Paul’s claims that the resurrected christ appeared to him and this is the reason he changed from being a persecutor of the church to an apostle of christ.
1 Like
I am aware of the story, but that still does not (and in fact has nothing to do with) making the Gospel attributed to Luke an eye witness account.
2 Likes
Yeah, and it’s very amusing to watch apologists acknowledge this while at the same time arguing that the appearances to the original disciples were not hallucinations.
1 Like
Considering that you acknowledge only two possibilities, I.e that they were either lying or hallucinating ( or maybe both).
I am not surprised you find it amusing.
You’d want to read through all of this. It was good for me to brush up on this info too. Not something I’m extremely familiar with. https://bible.org/seriespage/eyewitness-testimony-luke%E2%80%99s-gospel
Teaser:
[Luke 1:1-4] reads:
1:1 Since many have undertaken to arrange in proper order an account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as from the beginning the eyewitnesses and those becoming ministers of the Word handed down to us, 3 so also it seemed good to me, accurately following and investigating everything from the first, to write to you in order (an account), most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the words (of the gospel) you have been taught.*
We can learn at least four things about the importance of eyewitness testimony in Luke’s preface.
First, the key word is eyewitnesses, which in Greek is autoptai (plural of autopt?s) (v. 2). Today we get the word autopsy from it. However, in Luke’s preface it is not a medical term, nor does it have a legal meaning per se, but a historiographical one (history writing). It means those who are first hand observers. One scholar translates it as “those with personal / firsthand experience: those who know the facts at first hand” (Alexander, p. 120).
So what do you account the fervor to, if it was not true? You don’t believe you have explained that yet. Also I’m curious what non-Christians think about why we care about what we believe?
Those could be two different answers or the same.
Thank you @thoughtful.
So it is in fact more along the lines of ‘taken from a tradition believed to have been started by eye witnesses (and other “ministers”)’. This would probably qualify in modern terminology as ‘a perhaps somewhat better standard of hearsay’ rather than “eye witness”.
1 Like
Did you read the article linked? It explains that in the cultural context of that day his appeal to eye witnesses means that it wasn’t hearsay. He’s telling his audience that he went and interviewed these people himself. Notice he’s investigating because someone commissioned him to do so.
Also there were no competing traditions. The non-canonical gospels are considered to be much later than the 4 in the Bible. If it was hearsay we’d hear more about competing traditions. Consider Islam for example has all these hadith, some of which are considered more or less reliable about who Mohammed was and what he did.
The church said these 4 are all we need even after centuries and we all agree on them and they agreed on the basics of who Jesus was. Can We Construct The Entire New Testament From the Writings of the Church Fathers? | Cold Case Christianity
1 Like
Yes @thoughtful, I did. And I explicitly said “in modern terminology”. Did you read that?
That “the cultural context of that day his appeal to eye witnesses means that it wasn’t hearsay” really makes no difference, when it is being presented to modern day audiences as “eye witness” (audiences who would, perfectly reasonably, interpret this in the context of the modern meaning of the term).
This is also further evidence that J. Warner Wallace’s ‘Cold Case Christianity’ shtick has absolutely nothing to do with actual (modern day) police procedure.
And this sort of deception is why many atheists term Christian Apologists as “liars for Jesus”, more interested in making their claims look impressive than in being scrupulous about the evidence.
Addendum: two further points.
-
The problem here appears to be the logical fallacy of Equivocation ( Equivocation - Wikipedia ). Two different meanings of “eye witness” (albeit the modern one is used more implicitly than being explicitly stated) are being used in order to make a false impression.
-
Anybody calling the Gospels “eye witness” accounts, except in the explicit context of discussing ancient epistimilogical beliefs, is being (knowingly or unknowingly) deceptive.
2 Likes
I stopped going to watch Soccer games in the 1970s because of the threat of violence between fervent supporters of opposing teams. I didn’t see much connection between fervour and truth.
4 Likes
Whatever causes the fervour of Muslim suicide bombers or the members of the Heaven’s Gate cult, etc. Your guess is as good as mine.
If what you believed was true, it would be entirely appropriate to care about it.
The reverse is not true, however. Just because you care about it, that does not mean it is true.
1 Like
Do you believe Joseph Smith’s first hand accounts?
2 Likes
Who is Joseph Smith? Did he live in Jesus time? Are his writings up for canonization?
Is it safe to say that you don’t accept the first hand accounts given by Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon?
Haven’t read it, don’t know. However, I would say that polygamy is specifically against what the bible teaches, so I don’t really have any interest in Mormon theology. I keep trying to explain that I have no position other than scripture. I don’t profess to know anything but what God has revealed to me through scripture. I don’t even think most Christians are really following Christ, and haven’t yet found a denomination that I would call my own. So, to pin me to a belief structure will be hard unless you tie it to scripture. I am just as skeptical as all of you, except God revealed Himself to me and I believe.
At this point in my walk, I don’t think I would discount anyone’s account of having a personal relationship with Jesus. I will however, compare what they say and do against what is written in scripture. If that doesn’t line up I would question their intent.
Yes - what I’m getting at is that the fervor of the Christian is related to knowing that you are loved because God in His grace has forgiven you and you don’t have to do anything to earn it. It’s a very odd story to make up. But it brings a joy in life that there’s hope beyond suffering and your own sin and death. It’s not by accident Christians here have tried to persuade you. It’s not just caring that we’re right. We’d like everyone to enjoy this hope, and we’re told to share it.
1 Like
My apologies. But I’m not understanding your distinction here. Luke is saying that he talked to people who did see and know Jesus - who were his family members, companions and friends. How is that not the same as a modern eyewitness?
If that’s what you were getting at, then it appears you really do not understand what I am getting at.
If you really don’t care whether what you believe is actually true, or whether it can be demonstrated to be true, then we probably have nothing to discuss. I’m not interested in any attempts to try to sell me on Christianity. If it works for you, well, whatever. It doesn’t for me.
1 Like
Have you read the Old Testament? How many wives did Solomon have?
The point I am making is that you probably don’t accept alleged first hand accounts of the supernatural at face value, especially with the first hand accounts were written by the same people trying to found a religion based on those scriptures. I think we can all understand the conflicts of interest involved in such a venture.
I fully accept that you believe what is written in the New Testament, and I have absolutely no problem with it. What I am trying to convey is the reasons why some people have doubts.
2 Likes