Monday, December 20, 2010

The Case for Christ

A friend and I are having an evidence-based discussion about Christianity. I've challenged him to provide evidence. I'll be updating this post for awhile to compile all the information in outline format. I'll create a followup linking to this post when we're done.

I. Claim: Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who lived.
 A. The New Testament (NT) says this is so
 A. Claim: The NT is a credible source.
  1. There are lots of copies of pieces of the NT from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th century AD.
  2. The gospels of the NT were written 35-65 years after the alleged events happened.
  3. The gospels were not contemporary, they are at best marginally corroborative, only one of them is possibly independent (Mark), and all of them are from biased writers.
 B. Evidence #2
 C. Evidence #3
II. Claim: Jesus of Nazareth was executed by the Romans.
 A. The New Testament (NT) says this is so
 A. Claim: The NT is a credible source.
 B. Evidence #5
 C. Evidence #6
III. Claim: Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected after 3 days.
 A. The New Testament (NT) says this is so
 A. Claim: The NT is a credible source.
 B. Evidence #8
 C. Evidence #9

24 comments:

  1. Should there be a bases for what is good or bad evidence?
    I suppose as it is shared you will decided if it is good or bad.
    I guess we can rule out anything that is supernatural, meaning un-natural.

    To say the bible says so it is probably not good unless I explain.
    Just trying to understand the frame work for the evidence.
    You can always say I understand and see you point but I disagree.
    More to follow

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, we will need to look at each piece of evidence and see whether it is good evidence or not.

    I will accept supernatural evidence if it is real and demonstrable.

    I will accept "the bible says so" only if we establish (with evidence) that the bible is an accurate source of information.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So, do you want to present your first bit of evidence for Jesus? We'll take each one, one at a time and add it to the outline. We can discuss them as we go and note any problems we find with them. Some pieces of evidence ("the bible says so") might need evidence to support them, so I figured this outline format would be helpful for that. So, where do we start?

    Oh, I'm going to split the claim into three parts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Bible is one of the main sources of information we have about Jesus. You have to see that the Bible is a creditable source.

    One other thing we must stick to in this discussion. If claims about Jesus are made. Then you say other religious have made the same or similar claims. To me that is not a very good counter argument. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  5. We will make "The Bible says so" one of the pieces of evidence for your 3 claims, but it will be contingent on the claim "The Bible is a credible source". We will need to provide evidence for that.

    When I say that other religions make similar claims, what I am saying is "Aaron Keller, you don't really believe that is evidence, because if you did you'd be a Jewish Muslim Wiccan Scientologist." And you're right, that isn't a good argument. That's called Ad hominem tu quoque. The key is that it shouldn't matter whether you actually believe it. The argument is true or false, regardless of your beliefs.

    What I should say instead is "Aaron Keller, trusting in faith is no more likely to get you to the conclusion that God exists than that Allah, Shiva, Thor, or Poseidon exist. They are all equally unsupported by the evidence."

    So, would you like to present some evidence for why the Bible is a credible source?

    ReplyDelete
  6. First thought. I believe we have talked about some of these in the past.
    History is objectively knowable.
    A. The Bible says this is so.
    Claim. The life, teaching and resurrection of Christ presented in the New Testament documents are historically reliable.
    The authenticity of The New Testament.
    The reliability of the NT writers

    First step is the examination of the extant manuscripts copies
    Second a comparison of the NT manuscripts with those of ancients secular history;
    Third the dating of the original source of these manuscripts.

    1. Manuscripts copies.
    There are more manuscript copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.
    A Papyrus containing five verses from John 18 dated to 117-138Ad.
    The Bodmer Papyris dated to 200AD These
    contains the earliest complete copies of books of the Bible
    Codex Vaticanus (B) dated 325-350 is the earliest complete New Testament manuscript.

    There are about 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the NT.

