Proof....?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lemonbeam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, by Richard Bauckham.

(For those who are willing to research the matter before giving their “I think.” 😉 )

(Where’s the OP? Was this a hit and run operation?)
Just because I liked my own post. 😃

People who talk about lack of historical evidence for Christ, the Gospel traditions, and so on, need to bone up. Also, you all might as well know that many folks have a built-in presupposition: Unless a historian arrives at skeptical or agnostic conclusions regarding the life of Christ, he or she is not a true “historian” as far as they are concerned.

A good example is the “dating” of the Gospels. Such dating is getting earlier and earlier based on the discovery of manuscript fragments, but since this isn’t skeptical or agnostic enough, it doesn’t count as genuine history. Shoot, I remember within my own adult lifetime when the Gospel of John and Revelation used to be placed at around 120 A.D. Now many scholars are placing Revelation at around 68 A.D.
 
Then you are ignorant of the reality of the situation. I would suggest you look into it.
I would suggest you provide proof of my ignorance. The Catholic Church, which represents the vast majority of the Christian Faith, has always asserted that John wrote the Gospel.
You are asserting that Matthew wrote about the birth of Jesus and that his writings are an eye witness account. I’m pointing out how ridiculous that is. He couldn’t have eye witnessed what he wrote about.
Let me give you a hint. NOBODY is asserting that Matthew witnessed the birth of Christ. You don’t have to witness 100% of a man’s life to know that the man existed. I once saw George and Barbara Bush at Cirque De Soleil. That makes me a witness that George and Barbara existed. Matthew spent up to 3 years with Jesus. He is a witness.
It means that the single document was not intended to be an eye witness account. You cannot simply declare a wall between one half of the document and the other, and simply declare that one was intended to be a eye witness account and the other was not, when all the evidence points to exactly the opposite. You are simply believing what you want to believe.
And you are simply making no sense. Did Jesus not exist since none of the Gospel writers were there at His birth? That’s crazy talk!
So John witnessed Marry Magdalene coming to the empty tomb?
Did John claim to be there? No. So, that ONE scene was related to John from either Jesus or Mary Magdalene. Does that revoke the remainder of his Gospel?
In the first century? His children would be likely dead by that time.
Likely? Likely? You say with 100% certainty that John was likely dead?
 
I would suggest you provide proof of my ignorance. The Catholic Church, which represents the vast majority of the Christian Faith, has always asserted that John wrote the Gospel.
I did. If you choose to ignore it that is your problem. More evidence is out their if you choose to look. It is the reality of the situation weather you see it that way or not.
Let me give you a hint. NOBODY is asserting that Matthew witnessed the birth of Christ.
Let me give you a hint. Then it’s not an eye witness account.
You don’t have to witness 100% of a man’s life to know that the man existed.
Irrelevent to the problem I pointed out.
I once saw George and Barbara Bush at Cirque De Soleil. That makes me a witness that George and Barbara existed.
If you wrote a book about the birth of George Bush it would not be an eye-witness account.
And you are simply making no sense. Did Jesus not exist since none of the Gospel writers were there at His birth? That’s crazy talk!
That’s not what I said.
Did John claim to be there? No. So, that ONE scene was related to John from either Jesus or Mary Magdalene. Does that revoke the remainder of his Gospel?
If someone writes an eye-witness account, they don’t suddenly and without noting it simply intersplice in things they didn’t witness.
 
I did. If you choose to ignore it that is your problem. More evidence is out their if you choose to look. It is the reality of the situation weather you see it that way or not.

Let me give you a hint. Then it’s not an eye witness account.

Irrelevent to the problem I pointed out.

If you wrote a book about the birth of George Bush it would not be an eye-witness account.

That’s not what I said.

If someone writes an eye-witness account, they don’t suddenly and without noting it simply intersplice in things they didn’t witness.
What the point in continuing to debate with someone who has no hope and believes in nothing??!!
 
I did. If you choose to ignore it that is your problem. More evidence is out their if you choose to look. It is the reality of the situation weather you see it that way or not.

