There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Subduction Zone]

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

A scholar is one that not only studies a topic, but also publishes about it in a well respected peer reviewed journal. That forces a person to be honest.

That is just your opinion, and it is irrelevant.

No, it is neither. It is an observation and it is very relevant. Mere belief is topped by rational thought in almost every endeavor.

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

That is how you have presented the Bible to date. You have never demonstrated that it is reliable in any way at all and to be able to use it as a source you would need to be able to do that.

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

You do not seem to understand the concept of evidence. The easiest to understand and most reliable form of evidence is scientific evidence. Are you willing to learn?

Me too.

No, that does not appear to be the case. Once again, are you willing to learn what is and what is not evidence?

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

No, that is a falsehood on your part. When you make a claim like that you take on a burden of proof. How would you prove that was just my opinion?

 

[Eli G]

Your words are empty of content.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your words are empty of content.

You should not make false claims about others. I merely state facts that I am willing to support. Here is the problem. You tried to use a Gish Gallop. If you want to discuss any point that you did not understand the proper way to do that is one point at a time.

I am always willing to help others to understand the concept of scientific evidence. That puts the burden of proof upon me, but I never have seen a creationist that is willing to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Eli G]

You should not make false claims about others. I merely state facts that I am willing to support. Here is the problem. You tried to use a Gish Gallop. If you want to discuss any point that you did not understand the proper way to do that is one point at a time.

I am always willing to help others to understand the concept of scientific evidence. That puts the burden of proof upon me, but I never have seen a creationist that is willing to learn what is and what is not evidence.

As everyone knows, Piltdown Man was "evidence" of the theory of evolution of species for a whole generation of students at all levels.

I don't think evolutionists, included you, can teach anyone what "evidence" really is.

Have a good one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As everyone knows, Piltdown Man was "evidence" of the theory of evolution of species for a whole generation of students at all levels.

I don't think evolutionists, included you, can teach anyone what "evidence" really is.

Have a good one.

Please, he was never well accepted outside of Britain, and an example of a hoax against an idea does not refute an idea. By your poor standard the Bible has been refuted a thousand times over because there have been countless hoaxes by Christians for the Bible.

You need to learn how to reason rationally. This sort of arguing is not honest on your part since you are not apply the same standards to your personal beliefs. But then you keep confirming that you know that your beliefs are false by the way that you debate.

 

[Eli G]

More words empty of content.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Even if it could be proven that all four gospels were written by an eyewitness, it wouldn't change things for Baha'is. They believe that Christians misunderstood the stories.

A perfect example is how Abdul Baha' interpreted the resurrection. Basically, they were down in the dumps after Jesus was killed. But after three days they took heart and remembered all the wonderful teachings. They went out and started telling people about what Jesus had taught them, thus... bringing life into the "body" of Christ.

Problem is... that's not how the story goes. How does he get that interpretation from Jesus appearing and disappearing, eating with them and having them touch him to prove he was alive. Maybe made up and faked... But they go into all that detail and it was all just a symbolic story? Come on Baha'is, just go with made up and faked.

I agree with you. Much better for them to just reject it all. And, in a way, that is essentially what they are doing anyway. They reject Jesus, Lazarus and the others from coming back to life. They don't believe in demons, so any time Jesus cast out a demon, that isn't real. God spoke from heaven? Baha'is don't believe that. The Holy Spirit is the Comforter and descended on the disciples? No, the make their prophet the Comforter. Satan and hell? They don't believe they are real. Inheriting sin from Adam, which caused there to be a need for Jesus to sacrifice himself? They don't believe that?

Ah, but one thing they do believe... the virgin birth. Why bother? That's probably one of the easiest things the gospel writers could have invented. I really, really doubt that any of the writers witnessed the birth of Jesus. And only two gospel writers wrote about it. And they tell it differently. What was their source? Two different traditions? Who knows? But we can all be sure that it is true, because, out of all the Christian beliefs, Baha'u'llah says this one is literally true. The other beliefs? Ah, not so much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More words empty of content.

