• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
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?

While there is and was controversy over the gospel accounts back then and now, good scholarship would reveal that something surely happened testifying to the events. Irenaeus must certainly be taken into account. And like now people will differ and dispute history and documents. None of the disputes prove that John was not an eyewitness of Jesus. Or that the gospel narratives as we know them now are not true. You may believe that Bahaullah was an instrument of God. I do not.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
From Bart Ehrman book "Forged":

The anonymity of the Gospel writers was respected for decades. When the Gospels of the New Testament are alluded to and quoted by authors of the early second century, they are never entitled, never named. Even Justin Martyr, writing around 150-60 CE, quotes verses from the Gospels, but does not indicate what the Gospels were named. For Justin, these books are simply known, collectively, as the "Memoirs of the Apostles." It was about a century after the Gospels had been originally put in circulation that they were definitively named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This comes, for the first time, in the writings of the church father and heresiologist Irenaeus, around 180-85 CE.​

Irenaeus wrote a five-volume work, typically known today as Against Heresies, directed against the false teachings rampant among Christians in his day. At one point in these writings he insists that "heretics" (i.e., false teachers) have gone astray either because they use Gospels that are not really Gospels or because they use only one or another of the four that are legitimately Gospels. Some heretical groups used only Matthew, some only Mark, and so on. For Irenaeus, just as the gospel of Christ has been spread by the four winds of heaven over the four corners of the earth, so there must be four and only four Gospels, and they are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 4​

Modern readers may not find this kind of logic very compelling, but it is not difficult to see why orthodox writers like Irenaeus wanted to stress the point. Lots of Gospels were in circulation. Christians who wanted to appeal to the authority of the Gospels had to know which ones were legitimate. For Irenaeus and his fellow orthodox Christians, legitimate Gospels could only be those that had apostolic authority behind them. The authority of a Gospel resided in the person of its author. The author there- fore had to be authoritative, either an apostle himself or a close companion of an apostle who could relate the stories of the Gospel under his authority. In the year 155, when Justin was writing, it may still have been perfectly acceptable to quote the Gospels without attributing them to particular authors. But soon there were so many other Gospels in circulation that the books being widely cited by orthodox Christians needed to be given apostolic credentials. So they began to be known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.​
expand...
While there is and was controversy over the gospel accounts back then and now, good and honest scholarly appraisal would reveal that something surely happened testifying to the events. Irenaeus must certainly be taken into account. And like now people will differ and dispute history and documents. None of the disputes prove that John was not an eyewitness of Jesus. Or that the gospel narratives as we know them now are not true. Some may believe that Bahaullah was an instrument of God. Or that the soul transmigrated before and after birth or that some speak to dead persons. I do not believe that. While they may provide proof, how about you?
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
While there is and was controversy over the gospel accounts back then and now, good scholarship would reveal that something surely happened testifying to the events. Irenaeus must certainly be taken into account. And like now people will differ and dispute history and documents. None of the disputes prove that John was not an eyewitness of Jesus. Or that the gospel narratives as we know them now are not true. You may believe that Bahaullah was an instrument of God. I do not.
The consensus of NT scholarship - both Christians and non christians - is that the gospel were not written by Mark Matthew Luke or John. But that those names were assigned later.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
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?

This is not attested to by early Christians, including Irenaeous. By the way, not to change the subject, but it's really on te subject -- just listening to a radio program about the brain, and humility is not an easy quality for people to embrace in their relations with others.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
While there is and was controversy over the gospel accounts back then and now, good scholarship would reveal that something surely happened testifying to the events. Irenaeus must certainly be taken into account. And like now people will differ and dispute history and documents. None of the disputes prove that John was not an eyewitness of Jesus. Or that the gospel narratives as we know them now are not true. You may believe that Bahaullah was an instrument of God. I do not.
If you make a claim you have to provide proof. There is no proof that John was an eyewitness of Jesus.
However, the lack of eyewitnesses does not mean that the gospel narratives as we know them now are not true.

Baha'u'llah has nothing to do with this as He did not weigh in on the gospel accounts.
Of course I know that you do not believe that Baha'u'llah was an instrument of God.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
If you make a claim you have to provide proof. There is no proof that John was an eyewitness of Jesus.
However, the lack of eyewitnesses does not mean that the gospel narratives as we know them now are not true.