Let me give you a hint. Then it’s not an eye witness account.

Irrelevent to the problem I pointed out.

If you wrote a book about the birth of George Bush it would not be an eye-witness account.

That’s not what I said.

If someone writes an eye-witness account, they don’t suddenly and without noting it simply intersplice in things they didn’t witness.
So, let me get this straight. If I understand you correctly, you believe that Matthew witnessed Jesus’s life, well PART of it, just not His Birth. So you question whether it happened the way it was presented?

Does it matter that Matthew would have known someone who was there, and had spent an extended period of time with this witness?

How about John? John spent an extended period of time with Mary Magdalene. Does that mean that she can’t relate this to him? Does she and Mary, the Mother of Jesus have to write a Gospel for you go buy those stories?

Regarding your vast amount of proof, you’ve basically provided the Oxford testimony while ignoring the testimony of an institution that has existed for 2000 years. I’m sorry if I doubt your source.
 
Are there any eyewitness testimonies of Jesus during his own time period? Is there any evidence for Jesus’ existence at all?
If we start by asking ourselves whether a person by the name of Jesus of Nazareth has been crucified under Pontius Pilate,and that such person was regarded as being the founder of a religious system, then, the answer is in the affirmative. We have Roman documents to prove it.

**Tacitus(c. 55 -117 CE) **

"…Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. "

What pernicious superstition other than the resurrection can be implied in this case. Therefore, to claim that less than 20 years
after the crucifixion, the christian teaching of the resurrection was heard all over the Roman provinces, is not mearly a myth, but a certainty. Now the question remains for those who deny the historical Jesus, what event started all this?

SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of
Chrestus, he (Claudius, who reigned A.D. 41-54) expelled them from Rome."


Although Suetonius is of the second century himself, he speaks of a disturbance in the Province of Rome, just a couple of decades after the believed resurection.Suetonius had ready access to the Imperial and Senatorial archives.

Notice that just after over a decade or so, the Roman government is greatly concerned by the uprising of the christian movement to the point of expelling them from the city of Rome.

Notice also how the Roman document, which Seutonius relied on for his information, agrees perfectly with the writings of Paul.

Acts 18:2: There he (Paul) met a jew named Aquila, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscillia, because Claudius had ordered all the jews to leave Rome".

** Acts 17:5 "…the jews were jealous ; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace, formed a mob and started a riot in the city.**

Acts 17:13 " When the jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching at Berea, they went there too, agitating the crowds and stirring them up."

Paul’s journey in Act 18 is believed to having been in the year 52 AD. less than twenty uears after the crucifixion.

Next comes Josephus, who writes about John the Baptist, James, the Lord’s brother, and Jesus Himself. Clearly as an historian, Josephus wrote about things that were well known and highly influencial when pointing to the history of the Jews, not about so-called events which was known to only a handful of people. So, again, this claims the christian belief as being prominent during the time of Josephus.

Andre
 
Well I beat around the bush. I look for evidence of everything else and that gives me proof enough. I must have a hundred items that are factual. Here is just one. I’m not going to discuss any more as I believe you believe in nothing at all.

(It’s almost every year someone is finding Pilate’s name on something from the first century.)

The first physical evidence relating to Pilate was discovered in 1961, when a block of limestone was found in the Roman theatre at Caesarea Maritima, the capital of the province of Iudaea, bearing a damaged dedication by Pilate of a Tiberieum This dedication states that he was …]ECTVS IUDA…] (usually read as praefectus iudaeae), that is, prefect/governor of Iudaea. The early governors of Iudaea were of prefect rank, the later were of procurator rank, beginning with Cuspius Fadus in 44.

The inscription is currently housed in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, where its Inventory number is AE 1963 no. 104. Dated to 26–37, it was discovered in Caesarea (Israel) by a group led by Antonio Frova.

I have a lot more but I don’t care to say anything else as you don’t believe in anything anyway. That is sad.