No, it was an honest statement. Remember, I have offered to go over the concept of scientific evidence with you. If you run away from such offers your actions only tell us that not even you believe your false claims.

 

[Sumadji]

out of all the Christian beliefs, Baha'u'llah says this one is literally true.

Because it's in the Quran. They believe the Quran updates and informs the NT. The Quran to them is all true. Nothing is made up, in the way they believe the main part of the Lazarus story is made-up

But again, when they don't like something in the Quran, like angels or satan and hell, or the resurrection on the last day (and there's a lot of it) then it has to be 'interpreted'

 

[Trailblazer]

Even if it could be proven that all four gospels were written by an eyewitness, it wouldn't change things for Baha'is.

I cannot speak for other Baha'is, but it would change things for me.
But that could never be proven so it is a moot point.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Just sticking to the arrest, I know that during such an event as described there is absolute mayhem and confusion.

You are not giving a direct answer to my question. I have brought up incidents where Jesus was not with any of his disciples. During his prayer in the Garden, he was completely alone. In his interview with Pontius Pilate, there is no one else there but Pilate. So how would the author of Mark know what was spoken?

 

[blü 2]

Even if so, Bible claims they were eyewitness accounts, which is why it can be said that also Gospel of Luke is an eyewitness account, according to the Bible. I understand that people can think it is not true. My point is only to say that it is what the Bible claims.

Where does Luke claim to have personally encountered a historical Jesus?

 

[blü 2]

You are not giving a direct answer to my question. I have brought up incidents where Jesus was not with any of his disciples. During his prayer in the Garden, he was completely alone. In his interview with Pontius Pilate, there is no one else there but Pilate. So how would the author of Mark know what was spoken?

There's good reason to think that Mark got his trial-of-Jesus scene from Josephus' account (Wars VI.5.3) of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem aka Jesus son of Ananias.

 

[oldbadger]

You are not giving a direct answer to my question. I have brought up incidents where Jesus was not with any of his disciples. During his prayer in the Garden, he was completely alone. In his interview with Pontius Pilate, there is no one else there but Pilate. So how would the author of Mark know what was spoken?

Ah yes. That question arises again and again through all the gospels..... How could anybody have reported this or that. ???
I can only tell you what I think, ok?
I reckon that G-Mark was embellished, edited, fiddled with and added to afterwards. I don't take any notice of claims about prophesies fulfilled, known additions such as in chapter one verse one (the son of God), and so on.
Matthew and Luke was massively embellished to fit with early church dogma, and G-John was almost total rubbish save for real anecdotes which were used as 'truth pills'.
So I cannot offer you much, only that I think Jesus was a real person who did rebel against Temple corruption and wealth whilst do many of the peasant classes were on the bread line, his 'rebellious actions' lasted for about 11 months and not 3 years, as well.

 

[1213]

Where does Luke claim to have personally encountered a historical Jesus?

Luke tells he collected eyewitness accounts. This means, what is written in Luke, is a collection of eyewitness accounts. It is not about what Luke experienced.

 

[blü 2]

Luke tells he collected eyewitness accounts. This means, what is written in Luke, is a collection of eyewitness accounts. It is not about what Luke experienced.

So it remains the case that the NT contains no texts by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus. No argument from me.

And whatever else the author of Luke did, he used Mark as his template, as the author of Matthew had done, and gave the version of their versions that he liked best. His intro doesn't actually say he used material from eyewitnesses, and I'm unable to point to any part that might be an example of that, but if you think you can, I'd be interested to hear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Luke tells he collected eyewitness accounts. This means, what is written in Luke, is a collection of eyewitness accounts. It is not about what Luke experienced.

Really? I have only read where Luke claims that the stories go back to eyewitnesses. In other words he heard from those that could supposed ly trace their stories back to the source. That may explain his nonsensical version of the Nativity myth that disagrees so much with the one in Matthew.

