There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Sumadji]

I'm not arguing for gospel inerrancy. But the overall picture of the NT, including the Johannine and Pauline writings, the Eucharist and the Resurrection were there from the earliest times. Paul was the first Christian writer, within about two years after the death of Christ, according to Ehrman.

It can't all be dismissed as nonsense by a few new atheists posting on social media without an appreciation of deeper issues.

 

[Kenny]

You are only describing yourself again. You use lying pseudoscholars. Real scholars have to properly support their claims. Just as real scientists have to support their claims. That is why apologists do not tend to publish in peer reviewed journals. Not only are they too easily shown to be wrong by just the reviewers. If they did actually get past the first step of peer review, and that is getting published, just as in the sciences, other experts in the field would check out their claims and refute them if they were wrong. There is no peer review in apologetics. As long as one seems to make a good case for Jesus it is accepted, even if it does not quite match the arguments of others.

That is why you lost the challenge to show that I was wrong about the two birth years of Jesus in the Bible. The historical evidence supported my views. All that you could find was the work of those willing to lie for Jesus. You could not find any scholars.

And just as real scientists do not think that the work in creationist journals is worth their time to refute, real scholars ignore apologetics too. If they enter into a debate it is done academically.

You are only showing your colors again. Real scholars support their claims with truth and not “modern interpretations”. Real scholars actually look at all the information and not just using “modern liberal interpretation at the expense of historical data. That is why real scholars (not apologists) have the evidence on their side and not simply submit “personal interpretations” to their “peer reviewers of like mind” and/or “itchy ears doctor shopping.

That is why you haven’t given any real proof that supports your position.

So, you might want to slow down your flat-earth style of anti-Christ positions that ignore hard data.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are only showing your colors again. Real scholars support their claims with truth and not “modern interpretations”. Real scholars actually look at all the information and not just using “modern liberal interpretation at the expense of historical data. That is why real scholars (not apologists) have the evidence on their side and not simply submit “personal interpretations” to their “peer reviewers of like mind” and/or “itchy ears doctor shopping.

That is why you haven’t given any real proof that supports your position.

So, you might want to slow down your flat-earth style of anti-Christ positions that ignore hard data.

No, you do not get to judge what is "truth". That is a conclusion one reaches based upon evidence. Real scholarship is evidence based. Just as real science is evidence based. You know that the evidence is against you that is why you have to pretend to have the truth. You do not get to claim to have that any more than I do. What is true is best judged by what is supported by evidence. If one cannot properly support one's claims then the statement "we use truth" is meaningless hogwash. If a Muslim tried to use that on you to support the Quran you would be all over him.

And please, modern translations are not "liberal". That is name calling and is a poisoning the well fallacy. An actual debate has to be supported by evidence. Not name calling. I do that myself a bit when I call apologists "Liars for Jesus" but that is a conclusion I have drawn by observing their behavior. When I get serious I demand evidence and provide evidence that scholars have found.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fair enough. Thank you.

To take it on a step: regardless of eye-witness accounts ...

If the purpose is to dismiss the gospels, or the power and influence of Jesus, it's not sufficient, imo. There's a common thread from multiple independent sources.

Regarding the earlier Q, M and L sources, and those of John and Acts, they are accepted by scholars who know the subject well?

The sources are not "independent". You cannot claim that when both Matthew and Luke copy large portions of Mark. And it appears that the author of John knew of the other Gospels as well. And you forgot who makes the claim of "The Gospels are eyewitness testimony". That is what some Christians do when they want to support their faith. That fact is that they are wrong. If anyone should be criticized it would be those Christians.

 

[John D. Brey]

Go ahead and try to prove what he said was false. Otherwise you should not make the claim.

. . . If I were to dip my toe into the water to test the temperature before jumping into the thread, I'd point out that there's every reason to believe that Luke is the author of Acts and Luke, since the intro to the two letters presuppose Luke as the author of them both. Paul's letters mention Luke as being with Paul throughout Paul's missionary journeys. Consequently, Peter, Paul and John (not to be confused with Peter, Paul, and Mary), are all contemporary evangelists crossing (so to say) each other's paths throughout missionary acts recorded in Acts.

This implies, with very strong historicity, that Luke interacted with Peter and John (at least), as well as Paul, who, Paul, was no stranger to Peter and John (at least), such that what Luke writes in the Gospel of Luke comes from the eyewitness accounts of Peter and John (at least), therein making Luke a compendium of eyewitness accounts of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth, whom I'm proud to proclaim as my personal Lord and Savior, his life-story echoing down through the corridors of time to catch me in my sins even as I was seeking some thing or one to redeem me from them.



