The standard conservative belief in the historicity of the New Testament rests on the idea that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life. Acts is the basis for the idea that there were eyewitnesses who were “men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.”
Perhaps it is more likely that as an itinerant Jesus moved from town to town, a few people in each location may have had some memory of some act or saying but there was no one who was with him from the beginning to the Crucifixion. It is probable that no one would have been able to correct false acts or sayings of Jesus because no one was with him from his baptism until his death. There was no self-correcting system of eyewitnesses who could declare any given act or saying false.
In the stories of Q, disciples are only mentioned from time to time and do not play any real part in the tradition. Paul certainly doesn’t give James, Peter, John and the Apostles the respect due to people who were later supposed to be the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life. In Mark, two generations after Jesus’ death and years after the death of James, Peter and Paul, there are found the stories of named disciples principally Peter but in the context of their misunderstanding of Jesus’ teachings and their betrayal and abandonment of Jesus. Matthew and Luke had to do some editing to somewhat rehabilitate the eyewitnesses. It was from this shaky foundation that the tradition of apostolic succession arose.
Gmatthews has asked elsewhere “how such extreme differences in belief could have occurred so quickly in the Jesus movement (Gnostics and others now considered non-orthodox and heretical).” I think a part of the answer is that there were no eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life from the time of his baptism until his death. When stories arose and evolved there weren’t eyewitnesses who could definitively state what was true or false.
Great topic. I think the sayings, their independent attestations- that he said this or that, or something pretty close to this or that, and it was here or there that this or that happened- IMPLY eye- and ear-witnesses from baptism to crucifixion. There’s adequate consistency and overlap in themes, situations and places and it fits the contextual setting. A circumstantial case, but convincing one to explain the aftermath/wake. But if Jesus chose the least of these among us for his 12, as recorded, since there was going to be this great reversal after the kingdom came, they were probably the illiterate fishermen and tax collectors and other dregs indicated, no? So they couldn’t write in koine greek their eye and ear recollections and had to rely on better educated scribes. Like Paul, all they could do is spread the gospel as charged, like Paul did, but I wonder whether they ventured out much from northern Judaea as supposedly ordered by Jesus (but are unlike Paul, who didn’t need intermediaries, being an educated Jew doing his own writing. I’m discounting his vision of Jesus after Jesus death; so he is no eye or ear witness in this discussion- but someone Paul was persecuting converted him, so the disciples must not have totally shirked their work locally).
I mean, Jesus the hayseed ( i’ll not say rube, so as not to offend) does his entire ministry in rural areas of Galilee we’re told, and his ONE big trip to the big city of Jerusalem at the end ends in disaster. After his rejections in all of his rural stops, why he thought that bringing his failed apolcaplyptic message to Jerusalem at Passover would win converts?? and his first act is to raise heck in the Temple? (great thinking) And the Romans wouldn’t mind the ruckus THIS particular week? Mind-bogglingly naïve for such a contemplative rabbi, albeit fringe, and not ready for prime time (or he knew very well he was writing himself a epitaph) . But I doubt the disciples did as charged and spread the stories throughout the Roman world. They would have been out of their league, like Jesus was, more stones that builders reject (and these Jews are going to convert gentiles? right…). We have Jesus’ Christianity thanks to Paul, mostly, and whichever witness(es) persuaded him. Because he is also a convert by vision himself, and how much he got directly from the disciples is unclear, our testimony is tenuous, and once or twice removed from any actual events and sayings.
I’m prepared to grant that there were eye and ear witnesses, but highly localized and confined to Galilee. Did they really fan out on missions like Paul? Someone else carries that burden- I think we have Paul to credit/blame for far-flung Mediterranean converts until highly compelling evidence about James, Peter and John’s purported letters is re-reviewed. 2 Peter 1:16 “eyewitness” testimony, et al, await authentication, and I haven’t gotten back to them for 33 years. peace, and thanks for posting
Rosekeister said
The standard conservative belief in the historicity of the New Testament rests on the idea that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life. Acts is the basis for the idea that there were eyewitnesses who were “men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.”
Perhaps it is more likely that as an itinerant Jesus moved from town to town, a few people in each location may have had some memory of some act or saying but there was no one who was with him from the beginning to the Crucifixion. It is probable that no one would have been able to correct false acts or sayings of Jesus because no one was with him from his baptism until his death. There was no self-correcting system of eyewitnesses who could declare any given act or saying false.
