There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Subduction Zone]

Great… I have stated “no support” - but you chose not to give it. Are you saying that you didn’t graduate from high school?

Once again, if you do not understand something, ask questions. Right now it looks as you would object to me saying "2 + 2 + 4". If you do not understand a point ask for more evidence. You only have to admit your ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I knew that you wouldn’t give support. Is it because you aren’t a bible student?

You never asked for support. And I am not a Biblical scholar, but I probably understand the Bible better than you do. An irrational belief ends up in purposefully misunderstanding parts of the Bible

So the person you were talking to had some understanding to help you?

Please, try again. Don't get mad just because of your inability to understand the Bible.

you haven’t given me anything that says it was wrong other than your opinion and you saying so.

In this debate, I have not really needed to. You will not engage in an honest discussion. I need to remind you that you used a bogus source and when I read it and had a good laugh you ran away from that source.

 

[Kenny]

ALLAnd there are some who don't agree that astrology is pseudoscience or that vaccines are necessary. Therefore?

One can either devalue and dismiss scholarship and, where found, consensus, or one can seek to understand and value it's appraisals.

All within the scope of true science and/or correct studies

 

[Brian2]

A claim is only a claim. If there is no proof or even evidence to back up that claim, why should we believe it?

And that's the problem, those witness claims cannot be proven so it is only a claim, not a fact.

Yes a faith is a faith.

Yes, the Baha'i Faith does and there is proof that can back up the claims, because the original writings of Baha'u'llah are at the Baháʼí World Centre in Haifa Israel. Those writings are in Baha'u'llah's own handwriting and stamped with His official seal.

Some of those writings have even been displayed in a museum.

The British Museum is showing rarely-seen original handwriting of Baha'u'llah, as well as other archival items associated with His life, to mark the 200th anniversary of His birth. Here, an example “Revelation Writing” is on display. Nov 9, 2017
Exhibition of Baha'u'llah's writings opens at British Museum

It does not make those writings true, but yes Baha'u'llah probably wrote the things attributed to him.

 

[Brian2]

What makes you think that Luke was a historian or that he even wrote Luke/Acts? There really does not seem to be any good reasoning behind that claim. And yes, myths and lies can spring to life very very quickly. After death hallucinations are actually fairly common. And the willingness of people to believe them when it involves a loved one makes them spread. Are you American? Are you old? If you were you would know about Elvis Presley and the countless sightings of him after he died. These people were not lying. They most probably saw someone for just a fraction of a second that looked a bit like Elvis. The mind does the rest on its own.

I'm not American and it is a matter of opinion as to whether I am old,,,,,,,,, but I have been getting there for a while.
The accounts of Jesus sightings after the resurrection are of a different type to people who may have fleetingly seen someone who looked like Elvis.

There are good reasons for thinking that it was Luke, the companion of Paul, who wrote Luke/Acts.
Luke has been called a historian by scholars who have studied his writings. Sceptics don't seem to like that and so have tried to show that Luke was inaccurate in what he wrote. Most of this has shown the opposite. There is still the question of the census at the time of Jesus birth which is questioned, but imo that will eventually go the way of the other things that people have thought that he made a mistake with, and be shown to be accurate. And actually there is evidence now that shows that this census could be accurate history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not American and it is a matter of opinion as to whether I am old,,,,,,,,, but I have been getting there for a while.
The accounts of Jesus sightings after the resurrection are of a different type to people who may have fleetingly seen someone who looked like Elvis.

There are good reasons for thinking that it was Luke, the companion of Paul, who wrote Luke/Acts.
Luke has been called a historian by scholars who have studied his writings. Sceptics don't seem to like that and so have tried to show that Luke was inaccurate in what he wrote. Most of this has shown the opposite. There is still the question of the census at the time of Jesus birth which is questioned, but imo that will eventually go the way of the other things that people have thought that he made a mistake with, and be shown to be accurate. And actually there is evidence now that shows that this census could be accurate history.

Really? Then why do modern scholars all seem to deny this? In fact what makes scholars reliable is because they can support their claims. Please do not abuse the work skeptic and try to make a derogative term. A skeptic follows the evidence. And from what I have seen the evidence is against Luke.

 

[Brian2]

Oh, one more point. Claims that one got the story from an eyewitness means that the writer was not an eyewitness and it was technically not an "eyewitness account". That is second hand at best and would be called "hearsay" in a court of law.

