Mythicist Representations of Jesus in Ancient & Medieval Art

[Mental flatliner]

The gospels are probably not primary sources. Why do you accept them if you go by that standard?

Actually, they are primary sources.

There's no rational reason to believe otherwise.

[Stephan Huller]

So when did you decide to uncanonize John? Does that mean you reject everything from that gospel or just stuff that gets in your way in an internet forum?

[Andrew]

Mental, give me a verse in which one of the gospel writers claims to be a witness. Then we'll believe you. It's very easy for you to prove us wrong if you're right. However, I haven't come across anything in the gospels which leads me to believe that they are first hand accounts.

[Mental flatliner]

Mental, give me a verse in which one of the gospel writers claims to be a witness. Then we'll believe you. It's very easy for you to prove us wrong if you're right. However, I haven't come across anything in the gospels which leads me to believe that they are first hand accounts.

Are you kidding me?

Haven't you read them?

[Andrew]

I have, many times, and have not come across evidence that they are eyewitness accounts. They seem to me to be secondary source accounts, using eyewitnesses for their information. Demonstrate that they are eyewitness accounts if it's so obvious.

[Mental flatliner]

I have, many times, and have not come across evidence that they are eyewitness accounts. They seem to me to be secondary source accounts, using eyewitnesses for their information. Demonstrate that they are eyewitness accounts if it's so obvious.

Then how could you have missed Luke's opening lines?

How could you have missed the dozen or so times John claimed to have witness the events he wrote about?

I'm sorry, but you're either being stupid or you've never read them.

[Andrew]

Give me a quote please.

[Mental flatliner]

Give me a quote please.

Yep, you're being stupid.

[Andrew]

Am I? You claim that Luke claims he is an eyewitness. Have you read the opening lines of Luke? He tells us that he is not an eyewitness, not that he is. Here is Luke 1:1-4:

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

Let me see you quote the relevant verses in John. I did my part by quoting Luke and proving you wrong.

[Mental flatliner]

Am I? You claim that Luke claims he is an eyewitness. Have you read the opening lines of Luke? He tells us that he is not an eyewitness, not that he is. Here is Luke 1:1-4:

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

Let me see you quote the relevant verses in John. I did my part by quoting Luke and proving you wrong.

Okay, I'll give you both:

Luke 1:1-4 states that he himself followed the developments during Jesus' ministry in real time, and he claims that his gospel is based on written accounts that he himself verified.

John 21:24 identifies John as both the writer of the gospel and as an eye-witness.