CH. 9 & 10 Early and Eyewitness Testimony on Jesus

[Pseudonym]

Thanks to the panel for a very interesting discussion, and special congrats to isaone for his debut.

Thanks for going through a bunch of my questions. The discussion was interesting (and it was great to see Scott and Tony both agree with my position), but... it wasn't quite the question I was asking.

What I was particularly interested in is not whether or not textual or form criticism matters in general, but whether or not it matters to the arguments raised in the book. Having said that, I got the strong impression that Scott, in particular, wasn't particularly impressed by the book's arguments here. So perhaps it's just as well.

[Richard]

By the way, you referenced on the podcast to the gay community changing the meaning of the word "gay." That shift was evolutionary & counter-cultural. It was an inside code, one that the general population didn't understand. People thought we meant joyful. It's one way we would hide in plain sight. By the time we were openly waving rainbow flags, the term "gay" had meant homosexual for 100 years, and it was a far sight better than invert or faggot.

I see, so we should have kept "bright" a secret. Damn, you should have told us earlier...

Back to the podcast discussion. It seems to me, that without the miracles, especially the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Therefore, it becomes essential to have good evidence that Jesus did actually raise from the dead. Proving that 30 years after his death, his followers believed that he was resurrected is almost irrelevant. Even today you can easily find people that believe their guru or spiritual teacher performs miracles, yet we are not impressed.

[isaone]

Proving that 30 years after his death, his followers believed that he was resurrected is almost irrelevant

Exactly Richard I completely agree. I tried to get this point across but I am pretty sure it was not a success. Even if the Gospels are accurate (which they obviously are not) and were written by the individuals after which they were named (which they obviously were not) , all it proves is what they though was true after at between 30 years (for mark) and 70 years (Luke) after Jesus (if he existed) died. As I mentioned I can find any number of people who truly believed in their hearts that they saw Elvis after he died and that is just in Nashville. In India I can find millions who believe that any number of Guru's have any number gurus have miraculous powers. Within days after 9/11 some people decided it was a conspiracy and still believe it to this day. Heck in 30 years a spy balloon crashing in Roswell became thousands of people who swear they have been abducted by aliens.

Please note that none of these people in any of these cases are intentionally lying but simply mistaken. This is a key point that Geisler/Turek continually (and I think intentionally) mis state. Time and time again they make points by comparing the giant Straw Man of intentional conspiracy and self aware lying against the bible and declaring the bible the winner. That is not my position of the position of anyone of whom I am aware.

[Xenolith]

I've listened to all the podcasts but this is my first post. In episode 60, the hosts were working under the assumption, at least for some of the time, that an eyewitness to Jesus's ministry wrote the first account "30 years" later. The atheist hosts spent a lot of time questioning how accurately he could have recalled Jesus's ministry, and I think the Christian hosts made good points saying that anyone who travels for three years with a leader is going to memorize his teachings, though how word-perfectly is debatable. I would treat the remembrances of cabinet members of private moments shared with a president as reliable even if written decades later, but not if they were of supernatural events, and not if they were diametrically opposed. A point not made on the show (but made by many before me) is that since we don't know if the source was an eyewitness, that 30 years becomes much more important: that's time enough for the stories of Jesus to spread orally across languages and cultures and get warped along the way. It only takes one person with a faulty memory or misunderstanding of the message to be the one to bring the message to a distant land and pass it to others, then they all raise their kids with it, and by the time a more authentic message reaches them, they reject it and write down their warped version that becomes our earliest source.

[isaone]

Xenolith You are correct. We never really got to that section of the second chapter specifically but I completely agree. In fact only two of the people who supposedly wrote the Gospels are even theoretically witnesses (Matthew and John) . Mark supposedly traveled with Peter as I recall and Luke with Paul but neither were even purported to personally witnesses to Jesus. As I mentioned we have plenty of examples like Ms. Clinton where even a single individual retelling a story can change almost all of the details with a few retelling and science has shown that the memories themselves have changed so the person doing the telling really believes what they are saying.