    2. Comparison with secular manuscripts.
    These charts I believe you have seen. The comparison of ancient texts with the New Testament.
    Homer written in the 9th century BC. number of copies is 643 and it as an accuracy of 95%
    The NT Date written 1 Century AD Earliest copy 2 century Number of copies 5,000 Accuracy is 99%

    Now I seem to to remember you said this is not good evidence because all it proves is that people back then believed it was true. I think you meant to say that the book can be trustworthy and accurate as far as text and copies but the stories could still be false.
    You may want to explain more on this.

    3. The dating of the original NT sources
    Many scholars such as the one you had me watch not long ago. He claims the many of the book in the NT were written some hundreds of years after the events. This would give room for legends and myths to form. If the eyewitnesses to the events were the writer or they were the ones questioned then the NT letters would be more reliable.

    So when were they written. Hundreds of years or were they written within a generation of the events?
    What scholars will you believe?
    Many I have read say they the NT was written in the first century, between AD 50 and 75, but no later then AD 90.
    Paul died under Nero in AD 67. His earliest writings were dated to AD 60-62. Though he was not a personal eyewitness of Jesus life, death and resurrection, he was a contemporary of may who were. He wrote within 30 years of the actual events of Jesus life
    Paul challenges his readers to check with the eyewitness. (1 Cor. 15:5) To verify the truth of his message.

    Again you may probably say that this just proves that people believed in Jesus.
    I don't find that to be a very good counter argument.
    We are explaining my evidence for believing the bible is accurate, reliable and there for worthy of believing today. It is historical accurate. Much of was written as historical accounts. Read the opening of Luke.
    I see this as very good evidence for trusting the bible as a historical accurate book.

    You may disagree with the miracles and other none scientific or natural acts in the book. Is that the soul reason you may disagree with that it is a credible source?

    I have more evidence that supports the NT credibility
    Perhaps I can share it if you would like. I did not get into the OT. I can, but that would take much more time.
    But for now can we establish that the bible is an accurate source of information?

    Sorry I have given you a lot to read. It is hard to narrow down the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  7. First thought. I believe we have talked about some of these in the past.
    History is objectively knowable.
    A. The Bible says this is so.
    Claim. The life, teaching and resurrection of Christ presented in the New Testament documents are historically reliable.
    The authenticity of The New Testament.
    The reliability of the NT writers

    First step is the examination of the extant manuscripts copies
    Second a comparison of the NT manuscripts with those of ancients secular history;
    Third the dating of the original source of these manuscripts.

    1. Manuscripts copies.
    There are more manuscript copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.
    A Papyrus containing five verses from John 18 dated to 117-138Ad.
    The Bodmer Papyris dated to 200AD These
    contains the earliest complete copies of books of the Bible
    Codex Vaticanus (B) dated 325-350 is the earliest complete New Testament manuscript.

    There are about 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the NT.

    2. Comparison with secular manuscripts.
    These charts I believe you have seen. The comparison of ancient texts with the New Testament.
    Homer written in the 9th century BC. number of copies is 643 and it as an accuracy of 95%
    The NT Date written 1 Century AD Earliest copy 2 century Number of copies 5,000 Accuracy is 99%

    Now I seem to to remember you said this is not good evidence because all it proves is that people back then believed it was true. I think you meant to say that the book can be trustworthy and accurate as far as text and copies but the stories could still be false.
    You may want to explain more on this.

    3. The dating of the original NT sources
    Many scholars such as the one you had me watch not long ago. He claims the many of the book in the NT were written some hundreds of years after the events. This would give room for legends and myths to form. If the eyewitnesses to the events were the writer or they were the ones questioned then the NT letters would be more reliable.

    So when were they written. Hundreds of years or were they written within a generation of the events?
    What scholars will you believe?
    Many I have read say they the NT was written in the first century, between AD 50 and 75, but no later then AD 90.
    Paul died under Nero in AD 67. His earliest writings were dated to AD 60-62. Though he was not a personal eyewitness of Jesus life, death and resurrection, he was a contemporary of may who were. He wrote within 30 years of the actual events of Jesus life
    Paul challenges his readers to check with the eyewitness. (1 Cor. 15:5) To verify the truth of his message.