Yes I know that, but this is not a court of law. Historians writing down what multiple witnesses saw and heard is certainly a good way for a historian to collect information.
Luke was acting as a historian according to his opening paragraph in his gospel. He seems to have been attempting to write an accurate account as one who had been around for a while and heard from many witnesses and ministers of the gospel of Jesus.
He also seems to have been present during at least part of the events of Acts.

Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

 

[Brian2]

The earliest that Luke appears to have been written is 80 CE. That makes gathering "eyewitness testimony" very difficult. Nor does the Gospel of Luke claim to have eyewitness testimony. His claim is that the stories go back to eyewitnesses. And if Luke was a historian he had one huge slip in his narrative, and I am pretty sure that historical scholars can find others. He has the year of birth of Jesus roughly 10 years later than Matthew does. He probably meant to have it at the same time that Matthew does, but the main part of his story makes that not so.

Both Matthew and Luke have Jesus born in the reign of Herod and sceptics like to attack the accuracy of Luke instead of Matthew. Luke afterall is seen as an accurate historian and that has to be attacked.

The only reason to say that Luke's gospel was written as late as 80AD is the sceptic presupposition that Jesus could not have prophesied about the destruction of the Temple.
Actually it can be argued that Luke was written in maybe the 50s because Acts seems to have been a sequel to Luke and it does not even mention that the Temple was destroyed or that Paul or Peter were martyred in Rome,,,,,,,,,,, to the sequel to Luke was probably written in the 60s.
It appears that Luke had access to the writings of many and had heard what eyewitnesses and ministers of the gospel had told them.
Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I know that, but this is not a court of law. Historians writing down what multiple witnesses saw and heard is certainly a good way for a historian to collect information.
Luke was acting as a historian according to his opening paragraph in his gospel. He seems to have been attempting to write an accurate account as one who had been around for a while and heard from many witnesses and ministers of the gospel of Jesus.
He also seems to have been present during at least part of the events of Acts.

Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

You are now using circular reasoning The author of Luke, no matter who he was, was not a historian. That is merely Christian apologetics. In fact as a supposed historian he has what appears to be a pretty big error in his Jesus story.

And you are misinterpreting what the author of Luke wrote. He does not even claim to get his stories first hand. You read that wrong. He is claiming that the stories were passed down by eyewitnesses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Both Matthew and Luke have Jesus born in the reign of Herod and sceptics like to attack the accuracy of Luke instead of Matthew. Luke afterall is seen as an accurate historian and that has to be attacked.

The only reason to say that Luke's gospel was written as late as 80AD is the sceptic presupposition that Jesus could not have prophesied about the destruction of the Temple.
Actually it can be argued that Luke was written in maybe the 50s because Acts seems to have been a sequel to Luke and it does not even mention that the Temple was destroyed or that Paul or Peter were martyred in Rome,,,,,,,,,,, to the sequel to Luke was probably written in the 60s.
It appears that Luke had access to the writings of many and had heard what eyewitnesses and ministers of the gospel had told them.
Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

No, Luke clearly has the birth in 6 CE. And no one is "presupposing' well the Christian apologists appear to be. You should not make such accusations without evidence. And why would Acts go past the time that the Temple was destroyed? It appears that at that time the days of the apostles were already over. Like others here you are making the mistake of treating apologists as historians and scholars. You should not believe people just because they say what you want them to say.

 

[CG Didymus]

Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

It's interesting what he says here, "that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."

Then it Acts he says, " In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive."

Part of what he is claiming is that we can know for a certainty that Jesus showed himself to be alive with many convincing proofs. Yet, the Baha'i Faith, whose prophet claims to be sent by God, doesn't support that Jesus was alive.

From the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá​

​

The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.​

​

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection....​

​

From letters written on behalf of the Guardian​

​

We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the Crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His Ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realized He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and been misunderstood. His eating with His disciples after resurrection is the same thing.​

​

Now whether a person believes the resurrection of Jesus was true or not doesn't matter. Luke in his gospel and by what he says in Acts make it clear that what he is claiming is Jesus came back to life after being killed.

The Baha'i claim is that it was not a literal, physical resurrection. They make the claim that all those verses that talk about the resurrection and appearances of Jesus were all symbolic... none of that stuff really happened. All the things that Luke says did happen... including Jesus showing himself to be alive by many proofs.

Baha'is can't have the resurrection stories being true. To help call them into question, it doesn't hurt to say that the gospels were written by people that weren't even eyewitnesses.

Yet, Baha'is also claim they believe in Jesus? And that is based on the few true things they believe in that are found in those same gospels. Weird stuff going on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's interesting what he says here, "that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."