[Lawrence]

Ms. Clinton where even a single individual retelling a story can change almost all of the details with a few retelling and science has shown that the memories themselves have changed so the person doing the telling really believes what they are saying.

You mentioned this in the podcast too, but it's not the same thing she was lying. Why isn't this an option when talking about the ancient writers?

[Penguin]

Ms. Clinton where even a single individual retelling a story can change almost all of the details with a few retelling and science has shown that the memories themselves have changed so the person doing the telling really believes what they are saying.

You mentioned this in the podcast too, but it's not the same thing she was lying. Why isn't this an option when talking about the ancient writers?

The standard answer is that people don't die for a lie.

The funny thing is that this speaks just as much to the truth of Sikhism, in which the compiler of their holy book actually died for it himself, as the truth of Christianity.

[isaone]

I did not have the time to properly explain in the podcast. The thing is there is lying and there is lying. If for example HC one day said "Hmm man I would love to have some more people appreciate my bravery and even though I know no one was shooting at me or anything I think I will make up a lot of details and tell everyone stuff that did not happen in order to manipulate them" Then she was lying . If on the other hand if over the several years she told the story again and again and ;

• She told the story exactly correctly
• She then remembered that she though she heard someone say there were shots in the hills so she added that part
• It seemed to her that the shots actually caused some of her party to duck and hurry a little so she added that
• After a few more retellings when began to see herself running I mean after all if others were being shot at she would have been a fool to not run, right ?

it not exactly lying since she believed at every step that she was telling the truth .

Research has shown beyond a doubt that memory is very plastic. it can me molded ad shifted in the retelling for any number of reasons and the person doing it does not consciously 'lie' . They honestly believe that they are telling the truth but without a video (well in HC's case there was one but she did not go look at it) they just plain get it wrong and never know.

There was a study done that demonstrates this beautifully. They took some adult volunteers. They then interviewed relatives of these people to get background information on any trauma's in their childhood involving being lost in a mall. The people who had never had anything like that happen to them came to weekly sessions where ther researchers asked them questions about their childhood. The questions were 'leading' ones starting out vague that would apply to anyone like "When you were a child did you ever feel lost and alone " . Week by week they got more pointed and direct "When you were lost were in you a large building like a mall maybe " . In six weeks they had a majority of the people insisting that they had been lost in a mall and found by a kindly old lady with an umbrella despite the fact it never happened. Even more interestingly the people added all sorts of details like what the woman was wearing and the shape of her umbrella's handle , without even being asked.

Geisler in the travesty of a book we are reading is constantly making statements based on the assumption that is the Gospels are not perfectly accurate then they must be made up and why would anyone die for a known lie. He (as usual) is completely ignoring the point. Oral stories grow and change not because people directly lie but because people remember things selectively and also emphasis (and embellish) the parts that interest them the most or maybe help them with an issue which is important to the. If you look at yourself and the stories you tell to other people I guarantee that you do the same thing exactly. it is not blatant but the results after 20, 50 , 100 retellings gives the same result.

[Lawrence]

Ms. Clinton where even a single individual retelling a story can change almost all of the details with a few retelling and science has shown that the memories themselves have changed so the person doing the telling really believes what they are saying.

You mentioned this in the podcast too, but it's not the same thing she was lying. Why isn't this an option when talking about the ancient writers?

The standard answer is that people don't die for a lie.

Two things:

1)It might be progressive lies like isaone is talking about or
2)Their martyrdom may be a lie

[Pseudonym]

One thing that came up in the podcast was the Comma Johanneum. Isaone claimed that this is the only support for the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is not.