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

. . . If I were to dip my toe into the water to test the temperature before jumping into the thread, I'd point out that there's every reason to believe that Luke is the author of Acts and Luke, since the intro to the two letters presuppose Luke as the author of them both. Paul's letters mention Luke as being with Paul throughout Paul's missionary journeys. Consequently, Peter, Paul and John (not to be confused with Peter, Paul, and Mary), are all contemporary evangelists crossing (so to say) each other's paths throughout missionary acts recorded in Acts.

This implies, with very strong historicity, that Luke interacted with Peter and John (at least), as well as Paul, who, Paul, was no stranger to Peter and John (at least), such that what Luke writes in the Gospel of Luke comes from the eyewitness accounts of Peter and John (at least), therein making Luke a compendium of eyewitness accounts of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth whom I'm proud to proclaim as my personal Lord and Savior, his life-story echoing down through the corridors of time to catch me in my sins as even as I was seeking some thing or one to redeem me from them.



John

Wait a second, where is this "intro"? I must have missed that. It also seems that those that have studied this the most intensely disagree with you.

 

[John D. Brey]

Wait a second, where is this "intro"? I must have missed that. It also seems that those that have studied this the most intensely disagree with you.

FORASMUCH as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.​

​

Luke 1:1-4.​

The author of Luke addresses the letter to the "most excellent Theophilus." ----In the intro he says that he has had perfect understanding of all these things from the very first, implying that he had a front row seat to all that's expounded in the letter.

THE former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God​

​

Acts 1:1-3.​

The "former treatise have I made, O Theophilus" appears to be the Gospel of Luke. And in this latter treatise, Acts, we have Paul's beloved physician, Luke, recounting his journeys with his close companion Paul. In these missionary journeys, Luke and Paul encounter Peter, John, and Mark, more than once (Mark being the author of another of the Gospels). This Peter and John knew Jesus and his mother Mary very well, such that Luke and Paul had direct and intimate knowledge of persons who had direct and intimate knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Gospel of Luke, and the Acts (written by Luke), make up almost a full third of the entire New Testament. When you realize that the Gospel of Mark is written by one of the missionaries found as a companion of Luke and Paul in the Acts, and that two other notable missionaries in this close group, John and Peter, are the writers of five other New Testament epistles, another Gospel (John's), and the book of Revelation (also written by John), it becomes perfectly apparent that this small group of missionaries are the primary source not only for the Gospels (only Matthew being exempted from this close cadre), but that something like ninety percent of the entire New Testament is written by a close cadre of men at least two of whom journeyed, ate, slept, and spoke with Jesus, Mary, Martha, and the other disciples of the Lord. Peter and John saw and spoke with the risen Lord, and then spoke directly, forcefully, and frequently, with Paul, Luke, and Mark.

Whenever anyone reads the Gospels, Acts, or the New Testament in general, they're being transported through a literary vehicle into the very center of the inner sanctum of men who both knew, loved, and were mostly martyred for, their love of God.



John

 

[Kenny]

No, you do not get to judge what is "truth". That is a conclusion one reaches based upon evidence. Real scholarship is evidence based. Just as real science is evidence based. You know that the evidence is against you that is why you have to pretend to have the truth. You do not get to claim to have that any more than I do. What is true is best judged by what is supported by evidence. If one cannot properly support one's claims then the statement "we use truth" is meaningless hogwash. If a Muslim tried to use that on you to support the Quran you would be all over him.

EXACTLY! you do not get to judge what is "truth". That is a conclusion one reaches based upon evidence. Real scholarship is evidence based. Your pseudo-scholars interpretations that refuse the historical evidence does not properly support their position. You can drink the kiilaid if you want, I just know better.

And please, modern translations are not "liberal".

Please quote me where I said that?

That is name calling and is a poisoning the well fallacy. An actual debate has to be supported by evidence. Not name calling. I do that myself a bit when I call apologists "Liars for Jesus" but that is a conclusion I have drawn by observing their behavior. When I get serious I demand evidence and provide evidence that scholars have found.

Is this the pot calling the kettle black?

When I get serious (which it seems like you aren’t) I demand evidence of which you have given me none that are reputable.

 

[blü 2]

Berkeley did say, to be, is to be conceived or perceived, i.e., reality itself is a conceptual phenomenon. The physicist John Wheeler said reality is a participatory phenomenon. Nothing is, until it's perceived, conceived, conceptualized. God included.

But God never appears, never says, never does, lets little children drown, sits on those omnipotent hands while bad people murder good people &c.

In other words, [he] behaves exactly as [he] would if [he] were imaginary, notional, purely conceptual.

Schopenhauer said the limits our thoughts are the limits of our world. The reality of our world, the boundaries that circumscribe our world, are conceptual, personal, and real. If God isn't a conceptual, personal, real, part of our world that's our own fault.

How does that differ from saying, 'If Mickey Mouse isn't a conceptual,personal, real, part of our world, that's our own fault'?

