The Existence of Jesus Christ

From the Case for Christ: Unfortunately when he got to the specifics we find that Papias didn't "specifically affirm" anything about Mark, he merely repeated what the Presbyter told him. The statement itself doesn't describe the written works we recognize as the Gospel according to Mark or Matthew.Showing tradition and not first hand knowledge.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Greetings,

quote:

---

That's why I had already said that three of them were written by eyewitnesses, and another by one who took testimony from eyewitnesses.

---

No they weren't
Mark was not an eye-witness, even according to your own stories.
According to modern scholars, none of them were.

quote:

---

This latter assertion is indeed in the introduction to the book, where the authorship is indeed directly indicated.

---

No it isn't.
There is no author's name in the text, it's a later addition.

quote:

---

Luke I have said was not written by an eyewitness, but was written based on eyewitness testimony, as indicated in the text itself.

---

No he doesn't.1:1 Since many have undertaken to set in order a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, 1:2 even as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, This is the only mention of "eye-witnesses" -
A claim that many others have written narratives based on what the eye-witnesses and ministers of the word delivered to them.The author does NOT directly connect his writing with any such eye-witnesses.The author does NOT claim to have known any eye-witnesses.What he claims is -
* OTHERS wrote stories derived from "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word"
* HE traced the course of all things accurately from the firstBut if you actually READ the text, you see he does NOT specifically make ANY connection between his work and the eye-witnesses, just a vague implication he refered to these other works that were based on those alleged "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word"And what exactly does it mean to be an "eye-witness and minister to the word" ?
It could simply mean they had Jesus visions like Paul did.So,
the frequent claim of apologists that Luke based his work on eye-witnesses is FALSE.

​

What we actually READ in his preamble is :
* others based some stories on "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word"
* he wrote a version "accurately from the first"

quote:

---

(1) For going back to the originals, you won't find another document from ancient times where the earliest extant copy is as close to the original dating,
(2) you won't find nearly as many corroborating manuscripts and codexes, going back as far and as early,

---

False.
You keep saying this.
Even though I pointed out how silly it is.What do you think the dating or accuracy or number of manuscripts has to do with the truth of the story it contains?Consider some examples -
* the Iliad - over 600 manuscripts, more than the NT until after 1000AD - does this mean that the Iliad was more true than the NT until about 1000AD, but from the middle ages on, the NT became MORE TRUE than the Iliad?
* the works of 10thC. Yen-Shou of Hangchow - about 400,000 copies exist, about 4000 times as many copies as NT copies at that time - does this make the work over 4000 times MORE TRUE than the NT?
* the Book of Mormon - there are millions of copies of this work, many dating maybe a FEW YEARS after the original - would this make the Book of Mormon much MORE TRUE than the NT?
* the Lord of the Rings - there are many millions of copies of this work, (including the original manuscript AFAIK), dating from very soon after its writing - does this makes the Lord of the Rings of vastly more true than the NT?
* the legend of Osiris carved in Egyptian stone tombs - the exact unchanged original - does that make it exacttly true history?

quote:

---

(3) where there is as much corroboration from indirect evidence from those who knew the apostles personally, such as Polycarp, who himself showed his confidence in the truth by witnessing with his own life,

---

False.
There is no evidence that Polycarp met any apostles, just later legends.
Many people die for their beliefs - e.g. the Heaven's Gate cult - do you therefore believe it's right to castrate and kill yourself to catch a ride on that spaceship hiding behind Hale Bopp?

quote:

---

(4) other confident early fathers' references to the Roman records themselves,

---

False.
There are no Roman records of Jesus.
Just later records of Christians and their beliefs about Jesus.

quote:

---

(5) from antagonists themselves nearly contemporary, like this exchange between Trajan the Emperor and Pliny the Younger,

---

A good example of what I mean by later records of beliefs about Jesus -About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny refered to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth, just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.

quote:

---

(6) Then you have the set of manuscripts that are consistent in content that also goes back as far as you can get to the original, and is also corroborated by the agreement among them. Besides this, you have the writings of the earliest church fathers from the second century, in spite of being hindered by waves of Roman persecutions, quoting profusely from the NT and the gospels.

