There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[Tassman]

]YOU called me out

Your arguments were so lame that they are reminiscent of Rudolf Hess’s contorted jerks while dancing the Spandau Ballet.

Come now, little one. Get a grip.

And your juvenile use of the logical fallacy of "argumentum ex silentio” is nearly as rich in irony (maybe YOU should remain silent, and save yourself the embarrassments). You really must get out more... [/FONT]

There is no “argument from silence”. There simply isn't the evidence to support your assertion of eyewitness accounts.

Ever heard of “wish fulfillment”? Look it up.

[Further YOU should actually get “evidence” against the first-hand eyewitnesses, and not more mere innuendo like “Most modern scholars think that Papias was not referring to Matthew's Gospel at all”.

The burden of proof rests upon the person asserting the affirmative. It is you making the assertion that the Jesus story is based on eye-witness reportage so the burden of proof rests with you.

Whatever Papias had to say it was NOT based on eyewitness reports. Furthermore, Papias was not regarded as reliable even by Eusebius, who had much to gain from his accounts.

First, the statement is loaded, and proves my initial points, as the word “thinks” means they don’t know, and are simply guessing; AND since they are “modern” scholars, they weren’t there to talk to any of the eye-witnesses, or their pupils (like, for instance Papias).

Not “just guessing”. You may as well argue that medical specialist is “just guessing” at a prognosis when in fact his “guess” is based on his background training, knowledge, experience and judicious use of medical technology.

Modern biblical scholarship depends on Higher Criticism (i.e. the Historical/Critical method) and its goal is to assess a text in its original historical context. The unpalatable fact for you is that the majority of scholars who practice this methodology have concluded that the New Testament comprises anonymous, non-eyewitness embellished gospel accounts compiled decades after the events they purport to record, seven genuine Pauline epistles and several forgeries.

Papias did NOT speak to any eyewitness’s and this is acknowledged by Bauckham, the great Papias proponent, himself.

Must I continue to point out (and you fail to answer), that you have provided absolutely NO contemporaneous evidence to refute ANY of the “FIRST-HAND EYEWITNESSES”, regardless of your ham handed attempts to besmirch their testimonieS. [/FONT]

You are asserting eyewitness reportage, against the expert opinion of majority scholarship; the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

Face it: There are NO "FIRST-HAND EYEWITNESSES”,

[FONT=Times New Roman]Also, in one of your quotes, the guy you are quoting (James E. West, adjunct professor at the Quartz Hill School of Theology) holds a Doctorate of Theology from the unaccredited Andersonville Theological Seminary of Camilla, Georgia. You really shouldn’t site sources simply because their quotes fit your opinion. FONT]
[FONT=Times

Biased Generalization Fallacy!

No poor Nathan Poe, no one need refute your statements anymore, because you have nothing sound to say, nothing rational to say, or anything intelligent to say.
[]

The reverse is the case and, regardless, you are begging the question with your bald assertion of: “FIRST-HAND EYEWITNESSES”.

[Tassman]

You are correct Doug... BUT the Historical evidence does; and that’s what’s killing your attempted arguments!

So, along the same lines of logic, your saying it isn’t so, doesn't affect the historicity of it in ANY way either. Therefore, you have absolutely no sanguine or effective argument until you provide contemporaneous historical evidence to support your mere opinions...

Higher Criticism, about which you seem blissfully unaware, is the study of the history and contents, and origins and purposes, of the various books of the Bible. And it is the historical evidence as examined by scholars practising the techniques of higher criticism, which has convinced the majority of qualified historians and biblical scholars that there is no eyewitness testimony.

No amount of big words can disguise that you don’t know what you are talking about.

[fm93]

Probably would've been best for you if you had.

You're right. If I'd permanently forgotten, you wouldn't have responded, so I wouldn't have this painful handprint across my face from facepalming so hard from reading your posts.

So, did they use those bags to carry around their pens and papers -- or are you merely assuming that they did because you need them to in order to preserve this illusion of "eyewitness testimony"?

Virtually everyone had bags then, since people needed them to carry the essentials for survival, and pens and papers are usually carried in bags. I don't "need them to"--I'm just stating what common sense suggests they did. As I said earlier, we know that shorthand was a relatively common practice in academic circles in the Greco-Roman Empire, and the disciples were an academic circle in the Greco-Roman Empire...it's very likely that someone did record dialogues and sayings.