 

[CG Didymus]

Because it's in the Quran. They believe the Quran updates and informs the NT. The Quran to them is all true. Nothing is made up, in the way they believe the main part of the Lazarus story is made-up

But again, when they don't like something in the Quran, like angels or satan and hell, or the resurrection on the last day (and there's a lot of it) then it has to be 'interpreted'

I've asked Baha'is about that. One of them is if they believe the young boy Jesus made some birds out of clay and made them come to life.

But then about the birth of Jesus, if the gospel stories have Jesus being born in a barn in Bethlehem, and the Quran has him being born under a date palm, which story are they going to believe. Unless I missed somebody's post, I don't think any Baha'i has responded to that.

And, I don't know, but what's up with the believe that Jesus will return with the Mahdi? Do you know anything about that? If it's based on something in the Quran or Hadiths?

 

[CG Didymus]

Ah yes. That question arises again and again through all the gospels..... How could anybody have reported this or that. ???
I can only tell you what I think, ok?
I reckon that G-Mark was embellished, edited, fiddled with and added to afterwards. I don't take any notice of claims about prophesies fulfilled, known additions such as in chapter one verse one (the son of God), and so on.
Matthew and Luke was massively embellished to fit with early church dogma, and G-John was almost total rubbish save for real anecdotes which were used as 'truth pills'.
So I cannot offer you much, only that I think Jesus was a real person who did rebel against Temple corruption and wealth whilst do many of the peasant classes were on the bread line, his 'rebellious actions' lasted for about 11 months and not 3 years, as well.

That what I wonder... why wouldn't the stories about Jesus be fiddled with, embellished and made to fit Church dogma? A virgin birth, casting out demons, walking on water and rising from the dead and ascending into heaven make him a God/man.

Who in those days wouldn't want to be on the side of a God/man that is going to come back and save them and destroy all the evil people?

Claiming that a person was an eyewitness to all those miraculous things helps make it sound true... like those things really happened. They say, "Hey, one of the guys doubted. But them Jesus appeared and let the guy touch him. And the guy saw with his own eyes... Jesus was real."

Then comes the "good news"... "Hey, you're a sinner. I'm a sinner. We're all sinners. But believe all this stuff we're telling you. All these crazy stories... And you'll be saved. Everyone else, all those that don't believe? Well, they going to burn in hell for eternity. You want that?"

Who in those days would say, "No" to that? And it still works today. "Jesus is real. He is God. And he's coming back. You don't want to be left behind." It makes it pretty easy to be a Christian. What does a person got to lose? They can even keep on sinning and get absolved and forgiven as they go. Technically, I guess, a person is supposed to repent and not do those sins anymore. But who does that? I'd imagine... not too many, if any.

Now the big problem... people telling them that those stories about Jesus aren't true. Who in any religion wants to hear that? Of course they're gonna get defensive. But how does a person defend beliefs they can't prove? And beliefs that make them feel so good and rest assured that one day they will go to heaven to be with Jesus?

They're going to find someway to prove what they believe is true. And every religion and every sect of every religion does the same thing... find ways to prove that what they believe is The Truth.

 

[Sumadji]

One of them is if they believe the young boy Jesus made some birds out of clay and made them come to life.

It's an incident briefly mentioned in the Quran, but expanded earlier in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, from the NT apocrypha, centuries before Muhammad (pbuh).

It's not the same book as The Gospel of Thomas which was written contemporary with the other four Gospels of the standard western NT and before the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

But then about the birth of Jesus, if the gospel stories have Jesus being born in a barn in Bethlehem, and the Quran has him being born under a date palm, which story are they going to believe. Unless I missed somebody's post, I don't think any Baha'i has responded to that.

Mary the mother of Jesus is the only woman mentioned in the Quran. She has a whole chapter named for her, although it's not all about her. The Quran appears to get Mary the mother of Jesus confused with Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron.

It also appears to get the concept of the Trinity confused with the supposed worship of Jesus and Mary as gods and partners to Allah.

And, I don't know, but what's up with the believe that Jesus will return with the Mahdi? Do you know anything about that? If it's based on something in the Quran or Hadiths?

I'm not sure about Shia Islam beliefs ...