There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[firedragon]

I hope that at some point, before I die, the clichés used as smokescreens and disqualifications in the apologetics manual will end... and some serious debate on the subject will begin.

There has been serious debate on the subject since the 19th century and it's going on today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

The earliest that Luke appears to have been written is 80 CE. That makes gathering "eyewitness testimony" very difficult. Nor does the Gospel of Luke claim to have eyewitness testimony. His claim is that the stories go back to eyewitnesses. And if Luke was a historian he had one huge slip in his narrative, and I am pretty sure that historical scholars can find others. He has the year of birth of Jesus roughly 10 years later than Matthew does. He probably meant to have it at the same time that Matthew does, but the main part of his story makes that not so.

 

[Trailblazer]

Strange stuff... She asked me why Baha'is get dragged into all these threads, and then she answers you with quotes from her religion, the Baha'i Faith.

@Muffled asked: Does any other offer eternal life?
So I answered him.

I did not just start talking about the Baha'i Faith unsolicited.

 

[Eli G]

When did Luke write his Gospel? Acts 1:1 indicates that the writer of Acts (who was also Luke) had earlier composed “the first account,” the Gospel. Acts was most probably completed about 61 C.E. while Luke was in Rome with Paul, who was awaiting his appeal to Caesar. So the Gospel account was probably written by Luke in Caesarea about 56-58 C.E., after he returned with Paul from Philippi at the end of Paul’s third missionary journey and while Paul was waiting two years in prison at Caesarea before being taken to Rome for his appeal. Since Luke was there in Palestine, during this time he was well situated to ‘trace all things from the start with accuracy’ concerning the life and ministry of Jesus. Thus, Luke’s account appears to have preceded Mark’s Gospel. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990103

 

[Sumadji]

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

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:

Thanks

 

[Sumadji]

We, christians

The 'we Christians' club ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For example, an anti-Christian would never accept that the Bible is God-inspired.

That strikes me as an odd formulation for a couple of reasons.

1. "anti-Christian" seems intentionally pejorative as compared to "non-Christian." Is that intentional?
2. And which came first? Is it that the person "would never accept that the Bible is God-inspired" because s/he is "anti-Christian," or is it that s/he is non-Christian because s/he has found no warrant to "accept that the Bible is God-inspired"?

My point being: "The Bible is God-inspired because the Bible claims to be God-inspired" seems less than compelling.

 

[Eli G]

On my own view a non-Christian may be neutral, but an anti-Christian won't.
It is similar to the difference between Atheist and non-Theist.
That is my view, and nobody needs to agree with it, I am not asking that.

 

[Sumadji]

On my own view a non-Christian may be neutral, but an anti-Christian won't.
It is similar to the difference between Atheist and non-Theist.
That is my view, and nobody needs to agree with it, I am not asking that.

The appeal of Christ is universal. Christ won't be limited, imo

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It does not really matter what the rules are in a court. It is pretty credible for historical documents to be from witnesses.

I agree that historical documents written by witnesses are more reliable (although as we all know, witnesses themselves are not exactly reliable).

The point here is that the gospels are not written by witnesses. The authors simply collected all the known stories of Jesus, making no attempt to separate out whose more likely to be historically accurate from those who were mere myth or legend.

Mark is supposed to have got his information from Peter.

Mark was not written by Mark. All of this information you are offering, that Mark wrote it and that he got his information from Peter, is nothing but tradition without foundation.

John is supposed to have been the apostle John, Matthew the apostle Matthew. Luke tells us he got his information from witnesses.

I realize I'm repeating the same information I gave before, but I'm thinking you simply didn't read my post (none of us reads every post in a thread).

When the four canonical gospels first began being passed around the churches, they were ANONYMOUS. It was only later, around the end of the first century and beginning of the second, that the tradition of ascribing them to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John developed. It was a nice tradition, but had absolutely no foundation.

It is curious to me that Protestants, who scorn "the traditions of men," are so unconscious of the very traditions they themselves have.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

Oh my goodness. No one claims that Luke was a historian. There is a *tradition* that he was a Gentile doctor. But you are the first person I've encountered who claimed he was a historian.

Let's look at how much time it takes for a legend to develop.