Baha'u'llah has nothing to do with this as He did not weigh in on the gospel accounts.
Of course I know that you do not believe that Baha'u'llah was an instrument of God.
Believing Bahaullah is not proof. What he said is not proof of anything except the words came out of his mouth or pen. Yes, Bahaullah has a lot to do with you putting down what the Bible says.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Believing Bahaullah is not proof. What he said is not proof of anything except the words came out of his mouth or pen.
Likewise, believing Jesus is not proof. What he allegedly said is not proof of anything except the words came out of his mouth.
Yes, Bahaullah has a lot to do with you putting down what the Bible says.
No, it does not have anything to do with my opinions about the Bible, since Baha'u'llah did not weigh in on the Bible. except when He wrote that the Bible is God's holy Book and God's most great testimony to His creatures.

I do not put down what the Bible says, I only interpret some verses differently than Christians. Then again Christians interpret many verses differently than other Christians, which is why Christianity is so divided.
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
While there is and was controversy over the gospel accounts back then and now, good and honest scholarly appraisal would reveal that something surely happened testifying to the events. Irenaeus must certainly be taken into account. And like now people will differ and dispute history and documents. None of the disputes prove that John was not an eyewitness of Jesus. Or that the gospel narratives as we know them now are not true. Some may believe that Bahaullah was an instrument of God. Or that the soul transmigrated before and after birth or that some speak to dead persons. I do not believe that. While they may provide proof, how about you?

I agree that the gospels are also historical documents - some events very likely really happened (baptism, rage in the temple, execution) but this doesn't make the whole texts historical.

I don't think that the (paranormal) events you mention at the end can be confirmed or rebuted with current scientific methods. However I believe a testimony under some conditions...
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Maybe it is because you are a skeptic thinker that you cannot see that the experiences of people in life and in history can be evidence for the supernatural.
Evidence for believers or evidence for the critically thinking empiricists? The interpretations of those experiences by believers are not evidence that they are correct.
How could it be anything but speculation to say that Mark copied from Josephus and that the supernatural is not true so Mark must have been written after 70AD? There is no external evidence, just the claims and the speculation about the supernatural, which is baseless speculation.
Speculation is good enough for you to believe otherwise, but appears to be grounds for you to reject ideas from others.
It's not as if there is nobody who claims to have have supernatural experience.
Assuming that they believe those claims, they only mean that that's what they believe, not that they have properly understood their experiences.
You however want authentication, as if a person should be able to repeat the experience with scientists testing and observing.
Yes. If you can't demonstrate your beliefs to be correct, they won't become mine until you can. The faith-based thinker and the empiricist have radically different criteria for belief (the will to believe vs compelling evidence)
science and nobody knows anything about spirits or how to test for them.
Yet somehow you think you know they do exist.
There is no "proof" of the authorship of the gospels but there is enough evidence in the New Testament and in the writings of the early church for that traditional authors and that the early church knew who they were. It seems that for you the views of modern historians are enough to convince you or anything.
Neither he nor I need the help of historians to reject insufficiently evidenced claims.
Personal testimony eliminates the possibility for atheists to claim that the supernatural is not true.
The empiricist doesn't need reasons not to believe. He needs reasons *TO* believe. The testimony of believers is not good enough.
do you believe that it is wrong that God created all things and gave life?
Having no means to rule the idea of gods in or out, the critically thinking empiricist is agnostic on that.

Have you still not understood and assimilated the difference between reserving judgment (agnosticism) and claiming that something is false?
I have faith that the supernatural is true.
And that's why you believe it is so.
supernatural claims do eliminate the conclusion that the supernatural is non existent however imo, but atheists don't like that reasoning.
By that reasoning, if somebody claims that the supernatural is nonexistent, you must agree that he might be correct because he made that claim. Or don't you like that reasoning, either?
I have a faith and for that I do not need to verify my beliefs before believing them. I have enough evidence for my faith.
You're contradicting yourself in consecutive sentences. When you have sufficient evidence to justify a belief, faith in in isn't involved or necessary.

What you have is faith. If you could provide that sufficient evidence, then two things:
  • Your belief would be evidence-based, not faith-based.
  • You would be able to convince empiricists with that evidence.
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
You're contradicting yourself in consecutive sentences. When you have sufficient evidence to justify a belief, faith in in isn't involved or necessary.

"Necessary" is in the eye of the beholder.

As for the rest, you're simply wrong. Theorists not infrequently have faith in a provisional hypothesis deemed sufficient to warrant years, if not decades, of research.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"Necessary" is in the eye of the beholder.

As for the rest, you're simply wrong. Theorists not infrequently have faith in a provisional hypothesis deemed sufficient to warrant years, if not decades, of research.
It is you who is wrong. Obviously. Learn the various meanings of faith and how empiricism works and get back to me. I'll be happy to correct any other errors you might make at that time.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Likewise, believing Jesus is not proof. What he allegedly said is not proof of anything except the words came out of his mouth.

No, it does not have anything to do with my opinions about the Bible, since Baha'u'llah did not weigh in on the Bible. except when He wrote that the Bible is God's holy Book and God's most great testimony to His creatures.

