New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[ippy]

You haven't factored in the reaction to Jesus from the religious leaders, who weren't just in Israel but the diaspora too, so a lot of converts soon renounced their faith because of persecution. There was also the Neronic persecution.

This lot's about as useful and relevant as my version of studying used teabags.

Just a thought if these religious leaders were there as you have assumed wouldn't it have been in their interests to spread the word or as I would prefer to say, spread the delusion?

Regards, ippy.

[Spud]

But surely with so many miracles and so many witnesses the religious leaders would also be amongst those eye witnesses or receive first hand testimony. And given that much of what is suggested aligned with classic jewish prophecy why wouldn't they too have accepted Jesus given such overwhelming evidence of eye witness miraculous occurrence.

Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea did not oppose him. The scribe in Mark 12:32-33 also.

The gospels explain why the leaders did not accept him but sought to catch him out and eventually kill him. They had been waiting for the completion of Herod's temple and were not likely to accept Jesus as their messiah if he condemned it as a den of thieves.

And even if they were resistant the strength of numbers (tens of thousands) of eye witnesses would easily be sufficient to embed the new religion where it arose - just as occurred for all the other major religions which gained initial traction and a foothold where they arose and supplanted the existing religious cultures that were previously prevalent in that area.

It simply beggars believe that were the stories in the gospels true and were witnesses by the numbers claimed that these people would have failed to follow Jesus, which by and large they didn't. The miraculous claims and their hyperbole is in fact the biggest achilles heal of the whole story.

We are told in Acts that thousands of Jews were converted in one day.

[ProfessorDavey]

We are told in Acts that thousands of Jews were converted in one day.

We might be told that, but it doesn't mean it is true.

And why would anyone believe such an implausible claim knowing that christianity failed to gain a foothold in Palestine. If christianity was really gaining thousands of new converts a day it would undoubtedly have swept all other religions aside. In fact at that rate the entire population of Palestine would have been converted in about a year.

This is another of the exaggerated and hyperbolic claims which don't add to the credibility of the new testament - rather they critically undermine it.

And just as an aside, how on earth would they count these 'new converts' - as far as I'm aware they didn't have membership lists in 1stC Palestine.

The bottom line is that were the claims in the gospels and acts true then it is simply impossible to countenance that christianity wouldn't have rapidly become the dominant religion in 1stC Palestine, in other words amongst those purported eye witnesses to those claimed events. That it didn't tells you everything you need to know about the credibility of those claims.

[ProfessorDavey]

The gospels explain why the leaders did not accept him but sought to catch him out and eventually kill him. They had been waiting for the completion of Herod's temple and were not likely to accept Jesus as their messiah if he condemned it as a den of thieves.

That is a ridiculous argument.

If the claims are true - in other words daily miracles performed in front of tens of thousands of eye witnesses presumably including themselves (with countless more hearing first hand about them) by a person who fulfils jewish prophecy after jewish prophecy - why would the religious leaders choose a completely hum-drum expectation over what they were seeing before their very eyes. Again it completely lacks any sort of credibility. They'd have been swept along the same as everyone else. Yet they weren't and nor, by and large were the ordinary people who are purported witnesses to the claimed events.

[Spud]

Prof,
Because, and it sounds a bit rhetorical, they were expecting him to overthrow the Romans. It even says in John's account of the feeding of the 5000, that Jesus knew they were about to try and make him king by force (John 6:15).  Clearly that wasn't on his agenda, so they wouldn't believe he was the Messiah, despite the miracles.

[Spud]

Ps Josephus relates just how desperate the Jews were to regain control of their land from the Romans.

[ProfessorDavey]

It even says in John's account of the feeding of the 5000, that Jesus knew they were about to try and make him king by force (John 6:15).  Clearly that wasn't on his agenda, so they wouldn't believe he was the Messiah, despite the miracles.

But if they believed he was the Messiah they would believe that he would free them, and that is, of course something in the future. What they actually had to base their view on his Messianic claims is the evidence that had to hand in the present and the past. And if you are to believe the claims in the gospels, that would have been overwhelming - not just the countless eye witnessed miracles, but the fulfilment of earlier prophecy. That they didn't accept him as the messiah tells us that they weren't convinced by what they saw. Had they been convinced they would have believe he would have freed them and restored the temple (both in the future).

You are effectively using their rejection of his claims as evidence for why they rejected his claims. Classic theological circular argument.

[Roses]

Ps Josephus relates just how desperate the Jews were to regain control of their land from the Romans.

Most Jews didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah.

[Spud]

Most Jews didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah.

Could this be because he claimed to be equal with God?

[ProfessorDavey]

Could this be because he claimed to be equal with God?

Why wouldn't they have believed that if they'd witnessed the incredible daily miracles claimed in the gospels? Surely with the 'evidence' of such unbelievable feats they's have believed whatever he said, particularly as it aligned with the prophecies they were expecting to be fulfilled.

Point is that the actual eye witnesses, largely rejected his claims, as set out in the gospels - they did not believe him. With very few exceptions the people who accepted the claims in the gospels were not eye witnesses.

