• 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

Brian2

Veteran Member
While "it was known who wrote them in those days, and that is attested in the written church tradition," that in no way suggests
  1. that this tradition was unambiguous,
  2. that this tradition was accurate,
  3. that you know who wrote gMk, or
  4. that there is warrant to claim that the author was an eye witness.

It is not claimed that Mark was an eyewitness, however Luke says at the beginning of his gospel.
Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
Since it looks as if Luke copied from Mark, it looks as if Luke sees Mark's gospel as having come from a witness, as the tradition about Mark and Peter suggests also.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I have only heard Christians claiming that What makes you think that he was a historian? Paul only mentions him once in his letters and does not refer to him as anything more than a traveling companion.

Paul mentions Luke as a companion and as a physician. This means that Luke would have been educated.
It is the historical accuracy of his writings that have led scholars to call Luke a historian.
Luke has been found to be historically correct in things where he has been accused of inaccuracy. This means that he is someone who is orderly and wanting accuracy in his writings.
This of course means that he is as likely to be correct about the census as Josephus is.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
There are no modern historians that say Luke was a historian. In fact, the consensus is that the book of Luke actually has three sources, not one: the book of Mark, the Q source, and original Lukan material. There are Christian theologians who disagree with that, but a theologian is not a textual critic.

I tells us that his material comes from witnesses. It does not matter how many witnesses there were, but Luke did consider them to have been witnesses, or to at least have sourced their material from witnesses (as for example, Mark sourced from Peter)
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Because the tradition didn't appear until the end of the first century or early second century. Like I said, when the gospels were first passed around from church to church, they were anonymous.

They were anonymous to the extent that the authors did not write their names in them. That does not mean that the books turned up in congregations without people knowing something about who wrote them. Traditions have to start somewhere.

Again, this is a lovely tradition, but it has no historical foundation.

Tradition is just part of what we call "history". Maybe it is considered less reliable, but written history can begin with oral tradition, which gets written down.
The traditions about who wrote which gospels do fit the internal evidence we have from the gospels and other parts of the New Testament however.

If you understand that the authorship of the gospels is the traditions of men, why are you so heavily invested in it emotionally?

From what I can see, the only evidence there is, is that the traditional authors are the right ones. Those that want us to believe otherwise seem to be basing their argument on the idea that the supernatural is not true and so Jesus could not have prophesied about the Temple destruction and so the gospels were written after 70AD and so they are lies from the start and probably by people who did not know Jesus or know his followers.
It's where the modern historical theories end up, with people claiming them to be the truth, that brings out the emotional attachment to the traditions that seem actually more historically reliable than the naturalistic presumptions that modern historians use.

This is the second time you have used the word "skeptic." It seems that for some reason inside your head, you think this diminishes their scholarship.

It diminishes it as much as being a conservative scholar of the Bible diminishes a person's scholarship.

As to your comment on dating the gospels due to mention of the destruction of the temple, let's discuss the difference between what is possible and what is plausible. I think I used this example yesterday, so it's fresh in my mind.

Fact: I woke up this morning to find a few sprinkles of cat litter just outside the litter box.
Possibility One: My cat used the litter box during the night, and tracked some of the litter out.
Possibility Two: Angels visited my home and levitated the litter out of the box and onto the floor.

I think from that example, it should be clear to you that it is implausible to suggest a supernatural explanation for something that has a perfectly good natural explanation. Thus, the supernatural explanation for the allusions to the Temple destruction in the gospels are simply implausible when there is a perfectly likely natural explanation: that the texts were written after the destruction of the Temple.

The supernatural is certainly not being treated neutrally. Any other possible explanation is accepted instead of the supernatural one given in the text.
In this way all scriptures with prophecies are automatically put down as lies, and that presumption is enough for historian, or sceptical historians at least, to say that they know when these scriptures had to have been written, after the events prophesied about. The presumption that it was not the supernatural becomes the proof that the scriptures are not true.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
This caught my eye. I think all religions use words idiosyncratically. For example, outside of religious language, "flesh" refers to the physical body or meat. But in Christian contexts, especially in Paul's letters, "flesh" often symbolizes the tendency toward sinful behavior.

I have no problems with communities tailoring language in order to give expression to their unique ideas. I only get irritated when individuals do it. After all, if the only person who uses my definition is me, it will only prevent me from being able to communicate.

