There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Subduction Zone]

I am not. I'm saying it's part of the consideration. It exists. It cannot be discarded as a source
Order it from Amazon, if you want to learn about the situation in Judea at the time. Or not, as you wish

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

You can read it online for free. Too bad that you got mad. I added a link to my post and that was probably before you made the claim that I insulted you.

EDIT: In fact it had to be before you got all butt hurt for a mild rebuke. When I just quoted you it was before you edited your accusation against me. That is shown by the difference in my quote of your post and what it says now.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

What makes you think that Mark was present at the arrest and/or trial? (For the sake of argument, we will assume that Mark wrote this gospel, although I have presented elsewhere the case that he was not.)

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.

The fact that things happened for which there would have been no Christian witnesses is one of the reasons that scholars say these accounts are legends rather than history. For example, what potential Christians were present when Jesus prayed alone in the Garden of Gethsemane? Or during his interview with Pilate?

 

[Brian2]

It's interesting what he says here, "that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."

Then it Acts he says, " In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive."

Part of what he is claiming is that we can know for a certainty that Jesus showed himself to be alive with many convincing proofs. Yet, the Baha'i Faith, whose prophet claims to be sent by God, doesn't support that Jesus was alive.

They are a religion that changes the meaning of words. They want the "physical death and soul leaving the body" to be the resurrection. So Jesus died and that means, in their teachings, that Jesus is alive and has been resurrected into a resurrection body and is in heaven in that body.
It is a teaching which is against the Bible teaching.

From the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá​

​

The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.​

​

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection....​

That seems to be about John 2:19-21
John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

From letters written on behalf of the Guardian​

​

We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the Crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His Ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realized He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and been misunderstood. His eating with His disciples after resurrection is the same thing.​

​

Now whether a person believes the resurrection of Jesus was true or not doesn't matter. Luke in his gospel and by what he says in Acts make it clear that what he is claiming is Jesus came back to life after being killed.

The Baha'i claim is that it was not a literal, physical resurrection. They make the claim that all those verses that talk about the resurrection and appearances of Jesus were all symbolic... none of that stuff really happened. All the things that Luke says did happen... including Jesus showing himself to be alive by many proofs.

Baha'is can't have the resurrection stories being true. To help call them into question, it doesn't hurt to say that the gospels were written by people that weren't even eyewitnesses.

Yet, Baha'is also claim they believe in Jesus? And that is based on the few true things they believe in that are found in those same gospels. Weird stuff going on.

It is weird stuff going on in the Baha'i head. It would be easier for them to say that they just reject the Bible, but Baha'u'llah bases who he is on the Bible and so they have to give lip service to the Bible and to Jesus and what He said.

 

[Brian2]

It appears that you are misusing the word "know". If you know that there is good reason you would be able to support the claim that they are authentic etc.. In face it is rather well known that there were quite a few gospels before the decision in the 300's that there would be only four church accepted gospels. Church tradition is not history.

The other gospels weren't accepted and used by the early church. It has always been just the 4 gospels in quotes from the church fathers. Presumably this was for the reason that at that time it was just those 4 which were acceptable.

No, we went over this. Skeptics follow the evidence. You do not seem to understand what a skeptic is and you are once again using a term as pejorative instead of supporting your beliefs with evidence. It is the evidence that leads skeptics to those conclusions. You probably have been given the reasons in the past and you do not have any answer to that evidence. Otherwise you would use more than making false claims about others.

There is only one reason to say that the gospels were written after 70 AD and that is because of the sceptic presumption that Jesus could not predict the destruction of the Temple.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They are a religion that changes the meaning of words.

This caught my eye. I think all religions use words idiosyncratically. For example, outside of religious language, "flesh" refers to the physical body or meat. But in Christian contexts, especially in Paul's letters, "flesh" often symbolizes the tendency toward sinful behavior.

I have no problems with communities tailoring language in order to give expression to their unique ideas. I only get irritated when individuals do it. After all, if the only person who uses my definition is me, it will only prevent me from being able to communicate.

 

[CG Didymus]

They are a religion that changes the meaning of words. They want the "physical death and soul leaving the body" to be the resurrection. So Jesus died and that means, in their teachings, that Jesus is alive and has been resurrected into a resurrection body and is in heaven in that body.
It is a teaching which is against the Bible teaching.

But what's easier to believe? That Jesus was dead for three days and came back to life? Or that is was a symbolic story?