In the stories of Q, disciples are only mentioned from time to time and do not play any real part in the tradition. Paul certainly doesn’t give James, Peter, John and the Apostles the respect due to people who were later supposed to be the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life. In Mark, two generations after Jesus’ death and years after the death of James, Peter and Paul, there are found the stories of named disciples principally Peter but in the context of their misunderstanding of Jesus’ teachings and their betrayal and abandonment of Jesus. Matthew and Luke had to do some editing to somewhat rehabilitate the eyewitnesses. It was from this shaky foundation that the tradition of apostolic succession arose.
Gmatthews has asked elsewhere “how such extreme differences in belief could have occurred so quickly in the Jesus movement (Gnostics and others now considered non-orthodox and heretical).” I think a part of the answer is that there were no eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life from the time of his baptism until his death. When stories arose and evolved there weren’t eyewitnesses who could definitively state what was true or false.
You may try to apply the conventional criteria of authenticity to this problem, and explain why they fail. I think the added information in Paul’s letters make it abundantly clear that J. had a group of disciples, and an “official” inner core of twelve disciples, called apostles, and some few persons within this group who later became the new leadership. No doubt disciples entered and left the early movement. That’s probably why the name lists are inconsistent and Judas left the group at the critical moment. But it is hard to explain why this inner group re-constituted the community if they had not intimately known J. at least for a period leading up to the execution. This group may have made up the the story, of course, but conspiracy theories have many more weaknesses, so out of two simple explanations the historical one is to be preferred.
I read a few of Dr. Ehrman’s books this week and am working on a third of his to remind me of everything I’ve forgotten from my seminary education, plus. Nothing verifiable out of Peter’s letters from Peter – the illiterate-himself, and although I see nothing in the many folders in this weblog on James, I see nothing in reading James anyway that says “I’m the brother, and here’s all the inside stuff I can tell you about my brother that proves it’s me that writes.” Not one story after 30+ years together? C’mon- I spent 18 with my brothers and I got a million I could tell ya. Is there a folder anywhere on the beloved, John’s, letters anywhere to peruse, for first hand FACTs? I may have caught up to your point to begin with: if Mark and Q are all we have for eyes and ears that recall the real Jesus- reinforced only by Paul’s reference to meeting Peter and James, Jesus brother- there’s nothing admissible in court (i.e., no direct testimony witness who took the stand; unless you’re relying on a lot of indirect testimony/hearsay exceptions- but since the tale says they all fled his crucifixion and he died utterly alone, who was it that hears the dying declaration in Mark, which might be such an exception to the hearsay rule). But Paul met James and Peter, and despite his huge ego, and insistence on being the big cheese, who travels and writes and can actually preach to both pagans and Jews, seems to defer to their superiority (in some authenticity/authoritative/traditional sense) by traveling to Jerusalem at least twice (14 years between visits) and do a face-to-face. Which may be the one “self correcting” window of opportunity ever about content (when their big fuss was apparently over whom to preach to, Jewish law obedience, and divvying up territory of best impact/effect given their wildly different talents, to put it mildly). And all we get from this in direct testimony is Galatians 2. Wherein Peter also goes to Antioch (v11) and gets dressed down for caving and selling out the gentiles when James arrives later (which maybe questionable, historically-challenged, “Luke” in Acts 15 adds details to). And all they argue is theology (not facts or events, but what these must mean). You’re right. There is no self-correction, or cross-examination in this tradition about what exactly happened. But a whole bunch about what this or that means, splintering all over the place from the outset (assuming of course it all happened). Peter and James and John held all the cards on what actually happened (at least where Paul was concerned). They just didn’t play any that matter to historians (or are in the NT). Gets back to literacy. None of the direct witnesses wrote (or could probably even read) greek- period. So all these 3 (if they are those of “high repute” Paul respects in Gal 2) could do is contribute to and correct the stories and sayings developing orally, and confront anyone near Jerusalem who wanted to contradict them. And they were already “spinning” the events to their personal liking(s). Some things never change- I wonder what Oliver Stone could have made out of it.
SWerdal said
And they were already “spinning” the events to their personal liking(s). Some things never change- I wonder what Oliver Stone could have made out of it.
I feel confident the movie would be called The Jesus Files. It would tell the story of a wonderful person important to the world as a whole who was brutally killed for political reasons. It would involve high level conspiracies and the story of the brave people who exposed the conspiracy. It strikes me odd (and perhaps meaningful) that Oliver Stone would probably have the same spin as the NT.