Religions have jargon which they use and which can make communication difficult with people who aren't initiated a bit into the jargon.
I have noticed some religions, and in this case, Baha'i, changes the normal definition of some words.
In this case the Baha'is want "resurrection" to mean what they say happens when a person dies physically and their soul leaves the body and goes to heaven.
This seems to be a complete denial of the usual way "resurrection" is used throughout the Bible, but Baha'is want to say that the Biblical use is actually their useage.
With Baha'i normal English seems to mean nothing at times and they can say "black" actually means "white" and not bat an eyelid.
This goes beyond what the differences in translation can be between the Jewish Tanakh and a Christian Old Testament. It's not a matter of translation.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
But what's easier to believe? That Jesus was dead for three days and came back to life? Or that is was a symbolic story?

It gives people a way to still believe in Christianity without having to believe it literally. Satan's gone. Hell is gone. Salvation, as Born-Again Christians believe it, is gone. They can write off any of the miracles as being symbolic also.

So, what is left is a very nice, very liberal, user-friendly Christianity... Jesus was just such a wonderful, loving person. Forget all those doctrines and dogmas.

That is a good was to describe it. They can be Christians in a very liberal way and still be Baha'i in a non liberal way.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
There was no one "early church" at that time. There were groups that used those other gospels. They were in the minority. They would not have existed if there were not at least some people that believed them.

True, there were groups that rejected the teachings of the apostles.

No, that is nonsense that you need to support and I am very sure that you cannot do so. That is just a mantra of deniers of scholarship.

Yes I deny scholarship that automatically goes for a writing date of post 70AD because of the destruction of the Temple prophecy.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
And coincidentally the same reason why they want to attribute various human writers to the book of Isaiah, where the prophet clearly predicts the future appearance (ocurred 2 centuries later) of a man named Cyrus who would conquer Babylon, as well as describing specific details about how he would accomplish this (Is. 44:26-45:7).

For an atheist prophecy is impossible so any hint of a prophecy implies, from their biased viewpoint, that it was given after the event happened and never before.

That is the reason that the life of Jesus is said to have been a fiction, to fit prophecy.
Any explanation is more plausible than a supernatural explanation.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
That is not only a Baha'i belief. The Christian who wrote this book also believed it. He was a rare Christian who knew how to interpret the Bible.

The Resuscitation of Man from the Dead and His Entrance into Eternal Life
421. When the body is no longer able to perform the bodily functions in the natural world that correspond to the spirit’s thoughts and affections, which the spirit has from the spiritual world, man is said to die. This takes place when the respiration of the lungs and the beatings of the heart cease. But the man does not die; he is merely separated from the bodily part that was of use to him in the world, while the man himself continues to live. It is said that the man himself continues to live since man is not a man because of his body but because of his spirit, for it is the spirit that thinks in man, and thought with affection is what constitutes man. Evidently, then, the death of man is merely his passing from one world into another. And this is why in the Word in its internal sense “death” signifies resurrection and continuation of life. (Heaven and Hell, p. 351)


Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Swedenborg may have thought that, but can you show me a Biblical passage where "resurrection" has that meaning? I don't know, maybe you can show me one where you can twist it around to mean that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but if so, it contradicts the many others where "resurrection" means what it means in the normal sense of the word, and which Baha'is have to reject in favor of Baha'i teaching.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sorry, I don't think there is any good reason to believe that.
Mark was the first written (as was first noted by German textual critics at the end of the 18th century). At Mark 13:2 Jesus "predicts" the destruction of Jerusalem, meaning Mark was written after 70 CE. (The author of Matthew copies Mark but specifies the Temple (Matthew 24:2). Mark's trial scene before Pilate is modeled on Josephus' account of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem in The Jewish Wars, Bk 6 Ch. 5.3. Wars was not available until 75 CE, so Mark was not written earlier.

So there are two good reasons for you.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Mark was the first written (as was first noted by German textual critics at the end of the 18th century). At Mark 13:2 Jesus "predicts" the destruction of Jerusalem, meaning Mark was written after 70 CE. (The author of Matthew copies Mark but specifies the Temple (Matthew 24:2). Mark's trial scene before Pilate is modeled on Josephus' account of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem in The Jewish Wars, Bk 6 Ch. 5.3. Wars was not available until 75 CE, so Mark was not written earlier.

So there are two good reasons for you.

So the presumption by the German textual critics that there is no such thing as the supernatural is all the evidence you have that Mark was written after 70AD.
And no, Josephus agreeing with Mark about the trial of Jesus does not mean that Mark copied the trial scene from Josephus. Do you think that there was no trial of Jesus? or is it that you think that Mark could not possibly know what happened at the trial? or what?
Why does any agreement between Mark and Josephus mean that Mark copied from Josephus?
Btw at Mark 13:2 it is the Temple buildings that are being spoken about, so it agrees with Matthew.
 