    Again you may probably say that this just proves that people believed in Jesus.
    I don't find that to be a very good counter argument.
    We are explaining my evidence for believing the bible is accurate, reliable and there for worthy of believing today. It is historical accurate. Much of was written as historical accounts. Read the opening of Luke.
    I see this as very good evidence for trusting the bible as a historical accurate book.

    You may disagree with the miracles and other none scientific or natural acts in the book. Is that the soul reason you may disagree with that it is a credible source?

    I have more evidence that supports the NT credibility
    Perhaps I can share it if you would like. I did not get into the OT. I can, but that would take much more time.
    But for now can we establish that the bible is an accurate source of information?

    Sorry I have given you a lot to read. It is hard to narrow down the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  8. First thought. I believe we have talked about some of these in the past.
    History is objectively knowable.
    A. The Bible says this is so.
    Claim. The life, teaching and resurrection of Christ presented in the New Testament documents are historically reliable.
    The authenticity of The New Testament.
    The reliability of the NT writers

    First step is the examination of the extant manuscripts copies
    Second a comparison of the NT manuscripts with those of ancients secular history;
    Third the dating of the original source of these manuscripts.

    1. Manuscripts copies.
    There are more manuscript copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.
    A Papyrus containing five verses from John 18 dated to 117-138Ad.
    The Bodmer Papyris dated to 200AD These
    contains the earliest complete copies of books of the Bible
    Codex Vaticanus (B) dated 325-350 is the earliest complete New Testament manuscript.

    There are about 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the NT.

    2. Comparison with secular manuscripts.
    These charts I believe you have seen. The comparison of ancient texts with the New Testament.
    Homer written in the 9th century BC. number of copies is 643 and it as an accuracy of 95%
    The NT Date written 1 Century AD Earliest copy 2 century Number of copies 5,000 Accuracy is 99%

    Now I seem to to remember you said this is not good evidence because all it proves is that people back then believed it was true. I think you meant to say that the book can be trustworthy and accurate as far as text and copies but the stories could still be false.
    You may want to explain more on this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 3. The dating of the original NT sources
    Many scholars such as the one you had me watch not long ago. He claims the many of the book in the NT were written some hundreds of years after the events. This would give room for legends and myths to form. If the eyewitnesses to the events were the writer or they were the ones questioned then the NT letters would be more reliable.

    So when were they written. Hundreds of years or were they written within a generation of the events?
    What scholars will you believe?
    Many I have read say they the NT was written in the first century, between AD 50 and 75, but no later then AD 90.
    Paul died under Nero in AD 67. His earliest writings were dated to AD 60-62. Though he was not a personal eyewitness of Jesus life, death and resurrection, he was a contemporary of may who were. He wrote within 30 years of the actual events of Jesus life
    Paul challenges his readers to check with the eyewitness. (1 Cor. 15:5) To verify the truth of his message.

    Again you may probably say that this just proves that people believed in Jesus.
    I don't find that to be a very good counter argument.
    We are explaining my evidence for believing the bible is accurate, reliable and there for worthy of believing today. It is historical accurate. Much of was written as historical accounts. Read the opening of Luke.
    I see this as very good evidence for trusting the bible as a historical accurate book.

    You may disagree with the miracles and other none scientific or natural acts in the book. Is that the soul reason you may disagree with that it is a credible source?

    I have more evidence that supports the NT credibility
    Perhaps I can share it if you would like. I did not get into the OT. I can, but that would take much more time.
    But for now can we establish that the bible is an accurate source of information?

    Sorry I have given you a lot to read. It is hard to narrow down the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Keller,
    I cleared away some of the duplicate comments you had left. Got to keep this place tidy.

    Let me sum up your case:
    1 and 2. There are lots of copies of pieces of the NT from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th century AD.
    3. The gospels were written 35-65 years after the alleged events happened.

    I agree with these two statements. They match what the experts say (including Bart Ehrman).

    Historians generally agree that the gospels were written by literate (and therefore relatively affluent) Greek-speaking Christians living 35 to 65 years after the events they narrate.

