There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[CG Didymus]

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.

I already posted this quote somewhere, but here it is again.

We cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá’ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá’u’lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate.​

Shoghi Effendi, Extracts From The Bahá’í Writings And From Letters Of The Guardian And The Universal House Of Justice On The Old And New Testaments​

He's telling Baha'is that they can "assume" that it is "his" Gospel. And of course what ever Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha quote of any of the Gospels must be "absolutely" authentic.

But does it matter when they interpret it so differently from Chrisitans. Here's one...

Of the five key prophecies by Jesus Christ fulfilled by Baha’u’llah, cited by Shoghi Effendi in God Passes By, Baha’u’llah’s messianic identification as the “Prince of this world” is presumably based on this tablet from Abdu’l-Baha:​

​

Thou didst ask as to chapter 14, verse 30 of the Gospel of John, where the Lord Christ saith, ’Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the Prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me.’ The Prince of this world is the Blessed Beauty [Baha’u’llah]; and ’hath nothing in Me’ signifieth: after Me all will draw grace from Me, but He is independent of Me, and will draw no grace from Me. That is, He is rich beyond any grace of Mine. – Abdu’l-Baha, Selections From the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 171.​

The verse in question is John 14:30:​

​

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. – John 14:30.​

​

In the received Christian interpretation this verse and its parallels are often interpreted as referring to Satan. So the Baha’i identification of Baha’u’llah as the “prince of this world” is controversial, to say the least.​

​

Yeah, just a slight difference. Christians say the prince of this world is Satan, and Baha'is say it is their prophet. And maybe some Christians would agree.

 

[Brian2]

It is important to understand if you are making arguments for the existence of supernatural and miraculous claims. These are claims of "factual" things or occurrences. As with logical arguments it is up to the one making the claims to demonstrate, prove, confirm or substantiate the claim in this the existence of the supernatural and miraculous. The burden of proof is on yo not someone else to prove something is "not true,"

It would be virtually impossible for you to substantiate or prove your supernatural claims in a Court of Law,

It does not matter if I cannot prove my "belief" in the supernatural. I am not making a scientific hypothesis that needs proving. All I can do is lay out the evidence as I see it and point out the errors in the attacks that people bring against that evidence.
One error is that many people, and probably including yourself, want to treat the whole thing like a court of law or a scientific hypothesis. We both know that such evidence is not available and yet the demand is for that sort of evidence to be presented or God is not proven and the Bible and Jesus story are not proven.
It's just a BS demand that serves no purpose in a religious forum but to make some people who have not much faith, think that their faith is not good enough unless they have the evidence demanded in a court of law or science experiment.

 

[Brian2]

Any one is perfectly of the right to believe what they want, but your arguing beyond this, and claiming "evidence" for your claims. No you do not have any evidence for your claims by definition of what is required to convince other regardless of what they believe

Billions of people are Christians. Maybe you have it wrong.
There are people who claim that Jesus did not exist and others who claim that the gospels were made up. There are modern historians who reject the supernatural claims in historical records and from that standpoint of scholarly authority claim that most of the Bible is ridiculous and did not happen. Their claims are ridiculous imo unless you are wanting the Bible to be proven.

 

[shunyadragon]

It does not matter if I cannot prove my "belief" in the supernatural. I am not making a scientific hypothesis that needs proving. All I can do is lay out the evidence as I see it and point out the errors in the attacks that people bring against that evidence.

Your claims of evidence is personal and subjective to justify your own beliefs.

One error is that many people, and probably including yourself, want to treat the whole thing like a court of law or a scientific hypothesis.

That is how evidence is defined by the English definition. Itis not an error it is a problem that you are defining evidence to fit your own argument, which is based on a matter of subjective belief and faith.

We both know that such evidence is not available and yet the demand is for that sort of evidence to be presented or God is not proven and the Bible and Jesus story are not proven.
It's just a BS demand that serves no purpose in a religious forum but to make some people who have not much faith, think that their faith is not good enough unless they have the evidence demanded in a court of law or science experiment.

The demands reflect your claims of evidence and when you define evidence to suit your own argument for the existence of the supernatural and miracles. This type of argument only works for those that already believe as you do.

 

[Brian2]

The traditional names were not ascribed early on. When the authority of the writings had to be secured the supposed authors became two apostles and two companions (of Peter and Paul).