---

False.
There are no originals.
And every single NT manuscript is VARIANT from every other (not counting tiny scraps.)Anyway - what does that have to do with the TRUTH of the CONTENTS ?Why do you keep saying this?We have the ORIGINAL manuscript if the Lord of the Rings - does that make it true?

quote:

---

(7) the early second century, barely a scant two generations removed from the dates in question, you have references to those four gospels as inspired.

---

So?
What does professions of faithful belief prove?

quote:

---

It is even said that almost all the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the early writings of these church fathers.

---

Yes, it is SAID.
Do you know anyone who has checked?
I do.
Guess what?
It's not true at all.
Just another empty claim of apologists - it might fool the believers who never bother to check.

quote:

---

There have been counted 36,289 distinct New Testament references from the writings of the earliest church fathers alone, from the first and second centuries, from disparate places and disparate times but overwhelmingly consistent with the separate line of actual copies of the New Testament books.

---

So?IasionThis message has been edited by Iasion, 06-19-2005 05:48 AM

Your claim that the claims about authorship go back as far as the text themselves is incorrect. They assocation about the name came in the second century for , example. For example, the authorship of Mark being attributed from Mark comes through Papias, decades after Mark is alleged to have been written.

Iasion - Roughly 80 years after the alleged events Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.Jabez - and Josephus calls Pilate a procurator in Antiquities 18.5.6 as well. So what?http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html#tacproc

Do you have a source about that from other than the very bad appologist, J.P. Holding (aka, Robert Turkel)? The only claims to that either are from Holding, or people who refer to him.In other words, show me a source from an actual scholar, not a librarian who makes LOTS of outragious claims.

Ramos and others, I dusted off my Introduction To The New Testament and must say that the scholars that wrote it do indeed accept the Apostle John as the author of the gospel of John.It's clear that 2nd century community of Christians overall accepted Johannine authorship. Otherwise, the Diatessaron would not have included John's gospel and been so widely influential.

While there are some , usually evangelical scholars that claim that, others claim differently. For example

quote:

---

Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

​

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

---

and

quote:

---

If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness.

---

The much more comprehensive writing can be found on Peter Kirby's
site, in specific Gospel of John

ramoss - Do you have a source about that from other than the very bad appologist, J.P. Holding (aka, Robert Turkel)? The only claims to that either are from Holding, or people who refer to him.Jabez - ramoss I've looked at a few things things he's written and don't have a problem with his material but find him to be quite smug.From http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm , the beginning of chapter 3:"1. BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments."I see that number 3 in that chapter is the testimonium. From chapter 2 : "He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus....When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.Holding may have given an incorrect reference because it shows Antiquities chapter 18.5 stops after .4; But in 18.6.5 it says "And, as a further attestation to what I say of the dilatory nature of Tiberius, I appeal to this his practice itself; for although he was emperor twenty-two years, he sent in all but two procurators to govern the nation of the Jews, Gratus, and his successor in the government, Pilate."

Couple of points.1. The primary evidence for Johannine authorship is external. For example, his authorship was widely accepted early on, and there were people inthe 2nd century that knew John and said he wrote the gospel, which is why it was accepted.2. The fact that at some point some of Jesus' followers, the guy claiming to have been healed by Jesus for example, were put out of the synagogues in no way contradicts anything in the other gospels. That is a very weak point, and shows the weakness in the arguments against Johannine authorship.

quote:

---

2. The fact that at some point some of Jesus' followers, the guy claiming to have been healed by Jesus for example, were put out of the synagogues in no way contradicts anything in the other gospels. That is a very weak point, and shows the weakness in the arguments against Johannine authorship.

---

What is "very weak" is your knowledge of the period, about which you here demonstrate considerable ignorance. I suggest that you learn about the malediction and then review the above comments before you further embarrass yourself.