    The non-affluent Hebrew or Aramaic speaking disciples of Jesus were presumably adults at the time of his death. Add on 35 years to any of them and you have someone who is 55 or older. Life expectancy being what it was back then (age 52 after reaching 15), most of the eyewitnesses would be dead. And that's assuming they weren't more likely to die than anyone else. If the Bible is to be believed, they were being killed left and right, persecuted for their beliefs.

    Add in the fact that these people are living in the ancient world. No internet, no libraries. 90% of the population is illiterate. Travel takes forever and is dangerous. Investigative journalism doesn't really thrive in this climate. If you doubt the truth of what you've heard that someone far away says, you or they might be dead before you arrive to verify it.

    So, the gospel writers were:
    1. Not contemporary - There is no evidence these accounts were written by people who witnessed the events, or that they interviewed people who witnessed the events. Most likely these are stories that had been passed on many times.
    2. Not corroborative - The accounts disagree on many points. You can say that those points don't matter, but they do. A single small disagreement doesn't make a source unreliable. Many (some not so small) do.
    3. Not independent - Matthew and Luke plagiarized Mark, which shows they had read it. They cannot corroborate Mark (or vice versa), because they have been coached. They also cannot corroborate each other on anything mentioned in Mark. Matthew and Luke also share the Q document in common. You may not believe in the Q document, but historians do. It is the most likely explanation for the many word-for-word similarities between Matthew and Luke.
    4. Not impartial - The gospels were written by believers. They had a stake in the truth of the events they were claiming happened. They are biased.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh Merry Christmas.

    So it sounds like you don't believe the NT is a credible source?

    I am glad we can agree on the first two pieces of evidence given. They are very strong evidences. I believe they make the NT stand out amongst other believe systems.
    The Third evidence. I feel you are make some assumptions. I am not sure if you derived these ideas or your read them from some experts of some kind.
    You are maybe right about the life expectancy.
    I is a stretch to say that eyewitness were adults. Teenagers and children were present. Not everyone died at age around the age of 55. People did live longer. So The idea that (No) eyewitness were alive during the time of the writing does not fit. Perhaps I can see your source for this idea.
    Not contemporary. don't agree. need to see better evidence to convince me of this.

    Your next points do not speak to the evidence i gave. But that is okay. It did not have to.

    Not corroborative Don't agree. The minor detail do not matter. Like I stated before. They agree on the major issues. The minor details in no way take away from the message being presented. If they agreed on every point and story why write four gospels. one would be enough. The four gospels are four people focusing the same message to different groups of people. I can give more on this if you want to hear it.
    This leads to the next point you raised.

    Not independent. This Q document you mentioned. I have heard a lot about his. It is a great theory. It is all so a great speculation. No really evidence supports. They have not such document. No such document is every mention at anytime by anyone in history. It is an argument from silence.
    How do you explain the gospels agree word for word in some place in other they different? Did they talk to the same people? Did they look at each other writing? Either one is possible. So we invent this Q document.
    What historians agree with this Q document.
    Never mind I can read into it.
    How does the writing not being independent show they are not reliable or credible sources?

    The last point agree with. They were bias. Many of the writers of the NT were directly affected by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
    All the writers of the NT except one were killed for not rejecting the Gospel. They would not die for a lie? They would not die if they had doubts about what they had heard and seen. The fully believed in Jesus Christ. You can say they were all crazy. Crazy disillusioned people would die for what they thought was the truth.

    One other point. If God wanted to make his message clear to many people. He would write it in the most common language and then have is spread all over the known world. He would make it known the learned and the unlearned. He would have it preserved so people throughout the world and ages could read it and believe. Beyond the writings in the Bible he would have the the lives of men and women transformed so all could see. For those who could not read it. They could see the reality seen in the lives of believers.

    So in your opinions or the opinions of the scholars you read is the Bible the New Testament at this point not a source you would except if I were to use it?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh Merry Christmas.

    So it sounds like you don't believe the NT is a credible source?

