There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Trailblazer]

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

No, I will reply to that post.

 

[Sumadji]

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

The claim is that the person who is alleged to have witnessed the crucifixion in John, did not do so. Where's the proof that he did not?

 

[CG Didymus]

So, quote mining.

I think it's worth looking into... Do the Baha'is really believe in the "substance" of the Bible? One problem is... What do they mean when they say "the Bible"? If people look at what the Jews believe about their Bible, it's a lot different than what Christians believe about their Bible.

But I think that Baha'is "mine quote" to create their own version of what is the "substance" of the Bible.

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

When I first met Baha'is the first thing they did is quote me Bible verses...

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth...​

​

Micah 7:12 In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.​

​

Revelation 3:12 ...I will write upon him my new name.​

What's bad about doing that is that they can paint any picture they want. I trusted them and thought they were telling me the truth. Then Christians told me their truth... How they see the Bible. The picture they paint. The "substance" they believe that is being taught in the Bible. Then Jews had yet another. And I'm sure Muslims have yet another.

But, because the Baha'is claim to be the new religion for today, and that their prophet is the return of the Christ and everybody else ever promised in all of the other religions, that I focus on them. Are they telling me the truth? Can I trust what they say? So far, it's been "no".

And a big reason why I don't trust them is because of their "quote mining" of the Bible. Even TB herself found some verses in the Gospel of John that she believes "proves" that Jesus is not ever going to come back to Earth.

But then she quotes this?

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words​

(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)​

​

She's quoting from a Gospel that she doesn't believe was written by an eyewitness. And that the Baha'i Faith can't say if what was written are the exact words.

So, unless quoted by Baha'u'llah or Abdul Baha', Baha'is can't be sure how accurate the verses are? Yet, they quote them as if they are authoritative enough to prove some point they are trying to make?

Sorry, I can't trust what Baha'is say, because when I read the verses in context, they don't fit with how the Baha'is are using them.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I do not know if or how he proved that, since I did not look at his research. I only watched that short video.

 

[Trailblazer]

The claim is that the person who is alleged to have witnessed the crucifixion in John, did not do so. Where's the proof that he did not?

I do not know if there is any proof that he did not. Where's the proof that he did?

 

[Trailblazer]

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

How do you know that he can't prove that he is right? Have you seen his research?

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.

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.

There's no way to prove for sure that he was 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

That's true, and that's the point I was making above.

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

I watch a lot of true crime shows on TV and the accused always says he is not guilty, that he is telling the truth.
Why should anyone believe that just because he testified to that?
The evidence is what determines whether he is innocent or guilty, not his testimony.

 

[Sumadji]

I do not know if or how he proved that, since I did not look at his research. I only watched that short video.

Sigh ...

I do not know if there is any proof that he did not.

Ok ... no proof

Where's the proof that he did?

He said that he did.

Ok, that's not proof.

However if someone wants to call him a liar and dispute his statement -- like in a court case for libel -- that plaintiff needs to produce convincing evidence. Your video guy doesn't do that. He simply suggests that the records were probably adulterated. He cannot prove his allegation.

 

[Sumadji]

How do you know that he can't prove that he is right? Have you seen his research?

He gives his reasons in the video

The evidence is what determines whether he is innocent or guilty

The only evidence presented by the plaintiff -- your video guy -- is the third person usage, and also that the date of John's gospel would make him a very old man. John's gospel may have earlier origin, as accepted by scholars, and even if the actual publication was around 90 to 110 AD there's nothing to say the statement was not collected much earlier, from the disciple whom Jesus loved.

 

[Trailblazer]

But I think that Baha'is "mine quote" to create their own version of what is the "substance" of the Bible.

And the Christians don't "mine quote" to create their own version of what is the "substance" of the Bible?

Here are just a few famous examples:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

• Christians use this verse to claim that Jesus is the only way to God for all of eternity.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

• Christians use this verse to claim that Jesus is God.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

• Christians use this verse to claim that Jesus is God.

I rest my case.

 

[Trailblazer]

He said that he did.

Ok, that's not proof.

That's my point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

We haven't really started talking about reliability yet. So far, this has just been about whether the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. They aren't.

But if you want to talk about reliability, we can. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable to begin with and it becomes more unreliable over time.

Think about the eyewitness accounts cited by other religions. You don't consider those to be reliable, right?

 

[CG Didymus]

The beauty of the Gospels lies not just in their historical accuracy, but in the powerful spiritual truths they convey.

Can we trust the "spiritual" truths if the stories aren't true? Was Jesus born of a virgin? To me, that is based on one out of context verse, Isaiah 7:14. Did Jesus walk on water, cast out demons and raise Lazarus from the dead? Or... are those just fictional and/or embellished stories to get people to believe that Jesus was a God/man and should be listened to for the "spiritual truths he spoke about?

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.

And did Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and other religions do the same?

But then what about the negative things? Like the Inquisition? Was there always a message of love? Or... was there also a message of hellfire and condemnation... unless a person believes?

Oh, and how many Christians really apply and live by the spiritual "truths" in the Gospels? Love thy neighbor... Go the extra mile... give to the one that asks of you... And the usual ones borrowed from Judaism... Don't lie. Don't steal. Don't commit adultery. Keep the Sabbath? Oops, maybe not that one. But greed, ambition, lust, cheating, stealing, prejudice, exploiting and lying also helped shape civilizations.

But the other thing is that I think too many religious people seem to get complacent... And that includes Christians. They go through the motions of being a Christian. They have the right beliefs, And that varies with each sect. But do they really live a complete and total life of love and devotion to God and Jesus and loving others?

 

[Trailblazer]

He gives his reasons in the video

But not the research that he did to base his reasons on.

The only evidence presented by the plaintiff -- your video guy -- is the third person usage, and also that the date of John's gospel would make him a very old man. John's gospel may have earlier origin, as accepted by scholars, and even if the actual publication was around 90 to 110 AD there's nothing to say the statement was not collected much earlier, from the disciple whom Jesus loved.

The upshot of all this conversation is that nobody really knows, so why even argue about it?

 

[Sumadji]

That's my point.

The point is that if you want to call him a liar, you need evidence, and there is none

 

[Sumadji]

The upshot of all this conversation is that nobody really knows, so why even argue about it?

Yay! 19 pages later ...

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I fully agree. I only wish Christians could see that.

 

[Trailblazer]

The point is that if you want to call him a liar, you need evidence, and there is none

I'm not calling anyone a liar.
I don't know what happened 2000 years ago.
I have an opinion, but an opinion is not knowledge.

 

[CG Didymus]

Because Christians did it, doesn't it make it right and excusable. They used it to justify that their beliefs were the truth from God.

Was it? Not according to Baha'i beliefs. Baha'is believe that Christians were wrong about Satan, hell and that people are hopelessly lost sinners. If not true, that's a terrible message to force people to believe.

Can we trust the Baha'i message?

 

[Trailblazer]

Because Christians did it, doesn't it make it right and excusable. They used it to justify that their beliefs were the truth from God.

Was it? Not according to Baha'i beliefs. Baha'is believe that Christians were wrong about Satan, hell and that people are hopelessly lost sinners. If not true, that's a terrible message to force people to believe.

Can we trust the Baha'i message?

Why do the Baha'is always get dragged into these threads that are about Christianity?

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe that is false.

I believe that is true.