Funny! And Kevin Costner is getting too old to play the lead.
Have started Dr. Ehrman’s latest on How Jesus became God and just read the section on how skinny and late and suffused in other material our gospel “witnesses” come to us (and the criteria we use to tease anything possible out with). Jeepers- hard to get a glimpse of the man. The power of the character behind the Q sayings doesn’t match the humble, modest backdrops/ servile settings and scenes. I wonder what the 3 silent pillars back in Jerusalem (Peter, James and John) thought of the developing narratives when they heard embellishments on what they themselves had witnessed and preached. Or how inclined they were to “let it slide” when the tale was getting tall, but who cared, since the kingdom was coming any day now anyway (and at least the movement was growing)? Or what they must have thought of Paul’s converts’ distance from actual facts (and grasp of the core message) when- it didn’t matter. Not with everyone’s eyes on the clouds.
You know what surprises me the most?
Paul, after his so called conversion. It said he went to Arabia for three years to preach right after that experience and that begs disbelief because wouldn’t the very FIRST thing that you would expect him to do was to go asap to see all the disciples who actually lived with Jesus and heard him preach first hand? And then only went to see Peter and James after that time for 15 days total?
Paul said he was a persecutor of ‘Christians’ before his conversion. So when did that start? After the resurrection presumably? So how come he didn’t seek out the leaders of that movement first? Surely that is what any prosecuter would do? Who were those he persecuted, how many? What happened to them? Did he travel with a cohort of temple guards in o rder to arrest believers and how did they look after them going from town to town? Was that one or two and how did he know who they were? As it was supposed to be secret?
Josephus mentions other biblical preachers of the time by name including John the Baptist and yet didn’t mention Jesus at all, only that he was a brother of James which some scholars think was added later. One thing amuses me actually. John baptised Jesus and supposed to have acknowledge him as the Son of God (Did he hear the words of the dove at that point?) Yet didn’t then become one of his disciples as you would expect. John’s followers even continued as a separate group for many years after he was beheaded. And yet none or few of them decided to go and join the real McCoy?
MikeyS said
You know what surprises me the most?Paul, after his so called conversion. It said he went to Arabia for three years to preach right after that experience and that begs disbelief because wouldn’t the very FIRST thing that you would expect him to do was to go asap to see all the disciples who actually lived with Jesus and heard him preach first hand? And then only went to see Peter and James after that time for 15 days total?
The timing of Paul’s conversion interests me also. Most seem to think, it happened very quickly perhaps a year after the crucifixion. It seems more reasonable that much more time was necessary. The one year or so timing is unconsciously based on the Acts narrative where everything happens so quickly whereas the more probable sequence is:
Time for Galileans to remember Jesus and begin telling stories of the itinerant healer who was crucified. Time for James and some of the people where Jesus stayed as he moved from town to town to try to make sense of what had happened to him eventually coming to the conclusion that he would return as Messiah. Time for James and Peter to decide to go to Jerusalem with their Messianic ideas. Time for small communities of just a few members to develop to the point that there would be a reaction by Jerusalem.
The timing for Paul’s conversion may have been more along the line of 5-7 years which seems much more credible and probable.
Is it possible that Paul felt that if he had a personal revelation to himself that that was actionable without consultation with others? That his own vision was equally as valid as the reports of Peter and James? Paul must have had a great amount of confidence in his own interpretation to act as he did. He was quite the salesman, offering redemption without the pain and bother of circumscision or of keeping kosher or following the Torah. I wonder if Paul was the Joel Osteen of his day.
MikeyS said
Paul, after his so called conversion. It said he went to Arabia for three years to preach right after that experience and that begs disbelief because wouldn’t the very FIRST thing that you would expect him to do was to go asap to see all the disciples who actually lived with Jesus and heard him preach first hand? And then only went to see Peter and James after that time for 15 days total?
I always thought that sequence of events was strange and unbelievable also.
MikeyS said
So how come he didn’t seek out the leaders of that movement first?
