Jump to content

Dr. Peter Williams New Evidence For Gospel Being Accurate Via Name Correlations


TheBluegrassSkeptic
 Share

Recommended Posts

I found this an interesting headline to bite into. And, I could only handle about the first 30 minutes of his WLC style voice love.

 

Still, I did manage to CC it and READ...

 

I found several problems here, and even he admits that he can't prove any of this, but I feel he went to far in his extrapolations... Very interesting, sadly, he only correlated name frequency where he wanted to prove the story was really from Israel. Why didn't he bother to correlate the name frequency within the countries where these stories are generally agreed to have been written? I'll tell you why. They match up over there as well. He is not allowing for the translation of the names in...to other languages. And this is important because the bible is filled with names that are TRANSLATED. Another problem is, the translation for all these "names" in different earlier versions of the jesus story in other cultures, you know Horus and such...they match as well if I use his logic. Also, let's not forget he wasn't literally called JESUS CHRIST in any of the texts. Again, translation at work he blatantly ignores that issue. He compared these names to Egypt, but didn't translate the Egyptian names. WTH? More importantly, he admits that this isn't really evidence because he can't prove any of it, though it is enticing line of thought, he needs to take his process further before stating it is evidence. This is hypothesis and I am going to see if he has a paper written on this to better understand his sources. He was very vague and rather salacious more than anything. They had the stories straight for Zeus and Osirus and Horus. They didn't keep the birth story straight or his resurrection straight. So I think saying that just because they kept some of the names straight and a couple stories seemed to match up doesn't really add weight. He totally ignores the stories that didn't match up at all. And the word counting bit....OMG...made me want to bang my head on a wall....

 

 

Must find his paper on this....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Well I haven't watched his video(I only lasted 5 minutes), and I am not entirely sure I care to considering some well known facts about the bible that even some members of the christian community accept.

 

Namely, Matthew and Luke can't be eyewitness's by default because they rely on Q (not saying I agree with the Q hypothesis here, I am just talking the suitation in regards to the gospels that leads to the Q hypothesis) and they also rely on Mark. Eyewitnesses couldn't do that.

 

Also the gospel of John, while potentially relying on eyewitness testimony, shows details, like say, the first chapter of john being a rip off of philo. The usually author, attributed to the gospel of john wouldn't have either known or probably cared about such things.

 

Also if matthew and john were both apostles then there accounts wouldn't countradict is such extreme ways.

 

Mark has a interesting self countradiction, that i have noticed, that of course a jewish writer would have avoided I suspect.

 

Mark says that all the sanhedrin condemned jesus to death. Yet he also says that Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin but was said to be a friend of the lord. Also Ehrman, makes a case for why, the gospel of mark couldn't be written by the traditional author just the same as he does for the rest. I am not sure, how saying, detail a and b and c, makes the gospels based of eyewitness is anything more then a sort of composition fallacy of a sort. Sure, the names may correlate, but that doesn't say anything other then the names correlation. If say ehrman, or someone like him, accurately points out details saying that, there is no way that the gospels could be written by the traditional authors, then all we have left is a wierd name correlation. You can't really have one without disproving the other. And correctly naming a pot or having corrrect names, is a bit like the story doctor zhivago naming a corrected town or correct building.

 

Now, are you going to argue that the gospels were based of eyewitness testimony. That is purely speculative. They are at worst for the believer third hand sources, and at best second hand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that this fellow never mentioned that Paul, who was supposed to have written his epistles years before the gospels, never refers to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth" or ever mentions Nazareth.

The gospels document a famous miracle worker specifically called "Jesus of Nazareth".

Paul somehow manages to omit this formal named title, leaves out the miracles, makes no mention of Nazareth, and manages to claim that over 500 believers saw the resurrected Jesus, when according to Luke the size of the church at that time was only 120 believers.

The Book of Acts also claims that the resurrected Jesus only appeared to cult members, which limits validation of the resurrection to the confines of cult tradition.

As mentioned by zomberina, the gospels contain internal inconsistencies, aka contradictions that are simply ignored in his presentation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Luke was supposedly also a follower of paul. Its hard to believe that, Luke wouldn't find, one of pauls biggest apologetics, convincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luke was supposedly also a follower of paul. Its hard to believe that, Luke wouldn't find, one of pauls biggest apologetics, convincing.

