Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Confirmations of the New Testament

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    There is also no objective verifiable evidence that any of the gospels were NOT written by eyewitnesses.
    The Gospels themselves say that none of the evangelists were present at the birth of Jesus or during His early life. Parts of the Gospels are therefore third hand and not written by eyewitnesses, the Gospels themselves tell us this.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      What about the Arabic version that was cited in the video? That might clear up the confusion.
      No because the Arabic version is also very late with no originals of Josephus's writings.

      What evidence do you have that these accounts are third hand, though? Josephus died about 100 CE, for instance.
      Simply none including Josephus (born 36.37 AD) had and was writing past the life span of any possible witnessing at the time of Jesus's life. The other writers were even later.

      Most historians generally accept that Jesus Christ was a real person, and live approximately the time that the Bible describes, and he was convicted for inciting rebellion against Rome and claiming to be the King of the Jews, had a following in Palestine and crucified under Roman Law,
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-19-2019, 10:49 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        No because the Arabic version is also very late with no originals of Josephus's writings.
        Well, the lateness of a copy doesn't imply the copyists were not careful. The Dead Sea Scrolls showed that the Jewish copyists were careful indeed.

        Simply none including Josephus (born 36.37 AD) had and was writing past the life span of any possible witnessing at the time of Jesus's life.
        So his could have been second-hand testimony.

        Most historians generally accept that Jesus Christ was a real person, and live approximately the time that the Bible describes, and he was convicted for inciting rebellion against Rome and claiming to be the King of the Jews, had a following in Palestine and crucified under Roman Law,
        I think one or two references cite Jesus as inciting rebellion, another (the Talmud) says he practiced sorcery. But there is varied evidence that the NT is authentic history, written by eyewitnesses or those who had access to eyewitnesses. Not third-hand testimony, as you and Rossum have claimed.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Well, the lateness of a copy doesn't imply the copyists were not careful. The Dead Sea Scrolls showed that the Jewish copyists were careful indeed.
          The fact that copies from different sources differ in key aspects do imdicat alteration and additions over time. The Hebrew culture at the time of the Dead Sea scrolls were concerned about accuracy within Judaism. The Arabic translators of literature outside Judaism do not share that concern, and it is unlikely that they necessarily even knew the source of the documents. When it came to their own traditional literature and the Quran they were meticulously accurate like the copyists of the Dead Sea scrolls.


          So his could have been second-hand testimony.
          I consider this unlikely, and most historians agree.

          I think one or two references cite Jesus as inciting rebellion, another (the Talmud) says he practiced sorcery. But there is varied evidence that the NT is authentic history, written by eyewitnesses or those who had access to eyewitnesses. Not third-hand testimony, as you and Rossum have claimed.
          As far as being consistent with Roman Law, and history the crucifiction of Jesus Christ is more consistent with the penalty for rebellion against Rome. It still remains that all the references to Jesus Christ are late including Josephus at the time of the Jewish Revolt and later. There is a conflict in the two references by Josephus concerning Jesus Christ. The first, which better reflects Josephus's beliefs and sentiments call Jesus, a 'so-called Christ (prophet?)' is more in line with the reference that is believed to be added by Christian copiests.

          Claiming the gospels were written or based on eyewitness accounts remains speculation. The historical accuracy of facts, people, and events is universally normal for ancient writings in virtually all cultures without considering them based directly on eye witness accounts. The religious claims and miraculous life of Jesus is considered the history of the religion, and not factual history supported by archaeological evidence nor ancient writings from outside the religion. The first gospel was likely a simpler biography (Q?) that evolved into later gospels as the current gospels appear to be evolved as the evidence indicates. Much of what you claim in terms of the life of Jesus is the reason by far most historians consider Jesus Christ a real person in history, but do not consider the gospels to be written nor based on first hand eye witnesses. A simpler early biography like Q may have been, but that too is speculation, but it is consistent with other ancient literature in history.

          As with other ancient religions like Buddhism the religious and miraculous claims attributed to Buddha are separate from the actual historical evidence based on archaeology, historical references, and the writings of Buddha. As with Jesus Christ Buddha is considered a real person in history, and his writing may be at least in part attributed to Buddha. Claims of contemporaneous eye witness accounts of the miraculous life of Buddha are lacking.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-21-2019, 08:11 AM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            As with other ancient religions like Buddhism the religious and miraculous claims attributed to Buddha are separate from the actual historical evidence based on archaeology, historical references, and the writings of Buddha. As with Jesus Christ Buddha is considered a real person in history, and his writing may be at least in part attributed to Buddha. Claims of contemporaneous eye witness accounts of the miraculous life of Buddha are lacking.
            Just like Jesus we have nothing written by the Buddha. In ancient India, writing was considered a worldly tool for merchants, and not to be used for sacred texts. Those texts were instead memorized and passed on from monk to monk. The early texts (the suttas in the Pali canon) are extremely repetitious for this reason. There are also many numbered lists for the same reason: The Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path etc. One whole section of scripture contains nothing but these lists.

