Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus' actions and sayings were generally witnessed by smallish crowds of illiterate people. That was Jesus' base - the illiterate and the dispossed. None of these illiterate people were writing anything down.

So the traditions were passed on orally -- which you want to dismiss. Instead, you are demanding first-hand accounts inscribed in rock or something. Good luck with that.

I'm guessing you also take a dim view of the Quran, which one guy claimed was dictated to him.

You know what? That's OK. You can take any view you like on these religious sources. And we can the views we like. What I don't understand is why some of you spend hours on a Mom's website spouting nonsense about John.

I'm not the PP you're responding to but your post is interesting. One of the PP's argued that the gospels ARE eye witness accounts. How could that be if they (Jesus's base) weren't writing anything down? I think most people of that era couldn't read or write.

You can have an eye-witness who passes on what s/he's seen orally, no contradiction there. Somebody eventually writes it down, in the case of the gospels between 30-60 years after the event depending on the particular gospel. Then in the 300s there was a process to determine what people at the time thought was authentic. Then 1700 years after that, you have some uninformed people on DCUM arguing about John and whether this process is reliable or not.

Thirty to sixty years after the event is "eye-witness evidence"? Don't memories fade? Also, why then would someone have to determine what was authentic after the fact?

Anonymous wrote:Jesus' actions and sayings were generally witnessed by smallish crowds of illiterate people. That was Jesus' base - the illiterate and the dispossed. None of these illiterate people were writing anything down.

So the traditions were passed on orally -- which you want to dismiss. Instead, you are demanding first-hand accounts inscribed in rock or something. Good luck with that.

I'm guessing you also take a dim view of the Quran, which one guy claimed was dictated to him.

You know what? That's OK. You can take any view you like on these religious sources. And we can the views we like. What I don't understand is why some of you spend hours on a Mom's website spouting nonsense about John.

This is interesting. Are you normally a pretty trusting person? What sort of proof would require for other claims?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus' actions and sayings were generally witnessed by smallish crowds of illiterate people. That was Jesus' base - the illiterate and the dispossed. None of these illiterate people were writing anything down.

So the traditions were passed on orally -- which you want to dismiss. Instead, you are demanding first-hand accounts inscribed in rock or something. Good luck with that.

I'm guessing you also take a dim view of the Quran, which one guy claimed was dictated to him.

You know what? That's OK. You can take any view you like on these religious sources. And we can the views we like. What I don't understand is why some of you spend hours on a Mom's website spouting nonsense about John.

I'm not the PP you're responding to but your post is interesting. One of the PP's argued that the gospels ARE eye witness accounts. How could that be if they (Jesus's base) weren't writing anything down? I think most people of that era couldn't read or write.

You can have an eye-witness who passes on what s/he's seen orally, no contradiction there. Somebody eventually writes it down, in the case of the gospels between 30-60 years after the event depending on the particular gospel. Then in the 300s there was a process to determine what people at the time thought was authentic. Then 1700 years after that, you have some uninformed people on DCUM arguing about John and whether this process is reliable or not.

Anonymous wrote:Jesus' actions and sayings were generally witnessed by smallish crowds of illiterate people. That was Jesus' base - the illiterate and the dispossed. None of these illiterate people were writing anything down.

So the traditions were passed on orally -- which you want to dismiss. Instead, you are demanding first-hand accounts inscribed in rock or something. Good luck with that.

I'm guessing you also take a dim view of the Quran, which one guy claimed was dictated to him.

You know what? That's OK. You can take any view you like on these religious sources. And we can the views we like. What I don't understand is why some of you spend hours on a Mom's website spouting nonsense about John.

I'm not the PP you're responding to but your post is interesting. One of the PP's argued that the gospels ARE eye witness accounts. How could that be if they (Jesus's base) weren't writing anything down? I think most people of that era couldn't read or write.

Jesus' actions and sayings were generally witnessed by smallish crowds of illiterate people. That was Jesus' base - the illiterate and the dispossed. None of these illiterate people were writing anything down.

So the traditions were passed on orally -- which you want to dismiss. Instead, you are demanding first-hand accounts inscribed in rock or something. Good luck with that.

I'm guessing you also take a dim view of the Quran, which one guy claimed was dictated to him.

