Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Gordon]

This has been explained to you before. Gordon with reference to the early epistles.
Are you saying this hasn't been done or you don't accept the explanation.

How do you know these early epistles don't contain mistakes or lies? You didn't ever explain that: as I recall you just indulged in some special pleading regarding these early Christians.

I think it is clear that you dont want to justify any assertion.

I haven't made an assertion.

Since I'm not obliged to be here to have my time wasted I shall bid you goodbye.

Cheerio then: haste ye back!

[ProfessorDavey]

Convinced about what though?. In the original post you say Christianity did not convince them. Jesus preaching and teaching could not convincingly include the death and resurrection components.

What about the purported 500 in one place - you cannot dismiss these people (if the story is true). They were allegedly witnesses of the resurrection, and would surely have looked to spread the astonishing news to those they knew etc. Yet we have no evidence whatsoever of a widespread groundswell of believers emerging from these hundreds and hundreds of 'witnesses' to a resurrection.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you know these early epistles don't contain mistakes or lies? You didn't ever explain that: as I recall you just indulged in some special pleading regarding these early Christians.

I haven't made an assertion.

Cheerio then: haste ye back!

Who do you propose is lying? What are the lies.
Jesus myth is fringe
Roman authorities and Jewish authorities were in a far better position at demonstrating Jesus myth and never managed it or attempted it .
Research on conspiracy theory shows that such a conspiracy has a low survival rate.
I need a date for a lie Gordon or several lies if you are saying it's all lies.

You are exceedingly amateur if you require an investigation and can't specify who or what to investigate.

However if we even suggest lies we are also suggesting a truth. Can you give that?

[Gordon]

Who do you propose is lying? What are the lies.
Jesus myth is fringe
Roman authorities and Jewish authorities were in a far better position at demonstrating Jesus myth and never managed it or attempted it .
Research on conspiracy theory shows that such a conspiracy has a low survival rate.
I need a date for a lie Gordon or several lies if you are saying it's all lies.

You are exceedingly amateur if you require an investigation and can't specify who or what to investigate.

However if we even suggest lies we are also suggesting a truth. Can you give that?

You're getting even sillier: I'm not claiming that anyone lied or made a mistake. Let us go back to basics.

Do you think that in the recorded affairs of humans there is a risk of mistakes or lies creeping in?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're getting even sillier: I'm not claiming that anyone lied or made a mistake. Let us go back to basics.

Do you think that in the recorded affairs of humans there is a risk of mistakes or lies creeping in?

Of course however I have encounteredJesus myself and the account in the NT is consistent with my experience.

[Gordon]

Of course however I have encounteredJesus myself and the account in the NT is consistent with my experience.

So, are you saying your personal experience means that the writers of the NT didn't make mistakes of lie?

Do you think that your personal experience might have been influenced by your prior interaction with the NT?

What would be the implications for you be if you were to consider that you might have made a mistake regarding how you assessed this experience?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, are you saying your personal experience means that the writers of the NT didn't make mistakes of lie?

Do you think that your personal experience might have been influenced by your prior interaction with the NT?

I assume you have interacted with the NT Gordon? Therefore what do you think is particularly significant with my interaction?

[Gordon]

I assume you have interacted with the NT Gordon? Therefore what do you think is particularly significant with my interaction?

How on earth could I know that? Daft question anyway: it's your personal experience and not mine.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

This thread has had a number of posts removed since they were off-topic in relation to this thread and were, in effect, a separate discussion. These removed posts have be compiled into this thread;

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15140.msg716718#new

Therefore, this thread is for discussion on the subject of the contents of the NT so those wishing to continue the discussion they were having in this thread can now do so on the above new thread, where the posts split from this thread can be found.   

[jeremyp]

The professor is only correct if he defines a weak message as one which does not garner much support.

Seems a reasonable definition to me.

That would however make the person who claims that christianity is a strong message correct.

Since Christianity is currently the most popular religion in the World, it follows that it does have a strong message. Note that "strong" in this context is not synonymous with "true".

[jeremyp]

To the Jews, he was a criminal, yes. That's why Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate to ask for the body - because Pilate believed Jesus was innocent and would let him bury the body as he wanted. So it doesn't ring false.

The idea that Pilate cared in any way about whether Jesus was innocent or not rings false. Pilate was utterly ruthless and would have no hesitation in executing a trouble maker like Jesus.

Where is Arimathea anyway?

[jeremyp]

I think Dave is saying that you argue the details about Jesus' grave are not believable because it suits you to argue that.

No. My arguments are based on rationality and historical context. Yours are based on things "ringing true" (as if that means anything) and reliance on documents that are not fit for the purpose.

[jeremyp]

Because Jesus was not the kind of Messiah the Jews wanted or expected.

My cousin Bob is not the kind of messiah that the Jews wanted or expected. Therefore he is the true messiah.

Surely, if a messiah is predicted to have certain characteristics and somebody comes along without those characteristics,, they are not the messiah, by definition.

When face to face with a righteous king they swapped him for the yoke of Rome (we have no king but Caesar)

Who can blame them? An itinerant preacher who manifestly failed to deliver the Jews from the yoke of their oppressors could not possibly be the messiah in their eyes.

[Spud]

My cousin Bob is not the kind of messiah that the Jews wanted or expected. Therefore he is the true messiah.

Correction- My cousin Bob is not the kind of messiah that the Jews wanted or expected. Therefore people would not accept Bob as messiah (not: therefore Bob is not the messiah). This is what I said in the first place.

