| Sep 21 @ 1:56 AM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT
|
|
pastordon
Posts: 624
|
I will start this thread with the following post from Angel:
To Pastor Don
Was wondering if you would like to converse in this thread upon the eyewitnesses of Jesus that did write in the N.T. Gospels and Books? I am currently studying more on this and also pending to receive the book; Jesus and the Eyewitness by author Richard Bauckham; he has a full 5 *star* rating on his great book. (have you read it?).
If you answer yes...Can we start with the first Gospel writer; Matthew, for he was an eyewitness to Jesus and one of the 12 Apostles. I am in understanding from the N.T. scriptures as well as outside early historian sources that this was Levi and he was a tax collector for the Romans. Tax Collectors worked for the government, which also makes him a politician to King Herod.
|
|
  |
|
| Sep 21 @ 8:56 AM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT |
|
Gallows_Humor
Posts: 13,662
|
 ... trying very hard to understand what this thread is about....
some guy who is alive today..is writing about Jesus and the twelve..... as if he was there.....
sounds like a work of fiction to me... 
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 10:42 AM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT
|
|
Angel54214
Posts: 18,199
|
I don't have time right now to contribute, but wanted to share this site which holds the wealth of preserved writing antiquities of the bible in the Schoyen Collection:
http://www.schoyencollection.com/HebrewAramaic.htm
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 10:57 AM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT |
|
iam01
Posts: 6,280
|
What we're going to find here from Christians are acts of desperation.
If you can't come up with one single eye witness of Jesus who also wrote about Jesus then you're wasting time.
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 12:56 PM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT
|
|
pastordon
Posts: 624
|
What we're going to find here from Christians are acts of desperation.
If you can't come up with one single eye witness of Jesus who also wrote about Jesus then you're wasting time.
Just to get some perspective on this--and for purposes of comparison--let's start off by considering the eyewitness testimony for a famous contemporary of Jesus Christ: Tiberius Caesar. I am assuming that Iam and other skeptics among us do believe that this Roman emperor did live. You do, don't you?
So, what kind of eyewitness testimony--contemporaries of Tiberius who then wrote about him, and whose original manuscripts still exist (this is what you are demanding, isn't it, Iam, Gallows, and others?)--exists? Well, here it is--and if there are eyewitness I have overlooked, then please bring them to our attention:
First, take note that Tiberius lived from 42 B.C. to A.D. 37.
1) Tacitus. There are only three surviving manuscripts of his writings, and the earliest dates from the 9th century--about 800 years after Tiberius lived. No original manuscript here. But worse, Tacitus lived from A.D.56-120, which means, of course, that he was no eyewitness of Tiberius. In fact, he wasn't even born until 20 years after Tiberius had died.
2) Suetonius. There are over 200 early manuscripts of his writings, but the earliest surviving manuscript is also from the 9th century--which means, he was no eyewitness of Tiberius either; plus, obviously, none of these 200 mss were original. So, Suetonius, too, fails to be an eyewitness of Tiberius.
3) Cassio Dio. His work exists only in fragments. But the greater problem is that he was not born until A.D. 160--over 100 years after Tiberius had died. So, again, he was no eyewitness of Tiberius.
4) Marcus Velleius Paterculus. Now, he was a contemporary of Tiberius, having lived from 19 B.C. to A.D. 31. However, the single manuscript copy of his work--described by authorities as "badly written and mutiliated"--has even been lost. But it was not an original anyway. So, he certainly does not qualify as an eyewitness, and has no testimony to offer us.
5) Pliny the Elder. He, too qualifies as a contemporary, having lived between AD 23 and 79. A single manuscript (mss R.I.5) exists, but it is dated at A.D.1300--over 1200 years after Tiberius died. So, this was certainly no original manuscript, but long removed from the original.
6) Seneca the Elder. He also qualifies as a contemporary, having lived 54 B.C. to A.D.39. However, all his work has been lost. So, again, he fails to serve as an eyewitness.
So, unless you have other historians--historians who have provided us with original, eye-witness testimony of Tiberius--then, you guys (if you are going to be consistent with what you have demanded) are going to have to conclude that Tiberius Caesar really did not exist! Right?