You know what? That's OK. You can take any view you like on these religious sources. And we can the views we like. What I don't understand is why some of you spend hours on a Mom's website spouting nonsense about John.

Anonymous wrote:
Again, the miracles would be enough to create interest and there would be multiple stories around raising Lazarus, for example. Interestingly enough, it's only told in John - 11:1-44. Where are the ". . . collection of witnesses, worth of trust?"

I can find multiple primary accounts of Greek theatre, but must rely on the gospels (mainly Mark) for information on Jesus. same issues, too - illiterate masses relying on didactic plays and oral tradition

It's all about BLIND faith.

Maybe a handful of people were present when Lazarus was raised. The people who saw it started the oral tradition that led to the gospels.

This is getting very repetitive. Let me summarize:
- You like some documents (Pliny the Younger on Vesuvius, I'm guessing).
- You don't like other sources (the gospels) because, uh, you don't like them. That's the best I can do, because all you've really done is wave your hands vaguely at "accurate" classical authors and you haven't really provided convincing arguments.

Got it the first time, got it the 10th time. Are we done here? I'm done here, this is boring. Have a wonderful weekend.

Anonymous wrote:
gotcha? lol

PP, you are a hot mess. There are many primary sources - as in firsthand accounts - dating back to antiquity that are more ACCURATE than the gospels. Furthermore, the gospels are NOT firsthand accounts. They are stories - starting with Mark - on the story of Jesus - with the clear intent of indoctrinating the masses. Matthew, Luke and John copied Mark's version and added their own spin to these so-called accounts. So the gospel is really ONE person's version.

And even IF someone doesn't believe in miracles, s/he would have recorded them, as these "miracles" are anomalies, yes? So if I don't believe in UFOs but I see some odd flying object in the sky, do you honestly think I'd keep it to myself? lol

You eventually saw the towers fall, yes? You've seen the Dec of Ind, right? You've seen footage of the towers from national and international news sources, right? And you've clearly read primary accounts of the Revolutionary War in your history classes.

and with regard to the non-Christian accounts of Jesus? There is still no proof that there was ONE Jesus.

I'm done. If you can't be bothered with other sources, then live in your La La Land and wave to me down below as I burn in hell.

What a hypocrite you are.

You're applying opposite standards to the gospels vs. the Greek and Roman sources you venerate. Did you say primary sources from the Greeks and Romans? Bwahahaha! Don't you realize that many of these were written for rulers/emperors who dictated the contents, and there were no Pinocchio columns in the Post to keep the authors honest? Heck, even Shakespeare probably warped the story of Richard III because Shakespeare was writing under Elizabeth I (although it turns out Richard was a hunchback at least). At least the gospels weren't written for any ruling power, which actually argues in their favor. And do you really have no clue that documents and any footage, like that of the falling towers, can be faked? Really, you had no clue?

And don't get me started on whether we should trust *you* to weigh in on the accuracy of *anything*, including the color scheme of this website, let alone the accuracy of the gospels or classical authors. Why should we listen to somebody who thinks John came from the same authorial tradition as Matthew, Mark and Luke (hello, Q version) when practically every real scholar out there disagrees with you.

Hypocrite. Or maybe you're just not very intelligent. But then we shouldn't expect anything more intelligent from a pot-stirring jerk who calls others a "hot mess", rambles on about "La La Land", confuses being a "primary source" with being "accurate," and thinks that John is just like the other gospels.

Yikes.

Glad you're "done here," you won't be missed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The gospels are exactly the witnesses you say you are looking for. In your own words, they are "witnesses, however many people removed from the actual events."

I'm not the PP but have you studied Gospels side by side instead of just one right after the other? There are plenty examples where one gospel might leave out, add, or even contradict something said by another about the very same topic. For instance compare the birth narrative of Jesus in John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark. There are striking differences in each. Does this mean that they're ALL wrong? No. But it does beg the question as to why those differences exist in the first place. My guess is that each author is trying to make a theological point and NOT simply factually retell a story. Not exactly the best reference material.

Even if these were "just the facts", "eyewitness stories" (and they're not - on either point), that's still a terrible source of evidence. Do we convict murderers on just eyewitness testimony? Of course not. It's certainly can be powerful but people get the actual account wrong all the time. I don't think the Bible was ever meant to be a historical text.

