New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[Spud]

On what basis can you claim "come across as authentic."?

If you can't establish that you are right, that you might be wrong is a given.

Here's one. If you were making up a story about the Messiah, would you make up that he used his own spit to heal a deaf mute person? Details in Mk 7:33.

[Roses]

Here's one. If you were making up a story about the Messiah, would you make up that he used his own spit to heal a deaf mute person? Details in Mk 7:33.

Quite possibly.

[Gordon]

Here's one. If you were making up a story about the Messiah, would you make up that he used his own spit to heal a deaf mute person? Details in Mk 7:33.

If I was writing fantasy fiction, where the lead character had special powers, then anything goes, Spud.

The problem for you though is to exclude the risk that this example is fiction.

[ippy]

I was watching the BBC programme 'The Big Questions' this morning Spud, I was wondering if that Barrister was you, 'Mark Mullins', he could be you, was there today in full flow as usual, he sounds very much how you write on the forum, I was just wondering?

Regards, ippy. 

[Spud]

If I was writing fantasy fiction, where the lead character had special powers, then anything goes, Spud.

The problem for you though is to exclude the risk that this example is fiction.

Mark isn't a fantasy fiction writer. You yourself suggested he is writing propaganda. So he would probably avoid diminishing the Messiah's reputation by having him spreading his germs. The gnostic gospels have fantasy fiction and they are distinct from the four gospels.

[Gordon]

Mark isn't a fantasy fiction writer, you yourself suggested he is writing propaganda so he would probably avoid diminishing the Messiah's reputation by having him spreading his germs. The gnostic gospels have fantasy fiction and they are distinct from the four gospels.

No I didn't: I said that if you are to portray the NT as being history and not fantasy (or propaganda), then you need to explain how you've excluded the risks of errors or lies, since unless you have then some of the contents of the Christian bible (such as  the miracle claims attributed to Jesus) are indistinguishable from fiction.

So, how have you dealt with these risks - since you seem to take the bible seriously I'm presuming you have?

[Roses]

Mark isn't a fantasy fiction writer. You yourself suggested he is writing propaganda. So he would probably avoid diminishing the Messiah's reputation by having him spreading his germs. The gnostic gospels have fantasy fiction and they are distinct from the four gospels.

The gospels are full of fantasy fiction, imo.

[jeremyp]

Here's one. If you were making up a story about the Messiah, would you make up that he used his own spit to heal a deaf mute person? Details in Mk 7:33.

But the spit story doesn’t appear in Matthew or Luke, so Mark was making it up either way.

[jeremyp]

Mark isn't a fantasy fiction writer. You yourself suggested he is writing propaganda. So he would probably avoid diminishing the Messiah's reputation by having him spreading his germs. The gnostic gospels have fantasy fiction and they are distinct from the four gospels.

Mark didn’t know anything about germs. He and the other gospel authors seem to think disease is caused by evil spirits.

[wigginhall]

That is an old joke or challenge, why didn't Jesus tell people to wash their hands?   Think of all the lives saved, e.g., in childbirth.

[jeremyp]

That is an old joke or challenge, why didn't Jesus tell people to wash their hands?   Think of all the lives saved, e.g., in childbirth.

A hint of the germ theory of disease would have saved millions of lives had it appeared in the OT

[Spud]

But the spit story doesn’t appear in Matthew or Luke, so Mark was making it up either way.

It's unlikely anyone would have made it up, as it's the sort of thing that might put people off Jesus.

[SteveH]

They didn't know about germs, but they would have known from practical experience that some diseases could be passed on by contacnt, and that basic cleanliness was a useful counter-measure. The Romans knew that vinegar was an antiseptic: Roman soldiers used to wipe their arses with sponges soaked in vinegar.

[jeremyp]

It's unlikely anyone would have made it up, as it's the sort of thing that might put people off Jesus.