    I am glad we can agree on the first two pieces of evidence given. They are very strong evidences. I believe they make the NT stand out amongst other believe systems.
    The Third evidence. I feel you are make some assumptions. I am not sure if you derived these ideas or your read them from some experts of some kind.
    You are maybe right about the life expectancy.
    I is a stretch to say that eyewitness were adults. Teenagers and children were present. Not everyone died at age around the age of 55. People did live longer. So The idea that (No) eyewitness were alive during the time of the writing does not fit. Perhaps I can see your source for this idea.
    Not contemporary. don't agree. need to see better evidence to convince me of this.

    Your next points do not speak to the evidence i gave. But that is okay. It did not have to.

    Not corroborative Don't agree. The minor detail do not matter. Like I stated before. They agree on the major issues. The minor details in no way take away from the message being presented. If they agreed on every point and story why write four gospels. one would be enough. The four gospels are four people focusing the same message to different groups of people. I can give more on this if you want to hear it.
    This leads to the next point you raised.

    Not independent. This Q document you mentioned. I have heard a lot about his. It is a great theory. It is all so a great speculation. No really evidence supports. They have not such document. No such document is every mention at anytime by anyone in history. It is an argument from silence.
    How do you explain the gospels agree word for word in some place in other they different? Did they talk to the same people? Did they look at each other writing? Either one is possible. So we invent this Q document.
    What historians agree with this Q document.
    Never mind I can read into it.
    How does the writing not being independent show they are not reliable or credible sources?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh Merry Christmas.

    So it sounds like you don't believe the NT is a credible source?

    I am glad we can agree on the first two pieces of evidence given. They are very strong evidences. I believe they make the NT stand out amongst other believe systems.
    The Third evidence. I feel you are make some assumptions. I am not sure if you derived these ideas or your read them from some experts of some kind.
    You are maybe right about the life expectancy.
    I is a stretch to say that eyewitness were adults. Teenagers and children were present. Not everyone died at age around the age of 55. People did live longer. So The idea that (No) eyewitness were alive during the time of the writing does not fit. Perhaps I can see your source for this idea.
    Not contemporary. don't agree. need to see better evidence to convince me of this.

    Your next points do not speak to the evidence i gave. But that is okay. It did not have to.

    Not corroborative Don't agree. The minor detail do not matter. Like I stated before. They agree on the major issues. The minor details in no way take away from the message being presented. If they agreed on every point and story why write four gospels. one would be enough. The four gospels are four people focusing the same message to different groups of people. I can give more on this if you want to hear it.
    This leads to the next point you raised.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Not independent. This Q document you mentioned. I have heard a lot about his. It is a great theory. It is all so a great speculation. No really evidence supports. They have not such document. No such document is every mention at anytime by anyone in history. It is an argument from silence.
    How do you explain the gospels agree word for word in some place in other they different? Did they talk to the same people? Did they look at each other writing? Either one is possible. So we invent this Q document.
    What historians agree with this Q document.
    Never mind I can read into it.
    How does the writing not being independent show they are not reliable or credible sources?

    The last point agree with. They were bias. Many of the writers of the NT were directly affected by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
    All the writers of the NT except one were killed for not rejecting the Gospel. They would not die for a lie? They would not die if they had doubts about what they had heard and seen. The fully believed in Jesus Christ. You can say they were all crazy. Crazy disillusioned people would die for what they thought was the truth.

    One other point. If God wanted to make his message clear to many people. He would write it in the most common language and then have is spread all over the known world. He would make it known the learned and the unlearned. He would have it preserved so people throughout the world and ages could read it and believe. Beyond the writings in the Bible he would have the the lives of men and women transformed so all could see. For those who could not read it. They could see the reality seen in the lives of believers.

    So in your opinions or the opinions of the scholars you read is the Bible the New Testament at this point not a source you would except if I were to use it?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Third Evidence (Not Contemporary):

    I derived these from some of the facts we had discussed. I guess you could assert that the eyewitnesses were children, but then are they reliable eyewitnesses. I think that's pretty questionable. None of Jesus disciple's were described as children. They are all mentioned as being grown men working in various occupations (fishermen, tax collectors, etc). So these hypothetical child-witnesses would not have had access to many of the scenes described in the NT.