You're veering off into a tangent here, but I'll indulge you. Yes, of course I've studied them side by side. You're making mountains out of molehills. Have you ever been in court? Then you will know that witnesses will notice and report on different things, and sometimes they conflict on smaller things, but that's not always the end of the case. One witness will say that the perp was wearing a red t-shirt and another witness will say the perp was wearing jeans. Does that mean we should discount all the witness testimony? Of course not. It may or may not be a problem if one witness says the perp was wearing a Rolex and another witness says it was a Timex. But if there's a mass of other evidence that's the same in all accounts - if both witnesses agree that the perp was wearing a red t-shirt and jeans -- then you can have a fair degree of confidence that the perp was, you know, wearing a red t-shirt and jeans.

And what do you mean, we never convict murderers on eye-witness testimony? Are you claiming that even if several witnesses testify about how they saw the perp kill somebody with an axe, we still need additional evidence? Because that's just not true. What did we do before genetic testing?

OK, so you're demanding a document--from a non-Christian--putting down, line-by-line, that Jesus did this and that miracle. I'm sorry, but few people in 30AD, and even fewer among the type of person who followed Jesus, were drawing up documents that would meet the standards of today's courts. Or maybe you want a holy book that claims to be God's exact words dictated to a prophet - but the authenticity of that, too, can be challenged.

I and millions of others find the gospels, which represent a collection of witnesses, worthy of trust.

If this isn't fine with you, then to each his own.

Maybe it would be good for the PP who suggested studying the Gospels side by side to know all the place they agree, and then to note the alleged discrepancies. Yes, they are not really contradictions but mostly different details, but the weight of agreement would be staggering, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God -- and God Himself -- who died for our sins, and rose again from the grave. Anyone comparing the Gospels honestly cannot deny this.

PP here. I have done this. Again, I agree that not every discrepancy is a "gotcha" but there are some big ones that are hard to resolve without mental gymnastics. Look at the genealogies of Jesus in the synoptic gospels as an example. They're completely different.

I do agree that message in the NT was that Jesus Christ was the Son of God / God Himself (depending on which book you're citing) but it's not the conclusion I'm interested in but rather the reasoning that led to it in the first place. Just because a book, a person, or whatever makes a claim doesn't necessarily mean that it's true, right?

Right -- unless it's the Bible, handed down for generations, for over 2,000 years, with the threat that if you did not believe in its claims, you would suffer for eternity - and if you DID believe, you would live forever. Some choice!

There was also a time, that you would be tortured and killed here on earth for not believing. Those times have largely changed, but now there is a huge industry (churches) that is dependent on those stories for its financial survival.

Imagine all the ministers and choir directors out of work and all the seminaries and churches closing. The industry is slowly dying, but it is going down fighting.

I'm the PP. I agree with your comments. Religion is an interesting study of human psychology. I think people in general are more inclined to believe something when they see it in writing, regardless of how off the wall it may sound. I just wish more people used the same skepticism they reserve for other parts of life and directed it towards religious claims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The gospels are exactly the witnesses you say you are looking for. In your own words, they are "witnesses, however many people removed from the actual events."

I'm not the PP but have you studied Gospels side by side instead of just one right after the other? There are plenty examples where one gospel might leave out, add, or even contradict something said by another about the very same topic. For instance compare the birth narrative of Jesus in John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark. There are striking differences in each. Does this mean that they're ALL wrong? No. But it does beg the question as to why those differences exist in the first place. My guess is that each author is trying to make a theological point and NOT simply factually retell a story. Not exactly the best reference material.

Even if these were "just the facts", "eyewitness stories" (and they're not - on either point), that's still a terrible source of evidence. Do we convict murderers on just eyewitness testimony? Of course not. It's certainly can be powerful but people get the actual account wrong all the time. I don't think the Bible was ever meant to be a historical text.

You're veering off into a tangent here, but I'll indulge you. Yes, of course I've studied them side by side. You're making mountains out of molehills. Have you ever been in court? Then you will know that witnesses will notice and report on different things, and sometimes they conflict on smaller things, but that's not always the end of the case. One witness will say that the perp was wearing a red t-shirt and another witness will say the perp was wearing jeans. Does that mean we should discount all the witness testimony? Of course not. It may or may not be a problem if one witness says the perp was wearing a Rolex and another witness says it was a Timex. But if there's a mass of other evidence that's the same in all accounts - if both witnesses agree that the perp was wearing a red t-shirt and jeans -- then you can have a fair degree of confidence that the perp was, you know, wearing a red t-shirt and jeans.

