The Case For Christ - A defence of Lee Strobel's 1998 apologetic book

[blastula]

So the New Testament writers were literate AND wealthy.

The gospel writers weren't Palestinians.

 

[steve_bank]

They were obviously literate and influenced by Greeks.

It would be in the times difficult to just be an average schmuck imaging around wring. One needed to eat. The odds were the writers had money and leisure time, which only a few had. For most you worked or died.

Look at a wall map of the region. Present day Palestine/Israel is a time spec compared to Egypt, Persia, and Syria. People mostly walked. There were no communications other then word of mouth for most people. Information spread by travelers.

Formal communications were limited to govt and those that could afford it. You did not go to a nearby store and buy writing materials. The gospels which are not consistent were derived from hear say word of mouth over decades.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Obviously the authors of the Jesus stories were literate. They are also anonymous. Hopefully no one is claiming that Rhett Butler wrote Gone With the Wind.

 

[Lion IRC]

Saul of Tarsus isn't an anonymous writer.
John of Patmos isn't an anonymous writer.
Tacitus and Josephus aren't anonymous writers.
Matthew Levi is well identified.
When Theophilus receives letters from Luke, he doesn't sit there wondering who this 'anonymous' person is.

It's funny. We were looking at Isaiah 6:1 and Psalm 138 and 1st Corrinthians 15 on Sunday.
http://usccb.org/bible/readings/021019.cfm
and I was thinking about this thread.

Does Isaiah write anonymously?
Is King David writing in the hope that nobody will know it's him?
See how Paul consistently writes in the first person.

 

[Atheos]

Isaiah was written by at least 2 different people. Many of the books of "Paul" were written by people claiming to be him. We have no way of knowing how many of the Psalms were written by David and which were written by others.

All four gospels are completely anonymous. The "evidence" is whispy at best, and the only thing we can be certain of about them is that (with the possible exception of portions of GJohn) none of it was written by eyewitnesses. The evidence that people in those days thought nothing of writing in someone else's name is overwhelming.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Saul of Tarsus isn't an anonymous writer.
John of Patmos isn't an anonymous writer.
Tacitus and Josephus aren't anonymous writers.
Matthew Levi is well identified.
When Theophilus receives letters from Luke, he doesn't sit there wondering who this 'anonymous' person is.

It's funny. We were looking at Isaiah 6:1 and Psalm 138 and 1st Corrinthians 15 on Sunday.
http://usccb.org/bible/readings/021019.cfm
and I was thinking about this thread.

Does Isaiah write anonymously?
Is King David writing in the hope that nobody will know it's him?
See how Paul consistently writes in the first person.

The Jesus stories are anonymous works only later attributed to writers to give them legitimacy. Not accepting this is to claim "under god" has always been in the POA. Please grow up, Mr. Lion.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The Atheos post above (#225) is accurate (and not exhaustive.) There are also well-known interpolations in Bible texts. All of this begs the question of why God couldn't ensure that his "message to mankind" couldn't come through the centuries in a consistent, persuasive manner -- also why the message could feed hundreds (thousands?) of variant readings and bitterly partisan conflicts. How in the world could a deity's written message to his creations end up in the establishment of hundreds of sects?
Then look at the common trope among conservative Christians that God not only inspired the writing of scripture but inspired the selection process of canonization. (Both of these are extra-Biblical convictions, in my opinion; certainly the second one is.) God apparently allowed not only bizarre contradictions in the book but fraudulently attributed books.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Lets also remember that we have the TF thanks to Eusebius. This is akin to thanking Joseph Smith for his credible account of the story of the golden tablets. Eusebius in like fashion created his TF in the 4th century. This is standard religious practice. It's like finding Donald Trump's signature on the DOA.

 

[steve_bank]

My main reference has been the Oxford Bible Commentary. Reasonably objective and academic.

People commonly wrote in the name of other people. There was no internet.

The nooks of the OT can be time sequenced in part by the style of writing.

 

[Lion IRC]

Isaiah was written by at least 2 different people.

Was one of them Isaiah?

Many of the books of "Paul" were written by people claiming to be him.

How many were written by Paul himself?

We have no way of knowing how many of the Psalms were written by David and which were written by others.

OK good.
So I'm sticking with my claim that David wrote Psalm 138

All four gospels are completely anonymous.

Gee. Doesn't that make it hard for ppl like you to make assertions about them such as their not having been eye witnesses?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Was one of them Isaiah?



How many were written by Paul himself?

We have no way of knowing how many of the Psalms were written by David and which were written by others.

OK good.
So I'm sticking with my claim that David wrote Psalm 138

All four gospels are completely anonymous.

Gee. Doesn't that make it hard for ppl like you to make assertions about them such as their not having been eye witnesses?

All we have to do is read the gospels carefully. There are so many totally contradictory tall tales within these that it is obvious none of then knew anything about the life of Jesus. Obviously, you are going to utterly ignore the evidence.

Mark. Jesus arose to heaven that same day he ascended to heaven from a house in Jerusalem
Luke. No, ascended that same day from Bethany.
Matthew. No. He left Jerusalem and his apostles met him in Galilee. No ascension to heaven.
Acts. No he stayed in Jerusalem 40 days and ascended from there.
John. He met his apostles in Jerusalem, left and met them in Galilee later. No ascension.
Luke and Matthew The utterly contradictory infant narratives.
All gospels false promises of the return of Jesus and coming of the kingdom of heaven in the lifetime of his followers.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, if your best evidence for something is that no one can offer any evidence against it, that would be an argument from incredulity.

Meh. What else you got?