Speaking of the phrase "put out of the synagogue" the New Interpreter's Bible says "In a highly influential study, J. Louis Martyn proposed that this phrase refers to a practice of excommunicating perceived heretics from the synagogue. This practice was formalized in the Benediction Against Heretics (Birkath ha-Minam), a benediction introduced into the synagogue liturgy sometime after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE and probably between 85 and 95 CE." (The New Interpreter's Bible, Volume IX p. 504). Unless their are records that show the specific date it can't be determined exactly when the practice of putting people "out of the synagogue" began.I've read that Ireneaus was a disciple of Polycarp who knew John from Ephesus and may have been his disciple. About 180 AD Irenaeus wrote "The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit." (Against Heresies 3.11.8)Greek scholar Daniel Wallace gives a short but good examination of the authorship of John's Gospel at Page not found | Bible.orgIn John chapter 5 there's a story of an invalid who was healed by a pool called Bethesda. In 1886 archaelogists excavated the ruins of the pool. It would have been destroyed in 70 AD but John wrote of it in the present tense. Speaking of John 5:2 Wallace states (a) "the verb is (ejstin) cannot be a historical present, and (b) the pool was destroyed in 70 CE. By far the most plausible conclusion is that this gospel was written before 70 CE." On the gospel itself he says "The author uses the historical present more than any other gospel writer (161 times) and in such a way as to indicate vividness of portrayal. One should note the especially heavy use in chapter 4 and the passion narrative. This suggests the vivid recollections of an eyewitness."In the 1930's French archaeologist Pere Vincent found Gabbatha (the Stone Pavement) which is mentioned in John 19:13. Archaeologists have also unearthed the pool of Siloam (John 9:7,11) and Jacob’s well at Sychar (John 4:5). There are pictures of the pool of Siloam and the pool of Bethesda at LMU BuildWarren Berkley makes some good points about John's knowledge of the area of which he wrote:"....he knew that Bethany was only fifteen furlongs away from Jerusalem (11:18). He knew that Ephraim was near the wilderness (11:54). He knew that the Garden of Gethsemane was on the other side of the brook Kidron (18:1). He knew that there was a paved area
outside of the praetorium (19:13). He was aware of the region of Samaria and that Jacob's well was located in Sychar (4:5-6), and that it was deep (4:11). Again, archaeologists have found this well. He knew about the sacred mountain of Samaritan worship (4:20-21). He was
aware of Galilee (1:44,46; 2:1,2). Another interesting feature of John is that, when compared with the Synoptics, his Gospel consistently gives more references to chronology, geography, topography, and
the like. As recently as 1961 an inscription was discovered in Caesarea, providing for the first time extra-biblical corroboration of Pilate as Judea's prefect during the time of Christ."The Authenticity of the Gospel of John

Something interesting I found:"The Israeli Professor Sukenik discovered in 1945 a sealed tomb outside Jerusalem, in a suburb called Talpioth. It had escaped spoliation, and its contents were intact. There were five ossuaries, or bone caskets, in the tomb, and the style of their decoration confirmed the indication of a coin found there that the tomb was closed approximately AD 50. On two of these ossuries the name of Jesus appears clearly; one reads, in Greek, Iesu Iou ('Jesus, help'), the other, in Aramaic, Yeshu' Aloth (? 'Jesus, let him arise'). The theological implications of these crudely scratched inscriptions, written within twenty years of the crucifixion, are truly remarkable. They point to Jesus as the Lord of life, who can help even when a loved one has died. They point to Jesus as the risen Son of God, who can raise the Christian dead from their graves. It would be difficult to imagine any archaeological finds which could more clearly illustrate the clear faith of the early church in the Jesus whom many of them had known personally as a historical figure walking the streets of Palestine a few years previously."churchtec.org.uk

That's some awesome evidence validating the gospel of John and he fact of Jesus' life.It's interesting because it appears on this thread we have folks that argue that Josephus is accurate despite a number of glaring mistakes, admitted by all scholars, and then discount John which exhibits such a tremendous level of cooroborating evidence.Thanks.

Now, I would be interested if you found a secular source analysing this.

Why "secular"?You think an Israeli is prone to exagerrate belief in claims of Jesus raising people from the dead?