Any reason we should assume any of it was?

Yes. Mark, for instance, was not directly written by an eyewitness, but rather is said to have been written by a scribe who knew the eyewitness Peter. The gospel places special emphasis on Peter in several instances, listing him first on the list of disciples, mentioning specific details about him, such as his house and his brother, and mentioning him more frequently than the other disciples are mentioned. Furthermore, Mark is written in relatively simple, commonplace (at the time) language, which is reflective of a lesser educated person like Peter. These are clues that Mark is indeed based on the testimony of Peter, who was an eyewitness.

I'm sure you do -- any reason your belief should be taken seriously?

Because I have arguments and reasons for it, and these reasons show that the belief is plausible and even expected, given the common workings of that ancient culture.

But there's still no reason to assume that they asked unless you're also working from the assumption that this was eyewitnesses testimony in the first place -- you're supporting assumptions by piling more assumptions on top of them.

I have reasons to think that they were based on eyewitness testimony. But besides that, you’re actually working from an assumption of eyewitness testimony yourself. You responded to the claim of eyewitness testimony by objecting that you don’t think word-for-word dialogues would be from eyewitnesses. Your argument is in the form of reductio ad absurdum—you’re assuming that a proposition is true (i.e, that the gospels were based on eyewitnesses), then attempting to show that the proposition leads to an absurd conclusion (i.e, that eyewitnesses remembered those long dialogues word-for-word) to show that, never mind, the proposition must not actually be true. So technically, all I have to do is show that the conclusion isn’t absurd.

Indeed -- the most plausible option is that the whole scene was a literary invention, and not an actual event.

Only if one presupposes from the get-go that miracles can't happen.

They managed to get at least that much straight; too bad they they can't decide which women went to the tomb, how many "supernatural people" they saw, who actually saw the resurrected Jesus, or where it happened.

But you already knew all that -- you'd just rather deal with a strawman.

So maybe you shouldn’t say things like “the gospels got EVERYTHING wrong about the story.” And as I said, this thread isn’t the place to discuss the alleged discrepancies—it’d take too long and would derail this thread even further.

So, that's what the Gospels are to you? The divinely inspired "general gist" of memories?

I’m not saying the women were mistaken, but rather that even if they were, it still wouldn’t pose a problem.

Well, once you accept that their own testimony is unreliable, as you yourself said eyewitness testimony is, then you shouldn't have any difficulty placing in whatever you need to reconcile it all.

I said eyewitness testimony can be unreliable sometimes, and even then only to an extent.

or retells the event completely in order to appeal to their target audience. Of course, now that you're the audience, the event can be whatever you wish it to be.

There’s that umbrella word again—“completely.” You know perfectly well that there’s no “complete retelling” of the event. The primary differences are something like this: one gospel mentions Mary Magdalene, and other mentions Mary Magdalene and other women. Even on the surface, that’s not a contradiction. A plausible explanation is that one gospel writer was writing to a group of people who didn’t know who the other women were, so he neglected to mention them—why introduce new people at the very end of the book? Meanwhile, the other gospel writer’s audience did know those other women, so he could go ahead and mention them. That’s what I mean by “target audience.” I don’t see anything unlikely about that explanation, and given what we know about human behavior, we should actually expect that that’s what happened.

[bertatberts]

Only if one presupposes from the get-go that miracles can't happen.

Presuppose means to Tacitly assume a thing, there is no assumption here, unless of course you have verifiable evidence that miracles can and do happen. Rotflmao.

[Chrawnus]

Presuppose means to Tacitly assume a thing, there is no assumption here, unless of course you have verifiable evidence that miracles can and do happen. Rotflmao.

The fact that you can use words with more than two syllables is evidence enough that miracles do happen.

[Vansmack51]

The fact that you can use words with more than two syllables is evidence enough that miracles do happen.

They happen all the time. However suprnatural miracles do not, have not and cannot. Now grow up and take a whiff of the godless 21rst century.

[Doug Shaver]

[quote=Doug Shaver]You say they are "first hand eye-witnessed accounts." Your say-so doesn't make it so.

You are correct Doug... BUT the Historical evidence does;

You say so. I have not seen any of that evidence yet.

