There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Luke specifically tells us that his is not an eyewitness account.

 

[George-ananda]

The New Testament was written by people who were not eye witnesses to Jesus.

There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament. The four gospels were written and circulated anonymously and the traditional authorship was secondarily assigned towards the end of the second century CE. There is not a single first person claim to being an eye witness to Jesus' life.

Given what I said above, which is explained in the video below, what logical reason would anyone have to believe that the Gospels are an accurate depiction of the life of Jesus? Why should we believe that what these anonymous authors wrote about Jesus is true?

Oral testimonies passed down from his life and maybe lost even written testimonies are still very important to consider.

My overall assessment is that much of the gospels is true events and teachings, but with interpretation and author's intent as things that have to be considered also.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oral testimonies passed down from his life and maybe lost even written testimonies are still very important to consider.

1. Oral testimonies are passes down from his life are important to consider.
2. Oral testimonies maybe lost cannot be considered because they are lost.
3. Apologetics penned by apologists decades after the fact should be considered as such.

My overall assessment is that much of the gospels is true events and teachings,

I suspect that this is not an informed and unbiased assessment at all but, rather, a faith position, which is perfectly OK. What it is not, is compelling.

 

[George-ananda]

1. Oral testimonies are passes down from his life are important to consider.
2. Oral testimonies maybe lost cannot be considered because they are lost.
3. Apologetics penned by apologists decades after the fact should be considered as such.

Stating the obvious,

I suspect that this is not an informed and unbiased assessment at all but, rather, a faith position, which is perfectly OK. What it is not, is compelling.

I am not a Christian even but expressing my very considered opinion that I consider fair, informed and unbiased even if you don't, Mr. Grouch. I have no motive to bias things for any conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Matthew may have written an account, but it was supposedly in Aramaic. The Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Koine Greek by someone classically trained in that language. In other words, not Matthew. And yes, at that late date for John it was clearly not written by John. Perhaps an earlier work was written by John, but again, that would not be the Gospel that you are familiar with. It too was written in Koine Greek by a person classically trained in that language. The disciples were all rather simple people.

The Gospels also have some significant differences between them. Matthew and Luke differ on the year of Jesus birth by ten years at least. John has very different times for when Jesus was tried and crucified. They all disagree on who was their a day and a half, not three days, later.

There is one more point that defenders of Christianity seem to keep themselves ignorant of. That is that the Gospels all underwent an approval process. If they did not toe the party line they were rejected. There were countless gospels before Christianity was accepted by Rome and an official state version was formed. The four gospels they chose do appear to have been the most popular ones, but does that make them right/ But since they went through the selection process and were approved one can no longer claim that they are "independent". Perhaps you could if competing gospels had not been banned and destroyed in at least some cases. But that happened. That means that they are not independent.

 

[Sumadji]

Matthew may have written an account, but it was supposedly in Aramaic. The Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Koine Greek by someone classically trained in that language. In other words, not Matthew. And yes, at that late date for John it was clearly not written by John. Perhaps an earlier work was written by John, but again, that would not be the Gospel that you are familiar with. It too was written in Koine Greek by a person classically trained in that language. The disciples were all rather simple people.

The Gospels also have some significant differences between them. Matthew and Luke differ on the year of Jesus birth by ten years at least. John has very different times for when Jesus was tried and crucified. They all disagree on who was their a day and a half, not three days, later.

All this is understood. It's given that the apostles did not themselves write the final versions of the gospels named after them. Disagreements indicate independent sources. It helps make up the bigger picture and actually enhances authenticity.

There is debate about an earlier Hebrew version of Matthew.

I didn't imply that an earlier origin for John was written by the apostle of that name. He was probably an unlettered Galilean fisherman. The implications is that the alleged eyewitness origin, as told to someone who could write of the Johannine school, by the 'disciple whom Jesus loved' is quite possible, with an earlier origin.

 

[Kenny]

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.

Obviously, your deduction is based on your prejudice and all your accusations and statements are admissions that it is so without even contemplating that you are wrong.

You are quite at a disadvantage when your best defense is a strong offense.

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

Then why did you mention “translations”? Have you forgotten already the context of what I said?

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.

You haven’t really explained mush…just given your personal erroneous viewpoints. Maybe the problem is that you don’t really understand how your are saying it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All this is understood. It's given that the apostles did not themselves write the final versions of the gospels named after them. Disagreements indicate independent sources. It helps make up the bigger picture.

There is debate about an earlier Hebrew version of Matthew.

I didn't imply that an earlier origin for John was written by the apostle of that name. He was probably an unlettered Galilean fisherman. The implications is that the alleged eyewitness origin, as told to someone who could write, by the 'disciple whom Jesus loved' is quite possible, with an earlier origin.

