There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[YoursTrue]

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?

It's not a so what statement. It's important to understand that those considered by many as experts can be wrong and just accept what's taught.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

Let me follow this a little. Do you as a bahai believe you were alive, cognizant and thinking before you were conceived in your mother's womb?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not a so what statement. It's important to understand that those considered by many as experts can be wrong and just accept what's taught.

But no one does that. At least not if one is rational. This shows that you are thinking religiously and not rationally. For a rational person even if an expert says it the claims are always checked to see if they are supported by evidence. Far too often I see the religious only focusing on who said what rather than the evidence that supports or opposes those claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

Let me follow this a little. Do you as a bahai believe you were alive, cognizant and thinking before you were conceived in your mother's womb?

No, I do not believe I was alive, cognizant and thinking, before I was conceived in your mother's womb.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

Yes, for sure, Didymus.
A review of the lives of so many Christians can support your above points so clearly. People who believe they will be 'saved' regardless of anything that they do.

That word, 'sinner ' is so interesting. Almost without exception, as soon as I see or hear that word it will be in a religious, spiritual or theist conversation..

Most Christians that I know will NEVER use it in their everyday lives, it is a 'switch on ' only to be used in a religious way.

A wife greeting her husband on returning home 'Hello Darling, the Wenlocks have been burgled! The sinners got in some time this afternoon, the police say.'. !!!!!!!

 

[oldbadger]

............For a rational person even if an expert says it the claims are always checked to see if they are supported by evidence. ,............

But do you do that?
It seems to me that on many occasions 'experts' findings can get supported by friendly experts.

A perfect example is often expert-witnesses in litigation. Experts give their evidence on opposing sides, and a judge or jury will decide who is right.

 

[blü 2]

But do you do that?
It seems to me that on many occasions 'experts' findings can get supported by friendly experts.

A perfect example is often expert-witnesses in litigation. Experts give their evidence on opposing sides, and a judge or jury will decide who is right.

That's what cross-examination is for ─ but it requires much smart homework, of course.

Then again, every time you consult your medical advisers, they start with opinions but check them with further particular tests.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

From that bunch of miracles above, I think that Jesus walking on water and the casting of demons could have grown from real life actions.
I suppose that many people would assume that fishermen could all swim but that isn't true, and we know for sure that Cephas could not swim from gospel accounts. But if Jesus could swim strongly then that would explain his lack of fear in storms and ability to 'go' on water. I have seen that one Aramaic word for 'to go' includes walking and swimming. I wonder if any here could help with that.

As far as casting out demons goes, I've seen a doctor in a psychiatry ward stop a person's hysterical seizure by slapping them and saying loudly 'Don't you do that to me!'. Wow! I've seen a miracle!
And I've seen a woman who was believed by paramedics and a doctor to have suffered a disabling stroke to jump at the arrival of her worried husband and dance over to him in greeting. True.
Miraculous stuff.

 

[oldbadger]

That's what cross-examination is for ─ but it requires much smart homework, of course.

Then again, every time you consult your medical advisers, they start with opinions but check them with further particular tests.

Some do, blu...some.
And some don't.

How many times have you seen,/read scholars findings being quoted but not explained.

Within the last month a poster has told me that where a scholar's and layman's opinions differ then he would always accept the scholar's without any further investigation. Our (explained) opinions might be fit to challenge many scholar's, I think.

 

[blü 2]

Some do, blu...some.
And some don't.

How many times have you seen,/read scholars findings being quoted but not explained.

Within the last month a poster has told me that where a scholar's and layman's opinions differ then he would always accept the scholar's without any further investigation. Our (explained) opinions might be fit to challenge many scholar's, I think.

Depends on the scholar. I have a particular distrust of Christian apologists, for example. Their task is not to determine and advocate for the historical truth of events, but to defend the beliefs held as orthodoxy in their corner.

I also had an interesting encounter with scholars some years back when I was looking at the question of whether there had been a historical Jesus or not. The view I ultimately formed and still hold is that you don't need a historical Jesus to account for the NT, but it's a little bit more likely than not that there was indeed a real human behind the stories. Perhaps the only real glimpse we get of him is the way in which all four gospels report him on antagonistic terms with his mother and more loosely his family; and that the Romans dealt with him as they usually dealt with what in their view were trouble-makers.

 

[oldbadger]

Depends on the scholar. I have a particular distrust of Christian apologists, for example. Their task is not to determine and advocate for the historical truth of events, but to defend the beliefs held as orthodoxy in their corner.

