New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[ProfessorDavey]

Thanks for checking. You may be right, but I tend to go by either the Berean Literal Bible or Young's Literal Translation, both of which translate as "having descended...having come...rolled...was sitting". The word for 'sitting' is ekatheto, of which there are 11 instances. The Biblos Interlinear Bible always translates it as, 'was sitting', and in most of the instances it clearly does indicate the imperfect:
https://biblehub.com/greek/ekathe_to_2521.htm

Spud - do you understand how absurd a discussion of the tense is in the context of an angel sitting on a stone, given that there is no evidence that angels exist so until that is confirmed the notion of whether the angel is sitting or was sitting on a stone is completely moot and as relevant as whether a unicorn is sitting or was sitting under a tree.

[ippy]

Spud - do you understand how absurd a discussion of the tense is in the context of an angel sitting on a stone, given that there is no evidence that angels exist so until that is confirmed the notion of whether the angel is sitting or was sitting on a stone is completely moot and as relevant as whether a unicorn is sitting or was sitting under a tree.

Looks like it's going to be a long time before the age of indoctrination passes by, they've managed to trap  A B, and who's that other particularly bad case now?

ippy.

[Roses]

I am of the opinion some people are too scared to question their faith in case their version of god delivers horrific retribution.

[ippy]

I am of the opinion some people are too scared to question their faith in case their version of god delivers horrific retribution.

And it would effect a lot of their, more than likely long held relationships within their full of delusional thinking clubs.

ippy.

[Spud]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%AC%CE%B8%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9

The stone had already been rolled back when the women arrived; Matthew 28:2 does not contradict Mark, Luke and John. The verb for sit is kathémai. According to section 1.4.1., "The perfect and pluperfect function as the verb's present and imperfect tenses." The 3rd person singular pluperfect is ekathēto (given in the grey table in 1.4.1. of the link), which is the word used in Mt 28:2. This pluperfect must be functioning as the imperfect, then.

The context of 4 of the 11 instances of ekathēto in the New Testament clearly indicates the imperfect tense ('was sitting'). The 4 instances are Acts 14:8 (a lame man sitting), Luke 18:35 (a blind man sitting), Mark 10:46 (a blind man sitting) and Mark 3:32 (crowds sitting).

[ProfessorDavey]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%AC%CE%B8%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9

The stone had already been rolled back when the women arrived; Matthew 28:2 does not contradict Mark, Luke and John. The verb for sit is kathémai. According to section 1.4.1., "The perfect and pluperfect function as the verb's present and imperfect tenses." The 3rd person singular pluperfect is ekathēto (given in the grey table in 1.4.1. of the link), which is the word used in Mt 28:2. This pluperfect must be functioning as the imperfect, then.

The context of 4 of the 11 instances of ekathēto in the New Testament clearly indicates the imperfect tense ('was sitting'). The 4 instances are Acts 14:8 (a lame man sitting), Luke 18:35 (a blind man sitting), Mark 10:46 (a blind man sitting) and Mark 3:32 (crowds sitting).

The unicorn sits on the stone.

The unicorn sat on the stone.

[Gordon]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%AC%CE%B8%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9

The stone had already been rolled back when the women arrived; Matthew 28:2 does not contradict Mark, Luke and John.

They could all be lying or in some way wrong, Spud - have you excluded these risks, and if so how?

The verb for sit is kathémai. According to section 1.4.1., "The perfect and pluperfect function as the verb's present and imperfect tenses." The 3rd person singular pluperfect is ekathēto (given in the grey table in 1.4.1. of the link), which is the word used in Mt 28:2. This pluperfect must be functioning as the imperfect, then.

The context of 4 of the 11 instances of ekathēto in the New Testament clearly indicates the imperfect tense ('was sitting'). The 4 instances are Acts 14:8 (a lame man sitting), Luke 18:35 (a blind man sitting), Mark 10:46 (a blind man sitting) and Mark 3:32 (crowds sitting).

