There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[IndigoChild5559]

Well that is the sceptic pov yes.



Tradition without foundation? Why isn't Church tradition just the history that was passed down about the gospels?

Because the tradition didn't appear until the end of the first century or early second century. Like I said, when the gospels were first passed around from church to church, they were anonymous.

There is evidence in the Bible for Mark and Peter's association and in church history that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark as a translator of Peter.

Again, this is a lovely tradition, but it has no historical foundation.

Protestants scorn the traditions of men which are taught as if they are from God.

If you understand that the authorship of the gospels is the traditions of men, why are you so heavily invested in it emotionally?

Skeptics like to push for the late writing of the gospels (under the presupposition that Jesus could not have prophesied the Temple destruction) and work from there into saying that the gospels were written by people who were not witnesses and who did not know witnesses.

This is the second time you have used the word "skeptic." It seems that for some reason inside your head, you think this diminishes their scholarship.

As to your comment on dating the gospels due to mention of the destruction of the temple, let's discuss the difference between what is possible and what is plausible. I think I used this example yesterday, so it's fresh in my mind.

Fact: I woke up this morning to find a few sprinkles of cat litter just outside the litter box.
Possibility One: My cat used the litter box during the night, and tracked some of the litter out.
Possibility Two: Angels visited my home and levitated the litter out of the box and onto the floor.

I think from that example, it should be clear to you that it is implausible to suggest a supernatural explanation for something that has a perfectly good natural explanation. Thus, the supernatural explanation for the allusions to the Temple destruction in the gospels are simply implausible when there is a perfectly likely natural explanation: that the texts were written after the destruction of the Temple.

 

[Eli G]

You only have to do an internet search on "The Flight to Pella" to know why Christians fled Jerusalem when they had the chance before the city was destroyed by the Roman armies. They did it because Jesus told them to do it and when they should do it.

It's history that can be check even out of the Bible, like the vast majority of historical events narrated in the Bible.

Actually, many of the archaeological findings, theories in different scientific branches such as linguistics (on the classification of languages), social ones such as laws (with a special example in the law of Moses dating from the 15th century BC), and so many more branches of knowledge, have had support in the biblical records.

 

[Kenny]

Wow! How many times does a person have to explain to you that if you do not understand something you should ask questions. Right now your behavior is making you look like a five year old

There you go again = since you can’t attack the message, you only capacity you have left is to attack the messager. Talking about childish.

And, yes, I dd support my claim. I showed that out of the countless examples you used one that seemed to support you. I provided a link with countless different verses. Talk about hypocrisy, you demand support and then ignore it when it is given to you.

LOL.. No… you quoted a scripture and gave an opinion. I gave you scholarly understanding.

I am ignoring the rest of this ignorant drivel until you do better yourself.

Of course! I didn’t expect anything less from you

 

[Sumadji]

Please, you are making the error of assuming that the Bible is accurate when no one can support doing that. As to crucifixion I will trust historians that study the people and languages of that time:

I know all that. Nobody can say the same procedure was always followed. The Romans didn't want more trouble from the Jews. It's the reason Pilate washed his hands and allowed the crucifixion to go ahead in the first place. Judea was a pressure cooker.

Josephus had three friends taken down alive from the cross, by personal appeal to the governor. Joseph of Arimathea was an influential man. There's lots of room to speculate about what really happened.

There's a school of thought who believe Jesus was taken down alive from the cross.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm keeping an open mind. I rather think you are assuming that John's NT account must be false.

Anyway ... it's not conclusive

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know all that. Nobody can say the same procedure was always followed. The Romans didn't want more trouble from the Jews. It's the reason Pilate washed his hands and allowed the crucifixion to go ahead in the first place. Judea was a pressure cooker.

Josephus had three friends taken down alive from the cross, by personal appeal to the governor. Joseph of Arimathea was an influential man. There's lots of room to speculate about what really happened.