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 1:14 PM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT |
|
iam01
Posts: 6,280
|
As I knew there would be acts of desperation. I guess I didn't make myself clear enough.
If you can't come up with one single eye witness of Jesus who also wrote about Jesus then you're wasting time.
Unfortunately I'd like to hang around for the fun but I need to run some errands before traffic turns the highways into a parking lot. Kazakhstan can be difficult navigating around all those goats, sheep and donkeys on the road.
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 1:26 PM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT
|
|
Jankia
Posts: 11,902
|
Thanks pastordon,your new to this forum but because the same question has been unanswered by those that constantly show desperation in looking for what they refuse to accept,its futile to lead certain people to actual facts and expect them to acknowledge them as fact.
Chronic critics  on this site wont accept any answer to what they ask...they only want to ask it repeatedly to be chronically biased.
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 1:54 PM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT |
|
CPUfan
Posts: 7,983
|
Well I guess if we're into legal evidence like eyewitness testimony, there are also other concepts of law such as reasonable cause and assumption.
I find this very interesting so I am going to discuss it even though I may not myself be persuaded by the outcome.
A wife is missing and although there is no body the husband is a major suspect on the grounds of his behaviour prior to her disappearance. Outcome? In numerous US cases, the husband has been found guilty of murder in the absence of a body. Note that this is a secular, not a religious court. It was a reasonable assumption that the wife was dead and that he killed her, on account of his previous behaviour and erratic reactions to interrogation. Now, it could just as well be that he was wrongly convicted but again it's a matter of how it looks in a legal sense. The evidence may be inconclusive.
So how does this argument translate into prima faecie evidence of Jesus, for example. In the absence of actual proof in terms of a body or even of records, we can still make reasonable assumptions about the existence of such a person.
One is that the most powerful empire of the world at that time, the second great Western civilisation, the Roman Empire, was converted to the religion based on JC - Christianity. Now I am not making this argument on the grounds of an intention to prove Christianity, but certain things can be inferred from history.
The impact of the JC figure was exceptional in terms of one man acquiring such a massive and influential following. This only has modern equivalents in say, for entirely different reasons, the impact of John Locke on the English-speaking world, of Karl Marx on Europe and the Third World, and Hitler and fascism on Germany and Europe etc. From the consequences of their creeds you can infer that they meant quite a lot to the populations of those areas in their times. Now we know that Marx and Locke etc were published so are in no doubt of their existence. But how to provide eyewitnesses? Well, the best you can do is visit their cemetaries. They were identifiable from newspapers and books but a thousand years ago hardly any records were kept of anything because they didn't have publishing or printing. So the reasonable assumption of a person's existence is vague reference in written work and the oral history of those days. The same applies to the Viking invasions. They were known to exist but they were not reported in media or records because there were none. Often the victims of raids were expunged.
You can of course talk of myths and legends in those ages, but even King Arthur was known to exist because of oral tradition. There is absolutely no direct evidence of the person existing because none was recorded. That is why this is referred to as myths and legends of King Arthur.
Personally I don't doubt that the figure JC existed in history and his teachings came into conflict with the powers that be of that time. The Roman Governor existed, the Jewish Council that condemned him existed, and the Roman Empire was converted to the belief system that was based on him. That much I think is a reasonable assumption or reasonable cause. The rest is of course down to faith and belief, or not.
But anyone is at liberty to take either choice, faith and belief... or not. Depends on how far you want to go with either in my view.  
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 1:59 PM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT
|
|
iam01
Posts: 6,280
|
Yes, Jankia, so many buffoons have said exactly the same things as you, perhaps you have just quoted them word for word, because they can not answer a very simple question without resorting to gibberish. But if you state there exists actual facts without presenting actual facts and without actually knowing those facts then perhaps you have exceeded their levels of stupidity of absolute certainty that are worth hanging on a tree to dry like a dead buzzard.
OK, time to go. I just got word, they have cleared the road of all asses and pigs, at least, temporarily.
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 2:27 PM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT |
|
Jankia
Posts: 11,902
|
CPU- The impact of the JC figure was exceptional in terms of one man acquiring such a massive and influential following. Very true...so exceptional that it would be interesting for anyone to find another figure from 2000 years ago or anytime for that matter that didnt actually exist but had as just great an impact on people today.
