The Gospel’s Witnesses “A Conversation”

[Tacitus would] go to the Roman records and see Christ was Crucified. He was a historian. That was his work. {...} Probably copies of it in the Tabularium right in Rome, as it is a complex empire, and will have records kept of the whole empire, on every official duty, wherever the central seat of Government is.

[B]oth of those [Josephus and Tacitus] wrote on the account of witnesses. {...}People from the time of Tacitus—when he was young—would have witnessed Christ. And why did Nero persecute Christians? It was because some of His followers saw Christ raised from the dead, and spread the religion like wildfire, and there were enough Christians there for Nero to persecute. Christ’s own brother died believing He was the Christ. That’s accounted in Josephus.

Tacitus hated Christians. There’s no way he believed any of it. But, he recorded Christ’s death, and that’s all that matters.

{...}Josephus did write the passage [pertaining to Christ]. There’s possibly a small Christian interpolation, but the bulk of the passage is original. It may just be all Josephus, too.

Luke actually does say the Gospel was written on Eyewitness accounts, and they don’t have to come out and say that. That’s stupid. We know who authored the Gospels. Papias leaves us a record of it, and it’s all through eyewitness. You assume they’re going to come right out and say “This is eyewitness account.” That’s silly. We know they were, based on the way they’re written, and their consistencies—and inconsistencies—with the other gospels.

No, the Authors didn’t witness all of it. Other people did. There were more than just the Gospel writers who were accounted in the witness testimony. Yes the Gospels are written from an Omniscient point of view, because it’s God’s word, and God is omniscient. Like the lady at the well, they learned it from her. When Jesus sweat blood, someone saw it. As the condition is a real medical condition that absolutely no one would have known about. Same with the water flowing from Christ’s wound, that’s a real medical condition too. It could only be Eyewitness report.

Well, there is a miraculous component to the world. So, Christ dying and raising from the dead, was an ultimate victory. For me at least.

Because Tacitus, though being a butthead, was a first rate historian, and would not say Christ was crucified unless he had verification of it. Yes, Josephus does [say James the LORD's brother was martyred]. He was martyred. That’s what Josephus says. Why do you get martyred?

{...}

“Josephus didn’t tell us what James believed.” Then what is implied in the fact that James was put to death? Like all [the] arguments are about thus, they give no credit where there ought to be any, and are simply dismissive of something that for all intents and purposes, are probably good historical accounts.

Papias says Mark wrote the Gospel through Peter’s testimony. What Mark could it be?{...}

Literally, I have the fragment sitting on my bookshelf. It can mean nothing, unless it is the Gospel writer of Mark.

[Also] the Gospels were being quoted around 80AD, meaning they were in copious circulation by then. We have quotations from Clement, and Polycarp, and Ignatius straight out of the Synoptic Gospels, not to mention the Didiche[.]{...}

And it’s James the LORD’s brother. You’re the one altering the texts. Not the Christians. By all means, I doubt you 100% if these are the best arguments you can come up with, are conspiracy theories and generally, the passage in Josephus is known to be pretty much 90% accurate, and may actually be his words. He may have had a moment where He believed in Christ. It was possible. People were converting like wildfire, but at the very least, it’s well known most of the passage is original. That’s just well known. And not to be disputed, because it’s in his diction. Not someone else’s.

{...}

Okay, so just let’s frame one of your arguments. “Eyewitnesses are in first person.” Not if the eyewitnesses were not the writer. The writer wrote what he heard from eyewitnesses. In the case of Matthew and John, most of that is compiled through other people who also knew Jesus, like the Woman at the Well or Mary and Joseph. It’s pretty simple, actually, to understand. You’re taking large sweeping jumps to avoid the fact, that the simplest answer is that the New Testament is true, and Jesus lived, and actually fulfilled hundreds of Old Testament prophecies, so the religion is real. That’s the only conclusion you can have. No other.

Maybe Jesus taught them about the Devil and Him. You know, Jesus did teach His disciples? He was called the “Word of God.” He did have a mouth. Who’d think of that? And when His own brother saw Him raised from the dead, James died believing it. As why else do you get martyred unless you believe on Jesus. They usually would keep you alive, if you denied the faith.

In the Garden of Gethsemane, maybe some peasant saw Him? Why is that so hard? He sweat blood, we know that, and nobody would think to make that up. You can’t. I bet you didn’t even know about hematohidrosis yourself, until I told you.