There's a school of thought who believe Jesus was taken down alive from the cross.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm keeping an open mind. I rather think you are assuming that John's NT account must be false.

Anyway ... it's not conclusive

No, that is just part of the story. You keep making Spiderman errors. We do not know if any of the Bible story is true. Just because a piece of probably fiction claims that a character did something is not evidence for that occurring.

And what is your source for Josephus three times having friends taken down? That appears to be highly suspicious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A Jehovah's Witnesses' study manual on the book of Isaiah contains the following information about the different and contradictory opinions of different textual critics on that biblical book:

I wonder how can we believe in people who, although they say they are qualified to tell the masses what to believe about books written more than 2 millennia ago, yet have such disparate theories?

Is it different with their opinion about the rest of biblical books?

Righting styles changing in a book is very good evidence for a change in authors.

 

[Sumadji]

You keep making Spiderman errors. We do not know if any of the Bible story is true.

Of course we don't. And we don't know that some of it may not be true either

Just because a piece of probably fiction claims that a character did something is not evidence for that occurring.

Of course it's not. This isn't a kindergarten class

And what is your source for Josephus three times having friends taken down? That appears to be highly suspicious.

I'll source that for you

It was three friends crucified and taken down at the same time. Two died but one survived. Its quite a commonly used passage. It's often used by proponents if the swoon theory, that Jesus was taken down alive.

Have you read Josephus 'The Jewish War' for an overview of the happenings in Judea at that time in history? It's horrific

 

[Sumadji]

And what is your source for Josephus three times having friends taken down? That appears to be highly suspicious.

and when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealious, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance.

I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered.

The Life of Flavius Josephus 420-421

 

[oldbadger]

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?

Hello Trailblazer.
I think that there was one partial witness, the original author of G-Mark.

I do believe that he was present at the arrest. He reported things that only he and some Temple officers would have witnessed or remembered, but the Temple officers would probably have preferred to forget. The arrest of the young man.

 

[CG Didymus]

Again, this is a lovely tradition, but it has no historical foundation.

The same thing is happening with your Scriptures. Did Moses write the first five books? Is there more than on writer of Isaiah? All these things change and challenge the authority of the Bible.

And a very important one that effects the Baha'is is... when was Daniel written?

The book of Daniel is probably the key book in the debate about the authenticity of the Bible. This book purports to forecast multiple world-shaking events, including the emergence of specific kings and the rise and fall of empires.​

​

Because of its prophetic nature, many believers consider the book of Daniel evidence that a divine Being inspired the Bible. Many critics, however, dismiss this book entirely. They say it must have been written after the fulfillment of its many “prophecies” and that it is simply a clever retelling of history. To the cynics, it is impossible that such incredibly accurate prophecies could have been made in advance.​

​

Here's is part of how the Baha'is interpret Daniel...

From time to time, questions are raised by the Bahá'ís about the interpretation of the Biblical prophecies contained in the following verses in Daniel 12:11-12:​

​

​

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.​

Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.​

​

To assist the friends in their study of this subject, the Research Department has prepared a summary of the elucidations contained in the Writings of Abdu'l-Bahá and the letters written by or on behalf of Shoghi Effendi on this theme. Three main issues are addressed: the interpretation of 1,290 days; the interpretation of 1,335 days; and the date of the commencement of the "hundred lunar years", which, as mentioned by Shoghi Effendi in "God Passes By" (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1987), page 151, will precede the consummation of the 1,335 days.​

1. 1,290 Days​

​

In "Some Answered Questions" (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1984), pages 43-44, Abdu'l-Bahá interprets the prophecy concerning the 1,290 days in the following terms:​

​

​

​

The beginning of this lunar reckoning is from the day of the proclamation of the prophethood of Muhammad in the country of Hijaz; and that was three years after His mission, because in the beginning the prophethood of Muhammad was kept secret, and no one knew it save Khadijah and Ibn Nawfal. After three years it was announced. And Bahá'u'lláh, in the year 1290 from the proclamation of the mission of Muhammad, caused His manifestation to be known.​