[Doug Shaver]

So, along the same lines of logic, your saying it isn’t so, doesn't affect the historicity of it in ANY way either.

In this particular discussion, I'm not denying the historicity of anything. All I am saying is that there is no good evidence that we have any eyewitness testimony about Jesus. Are you asking me to prove a negative?

[The Polimist]

In this particular discussion, I'm not denying the historicity of anything. All I am saying is that there is no good evidence that we have any eyewitness testimony about Jesus. Are you asking me to prove a negative?

If you're saying that there is no good evidence, in the face of all the eyewitness testimony, then yes, you are in fact saying that you can prove a negative.... Therefore, provide the contemporanious evidence that disproves all the eyewitness testimoney.

[The Polimist]

You say so. I have not seen any of that evidence yet.

I suppose it's hard to see with your head in the sand Doug. And that's exactly what you are doing untill you've provided contelporanious evidence against the many eyewitness testimonies.

[The Polimist]

Presuppose means to Tacitly assume a thing, there is no assumption here, unless of course you have verifiable evidence that miracles can and do happen. Rotflmao.

Are you serious Bert? This is English…

Presuppose means to assume something in advance; “to believe that a particular thing is true before there is any proof of it”. It is to “PRE” meaning “BEFORE” and “SUPPOSE” meaning to “consider or imagine something to be a possibility”!

A presupposition is a ASSUMPTION!

Talk about Rolling Around On The Floor Laughing My Bert Off… Your above post is nearly as hilarious as the ASSUMPTIONS built into your OP!

What is even funnier is that Tassman of all people gave you a "thumbs-up" on this, which means that he doesn't know any better either!

[fm93]

Are you serious Bert? This is English…

What makes you think that means he'll be any less wrong?

What is even funnier is that Tassman of all people gave you a "thumbs-up" on this, which means that he doesn't know any better either!

It's Tassman. How is that error surprising?

[Doug Shaver]

If you're saying that there is no good evidence, in the face of all the eyewitness testimony, then yes, you are in fact saying that you can prove a negative

In saying there is no good evidence, I am affirming a negative. You, in saying that there is eyewitness testimony, are affirming a positive that contradicts my negative. You have the burden of proof. I do not.

[Nathan Poe]

You're right. If I'd permanently forgotten, you wouldn't have responded, so I wouldn't have this painful handprint across my face from facepalming so hard from reading your posts.

I suppose I should expect an attempt at wit to mask an actual response -- pity you're not very good at it.

Virtually everyone had bags then, since people needed them to carry the essentials for survival, and pens and papers are usually carried in bags. I don't "need them to"--I'm just stating what common sense suggests they did.

"Common sense" is not a synonym for your desperation. Your needing them to have pens and papers as they trudged through the wilderness with Jesus doesn't make it so.

As I said earlier, we know that shorthand was a relatively common practice in academic circles in the Greco-Roman Empire, and the disciples were an academic circle in the Greco-Roman Empire...it's very likely that someone did record dialogues and sayings.

I'd like to see some sources for this.

Yes. Mark, for instance, was not directly written by an eyewitness, but rather is said to have been written by a scribe who knew the eyewitness Peter.

So, it's rumored to be a secondhand source. That's a couple of steps removed from an eyewitness account, once you actually look into it.

The gospel places special emphasis on Peter in several instances, listing him first on the list of disciples, mentioning specific details about him, such as his house and his brother, and mentioning him more frequently than the other disciples are mentioned.

That would make Peter a major character in the narrative. It does not follow that it would be an account from him.

Furthermore, Mark is written in relatively simple, commonplace (at the time) language, which is reflective of a lesser educated person like Peter.

Along with a sizable portion of the population -- please tell me you've got more than this...

These are clues that Mark is indeed based on the testimony of Peter, who was an eyewitness.

...apparently you don't.

Because I have arguments and reasons for it, and these reasons show that the belief is plausible and even expected, given the common workings of that ancient culture.

I hope your upcoming arguments are better than the steaming load you just tried to pass off.

"It was written by someone common, therefore it was Peter."

I have reasons to think that they were based on eyewitness testimony. But besides that, you’re actually working from an assumption of eyewitness testimony yourself.

Good move -- take the attention off yourself. Pity you're so hamhanded and obvious about it.

You responded to the claim of eyewitness testimony by objecting that you don’t think word-for-word dialogues would be from eyewitnesses.