If the story isn't true then none of this grammatical stuff matters a jot.

[ProfessorDavey]

If the story isn't true then none of this grammatical stuff matters a jot.

And when the claim in question involves ... err ... angels then I suggest discussion of grammatical stuff is rather ahead of itself until we are provided with credible evidence that angels exist.

[ippy]

And when the claim in question involves ... err ... angels then I suggest discussion of grammatical stuff is rather ahead of itself until we are provided with credible evidence that angels exist.

I agree with you Proff at the moment discussing the inns an outs of any religion is no more useful than say a discussion held at a Sherlock Holms society meeting.

ippy

[jeremyp]

A lot of the translations say the angel had come and had rolled the stone and was sitting on it. I'd be interested in Dicly's view on the Greek.

An angel? Not a man then? Or two angels or two men?

[ekim]

I'll repeat what I put into a reply to Spud sometime ago .... 'The problem I see that the doctrine of Christianity has is that it is heavily dependant upon the cult status of Jesus rather than what he attempted to teach.  If the focus was upon the teachings, it wouldn't matter who uttered them as long as they worked for the followers.  Perhaps one day, somebody will discover some manuscripts written in Aramaic at the time of his ministry rather than at the time the early church was trying to organise itself.'    This discussion shows the futility of trying to defend a cultist situation.

[Udayana]

I'll repeat what I put into a reply to Spud sometime ago .... 'The problem I see that the doctrine of Christianity has is that it is heavily dependant upon the cult status of Jesus rather than what he attempted to teach.  If the focus was upon the teachings, it wouldn't matter who uttered them as long as they worked for the followers. 

Indeed, I agree.

Perhaps one day, somebody will discover some manuscripts written in Aramaic at the time of his ministry rather than at the time the early church was trying to organise itself.'    This discussion shows the futility of trying to defend a cultist situation.

I would not be surprised if they had already been found and discarded as worthless

Ekim, have you ever come across the book Illusions by Richard Bach?

[Sassy]

Two Angels or two men?

Could two men have rolled the stone from a sealed tomb which would be very much a boulder.


50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

When Christ died his death caused the saints who had died at that time to rise.
If as a none believer you knew he healed the sick, raised the dead and even the dead saints raised at his own death. What would the account of those who wrote about these things for
the believer really matter to you?  The fact is that useless arguments  lead nowhere and are unfruitful

King James Bible Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

The truth about Jesus Christ  (as acts 10) show are the only facts that matter.
People are not raised from the dead about who rolled the stone away or the first witnesses.  It is the love, power and truth about Jesus Christ and God which are important to believers then and
now. Useless arguments such as above will never result in anything positive for believer  or atheist.  You just have to accept the fact it is Christ or no way.

[ippy]

Two Angels or two men?

Could two men have rolled the stone from a sealed tomb which would be very much a boulder.


50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

When Christ died his death caused the saints who had died at that time to rise.
If as a none believer you knew he healed the sick, raised the dead and even the dead saints raised at his own death. What would the account of those who wrote about these things for
the believer really matter to you?  The fact is that useless arguments  lead nowhere and are unfruitful

King James Bible Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

The truth about Jesus Christ  (as acts 10) show are the only facts that matter.
People are not raised from the dead about who rolled the stone away or the first witnesses.  It is the love, power and truth about Jesus Christ and God which are important to believers then and
now. Useless arguments such as above will never result in anything positive for believer  or atheist.  You just have to accept the fact it is Christ or no way.

What's the point of picking out quotes from a book full of unqualified magical, mystical and superstition based assertions, stories etc?

ippy.

[ekim]

Indeed, I agree.

I would not be surprised if they had already been found and discarded as worthless

Ekim, have you ever come across the book Illusions by Richard Bach?

No, sorry.  The only book of his that I did read was 'Jonathan Livingston Seagull', which seems like a century ago.