The full Trinitarian title appears in the Great Commission (Matt 28:19) and the Pauline benediction (2 Cor 13:14). There are strong references to the idea of the Trinity at the Jesus' conception (Luke 1:35) and baptism (e.g. Matt 3:16-17). Note also Stephen's death (Acts 7:55) and Hebrews 9:14. There is also the Didache (ch. VII), which quotes Matt 28:19).

More crucially, however, the Trinity doctrine was developed in response to the classic heresies on the nature of God. You will note that church texts which predate those heresies (e.g. the classic creeds) do not have a fully developed idea. The ecumenical councils which developed the doctrine did not, as far as I know, reference the Comma Johanneum once.

Most notably, no surviving work of any theologian before the 4th century includes the Comma includes it, even when they were making the case for the Trinity. It would have been obvious to include it had they known about it. Clement of Alexandria even quoted 1 John 5:8 in support of the trinity, without the Comma. If it had been known at the time, someone would have mentioned it.

In summary, the clear evidence is that Trinitarianism was mainstream doctrine before the Comma first appeared.

[Redpower]

Very nice of you to say say Emery. It's really just a smokesreen. I am enthusiastic(loud) and assertive (pushy) so it appears to be lucid and articulate initially. Just wait, after a couple of appearences you will notice to lack of depth and thoughfulness (LOL)

This reeks of arrogance. Stop acting humble, you're not that great. You're acting like you've just thought of all of your objections to Christianity and you feel as though you should crusade with your "bright" idea like it isn't years old and actually quite lame and unpopular. Richard Dawkins is good at answering evolutionary questions but lacks in philosophical discussions. People who call themselves or each other "Brights" are like Christians who claim they are "enlightened." It's counter-productive; not bright.

Tone down your arrogance, you didn't say one thing that any 11 year old atheist wouldn't come up with on her own, you didn't really challenge Tony or Scott. They were treating you like an annoyance, and righteously so. Each time you interrupted with one of your "bright" thoughts I wanted to throw up all over my monitor. You're pedantic and snide and annoying. What you were saying wasn't very clever or even playful as far as the average Christian or Atheist is concerned. Regurgitated boring ranting is the best way to describe your style. You were obviously trying to make a bold first impression on people and perhaps the problem lies in that very consideration. This was the epitome of elementary philosophy, I think the television show "The View" would be a better outlet for your ramblings.

[isaone]

Isaone claimed that this is the only support for the doctrine of the Trinity.

Hmm I do not think I claimed it was the only support. if I did so i was in error (and if you your comment is in error) . it is however the clearest indication. The verses you quoted do not state the matter as directly. Interestingly enough I completely agree that it was added in the time frame you suppose and that it was likely done in order to support the position of the Trinitarians.

My main point is really more that since we agree that there are many know examples of the Bible being changed for a variety of reasons it proves that the book is a human document and not any direct revelation of anything from anyone. Furthermore two principles indicate that there must be many many more differences between the Bible as we have it and the originals

Firstly it is only be indirect and fortuitous events that we can identify the errors of which we are aware. There are likely many many more than we know between what we have and the original (lost) written documents.

Secondly oral traditions are of course not anywhere close in accuracy to the written one. Having established that the written copy process produced at least some errors we can be absolutely confidant that the oral transmission created many times more.

[isaone]

Ok so just for the intellectual excersise of it:

Stop acting humble, you're not that great

I believe this is a internal contradiction. You state I am not that great which would mean that my being humble is correct. It is either one or the other. Am I great ? In this case then my humility is incorrect and should be eliminated. if however I am not great then my humility is correct. Please make up your mind.

(per Darkumbra's comment) If you are accusing me of acting humble while not being so (which seems more likely now that I re-read) . Then please post my PIN number for my debit card. It is apparent since you are aware of the dishonestly of my humility despite my statements to the contrary that you must be a mind reader so post my PIN (go ahead I am thinking of it right now ) and I will believe you.

You're acting like you've just thought of all of your objections to Christianity and you feel as though you should crusade with your "bright" idea like it isn't years old and actually quite lame and unpopular.

