Nobody Dies for a Lie

[Terraceth]

All too often. There are many, many references to the gospels being four eyewitness accounts. Here, for example.

"You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book."

[Teallaura]

All the accounts agree on many things, often to the extent of being word-for-word identical, which suggests copying, not authenticity - but they disagree regarding the resurrection and what happened afterwards. The earliest account doesn't include it - although later copies of that account have had it added. Later accounts that do include it differ.

Actually, they are rarely 'word for word' identical - - to the point that copying is not probable. The Synoptics may have a mutual source since they do have similarities (the Q theory) but they differ significantly thematically and in wording.

Only the earliest extant copies of Mark omit the Resurrection - none of the other Gospels do. Was it actually omitted or simply not found in the copies? Dunno, but it poses no real issue - the theory that the Resurrection accounts don't exist prior to the physical writing of Mark is absurd on its face - that would be utterly insufficient for the extra-Biblical sources to have picked it up - which they did. It's also nonsensical - the keystone of the early apologetic suddenly appearing decades later should have destroyed the nascent movement - but Christianity grew significantly in the First Century AD - this theory does not fit known facts.

Yes, they have differences - exactly what should be expected of authentic accounts. No two people see or interpret events the same way. Disregarding the audience variation (Gospel authors had target audiences) the accounts do not differ on the important points and are easily reconciled - they stand up perfectly well in a modern court room.

No it doesn't. The same standards are applied to all historical knowledge. If you're going to go with MM's misunderstanding rather than reading what I actually wrote, I can't see any point continuing.

No, you aren't applying the same standards at all - Historical accounts differ frequently (which is expected). The copies, extant or otherwise, vary with some omitting portions and others containing things found in no other - where multiple copies exist, of course. Scripture is unique in the huge quantity of extant and recent (to the writing) copies available - and much of it can be 'recreated' from extra-Biblical sources. If we apply your standard here, then we don't get to keep the vast majority of historical documentation both of the First Century and most of pre-medieval history.

If you toss Biblical accounts based on omission and differing accounts, you must do the same for every other documentary piece of evidence - which eliminates mountains of evidence. The standard is improper and unwarranted.

No, but there are stories where Ares and Indra do.

Ares abandons mortals - but he never liked them anyway. I don't recall any such myth where Ares is concerned.

I'm not particularly familiar with Indian deities, but a quick reading finds that Indra got a major rewrite as he was adopted into newer religious forms - and buddhism in particular wasn't kind about it. I would hazard that the myth in question comes from the later revisions - and if so, that proves my point. But I'd need the specifics to evaluate it - got a source link or something? (Perfectly cool if not - I'm just curious).

You know who Theophilus was? Do tell.

The gut Luke wrote to - obviously of some importance - you don't hand write two major books to some guy you met in passing - and quite possibly a Roman official (which would explain both the writing and the brief like nature of the books). I don't see a plausible objection here but even granting one, so what? The documentation existed, at least one known (and hundreds of other) trial(s) occurred along with a huge growth of Christianity that was large enough to catch the attention of the Romans - if there were a question in period about the events, it could have been addressed but there's no indication that it ever was - at least not as you propose. The only indication is Scriptural and occurs at the time of the Resurrection.

The theory that the Resurrection account doesn't appear until late is untenable - it does not fit the facts.

[Teallaura]

OK, I have just traced this thread and tried to follow all of the various exchanges, with an emphasis on the exchanges involving Teal. I read all her comments, and my responses to those comments. As best I can tell, this entire exchange is based on one post where I said, "evidence, maybe; proof, no." Apparently, the "maybe" created the impression that I was proposing that there was an impression that the information about apostolic martyrdom might not be evidence for the life of Jesus being as claimed. I completely missed, in the subsequent discussion, that this turn of phrase had created that perception.

In fact, the use of "maybe" was simply a turn of phrase. If someone said to me, "sugar has been shown to contribute to obesity and cancer," my response might be, "obesity, maybe; cancer is not proven." It's my way of saying, "there is adequate evidence to assert that it contributes to obesity, but the jury is still out on cancer." So, in the context of my statement, I was saying, "we can admit the martyrdom of the apostles as evidence for believing the claims about Jesus are true, but I believe it is inadequate evidence (i.e., the claim is not proven).

If that was the source of the confusion, and it was based on that brief phrase - hopefully that clarifies. If not, then I have no idea what question it is you think I'm avoiding, so someone will have to restate.

The evidence question is at least correctly identified here - you'd already hit this actually - it took three pages.

But you still haven't answered the OTHER question. Please start paying attention to the post you are responding to - not just in the reply box where you can't see the full quotation. I quoted the post I was responding to which was your non-response to someone else's question.

You're not the only one with limited time, you know. If it were a once in a while thing, no one would care, but this happens A LOT. You don't seem to really pay attention to what you're responding to - I made myself clear about what I took exception to but you acted as if I hadn't (still doing so, see above). When you do pay attention, we still get off into lala land because you can't keep track of the conversation - because you didn't note what was being responded to to begin with.

i get that you are at a disadvantage - there are more people disagreeing with you - but when you consistently fail to respond to the actual posts, it makes you look like you're deliberately dodging. Everyone else has to keep track of the conversation - you're not being asked to do what no one else has to do.