And what do you mean, we never convict murderers on eye-witness testimony? Are you claiming that even if several witnesses testify about how they saw the perp kill somebody with an axe, we still need additional evidence? Because that's just not true. What did we do before genetic testing?

OK, so you're demanding a document--from a non-Christian--putting down, line-by-line, that Jesus did this and that miracle. I'm sorry, but few people in 30AD, and even fewer among the type of person who followed Jesus, were drawing up documents that would meet the standards of today's courts. Or maybe you want a holy book that claims to be God's exact words dictated to a prophet - but the authenticity of that, too, can be challenged.

I and millions of others find the gospels, which represent a collection of witnesses, worthy of trust.

If this isn't fine with you, then to each his own.

Maybe it would be good for the PP who suggested studying the Gospels side by side to know all the place they agree, and then to note the alleged discrepancies. Yes, they are not really contradictions but mostly different details, but the weight of agreement would be staggering, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God -- and God Himself -- who died for our sins, and rose again from the grave. Anyone comparing the Gospels honestly cannot deny this.

PP here. I have done this. Again, I agree that not every discrepancy is a "gotcha" but there are some big ones that are hard to resolve without mental gymnastics. Look at the genealogies of Jesus in the synoptic gospels as an example. They're completely different.

I do agree that message in the NT was that Jesus Christ was the Son of God / God Himself (depending on which book you're citing) but it's not the conclusion I'm interested in but rather the reasoning that led to it in the first place. Just because a book, a person, or whatever makes a claim doesn't necessarily mean that it's true, right?

Right -- unless it's the Bible, handed down for generations, for over 2,000 years, with the threat that if you did not believe in its claims, you would suffer for eternity - and if you DID believe, you would live forever. Some choice!

There was also a time, that you would be tortured and killed here on earth for not believing. Those times have largely changed, but now there is a huge industry (churches) that is dependent on those stories for its financial survival.

Imagine all the ministers and choir directors out of work and all the seminaries and churches closing. The industry is slowly dying, but it is going down fighting.

OK, so you're demanding a document--from a non-Christian--putting down, line-by-line, that Jesus did this and that miracle. I'm sorry, but few people in 30AD, and even fewer among the type of person who followed Jesus, were drawing up documents that would meet the standards of today's courts. Or maybe you want a holy book that claims to be God's exact words dictated to a prophet - but the authenticity of that, too, can be challenged.

I and millions of others find the gospels, which represent a collection of witnesses, worthy of trust.

If this isn't fine with you, then to each his own.

Again, the miracles would be enough to create interest and there would be multiple stories around raising Lazarus, for example. Interestingly enough, it's only told in John - 11:1-44. Where are the ". . . collection of witnesses, worth of trust?"

I can find multiple primary accounts of Greek theatre, but must rely on the gospels (mainly Mark) for information on Jesus. same issues, too - illiterate masses relying on didactic plays and oral tradition

It's all about BLIND faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The gospels are exactly the witnesses you say you are looking for. In your own words, they are "witnesses, however many people removed from the actual events."

I'm not the PP but have you studied Gospels side by side instead of just one right after the other? There are plenty examples where one gospel might leave out, add, or even contradict something said by another about the very same topic. For instance compare the birth narrative of Jesus in John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark. There are striking differences in each. Does this mean that they're ALL wrong? No. But it does beg the question as to why those differences exist in the first place. My guess is that each author is trying to make a theological point and NOT simply factually retell a story. Not exactly the best reference material.

Even if these were "just the facts", "eyewitness stories" (and they're not - on either point), that's still a terrible source of evidence. Do we convict murderers on just eyewitness testimony? Of course not. It's certainly can be powerful but people get the actual account wrong all the time. I don't think the Bible was ever meant to be a historical text.