A couple of weeks ago, an arrest was made that was captured on video. In the video, the cop asks the person, Where is the cat? Did you eat it? The person who was being arrested was clearly dazed and overwhelmed by being arrested, and didn't bother answering what was obviously not a serious question. There were idiots watching this video that assumed that since the person never denied eating the cat, it meant he must have eaten the cat. The story went viral, and with each telling, became more and more exaggerated, until we ended up with the version that the Haitian immigrant population were eating people's pets.

IOW it only took days for a full blown urban legend to develop. Did the existence of electronic media speed up the process? Certainly. But it is obvious that 30 years is more than enough time for myths and legends to develop about Jesus.

 

[Kenny]

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.

But then I would have to doubt any autobiography including any history. And then what would be considered “a long period”.

What I am saying is that “long period” doesn’t necessarily translate into “error”.

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!").

If that were the case, those who knew better would have written a “counter to what John wrote”. Those who read it, believed it true and written by John

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

that certainly can be true as with the Quran telling what Jesus did. But we are still talking about eye witnesses in this case.

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.

Actually, the dating runs for mid 50’s Ad - 80AD. Another - we really don’t know

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.

Again… we are giving opinions but by and large John was written earlier than the years you propose.

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.

Yes.. that is the position of some although others don’t agree.

 

[Kenny]

As to supposed claims made without evidence, I tend to assume that people have at least a high school education. If I state something that needs support you can always ask.

Great… I have stated “no support” - but you chose not to give it. Are you saying that you didn’t graduate from high school?

 

[Kenny]

You keep confirming that you are not a student of the Bible at all. You appear to have no idea when the Gospels were written. Well since you seem to believe the false claim that they were named for the authors I can understand that.

I knew that you wouldn’t give support. Is it because you aren’t a bible student?

Oh please, yes, my statements are biased with the assumption that I am have a discussion with someone that has at least some understanding of the topic that we were discussing.

So the person you were talking to had some understanding to help you?

By the way, you still have not explained how that article that you put so much faith in helped you in anyway at all? That article only showed that they too are not students of the Bible. They got one thing right but did not understand how that sank their own beliefs.

you haven’t given me anything that says it was wrong other than your opinion and you saying so.

 

[Kenny]

Apologists cannot afford to be honest. Unfortunately that makes them far too easy to refute.

Another statement without support.

Is it a habit?

 

[CG Didymus]

See, this "woe" thing is good for those who don't know the language. I don't know greek at all, but the word ouai is not interpreted as "a manifestation of God". You know what? Could you tell me which scholar of the New Testament got the rendering you presented? Please do give me the information since you said.

Thanks.

Here's what Abdul Baha' said...

34. “The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.”[20] The first woe was the advent of the Apostle of God, Muḥammad the son of ‘Abdu’lláh, peace be upon Him. The second woe was that of the Báb, upon Him be glory and praise. The third woe is the great Day of the advent of the Lord of Hosts and the revelation of the promised Beauty. The explanation of this matter is provided in the thirtieth chapter of Ezekiel, where it is said: “The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Son of man, prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Howl ye, Woe worth the day! For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near.”[21] It is therefore evident then that the day of woe is the day of the Lord; for in that day woe is upon the heedless, the sinners, and the ignorant. That is why it is said, “The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.” This third woe is the day of the manifestation of Bahá’u’lláh, the Day of God, and it is near to the day of the appearance of the Báb.​

​

This is in Abdul Baha's commentary on Revelation 11 where he says that the "Two Witnesses" are Muhammad and Ali.

I'd love to hear what you think of his interpretation. Thanks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes.. that is the position of some although others don’t agree.

And there are some who don't agree that astrology is pseudoscience or that vaccines are necessary. Therefore?

One can either devalue and dismiss scholarship and, where found, consensus, or one can seek to understand and value it's appraisals.

 

[Kenny]

Apologists cannot afford to be honest. Unfortunately that makes them far too easy to refute.

Another statement without support.

Is it a habit?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another statement without support.

Is it a habit?

Once again, if you do not know this then ask. How many times do you have to be told this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, the dating runs for mid 50’s Ad - 80AD. Another - we really don’t know

What is the evidence for those early dates?