Whether humans can be righteous and meet God's standards

[Sparko]

So how exactly are the authors of the Gospels privy to details of Jesus's life that they didn't witness? How do they know verbatim what was said in conversations they were not present for like those of Herod, Pilate, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Joseph, Satan, etc?

Other people were present and/or Jesus told them.

[rogue06]

they are from eye witnesses and 40 years is contemporary. Especially considering in history most documentary evidence is several hundred years old and written third or even fourth hand.

I have to wonder if Taz would object to a book being written today about the Vietnam War as not being trustworthy because it was penned a little over 40 years after it ended.

[rogue06]

So how exactly are the authors of the Gospels privy to details of Jesus's life that they didn't witness? How do they know verbatim what was said in conversations they were not present for like those of Herod, Pilate, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Joseph, Satan, etc?

Witnesses to those events would still be around. And if the authors simply made stuff up about them you can bet that their writings wouldn't have been embraced immediately by the Christian community but instead would have been rejected outright as the witnesses renounced the accounts as fictitious.

[Bisto]

Good evening Mr. Tass. I just wanted to ask you about this one little part.
You appear to have been in this forum long enough to know that Paul's description of his own learning of the "gospel" is a lot more nuanced than that text alone would seem to imply if read at face value. Stuff like 1 Cor 15 comes to mind.

I get that you would sometimes try to get a cheap shot in (it's understandable, everyone seems to do it around here now and then, myself included), but of all the stuff in your post, this one point seemed egregious enough to make me post about it. What do you think? If I asked you to please summarize a more-or-less-consensus position of Paul's view of how the gospel he preached came to be, what would you say?

Thanks :)

[Tassman]

Witnesses to those events would still be around. And if the authors simply made stuff up about them you can bet that their writings wouldn't have been embraced immediately by the Christian community but instead would have been rejected outright as the witnesses renounced the accounts as fictitious.

Speculation! You don't know this. What we have in the gospels is non-eyewitness reportage, which almost certainly is corrupted by redaction and embellishment.

I have to wonder if Taz would object to a book being written today about the Vietnam War as not being trustworthy because it was penned a little over 40 years after it ended.

If a book about the Vietnam War was by non eyewitnesses and dated 40 to 100+ years after the event and full of alleged miracles climaxing with a resurrection, yes I would not take it very seriously.

[Tassman]

Good evening Mr. Tass. I just wanted to ask you about this one little part.

You appear to have been in this forum long enough to know that Paul's description of his own learning of the "gospel" is a lot more nuanced than that text alone would seem to imply if read at face value. Stuff like 1 Cor 15 comes to mind.

I get that you would sometimes try to get a cheap shot in (it's understandable, everyone seems to do it around here now and then, myself included), but of all the stuff in your post, this one point seemed egregious enough to make me post about it. What do you think? If I asked you to please summarize a more-or-less-consensus position of Paul's view of how the gospel he preached came to be, what would you say?

Thanks :)

[Sea of red]

Other people were present and/or Jesus told them.

What do you base that on?

Still, getting conversations you weren't present for down verbatim is pretty remarkable history.

[Sea of red]

Witnesses to those events would still be around. And if the authors simply made stuff up about them you can bet that their writings wouldn't have been embraced immediately by the Christian community but instead would have been rejected outright as the witnesses renounced the accounts as fictitious.

I think you're giving the community at that time way too much credit as being critical in their thinking. People back in antiquity accepted legend as easily as people today - far more actually.

I'm sorry, but it's just the truth of the matter. All kinds of legends surrounding the various kings, military leaders, religious sages, and royalty were common back then, and it's not like people in those days weren't prone to believing the folklore rather easily - they were. It's not that people were stupid (as you might think I'm suggesting) it's that people just believed that the world worked like that on occasion, so folklore that incorporated mythology was commonplace.

[Bisto]

Ok, I read the (last three pages of) thread. You guys are addressing a different question but for simplicity's sake I'll just assume you would concede at least partially on what I said earlier, given your thrust there.

Cheers.

[Sparko]

What do you base that on?

Still, getting conversations you weren't present for down verbatim is pretty remarkable history.

I don't think anyone is claiming the conversations are verbatim. I think they are basically the gist of what was said. But then this was an oral society who were very good at hearing and remembering oral stories. If anyone could remember conversations verbatim, it would be them. And many of the speeches given were important and noteworthy. I suspect there were scribes in the audience of such things as the sermon on the mount who would take notes. I also think that Jesus' apostles who believed him to be the Messiah, would have kept notes on what he said. They probably shared them and that is why the various gospels contain common passages.

[Tassman]

I don't think anyone is claiming the conversations are verbatim. I think they are basically the gist of what was said. But then this was an oral society who were very good at hearing and remembering oral stories. If anyone could remember conversations verbatim, it would be them.

Nevertheless, what ended up in the gospels was based upon hearsay and passed from person to person. It would be extremely unlikely that this would be untarnished by embellishments and redactions some 40 - 70 years after the events, especially given the apologetic nature of the gospels.

And many of the speeches given were important and noteworthy. I suspect there were scribes in the audience of such things as the sermon on the mount who would take notes. I also think that Jesus' apostles who believed him to be the Messiah, would have kept notes on what he said. They probably shared them and that is why the various gospels contain common passages.

First century Roman/Israeli society was illiterate; maybe 5% could read and write. So there would not be much note-taking going on.

[Tassman]

Ok, I read the (last three pages of) thread. You guys are addressing a different question but for simplicity's sake I'll just assume you would concede at least partially on what I said earlier, given your thrust there.

Cheers.

If you have any specific questions I would be happy the try and answer them. Otherwise I think it's been covered in the other thread.

[Doug Shaver]

That is an affirmation of inerrancy. It is not a defense of inerrancy.

Because you say so?

No, not for that reason.

What is your reason?

No proposition can be defended by merely repeating it or rewording it. That reflects the ordinary meaning of "defense" and is a principle of elementary logic.

[Doug Shaver]

I suggest you go read "the Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel for a good overview of the evidence.

I've done that. His alleged evidence persuades only those who already believe, because it depends on arguments that assume their conclusions.

[37818]

No proposition can be defended by merely repeating it or rewording it. That reflects the ordinary meaning of "defense" and is a principle of elementary logic.

OK, let us try this: What specifically convinced you that there is no God?

Do you or do you not accept the concept of an uncaused existence? If not what is uncaused that you accept and why?

And more importantly - what would you explain as to how one knows what one knows?

How would you explain as to how to recognize truth?

Answer at least one of these. Thanks.