You're veering off into a tangent here, but I'll indulge you. Yes, of course I've studied them side by side. You're making mountains out of molehills. Have you ever been in court? Then you will know that witnesses will notice and report on different things, and sometimes they conflict on smaller things, but that's not always the end of the case. One witness will say that the perp was wearing a red t-shirt and another witness will say the perp was wearing jeans. Does that mean we should discount all the witness testimony? Of course not. It may or may not be a problem if one witness says the perp was wearing a Rolex and another witness says it was a Timex. But if there's a mass of other evidence that's the same in all accounts - if both witnesses agree that the perp was wearing a red t-shirt and jeans -- then you can have a fair degree of confidence that the perp was, you know, wearing a red t-shirt and jeans.

And what do you mean, we never convict murderers on eye-witness testimony? Are you claiming that even if several witnesses testify about how they saw the perp kill somebody with an axe, we still need additional evidence? Because that's just not true. What did we do before genetic testing?

OK, so you're demanding a document--from a non-Christian--putting down, line-by-line, that Jesus did this and that miracle. I'm sorry, but few people in 30AD, and even fewer among the type of person who followed Jesus, were drawing up documents that would meet the standards of today's courts. Or maybe you want a holy book that claims to be God's exact words dictated to a prophet - but the authenticity of that, too, can be challenged.

I and millions of others find the gospels, which represent a collection of witnesses, worthy of trust.

If this isn't fine with you, then to each his own.

Maybe it would be good for the PP who suggested studying the Gospels side by side to know all the place they agree, and then to note the alleged discrepancies. Yes, they are not really contradictions but mostly different details, but the weight of agreement would be staggering, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God -- and God Himself -- who died for our sins, and rose again from the grave. Anyone comparing the Gospels honestly cannot deny this.

PP here. I have done this. Again, I agree that not every discrepancy is a "gotcha" but there are some big ones that are hard to resolve without mental gymnastics. Look at the genealogies of Jesus in the synoptic gospels as an example. They're completely different.

I do agree that message in the NT was that Jesus Christ was the Son of God / God Himself (depending on which book you're citing) but it's not the conclusion I'm interested in but rather the reasoning that led to it in the first place. Just because a book, a person, or whatever makes a claim doesn't necessarily mean that it's true, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The gospels are exactly the witnesses you say you are looking for. In your own words, they are "witnesses, however many people removed from the actual events."

I'm not the PP but have you studied Gospels side by side instead of just one right after the other? There are plenty examples where one gospel might leave out, add, or even contradict something said by another about the very same topic. For instance compare the birth narrative of Jesus in John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark. There are striking differences in each. Does this mean that they're ALL wrong? No. But it does beg the question as to why those differences exist in the first place. My guess is that each author is trying to make a theological point and NOT simply factually retell a story. Not exactly the best reference material.

Even if these were "just the facts", "eyewitness stories" (and they're not - on either point), that's still a terrible source of evidence. Do we convict murderers on just eyewitness testimony? Of course not. It's certainly can be powerful but people get the actual account wrong all the time. I don't think the Bible was ever meant to be a historical text.

You're veering off into a tangent here, but I'll indulge you. Yes, of course I've studied them side by side. You're making mountains out of molehills. Have you ever been in court? Then you will know that witnesses will notice and report on different things, and sometimes they conflict on smaller things, but that's not always the end of the case. One witness will say that the perp was wearing a red t-shirt and another witness will say the perp was wearing jeans. Does that mean we should discount all the witness testimony? Of course not. It may or may not be a problem if one witness says the perp was wearing a Rolex and another witness says it was a Timex. But if there's a mass of other evidence that's the same in all accounts - if both witnesses agree that the perp was wearing a red t-shirt and jeans -- then you can have a fair degree of confidence that the perp was, you know, wearing a red t-shirt and jeans.

And what do you mean, we never convict murderers on eye-witness testimony? Are you claiming that even if several witnesses testify about how they saw the perp kill somebody with an axe, we still need additional evidence? Because that's just not true. What did we do before genetic testing?

OK, so you're demanding a document--from a non-Christian--putting down, line-by-line, that Jesus did this and that miracle. I'm sorry, but few people in 30AD, and even fewer among the type of person who followed Jesus, were drawing up documents that would meet the standards of today's courts. Or maybe you want a holy book that claims to be God's exact words dictated to a prophet - but the authenticity of that, too, can be challenged.

I and millions of others find the gospels, which represent a collection of witnesses, worthy of trust.

If this isn't fine with you, then to each his own.

