There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Trailblazer]

But it wasn’t just anyone. It was Paul, the first Christian writer who met and talked with Peter, with James the brother of Jesus -- who was certainly an eyewitness of Jesus in the New Testament -- and with John, before the gospels

According to Bart Ehrman Paul was talking about Jesus within two years of Jesus’s death.

And no it doesn’t mean the story is true, but then why are you going to quote from the New Testament at all as a source for Jesus Christ?

There really is no other source to know about Jesus Christ, but I can be selective in what I believe is true and what I believe is false.
I believe that some of the New Testament is true, but not all of it. If Paul contradicts what Jesus said, I believe it is false.
If Paul says things that contradict what I believe as a Baha'i, I believe those things are false.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If Paul contradicts what Jesus said, I believe it is false. If Paul says things that contradict what I believe as a Baha'i, I believe those things are false.

You're simply saying that you don't consider the words attributed to Paul to be reliable. If they agree with Jesus, you think he's correct. If they disagree with Jesus, you think they're incorrect.

You said that faith is not a pathway to the truth but that is an opinion you hold on faith.

Paths constrain and guide our choices to guarantee arriving at the desired destination. A path to truth takes one to truth every time like a road takes one to wherever the road leads every time.

Faith is more likely to generate false and unfalsifiable beliefs than knowledge simply because there are more of the latter than correct ideas.

Here's a thought experiment for you. Choose an idea that you know is incorrect. If it can be believed by faith and it can, whatever it is - then faith is not a path to knowledge:

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

So countless alledged sightings of a Rock star you want to compare with the One

Yes. It's a nice illustration of the same phenomenon. Bigfoot, too.

Believers seem to think that comparing things to their god if off limits even if everything else is identical between the two except that one is called a god and the other something else. Maybe for them if that's what they've been taught, but not for others. Unsupported claims that involve seeing the dead are all equivalent in the sense that they shouldn't be believed.

The First Corinthian letter was written before the Gospels. In that letter Paul mentions that there were 500 people who saw Jesus after His resurrection. He said most of them were still alive. It was a bold thing to write seeing that those who were still alive could easily refute Paul that they DID NOT see Jesus. You do not have to take this as sacred text. You can take it as historical document. Five hundred people could not have the same hallucination simultaneously.

But one man could easily have made up the story of there being witnesses to a resurrection, which is much more likely than an actual resurrection. That doesn't describe a historical document. It describes mythology.

Here's some evidence you can refute. For a thousand years or more the Jerusalem Jews held the seventh day Sabbath as the most important day of worship. In your next post explain why within is few weeks thousands of Jerusalem Jews suddenly change to regard the 8th day - the first day of the week as of greater importance. They called it "The Lord's Day". Thousands began abruptly to gather from house-to-house commemorating the day after the Sabbath when Jesus of Nazareth rose
from the dead. What is you explanation for the sudden cataclysmic cultural shift of the ancient tradition? I say it's reasonable evidence of a miracle having taken place- Jesus rising from the dead.

Cataclysmic? Changing the Sabbath from one day of the week to another was cataclysmic? Life must have been much harder in those days for something so easy to do to have disrupted their lives.

And you say that doing so is evidence for a miracle? First, you believe a resurrection occurred based in the thirdhand hearsay of anonymous sources, and now you believe miracles occurred because the day of rest of people was changed. If a restaurant just changed its day of rest (the day it's closed) from one weekday to another, would that also be cataclysmic and evidence of a miracle to you? I'd answer no to both of those.

Why didn't the Romans or the Jews simply produce the corpse of Jesus and nip it in the bud? ... The movement could have been EASILY extinguished by either the Romans (who had cause) or the religious Jewish power structure (who had cause) to simply parade the corpse of Jesus around.

It was about two decades after the crucifixion allegedly occurred before there were claims of crucifixion. Nobody would be expecting to see a body. From AI:

"The earliest written accounts of Jesus’ resurrection can be found in Paul's letters, notably 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, which dates to approximately 53-54 AD."

Are you a mythicist? Like - "No such person as Jesus ever lived" mythicist?

It doesn't matter how much of the story of Jesus was historical if the magic wasn't, and there is no good reason to believe any of that. Without the magic, it's an ordinary story of an ordinary man living the life of a religious missionary of sorts. Thousands of people have and even today do live such lives.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That Paul’s spiritual experience was just an hallucination is purely your own conclusion, based off your own assumption that supernatural events do not occur.

No, please. Let's try not to make this personal. It is also the opinion of many biblical scholars. Here is your problem. We know that people hallucinate. You have to show how you can justify your claim that it was not a hallucination. You should never throw around accusations like "assumption" when what you do appears to be far worse.

Others would find Paul’s explanation more convincing of the spiritual encounter that knocked him off his horse and blinded him and told him to visit a certain person who lifted the blindness, and that caused Paul to turn his life 180 degrees

And there you go, you are assuming that the Bible is accurate. Why would you even believe that?

The same applies to your conclusion about all other spiritual experiences. By their nature they are not repeatable and measurable. A seer may have glimpses ‘beyond the veil’ into the true reality that ‘weaves’ nature, that’s all. It’s Plato’s cave.