Then it Acts he says, " In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive."

Part of what he is claiming is that we can know for a certainty that Jesus showed himself to be alive with many convincing proofs. Yet, the Baha'i Faith, whose prophet claims to be sent by God, doesn't support that Jesus was alive.

From the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá​

​

The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.​

​

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection....​

​

From letters written on behalf of the Guardian​

​

We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the Crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His Ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realized He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and been misunderstood. His eating with His disciples after resurrection is the same thing.​

​

Now whether a person believes the resurrection of Jesus was true or not doesn't matter. Luke in his gospel and by what he says in Acts make it clear that what he is claiming is Jesus came back to life after being killed.

The Baha'i claim is that it was not a literal, physical resurrection. They make the claim that all those verses that talk about the resurrection and appearances of Jesus were all symbolic... none of that stuff really happened. All the things that Luke says did happen... including Jesus showing himself to be alive by many proofs.

Baha'is can't have the resurrection stories being true. To help call them into question, it doesn't hurt to say that the gospels were written by people that weren't even eyewitnesses.

Yet, Baha'is also claim they believe in Jesus? And that is based on the few true things they believe in that are found in those same gospels. Weird stuff going on.

No, fanciful stories in a religious book does not qualify as "proof'. Do you know what Romans did to the bodies of crucified people?

 

[Sumadji]

What is the evidence for those early dates?

Here is one essay, for possible discussion:
The Book of the Hellenists and the Origin of the Gospel of Mark: The Development of the Gospels of Mark and John Turned on Its Head

Search Academia.edu - Find Research Papers, Topics, Researchers for more

 

[Sumadji]

What is the evidence for those early dates?

Here is an AI response for the Google search: Evidence for an early Gospel of John before 90AD

AI Overview

"There is evidence that the Gospel of John may have been written before 90 AD, including:

John Rylands Papyrus
A copy of the Gospel of John from Egypt that contains sections of John 18 that some paleographers have dated to around 90 AD. This would suggest that the original Gospel may have been written decades earlier.

Fragment 52
A fragment of the Gospel of John that dates from the first half of the 2nd century, making it the oldest known gospel text.

Passage near the end of John
Some scholars believe that a passage near the end of John indicates that Peter had not yet been martyred, which could mean the Gospel was written in 65 AD or earlier.

The Gospel of John reached its final form around AD 90–110, but it contains signs of origins that may date back to AD 70 or earlier. The Gospel of John differs from the other three Gospels in many ways, including the incidents and chronology it includes. This has led to debate over whether the Gospel of John is historical."

 

[Kenny]

You never asked for support. And I am not a Biblical scholar, but I probably understand the Bible better than you do. An irrational belief ends up in purposefully misunderstanding parts of the Bible

Again… unsupported opinions. If you say the info is lacking, I don’t need to ask for support… it is you that made the claim, support it.

Please, try again. Don't get mad just because of your inability to understand the Bible.

LOL Another unsupported claim. It is a habit!

In this debate, I have not really needed to. You will not engage in an honest discussion.

When you honestly discuss something, it would be my honor to honestly reply.

I need to remind you that you used a bogus source and when I read it and had a good laugh you ran away from that source.

Again… another unsupported statement. Count now, approximately 155 by my estimation.

 

[Sumadji]

It would seem to me that a person does not have to accompany every written statement they make with a list of references. However if references are requested, that person should be able to supply them?

 

[Brian2]

I agree that historical documents written by witnesses are more reliable (although as we all know, witnesses themselves are not exactly reliable).

The point here is that the gospels are not written by witnesses. The authors simply collected all the known stories of Jesus, making no attempt to separate out whose more likely to be historically accurate from those who were mere myth or legend.

Well that is the sceptic pov yes.

Mark was not written by Mark. All of this information you are offering, that Mark wrote it and that he got his information from Peter, is nothing but tradition without foundation.

Tradition without foundation? Why isn't Church tradition just the history that was passed down about the gospels?
There is evidence in the Bible for Mark and Peter's association and in church history that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark as a translator of Peter.
There is more than one possible Mark it seems however and so we get confused these days as to who is who. But I would say that it was known back then that Mark the translator for Peter, wrote the Gospel of Mark.

I realize I'm repeating the same information I gave before, but I'm thinking you simply didn't read my post (none of us reads every post in a thread).

When the four canonical gospels first began being passed around the churches, they were ANONYMOUS. It was only later, around the end of the first century and beginning of the second, that the tradition of ascribing them to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John developed. It was a nice tradition, but had absolutely no foundation.