Actually, you’re the one inventing wild eyed conspiracy theories, and trying to reinterpret texts that have been in circulation through countless millennia. You’re the one altering the evidence. I’m simply telling you what I’ve learned. You’ve misrepresented every source I’ve showed you, you’ve reimagined it, in fact you’re doing what you accuse me of. Exactly what you accuse me of. Who’s really the religious fanatic here? The person who keeps putting words in Josephus’ mouth? The one who doesn’t think Tacitus did his job as a historian, and couldn’t but admit Christ died? The one who can’t figure out that the Gospel writers weren’t the only witnesses used?

It’s all quite plain to me.

“When therefore Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead; and Albinus was but upon the road. So he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James: and some others; [or, some of his companions.] And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.” Josephus Antiquity of the Jews Book XX.

The Jewish Law [is what's being referred to here]. And for what? For Blasphemy, because he was a Christian. That’s how he broke the law.

{...}[Also,] if it’s not the Mark who wrote our Gospel, why even say it? {...} [I]t’s right there. Right there. Why did James get stoned? Because he was a Christian and the Sanhedrin called it Blasphemy. It’s an enthymeme. Why did Papias say Mark wrote a gospel and so did Matthew, unless it’s the gospels of Matthew and Mark? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever [to say it couldn't have been those gospels and those authors].

Mark’s gospel is out of order. Some of the events are displaced among the narrative. It was constructed by his memory. It’s not like the crucifixion is going to end up in the beginning, and all that stuff. It’s so obvious it’s Mark who wrote that gospel. You take evidence and then say it’s not. When it obviously has to be, and couldn’t be anything but.

[The Gospel of Mark] would reflect Peter’s [memories of Jesus' teachings], [but not] put him in the center of a narrative about Jesus['s life]. Like, why would it? [So, i]t’s based on his memory. And the teachings Peter handed down to Mark.

There’s lots of quotations from as early as 70AD in the writings of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, and also Barnabas. I have them on my bookshelf. They were written in the first century, and everyone knows that.

Yes, Papias told us who wrote them, from John the Presbyter, who is John Son of Thunder, as a close reading of the text proves it to be, and Eusibius is just like you, putting into doubt something that really isn’t a question if you read the text carefully.

It can only be Jesus Christ.

[W]hen a Court Recorder puts down what a witness says, it’s still an account from a witness. Just think about what I’m saying. It makes perfect sense. The court recorder isn’t a witness, but the person on the bench is.

So you can’t believe because of miracles? That’s all you got. “There aren’t miracles, so the Gospels can’t be true.” When indeed, there are lots of miracles, and science has known that for a long time. And those contradictions show the gospels aren’t plagiarism, and are indeed written by different accounts from different eyewitnesses. Which is what a professional who works in eyewitness testimony says about it. [J. Warner Wallace]

[T]he simplest  is the Presbyter John knew Mark and Matthew, and told us who wrote their gospels and how.

I really don’t think [Josephus or Tacitus] [were] corrupted. I think that’s your last ditch effort to avoid the obvious fact. No reason to believe that [they're] not authentic. 

{...} They didn’t exactly have book stores back then. Especially ones that sold the gospel, as it would have been illegal. They had libraries, with scrolls, which you had to travel too, and they didn’t have real access to lots of books like we do today. And a peasant with their penury wouldn’t be able to afford a book, so likely Irenaeus and the rest were trying to establish a proper canon to protect the Gospel from Gnosticism, and what they had were ragtag scrolls circulating around at the time period. That’s why John had to write the Book of John, through Papias, as it says in surviving fragments.

Like, we know who wrote the Gospels, because of Papias. It’s the only thing that makes sense. And we know the Sanhedrin stoned James for the same reason, that it talks about him being Christ’s brother, and they’d stone him for blasphemy as it doesn’t have to be said by Josephus as it’s implied in the text. An Enthymeme is an important part of logic[.] {...} It just is. It can be the only logical conclusions to have, about those two things. Calculus is an Enthymeme.

{...}Macrion or what have you, it wasn’t published at book stores, and likely Irenaeus and the rest of them wanted an established Canon, and found the books written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—as John was written on the word of mouth by John through Papias—and through John they established the canon of Paul’s letters and the other epistles, and also the Gospel [and Revelation]