If we look at the texts it doesn't appear so. Books themselves don't claim to be written by these people. The authors also never speak in the first person.

They never claim to be personally connected with any of the events they narrate or the persons about whom they tell their stories. The books are thoroughly, ineluctably, and invariably anonymous. (Ehrman)​

Acts has "we" passages, showing that the writer was with Paul. To no avail it seems. These passages are just dismissed by people who are critical. They say that this is a common literary tool used to trick people into thinking that a person was actually there.
IOW nothing wins against true critics. They are called critics for a reason. All the internal evidence for the authenticity of the gospels is turned around like this and ignored. All the Christian tradition that tells us who wrote the gospels is said to be not true also.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One error is that many people, and probably including yourself, want to treat the whole thing like a court of law or a scientific hypothesis. We both know that such evidence is not available ...

Susceptibility to irrational beliefs defy guardrails.

The question in my mind is not whether a faith claim is (a) provable or (b) able to withstand intersubjectively verifiable testing, but what the claim suggests about the rationale and soundness of the believer's selection criteria. It is the same concern that I have when faced with cultists, anti-vaxxers, and those who sincerely believe that elementary schools are performing sex changes while immigrants are polluting the blood of our country and eating our pets for sustenance.

 

[Sumadji]

It does not matter if I cannot prove my "belief" in the supernatural. I am not making a scientific hypothesis that needs proving. All I can do is lay out the evidence as I see it and point out the errors in the attacks that people bring against that evidence.
One error is that many people, and probably including yourself, want to treat the whole thing like a court of law or a scientific hypothesis. We both know that such evidence is not available and yet the demand is for that sort of evidence to be presented or God is not proven and the Bible and Jesus story are not proven.
It's just a BS demand that serves no purpose in a religious forum but to make some people who have not much faith, think that their faith is not good enough unless they have the evidence demanded in a court of law or science experiment.

Yes

But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, and saying:

‘We played the flute for you,
And you did not dance;
We mourned to you,
And you did not lament.’

... But wisdom is justified by her children.
Matthew 11:16-18

The divine doesn't dance satisfy the demands of men. The spirit is found in quietness and humility, not wrangling with words

 

[shunyadragon]

Billions of people are Christians. Maybe you have it wrong.

Maybe?!?!?Arguing from popularity is a fallacy. There are billions of people that are not Christians. Maybe you have it wrong.

There are people who claim that Jesus did not exist

and others who claim that the gospels were made up. There are modern historians who reject the supernatural claims in historical records and from that standpoint of scholarly authority claim that most of the Bible is ridiculous and did not happen. Their claims are ridiculous imo unless you are wanting the Bible to be proven.

Yes, some believe that Jesus did not exist, because of the limited historical evidence outside the scriptures, but by far the majority of people, regardless of belief accept Jesus did exist. Academic historians for the most part accept the Jesus existed about the time the gospels describe. The difference is more disagreement as to who Jesus was with many conflicting beliefs in the different religion and the divisions of Christianity.

Arguments concerning how many believe this and that about Jesus fail to justify the certainty any one religious and historical arguments., because of the very limited available evidence, and the subjective nature of the many conflicting beliefs.

By far most historians do not consider the gospels made up. They consider the gospels to reflect what the authors believed what the wrote at the time. The very diverse conflicting beliefs concerning the certainty of the gospels is another issue,

 

[shunyadragon]

Acts has "we" passages, showing that the writer was with Paul. To no avail it seems. These passages are just dismissed by people who are critical. They say that this is a common literary tool used to trick people into thinking that a person was actually there.
IOW nothing wins against true critics. They are called critics for a reason. All the internal evidence for the authenticity of the gospels is turned around like this and ignored. All the Christian tradition that tells us who wrote the gospels is said to be not true also.

First, internal contents of any ancient literature cannot justify certainty without independent evidence, We lack independent sources to justify certainty.

At present nothing "wins" as convincing, without independent evidence regardless. No tricks here.

Your arguments only offer certainty for those that believe as you do.

 

[CG Didymus]

The demands reflect your claims of evidence and when you define evidence to suit your own argument for the existence of the supernatural and miracles. This type of argument only works for those that already believe as you do.