Good point.

Luke also says in his gospel preamble that he is not an eyewitness but is relying on stories told to him.

He never mentions Paul, which leaves us with two men that are not eyewitnesses.

One(Luke) is passing along information given to him by unidentified cult members, and the other one(Paul) claims to have obtained his information by a dreamy divine revelation.

The bulk of the New Testament is attributed to Paul, not Matthew, Mark, or John.

The so-called eyewitness testimony is meager at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luke was supposedly also a follower of paul. Its hard to believe that, Luke wouldn't find, one of pauls biggest apologetics, convincing.

Good point.

Luke also says in his gospel preamble that he is not an eyewitness but is relying on stories told to him.

He never mentions Paul, which leaves us with two men that are not eyewitnesses.

One(Luke) is passing along information given to him by unidentified cult members, and the other one(Paul) claims to have obtained his information by a dreamy divine revelation.

The bulk of the New Testament is attributed to Paul, not Matthew, Mark, or John.

The so-called eyewitness testimony is meager at best.

 

IIRC, Paul never mentions the Damascus laser light show. That is told by the author of acts only. Paul said he learned of god's son only by way of scripture study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New evidence.eek.gif the book is almost 2000 years old.

 

i never knew until after i stopped believing that you could make a really good case for jesus never existing. certainly there were some fakers running around but the supposed son of god (who people had trouble recognizing) might not have really come here. the bibles documentation almost favors the idea that people tried to cobble a story together much later in history. its an interesting topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luke was supposedly also a follower of paul. Its hard to believe that, Luke wouldn't find, one of pauls biggest apologetics, convincing.

Good point.

Luke also says in his gospel preamble that he is not an eyewitness but is relying on stories told to him.

He never mentions Paul, which leaves us with two men that are not eyewitnesses.

One(Luke) is passing along information given to him by unidentified cult members, and the other one(Paul) claims to have obtained his information by a dreamy divine revelation.

The bulk of the New Testament is attributed to Paul, not Matthew, Mark, or John.

The so-called eyewitness testimony is meager at best.

 

IIRC, Paul never mentions the Damascus laser light show. That is told by the author of acts only. Paul said he learned of god's son only by way of scripture study.

That's true, only Luke mentions the light show.

Paul claimed to have had dreamy revelations in 2 Cor 12:1.

 

He also claimed to have received his "knowledge" directly from divine providence.

 

Gal 1:11-12

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

So much for Paul being an eyewitness to the gospel character "Jesus of Nazareth".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luke was supposedly also a follower of paul. Its hard to believe that, Luke wouldn't find, one of pauls biggest apologetics, convincing.

Good point.

Luke also says in his gospel preamble that he is not an eyewitness but is relying on stories told to him.

He never mentions Paul, which leaves us with two men that are not eyewitnesses.

One(Luke) is passing along information given to him by unidentified cult members, and the other one(Paul) claims to have obtained his information by a dreamy divine revelation.

The bulk of the New Testament is attributed to Paul, not Matthew, Mark, or John.

The so-called eyewitness testimony is meager at best.

 

IIRC, Paul never mentions the Damascus laser light show. That is told by the author of acts only. Paul said he learned of god's son only by way of scripture study.

That's true, only Luke mentions the light show.

Paul claimed to have had dreamy revelations in 2 Cor 12:1.

 

He also claimed to have received his "knowledge" directly from divine providence.

 

Gal 1:11-12

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

So much for Paul being an eyewitness to the gospel character "Jesus of Nazareth".

 

if it was a revelation to paul and he converted in 34AD then god and paul are not on the same page about what revelation is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I looked more into it as he did say he had something "revealed to him" BY JC in Galatians. Mostly he talks about scripture revealing JC tho.