    I didn't say that everyone died at age 55. I said that was the average life expectancy. Given the relatively small group of people that would have been good eyewitnesses (people who were in the inner circle and saw first hand the events reported in the gospels), the chances that 1 of them (let alone 4) survived into old age (through the persecutions; I notice you didn't touch on that).

    "Not contemporary. don't agree. need to see better evidence to convince me of this."

    You're still not getting it, Keller. You're the one claiming the bible is a reliable source. You're the one that needs to provide the evidence.

    Not Corroborative:
    "The four gospels are four people focusing the same message to different groups of people."

    That's fine if what we're talking about is just a myth. I can understand how a myth might change depending on who you are telling it to. But a factual account does not. If I am telling people about a conversation I had with you, I cannot make you say things you didn't (unless I am lying). If I am telling about an ominous feeling of foreboding I had, I can't add lightning, thunder and an earthquake to make it more dramatic. If I do, I am not retelling the actual event. You're kind of making my point now, Keller.

    Not Independent:
    Whether Q exists or not does not matter for my point that the gospels are not independent. Matthew and Luke plagiarized Mark (there are large sections of text that are identical between all three sources). If the Q document exists, they also plagiarized it. If the Q document does not exist, then Matthew plagiarized Luke, or vice versa.

    The writing not being independent means that we have fewer sources. We do not have 4 people all telling about their eyewitness accounts of Jesus. We have 1 person with a possible eyewitness account, and 3 others that copied what he said.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Making sure my post works. Having trouble

    ReplyDelete
  17. Aaron.
    Yes I am providing evidence. But if you have counter evidence I can ask for more explanation and ask for your sources. I can ask for evidence to back up your counter points. This is why I said that.

    Okay. Some of this sounds like a math problem.
    This is how I understand it.

    Now you say all the creditable wittiness were likely dead. By old age or killed. In your mind one of the reasons why the NT is not reliable is because there were no credible eyewitness. Am I wrong about that statement?

    The earliest book of the New Testament is said to be James and Galatians. They were written in the 40s and early 50s The Gospels of Mark and Matthew were written in the late 50s or early 60s. Luke was written in 62 and John was written late 80s and early 90s. All the other letters were written in between these times.

    The disciples are believed to be younger men probably in there twenties. This is not unlikely. But there were more men in the in circle. He had many followers. Many people young and old witnessed his miracles and life.
    If the eyewitness were in their twenties or late teens then in 35 years when most of the NT was written these witness would be in their late 50s and early 60s.
    It is not improbable that they would still be alive and able to recall the life and works of Christ. Could the four writers of the Gospels still be alive to write? I say yes.
    Is this totally unreasonable?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Another point to consider. If a old man was a witness or even if he was healed by Jesus and he tells his children and grandchildren what happened to him. These children would remember. A man healed by Christ would tell with enthusiasm and in detail. These kinds of testimonies hold up in court.

    We already agreed that the Gospels do not agree on the details of each story. We agree that is seems as thou they copied one another. We can make speculation either way. When I said the four gospels are four people God inspired writers who are focusing the same message to different groups of people.
    Matthew is addressing Jewish Christians in Syria
    Mark is to non-Christian Romans
    Luke is to non-Christian Gentiles
    John is to Christians in the region around Ephesus.

    You may disagree with this statement. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” 2 Timothy 3:16.

    These writers were not just playing investigative reporters traveling around taling to eyewitness. They were lead by God. They wrote in there own style and used their own words but God lead them.

    You to say we have one writer and three other who just plagiarized the first writer.
    This may be to you the only likely explanation. I disagree. Here is why.
    Certain sections are verbatim from Mark but not all the section. I can give you source on this if you would like.
    Mark is influenced by Peter.
    Matthew was an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.
    Luke states his purpose and sources in the opening of his book.
    John was an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.

    We can agree or disagree that the scriptures are a reliable source. Perhaps as I share more evidence for Christ we can take it one point at a time. You can point out why you don’t agree with each point.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Could the four writers of the Gospels still be alive to write?"