[Spud]

That's just for starters. If you then look at the stories of the post resurrection appearances of Jesus, you see there are three stories (Mark originally has none) and they are all different. Then, if you look at Acts, you see Luke even walks back some of the details of his own earlier account.

It's quite telling the gospel accounts are similar (but with inconsistency of detail) right up to the point of the original ending of Mark. After the, each of the remaining three authors tells a different story. It's almost as if they were following Mark in general terms and all decided to make something different up for after his rather abrupt ending.

Luke answers the point about the different stories of appearances in Acts 1:2-3, by simply saying that Jesus appeared to his disciples over 40 days and gave them many convincing proofs that he was alive.
Mark, in my opinion, reached the point at which he had completed the 'good news' begun in 1:1. "He is risen, he is not here" spoken by a witness to the resurrection, the young man at the tomb, and in reverse order to Matt and Luke's "He is not here, he is risen", is the good news Mark intended to convey. No other appearances are required for evidence that he had risen, and Mark's aim was to get the message across concisely and dramatically.

[jeremyp]

Two Angels or two men?

Or one man or one angel.

Could two men have rolled the stone from a sealed tomb which would be very much a boulder.

Actually, no. IT would have been a slab. And, of course, men would have put it in position, so men could remove it too.

In fact, that is one of the plot holes of the story. The women apparently went to the tomb thinking they wouldn't be able to get in to it because of the stone. Why would they do that?

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.[/b]

It's a zombie invasion! It surprises me that nobody at the time thought to write down that all the dead people were wandering around. It's almost as if the story is made up...

The truth about Jesus Christ  (as acts 10) show are the only facts that matter.
People are not raised from the dead about who rolled the stone away or the first witnesses.  It is the love, power and truth about Jesus Christ and God which are important to believers then and
now. Useless arguments such as above will never result in anything positive for believer  or atheist.  You just have to accept the fact it is Christ or no way.

We are arguing about the accuracy of the gospels. It's not useless at all because, if you can't trust them, you have no evidence for your religion.

And you can't trust them.

[jeremyp]

Luke answers the point about the different stories of appearances in Acts 1:2-3, by simply saying that Jesus appeared to his disciples over 40 days and gave them many convincing proofs that he was alive.

Yeah, he certainly changed his tune after writing the gospel. In the gospel, all of Jesus' appearances between the resurrection and the ascension happen in no more than a couple of days. If Luke is rewriting his own story, how trustworthy can he be?

Mark, in my opinion, reached the point at which he had completed the 'good news' begun in 1:1. "He is risen, he is not here" spoken by a witness to the resurrection, the young man at the tomb, and in reverse order to Matt and Luke's "He is not here, he is risen", is the good news Mark intended to convey. No other appearances are required for evidence that he had risen, and Mark's aim was to get the message across concisely and dramatically.

What do you mean "no other appearances are required"? There are no resurrection appearances in Mark if we discount the manufactured endings added later by other people.

[Udayana]

No, sorry.  The only book of his that I did read was 'Jonathan Livingston Seagull', which seems like a century ago.

It's a nice little story about a modern (well 70s or earlier) messiah reluctantly getting on knowing full well what always happens.
 

[Spud]

Yeah, he certainly changed his tune after writing the gospel. In the gospel, all of Jesus' appearances between the resurrection and the ascension happen in no more than a couple of days. If Luke is rewriting his own story, how trustworthy can he be?

http://actsapologist.blogspot.com/2018/04/resurrection-contradiction-lukes.html

What do you mean "no other appearances are required"? There are no resurrection appearances in Mark if we discount the manufactured endings added later by other people.

What about to the young man in the white robe?

[Dicky Underpants]

http://actsapologist.blogspot.com/2018/04/resurrection-contradiction-lukes.html
What about to the young man in the white robe?