[Spud]

Let's add Acts to the gospels, since it was written by Luke.
Acts 12 contains a description of the escape of Peter from prison. Why would the author say that Rhoda the servant girl at Mark's mother's house ran back instead of opening the door when she recognized Peter's voice (v. 14)?
To make it sound more convincing? Or because it's true? To quote Jeremy Kyle, "Test says he's telling the truth" 

[jeremyp]

Correction- My cousin Bob is not the kind of messiah that the Jews wanted or expected. Therefore people would not accept Bob as messiah (not: therefore Bob is not the messiah). This is what I said in the first place.

Why were they expecting a different messiah? Because of the prophecies. If Jesus failed to match up with the prophecies then he is not the messiah, by definition.

[jeremyp]

Let's add Acts to the gospels, since it was written by Luke.
Acts 12 contains a description of the escape of Peter from prison. Why would the author say that Rhoda the servant girl at Mark's mother's house ran back instead of opening the door when she recognized Peter's voice (v. 14)?
To make it sound more convincing? Or because it's true? To quote Jeremy Kyle, "Test says he's telling the truth" 

So Jeremy Kyle is now the arbiter of truth is he?

Why wouldn’t the author say Rhoda ran back instead of opening the door?

[ProfessorDavey]

So Jeremy Kyle is now the arbiter of truth is he?

Why wouldn’t the author say Rhoda ran back instead of opening the door?

Because it makes a nice story.

All sorts of records of historical events are embellished with purported details for which there is no evidence, or have even been proven flatly to be incorrect.

Also - how on earth would Luke know - he wasn't there at the time, and such detail is of the type that event eye witnesses typically get wrong or misconstrue - there have been countless studies showing the unreliability of eye witness accounts, for example of crimes or even in controlled experiments.

[floo]

Let's add Acts to the gospels, since it was written by Luke.
Acts 12 contains a description of the escape of Peter from prison. Why would the author say that Rhoda the servant girl at Mark's mother's house ran back instead of opening the door when she recognized Peter's voice (v. 14)?
To make it sound more convincing? Or because it's true? To quote Jeremy Kyle, "Test says he's telling the truth" 

That is hilarious! If you want to prove the Bible is true get Jeremy Kyle's advice.

[jeremyp]

Because it makes a nice story.

All sorts of records of historical events are embellished with purported details for which there is no evidence, or have even been proven flatly to be incorrect.

Also - how on earth would Luke know - he wasn't there at the time, and such detail is of the type that event eye witnesses typically get wrong or misconstrue - there have been countless studies showing the unreliability of eye witness accounts, for example of crimes or even in controlled experiments.

Embellishishing the story with detail is actually more a sign of fiction than truth telling. Story tellers do it because they think it adds authenticity and makes it more believable.

[ProfessorDavey]

Embellishishing the story with detail is actually more a sign of fiction than truth telling. Story tellers do it because they think it adds authenticity and makes it more believable.

Indeed.

There is simply no way that the levels of detail claimed in the bible stand up tot the credibility test, given that they were written decades later by people who weren't actual witnesses and likely to have got their information second, third, fourth hand etc. If today I ask half a dozen people who were at an event to recount in detail I will get 6 different versions - sure some of the basic elements will be the same, but details are likely to be different, and typically will involve detail that is irreconcilably different (meaning at least one person is wrong).

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed.

There is simply no way that the levels of detail claimed in the bible stand up tot the credibility test, given that they were written decades later by people who weren't actual witnesses and likely to have got their information second, third, fourth hand etc. If today I ask half a dozen people who were at an event to recount in detail I will get 6 different versions - sure some of the basic elements will be the same, but details are likely to be different, and typically will involve detail that is irreconcilably different (meaning at least one person is wrong).

Oddly enough, I was doing something a bit like this last night where 3 of us were trying to remember some stuff from 35 years ago, We managed to find some documents from the time which showed that all our individual memories had been wring in some way, that the combined agreed memory we had arrived at was more wrong than any of the individual memories as we had persuaded each other of different mistakes to be included.

ETA - and of other friends we know they would suggest that the 3 people who were having the discussion are probably those with the most reliable memories

[ekim]

My wife has a whole history of me which I don't recognise. 

[Spud]

Indeed.

There is simply no way that the levels of detail claimed in the bible stand up tot the credibility test, given that they were written decades later by people who weren't actual witnesses and likely to have got their information second, third, fourth hand etc. If today I ask half a dozen people who were at an event to recount in detail I will get 6 different versions - sure some of the basic elements will be the same, but details are likely to be different, and typically will involve detail that is irreconcilably different (meaning at least one person is wrong).

Each person will recall different details. Hence the different accounts of the nativity. However, Mat and Luke both agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived afterwards in Nazareth. It's what we expect!

[Spud]

Each person will recall different details. Hence the different accounts of the nativity. However, Mat and Luke both agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived afterwards in Nazareth. It's what we expect!

For example, about 25 years ago I was with my two friends and we were travelling from church to someone's house for coffee. Paul, who was driving a separate car, didn't stop in time and hit the back of the car I was in which Ben was driving. We had just arrived.

Now if you ask Paul to recount the incident he may not tell you that Ben and I had pulled over a little before the house we were going to, as we weren't sure which house it was. That may have been why he went into us.

Paul and Ben will probably recall details that I don't remember.

The bit about Rhoda in Acts 12 would be typical of the way people recall an event. That she forgot to let Peter in makes it more memorable. It's like being reminded of information you are trying to recall during an exam by the mannerisms of the lecturer who taught it.