Are you talking about the 12 disciples here? As we know there were many offshoots of Christianity and that this happened early. Paul writes in Corinthians about other itinerant preachers visiting his churches and preaching a message perhaps radically different from his. We obviously don’t know who Paul persecuted, but I’d think it would have been the more radical Christian element. In my opinion the ones he would have been LEAST likely to persecute would have been the 12 disciples and their closest companions because they were the ones, I would think, most likely to follow Mosaic law and thence run the least chance of running afoul of the Sandedrin. We know that Gnosticism in all it’s manifold weirdness had roots from before Jesus. Everything from free love to believing the God of the OT was inferior and evil. This seems like the kind of thing that would have offended orthodox Jews of the time. Maybe Paul did seek leaders of these sects.
magpie said
Is it possible that Paul felt that if he had a personal revelation to himself that that was actionable without consultation with others? That his own vision was equally as valid as the reports of Peter and James?
Paul’s letters sometimes show him trying to equate his visionary experiences of the Risen Lord with James’ and Peter’s messianic beliefs that Jesus had been raised to God’s right hand to return as Messiah. And of course he tries to defend his status as apostle which at least some people disagreed with. That why I don’t think you can put much stock in the Corinthians passage where Paul equates himself and his experiences with the apostles. He has too much at stake to believe this is credible account.
When Paul’s letters are read with their interpretations of who Jesus was, what his death meant, what his resurrection (as interpreted by Paul) meant and the hope of his second coming, one finds a world changing supernatural clash of powers. There is a great gulf between what Paul believes about Jesus and how he speaks of the family and disciples of Jesus, the people who actually knew Jesus, spoke with him and learned from him. Paul does believe his continuing visionary experiences are equally valid as James’ and Peter’s beliefs and experiences with the actual historic Jesus which is why the relationship was not a smooth one.
Rosekeister said
magpie said
Is it possible that Paul felt that if he had a personal revelation to himself that that was actionable without consultation with others? That his own vision was equally as valid as the reports of Peter and James?Paul’s letters sometimes show him trying to equate his visionary experiences of the Risen Lord with James’ and Peter’s messianic beliefs that Jesus had been raised to God’s right hand to return as Messiah. And of course he tries to defend his status as apostle which at least some people disagreed with. That why I don’t think you can put much stock in the Corinthians passage where Paul equates himself and his experiences with the apostles. He has too much at stake to believe this is credible account.
When Paul’s letters are read with their interpretations of who Jesus was, what his death meant, what his resurrection (as interpreted by Paul) meant and the hope of his second coming, one finds a world changing supernatural clash of powers. There is a great gulf between what Paul believes about Jesus and how he speaks of the family and disciples of Jesus, the people who actually knew Jesus, spoke with him and learned from him. Paul does believe his continuing visionary experiences are equally valid as James’ and Peter’s beliefs and experiences with the actual historic Jesus which is why the relationship was not a smooth one.
Greg- “continuing” visionary experiences? I recall the conversion reference(s) and Paul’s apparent defensiveness/trepidation whenever he gets close to eyewitness turf (which is why I say above that he knew Peter and James held all the cards that mattered). But did Paul refer to more than just the one vision? thanks-
SWerdal said
But did Paul refer to more than just the one vision? thanks-
I think Paul’s letters presuppose continuing visions and revelations. When you look at the depth of Paul’s interpretation of the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection, his stress on not receiving his teachings from human sources or from the Jerusalem pillars, the times he says he received knowledge or teachings from the Lord especially with the blood and body interpretation of the bread and wine, the times he says he received revelations warning him away from certain areas and his return to Jerusalem with Titus in response to a revelation, it all seems to indicate continuing revelations though they may not have all been specifically visions where he believes he is seeing and conversing with the risen Christ.
Any idea why the ‘Risen’ Jesus has been silent these past 2000 years? Was Muhammad less important a figure than Paul? Or at the times of the reformation? A quick word in Martin Luther’s ear may have prevented the split?
God must be very happy about all the events of the last 2000 years as he did used to advise the israelites when they went astray. And Angels regularly were sent down and even one to Muhammad apparently..
Paul needs to be asked one question if we could ask it?
After his conversion why did he then go to Arabia for 3 years and not to the Disciples who lived with the man to learn what it was that he taught them. The fact that Paul came up with a different doctrine than Jesus taught like atonement by human sacrifice and original sin that all have sinned whereas Jesus said one time the opposite. eg the blind man at the pool where someone said that was a result of his sins or those of his fathers and Jesus said, neither he sinned nor his father etc. He told Zaccheus that Salvation had TODAY come to his house. And he regularly forgave sins and so no need of any blood sacrifice but they really had to come up with some idea of why he was crucified? John the Baptist preached exactly the same message as Jesus. The end was near and people should repent and turn back to God. Jesus could have died in his bed!