PP here. It's great that you've read them side by side! Most people who call themselves Christians have not and only have a rudimentary idea of what's even in the Bible. It's too bad this isn't discussed more in churches and I've never really heard of anyone doing this outside of a college or seminary course. What prompted this? I'm curious.

Details matter when they are an integral part of story. If, in your example, the accused killer was known to be wearing a red shirt that day and someone testifies that he saw the crime happen but no red shirt then that's pretty telling. While I don't agree that every discrepancy or contradiction is a "gotcha" I do think some of them beg studying and further questions like asking why they exist in the first place. Again I would point you to the birth narratives in the synoptics and John as a good example. You could make the argument that each author who comments on the birth of Jesus puts him in Bethlehem at birth because that's what was foretold in the Old Testament. It's interesting to note that "the how" or "the why" Jesus winds up being born there is different if you read each book closely.

Also, I'm saying we shouldn't convict based only on eye witness testimony. If we did, we would have far less use for the court system, discovery, trials, etc. Eye witnesses get facts wrong all the time even when there are several witnesses. Look up the Innocence Project and read some of those stories. Not that it can't be useful but eyewitness testimony by itself is not without flaws and I would argue the standard of evidence becomes that much greater when the claims being made are that much more extraordinary.

I and millions of others find the gospels, which represent a collection of witnesses, worthy of trust

.

I've heard variations of this before and I'm not sure why it matters. Everybody thought at one point that the Earth was flat and that the sun orbited the Earth. This was based on what I'd loosely call "eye witness testimony" and causal observation but it's not true. Unfortunately it's not a popularity contest. I also am unclear as to where in the NT actual witnesses of Jesus are writing rather than someone else writing down oral tradition or some version of a story they heard from somebody who heard from somebody, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You must know about oral tradition, yes? Look at the Greek and Roman myths that were passed down orally.

Again, if these miracles did indeed occur, we would have witnesses - however many people removed from the actual events.

sorry - I prefer fact over faith.

Really? If somebody told me orally about the Declaration of Independence, I shouldn't believe them until I go to the National Archives and see the document for myself? So if my friend or DH told me orally about 9/11, I shouldn't believe it until I visit the WTC site, even if it requires time travel back to 2001? If somebody tells me orally about something but I can't find a piece of paper to prove it, I should assume they made it up? Is this how you operate when somebody tells you something?

The gospels are exactly the witnesses you say you are looking for. In your own words, they are "witnesses, however many people removed from the actual events."

So then you say you want non-Christian sources who write about the miracles as if they actually happened. But by definition, non-Christians don't believe in the miracles, so they aren't going to write about them.

So basically, you've set up this "gotcha" list of demands that's non-sensical as well as self-contradictory. Do you understand that, or is this just what you do for fun because you have nothing else to do?

gotcha? lol

PP, you are a hot mess. There are many primary sources - as in firsthand accounts - dating back to antiquity that are more ACCURATE than the gospels. Furthermore, the gospels are NOT firsthand accounts. They are stories - starting with Mark - on the story of Jesus - with the clear intent of indoctrinating the masses. Matthew, Luke and John copied Mark's version and added their own spin to these so-called accounts. So the gospel is really ONE person's version.

And even IF someone doesn't believe in miracles, s/he would have recorded them, as these "miracles" are anomalies, yes? So if I don't believe in UFOs but I see some odd flying object in the sky, do you honestly think I'd keep it to myself? lol

You eventually saw the towers fall, yes? You've seen the Dec of Ind, right? You've seen footage of the towers from national and international news sources, right? And you've clearly read primary accounts of the Revolutionary War in your history classes.

and with regard to the non-Christian accounts of Jesus? There is still no proof that there was ONE Jesus.

I'm done. If you can't be bothered with other sources, then live in your La La Land and wave to me down below as I burn in hell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The gospels are exactly the witnesses you say you are looking for. In your own words, they are "witnesses, however many people removed from the actual events."

I'm not the PP but have you studied Gospels side by side instead of just one right after the other? There are plenty examples where one gospel might leave out, add, or even contradict something said by another about the very same topic. For instance compare the birth narrative of Jesus in John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark. There are striking differences in each. Does this mean that they're ALL wrong? No. But it does beg the question as to why those differences exist in the first place. My guess is that each author is trying to make a theological point and NOT simply factually retell a story. Not exactly the best reference material.

