|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Eyewitness To Jesus? The Gospel Authors | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
judge responds to me:
quote:quote: Do you have any evidence that 1 John is contemporaneous with Jesus?
quote: But it doesn't say that. Instead, it says they saw the blessings of god, touched the blessings of god. That is a very different statement from saying you saw and touched Jesus in the flesh while he was still alive. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Why? Surely the Jews would have taken notice of this amazing Jewish boy, who understood the Law as deeply as a learned scholar while merely a boy, who was performing miracles left and right, etc., etc. Why is it nobody seemed to notice his existence? Yah sure, just like they took soooo much care to undermine his miracles and cover up his resurrection and just like modern Jews and you secularists have enough bias against him today to reject by spin, the remarkable archeological find concerning his step dad and brother, James. Had this been someone like Shakyamuni, the world would've bent over backwards to lend accredence to the find.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
judge Member (Idle past 6469 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
And the word became flesh. So says Johns gospel.
1 john ..again..1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. Rrhain, what exactly do you think the writer touched with his hands? [This message has been edited by judge, 12-28-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Of course all the deciples knew him well and touched him. I think Rrhain is referring to who he considers to be writers who were with him. According to Acts, the apostle Paul received a bright blinding vision from him and heard his voice from Heaven. You raise good points nevertheless, Judge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6263 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
But Ya'aqob could just as easily be translated as "Jacob" rather than "James" ...
Gosh, and 'James' is such a good Jewish name ... By the way, those interested should be aware of this from BAR.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6263 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Rrhain: But 1 John wasn't written until decades after the fact. It certainly wasn't an eyewitness account. Judge: I'd have to disagree here. I don't know how much plainer it could be written..."we saw Him...we touched him " Udo Schnelle, in The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, clearly rejects the idea of John as an eyewitness and dates his gospel to 100-110 CE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4984 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi
But Mark was NOT an eye-witness, so his Gospel (if we assume it WAS by Mark) is NOT an eye-witness account - its HEARSAY. Yes, but my reply was specifically related to Jim’s criteria for rejecting/accepting the Gospels. Jim said :
Looking only at the names now attached to the gospels, we can see that 2 would have been eyewitnesses while the other 2 would not have been (Mark would have been an indirect eyewitness, so to speak). If we allow Mark to be Peter’s interpreter, then 3 gospels are possible eyewitness accounts and 1 is not. My suggestion was if Jim was prepared to accept Mark’s Gospel as an ‘indirect’ eyewitness then he would, by the same criteria, have to allow for Luke being an ‘indirect’ eyewitness. I agree with what you are saying, I do not give any credibility to the Gospel accounts at all, in fact, they are pretty poor examples of ancient literature. For example, compare the NT to the Book of Exodus, nothing in the NT comes anywhere near to the majesty of the Book of Exodus, even though it is mainly ancient folk lore. I am actually appalled at what the Gospel authors, whoever they were, have done to the Old Testament; they have virtually butchered it in their attempt to make Jesus into something he clearly wasn’t. The most staggering thing is that their attempts to do so are so amateurish that I am amazed that anyone cannot see how they have ripped one or two lines from various OT books totally out of context.
And, as pointed out above, the Gospels were originally ANONYMOUS documents which were un-named until late 2nd century. Furthermore, the 2 other synoptics copied the vast majority of G.Mark, word-for-word, showing they were not by eye-witnesses either. Yes I studied some areas of Christianity at Stirling University with John Drane, I am fully aware of the 'synoptic problem'. My Honours dissertation was entitled ‘Constantine: Saint or Heretic’and whilst researching for this i studied a lot of the early Xian literature.
Also, neither the Gospels, nor their contents, nor their authors, are mentioned by any Christians until early-mid 2nd century - the earliest twenty or so Christian documents show NO KNOWLEDGE of the Gospel stories or events. Well I think the Gospels are clearly trying to place a mythical Jesus into a historical setting, and they fail miserably. They essentially try to make this phantom into a real person and the only way that anyone can fail to notice this is to bury their head in the sand. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Consequent:
Don't these guys ever catch on? You'd think Anglophiles would know that James I and James II were "Jacobian" kings (ding ding ding). And don't tell Buz about this, because I don't want to revisit the "Y" vs. "J" debate, but I think Iaccarino is Italian for "Little James" similarly to the French feminine diminuative Jacqueline for his little sister. I also find that by a most pleasing paradox the proper pronounciation of "Jaimie" in Spanish is "Hymie."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
buzsaw responds to me:
quote:quote: But notice that they're acknowledging his existence! Even if they hate him, they still recognize that he exists. We can't find any indication that he even existed at the time. Nobody seemed to notice his passing. We can't even find any records in the Roman tabulation, despite the evidence of the existence of Pilate. Again, look back to Akhenaten. He was despised by the priests who carried out a systematic attempt to destroy every single vestige of his reign, completely obliterating him from history. They failed. Do you honestly believe that if word came round about a man who was capable of raising people from the dead, it wouldn't get documented everywhere and spread so far and wide that it would be impossible to cover it up? And yet, nobody contemporaneous to Jesus seems to have noticed. It's kinda like the flood...the Egyptians and the Chinese where alive and writing for centuries before the flood didn't seem to notice that they were all dead.
quote: Right...if somebody somewhere says that it's god and Jesus, then it has to be. Nobody would ever lie about Jesus. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
judge responds to me:
quote: I told you already. Didn't you read my post? The fruits of worship to god. Not Jesus, but the blessings of god. If you pray for, say, enough money to make the rent so that you and your children don't get thrown out into the street, and it shows up in an unmarked envelope under your door, you can handily believe that Jesus made it happen. You've touched the money with your own hands. But did you touch Jesus? No. There is a difference between touching Jesus and touching the blessings of Jesus. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
judge Member (Idle past 6469 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
CA:
Udo Schnelle, in The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, clearly rejects the idea of John as an eyewitness and dates his gospel to 100-110 CE. Judge:oooh dear! Can you cite his reasons? BTW this is 1 John not the gospel of John
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6263 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Can you cite his reasons?
Yes.
BTW this is 1 John not the gospel of John
I stand corrected. Incidently, Schnelle writes: "Language, the world of theological concepts presupposed, and the different situation point to the conclusion that I John and the Gospel are by different authors."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:Yes. The historical support for Jesus would lie somewhere between that for Pythagoras and that for Socrates. quote:Homer provides a good contrast in the other direction. The support for Jesus' existence is much better than anything we have for Homer, for whom we have nothing even remotely contemporaneous, while for Jesus the earliest evidence comes from Paul, writing about 20 years after his death. Not an eyewitness, but someone who did meet Jesus' brothers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:You're suggesting the gospels were written by non-Christians?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6263 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
You're suggesting the gospels were written by non-Christians?
No, s/he was suggesting that there exists no 'EMPTY TOMB' narrative firmly dated to the 1st century CE. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024