There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Brian2]

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.

It does not really matter what the rules are in a court. It is pretty credible for historical documents to be from witnesses.
Mark is supposed to have got his information from Peter. John is supposed to have been the apostle John, Matthew the apostle Matthew. Luke tells us he got his information from witnesses.
Most historical records are much further removed than that and are also further removed in time than when the gospels were probably written.

 

[firedragon]

I am saying we all do it.

That's a tu quoque fallacy.

I also believe in the scripture in some way or another as a whole. I just don't believe all the details.

So, quote mining.

I don't quote it as authoritative. I just quote it.

When you quote something without it being an internal critique, it's quoting it as authoritative.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

If the person who actually saw the thing in question is telling you what they saw, it's an eyewitness account.

If someone who didn't see the thing themselves is telling you the story based on what they heard someone saw, then this is hearsay and not an eyewitness account.

 

[Kenny]

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.

LOL… It does sound like you are mad… all I am doing is taking your tactics and saying the same thing but to you (If you look carefully, I even use your words in many occasions)

And as always, you are making statements without evidence of support and therefore have, in effect, admitted that your position is worthless. A pity you can’t debate properly but and unjustified and unsupported anti-Christ position of no faith often causes that to happen.

but on my side...

 

[Kenny]

In John yes, but since that was written long after the fact,

Here is another statement filled with opinions..

Fact… no one knows for sure when it was written - scholars have estimated anywhere between 50 and 90 AD or 20+ - 60 years after the death of Christ.
How long is classified as “long after the fact”?
Why is “long after the fact” make it false?

Because someone write an autobiography, does it mean it all highly dubious?

it was the last Gospel written, that is highly dubious.

Another statement of opinion intimating that what you are saying is true while there are countless people who find it not dubious.

People often exaggerate in religious texts.

Yes, but also people don’t exaggerate. The statement is a fallacy… like saying “Mechanics often sell you services you don’t need therefore all mechanics are bad”. (This is what you are giving the hue of even if you didn’t literally say it0

That does not totally refute them.

OK.

But just notice how biased your statements are.

 

[Sumadji]

Fact… no one knows for sure when it was written - scholars have estimated anywhere between 50 and 90 AD or 20+ - 60 years after the death of Christ.
How long is classified as “long after the fact”?
Why is “long after the fact” make it false?

Because someone write an autobiography, does it mean it all highly dubious?

Agreed

It doesn't matter how long it took between when 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' gave his account and when it was eventually published, as long as it was not adulterated in the interval. It can't be proved that it was adulterated. If there were lost gospels rejected by 'the establishment' there needs to be evidence that this in fact happened.

There is a lot of New Testament apocrypha that is available to anyone who looks for it. It has not disappeared entirely. The reader is able to assess it and judge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here is another statement filled with opinions..

Fact… no one knows for sure when it was written - scholars have estimated anywhere between 50 and 90 AD or 20+ - 60 years after the death of Christ.
How long is classified as “long after the fact”?
Why is “long after the fact” make it false?

Because someone write an autobiography, does it mean it all highly dubious?

The timing of the authorship of the Gospels ties into their reliability.

At best, a long period of time raises the possibility that the story changed while it was being transmitted through an oral tradition.

At worst, it raises the possibility that the author waited until everyone was dead who could correct the story ("that's not how it happened! And I should know because I was there!").

Personally, I think it's telling how the story snowballs as we get further and further from the purported date of the crucifixion.

With the original Gospel of Mark, we're only around 65-80 CE - still within the range where people who were alive in ~30 CE would still be living... and the story reflects this: when there are miracle accounts, there are built-in excuses for why these wouldn't be widely known: generally, they were done in private and Jesus tells witnesses not to say anything.

OTOH, by the time we get to the Gospel of John, we're at 90-120 AD. Any potential eyewitness are all dead at this point, and now the grandiose claims of big, public miracles in front of "multitudes" fill the book.

On the one hand, this is a sign that a lot of the miraculous claims of the Bible are made up, but on the other hand - and somewhat ironically - this pattern of fabrication actually helps the case that Jesus was a real historical figure, since it suggests that there were real eyewitness that the authors took into consideration early on.

 

[marriedmanoffaith]

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?

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?

The beauty of the Gospels lies not just in their historical accuracy, but in the powerful spiritual truths they convey. These texts, though they were written by human hands, carry the divine inspiration that speaks to the deepest parts of our souls.

Consider how a therapist might approach a patient's narrative. We don't dismiss their story simply because we weren't there to witness it. Instead, we look at the coherence, the impact, and the transformative power of their account.

Similarly, the Gospels have demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to change lives and shape civilizations for two millennia. Their message of love, forgiveness, and redemption resonates across cultures and time.

Let us not get caught in the trap of pure rationalism. Faith asks us to open our hearts as well as our minds. The Gospels invite us into a relationship with the living Christ, whose presence can be felt and experienced even today.

 

[Sumadji]

The beauty of the Gospels lies not just in their historical accuracy

A claim that needs to be supported? Regardless of the rest of the post ...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let us not get caught in the trap of pure rationalism.

Statements like this are a big red flag that you know that what you're selling doesn't stand up to reasonable scrutiny.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He specifically says it is a collection of eyewitness accounts.

Which, of course, is not an eyewitness account. It would be an eyewitness account if Luke actually witnessed something. But he didn't.
And he says as much.

I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who saw it is NOT an eyewitness account. Sorry.

 

[Muffled]

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?

I believe that is flase.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

How do you know that he can't?

If others assert that he is wrong it is up to them to prove he is wrong.

 

[Muffled]

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?

I believe that is false.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe that is flase.

I believe it is true.

 

[Muffled]

Maybe it is the most faith-based of all religions, but it is not necessarily the best.

Does any other offer eternal life?

 

[Muffled]

I believe it is true.

I believe you believe many false things. Rationality is not one of your strengths.

 

[Muffled]

If the person who actually saw the thing in question is telling you what they saw, it's an eyewitness account.

If someone who didn't see the thing themselves is telling you the story based on what they heard someone saw, then this is hearsay and not an eyewitness account.

I believe hearsay is a legal term. We have reeporting of news all the time from reporters who have interviewed eyewitnesses and that seems good enough in most cases but with fake reporting now it isn't as reliable.

 

[Sumadji]

How do you know that he can't?

If others assert that he is wrong it is up to them to prove he is wrong.

Then tell me how he has proved that 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' did not witness the piercing with the spear?

I hope I don't have to repeat everything I've said earlier in the thread?

 

[Trailblazer]

I can't prove that he is right or wrong. But there are claims of witness accounts. Can't do any better than that.

A claim is only a claim. If there is no proof or even evidence to back up that claim, why should we believe it?

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.

And that's the problem, those witness claims cannot be proven so it is only a claim, not a fact.

Does any other religion have better claims of authenticity?

Yes, the Baha'i Faith does and there is proof that can back up the claims, because the original writings of Baha'u'llah are at the Baháʼí World Centre in Haifa Israel. Those writings are in Baha'u'llah's own handwriting and stamped with His official seal.

Some of those writings have even been displayed in a museum.

The British Museum is showing rarely-seen original handwriting of Baha'u'llah, as well as other archival items associated with His life, to mark the 200th anniversary of His birth. Here, an example “Revelation Writing” is on display. Nov 9, 2017
Exhibition of Baha'u'llah's writings opens at British Museum