This suggests that much of Paul’s teaching was not by divine revelation at all and just an attempt to deceive others. He certainly succeeded. Then as now.
Rosekeister said
Rosekeister
” It is probable that no one would have been able to correct false acts or sayings of Jesus because no one was with him from his baptism until his death. There was no self-correcting system of eyewitnesses who could declare any given act or saying false.”
I don’t know how you got yourself so deep in speculation about the basis for eyewitnesess
or whether eyewitnesses were there from the begining till the end. It doesn’t matter.
Lets, say Peter, James John,et al, were all there from day one up til the very end
The question is about whether there was some self correcting mechanism and whether it was
effective. For my part, I highly doubt there was any 24X7 clearing house for jesus stories.
Do we really think these guys sat around waiting to rule on erroneous stories?John?
Yes, Peter
Isabelle over in WalaWala Washington seems to think Our Lord said Blessed be the cheese makers.
I think you need to put the kaibosh on that one. I would do it myself, except it seems Little Toby
in Grand Junction thinks that Jesus betrayed Judas at the last supper. We could go into why
neither Isabelle or Little Toby would give a hoot about what some guy John or Peter might tell them ( Why would they necessarily know who those men were or care what they had to say?) The reality is we know it’s a bunch of hooey invented by Christians who specialize in its production. We know about the popularity of things like The Apocalypse of Peter and that it was -apparently cleared by the ever watchful clearing house for some time before Serapion, the sneak!- spoiled everything.
Was Serapian an eye witness from the begining till the end?There’s certainly no need sniffing around Q (Did it even exist?) or speculating about what came first, the Gospel of Mark or Acts.
It hardly matters if all 12 apostles “misunderstood Jesus’ teachings or betrayed and abandoned him. This has nothing to do with their status as eye witnesses, the accuracy of their testimony or apostolic succession!!
“In the stories of Q, disciples are only mentioned from time to time and do not play any real part in the tradition.”
Seriously!? Q, if it existed, is considered a sayings document. How much of a part would they play
in a sayings document? If they didn’t play enough of a part, they didn’t exist???
“Paul certainly doesn’t give James, Peter, John and the Apostles the respect due to people who were later supposed to be the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life.”
What kind of “respect”? A fist bump? A Gift basket? By his own account, Paul goes back to Jerusalem
at least twice to make sure he is teaching the right things?
Didn’t Paul go to see Peter and James to clarify that it was OK for Gentiles to be saved alongside Jews and that they need not obey the Torah/Law concerning circumcision and the Sabbath?
Jesus supposed to have sent his disciples to the four corners of the world. ie the Great Commission. And yet he said nothing about those two aspects? Odd that Paul received his teaching/instructions ‘directly’ from the Risen Saviour and yet nothing about this? Did Paul ever ask Jesus a question in this process?
Paul wrote that Jesus Christ was the NEW covenant replaced the OT and the law and yet the disciples themselves didn’t think that as they carried on obeying the ‘law’ to the letter. You would think Jesus would have made this clear at least?
@Swerdel
“I think the sayings, their independent attestations- that he said this or that, or something pretty close to this or that, and it was here or there that this or that happened- IMPLY eye- and ear-witnesses from baptism to crucifixion.”
I suggest you look up the word implication. What “independent attestations” are you referring to?
If there were independent sources – and I think there were, how does that imply there were eye witnesses from Baptism to crucifixion? Even if there were, the question is less about eyewitnesses than the transmission of their purported testimony. You claim ” There’s adequate consistency and overlap in themes, situations and places and it fits the contextual setting. A circumstantial case, but convincing one to explain the aftermath/wake.”
Adequate consistency!? Did Jesus Die before or after the Seder meal? Did he die in the morning
or late afternoon? Did he go quietly to his death as in Mark or did Luke get it right? Did the
temple curtain rip before or after his death? Was Jesus a human exhalted after his death or was he always there from the begining? If eye witnesses were with him at the crucifixion, why do we have
7 different accounts of his last words?
“But if Jesus chose the least of these among us for his 12, as recorded”
Really? Where? Where does it say that he chose his disciples based on the belief that they were
“the least among us”? or based on an expectation of a reversal?
rely on better educated scribes? Why not give them Eidetic memory? Why such a laborious and inefficient process.