Note that the Master indicates that, in this instance, time is measured by the "lunar" calendar. Since the proclamation of the mission of Muhammad took place ten years prior to the Hegira, i.e., His flight from Mecca to Medina, from which date the Muslim calendar begins, the year 1290 from the proclamation of the mission of Muhammad was the year 1280 of the Hegira, or 1863-64 A.D.​

There are references to 1,290 days in "God Passes By", on pages 110 and 151. In these passages, Shoghi Effendi confirms that the Declaration of Bahá'u'lláh in Baghdad, which occurred in 1863 (1280 A.H.), represents the fulfilment of the 1,290 days.​

​

Whether or not you personally care what the Baha'is claim, it is important to know that they are claiming that their prophet, Baha'u'llah, is the promised Messiah... that Jesus was also the Messiah, but he didn't fulfill all of the Biblical prophecies. The claim that Baha'is make is that Baha'u'llah did fulfill all of the prophecies.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The same thing is happening with your Scriptures

And appropriately so.

The book of Daniel is probably the key book in the debate about the authenticity of the Bible.

Nonsense.

It is generally accepted that Daniel originated as a collection of Aramaic court tales later expanded by the Hebrew revelations.[42] The court tales may have originally circulated independently, but the edited collection was probably composed in the third or early second-century BC.[43] [source]​

To suggest, for example, that a collection of tales dated to the 3rd century B.C.E. is key to the debate about the authenticity of, e.g., a 15th century B.C.E. Exodus is ludicrous.

Whether or not you personally care what the Baha'is claim, it is important to know that they are claiming that their prophet, Baha'u'llah, is the promised Messiah...

Why?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think that there was one partial witness, the original author of G-Mark.

Who? Based on what? (See post #444)

 

[JustGeorge]

**Please be mindful of Rules 1, 3, and 9 while posting in this thread**​

1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member in a duplicitous fashion when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.

9. Subverting/Undermining the Forum Mission
The mission of Religious Forums is to provide a civil, informative, respectful, and welcoming environment where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare, and debate. Content members create while debating and discussing must be done in the spirit of productivity. Bashing other forums, creating unproductive content or responses to others, attempting to use this site as a platform for campaigning for or against or furthering a personal agenda, and attempting to undermine the forum mission may result in moderation.

 

[oldbadger]

Who? Based on what? (See post #444)

So you didn't bother to read the last paragraph in my post, yet you want to send me off somewhere rather than just writing down a message of your own.

Thus:-
I do believe that he was present at the arrest. He reported things that only he and some Temple officers would have witnessed or remembered, but the Temple officers would probably have preferred to forget. The arrest of the young man

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The same thing is happening with your Scriptures. Did Moses write the first five books? Is there more than on writer of Isaiah? All these things change and challenge the authority of the Bible.

IMHO? No, Moses did not write the Torah, and yes, there is more than one writer of Isaiah. If you were hoping I would have a double standard, I assure you I do not. Being as how I am an ordinary human being, I'm positive that I hold beliefs that are in error (even if I am not conscious of them), but I make an enormous amount of effort to be consistent, rational, and constantly turning things over again.

The Torah is most precious to me. I do not need it to be dictated by God to a secretary in order for its study to help form me into a better person and draw me closer to Hashem.

And a very important one that effects the Baha'is is... when was Daniel written?

To the degree that I can tell, Daniel was written during the Maccabean war, 167-160 BCE. Edit: I see from what you wrote later, that you are already familiar with this position.

The book of Daniel is probably the key book in the debate about the authenticity of the Bible. This book purports to forecast multiple world-shaking events, including the emergence of specific kings and the rise and fall of empires.​

Not according to the scholars I've read. They believe that Daniel was written to offer a kind of prophetic validation of the war. Its author (possibly two) looks BACK on events, not forwards. As with other forms of historical fiction, it blends real places and historical people with characters and events that never happened.