There were probably "eyewitnesses" if you go back far enough . But that in no way makes the gospels an eyewitness account. It was likely passed on by oral tradition for the first twenty years at least. Oral tradition is not "eyewitness testimony". Please remember, this thread is only about eyewitness testimony, a claim by Christians that are literalists and there does not appear to be any such accounts in the New Testament. That does not automatically make them wrong. And it is rather odd that people that talk about faith are so desperate for reliable evidence. Perhaps their faith is far weaker than they profess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously, your deduction is based on your prejudice and all your accusations and statements are admissions that it is so without even contemplating that you are wrong.

You are quite at a disadvantage when your best defense is a strong offense.

Oh my, more nonsense and projection. No, the fact is that it is your side that fails to support their bogus claims that arise from a weak faith. You really should not be depending upon "eyewitness testimony". When you attempt to defend the indefensible you look as if you know that your faith is wrong. The strong in faith would believe the tales even though they are filled with flaws.

Then why did you mention “translations”? Have you forgotten already the context of what I said?

Oh please. No game playing.

You haven’t really explained mush…just given your personal erroneous viewpoints. Maybe the problem is that you don’t really understand how your are saying it.

I have. But I cannot make you understand. Others have done so as well. That makes this more likely a "You problem" rather than a "Me problem". And watch the obvious falsehoods. I am the one that has supported my claims with actual scholars. All that you could do was to try to smear scholars by calling them "liberal". There is nothing liberal or conservative about accurate translations and interpretations. There is only the question of are they will supported by evidence or not.

It is so odd that you seem to think that "well supported by evidence" means "liberal".

 

[Sumadji]

There were probably "eyewitnesses" if you go back far enough . But that in no way makes the gospels an eyewitness account. It was likely passed on by oral tradition for the first twenty years at least. Oral tradition is not "eyewitness testimony". Please remember, this thread is only about eyewitness testimony, a claim by Christians that are literalists and there does not appear to be any such accounts in the New Testament. That does not automatically make them wrong. And it is rather odd that people that talk about faith are so desperate for reliable evidence. Perhaps their faith is far weaker than they profess.

Ok. But it's not unlikely the illiterate 'disciple whom Jesus loved' eyewitness passed on his testimony directly to someone who could write it down. That it was not adulterated.

 

[Kenny]

What a great example of improper study habits.

Matthew may have written an account, but it was supposedly in Aramaic.

“May have” - “supposedly” - no support. Since no one can know for sure, as scholars go in different directions as shown in:

Was the gospel of Matthew originally written in Aramaic?

Was the gospel of Matthew originally written in Aramaic? In this Q&A we will very simply demonstrate that the gospel of Matthew was written in Greek.

www.neverthirsty.org

The Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Koine Greek by someone classically trained in that language.

“Someone” - is a position that intimate someone other than Matthew… with no support to that position.

In other words, not Matthew.

So here, because of your illogical way of thinking and your bias, you put an assumption as if it was true with absolutely no support for that position.

And yes, at that late date for John it was clearly not written by John. Perhaps an earlier work was written by John, but again, that would not be the Gospel that you are familiar with. It too was written in Koine Greek by a person classically trained in that language. The disciples were all rather simple people.

And the “blah blah” goes on and on

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok. But it's not unlikely the illiterate 'disciple whom Jesus loved' eyewitness passed on his testimony directly to someone who could write it down. That it was not adulterated.

By the very nature of doing that a story tends to get changed. That can be shown by the differences in details of the stories. John appears to have the crucifixion on a different day, at a different time, and the details are very different on how carried the cross. who else was crucified with him and other details.


Plus there are some extremely strong questions that Christians have no answer for. Part of the punishment of crucifixion was leaving the body up. Jewish religious laws would not have affected this at all. In fact wanting to take him down would probably make the Romans less likely to agree to let him down. Crucifixion was such a terrible punishment because the body was there to remind people for days and weeks. Every time someone walked by they were reminded of the power of Rome. Meanwhile we have two recent results that show how fast myths can arise, and that is in a day of well educated people reliable transmission of news.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What a great example of improper study haits.



“May have” - “supposedly” - no support. Since no one can no for sure, as scholars go in different directions as sown in:

Was the gospel of Matthew originally written in Aramaic?

Was the gospel of Matthew originally written in Aramaic? In this Q&A we will very simply demonstrate that the gospel of Matthew was written in Greek.

www.neverthirsty.org

“Someone” - is a position that intimate someone other than Matthew… with no support to that position.


So here, because of your illogical way of thinking and your bias, you put an assumption as if it was true with absolutely no support for that position.



And the “blah blah” goes on and on

LOL!! If you want to make an argument you really need to find a reliable source. Find one that is based upon scholars and not apologists and you might have a case. If you cannot find this supported by scholars then you will only "convince" other drinkers of the Kool Aid. You simply cannot seem to understand that scholars, just as scientists, want to know what actually happened regardless of who it supports. When you use a source that has already assumed the answer you lose.