Mike
 
40.png
lemonbeam:
Are there any eyewitness testimonies of Jesus during his own time period? Is there any evidence for Jesus’ existence at all?
There is far more historical evidence of Jesus than many other historical figures of that time and yet no one doubts the existence of other figures of the period. Virtually any knowledgeable scholar of history will tell you that Jesus Christ is probably the best documented figure of his time.

If you’re up to a little honest scholarship, line up all of the eye witness accounts of Hannibal, for example, and those of Christ.

Let me know how that turns out.
So, no response from lemonbeam. I guess the prospect of a little honest scholarship scared him off then!
 
But not physically. He didn’t see him while alive.

So it was 3 years between Jesus’ birth and death? And you didn’t respond to the other problem I pointed out.

Nope. Fact. Deal with it.

Nope, factual assertion.

They shouldn’t write about things they couldn’t have possibly witnessed.

Before they would be dead, I would assume.

A period of time tends to kill mortal people, if long enough.

Apparently “the sky is blue” and “2+2=4” would qualify as opinion by your standard.

It helps. The gospels don’t. So that means one of them, at least, most likely all of them, are wrong, and so the bible is not the result of divine revelation.

I didn’t say that it did.
It takes a real pro to sucessfully blow smoke up my rear, and this performance is that of a rank amateur.

NWRT any further.
 
Most of the gospels were written past 60 AD, outside a timeframe where we could realistically believe these were eyewitness accounts.
I am supposing that you are basing this on average life span? You do understand what average means? Your error is assuming that average means that at 60 everyone dies. That is not the case. Just as the average age today is 75 there are many who are living to be 100 and more. Peter is thought to have been near 70 when he was martyred as was Paul. In order to get that average that would have to be the case to have people live longer than 60. There were those who lived well into their 90’s. There is a disagreement among "experts’ as to dating. It is not a precise process. Your appeal to the majority raises two questions for me.
  1. Who are these experts that you call the majority?
  2. Are you just citing modern experts or all experts throughout history . I believe that if you include all you would find that the late dating is in the minority?
Is it outside the framework? No. It is possible. Many in the bible are mentioned living past the age you have determined that they should be dead.
 
Let’s be honest here.

At best, there are writings referring to Jesus - some of which eventually found their way into Church canon - that reflect either what the authors knew, believed, or wanted their readers to believe. Most likely a mixture of the above.

Many people seem to totally confuse proving that the writings are ancient enough and reasonably accurate as far as being what the original authors wrote, with proving that later interpretation of the content is valid or even the author’s interpretation of events described is valid. This has never and can never be “proven”.

As to “Divinely Inspired”. That, of course, could never be proven - and certainly not line by line.
Ever watch a film “inspired by” true events? I hope you don’t view it thinking it’s a real time documentary with every detail accurately matching the “true events”.

The level of detail the Catholic Church and others have gone to and continue to go to in creating theologies and dogmas etc. simply cannot be justified. It is at best speculation, and at worst contrived with the purpose of guiding/controlling a “flock of passive sheep”.

In spite of all this, some people seem to manage to get somewhere spiritually - not because of these speculations being correct, but because their spiritual aspiration being genuine and intense. That doesn’t mean, however, that their mental interpretation of their spiritual experiences is going to be fully accurate. It will be colored by their culture and beliefs - including of course their spiritual/religious beliefs.

I would never say that Padre Pio should not have followed the Catholic Church. But then again Ramana Maharshi never should have. Their spiritual awakenings came in the context of their cultures and beliefs.

Personally, I would not get anywhere spiritually as an exclusive Roman Catholic. As should be clear, I also believe it is possible for others to actually get somewhere on that path.

Memorizing texts and interpretation of texts and rules and sets of required beliefs, however, will not guarantee you a thing. Not now and not after death.
 
Let’s be honest here.
Whenever anyone opens with this sentence, I always think: Hmmm. What’s on the way here?

At the very least, the implication is, “Everyone who came before me in this conversation was, at least to a degree, dishonest.”
 