But, even with the original writings of Baha'u'llah, Baha'is have the same problem... How do they "prove" that Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God and that God is real?

TB is the only Baha'i I know that just says that there is no proof, only evidence. But other Baha'is continue to say the "proof" is Baha'u'llah.. his writing, his character, and his mission.

For some of us, that's not good enough and complain to Baha'is that their proof and evidence isn't "tangible" proof.

How do you handle that type of question when it comes to supporting the validity of the claims of Baha'u'llah?

 

[Sumadji]

Why require the proof of the product unless it is being sold to me? It doesn't affect me what anyone else believes unless they're wishing to convince me to abandon my own belief in order to accept theirs in its place? It's none of my concern otherwise, if what they believe is doing no harm to me or anyone eise?

If someone leaves me and my belief alone, why should it concern me that person believes differently to me?

On the other hand if a person makes it their duty to proselytise at me, then pushback and scepticism can be expected?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

And you know this how?

 

[YoursTrue]

But, even with the original writings of Baha'u'llah, Baha'is have the same problem... How do they "prove" that Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God and that God is real?

TB is the only Baha'i I know that just says that there is no proof, only evidence. But other Baha'is continue to say the "proof" is Baha'u'llah.. his writing, his character, and his mission.

For some of us, that's not good enough and complain to Baha'is that their proof and evidence isn't "tangible" proof.

How do you handle that type of question when it comes to supporting the validity of the claims of Baha'u'llah?

Which makes me think of false prophets, including those utterances or written documents based on scientific propositions by men.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'll second that!

You must have faith to think Bahaullah was uttering the truth.

 

[YoursTrue]

I already posted this quote somewhere, but here it is again.

We cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá’ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá’u’lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate.​

Shoghi Effendi, Extracts From The Bahá’í Writings And From Letters Of The Guardian And The Universal House Of Justice On The Old And New Testaments​

He's telling Baha'is that they can "assume" that it is "his" Gospel. And of course what ever Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha quote of any of the Gospels must be "absolutely" authentic.

But does it matter when they interpret it so differently from Chrisitans. Here's one...

Of the five key prophecies by Jesus Christ fulfilled by Baha’u’llah, cited by Shoghi Effendi in God Passes By, Baha’u’llah’s messianic identification as the “Prince of this world” is presumably based on this tablet from Abdu’l-Baha:​

​

The verse in question is John 14:30:​

​

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. – John 14:30.​

​

In the received Christian interpretation this verse and its parallels are often interpreted as referring to Satan. So the Baha’i identification of Baha’u’llah as the “prince of this world” is controversial, to say the least.​

​

Yeah, just a slight difference. Christians say the prince of this world is Satan, and Baha'is say it is their prophet. And maybe some Christians would agree.

I will say that some I have spoken to who consider themselves Christian do believe the prince of this world is God. I don't for several reasons, otherwise Jesus would not have told his disciples to pray to their Father asking for God's kingdom to come.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Do you really believe this? There were many many gospels and many many gospel accounts. The Gospels that we have today are the "pasteurized version". If the Gospels did not meet the beliefs of the council they were rejected. That in effects makes them one source, not four. You have no way of knowing if all accounts agreed and history appears to reject that belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

And you know this how?

I never said that I know it. I believe it because I believe the research.

 

[Trailblazer]

You must have faith to think Bahaullah was uttering the truth.

You must have faith to think that the New Testament is the utterances of Jesus.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Acts has "we" passages, showing that the writer was with Paul. To no avail it seems. These passages are just dismissed by people who are critical. They say that this is a common literary tool used to trick people into thinking that a person was actually there.
IOW nothing wins against true critics. They are called critics for a reason. All the internal evidence for the authenticity of the gospels is turned around like this and ignored. All the Christian tradition that tells us who wrote the gospels is said to be not true also.

"We" is not a problem. There is other reason for doubt that the author was really a companion of Paul - the Acts of Apostles (by the same author as the gospel of Luke) frequently contradict the Pauline letters.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you really believe this? There were many many gospels and many many gospel accounts. The Gospels that we have today are the "pasteurized version". If the Gospels did not meet the beliefs of the council they were rejected. That in effects makes them one source, not four. You have no way of knowing if all accounts agreed and history appears to reject that belief.

I believe what you and some others may not believe.