There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[shunyadragon]

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

True concerning any religious subjective belief.

 

[shunyadragon]

And you know this how?

There is just absolutely no evidence of the gospels written during the life of Jesus. We do not have any text of the New Testament until after 200 AD.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is just absolutely no evidence of the gospels written during the life of Jesus. We do not have any text of the New Testament until after 200 AD.

The evidence is in the writing. That researchers find no evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[YoursTrue]

True concerning any religious subjective belief.

Similarly one must have faith to believe what is taught is a lie.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no proof that any claim in the history of humanity that any claim of a messianic or 'enlightened' person with a message from the 'Source' some call God(s) or that the "Source' exists.

The writings and history of the life of Baha'u'llah do not have the same problem as the more ancient scriptures, because there is abundant documentation, historical provenance and witnesses to the life and works written by Baha'u'llah.

I do not and never have claimed any such proof. There is not for any subjective religious belief and belief in the "Source" some call God(s).

There is no tangible proof for any subjective religious belief nor that for the "Source" some call God(s),



Primarily. I simply believe. I do not make outrageous egocentric claims of proof. I have gone into great detail in threads in the past concerning my beliefs. It does center around that IF the 'Source' some call God(s) exists it is a Universal "Source" far beyond the limited beliefs of any religion and the Baha'i Faith. The ancient religions are the most problematic, because they reflect an ancient cultural and tribal view of God, and claim their God is the only God.

The only certainty of the Divine from the human perspectiive is the humility that our beliefs beyond the nature of our physical existence are subjective and in reality we do not know.

Science is the only reliable source of information concerning the physical nature of our existence, and it is always open to change when there is new knowledge.

There's more evidence that life came from an intelligent force than otherwise as far as some are concerned, applying logic. Logic shows life did not just happen by chance.

 

[Eli G]

There is just absolutely no evidence of the gospels written during the life of Jesus. We do not have any text of the New Testament until after 200 AD.

Some people continually spread false information on the Internet. Why do they do that?

It is more than evident that by the beginning of the 2nd century all the Greek Christian writings that form part of the so-called New Testament were already completed.

1) Papyrus P52 of the Gospel of John is dated to the middle of the second century, that is, approximately 150 AD. Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia

2) The Apostolic Fathers are a small group of Christian writers from the second century who knew Jesus' apostles or disciples directly or were greatly influenced by some who knew Jesus directly. In their writings they often quote from the gospels, from the letters of Paul, and from many other Christian writings that were evidently written before their own time. Among them we have Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Papias of Hierapolis, ... Apostolic Fathers - Wikipedia

3) The Diatessaron is a work written in Syriac by Tatian, where he makes a "harmony" of the four biblical gospels. It is dated between 160 and 175 AD. Diatessaron - Wikipedia

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is more than evident that by the beginning of the 2nd century all the Greek Christian writings that form part of the so-called New Testament were already completed.

^ bold AND italicized AND underlined! Shucks, it must be true, and even, ...

wait for it, ...​

​

relevant.​

 

[Eli G]

@Jayhawker Soule

Almost 59 thousands of posts since May 2004 (twenty years, really?????), and ... are all those about the same, which is nothing useful ("bold AND italicized AND underlined")?

 

[shunyadragon]

The evidence is in the writing.

This remains the worst possible argument for the validity of ancient scriptures It is extreme circular reasoning for justification.

This remains the worst possible argument for the validity and certainty of ancient scriptures If this were true the dragons monsters and ridiculous supernatural events and people like Monkey King of China may be justified as true simply based on the content of ancient scriptures, In this reasoning the Iliad and the Odyssey, and the mythical stories of Gilgamesh would be literally true.

That researchers find no evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Arguing from the negative is just as bad, By this reasoning the mythology of all ancient cultures would be true.

 

[shunyadragon]

Some people continually spread false information on the Internet. Why do they do that?

It is more than evident that by the beginning of the 2nd century all the Greek Christian writings that form part of the so-called New Testament were already completed.

1) Papyrus P52 of the Gospel of John is dated to the middle of the second century, that is, approximately 150 AD. Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia

2) The Apostolic Fathers are a small group of Christian writers from the second century who knew Jesus' apostles or disciples directly or were greatly influenced by some who knew Jesus directly. In their writings they often quote from the gospels, from the letters of Paul, and from many other Christian writings that were evidently written before their own time. Among them we have Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Papias of Hierapolis, ... Apostolic Fathers - Wikipedia

3) The Diatessaron is a work written in Syriac by Tatian, where he makes a "harmony" of the four biblical gospels. It is dated between 160 and 175 AD. Diatessaron - Wikipedia

None of the above justifies the existence of any scriptures before 100 AD or the time of Jesus. There are absolutely no references from the historians. philosophers and other sources during the life of Jesus despite NT accounts of extreme miraculous events.

 

[shunyadragon]

There's more evidence that life came from an intelligent force than otherwise as far as some are concerned, applying logic. Logic shows life did not just happen by chance.

Science does not propose life cam about by chance,

There is absolutely no evidence that life came about by an intelligent "Source." In fact there is no evidence for an intelligent "Source"

If you believe there is independent objective verifiable evidence please cite it. Unfortunately there is none.

 

[shunyadragon]

Similarly one must have faith to believe what is taught is a lie.

This true for what you believe as well.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Almost 59 thousands of posts since May 2004 (twenty years, really?????), and ... are all those about the same, ... ?