Interpreted by Matthew as being an angel, apparently.
He is supposed to have said something to the women about Jesus' whereabouts and his being alive. They then ran off, terrified...
Then according to John, Mary M goes back to the tomb and sees two angels (apparently having forgotten all about what she was told by the 'young man in white'), and then sees Jesus who she thinks is the gardener.
Lots of Chinese Whispers.

[Dicky Underpants]

Spud - do you understand how absurd a discussion of the tense is in the context of an angel sitting on a stone, given that there is no evidence that angels exist so until that is confirmed the notion of whether the angel is sitting or was sitting on a stone is completely moot and as relevant as whether a unicorn is sitting or was sitting under a tree.

Your points are perfectly valid, but unlikely to shake Spud's faith (after all, wasn't it Tertullian who said "Credo quia imposibile est". Spud does believe the impossible, and that is why I (and it seems Jeremy) tend to write about matters which point out the absurdity of the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture, where the contradictions are so glaring that one would think nobody could reconcile them.

Fool's errand, maybe.

[Spud]

Interpreted by Matthew as being an angel, apparently.

'Young man' seems to be a literary device in Mark, as with the words 'linen cloth' and 'white'. These each occur 2 or 3 times only.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your points are perfectly valid, but unlikely to shake Spud's faith (after all, wasn't it Tertullian who said "Credo quia imposible est". Spud does believe the impossible, and that is why I (and it seems Jeremy) tend to write about matters which point out the absurdity of the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture, where the contradictions are so glaring that one would think nobody could reconcile them.

Fool's errand, maybe.

True enough.

However there is a danger in getting sucked into semantics on grammar, dating etc etc in the gospels. The point being that it is possible that Spud is correct on the grammar, it is plausible that his very early dating for writing of the gospels could be correct, he may indeed be right that there is a relatively short set of connections between eye witnesses to the purported events and the gospel writers. But even if Spud is correct on all those points it makes no difference to the fact that the key purported events of the gospels are entirely implausible and remain so even if the gospels were actually written by eye witnesses (not that that is plausible in itself).

Getting sucked into Spud's game is the classic christian apologist ploy - to claim that if they were right on some small detail it somehow proves that the claims are right too. Don't go there

[Dicky Underpants]

True enough.

However there is a danger in getting sucked into semantics on grammar, dating etc etc in the gospels. The point being that it is possible that Spud is correct on the grammar, it is plausible that his very early dating for writing of the gospels could be correct, he may indeed be right that there is a relatively short set of connections between eye witnesses to the purported events and the gospel writers. But even if Spud is correct on all those points it makes no difference to the fact that the key purported events of the gospels are entirely implausible and remain so even if the gospels were actually written by eye witnesses (not that that is plausible in itself).

Getting sucked into Spud's game is the classic christian apologist ploy - to claim that if they were right on some small detail it somehow proves that the claims are right too. Don't go there

You wrote:

" the key purported events of the gospels are entirely implausible and remain so even if the gospels were actually written by eye witnesses (not that that is plausible in itself)".


As an aside, I note that Tertullian's purported statements have been claimed by a pundit of Zen Buddhism, the venerable and unutterably boring Deisetz Teitaro Suzuki:

"A noted Christian Father (he means Tertullian) of the early Middle Ages once exclaimed: "O poor Aristotle! Thou who has discovered for the heretics the art of dialectics, the art of building up and destroying, the art of discussing all things and accomplishing nothing!" So much ado about nothing, indeed! See how philosophers of all ages contradict one another after spending all their logical acumen and analytical ingenuity on the so-called problems of science and knowledge. No wonder the same old wise man, wanting to put a stop once for all to all such profitless discussions, has boldly thrown the following bomb right into the midst of those sand-builders: "Certum est quia impossible est"; or, more logically, Credo quia absurdum est. I believe because it is irrational; is this not an unqualified confirmation of Zen?"

Where's wiggi? Does he think there is wisdom in this?