SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
And the date it was written.
Still waiting on your evidence/reasons for believing it's an eyewitness account.
-
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
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
Still waiting on your evidence/reasons for believing it's an eyewitness account.
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Gospels of Mathew and john
There's evidence and scholarship for an earlier origin of John's gospel.
John reached its final form around AD 90–110, although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier.
Gospel of John - Wikipedia
I'm saying nobody knows
What then happens if there are other stories just as great? Would a Christian embrace those stories as well?
Regards Tony
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Idk I’m not Christian. I doubt they would.
That's OK, you did bring the topic up. The story of Jesus Christ has for quite some time been put forward by Christians as the greatest story ever told, but humanity has lived another 2000 years since that story and some other stories just as great, containing much more drama, have since unfolded and now also been told.
In reality, all these stories become one, and they combined together, become the greatest story told to date.
Regards Tony
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
This still doesn't help you.There's evidence and scholarship for an earlier origin of John's gospel.
John reached its final form around AD 90–110, although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier.
Gospel of John - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I'm saying the available evidence indicates it's not an eyewitness account. So there appears to be some at least two reasons to believe this.
I've not seen any evidence indicating that it is an eyewitness account (aside from wishful thinking), so there appears to be no reason to believe that.
Start again: what evidence?
It's inconclusive. That's all I need to demonstrate. Case dismissed ... unresolved.
Plaintiff is liable for costs
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Every event that makes the Story of Jesus, was retold in the story of the Bab, but the drama in the time of the Bab, is bigger than any epic made to date and the epic still unfolds.They sure have.
Regards Tony
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
In addition to what you said, the story of the Bab's martyrdom is verifiable history whereas the story of Jesus death and resurrection is not verifiable.
Jimmy
Veteran Member
If you’re Baha’i sure
I think you will find that a minefield of different records of history and opinions as well.
It's worth a study, as there are many versions.
The biggest consideration is if 750 riflemen could fit into the area where the execution took place and still be in a position to not shoot another rifleman, here is one opinion.
750 muskets
If the number of 750 is now reduced to something more probable, the rest of the story (both the events and their religious interpretation as miracle and sign) can stand.
senmcglinn.wordpress.com
Regards Tony
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
What's said in the video is patently false. And it should be noted that the person presenting these falsehoods advertises his true love and expertise by means of the comic book covers hanging on the wall over his right shoulder as he presents his comical falsehoods. The comic books are a kind of a "hearer beware" sort of Freudian slip.
On the other hand, the PhD. physicist and avowed atheist Frank Tipler, with his book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, over his right shoulder, stated that if anyone could convince him that the Gospels were a firsthand account of the events presented in them, he, an avowed atheist, would at least give the Gospels a thorough hearing.
The late great German theologian Wolfgang Pannenberg took Tipler up on the challenge such that Tiper, true to his word, gave the Gospels a thorough, as only a PhD scientist can, examination. Tiper is now a bible-thumping, world-class, Christian.
John
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Excellent! To believe in Jesus. Now if a person believes in
What do you believe about Jesus specifically? You are not a Muslim because -- you believe in that which the one you say is a messenger said. You believe all roads lead to God? Do you believe that there are false prophets or messengers?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It is very reliable based on history and what happened after his death. Many have been martyred. That does not make them true messengers.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
OK, what hope do the Bahai writings offer?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Well TB says there is no evidence, so I did a search and, naturally, Christians think there's plenty of evidence.
Beyond Matthew’s background and internal clues, early Christian witnesses all attest to the authorship of Matthew. For instance, Papias (AD 60—130), writes that Matthew “put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could” (“Fragments of Papias,” The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Roberts, Donaldson, and Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Christian Literature Company, 1885, p. 155). Other early church fathers such as Pantaenus, Origen, and Irenaeus also corroborate Matthew as the Gospel’s author. It appears likely that the original Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew before being translated into Greek.
For me, even if he wrote it, I still don't believe what he says is true. And one of those things goes against the Baha'i beliefs also, the "virgin" birth of Jesus. Matthew or whoever wrote the gospel was probably not an eyewitness to the birth of Jesus. So, where did that story come from? Mary? Joseph? The Magi? Or... some tradition?My problem with it is that it depends completely on the out of context use of Isaiah 7:14. I have never heard any Christian use other verse from chapter 7. And when I read the chapter in context, the story is about King Ahaz getting a sign about two enemy kings. The sign was that both kings would be dead by the time a boy who reaches a certain age. That was the sign, and it was meant for King Ahaz.
So, for me, the author of Matthew made up the virgin birth story or borrowed it from traditions that were going around.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
I went through the "Jesus" movement of the 70's. Some friends got "Born Again." It was very clear why their Christianity was not only the best way, but the only way.
I'm sure most all of us know how it goes... We are all sinners. We inherited a sin nature from Adam. There's nothing we can do to gain salvation on our own. The "Good News" is... Jesus paid the penalty for our sin. No one else could. And no one else did.
If true, that makes that particular Christian sect superior, because they would be the only way. They would be the only ones who have the correct interpretation of the Bible.
Of course, other Christians don't necessarily agree with them. And Baha'is definitely don't agree with them. Now if it's true that none of the gospels were written by an eyewitness, then what would it matter on which interpretation a Christian had? It would still be based on possibly made up, fictional, embellished stories.
But Baha'is do believe there is one religious group that does have the correct interpretation of the gospels, regardless of whether or not they were written by an eyewitness... and that is the Baha'is.
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
But then their prophet, Baha'u'llah, said this...
The Four Gospels were written after Him [Christ]. John, Luke, Mark and Matthew - these four wrote after Christ what they remembered of His utterances.
Bahá’u’lláh, from a previously untranslated Tablet, Extracts From The Bahá’í Writings And From Letters Of The Guardian And The Universal House Of Justice On The Old And New Testaments
So, for Baha'is, should they take this to mean that "those four" did write about the things they heard Jesus say?