But it wasn’t just anyone. It was Paul, the first Christian writer who met and talked with Peter, with James the brother of Jesus -- who was certainly an eyewitness of Jesus in the New Testament -- and with John, before the gospels

Yes, Paul probably met Peter and James. So what?

According to Bart Ehrman Paul was talking about Jesus within two years of Jesus’s death.

And no it doesn’t mean the story is true, but then why are you going to quote from the New Testament at all as a source for Jesus Christ?

And the arguments that I use are mostly his.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know I am a Christian. Your answer is irrelevant.
You said that faith is not a pathway to the truth but that is an opinion you hold on faith.

No, it is demonstrably a fact.

Tell me, do Muslims believe by faith? Do Hindus believe by faith? Every religion appears to be faith based and they all have different beliefs. So how can faith be a pathway to the truth?

 

[Trailblazer]

Tell me, do Muslims believe by faith? Do Hindus believe by faith? Every religion appears to be faith based and they all have different beliefs. So how can faith be a pathway to the truth?

Faith alone is not a pathway to truth. Only evidence-based faith is a pathway to truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Faith alone is not a pathway to truth. Only evidence-based faith is a pathway to truth.

I am not sure if that even exists.

 

[Sumadji]

You should never throw around accusations like "assumption" when what you do appears to be far worse.

So do you know for a fact that all spiritual experiences are hallucinations? I'm not saying there aren't fake Rolexes out there. Charlatans abound. But how do you know for a fact that Paul's spiritual experience was an hallucination? Except for the fact that you do not believe spiritual experiences happen?

You simply don't know. That's the fact.

Put it that way?

 

[oldbadger]

It is hard for me to understand what your complaints are and why.

I'm not complaining, but telling you about what I believe.
I believe that the new Church reversed itself in to the cultures and beliefs of communities in order to be more easily adopted.
The gospel of Mark seems to report the life of Jesus and his mission over a period of 11-12 months. The gospel of John seems to report a much different person with closer ties to family, less few or no demon castings, much more impressive miracles over a time line of about three years.

You seem to be conflating the Middle Ages Catholic Church with the gospel of John, amongst other things.

No....not just the middle ages church but the first century new Church. See how Paul's letters and G-John present that.

 

[Tomef]

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?

The gospels were well put together, and got a lot of publicity. These days they are so ingrained in western thinking and popular culture that, unless you make a bit of an effort to discover more about them, they seem to make a kind of natural sense.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So do you know for a fact that all spiritual experiences are hallucinations?

You didn't ask me, but I'd like to answer.

Maybe you meant delusions. I also don't believe Paul, but his claim was of a vision, so unless the claim was known to be untrue when it was made, in which case it was a lie, the word hallucination pertains in his case.

I don't need to know that they were hallucinations to disbelieve the claims that they weren't.

I'm an atheist, and I have spiritual experiences, but they aren't visions, so they can't be described as hallucinations, and they aren't about spirits. They're feelings of warmth, connection, belonging, and contentment associated with various degrees of a sense of mystery, joy, awe, and gratitude I get from time to time if mindfully experiencing reality.

Ptolemy said, "I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia."

I have had similar experiences stargazing knowledgably and mindfully, but I didn't add a god to my understanding of what is a pleasant psychological state that feels meaningful.

Christianity teaches something different that I find antithetical to the authentic spiritual experience. Rather than promoting a sense of connection and belonging in the cosmos, it encourages the opposite. It teaches that material reality is base and fit for annihilation in a fiery apocalypse, that flesh is a prison, that one should redirect his gaze from his world, which he is admonished to not be a part of, to unseen spirits in unseen realms, and to not trust his own mind, which is seen as invaded by a malicious demon trying to tempt him if he questions any of that.

That describes the opposite of connection and belonging - alienation from one's world, body, and mind. How is that remotely related to spirituality unless by that word you mean something to do with spirits such as ghosts, angels, demons, and gods among others?

 

[Trailblazer]

The gospels were well put together, and got a lot of publicity. These days they are so ingrained in western thinking and popular culture that, unless you make a bit of an effort to discover more about them, they seem to make a kind of natural sense.

I guess they never made sense to me because I was not raised as a Christian, and I had no interest in the gospels, since I joined the Baha'i Faith when I was 17 years old. I only started reading the Bible because I started posting on various religious forums about 12 years ago.

I was like a blank slate when I started reading the Bible, with no opinion one way or another. I started developing opinions after I read it and listened to what others had to say, both Christians and atheists.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I agree. I would add that the atheists and skeptics among us should be honest in their recognition that they also are people of faith.

Faith in what? A lack of belief is not faith in anything. But I'll reserve judgment until I read your response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So do you know for a fact that all spiritual experiences are hallucinations? I'm not saying there aren't fake Rolexes out there. Charlatans abound. But how do you know for a fact that Paul's spiritual experience was an hallucination? Except for the fact that you do not believe spiritual experiences happen?

You simply don't know. That's the fact.

Put it that way?

You seem to be trying to misinterpret posts and you are trying to shift the burden of proof. I can only point to "spiritual experiences" that have been debunked. There do not appear to be any genuine ones. If you want to claim that such things exist the burden of proof is upon you and not not upon me.