 

[Kenny]

Oh my, more nonsense and projection. No, the fact is that it is your side that fails to support their bogus claims that arise from a weak faith. You really should not be depending upon "eyewitness testimony". When you attempt to defend the indefensible you look as if you know that your faith is wrong. The strong in faith would believe the tales even though they are filled with flaws.

Wow… some people use flat-earth theology even when they have no support and even when there is evidence contrariwise. More of an “anti-Christ” position

Oh please. No game playing.

You took the words right out of my mouth

I have. But I cannot make you understand. Others have done so as well. That makes this more likely a "You problem" rather than a "Me problem". And watch the obvious falsehoods. I am the one that has supported my claims with actual scholars. All that you could do was to try to smear scholars by calling them "liberal". There is nothing liberal or conservative about accurate translations and interpretations. There is only the question of are they will supported by evidence or not.

No… you have pseudo-scholars…. didn’t I say that already?

It is so odd that you seem to think that "well supported by evidence" means "liberal".

Well-supported by liberal pseudo-scholars… real scholars look at historical evidence.

 

[Kenny]

LOL!! If you want to make an argument you really need to find a reliable source. Find one that is based upon scholars and not apologists and you might have a case. If you cannot find this supported by scholars then you will only "convince" other drinkers of the Kool Aid. You simply cannot seem to understand that scholars, just as scientists, want to know what actually happened regardless of who it supports. When you use a source that has already assumed the answer you lose.

See??

ROFL

I gave a site with support by scholars and you just ignore it. Another “flat-earth” demonstration of how you hold onto an “anti-Christ” position

Maybe your position is, “If it isn’t like I believe, then they are automatically “apologists” because I don’t want to really learn that I was wrong"

 

[Sumadji]

By the very nature of doing that a story tends to get changed. That can be shown by the differences in details of the stories. John appears to have the crucifixion on a different day, at a different time, and the details are very different on how carried the cross. who else was crucified with him and other details.


Plus there are some extremely strong questions that Christians have no answer for. Part of the punishment of crucifixion was leaving the body up. Jewish religious laws would not have affected this at all. In fact wanting to take him down would probably make the Romans less likely to agree to let him down. Crucifixion was such a terrible punishment because the body was there to remind people for days and weeks. Every time someone walked by they were reminded of the power of Rome. Meanwhile we have two recent results that show how fast myths can arise, and that is in a day of well educated people reliable transmission of news.

There are contradictions and questions. But if the New Testament were edited and tailored these would have been coordinated and ironed out. Perhaps the contradiction not only indicates independent sources, but actually enhances authenticity.

It's like The Alexandria Quartet by Lawrence Durrell: the same events as perceived by four different individuals.

This thing happened. People talked about it. It wasn't invented.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow… some people use flat-earth theology even when they have no support and even when there is evidence contrariwise. More of an “anti-Christ” position

Yes, you should quit doing that.

You took the words right out of my mouth

All that you have is game playing. You hate valid sources because they all disagree with you. A I have had to point out to you many times, you cannot use sources that have to agree with your position no matter what the evidence shows. You need sources that follow the evidence no matter what it says.

No… you have pseudo-scholars…. didn’t I say that already?

And you break the Ninth Commandment. Sorry, I have real scholars that can and do publish in professional journals. You only link apologists after it has been endlessly explained to you why they are not valid. And you are also name calling.

Well-supported by liberal pseudo-scholars… real scholars look at historical evidence.

LOL! Moe name calling. No, they are not "liberal" the are not "pseudo-scholars" they simply make arguments that you have no answer to.

By the way, this behavior of yours only confirms that apologists are "Liars for Jesus". That might be name calling but at least it is highly accurate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are contradictions and questions. But if the New Testament were edited and tailored these would have been coordinated and ironed out. Perhaps the contradiction not only indicates independent sources, but actually enhances authenticity.

It's like The Alexandria Quartet by Lawrence Durrell: the same events as perceived by four different individuals.

This thing happened. People talked about it. It wasn't invented.

I would say that it is the opposite. It only shows how far others were allowed to disagree before they were eliminated as sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See??

ROFL

I gave a site with support by scholars and you just ignore it. Another “flat-earth” demonstration of how you hold onto an “anti-Christ” position

Maybe your position is, “If it isn’t like I believe, then they are automatically “apologists” because I don’t want to really learn that I was wrong"

No, you gave me a site of apologists Why is that so hard for you to admit?

If your claims are supported by actual scholars then why can't you support yourself with any scholarly works?

 

[Sumadji]

I would say that it is the opposite. It only shows how far others were allowed to disagree before they were eliminated as sources.

There are different sources and accounts of the French revolution or Caesar's death, that disagree on detail, but an overall picture emerges