Even if these were "just the facts", "eyewitness stories" (and they're not - on either point), that's still a terrible source of evidence. Do we convict murderers on just eyewitness testimony? Of course not. It's certainly can be powerful but people get the actual account wrong all the time. I don't think the Bible was ever meant to be a historical text.

You're veering off into a tangent here, but I'll indulge you. Yes, of course I've studied them side by side. You're making mountains out of molehills. Have you ever been in court? Then you will know that witnesses will notice and report on different things, and sometimes they conflict on smaller things, but that's not always the end of the case. One witness will say that the perp was wearing a red t-shirt and another witness will say the perp was wearing jeans. Does that mean we should discount all the witness testimony? Of course not. It may or may not be a problem if one witness says the perp was wearing a Rolex and another witness says it was a Timex. But if there's a mass of other evidence that's the same in all accounts - if both witnesses agree that the perp was wearing a red t-shirt and jeans -- then you can have a fair degree of confidence that the perp was, you know, wearing a red t-shirt and jeans.

And what do you mean, we never convict murderers on eye-witness testimony? Are you claiming that even if several witnesses testify about how they saw the perp kill somebody with an axe, we still need additional evidence? Because that's just not true. What did we do before genetic testing?

OK, so you're demanding a document--from a non-Christian--putting down, line-by-line, that Jesus did this and that miracle. I'm sorry, but few people in 30AD, and even fewer among the type of person who followed Jesus, were drawing up documents that would meet the standards of today's courts. Or maybe you want a holy book that claims to be God's exact words dictated to a prophet - but the authenticity of that, too, can be challenged.

I and millions of others find the gospels, which represent a collection of witnesses, worthy of trust.

If this isn't fine with you, then to each his own.

Maybe it would be good for the PP who suggested studying the Gospels side by side to know all the place they agree, and then to note the alleged discrepancies. Yes, they are not really contradictions but mostly different details, but the weight of agreement would be staggering, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God -- and God Himself -- who died for our sins, and rose again from the grave. Anyone comparing the Gospels honestly cannot deny this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The gospels are exactly the witnesses you say you are looking for. In your own words, they are "witnesses, however many people removed from the actual events."

I'm not the PP but have you studied Gospels side by side instead of just one right after the other? There are plenty examples where one gospel might leave out, add, or even contradict something said by another about the very same topic. For instance compare the birth narrative of Jesus in John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark. There are striking differences in each. Does this mean that they're ALL wrong? No. But it does beg the question as to why those differences exist in the first place. My guess is that each author is trying to make a theological point and NOT simply factually retell a story. Not exactly the best reference material.

Even if these were "just the facts", "eyewitness stories" (and they're not - on either point), that's still a terrible source of evidence. Do we convict murderers on just eyewitness testimony? Of course not. It's certainly can be powerful but people get the actual account wrong all the time. I don't think the Bible was ever meant to be a historical text.

You're veering off into a tangent here, but I'll indulge you. Yes, of course I've studied them side by side. You're making mountains out of molehills. Have you ever been in court? Then you will know that witnesses will notice and report on different things, and sometimes they conflict on smaller things, but that's not always the end of the case. One witness will say that the perp was wearing a red t-shirt and another witness will say the perp was wearing jeans. Does that mean we should discount all the witness testimony? Of course not. It may or may not be a problem if one witness says the perp was wearing a Rolex and another witness says it was a Timex. But if there's a mass of other evidence that's the same in all accounts - if both witnesses agree that the perp was wearing a red t-shirt and jeans -- then you can have a fair degree of confidence that the perp was, you know, wearing a red t-shirt and jeans.

And what do you mean, we never convict murderers on eye-witness testimony? Are you claiming that even if several witnesses testify about how they saw the perp kill somebody with an axe, we still need additional evidence? Because that's just not true. What did we do before genetic testing?

OK, so you're demanding a document--from a non-Christian--putting down, line-by-line, that Jesus did this and that miracle. I'm sorry, but few people in 30AD, and even fewer among the type of person who followed Jesus, were drawing up documents that would meet the standards of today's courts. Or maybe you want a holy book that claims to be God's exact words dictated to a prophet - but the authenticity of that, too, can be challenged.

I and millions of others find the gospels, which represent a collection of witnesses, worthy of trust.

If this isn't fine with you, then to each his own.