It gives people a way to still believe in Christianity without having to believe it literally. Satan's gone. Hell is gone. Salvation, as Born-Again Christians believe it, is gone. They can write off any of the miracles as being symbolic also.

So, what is left is a very nice, very liberal, user-friendly Christianity... Jesus was just such a wonderful, loving person. Forget all those doctrines and dogmas.

 

[oldbadger]

What makes you think that Mark was present at the arrest and/or trial? (For the sake of argument, we will assume that Mark wrote this gospel, although I have presented elsewhere the case that he was not.)

Yes, can we just say 'the author'?
I do have to guesstimate a great deal in historical Jesus studies but where possible I do try to stop myself because it's so easy for presumption to escape.

The fact that things happened for which there would have been no Christian witnesses is one of the reasons that scholars say these accounts are legends rather than history. For example, what potential Christians were present when Jesus prayed alone in the Garden of Gethsemane? Or during his interview with Pilate?

Just sticking to the arrest, I know that during such an event as described there is absolute mayhem and confusion. After such an event the statements of people concerned are a mash of personal experiences because everybody was involved in their immediate 'troubles' whether fleeing or arresting.
And so the only persons likely to have intimate knowledge of the attempted arrest of that youth were the officers who failed....and that youth, and for the youth it was an incident never to be forgotten for life. The officers failed so they probably reported 'down' about it all, preferring not to remember that failure.

And so, in that melee of noise and action nobody else noticed or remembered that one part of all, and why would they? !!!

Only one person would have intimate knowledge about that and shudder every time that they remembered it.........the author who mentioned it even though it was not part of the main story.

I don't expect that any scholars have ever tried to catch a villain who pulled out of coat (etc) and ran, (nor anyone who evaded arrest by doing just that,) but it happened to me a few times over about 30 years and the first event is carved in to memory....every detail. You never forget and not did the author of G-Mark.

 

[Eli G]

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

That's like saying a comic actor can't play a serious role or a novelist can't write a poem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The other gospels weren't accepted and used by the early church. It has always been just the 4 gospels in quotes from the church fathers. Presumably this was for the reason that at that time it was just those 4 which were acceptable.

There was no one "early church" at that time. There were groups that used those other gospels. They were in the minority. They would not have existed if there were not at least some people that believed them.

There is only one reason to say that the gospels were written after 70 AD and that is because of the sceptic presumption that Jesus could not predict the destruction of the Temple.

No, that is nonsense that you need to support and I am very sure that you cannot do so. That is just a mantra of deniers of scholarship.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's like saying a comic actor can't play a serious role or a novelist can't write a poem.

No it is not at all like that. Writing styles tell us a lot about the author. It takes a major act of will to change one's writing styles and is not easy to maintain. People will sometimes mimic the writing styles of others but that is in an attempt to deceive. I do not see the real Paul doing that.

 

[Eli G]

There is only one reason to say that the gospels were written after 70 AD and that is because of the sceptic presumption that Jesus could not predict the destruction of the Temple.

And coincidentally the same reason why they want to attribute various human writers to the book of Isaiah, where the prophet clearly predicts the future appearance (ocurred 2 centuries later) of a man named Cyrus who would conquer Babylon, as well as describing specific details about how he would accomplish this (Is. 44:26-45:7).

For an atheist prophecy is impossible so any hint of a prophecy implies, from their biased viewpoint, that it was given after the event happened and never before.

 

[Trailblazer]

They are a religion that changes the meaning of words. They want the "physical death and soul leaving the body" to be the resurrection.

That is not only a Baha'i belief. The Christian who wrote this book also believed it. He was a rare Christian who knew how to interpret the Bible.

The Resuscitation of Man from the Dead and His Entrance into Eternal Life
​

421. When the body is no longer able to perform the bodily functions in the natural world that correspond to the spirit’s thoughts and affections, which the spirit has from the spiritual world, man is said to die. This takes place when the respiration of the lungs and the beatings of the heart cease. But the man does not die; he is merely separated from the bodily part that was of use to him in the world, while the man himself continues to live. It is said that the man himself continues to live since man is not a man because of his body but because of his spirit, for it is the spirit that thinks in man, and thought with affection is what constitutes man. Evidently, then, the death of man is merely his passing from one world into another. And this is why in the Word in its internal sense “death” signifies resurrection and continuation of life. (Heaven and Hell, p. 351)

https://swedenborg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/swedenborg_foundation_heaven_and_hell.pdf

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it is called "being honest". A concept that far too many believers do not seem to understand. Liars for Jesus may comfort you, but you were not going to leave Christianity no matter what. They do little if any good and may even drive away believers on the cusp. When a person sees that a belief can only be defended by dishonest techniques that tends to turn off people that are asking serious questions.