 

[ideologyhunter]

The gospels also variously contradict each other on: the year of JC's birth (a minimum 10-year discrepancy); the genealogy; where his parents went after his birth; the timing of his rebuke of the temple money lenders; the day of his arrest (it was either Passover or the day of preparation for Passover); the time of his execution. I know, I know: these differences only humanize the Bible and emphasize the way eyewitnesses see reality. Or, it's, y'know, the invention of folklore before your eyes. Which makes more sense?
Another goodie: Mark, the earliest account (the one without a Nativity) simply mentions the two thieves who get crucified with Jesus. Luke creates a little parable out of it. Now there's Good Thief/Bad Thief, with corresponding dialogue to fill out the mini-drama. (You also have to imagine that the Roman executioners allowed JC's followers close enough to hear what was said, which in itself is nonsensical.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

You also have to imagine that the Roman executioners allowed JC's followers close enough to hear what was said, which in itself is nonsensical.

Two guys in my high school came up with a clever plan to "SAVE" students. Rather than sit together in study hall, they sat on opposite sides of the classroom. Then conversed.

Idiot1: (Top of his lungs) HEY, TWO!
Idiot2: (TOHL) WHAT?
1: HAVE YOU HEARD THE WORD OF THE LORD?
2: WHY, NO! TELL ME ABOUT IT!
And proceeded to annoy the god out of everybody.

So, it's not IMpossible, but then, 1 and 2 hadn't just had spikes driven through their wrists. Might have altered their ability to concentrate on the conversation, to project to the cheap seats...

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Gee. Doesn't that make it hard for ppl like you to make assertions about them such as their not having been eye witnesses?

No, because YOU are the idiot claiming they were eyewitnesses in spite of the fact that they relate events they could not possibly have eyewitnessed, nor would it matter because the claims they are making are not possible.

But then, again, you know this and believe in spite of that fact, so what’s the fucking point of ANY of this? You don’t give a shit who these people were or what they claimed. You believe it no matter what.

So who are you trying to convince aside from cult members finally waking up from their indoctrination?

 

[steve_bank]

Was one of them Isaiah?



How many were written by Paul himself?

We have no way of knowing how many of the Psalms were written by David and which were written by others.

OK good.
So I'm sticking with my claim that David wrote Psalm 138

All four gospels are completely anonymous.

Gee. Doesn't that make it hard for ppl like you to make assertions about them such as their not having been eye witnesses?

You keep avoiding the obvious that there is no evidence and gospels as eyewitness accounts is unluikey.

You can resort to apologetics and clever counter arguments, or you can say after all that has been said on the thread you still believe in gospels as truth.

I can respect that more than trying to make counter arguments which are impossible.

If it were certain it would not be called faith. It would be called historical fact.

Caesar is an historical fact. I had to read his Gallic Wars in Latin in a high school Latin class. Mohammed is an historical fact. He interacted on a regional scale in pushing his religion. Buddha as far as I know has no contemporarily corporation, at least as to his anecdotal life story.

Thomas Aquinas has corporation. Moses does not. The gospel Jesus does not.

There is evidence of human migration out of Africa. None for Moses and the desert exodus.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Gee. Doesn't that make it hard for ppl like you to make assertions about them such as their not having been eye witnesses?

No, because YOU are the idiot claiming they were eyewitnesses in spite of the fact that they relate events they could not possibly have eyewitnessed, nor would it matter because the claims they are making are not possible.

Narratives written in third person omniscient point of view are certainly not eyewitness accounts of events.

 

[Lion IRC]

At no point have I claimed that every part of every Gospel is ALL direct, personal eyewitness testimony. Strobel doesn't assert this either.

I don't have to defend against straw arguments like;
"Luke couldn't possibly have been an eyewitness to the birth of Jesus because..."
"Matthew wasn't out in the desert watching satan try to tempt Jesus because..."

I don't claim they were.

I argue that the Gospel accounts are a collation of three types of testimony;
1. The writer's own personal recollection
2. The reporting of other's eyewitness testimony
3. Divine revelation

And I will keep hammering the point that the pseudonymous authorship of 'Mark' actually prevents bible skeptics from claiming knowledge about the (non-eyewitness) identity of that same writer.

You don't know who he was? Well, how do you know he wasn't a witness to ANY of the events in the book of Mark?

 

[blastula]

At no point have I claimed that every part of every Gospel is ALL direct, personal eyewitness testimony. Strobel doesn't assert this either.

I don't have to defend against straw arguments like;
"Luke couldn't possibly have been an eyewitness to the birth of Jesus because..."
"Matthew wasn't out in the desert watching satan try to tempt Jesus because..."

I don't claim they were.

I argue that the Gospel accounts are a collation of three types of testimony;
1. The writer's own personal recollection
2. The reporting of other's eyewitness testimony
3. Divine revelation

And you continue to have no good evidence for any of those claims.

 

[Keith&Co.]

At no point have I claimed that every part of every Gospel is ALL direct, personal eyewitness testimony. Strobel doesn't assert this either.

I don't have to defend against straw arguments like;
"Luke couldn't possibly have been an eyewitness to the birth of Jesus because..."
"Matthew wasn't out in the desert watching satan try to tempt Jesus because..."

I don't claim they were.

I argue that the Gospel accounts are a collation of three types of testimony;
1. The writer's own personal recollection
2. The reporting of other's eyewitness testimony
3. Divine revelation

And you continue to have no good evidence for any of those claims.

And three is kinda pointless in this situation, anyway.
Strobel's work was an effort to prove Jesus was real, and divine, based on the gospels. If One must assume divine revelation in order to get the contents of the gospels to prove the divine exists, that sort of circular masturbation is not a rational argument.