I do not put down what the Bible says, I only interpret some verses differently than Christians. Then again Christians interpret many verses differently than other Christians, which is why Christianity is so divided.
God will make the grand judgment. I leave that in God's hands. I know what I believe, you know what you believe and that's it.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I agree that the gospels are also historical documents - some events very likely really happened (baptism, rage in the temple, execution) but this doesn't make the whole texts historical.

I don't think that the (paranormal) events you mention at the end can be confirmed or rebuted with current scientific methods. However I believe a testimony under some conditions...
Current science is not under particular consideration when I think of the Bible.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Well, interesting that you perhaps may not believe in miracles,
It is ot an issue as to whether I believe in miracles, supernatural or God. IT is the context of what is "evidence" concerning belief in what is beyond our physical existence." I believe in God, and there is no way I could claim there is any objective evidence for the existence of God.

You on the other hand reject science supported by overwhelming objective evidence, for an ancient tribal view of the nature of our physical existence based on no science, and no objective evidence whatsoever.
but Jesus went to the jewish court at the time and was found guilty.
We do not know Jesus was tried in a Jewish Court.
Then Pilate questioned him but didn't really think he should be executed. But he was. So Jesus died and he was raised from the dead.
This is a questionable interpretation of the events of the death of Jesus. Jesus was put on trial before Pontius Pilate Crucified under Roman Law not stoned to death under Jewish Law.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
It cannot be shown that the supernatural exists or that it does not exist.
Yep.

If someone is claiming there is a supernatural realm, that's on them to show there is one. Same goes for someone claiming there is supernatural realm.
The logical conclusion might be that we do not know,
Yep. Stop there.
but imo there is evidence for the supernatural even if science has not confirmed my suspicions, so I believe and you either stick to your "neutral" position or say that the supernatural does not exist.
If you had any, you would/should have presented it by now.

Given that neither of us have evidence that would demonstrate the existence of a supernatural realm/thing/place/entity, then reasonable position to take is "I don't know."

What isn't reasonable is to declare that such and such is supernatural because we don't understand it.
There of course is a lot of objection from neutral people to the truth of stories about the supernatural. It is as if they are not really neutral.
What "truth of stories about the supernatural?"
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I have a faith and for that I do not need to verify my beliefs before believing them. I have enough evidence for my faith. The body of information I have is what indicates to me that my faith is correct.
Do you not see how circular this is?

You have faith, because you have no evidence. Your evidence is your faith.

That's about as circular and fallacious as it gets.
Humans can and do but science is or should be more neutral about that and so should not say one way or the other.
Science doesn't do or say anything. Science is a tool and a process.
As you say, it is a religious belief to say that God had nothing to do with it and so goes beyond the bounds of what science can say.
That doesn't make sense.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Well, interesting that you perhaps may not believe in miracles, but Jesus went to the jewish court at the time and was found guilty. Then Pilate questioned him but didn't really think he should be executed. But he was. So Jesus died and he was raised from the dead.
That is, indeed, the story penned by anonymous apologists decades after the purported trial.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
That is, indeed, the story penned by anonymous apologists decades after the purported trial.
According to the scriptures, some did not like the fact that he raised his friend Lazarus from the dead. People are taught various ways, but I do know that Jewish teacher and doctor Maimonides had faith that there would be a resurrection of the dead.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
According to the scriptures, some did not like the fact that he raised his friend Lazarus from the dead

You mean the story ...

... but I do know that Jewish teacher and doctor Maimonides had faith that there would be a resurrection of the dead.

You are of course referring to Rambam, author of the Mishneh Torah, where he notes ...

Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Moshiach and was executed by the court was also spoken of in Daniel’s prophecies [Daniel 11:14], “The renegades among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.“​

Rambam was indeed a thoughtful and perceptive man of deep faith and considerable learning. Still, while he may well have been right about Jesus, as far as resurrection is concerned I do not hold him as being inerrant.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You mean the story ...



You are of course referring to Rambam, author of the Mishneh Torah, where he notes ...

Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Moshiach and was executed by the court was also spoken of in Daniel’s prophecies [Daniel 11:14], “The renegades among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.“​

Rambam was indeed a thoughtful and perceptive man of deep faith and considerable learning. He may well have been right about Jesus, but, as far as resurrection is concerned, I do not hold him as being inerrant.
Obviously Maimonides had his rendering of the situation but he at least acknowledged that Jesus was executed...since the court, I believe, that he referred to might have been the Jewish Sanhedrin, it became a debacle and I am sure that the Rambam was of a different mindset than I am. However, since I believe Maimonides may be resurrected if it is God's will, I hope to see and look forward to the best.
 
Top