    But you need to establish that they did, not that they could have. Present evidence please.

    "These kinds of testimonies hold up in court."

    No actually, they don't. When you testify what someone else said, it is called hearsay. It is not evidence in court. Two years of Mock Trial, remember?

    "You to say we have one writer and three other who just plagiarized the first writer. This may be to you the only likely explanation."

    It's not the only explanation. But due to the identical passages, it is the most likely. You can phrase it however you like. Maybe Luke wrote his story, and used Mark's gospel to "refresh his memory", copying a few passages because he wasn't present. It still shows that he probably had Mark's gospel in hand while writing. So he can't corroborate Mark's story, because he could change his to fit where needed.

    You have more evidence for the primary claims? Just to be clear, you still haven't given sufficient evidence to establish the NT as a reliable source.

    ReplyDelete
  20. They did write the Gospels. You evidence is the decider in what a man believes. I see this leading for both of us on Faith. Sure you say 99% of the evidence points the way you believe. But still evidence does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. We have spoken on this before. Maybe still to bring it up again. But lets look at some more evidence
    Evidence. Did Matthew, Mark , Luke and John write the Gospel accounts.
    An early Church leader Papias passed on tradition that Mark accurately wrote down what he heard from Peter. Other Church leaders Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome also support Mark authorship by Peter.
    We can deny these Church leaders and their traditions, what evidence do we have to do so? I have not seen or heard of anything that would tell me contrary. Unless you have.

    Evidence for Matthew
    Many modern scholars deny Matthew as the writer. This is due to the theory of the Q document.
    Explain Along with Mark early Church tradition have Matthew as the author. But also we look at the internal evidence. The books skillful organization can point to the probable interests and abilities of a tax collector like Matthew. It is also the only gospel that speaks of Jesus paying the Temple tax. (17:24) There are other internal signs that point to Matthew.

    Evidence for Luke
    Luke is also supported by early Church leaders and tradition. Muratorian Canon, the anti-Marcionite prologue to Luke and Irenaeus.

    Evidence for John
    Again early Church tradition have john as the author during the close of the first century in Ephesus.
    The testimony of Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp who intern was a disciple of John himself give a direct line of tradition with only one link between Irenaeus and John.
    John claims in the book to be an eyewitness of Jesus ministry. (1:14, 19:35, 21:24)
    Internal evidence also points to someone who had an accurate knowledge of Jewish customs. The author also had a knowledge of the lay out of the Palestinian before the destruction in 70 AD. (5:2)
    In this gospel the writer says of himself “the disciple whom Jesus loved” Not as an ego statement. These words come from a man in whom Jesus confided in.

    There are certainly more detailed evidences, which support these authors.
    Perhaps the traditions of the early Church leaders means nothing to us. Maybe you have read very little by these men. If you haven’t I know you can find them. Read them. I don’t’ think we should discount what they have said about the scriptures and the men God used to write them.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I know Aaron I was no in Mock Trial. But what if twenty or more people have the same hearsay story. Yes they could have collaborated their stories to every detail.
    This is the point I am trying to make. A group of men did not get together and decide to write stories about a man called Jesus. These stories were well known by many. And these people passed these stories down to their Children. We don’t’ discount them just because they were passed down. I once heard the same story from my mom on how my grandma met my grandpa. Then when my grandma told the story it was the same story. Sure she had some more details but it was the same. This one of the evidences for the New Testament reliability.

    Plagiarism does not discredit the Gospel writers as being reliable and accurate. They may have copied some section. This not a problem.
    Yes, If he did copy Mark He surely had it in hand and he could have changed his story to fit with Marks. Is this a possibility, Yes. It is. Is it also a speculation? By the use of the words could have you make this so.

    Aaron sure we don’t have 100% prove either way. We know none of us were there. So all of what we are saying is educated speculation. Based on evidences we derive are conclusions. You and I both know this. Do my preconceived ideas about Jesus tie into my conclusions? Yes they do. Do your?

    I have given a great deal of evidence, but so far you see it as not sufficient.

