There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[IndigoChild5559]

Jesus in the Talmud - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The name of Yeshua was very common in those days, similar to John in ours. There are many passages in the Talmud that speak of various Yeshua's. The question is which, IF ANY, of those passages refer to the same Yeshua that is the Christian Jesus of Nazareth. In each case there are problems indicating that they are not, such as the date of that Yeshua event being in a time period other than when Jesus was alive. The fact that all these stories are different than the gospel accounts is another line of evidence.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why should I believe that?

Most of the epistles written by one of Jesus 12 disciples are disputed, meaning that scholars debate who their actual authors are. For example, 1 Peter and 2 Peter have stylistic differences, meaning they have two different authors. This means that at least one, and perhaps both, were not written by Peter. James, Jude, and the 3 epistles of John are all disputed as to who wrote them. Remember that at that time, it was considered perfectly normal to write a text and attribute it to some significant person -- it was not considered lying in that culture. Now let's talk about the gospels.

When the gospels were first completed and passed around among the churches, they were ANONYMOUS. It was only later in the early second century (or late first century in the earliest) that the tradition was formed that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. IOW it was just a nice idea that had no foundation.

We know from textual analysis that each of the gospels were written by more than one author, and their works spliced together. For example, the original text of John was what scholars call the Signs Gospel, which was later added to by one or possibly two other authors.

This multiple author thing, late editing, and hostility towards Jews tends to indicate that they were not written by religious Judeans like Matthew or John, but by either Hellenized Jews from the diaspora or perhaps Gentiles. In any case, NOT eye witnesses.

Now, we all have our opinions, so if you want to stick with "They were written by Matthew, et al" I understand.

 

[Brian2]

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

According to the New Testament there are witness accounts to Jesus there.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are no eye witnesses to the creation of the earth

The understanding that the earth was formed via accretion is based on evidence such as meteorite composition and the observation of protoplanetary disks.

There are no eye witnesses to the dinosaurs.

Based on the evidence of fossils.

There are no eye witnesses to the Neanderthals.

Again, plenty of skeletal remains and other archeological finds.

Yet all of them have been referred to in books and referenced by many types of people and professions.

Of course. It's perfectly normal to refer to things for which there is evidence.

The subject of this thread seems to be, what is the evidence that the Jesus of the gospels existed? The problem here is that there is no evidence. A historical Jesus? Yes. But the Jesus of the gospel stories? No.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

According to the New Testament there are witness accounts to Jesus there.

According to Harry Potter, Hogwarts is a school for wizards near London. My point here is not to mock your religious text. I'm simply pointing out that it takes more than "the Bible says it" for something to be credible evidnece. How many tall tales have you heard where the person says, "This really did happen to my cousin! He witnessed it!

 

[Kenny]

The idea is that changing colors will hopefully keep you interested.

What is amazing is your hypocrisy. I knew that your source was bad, I just did not know how bad. When I read it and could see that it did not help you you just ran away from it.

Another statement without support. Of course, we all know that if you can’t attack the information, just try to attack the messenger.

*YAWN*

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to the New Testament there are witness accounts to Jesus there.

In John yes, but since that was written long after the fact, it was the last Gospel written, that is highly dubious. People often exaggerate in religious texts. That does not totally refute them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another statement without support. Of course, we all know that if you can’t attack the information, just try to attack the messenger.

*YAWN*

LOL! There was no attack. Do not get mad just because you are wrong. I am still willing to help you.

 

[Kenny]

LOL! There was no attack. Do not get mad just because you are wrong. I am still willing to help you.

Whose mad? Making factual statements doesn’t mean I’m mad.

As per our statement of faith, I love you, God loves you and Jesus died for you… (all within the context of my signature)

Here comes another one



Tonight, I am going to sleep with a special prayer from the heart for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whose mad? Making factual statements doesn’t mean I’m mad.

As per our statement of faith, I love you, God loves you and Jesus died for you… (all within the context of my signature)

Here comes another one



Tonight, I am going to sleep with a special prayer from the heart for you.

Clearly your are. Making false claims about others, abusing emojis. You can pretend but you cannot hide. Meanwhile you have not even looked at your supposed evidence. You have in effect admitted that it was worthless. It is a pity that you cannot argue properly, but an unjustified and weak faith often causes that to happen.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not the Lord of the Rings? *crestfallen...

What about Exodus 20, when God spoke to the Israelites on Mount Sinai?
That's a pretty great story, especially if it is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

According to the New Testament there are witness accounts to Jesus there.

Maybe so, but the man in the video is claiming that there were no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament.
Can you prove that he is wrong?

 

[1213]

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"?

So, if police collects eyewitness accounts and tells to others what they said, they are no more eyewitness accounts?

 

[1213]

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

He specifically says it is a collection of eyewitness accounts.

 

[1213]

Most of the epistles written by one of Jesus 12 disciples are disputed, meaning that scholars debate who their actual authors are. For example, 1 Peter and 2 Peter have stylistic differences, meaning they have two different authors.

That something is disputed, doesn't mean it is not true. And stylistic differences don't really mean they can't be from same person. I think the arguments for different authors are extremely poor.

This means that at least one, and perhaps both, were not written by Peter. James, Jude, and the 3 epistles of John are all disputed as to who wrote them. Remember that at that time, it was considered perfectly normal to write a text and attribute it to some significant person -- it was not considered lying in that culture.

why should I believe anything you say?

 

[Sumadji]

Can you prove that he is wrong?

It's for him to prove he is right. And he can't.

Allowing for the fact that 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' was probably unable to write and that his testimony was recorded by a literate member of the Johannine school, there's no way to prove for sure that he was not an eyewitness, speaking in the third person on a formal subject, and that his testimony was recorded directly and then passed on without adulteration.

It's inconclusive. The third person usage wouldn't pass as proof in a court of law, and it wouldn't pass as conclusive evidence in a scientific study. See pages 5 to 7

But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe.
John 19:33-34

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, if police collects eyewitness accounts and tells to others what they said, they are no more eyewitness accounts?

I am not Judge Judy. But I think that testifying what someone ELSE said is considered hearsay, and is not allowed in court. There is probably certain exceptions to the rule, but well, that's the rule.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That something is disputed, doesn't mean it is not true. And stylistic differences don't really mean they can't be from same person. I think the arguments for different authors are extremely poor.

Sir, yes, stylistic differences absolutely does mean they were written by two different people.

why should I believe anything you say?

Did you think I assumed you would just take my word for it? Not in the slightest. My intent was not to prove it to you, but to present to you another way of seeing things, a way that scholars look at it. In my dreams, you would find the idea unnerving enough that you would look into it. But my expectations are that it will likely not move you in the slightest. That's kind of how these forums work

If you want to make my dreams come true, here is a good place to start:

 

[Brian2]

In John yes, but since that was written long after the fact, it was the last Gospel written, that is highly dubious. People often exaggerate in religious texts. That does not totally refute them.

In Luke also we have a historian who seems to have been in a position to collect witness accounts, telling us that is his source of information, and this may be only 30 years after the death of Jesus.
It is more than exaggeration to say that Jesus rose from the dead if He did not.

 

[Brian2]

Maybe so, but the man in the video is claiming that there were no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament.
Can you prove that he is wrong?

I can't prove that he is right or wrong. But there are claims of witness accounts. Can't do any better than that. Even if the writer claimed to have been a witness, that can't be proven. Even if the writer wrote in the first person and claimed to be Jesus, that can't be proven.
Actually, others writing about Jesus and what they witnessed sounds better than a gospel written by someone who claims to have been Jesus.
Does any other religion have better claims of authenticity?