Whenever anyone opens with this sentence, I always think: Hmmm. What’s on the way here?

At the very least, the implication is, “Everyone who came before me in this conversation was, at least to a degree, dishonest.”
If you have the habit of only reading the first line in a paragraph or only the headline of a news article and jumping to conclusions - perhaps. But how accurate are those kinds of assumptions in any field? Perhaps even your spiritual beliefs are skewed because of only looking at sound bite talking points?

Secular or spiritual, one of the great flaws in modern American culture is the habit of jumping to conclusions based on a sound bite talking point.

btw, My first line that you had referred to was no “talking point” - rather its meaning is only valid in the context of the entire post. I will say that isolating a quote out of context in order to make a point is easily very misleading at best, and yes - dishonest - at worst.
 
Memorizing texts and interpretation of texts and rules and sets of required beliefs, however, will not guarantee you a thing. Not now and not after death.
It will help to guarantee that you won’t fall into heresies. For example, Pelagianism raises its ugly head every once in a while. The Nicene Creed expressely disputes this, which prevents the Catholic Church from being sucked into this falsehood. Other faiths, however…
 
btw, My first line that you had referred to was no “talking point” - rather its meaning is only valid in the context of the entire post. I will say that isolating a quote out of context in order to make a point is easily very misleading at best, and yes - dishonest - at worst.
Uh, where did cpayne call it a “talking point”. It seems you called it one, and then blamed it on cpayne?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by anon5216
Memorizing texts and interpretation of texts and rules and sets of required beliefs, however, will not guarantee you a thing. Not now and not after death.

It will help to guarantee that you won’t fall into heresies. For example, Pelagianism raises its ugly head every once in a while. The Nicene Creed expressely disputes this, which prevents the Catholic Church from being sucked into this falsehood. Other faiths, however…

What it will help to guarantee is that your beliefs will stay close to the beliefs the Church teaches you to believe - more than consistency it cannot deliver. (Your comment goes no further than this).

This is the case with any religion - whether Christian based or completely unrelated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anon5216
btw, My first line that you had referred to was no “talking point” - rather its meaning is only valid in the context of the entire post. I will say that isolating a quote out of context in order to make a point is easily very misleading at best, and yes - dishonest - at worst.

Uh, where did cpayne call it a “talking point”. It seems you called it one, and then blamed it on cpayne?

Well NotWorthy; yes, cpayne did not use the text “talking point”. They merely responded to my post in a manner that used my first line as if it stood alone without context - except the context they wanted to frame it with. I responded back correcting them. Perhaps their initial response was sent prior to them reading the whole post because it touched of ‘button’ of theirs. Perhaps they are so shallow that they, in general, don’t bother reading things completely. Perhaps they did understand my full post and sought to discredit it by re-framing my opening sentence in a way to get others not to read my entire post.

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.
 
40.png
anon5216:
*What it (memorizing creeds) will help to guarantee is that your beliefs will stay close to the beliefs the Church teaches you to believe - more than consistency it cannot deliver. (Your comment goes no further than this).

This is the case with any religion - whether Christian based or completely unrelated.*
Yes, but when the Church has taught the same thing for 2000 years, that’s a pretty impressive pedigree. I’m glad I’ve got that Church to follow and thank the Lord for His guidance of His Bride, the Church!
Well NotWorthy; yes, cpayne did not use the text “talking point”. They merely responded to my post in a manner that used my first line as if it stood alone without context - except the context they wanted to frame it with. I responded back correcting them. Perhaps their initial response was sent prior to them reading the whole post because it touched of ‘button’ of theirs. Perhaps they are so shallow that they, in general, don’t bother reading things completely. Perhaps they did understand my full post and sought to discredit it by re-framing my opening sentence in a way to get others not to read my entire post.
OK, I understand your point. I’d hesitate to call anyone shallow, however. We are all brothers as your next point so adequately points out!!!
May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.
And you to, my brother!!! May the New Year brings even more enlightenment to your heart so that you may share it with others!!!

God Bless!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top