    But I at least by now you must say the pieces of evidence I have shared make Christianity a little bit more believable then the tooth fair and the flying spaghetti monster.

    I am still in the pilot see trying to give evidence to convince you of something.
    This fine. I still love the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sorry Keller, been busy.

    I hear what you are saying about the stories being widespread. I agree with that. Unfortunately, that is not evidence for your assertion that Jesus was a real person.

    The ancient world was a place with a thriving oral culture. Stories spread by word of mouth, which made them pass on easily, but made them as useful for evidence as an urban legend is today. Lots of people saying that they heard the story of Jesus is not evidence for the existence of Jesus, it is evidence for the existence of the story.

    I'm not even suggesting that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all conspired. But they did have access to each other's writings, so when one tells a story, he can't be corroborated by the others.

    Keller, you haven't made a case for Christianity being more believable than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    At this point, all you have is a story (Mark) that is repeated and added to by other people who read it (Matthew, Luke, John). All four writers were religious converts writing at least 35 years later. We have no evidence that they were witnesses or that they spoke to direct witnesses.

    "Aaron sure we don’t have 100% prove either way. We know none of us were there."

    Science and history don't work on 100%. And we don't have to have been there to work out what probably happened. All we need is evidence. An exciting story told and repeated by religious converts is not evidence.

    Here's the sort of thing that would be evidence:
    Imagine if we found a set of lost diaries written by the twelve disciples. They are found in twelve different locations and can be dated to within a year of the supposed date of the crucifiction. Each is written in a different style, and none copy passages from the others (or from the gospels) word for word. Each recounts the events that a single disciple witnessed, and none add unsupported stories of the birth or tales of the resurrection day that include things the author had no way of witnessing. Between all twelve of them, they each include enough redundancy to corroborate each other.

    If this were found, it would provide some spectacular evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus and his ministry. But while all we have is one story, and 3 copycats we don't have very strong evidence at all.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Lost of people did not just hear stories about a man called Jesus. They saw him and all that he did.
    And yes these accounts were passed down to the next generation. They had no reason not to believe them.
    They are a far cry from an urban legend. Those are stories told around camp fires. A friend of a friend who heard a story from and great uncle who heard it from his grandpa. This is not the case with the live and death of Christ.
    I wish only to address your argument. But to your best judgment it is doubtful that a man named Jesus actually lived?
    Because I not many historians I have heard of doubt that he lived.
    They just doubt that all that he did and said is in question.

    This is what I see in this. 100+ people all have the same basic story account about Jesus. Four writers and other writer from the NT write down accounts from the life of Jesus. I am having a very hard time seeing how you don't see this as good evidence.
    It is as if this flying spaghetti thing is equal or better as it come to evidence to you. In due respect i find this absurd.

    I admit we have done much more reading in the area we find more creditable. I have not read all the research you have against Jesus and I am sure you have not read the information and evidence I have that support Jesus. Reading your word is helpful. But to study the scholars and historians from both sides of the argument would be helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  24. That would be convincing if we had 12 people with different styles but the same message. To bad we don't have that right?
    We have one gospel and the rest copied that one. I love you Aaron.
    That is not the case. We have four Gospel writers. Their are serval passages where some of them write word for word. There are passages were they disagree on certain details. But this does not give us reason to assume the four other writers copied one.

    You are looking for the evidence that will convince you. You will not find it.
    Here is another case were we are seeing some of the same evidences and arriving at different conclusions.

    If the eternal evidence I have given is not sufficient for you. Then how about the evidence from outside the biblical accounts.
    You probably know those who I am going to quote in this areas of historical record.
    I can mention them this week. I can not recall them all from the top of my head.

    But one thing more. I don't I am finished with the internal evidence from the Bible.
    There are a few other points I will share so you can shoot them down with your superior reasoning and intellect. Just kidding. I could have been Valedictorian and on the debate team.
    But perhaps I am a simple man with a simple faith trying to talk my way into the arena of the wise.

    I would like to recreate the outline you have at the beginning of this post.
    I wil look it over again.

    ReplyDelete