​

Because of its prophetic nature, many believers consider the book of Daniel evidence that a divine Being inspired the Bible.​

Ah, but they begin with the religious ASSUMPTION that it was actually written by Daniel, and actually written during the Babylonian captivity. When we use one faith based belief to prove another, that's really not good logic.

Many critics, however, dismiss this book entirely. They say it must have been written after the fulfillment of its many “prophecies” and that it is simply a clever retelling of history. To the cynics, it is impossible that such incredibly accurate prophecies could have been made in advance.​

Oh good, you are already familiar with this idea.

​

Here's is part of how the Baha'is interpret Daniel...

Thank you for sharing. It's always lovely to learn more about other people.

The Rabbis simply say that no one can know when the Messiah will come. Therefore we should resist the temptation to us Daniel as a mathematical formula to try to figure it out.

Whether or not you personally care what the Baha'is claim, it is important to know that they are claiming that their prophet, Baha'u'llah, is the promised Messiah...

Oh, of course, yes I am aware of their claim.

that Jesus was also the Messiah, but he didn't fulfill all of the Biblical prophecies. The claim that Baha'is make is that Baha'u'llah did fulfill all of the prophecies.

Perhaps the main prophecy is that the Messiah will usher in an era of peace between the nations. Not just urge it. Not just begin the tendency towards that. But that during the messianic era, worldwide peace BE in existence. As you know, the Baha'u'llah did not accomplish that, since wars do still happen.

FWIW, not all religious Jews understand the Messiah to be a literal specific man. Many, such as myself, focus more on the idyllic nature of the messianic age, and see "the messiah" as a metaphor for the human efforts to bring about such changes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course we don't. And we don't know that some of it may not be true either

Then please quit trying to deal with it as a source. You are trying to use circular reasoning. Proving the Bible with the Bible.

Of course it's not. This isn't a kindergarten class

That is exactly what you did.

I'll source that for you

It was three friends crucified and taken down at the same time. Two died but one survived. Its quite a commonly used passage. It's often used by proponents if the swoon theory, that Jesus was taken down alive.

Have you read Josephus 'The Jewish War' for an overview of the happenings in Judea at that time in history? It's horrific

I have read parts of it but by no means have I read the whole thing. A link would be appreciated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

and when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealious, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance.

I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered.

The Life of Flavius Josephus 420-421

A link should have been included, but that may be enough to confirm. I have found that it is best not to trust apologist sources. They are not afraid to more than stretch the truth and you may have gotten it from there.

For an online debate a source to be valid has to be accessible to both sides.

EDIT: Okay, yes, it appears that Josephus had this done for him. At least according to Josephus. Yet he had some pull with the Romans. The character in the crucifixion stories is only known for that one claimed act. I would like to see what other historians say about this. And in the future you may find this link handy:

Flavius Josephus, Life of Josephus 407-430

lexundria.com

 

[Sumadji]

Then please quit trying to deal with it as a source. You are trying to use circular reasoning. Proving the Bible with the Bible.

I am not. I'm saying it's part of the consideration. It exists. It cannot be discarded as a source

have read parts of it but by no means have I read the whole thing. A link would be appreciated.

Order it from Amazon, if you want to learn about the situation in Judea at the time. Or not, as you wish

That is exactly what you did.

You are an insulting poster. I will not engage at your level any more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not. I'm saying it's part of the consideration. It exists. It cannot be discarded as a source.
You are an insulting poster. I will not engage at your level any more.

Where did I insult you? Please, you are far too sensitive if you think that anything that I did was insulting.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are an insulting poster. I will not engage at your level any more.

With all due respect to your opinion, I have been posting to @Subduction Zone for about six years and I do not think he is an insulting poster.