[ProfessorDavey]

Could this be because he claimed to be equal with God?

More likely the eye witnesses never witnessed the things claimed to have happened in texts written decades later.

[Roses]

Could this be because he claimed to be equal with God?

All humans are more equal than any god, as they created them, imo.

[ProfessorDavey]

It even says in John's account of the feeding of the 5000, that Jesus knew they were about to try and make him king by force (John 6:15).  Clearly that wasn't on his agenda ...

We have absolutely no idea what Jesus' agenda was. A quote from John tells us nothing about Jesus' agenda - it does tell us something about the agenda of the author of that text, written probably 70-80 years after the event. And we know that the different gospels have differing agendas in terms of their purpose and audience.

Spud you need to get beyond your default position, being that because it is written in the gospels it must be true and represent what happened.

[Spud]

I refer the honourable gentleman and lady to the gospels.

[Roses]

I refer the honourable gentleman and lady to the gospels.

Many of the stories in those documents defy any credibility. So called eyewitness accounts cannot be taken seriously if the events the describe defy the laws of nature.

[Spud]

Many of the stories in those documents defy any credibility. So called eyewitness accounts cannot be taken seriously if the events the describe defy the laws of nature.

So the vision of angels in Luke 2:13.
If Luke is telling the truth when he initially says his sources were eyewitnesses, then we would expect his account to reflect this. Are the three uses of the verb "see" in the story of the shepherds,
a) deliberate, to make it agree with his initial statement,
b) mistakes, they only thought they saw a baby in a manger,
c) evidence that he is telling the truth?
d) literary incompetence (repetition)

[ProfessorDavey]

I refer the honourable gentleman and lady to the gospels.

So in a discussion about the veracity of the gospels we are referred to ... err ... the gospels as evidence of their veracity.

Priceless.

[jeremyp]

Could this be because he claimed to be equal with God?

According to Mark, most people didn't know that.

[ProfessorDavey]

According to Mark, most people didn't know that.

Indeed - and Mark and John (as examples) have very different agendas in terms of in terms of their purpose and audience. They can't both be Jesus' agenda can they and they tell us nothing about Jesus' agenda. What the accounts do tell us is the agendas of those distinct authors writing decades later.

[jeremyp]

So the vision of angels in Luke 2:13.
If Luke is telling the truth

He wasn't.

when he initially says his sources were eyewitnesses

He doesn't. What he says is:

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

then we would expect his account to reflect this. Are the three uses of the verb "see" in the story of the shepherds,
a) deliberate, to make it agree with his initial statement,
b) mistakes, they only thought they saw a baby in a manger,
c) evidence that he is telling the truth?
d) literary incompetence (repetition)

The story is fiction. The totally implausible description of the census is a big red flag, never mind the choirs of angels.

[Roses]

So the vision of angels in Luke 2:13.
If Luke is telling the truth when he initially says his sources were eyewitnesses, then we would expect his account to reflect this. Are the three uses of the verb "see" in the story of the shepherds,
a) deliberate, to make it agree with his initial statement,
b) mistakes, they only thought they saw a baby in a manger,
c) evidence that he is telling the truth?
d) literary incompetence (repetition)

As I have pointed out on many occasions soldiers claimed to have actually seen the Angel of Mons when it was merely a story created by an author.

[Walter]

He wasn't.
He doesn't. What he says is:
The story is fiction. The totally implausible description of the census is a big red flag, never mind the choirs of angels.

so we've got ads on the telly asking us to send 2 quid for Water Aid
And god can't even supply a tap and a length of pipe !

What a cunt !

[ProfessorDavey]

If Luke is telling the truth when he initially says his sources were eyewitnesses,

All we know is that Luke claims his account originated with eye witnesses - we have no idea whatsoever whether that is true or not. Indeed Luke couldn't possibly know this himself writing decades after the events.

And even he admits that the accounts are 'handed on to us' - which allows for countless exaggeration and misrepresentation of the original account even were that based on eye witnesses. And in the case of the nativity story that 'handed on to us' will have been over a period of 80-90 years from original event to Luke's account. You'd have to be astonishingly naive to think that what was finally written down must be what actually happened under those circumstances, particularly where Luke wasn't writing an impartial historical account, but effectively a piece of propaganda to support his beliefs and their promulgation.

[Walter]

Steve , if you're  watching or what ever you call your self
If you really want to.go to Wigtown I'll pick you up and take you there


Yes , really

[Spud]

According to Mark, most people didn't know that.

The important people, the Sanhedrin, did though. During his trial they asked him "are you the Son of the blessed one" and he affirmed it, so that they said he had blasphemed and deserved the death penalty.

They also heard him declare the sins of the paralytic to be forgiven, which would ordinarily have required him to make sacrifices in the temple.

He also offended them by both healing somebody, and letting the disciples pick ears of corn, on the Sabbath.

Neither did they wash their hands before eating: before eating, their hands they did not wash. Etc.