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 2:30 PM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT
|
|
MrPaul
Posts: 1,633
|
But anyone is at liberty to take either choice, faith and belief... or not. Depends on how far you want Thank you CPU 
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 2:30 PM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT |
|
MrPaul
Posts: 1,633
|
[
[Edited on 9/21/2009 2:40 PM]
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 2:57 PM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT
|
|
uncrazy
Posts: 2,382
|
Jankia offers...
....figure from 2000 years ago or anytime for that matter that didnt actually exist but had as just great an impact on people today.
I will offer 3 names:
Anu
Enki
Enlil
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 2:58 PM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT |
|
pastordon
Posts: 624
|
Concerning Matthew as an eyewitness, we will continue to work around our resident troll to present evidence for everyone else's consideration:
1) The Magdalen Papyrus (p64), has been dated (or re-dated) as having been written between A.D.30 and 70...which is to say, this a manuscript copy practically written before the ink on the original was dry. It contains Matthew's eyewitness testimony of Jesus in Matthew 26. I am aware there are critics who argue for a date around A.D.200 for p64, but this is despite high tech work on the manuscript by Dr. Carsten Thiede, Director of the Institute of Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany, using a scanning laser microscope to analyze and compare the handwriting style to other works written in the first century. His specific comparative study of the text in 1994 is described below:
A scanning laser microscope can now differentiate between the twenty micrometer (millionth of a meter) layers of papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink, and can even determine the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. Dr. Thiede compared the fragments with four other known references: a manuscript from Qumran, dated to 58 A.D.; one from the Herculaneum, dated prior to 79 A.D.; one from Masada, dated between 73-74 A.D.; and one from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus, dated 65-66 A.D. www.khouse.org/articles/2001/333/
2) Oxyrhynchus manuscripts discovered in Egypt: p67 (Matthew 3:9, 3:15, 15:20-22), p37 (Matt.26; 33 verses). Dates back to A.D.150.
3) Chester Beatty papyrus, p45. Contains all the gospels. Dates back to A.D. 200-250.
4) Codex Vaticanus. A.D. 300. Contains all the gospels
5) Codex Sinaiticus. A.D. 350. Contains all the gospels.
6) Early translation: Sinaitic Syriac. Late A.D. 300's. Contains all the gospels in the Syriac language.
While none of these are originals of the eyewitness, Matthew, they furnish abundant evidence that Matthew was indeed an eyewitness of Jesus Christ.
In fact, compared to the testimony for Tiberius Caesar, the ruler of the Roman world at the time of Jesus--none of which is eyewitness testimony and the earliest surviving manuscripts of which testimony is over 800 years past the death of Tiberius--attestation for Jesus Christ is much, much stronger. And conversely, for one to deny sufficient testimony for Jesus is for that person to necessarily deny sufficient testimony for the existence of Tiberius.
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 3:07 PM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT
|
|
pastordon
Posts: 624
|
The impact of the JC figure was exceptional in terms of one man acquiring such a massive and influential following.
Very true...so exceptional that it would be interesting for anyone to find another figure from 2000 years ago or anytime for that matter that didnt actually exist but had as just great an impact on people today.
In fact, no one can even refer to the year in which we are living without tacitly saying Jesus' name: our year, 2009, of course, is actually A.D. 2009 ("in the year of our Lord" 2009). Changing "A.D." to "C.E.", as many have done in an effort to deny Jesus' influence, is at best pretentious (the reference point is still Jesus' birth), and at worse, dishonest.
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 3:16 PM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT |
|
uncrazy
Posts: 2,382
|
Angel54 offers...
...which also makes him a politician to King Herod.
It is a subtle point, but the Herods were Jewish, if we look far enough we can find the names of their teachers in the Gospels.
For some reason the christians story cannot grasp the Herod line is also descending from the line of Isaac.
If the Herods are separated from both the Jews of the day and the Jews supporting Jesus, we can use them as the enemy against Jesus. As I have mentioned before, at least 7 Herods can be found in the NT. The name tetrarch as a title for Herod positions that 4 Herods would have been ruling at a single time. We can identify the regions if we look.
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 3:33 PM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT
|
|
uncrazy
Posts: 2,382
|
PastorDon offers...