Once again, scholars get in trouble if they lie or use fallacious arguments. That is perfectly okay in the realm of apologetics. As long as they hold to the party line. There is no party line in scholarship. Only the rule that one has to use reliable evidence and rational arguments.

From what I read, doctors may be "honest," but incorrect about many things.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not only a Baha'i belief. The Christian who wrote this book also believed it. He was a rare Christian who knew how to interpret the Bible.

The Resuscitation of Man from the Dead and His Entrance into Eternal Life
​

421. When the body is no longer able to perform the bodily functions in the natural world that correspond to the spirit’s thoughts and affections, which the spirit has from the spiritual world, man is said to die. This takes place when the respiration of the lungs and the beatings of the heart cease. But the man does not die; he is merely separated from the bodily part that was of use to him in the world, while the man himself continues to live. It is said that the man himself continues to live since man is not a man because of his body but because of his spirit, for it is the spirit that thinks in man, and thought with affection is what constitutes man. Evidently, then, the death of man is merely his passing from one world into another. And this is why in the Word in its internal sense “death” signifies resurrection and continuation of life. (Heaven and Hell, p. 351)

https://swedenborg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/swedenborg_foundation_heaven_and_hell.pdf

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Do you think your spirit as trailblazer or however God knows you was with God for eons before it entered your body of flesh and blood?

 

[Subduction Zone]

From what I read, doctors may be "honest," but incorrect about many things.

Another "So what?" argument. People that really believe something may be right at times. But in general you will find that people are willing to be honest and follow the evidence will have much better results than people that believe something just because of who told it to them in the first place. In other words if someone says "This food is safe to eat because my mom told me so" and another groups says "Hmm, I don't know? How can we reasonably test to see if it is safe?" which group would tend to give you the more reliable results?

 

[Eli G]

Mormons believe that humans were spirits before they were born, and that when they die, depending on how they have lived, they will be gods of some new world, or some other option until they succeed. For them Adam had been the archangel Michael and at the same time the one who became the God of human offspring. Each human according to Mormons, will become a kind of "Adam" for another world.

The Bahais consider that the invisible world is made up of spirits of humans, as do the Mormons. According to the Bahais, there are no angels that have been created apart from humans, as do their American counterpart: the Mormons.

 

[Eli G]

...People that really believe something may be right at times. But in general you will find that people are willing to be honest and follow the evidence will have much better results than people that believe something just because of who told it to them in the first place.

It depends a lot on who you consider an "authority" in a field, or who you simply want to trust. People sometimes trust the wrong people.

In other words if someone says "This food is safe to eat because my mom told me so" and another groups says "Hmm, I don't know? How can we reasonably test to see if it is safe?" which group would tend to give you the more reliable results?

It depends, again, on what you consider "reliable results".

I have the Bible as an inspired book not because it is a magic book, but because its content proves to be superior to any other human content.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It depends a lot on who you consider an "authority" in a field, or who you simply want to trust. People sometimes trust the wrong people.

And this is why once again scholarship wins. They have to support their claims with evidence. They have to be able to explain all observations. They try to prove themselves wrong. Believers tend to ignore the evidence that refutes them.

It depends, again, on what you consider "reliable results".

I have the Bible as an inspired book not because it is a magic book, but because its content proves to be superior to any other human content.

You are treating the Bible as book of magic. How does it ever "prove" anything? I do not think that you understand the concept. Personally I like evidence. Sadly supporters of the Bible usually do not understand the concept.

 

[Eli G]

And this is why once again scholarship wins.

I don't know what is "scholarship" to you. It may mean a lot of different things.

Believers tend to ignore the evidence that refutes them.

That is just your opinion, and it is irrelevant.

You are treating the Bible as book of magic.

You don't know how I see the Bible, since you didn't ask me that.

I do not think that you understand the concept.

I do understand a lot of "concepts". Some of them in a different way than you, since people think according to how they live.

Personally I like evidence.

Me too.

Sadly supporters of the Bible usually do not understand the concept.

Just your opinion, again. And it is irrelevant, again.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you think your spirit as trailblazer or however God knows you was with God for eons before it entered your body of flesh and blood?

No, I do not believe that. I believe that my spirit/soul came into being at the time of conception.