No, and No. Nowhere have I stated by any means that a single one of my ideas are original or that the "Bright" idea is not years old please indicate where I have said that or retract your statement and admit as such. Yes I am afraid it was unpopular and has never caught on. I however am fond of the concept if not the word chosen and will continue to use it as is my privilege.

you didn't say one thing that any 11 year old atheist wouldn't come up with on her own

Funny you should say that . I agree completely. It is totally in line with my position that it does not take a master's degree or an IQ of 200 to see that Theism in general and Christianity in specifics are really invalid and self contradictory. Thanks for the support .

So labels now and accusations of my motives let's see

• Pedantic - Perhaps, I do the best with the talents I have if I am over emphasizing a trivial point please indicate the point
• Snide - No I disagree. I am certainly not malicious and do not consider myself superior to those here
• Annoying - Well that is for you to determine. it is not my goal but if I annoy you I recommend you practice mindfull acceptance
• Not Clever or Playful to the average... - Well that would be too bad but as I said I simply do the best I can. if I am not great at it then Emery can cut my pay in half !
• Bold First Impression - No you are wrong I am just 'assertive' by nature. Much more the loud angry Atheist than Emery. Listen anytime that Emery has me on and I think it will sound very similar
• Regurgitated Boring Ranting - Hard to say if I agree or not, your choice
• epitome of elementary philosophy - Good I am glad we agree. As I have said sophisticated philosophy is not anything I pretend to understand or espouse. However a lack of in depth understand has no impact the facts on the ground. Until logically shown to be incorrect, a simple statement is true even if the person making said statement does not understand (or even respect much in my case) people who have spent thousands of years attempting to obfuscate and confuse the issue. Having viewed the video of someone making a crop circle, I do not have to have a degree in Physics to understand and debate the quantum magnetic vortexes which others insist caused it to appear .
• "The View" would be a better outlet - Wow great idea ! can you get me on ? I think a couple of the ladies are total credulous fools and i would love a chance to debate with them .

[ScottBarger]

One thing that came up in the podcast was the Comma Johanneum. Isaone claimed that this is the only support for the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is not.

The full Trinitarian title appears in the Great Commission (Matt 28:19) and the Pauline benediction (2 Cor 13:14). There are strong references to the idea of the Trinity at the Jesus' conception (Luke 1:35) and baptism (e.g. Matt 3:16-17). Note also Stephen's death (Acts 7:55) and Hebrews 9:14. There is also the Didache (ch. VII), which quotes Matt 28:19).

More crucially, however, the Trinity doctrine was developed in response to the classic heresies on the nature of God. You will note that church texts which predate those heresies (e.g. the classic creeds) do not have a fully developed idea. The ecumenical councils which developed the doctrine did not, as far as I know, reference the Comma Johanneum once.

Most notably, no surviving work of any theologian before the 4th century includes the Comma includes it, even when they were making the case for the Trinity. It would have been obvious to include it had they known about it. Clement of Alexandria even quoted 1 John 5:8 in support of the trinity, without the Comma. If it had been known at the time, someone would have mentioned it.

In summary, the clear evidence is that Trinitarianism was mainstream doctrine before the Comma first appeared.

Well said.

[darkumbra]

Ok so just for the intellectual excersise of it:

Stop acting humble, you're not that great

I believe this is a internal contradiction. You state I am not that great which would mean that my being humble is correct. It is either one or the other. Am I great ? In this case then my humility is incorrect and should be eliminated. if however I am not great then my humility is correct. Please make up your mind.

Sorry Isaone-but he didn't contradict himself. NOR did he say you were 'being humble'.... he stated that you were 'ACTING' humble. ie. that you were pretending to be humble to build that case for you being great.

I'm not going to get involved in the veracity of his argument... just pointing out that he never said you were humble which would indeed conflict with the 'you're not that great' comment.