In fact, no one can even refer to the year in which we are living without tacitly saying Jesus' name: our year, 2009, of course, is actually A.D. 2009 ("in the year of our Lord" 2009). Changing "A.D." to "C.E.", as many have done in an effort to deny Jesus' influence, is at best pretentious (the reference point is still Jesus' birth), and at worse, dishonest.
Your paragraph offers an explanation that christian thought should have a priority in designating time within the the last two milleniums.
A simple wiki search offers, "The Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus", and implemented in I believe 532 to follow the year designated as Diocletian 247. The use of this system was to set a method to determine the falling of Easter.
It is just as likely that we find a reset of calender being caused by making the reign of Herod the Great a zero generation, to align the temple predictions for the eschaton of Enoch to be anticipated and prayed for. The temple was lining itself up for the start of the 1000 year reign of the Jewish king and temple priests.
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 3:54 PM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT |
|
Angel54214
Posts: 18,199
|
It is a subtle point, but the Herods were Jewish, if we look far enough we can find the names of their teachers in the Gospels. The Gospels are not a history source for the Herods...they are a history source for Jesus Christ. That is why it's called the Bible and not an Encyclopedia.
{paraphrase and snippets}
According to Dionysius Exiguus, Herod the Great's Mother Kypros, was an Arab. His Father Antipater was an Idumaean and neither one of them were of Royal lineage. Herod the Great was from Ashkelon and became a tribal warrior.
He murdered 45 members of the Sanhedrin. He had married "10 times". Of his family, those that crossed into the NT were Herod Philip the First - First husband of Herodias, Herod Antipas - Ruler of Galilee and Perea, second husband of Herodias. Archelaus - Ruler of Judea, Samaria and Idumaea. A thoroughly bad ruler, Herod Antipas was deposed and banished. Herod Philip the second - called Philip also in New Testament as King of Judea meaning almost all of Palestine.
In 37 BC, Herod gained complete control of the country, and summarily executed Antigonus. Rome would rule Palestine through puppet kings and governors for four centuries more. Ruled by an Idumean, taxed by both Rome and the temple, surrounded by thousands of Gentiles in their ancestral land, the Jews began to turn inward and examine their faith and history for signs of deliverance.
This second son of Antipater was appointed governor of Galilee, where he signalized himself by extirpating the bands of robbers that infested the country. Several insurrections were raised by the Jews against their new ruler, which were not suppressed without great blood-shed. His reign was tyrannical and oppressive.
his death, all parties appealed to Caesar, who divided the dominions of Herod among his children, giving Archelaus Judea, with the title of Ethnarch. But Archelaus became so unworthy a governor, that the Roman emperor, wearied by the complaints urged against him, deprived him of power, and banished him into Gaul, Judea was now formally made a Roman province, and subjected to taxation.
Herod was not only an Idumaean in race and a Jew in religion, but he was a heathen in practice and a monster in character, exceedingly crafty, jealous, cruel, and revengeful, a true despot. It had been said, "better to be Herod's hog than his son." To many Jews Herod was a semi-barbarian, a usurper, a man who endeavored both openly and secretly to bring them, their city, their way of life into line with the pagan ways that masqueraded under the term civilization. He died in the seventieth year of his age.
http://latter-rain.com/gospel/herodg.htm
Timeline of Herod Agrippa I:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Agrippa+I&hl=en&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS344US344&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=lNq3SrDTNY2-sgP6gcnQDA&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 4:30 PM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT
|
|
pastordon
Posts: 624
|
It is a subtle point, but the Herods were Jewish, if we look far enough we can find the names of their teachers in the Gospels.
For some reason the christians story cannot grasp the Herod line is also descending from the line of Isaac.
Uncrazy, actually the Herods were not Jewish, but Idumean--which is to say, Edomites. And, the Edomites were descendants of Esau, not Jacob. So, yes, from Isaac, but not through his son Jacob (from which the Jews descended), but through his son Esau.
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 21 @ 4:35 PM |
Eyewitnesses of Jesus who wrote in the NT |
|
pastordon
Posts: 624
|
Your paragraph offers an explanation that christian thought should have a priority in designating time within the the last two milleniums.
Not a priority, but just an open and honest acknowledgment.
|
| |
|
|
|
|