Well somebody made it up because you can’t cure people by spitting on them. In any case, if Mark was precisiing Matthew And Luke why would he put such a thing in?  It makes more sense that he wrote first and they took the embarrassing bits out.

[Spud]

Well somebody made it up because you can’t cure people by spitting on them. In any case, if Mark was precisiing Matthew And Luke why would he put such a thing in?  It makes more sense that he wrote first and they took the embarrassing bits out.

Checking the context in Mark and Matthew shows that after the healing of the Gentile woman's daughter, Mark has the one healing of the deaf and mute man, near the Sea of Galilee; Matthew has a statement that Jesus was near the Sea of Galilee and healed many, including mute. This definitely looks like one got his idea from the other.

Matthew 15:28 And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

29And having departed from there, Jesus went along the Sea of Galilee, and having gone up on the mountain, He was sitting there. 30And great crowds came to Him, having with them the lame, crippled, blind, mute, and many others. And they placed them at His feet, and He healed them, 31so that the crowd marveled, seeing the mute speaking, the crippled restored, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing. And they glorified the God of Israel.

Mark 8:30 And having gone away to her home, she found the child lying on the bed, and the demon having gone out.

31And again having departed from the region of Tyre, He came through Sidon, to the Sea of Galilee, through the midst of the region of the Decapolis.j 32And they bring to Him a man who was deaf and who spoke with difficulty, and they implore Him that He might lay the hand on him.

33And having taken him away from the crowd privately, He put His fingers to his ears, and having spit, He touched his tongue, 34and having looked up to heaven He sighed deeply, and He says to him, “Ephphatha!” (that is, “Be opened!”). 35And immediately his ears were opened, and the band of his tongue was loosed, and he began speaking plainly.

36And He instructed them that they should tell no one. But as much as He kept instructing them, they were proclaiming it more abundantly. 37And they were astonished above measure, saying, “He has done all things well. He makes both the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.”

If Matthew copied Mark, then he must have come to Mark's healing story and decided to include it in a list of four types of healing that Jesus did at that point.

If Mark copied Matthew, then he came to Matthew's list and decided to include a full account of one miracle from the list.

Either scenario seems plausible.

The background is Isaiah 35:5, 
Then will the eyes of the blind be opened
and the ears of the deaf unstopped.
6Then will the lame leap like a deer,
and the mute tongue shout for joy.

[Gordon]

It's unlikely anyone would have made it up, as it's the sort of thing that might put people off Jesus.

That might be the reaction today, since we know about germs and cross infection, but that might not be the reaction in antiquity - do you think such stories might portray Jesus as having special powers? If so, that would be propaganda, and since you've highlighted this particular story perhaps you could explain how you excluded the risk of propaganda.

That charismatic people could heal by physical contact is an idea that was around throughout history until recent times: but we know better now and don't take such superstitious beliefs, or claims that they were effective, too seriously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_touch

[jeremyp]

Checking the context in Mark and Matthew shows that after the healing of the Gentile woman's daughter, Mark has the one healing of the deaf and mute man, near the Sea of Galilee; Matthew has a statement that Jesus was near the Sea of Galilee and healed many, including mute. This definitely looks like one got his idea from the other.

Matthew 15:28 And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

29And having departed from there, Jesus went along the Sea of Galilee, and having gone up on the mountain, He was sitting there. 30And great crowds came to Him, having with them the lame, crippled, blind, mute, and many others. And they placed them at His feet, and He healed them, 31so that the crowd marveled, seeing the mute speaking, the crippled restored, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing. And they glorified the God of Israel.

Mark 8:30 And having gone away to her home, she found the child lying on the bed, and the demon having gone out.

31And again having departed from the region of Tyre, He came through Sidon, to the Sea of Galilee, through the midst of the region of the Decapolis.j 32And they bring to Him a man who was deaf and who spoke with difficulty, and they implore Him that He might lay the hand on him.