“I’m discounting his vision of Jesus after Jesus death; so he is no eye or ear witness in this discussion.”
Why? Why the discount? If jesus could choose his 12, why can’t he choose Paul? If you think he rose from the dead, appeared to his followers why wouldn’t he appear to Paul?
I mean, Jesus the hayseed ( i’ll not say rube, so as not to offend) does his entire ministry in rural areas of Galilee we’re told, and his ONE big trip to the big city of Jerusalem at the end ends in disaster.
The Gospel of John records at least 3- some would say 4, Passovers in “the big city”
I’m prepared to grant that there were eye and ear witnesses, but highly localized and confined to Galilee.
Why? I would think eye and ear witnesses who were with Jesus every step of the way would have been everywhere he went? So there were none in Jerusalem where he was betrayed and crucified? This despite the implication from idependent sources that eye- and ear-witnesses were with him from baptism to crucifixion. So is it your contention Jesus was crucified in Galilee?
2 Peter 1:16 “eyewitness” testimony, et al, await authentication, and I haven’t gotten back to them for 33 years.
Hmmm nothing like that in the NIV
2 Peter 1:15 – 17
15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
I think rather than address the numerous ?s i’ll just say at this point, in answer to the topic question- were there eyewitnesses? Yes. But the NT does not contain any direct eyewitness accounts that i know ofy. Those would have come from ones named Peter, James or John, and I don’t think we have direct testimony from any of those 3 in the NT. 
I think the clue with all these questions is the same.
Nothing was written down ‘at the time’ of the events as we know of because the time was ‘short’ and only a matter of a generation when all these things would be fulfilled and so oral transmission was good enough.
NOW! If God intended the whole world to get these revelations over many millenia then surely the best or better way was for Jesus to have written everything down and or having learned disciples that could do much the same AND for God to preserve these writings in whatever form in their ‘original’ text and form. Maybe had he selected some Greek disciples to do this or even better IF he came FROM God, to select someone from each race on the planet and to write it all down in an understood unambiguous text that needed no translation? That would surely have shown that God and Jesus were divine and were really interested in the WHOLE of mankind being saved as that would surely have been from God and not a religious cult of a few peasant Jews where the leader was content to preach within a short radius of his birth place who said he came ONLY to save the lost sheep of Israel.
Its obvious that once that first generation had died out and the ‘church’ was being established with an hierarchy that had power and influence over people’s lives AND money and more, they, through apolostic succession had the keys to the Kingdom and entrance to heaven or hell. That was something none of them were persuaded to give up. Not even the failed prophesy of their leader. The sale of these indulgencies throughout the empire enabled the Vatican to be built. Is it really conceivable that King Henry the eighth of all people needed to seek permission from the Pope to divorce Katherine of Aragon and marry another because he wanted a male heir which HE believed was because it was the fault of the female and not him? Yes, such was their power of heaven and hell.
God if he does exist, can surely have chosen a much better way of doing things. Men just make a pigs ear of things! I don’t believe that Jesus gave his disciples the great commision as that goes against his own words. Much more likely it was those later writers who came up with it to justify their very existence. Otherwise, Jesus himself should at least have gone to Rome the centre of power and civilisation and then on to the other continents. He was the eternal Son of God remember and thus protected by God. It will no doubt be argued by Christians that he HAD to die in Jerusalem for atonement, salvation and heaven and there was no other way.
Well, the fall was man made. There was no Adam and Eve and No literal Garden of Eden. Therefore no need for the above. My God is bigger than their God. Its they who made him in THEIR image, not I…
SWerdal said
I think rather than address the numerous ?s i’ll just say at this point, in answer to the topic question- were there eyewitnesses? Yes. But the NT does not contain any direct eyewitness accounts that i know ofy. Those would have come from ones named Peter, James or John, and I don’t think we have direct testimony from any of those 3 in the NT.
I agree. The closest we come is Paul. Paul describes the apostles and their leaders Peter and James as direct eyewitnesses and says that he spent two weeks with them around 36 CE, “to learn more”. The idea that he was fooled by a conspiring group is not convincing. Neither is it convincing when some say that his narrative of the visit is some sort of a haggadic midrash (a magic wand that can prove anything – and nothing). Here we in reality have a learned person face-to-face to the leaders of the eyewitnesses. It is not possible to come closer, excepting the authentic writings of a true eyewitness, which alas does not exist.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)