 

So maybe he had an hallucination/vision/whatever. He's not specific. So we'll never really know what Galatians 1 is hinting at. But i still think Damascus was an embellishment of whatever that "revelation" was. I'm pretty confident Paul got his information about the supposed JC from scripture study, along with Hellenistic ideas that were floating around at that place an time. Of you go to Loftus' blog and go down the page a little bit, there's a link I a video by Richard Carrier that explains it better. Syncretism of Hellenism and judaism basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, on some levels, I get the impression the whole entirety of Paul's works weren't necessarily to preach about Jesus, but to kind of go into more of what was expected of us and from God. Either way, I think it is an oral history that once written, you realize it should've stayed an oral history. I think that is why there are so many "similar" accounts of things, but at the same time so many errors. I've had some tell me that the whole reason JC's birth was different in the two accounts was because it was coming from two different perspectives......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

You know, on some levels, I get the impression the whole entirety of Paul's works weren't necessarily to preach about Jesus, but to kind of go into more of what was expected of us and from God. Either way, I think it is an oral history that once written, you realize it should've stayed an oral history. I think that is why there are so many "similar" accounts of things, but at the same time so many errors. I've had some tell me that the whole reason JC's birth was different in the two accounts was because it was coming from two different perspectives......

Sure, but its seems to me, people who make the claim, ohhh its was just oral tradition and it was rock solid seem to me to miss the point of the words "our scripture is god breathed." It seems who ever came up with that old canard got the point possibly for the wrong reasons. Human testimony sucks, particularly when you got to sake your soul on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm tellin y'all. In 50-100 years, the idea that Jesus was an actual historical figure will be the minority opinion amOng scholars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

I'm tellin y'all. In 50-100 years, the idea that Jesus was an actual historical figure will be the minority opinion amOng scholars.

That would shock the shit out of me.

 

From what I know about, the history of the historical jesus studies thing. I suspect people will be going back and forth for the next thousand years on if there is actually a case for the historical jesus or his resurrection and that stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm tellin y'all. In 50-100 years, the idea that Jesus was an actual historical figure will be the minority opinion amOng scholars.

That would shock the shit out of me.

 

From what I know about, the history of the historical jesus studies thing. I suspect people will be going back and forth for the next thousand years on if there is actually a case for the historical jesus or his resurrection and that stuff.

For me, proving JC existed wouldn't be earth shattering. It still doesn't validate all the happenings attributed to him. At most, I would regard him as a philosopher who some idolized and went wild with, much like Buddah....but with more disturbing back history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

I'm tellin y'all. In 50-100 years, the idea that Jesus was an actual historical figure will be the minority opinion amOng scholars.

That would shock the shit out of me.

 

From what I know about, the history of the historical jesus studies thing. I suspect people will be going back and forth for the next thousand years on if there is actually a case for the historical jesus or his resurrection and that stuff.

For me, proving JC existed wouldn't be earth shattering. It still doesn't validate all the happenings attributed to him. At most, I would regard him as a philosopher who some idolized and went wild with, much like Buddah....but with more disturbing back history.

Yeah I have never cared about the, is there a historical jesus.

 

I have always thought there miracles were way more important. Low and behold historian non wanks usually know better then to ever call miracles reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul's writings, the earliest xian ones, say zilch about any earthly details about Jesus' life. (there are maybe a handful of verses in all his letters that may SEEM to suggest it, but they are ambiguous, can be taken in different ways, or could be interpolations- they are by far the exception, not the rule). Plus, most of the aspects of this vague Christ tale are ripoffs from older sacrificial dying god cults- virtually nothing in Paul's xianity is original. I could go into much greater detail, but it is sufficient to say that the religion started as the worship of a heavenly deity that experienced his "passion" in the heavenly realms, and only later was this story historicized and placed on earth. If there was really an empty tomb, it would have been venerated. There was no such thing until centuries later, when the church "found" (read: created) the tomb site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An historical Jesus would just be some crazy cult leader living on the fringe of a Roman colony. It doesn't mean his teachings are reflected in the Bible, nor that he was legitimate nor anything else. All it means is that the myth got started from a legend rather than from pure fiction. I imagine there were many crazy cult leaders named Yeshua or Joshua. It was a common name and a common profession in that culture.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An historical Jesus would just be some crazy cult leader living on the fringe of a Roman colony. It doesn't mean his teachings are reflected in the Bible, nor that he was legitimate nor anything else. All it means is that the myth got started from a legend rather than from pure fiction. I imagine there were many crazy cult leaders named Yeshua or Joshua. It was a common name and a common profession in that culture.

I totally have this same sense of things about the whole situation. With that said, I'm about the only one who is willing to talk about that fact outside of here. LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.