No, but to be honest, many likely reflect a growing contempt for enthusiastic yet vapid claims. You write ...

It is more than evident that by the beginning of the 2nd century all the Greek Christian writings that form part of the so-called New Testament were already completed.

... and yet the Wikipedia entry on Acts of the Apostles notes

The earliest possible date for Luke-Acts is around 62 AD, the time of Paul's imprisonment in Rome,[16] but most scholars date the work to 80–90 AD on the grounds that it uses Mark as a source, looks back on the destruction of Jerusalem, and does not show any awareness of the letters of Paul (which began circulating late in the first century); if it does show awareness of the Pauline epistles, and also of the work of the Jewish historian Josephus, as some believe, then a date in the early 2nd century is possible. [source]​

and refers to the following:

Tyson, Joseph B., (April 2011). "When and Why Was the Acts of the Apostles Written?", in: The Bible and Interpretation: "...A growing number of scholars prefer a late date for the composition of Acts, i.e., c. 110-120 CE. Three factors support such a date. First, Acts seems to be unknown before the last half of the second century. Second, compelling arguments can be made that the author of Acts was acquainted with some materials written by Josephus, who completed his Antiquities of the Jews in 93-94 CE...Third, recent studies have revised the judgment that the author of Acts was unaware of the Pauline letters."​

So, no, it is not "more than evident" to all.

But that is, admittedly, a minor point compared to the question of relevance. Even if we assume that, e.g., Acts and the Pastorals are the late 1st century C.E. efforts of anonymous apologists, how does that in any way guarantee historical accuracy?

 

[Sumadji]

None of the above justifies the existence of any scriptures before 100 AD or the time of Jesus.

Do you exclude Paul from scripture? He was the first Christian writer.

Add: Galatians is commonly dated to 48AD

 

[shunyadragon]

Do you exclude Paul from scripture? He was the first Christian writer

The gospels are the heart of the scripture and Paul relies on the scripture. There are serious questions as to how original Paul's letters are. and there is no original provenance.

I believe Paul was the beginning of the Roman-Hellenist Paulist Christian religion we have today, which virtually excluded Jews form the future of Christianity.

 

[YoursTrue]

This true for what you believe as well.

a lie is a pretty disastrous thought.

 

[YoursTrue]

The gospels are the heart of the scripture and Paul relies on the scripture. There are serious questions as to how original Paul's letters are. and there is no original provenance.

I believe Paul was the beginning of the Roman-Hellenist Paulist Christian religion we have today, which virtually excluded Jews form the future of Christianity.

Paul wrote and did not know his writings would be incorporated into what was eventually considered to be the "inspired" scriptures or word of God beneficial for teaching and reproving the congregations of the world. It is no wonder to me that reading the Bible was considered a sacrilege for the common person for so long -- wondering what your thoughts are on the matter of banning the common person from reading the holy scriptures for a long time. Not sure how long but I think it was a pretty long time. Here are two renderings of 2 Timothy 3:16 - both pretty interesting --

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
New International Version

All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.
New Living Translation

 

[Sumadji]

The gospels are the heart of the scripture and Paul relies on the scripture.

Paul was writing within less than 20 yrs after the crucifixion, and active before that. Within two years, according to Bible scholar Bart Ehrman.

Paul met Peter and stayed 15 days with him in Jerusalem and spoke with James, the brother of Jesus during that time. He later met John the apostle. They were all still alive. The Gospels came after Paul. They were still in formation when Paul was writing.

There are serious questions as to how original Paul's letters are. and there is no original provenance.

Some letters are disputed but many including Galatians (48AD) and 1 Thessolonians (52AD) are accepted as authentic by all serious scholars.

believe Paul was the beginning of the Roman-Hellenist Paulist Christian religion we have today, which virtually excluded Jews form the future of Christianity.

Regardless of that common trope: the fact remains that Paul was the original Christian writer and was in conversation with the apostles Peter (Cephas) James the brother of Jesus, and John.

 

[Eli G]

...So, no, it is not "more than evident" to all....

I don't know what you're trying to say ...

I mentioned that it's quite clear by the start of the 2nd century, all Greek Christian writings included in the New Testament were already finished. I also provided evidence to support this, and anyone can reflect on that:

How did Tatian compile the Diatessaron, a side-by-side comparison of the four Gospels, between 160-175 if those Gospels were not yet completed by that time?

Or: How could a fragment of the Gospel of John, dated to 150, be discovered in Egypt if the Gospel of John did not exist until some years before that date?

Or: Which gospels were the Apostolic Fathers quoting in the early second century if those gospels hadn't been written and circulated in the various cities where they lived?

So I evidently refuted this:

... We do not have any text of the New Testament until after 200 AD.

... indicating that certain individuals persistently disseminate misinformation online. What motivates them to do so?

Furthermore, what is your point regarding my comments to @shunyadragon about the fake news he is circulating on the web?

 

[Balthazzar]

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?

Yes, they weren't penned until a couple three decades after his appearance. If I'm not mistaken, they were running from like persecution and made point to deny ever knowing him. From what I gather, they were still able to hold true to the task appointed them and found a way to preserve his testimony, despite the fear of persecution present during that time. Why believe any of it based on the aforementioned reality? It makes sense, is understandable, and although William Wallace shoots lighting out of his arse, the man remains a significant part of human history. It's in the discernment and the separation of truth from error that we find a place to stand.