Id give anybody, scholar or not, the chance to show how they've come to an opinion, but I agree with you that most Christian debaters (scholars or not) are only arguing from faith.

I also had an interesting encounter with scholars some years back when I was looking at the question of whether there had been a historical Jesus or not. The view I ultimately formed and still hold is that you don't need a historical Jesus to account for the NT, but it's a little bit more likely than not that there was indeed a real human behind the stories. Perhaps the only real glimpse we get of him is the way in which all four gospels report him on antagonistic terms with his mother and more loosely his family; and that the Romans dealt with him as they usually dealt with what in their view were trouble-makers.

I also think that there was a Jesus, a rebel who caused trouble. I think that Josephus wrote a small paragraph about him in his 'problems and troubles' pages. That Christianity fiddled with that small section cannot hide the fact that it was placed amongst other problems of the time. Now the Baptist got a much better spread!

 

[1213]

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

I believe John met Jesus. And the people who gave the stories to Luke, met Jesus.

And whatever else the author of Luke did, he used Mark as his template,...

How can you make such a claim, where you there when Luke wrote the book?

 

[blü 2]

I believe John met Jesus. And the people who gave the stories to Luke, met Jesus.

Whoever wrote John did so, I read, around 95 CE or later, which is some 65 years after the traditional date of Jesus' death. Considering how rare it was to live to 60 in those days, and considering John's author's reliance-at-a-distance on the synoptics and gnostic views, I can't think of any persuasive basis to think he ever met an historical Jesus.

How can you make such a claim, where you there when Luke wrote the book?

We don't know who wrote any of the gospels, but the first written was Mark, not earlier than 75 CE. Matthew and Luke were written around the mid-80s.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I do not believe I was alive, cognizant and thinking, before I was conceived in your mother's womb.

You were not conceived in my mother's womb, I'm pretty sure of that.

 

[YoursTrue]

But do you do that?
It seems to me that on many occasions 'experts' findings can get supported by friendly experts.

A perfect example is often expert-witnesses in litigation. Experts give their evidence on opposing sides, and a judge or jury will decide who is right.

Another good reason why I won't be on a jury.

 

[YoursTrue]

But no one does that. At least not if one is rational. This shows that you are thinking religiously and not rationally. For a rational person even if an expert says it the claims are always checked to see if they are supported by evidence. Far too often I see the religious only focusing on who said what rather than the evidence that supports or opposes those claims.

The problem I perceive with that is that yes, scientists can see certain things that happen within a body, even microscopically. That does not prove evolution, however. Or suggest that is how life came about after the first cell(s) started to multiply. One big enough reason is that no one can see what happened at the beginning, and by beginning, I mean how life began from the first living thing on upward evolutionary-wise. They may say they know, or suggest how it burgeoned out, but really they don't know. I have said from the start that I understand the theory, yet I am am often told I do not because I am not accepting it as the final word as to how we, human beings, got here. And of course if there were no human beings there would be no discussion about it.

 

[Trailblazer]

You were not conceived in my mother's womb, I'm pretty sure of that.

Sorry, I was in a hurry, as usual.
I meant to say: No, I do not believe I was alive, cognizant and thinking, before I was conceived in my mother's womb.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, I was in a hurry, as usual.
I meant to say: No, I do not believe I was alive, cognizant and thinking, before I was conceived in my mother's womb.

lol, glad you corrected that -- I was getting a little scared...

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem I perceive with that is that yes, scientists can see certain things that happen within a body, even microscopically. That does not prove evolution, however. Or suggest that is how life came about after the first cell(s) started to multiply. One big enough reason is that no one can see what happened at the beginning, and by beginning, I mean how life began from the first living thing on upward evolutionary-wise. They may say they know, or suggest how it burgeoned out, but really they don't know. I have said from the start that I understand the theory, yet I am am often told I do not because I am not accepting it as the final word as to how we, human beings, got here. And of course if there were no human beings there would be no discussion about it.

Sorry but you are wrong. Sadly there is no point in even trying to help you since you refuse to learn that basics of science. Perhaps you do that so that you can deny the obvious evidence without openly lying. That is the risk of learning what is and what is not evidence. To support creationism you would not only have to lie. You would have to know that you are lying.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sorry but you are wrong. Sadly there is no point in even trying to help you since you refuse to learn that basics of science.

He refuses to learn about ANY topic.