Anthropology is the study of man. Since Christ is incarnate, since God is man, yes, anthropology is a full subset of theology.

Alternatively, as Alexander Pope put it,

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is man.​

That might save a lot of time.

 

[John D. Brey]

But God never appears, never says, never does, lets little children drown, sits on those omnipotent hands while bad people murder good people &c. . . In other words, [he] behaves exactly as [he] would if [he] were imaginary, notional, purely conceptual.

Yes. He's definitely exiled from our world to some extent. But fear not. He still controls history. Things are moving, slowly (from our perspective), toward the world where his glory and grace and wisdom shines forth to everyone and where everyone will confess his name.

Instead of contrasting the present as you see it with the future, should you not rather understand your present itself in light of this future, as a bridge within yourself of chastisement, of trial, of training, and, having thus grasped its significance, endure to the end this transitional stage while holding fast to God’s truth.​

​

Rabbi Hirsch, Horeb, Section 1, p. 32.​

How does that differ from saying, 'If Mickey Mouse isn't a conceptual,personal, real, part of our world, that's our own fault'?

It doesn't differ that much. -----Imagine a father who refuses to allow his kids to watch Mickey Mouse because, as he says, he (Micky Mouse) doesn't exist, is a cartoon, etc. etc.. In my opinion, a father like that could stunt the natural and happy growth of his children while other kids are allowed to experience Mickey Mouse as a child experiences Mickey Mouse and thus develop naturally and in a healthy environment. . . . Think of the father whose kids don't get gifts from Santa because, as he tells them, Santa is a lie.

If God, like Mickey Mouse (or Santa Clause), wasn't a natural, healthy, phenomenon, then atheists would surely outnumber theists. If God, like Mickey Mouse, wasn't a natural, healthy phenomenon, then the Soviet Union, and Communist China, would likely be the bastion of happiness, wealth, and prosperity, rather than the USA, which, the latter, is the most bible-thumping collection of Jesus freaks and odd assortment of theists the world has ever known.



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

FORASMUCH as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.​

​

Luke 1:1-4.​

The author of Luke addresses the letter to the "most excellent Theophilus." ----In the intro he says that he has had perfect understanding of all these things from the very first, implying that he had a front row seat to all that's expounded in the letter.

THE former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God​

​

Acts 1:1-3.​

The "former treatise have I made, O Theophilus" appears to be the Gospel of Luke. And in this latter treatise, Acts, we have Paul's beloved physician, Luke, recounting his journeys with his close companion Paul. In these missionary journeys, Luke and Paul encounter Peter, John, and Mark, more than once (Mark being the author of another of the Gospels). This Peter and John knew Jesus and his mother Mary very well, such that Luke and Paul had direct and intimate knowledge of persons who had direct and intimate knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Gospel of Luke, and the Acts (written by Luke), make up almost a full third of the entire New Testament. When you realize that the Gospel of Mark is written by one of the missionaries found as a companion of Luke and Paul in the Acts, and that two other notable missionaries in this close group, John and Peter, are the writers of five other New Testament epistles, another Gospel (John's), and the book of Revelation (also written by John), it becomes perfectly apparent that this small group of missionaries are the primary source not only for the Gospels (only Matthew being exempted from this close cadre), but that something like ninety percent of the entire New Testament is written by a close cadre of men at least two of whom journeyed, ate, slept, and spoke with Jesus, Mary, Martha, and the other disciples of the Lord. Peter and John saw and spoke with the risen Lord, and then spoke directly, forcefully, and frequently, with Paul, Luke, and Mark.

Whenever anyone reads the Gospels, Acts, or the New Testament in general, they're being transported through a literary vehicle into the very center of the inner sanctum of men who both knew, loved, and were mostly martyred for, their love of God.



John

Yes, both works were probably written by the same person. But that hardly points to Luke. The time period when they were written does not appear to apply to the companion of Paul. It s quite the stretch to try to get that from a name that has been interpreted in many ways. From my understanding it was probably written too late to be by Luke.

 

[Subduction Zone]

EXACTLY! you do not get to judge what is "truth". That is a conclusion one reaches based upon evidence. Real scholarship is evidence based. Your pseudo-scholars interpretations that refuse the historical evidence does not properly support their position. You can drink the kiilaid if you want, I just know better.

And neither do you. You do not seem to understand that those that are most likely to be closest to the truth are those that try to solve problems without prejudice, and are checked by people without prejudice. You still have a very flawed concept of peer review. And all of your accusations are admissions. You cannot even contemplate being wrong. That puts you at a huge self imposed disadvantage.

Please quote me where I said that?

Have you forgotten so soon? You keep calling all modern scholars "liberal".

Is this the pot calling the kettle black?

When I get serious (which it seems like you aren’t) I demand evidence of which you have given me none that are reputable.