            Those texts were only written down about 400 years later. Different schools wrote slightly different versions, so we have a reasonable idea of what the originals were like.

            Jain scriptures contain contemporary mentions of the Buddha, just as Buddhist scriptures contain contemporary mentions of the Jain Mahavira -- their lives overlapped. As you say, the Buddha was a real person, as was the Mahavira.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by rossum View Post
              Just like Jesus we have nothing written by the Buddha. In ancient India, writing was considered a worldly tool for merchants, and not to be used for sacred texts. Those texts were instead memorized and passed on from monk to monk. The early texts (the suttas in the Pali canon) are extremely repetitious for this reason. There are also many numbered lists for the same reason: The Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path etc. One whole section of scripture contains nothing but these lists.

              Those texts were only written down about 400 years later. Different schools wrote slightly different versions, so we have a reasonable idea of what the originals were like.

              Jain scriptures contain contemporary mentions of the Buddha, just as Buddhist scriptures contain contemporary mentions of the Jain Mahavira -- their lives overlapped. As you say, the Buddha was a real person, as was the Mahavira.
              I believe that I stated, 'May in part be attributed to Buddha,' and not necessarily written by him. One correction I should have said, 'writings of Buddhism,' and 'writings of Buddha.'
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-21-2019, 09:55 AM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                The Arabic translators of literature outside Judaism do not share that concern, and it is unlikely that they necessarily even knew the source of the documents.
                References, please?

                I consider this unlikely, and most historians agree.
                Examples of historians?

                It still remains that all the references to Jesus Christ are late including Josephus at the time of the Jewish Revolt and later.
                Suetonius: 69-122 AD
                Tacitus: 56-120 AD

                I wouldn't call these late!

                Claiming the gospels were written or based on eyewitness accounts remains speculation. The historical accuracy of facts, people, and events is universally normal for ancient writings in virtually all cultures without considering them based directly on eye witness accounts.
                "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Lk 1:1–4)

                "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Pet. 1:16)

                "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us." (1 Jn 1:1–3)

                And people claiming to be eyewitnesses, when their claim could be verified, is evidence that indeed they testified of what they had seen and heard.

                Claims of contemporaneous eye witness accounts of the miraculous life of Buddha are lacking.
                Yes, which makes it seem more likely that these claims of miracles are fabrications.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by rossum View Post
                  The Gospels themselves say that none of the evangelists were present at the birth of Jesus or during His early life. Parts of the Gospels are therefore third hand and not written by eyewitnesses, the Gospels themselves tell us this.
                  Not written by eyewitnesses does not mean they didn't have access to eyewitness testimony however. And, no, the Gospels themselves most certainly do not tell us that the parts of the gospels that describe Jesus' birth and early life is third hand information. You're just unable (or unwilling) to conceive that there are ways that the gospel writers could have incorporated eyewitness testimony for the early parts of Jesus' life even if they themselves weren't present to experience it.
                  ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                    Not written by eyewitnesses does not mean they didn't have access to eyewitness testimony however. And, no, the Gospels themselves most certainly do not tell us that the parts of the gospels that describe Jesus' birth and early life is third hand information. You're just unable (or unwilling) to conceive that there are ways that the gospel writers could have incorporated eyewitness testimony for the early parts of Jesus' life even if they themselves weren't present to experience it.
                    Precisely. I could now write a book about WWII over 70 years later that relies on eyewitness testimony like from my father and a couples of uncles as well as neighbors I knew growing up.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                      Not written by eyewitnesses does not mean they didn't have access to eyewitness testimony however. And, no, the Gospels themselves most certainly do not tell us that the parts of the gospels that describe Jesus' birth and early life is third hand information. You're just unable (or unwilling) to conceive that there are ways that the gospel writers could have incorporated eyewitness testimony for the early parts of Jesus' life even if they themselves weren't present to experience it.
                      Pretty sure Mary would have known the story - and she was clearly around after the Crucifixion.