Neither does anyone else with a working brain.

Your argument is in the form of reductio ad absurdum—you’re assuming that a proposition is true (i.e, that the gospels were based on eyewitnesses), then attempting to show that the proposition leads to an absurd conclusion (i.e, that eyewitnesses remembered those long dialogues word-for-word) to show that, never mind, the proposition must not actually be true. So technically, all I have to do is show that the conclusion isn’t absurd.

While I'm sure you're no stranger to absurdity, you've yet to show this -- technically or otherwise.

Only if one presupposes from the get-go that miracles can't happen.

Given that they don't happen, it's not exactly what one would call a stretch of the imagination to say that they cannot.

Or are we in the realm of magical thinking where anything can happen now?

So maybe you shouldn’t say things like “the gospels got EVERYTHING wrong about the story.

Maybe you should deal with the fact that you're dealing with four separate, different, and mutually exclusive retellings of the same myth.

Fact is, the gospels become a lot more credible when you don't claim that they're eyewitness accounts.

” And as I said, this thread isn’t the place to discuss the alleged discrepancies—it’d take too long and would derail this thread even further.

If you don't want to deal with the evidence that shows the Gospels not to be eyewitness accounts, I'll say I'm neither surprised nor disappointed with you.

I’m not saying the women were mistaken, but rather that even if they were, it still wouldn’t pose a problem.

Well, as long as they got the gist of it -- I mean, it's not like they actually were expected to remember what they allegedly saw or heard... or even who was there--

Oh, wait. That is a bit of a problem, isn't it?

I said eyewitness testimony can be unreliable sometimes, and even then only to an extent.

And which eyewitnesses were they, again? The Gospels agree that the tomb was visited by women, but they can't even get their stories straight as to who or how many.

Extent is a moot point if you can't even establish who was or wasn't an eyewitness.

There’s that umbrella word again—“completely.” You know perfectly well that there’s no “complete retelling” of the event.

Do I? or is the burden of proof on you to establish that these are historical events recorded by eyewitnesses?

Lotsa luck.

The primary differences are something like this: one gospel mentions Mary Magdalene, and other mentions Mary Magdalene and other women.

So was she alone or was she with others? And if so, whom?

Even on the surface, that’s not a contradiction. A plausible explanation is that one gospel writer was writing to a group of people who didn’t know who the other women were, so he neglected to mention them—why introduce new people at the very end of the book?

You mean, why behave in a manner consistent with the rest of how the Bible is written? Joseph of Arimathea -- why don't we hear about him before the resurrection? Why introduce a new character at the very end of the book?

Joseph, the father of Jesus -- why have him disappear utterly after the birth stories wrap up, without so much as an indication of what happened to him?

Those are just the two examples that you've probably heard of -- fact is,minor characters come into the story when they are needed, and are dropped once they are not anymore -- what makes the women at the tomb any different?

Meanwhile, the other gospel writer’s audience did know those other women, so he could go ahead and mention them.

Meanwhile, when the other Gospel Writers do decide to mention them, they mention different names. Let me guess -- it's plausible that the Gospel writers didn't think the audience would know who these women were, so they replaced them with names that they would know.

No, wait, let me try again -- Mary was so shocked at the vision of the resurrected Jesus (which she may or may not have seen) that she forgot who was with her at the time, and told the story in different ways.

Which one do you prefer?

That’s what I mean by “target audience.” I don’t see anything unlikely about that explanation,

You wouldn't.

and given what we know about human behavior, we should actually expect that that’s what happened.

Given what you clam about human behavior, you wouldn't be anyone's first choice to be the go-to guy to make such declarations.

[Tassman]

If you're saying that there is no good evidence, in the face of all the eyewitness testimony, then yes, you are in fact saying that you can prove a negative.... Therefore, provide the contemporanious evidence that disproves all the eyewitness testimoney.

And what is this “eyewitness testimony again”? And why is it that majority scholarship disagrees with your bald assertion? Why don’t you put them all right - once and for all?

What makes you think that means he'll be any less wrong?

It's Tassman. How is that error surprising?

Oh wow! How to respond to such a comprehensive, well argued rebuttal? Where to start!

Seriously, fm93, do you really think your impotent “me too’s” from the sidelines of the playground contribute anything to the discussion? You theists are so funny.