And I'm tired of having to track down stuff for you - this is the last time:

Er, never mind - Sparky already got it...

[lilpixieofterror]

Not as much for the wimmenfolk who still had high mortality rates while giving birth. Even when you factor in wars the evidence suggests that back then men tended to live longer than women.

I know this is a small sample, but based on the birth and death dates of my ancestors this does hold true before the 18th century. As we enter the 19th century I do notice women do start to catch up and by the 20th century begin to outlive their husbands. Now I can’t say for sure why this is, but I’d guess better medical practices as the years went on was the cause.

[Roy]

"You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book."

I wouldn't worry, it wasn't worth reading anyway.

[Roy]

I'm not doubting his veracity, I'm accepting what he wrote. He said his group had accounts passed down from the original eyewitnesses. He does not say that he personally spoke to the eyewitnesses. That's your addition.

And James was not an original eyewitnesses?

And what James is this Roy?

If you don't know which James you were referring to, how is anyone else supposed to?

We know that Paul met James the Lord's brother in Jerusalem Galatians 1:18-20. Unless you don't believe that Christ's brother was an eyewitness.

Does Luke say he was an eyewitness? You're the one who asked whether or not James was an eyewitness, but you not only haven't provided an answer, you've dishonestly dodged your own question.

There are only two notable men named James in the New Testament, either one would have known Christ personally.

So not only have you refused for the third time to say whether this James was an eyewitness according to Luke, you're even refusing to say which James you meant.

If you had something to indicate some person named James was both an eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus and was visited by Luke, then you might have presented it. Your vagueness and evasion suggests you have nothing, and you're trying to pretend otherwise.

[Roy]

Even for you, this is a bit excessive; he answered the question right after he posed it.

Given his subsequent refusal to clarify which James he meant, and third evasion of his own question, I don't think it's excessive at all. As best I can tell from his vague evasions, he's trying to suggest that the James that Luke met was the same James that Paul said Jesus met after the resurrection, while repeatedly refusing to provide any evidence for it or even clarify his intent.

He truly is a dishonest schmuck.

[Sparko]

Given his subsequent refusal to clarify which James he meant, and third evasion of his own question, I don't think it's excessive at all. As best I can tell from his vague evasions, he's trying to suggest that the James that Luke met was the same James that Paul said Jesus met after the resurrection, while repeatedly refusing to provide any evidence for it or even clarify his intent.

He truly is a dishonest schmuck.

In Galatians, Paul tells his version of when he went to Jerusalem that he met James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul (Cephas):

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

Acts said that Mary and Jesus' brothers were part of the church at the ascension. Acts 1:14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

[seer]

So not only have you refused for the third time to say whether this James was an eyewitness according to Luke, you're even refusing to say which James you meant.

It was most likely James, Jesus' brother. All three James in the New Testament were eyewitness to Christ's ministry. So it would not matter which one it was.

[One Bad Pig]

As for the rest, I don't beat around the bush, I don't do strawmen, and I do the best I can to answer the questions asked.

Actions speak louder than words.

ETA: I am not accusing you of deliberately doing these things; you merely seem unable to address a question in a straightforward manner.

[One Bad Pig]

Given his subsequent refusal to clarify which James he meant, and third evasion of his own question, I don't think it's excessive at all. As best I can tell from his vague evasions, he's trying to suggest that the James that Luke met was the same James that Paul said Jesus met after the resurrection, while repeatedly refusing to provide any evidence for it or even clarify his intent.

He truly is a dishonest schmuck.

I don't know if you are projecting or what, but seer isn't being evasive here. He's saying that your question regarding which James isn't relevant, because all of them were eyewitnesses. He's certainly not as clear as he could be, and I think he should've answered your question anyway (not least because it's not at all difficult), but he doesn't merit the appellation "evasive" just because he's not as rigorous in his argumentation as you'd like.

[seer]

In Galatians, Paul tells his version of when he went to Jerusalem that he met James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul (Cephas):

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

Acts said that Mary and Jesus' brothers were part of the church at the ascension. Acts 1:14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

And I already referenced the Galatians passage.

[seer]

I don't know if you are projecting or what, but seer isn't being evasive here. He's saying that your question regarding which James isn't relevant, because all of them were eyewitnesses. He's certainly not as clear as he could be, and I think he should've answered your question anyway (not least because it's not at all difficult), but he doesn't merit the appellation "evasive" just because he's not as rigorous in his argumentation as you'd like.

Roy just hates me...

[Cow Poke]

Apparently to you, Teall, and perhaps Sparko.

You can add me to that list. I believe you believe you answer questions directly, but... not so much, IMOHBAO.

[Sparko]

Roy just hates me...

He is just doing his normal hyper-literal reading in order to nitpick away anything he doesn't want to admit or agree with.