No, I already explained this to you. But as usual, you did not listen. That may be your problem. You do not even seem to listen to yourself.

 

[John D. Brey]

Yes, both works were probably written by the same person. But that hardly points to Luke. The time period when they were written does not appear to apply to the companion of Paul. It s quite the stretch to try to get that from a name that has been interpreted in many ways. From my understanding it was probably written too late to be by Luke.

In Colossians, Timothy, and Philemon, Paul mentions Luke as one of the inner core of those who are part of his ministry. Luke is one of the close associates of Paul as he travels and starts his churches. Others Paul mentions are Peter, John, Mark, Barnabas, all of whom are mentioned throughout Acts. How peculiar then that Luke, one of the closest associates of Paul (Paul calls him his dear physician) isn't mentioned one time throughout Acts. It's almost as though he, Luke, is narrating?



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

In Colossians, Timothy, and Philemon, Paul mentions Luke as one of the inner core of those who are part of his ministry. Luke is one of the close associates of Paul as he travels and starts his churches. Others Paul mentions are Peter, John, Mark, Barnabas, all of whom are mentioned throughout Acts. How peculiar then that Luke, one of the closest associates of Paul (Paul calls him his dear physician) isn't mentioned one time throughout Acts. It's almost as though he, Luke, is narrating?



John

Yes, we know that Luke was a traveling partner of Paul's. No one denies that. Why even bring it up. Have you checked into why scholars do not think that Luke was the author of Luke? Do you have any idea how long it was before that Gospel was even called the Gospel of Luke?

Let me help you a bit. Wikipedia is very often a good starting point since they name, and often link sources. You forgot that about half of the letters of Paul were not written by Paul. Yes, Paul does mention Luke in one of his genuine letters, but the "doctor" claim was from a letter not written by him. Colossians was one of the letters that probably was not written by Paul. That does not help your case very much. You might want to read and consider this:

Authorship of Luke–Acts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But even if Luke was the author of Luke you are still SOL. Luke makes it rather clear that he was not an eyewitness. In fact it appears that he did not even talk to any eyewitnesses. Luke is a book of hearsay according to the author.

 

[blü 2]

If God, like Mickey Mouse (or Santa Clause), wasn't a natural, healthy, phenomenon, then atheists would surely outnumber theists.

I think that misjudges the role of gods in contributing to tribal solidarity, not so different from football teams having animals &c as mascots. Gods used to explain the inexplicable too, like thunder and lightning, drought, plague, luck in war or love or whatever. Along with language, customs, stories, heroes and territory they were part of each tribesman's identity, allowing solidarity and the rewards of cooperative action.

 

[Sumadji]

The sources are not "independent". You cannot claim that when both Matthew and Luke copy large portions of Mark. And it appears that the author of John knew of the other Gospels as well.

I think that Matthew had access to Mark's account when he was writing his, but also his own independent sources to add to it, and that Luke had access to the writings of both Mark and Matthew, along with his own sources.

Whether or not the writer of John’s Gospel had access to the three synoptics may be a matter for scholars. He doesn't seem to make much use of them however. There is evidence for an earlier origin of John’s gospel, perhaps earlier than Mark.

John reached its final form around AD 90–110, although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier.
Wiki: Gospel of John

Again this is a matter for experts. But it’s clear they do accept the Q, L and M sources, as well as independent sources for John and Acts.

So the other two synoptic gospels did not simply take off on Mark and add their own invented embellishments. Not denying some 'poetic liberty' may exist. The lack of direct eyewitness testimony, perhaps or perhaps not, cannot be used to just dismiss the validity of the gospels and the NT

 

[1213]

...but he didn't have direct access to any eyewitnesses.

Even if so, Bible claims they were eyewitness accounts, which is why it can be said that also Gospel of Luke is an eyewitness account, according to the Bible. I understand that people can think it is not true. My point is only to say that it is what the Bible claims.

 

[1213]

Argument from ignorance / incredulity

Do you mean what you said was argument from ignorance? It sure looks like that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you mean what you said was argument from ignorance? It sure looks like that.

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

In reality, off course, I was referring to this part of your post:


I believe they are eyewitness stories, because it is more difficult for me to believe someone just made up the whole thing.

ie: my justification for believing X is true, is not believing X is false
Textbook argument from incredulity (a species from argument from ignorance)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even if so, Bible claims they were eyewitness accounts, which is why it can be said that also Gospel of Luke is an eyewitness account, according to the Bible. I understand that people can think it is not true. My point is only to say that it is what the Bible claims.

It's an eyewitness account even though the author of Luke tells us that he wasn't an eyewitness? You're using a different meaning of "eyewitness account" than the rest of us.

In any other situation, would you call a story told by one person who heard it from another person who heard it from someone who says that they saw the thing for themselves an "eyewitness account"?