitness after all), however it also doesn't mean that he did know about them.

You can't speculate that an eyewitness can't use the narrative of somebody else. If you give a written statement to police, you give it independently of somebody else, and there are almost always anomalies. The police may then come to you later and say "this is the statement we got from another witness, could you tell us if you agree or disagree with the following statements" and then clarify some more of the events that both witnesses saw and attest to.

Alternatively, if the police simply handed you the written statement from the other witness to begin with and said "is this right", it's a no-brainer that you would just say "yes" and then possibly add to the account if questioned more.

So no, it's not solid evidence of anything, all it proves is that the author of Matthew, whoever that was, trusted Mark's Gospel the same way that Luke trusted it.

[Ryantology]

Jesus was a historical person. This is firmly established by having independent contemporary authors writing asymmetrical works. They were not bound together as "The New Testament" until some time in the second century. The first century writers did not all know about each other; although some certainly were familiar with some of the work of their contemporaries.

I don't really get why Christians focus on Jesus' historicity. You can't demonstrate the truth of any of the claims he was alleged to make, so what difference does it make whether he actually existed?

It's like, we're asking you if the car works, and you attempt to prove that it does by showing us that the locks function.

[Aractus]

It's like, we're asking you if the car works, and you attempt to prove that it does by showing us that the locks function.

A locksmith and I were talking about SCEC locks the other day, and though this didn't come up at the time, do you know that mechanical locks can be shown to be secure, but digital locks cannot be demonstrated to the same level of security without actually publishing the source and thereby compromising the lock?

What a great example you just gave me, because, no, my point in this thread isn't to talk about things that are not proven beyond doubt. But those things that we can be sure of.

[Captain Colostomy]

What a great example you just gave me, because, no, my point in this thread isn't to talk about things that are not proven beyond doubt. But those things that we can be sure of.

Who's 'we' white man?

You may be satisfied stating that, but blithely lumping everyone together as if it's an unassailable certainty goes too far.

Edit: This^, is in response to the question of a historical Jesus.

[Esquilax]

Aractus, you should know better. Even if the Glorified Jesus came down from the sky and shook their hand, this band of atheists would find some reason not to believe it was true.

Yawn. Yet more telling everyone else what atheists think to assuage your own lack of evidence, rather than just providing the evidence in the first place.

[themonkeyman]

Aractus, you should know better. Even if the Glorified Jesus came down from the sky and shook their hand, this band of atheists would find some reason not to believe it was true.

Yawn. Yet more telling everyone else what atheists think to assuage your own lack of evidence, rather than just providing the evidence in the first place.

I second this. To be honest ChadWooters I would love to believe so much in Christ Jesus however when there's so many other God's to choose from and when even Abrahamic Religions who ultimately worship the same God doom eachothers religion I find it hard to make the choice.

Christianity is generally peoples usual choice because as much as Christians like to pretend their doing Good works literally your message is : 'Jesus died - Believe that and you can be the biggest dick head ever because your sweet with God!'

[Whateverist]

JPM does a turgidly thorough job of analysing the various 'miracle' stories using the appropriate historical tools. Some are ruthlessly rejected as improbable, others as non liquet, but there is a solid core which is historically likely to have original roots to some sorts of incidents in Jesus ministry. This statement he believes can be made from the history independently of any religious POV. The earliest followers really did believe he did things.

I love that you're a Christian babe that will put a word like "turgid" in your mouth. That's cool.

What JPM stubbornly refuses to do, within the terms of reference set by him (a Protestant, a Catholic and an agnostic locked in a room and forced to produce an agreed statement), is to say whether these events were miracles or something else. He repeatedly reminds us that our worldview model will determine how we read the events- an atheist will interpret the reasons behind them differently to a believer. The beliefs of the earliest followers might be findable historically, but they may not be right.

Are there non-religious models that fit the evidence better than religious ones? There is a reason the earliest church thought Jesus did things that pointed to a particular religious model, and in brief, I would suggest that the hypothesis that is the most economical with the data is that the explanation given by the witnesses was the right one.

Right, because people are rarely mistaken in their observations. Also magic is rarely given the credit it is due as the correct explanation of events. On top of that, what reason would people so closely associated with a new religion have to make false reports which seem to make their belief system more credible? So clearly your account of the most correct explanation has got to be the most economical one. [/sarcasm]

Pity .. you were doing so well with turgidly.

---

Aractus, you should know better. Even if the Glorified Jesus came down from the sky and shook their hand, this band of atheists would find some reason not to believe it was true.

Now you're painting the lot of us with a single brush. I'd expect better from such an accomplished artist. Personally if GJ came down from the sky and shook my hand I would offer him tea in the garden. I'd make an effort to get to know him better. Eventually I'd try to clarify some of the Christian mythology. You know, try to get his take on it.