It is curious to me that Protestants, who scorn "the traditions of men," are so unconscious of the very traditions they themselves have.

Protestants scorn the traditions of men which are taught as if they are from God.
We know that the gospels were written anonymously but we also realise that there is good reason that they were accepted as authentic and that it was known who wrote them in those days, and that is attested in the written church tradition and can also be seen to an extent in the gospels themselves as well as in other parts of the New Testament.
Skeptics like to push for the late writing of the gospels (under the presupposition that Jesus could not have prophesied the Temple destruction) and work from there into saying that the gospels were written by people who were not witnesses and who did not know witnesses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again… unsupported opinions. If you say the info is lacking, I don’t need to ask for support… it is you that made the claim, support it.


LOL Another unsupported claim. It is a habit!


When you honestly discuss something, it would be my honor to honestly reply.




Again… another unsupported statement. Count now, approximately 155 by my estimation.

No, I regularly support my claims and have explained this to you. Right now you appear to be trolling. Please, no more false accusations. If you do not understand something all that you have to do is to ask. It seems being polite and debating properly is an ability that you do not have. By the way, that is an observation that is supported by your recent post. If you cannot understand that just ask.

I am asking you politely only one time to please quit trolling. Once again, if you do not understand something ask questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that is the sceptic pov yes.

No, that is the rational viewpoint.

Tradition without foundation? Why isn't Church tradition just the history that was passed down about the gospels?
There is evidence in the Bible for Mark and Peter's association and in church history that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark as a translator of Peter.
There is more than one possible Mark it seems however and so we get confused these days as to who is who. But I would say that it was known back then that Mark the translator for Peter, wrote the Gospel of Mark.

History is something this is supported by some sort of evidence. When people ask for evidence none is to be presented. That is why it is church tradition and not evidence.

Protestants scorn the traditions of men which are taught as if they are from God.
We know that the gospels were written anonymously but we also realise that there is good reason that they were accepted as authentic and that it was known who wrote them in those days, and that is attested in the written church tradition and can also be seen to an extent in the gospels themselves as well as in other parts of the New Testament.

It appears that you are misusing the word "know". If you know that there is good reason you would be able to support the claim that they are authentic etc.. In face it is rather well known that there were quite a few gospels before the decision in the 300's that there would be only four church accepted gospels. Church tradition is not history.

Skeptics like to push for the late writing of the gospels (under the presupposition that Jesus could not have prophesied the Temple destruction) and work from there into saying that the gospels were written by people who were not witnesses and who did not know witnesses.

No, we went over this. Skeptics follow the evidence. You do not seem to understand what a skeptic is and you are once again using a term as pejorative instead of supporting your beliefs with evidence. It is the evidence that leads skeptics to those conclusions. You probably have been given the reasons in the past and you do not have any answer to that evidence. Otherwise you would use more than making false claims about others.

 

[Brian2]

Oh my goodness. No one claims that Luke was a historian. There is a *tradition* that he was a Gentile doctor. But you are the first person I've encountered who claimed he was a historian.

Let's look at how much time it takes for a legend to develop.

A couple of weeks ago, an arrest was made that was captured on video. In the video, the cop asks the person, Where is the cat? Did you eat it? The person who was being arrested was clearly dazed and overwhelmed by being arrested, and didn't bother answering what was obviously not a serious question. There were idiots watching this video that assumed that since the person never denied eating the cat, it meant he must have eaten the cat. The story went viral, and with each telling, became more and more exaggerated, until we ended up with the version that the Haitian immigrant population were eating people's pets.

IOW it only took days for a full blown urban legend to develop. Did the existence of electronic media speed up the process? Certainly. But it is obvious that 30 years is more than enough time for myths and legends to develop about Jesus.

Luke has been called a good historian by other historians who have seen that his writing was precise and accurate historically. He has been considered to have been inaccurate by some but it has been shown that what were considered mistakes were actually correct. There remains the census at the time of Jesus which seems inaccurate, but which also has some evidence for it's truth. That is in the too hard basket at the moment but sceptics like to throw dirt as the accuracy of Luke and to drag it out at every opportunity, even though Luke has been found to be very accurate in other details.
Anything to discredit the New Testament record I guess.
30 years or so means that people were still around who could confirm or deny the gospel accounts.
But a faith is a faith and nothing is proven even if sceptics, who deny everything else in life, like to claim that it has been shown that the gospels were written late in the first century or even in the second century. I guess they have to do that sort of thing to justify their own sceptic faith, or lack of faith.