                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Precisely. I could now write a book about WWII over 70 years later that relies on eyewitness testimony like from my father and a couples of uncles as well as neighbors I knew growing up.
                        True, and I could also write a book about unicorns or ufo's 70 years later that relies on eyewitness testimony from people that lived at that time. I'll bet you wouldn't believe it though.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          True, and I could also write a book about unicorns or ufo's 70 years later that relies on eyewitness testimony from people that lived at that time. I'll bet you wouldn't believe it though.
                          Could we perhaps focus on whether or not Rossum is correct about the gospels telling us that parts of the events they described are from third-hand sources (hint: he is not) and then after that issue is beaten to death we can move on to the question of whether eyewitness testimony itself is sufficient to justify a belief in something extraordinary?
                          ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            True, and I could also write a book about unicorns or ufo's 70 years later that relies on eyewitness testimony from people that lived at that time. I'll bet you wouldn't believe it though.
                            You wanna take this topic to the debate forum?

                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              Not written by eyewitnesses does not mean they didn't have access to eyewitness testimony however. And, no, the Gospels themselves most certainly do not tell us that the parts of the gospels that describe Jesus' birth and early life is third hand information. You're just unable (or unwilling) to conceive that there are ways that the gospel writers could have incorporated eyewitness testimony for the early parts of Jesus' life even if they themselves weren't present to experience it.
                              Thank you for pointing out my error. The Gospels are certainly second hand in parts. Whether or not they are third hand is more debatable, depending on who wrote them and when they were written. Those topics are still matters for debate.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                References, please?


                                Examples of historians?
                                Alterations of scripture, such as the End of Mark, and secular scripture such as the writings of Josephus are called Christian interpolations.

                                Source: https://www.revolvy.com/page/Christian-interpolation



                                Christian interpolation is a subsidiary category of scribal interpolation in manuscript transmission. In textual criticism the term generally refers to the specific phenomena of textual insertion and textual damage to Jewish sources text during Christian scribal transmission, but may also refer to possible interpolation in secular Roman texts, such as the case of Tacitus on Christ.

                                Josephus

                                Notable disputed examples in the works of Josephus include Josephus' sections on John the Baptist, which is widely accepted,[1] and on Jesus of Nazareth, which is widely regarded as at best damaged.[2]

                                Old Testament pseudepigrapha

                                Notable examples among the body of texts known as Old Testament pseudepigrapha include the disputed authenticity of Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra which in the form transmitted by Christian scribal traditions contain arguably later Christian understanding of terms such as Son of Man.[3][4] Other texts suffering significant Christian interpolation include the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,[5] the Sibylline Oracles and so on.

                                References

                                John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Sociohistorical Study - Page 39 1597529869 Robert L. Webb - 2006 "2.3 The Authenticity of Ant. 18.116-19 The authenticity of Josephus' narrative concerning John the Baptist has often been critically examined. While a few have rejected it as a Christian interpolation, most schoLars have accepted it."
                                Josephus: The Essential Writings - Page 265 Paul L. Maier - 1990 "scholars have long suspected a Christian interpolation, since Josephus would not have believed Jesus to be the ..."
                                G. Nickelsburg, “Son of Man.“ in Anchor Bible Dictionary 6.138.

                                The Enoch-Metatron Tradition - Page 82 3161485440 Andrei A. Orlov - 2005 "The same interchangeability is observable in the titles “son of man“ and “chosen one.” Here ... 88 Some scholars believe that these chapters might represent later interpolation(s) and do not '83 G. Nickelsburg, “Son of Man.“ ABD 6.138."
                                The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John Page 87 316148164X Loren L. Johns - 2003 " 2.2 Testament of Benjamin 3:8 The same sort of Christian interpolation is evident in Testament of Benjamin 3:8, where, according to Howard Clark Kee, "the major text traditions include a Christian interpolation."53"

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                More to follow . . .

                                Suetonius: 69-122 AD
                                Tacitus: 56-120 AD
                                I wouldn't call these late! Later than Josephus, and none specifically referenced testimony of first hand witnesses.

                                "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Lk 1:1–4)

                                "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Pet. 1:16)

                                "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us." (1 Jn 1:1–3)

                                And people claiming to be eyewitnesses, when their claim could be verified, is evidence that indeed they testified of what they had seen and heard.
                                Again as discussed before. nothing here refers to first hand references.

                                Yes, which makes it seem more likely that these claims of miracles are fabrications.
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-22-2019, 10:01 AM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X