33And having taken him away from the crowd privately, He put His fingers to his ears, and having spit, He touched his tongue, 34and having looked up to heaven He sighed deeply, and He says to him, “Ephphatha!” (that is, “Be opened!”). 35And immediately his ears were opened, and the band of his tongue was loosed, and he began speaking plainly.

36And He instructed them that they should tell no one. But as much as He kept instructing them, they were proclaiming it more abundantly. 37And they were astonished above measure, saying, “He has done all things well. He makes both the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.”

If Matthew copied Mark, then he must have come to Mark's healing story and decided to include it in a list of four types of healing that Jesus did at that point.

If Mark copied Matthew, then he came to Matthew's list and decided to include a full account of one miracle from the list.

Either scenario seems plausible.

The background is Isaiah 35:5, 
Then will the eyes of the blind be opened
and the ears of the deaf unstopped.
6Then will the lame leap like a deer,
and the mute tongue shout for joy.

Yes but which scenario is the more plausible, especially in conjunction with all the other points of evidence that mean Mark was most likely to have been written first?

[Roses]

That might be the reaction today, since we know about germs and cross infection, but that might not be the reaction in antiquity - do you think such stories might portray Jesus as having special powers? If so, that would be propaganda, and since you've highlighted this particular story perhaps you could explain how you excluded the risk of propaganda.

That charismatic people could heal by physical contact is an idea that was around throughout history until recent times: but we know better now and don't take such superstitious beliefs, or claims that they were effective, too seriously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_touch

Sensible people don't take it seriously, but sadly even to this day there are the gullible who can be conned into believing that con artists, who claim to be healers, can make you well.

[Spud]

That might be the reaction today, since we know about germs and cross infection, but that might not be the reaction in antiquity - do you think such stories might portray Jesus as having special powers? If so, that would be propaganda, and since you've highlighted this particular story perhaps you could explain how you excluded the risk of propaganda.

That charismatic people could heal by physical contact is an idea that was around throughout history until recent times: but we know better now and don't take such superstitious beliefs, or claims that they were effective, too seriously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_touch

Couldn't find the word 'spit' on that page, except in the word 'despite' 

[Spud]

Yes but which scenario is the more plausible, especially in conjunction with all the other points of evidence that mean Mark was most likely to have been written first?

Neither Matthew nor Luke contain any healing of a deaf person, even though they list this kind of healing (Mt 11:5, Lk 7:22). They do record examples of healing the lame, the blind and the lepers, raising the dead and preaching to the poor. So we might expect at least one of them to record this miracle if they were copying from Mark.

[Gordon]

Couldn't find the word 'spit' on that page, except in the word 'despite' 

Don't be silly - the point is that people once believed that certain special people had 'powers' that could heal, and your Jesus spitting story is an example of this, and the 'royal touch' is another.

Of course, given the relative ignorance of these times as regards medical matters, people then might be excused for believing such stories, though it is hard to imagine that people would be naive enough to believe such things today.

[Roses]

It might be hard to believe but unfortunately they do. That con artist, Benny Hinn, has quite a following.

[Spud]

Don't be silly - the point is that people once believed that certain special people had 'powers' that could heal, and your Jesus spitting story is an example of this, and the 'royal touch' is another.

Of course, given the relative ignorance of these times as regards medical matters, people then might be excused for believing such stories, though it is hard to imagine that people would be naive enough to believe such things today.

The distinction is between healing and miracle. This was an incurable disease and hence a miracle.

[Nearly Sane]

The distinction is between healing and miracle. This was an incurable disease and hence a miracle.

Your god chooses to murder people. You worship a thug.

[Gordon]

The distinction is between healing and miracle. This was an incurable disease and hence a miracle.

You haven't yet explained, despite my asking, how you've eliminated the risks that this story is wrong or is fiction.

Chucking words such as 'healing' or 'miracle' doesn't get away from the underlying problem that this story might be just that - a story. Stories like this might have had currency back in the relative ignorance of antiquity, but I doubt there are many that are stupid enough to believe such nonsense today.