Sumadji

Active Member
Whoever wrote John did so, I read, around 95 CE
Did you investigate any scholarship indicating an earlier John? Perhaps even predating Mark?
We don't know who wrote any of the gospels, but the first written was Mark, not earlier than 75 CE. Matthew and Luke were written around the mid-80s.
Is there no alternative scholarship? Other opinions? Dating the gospels is not easy ...
Mark's trial scene before Pilate is modeled on Josephus' account of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem in The Jewish Wars, Bk 6 Ch. 5.3.
An assertion of fact. But isn't it really speculation?

Below is the chapter, with the relevant section marked in red:

Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself. While they did not attend, nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretel their future desolation. But like men infatuated, without either eyes to see, or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star, resembling a sword, which stood over the city: and a comet, that continued a whole year. (15) Thus also before the Jews rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crouds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, [Nisan,] (16) and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar, and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time. Which light lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskilful: but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also an heifer, as she was led by the High-priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb, in the midst of the temple. Moreover the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] temple,9 which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor; which was there made of one intire stone: was seen to be opened of its own accord, about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it: who then came up thither: and, not without great difficulty, was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy: as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord: and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publickly declared that this signal foreshewed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable; were it not related by those that saw it; and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals. For, before sun setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost; as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple,10 as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said, that in the first place they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise: and after that they heard a sound, as of a multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.” But what is still more terrible; there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian, and an husbandman, who, four years before the war began; and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity; came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (17) began on a sudden to cry aloud, “A voice from the east; a voice from the west; a voice from the four winds; a voice against Jerusalem, and the holy house; a voice against the bridegrooms, and the brides; and a voice against this whole people.” This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his; and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes. Yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him: but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man; brought him to the Roman procurator. Where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare. Yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears: but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem.” And when Albinus, (for he was then our procurator asked him, “Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words?” he made no manner of reply to what he said: but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty: till Albinus took him to be a mad-man, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens; nor was seen by them while he said so. But he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow: “Woe, woe to Jerusalem.” Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food: but this was his reply to all men; and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years, and five months; without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith. Until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege; when it ceased. For as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, “Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house.” And just as he added at the last, “Woe, woe to myself also,” there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately. And as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

Perhaps it's the story Josephus heard, but does his story have to be the right one?

In the same chapter Josephus also reported this: "For, before sun setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities." And this: "At the same festival also an heifer, as she was led by the High-priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb, in the midst of the temple." And other strange occurrences and signs ...

Is there a conclusive reason to support Josephus against Mark?
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
It is not claimed that Mark was an eyewitness, however Luke says at the beginning of his gospel.
Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

I'm aware of the verse.

As for its author, the following are excerpts from Schnelle's The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings ...
  • The author of the Third Gospel is unknown. The first person to name Luke the traveling companion of Paul as the author was Iranaeus of Lyons about 180 CE ...
  • Was in dact the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts a companion of the apostle Paul? A comparison of the Lucan and Pauline theologies shows that this question is to be answered negatively. ... Thus on must agree with Ph. Vielhauer: The author of Acts in his Christology is pre-Pauline, in his natural theology, concept of law, and aschatology is post-Pauline. He presents no specifically Pauline idea.'
  • The unknown author of the Third Gospel ... presents himself in Luke 1.1-4 as a theologian and historian who has a literary education, and who above all is interesting in convincing his readers of the trustworthiness of the tradition of Christian teachings.
  • We must therefore regard Luke as a Gentile Christian who lived in contact with the Diaspora synagogue and who consciously integrated Jewish Christian traditions into his composition.
  • Luke writes from the perspective of the third Christian generation, which is already interested in a presentation of the epochs of salvation history. From this data we may date the Gospel of Luke in the period around 90 CE.
Echoing the above is the Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler introdiction to Luke found in The Jewish Annotated New Testament New Revised Standard Version Bible Translation:

... Luke depicts the synagogue as a place of violence (4.28-29), details Israel's continual failures whiile highlighting the fidelity of Gentiles ans Samaritans (e.g., 7.9; 17.16-18), and engages in scathing caricatures of Pharisees (see "pharisees in Luke," p. 110) and chief priests. The harsh rhetoric resembles that of the biblical prophets and the Qumran writings (Dead Sea Scrolls); the distinction is, however, that Jesus' criticisms against his fellow Jews are now embedded in text directed primarily to Gentiles. Nor does Luke know, or presume readers know, Jewish customs: Jewish practices are defined (e.g., 22.1) and sometimes erroneously presented (e.g., 2.22). Thus the consensus view is that the author is a Gentile writing to a primarily Gentile audience, sometime in the late first or early second century. Indeed, some scholars suggest that the first two chapters are additions, created in the early second century and designed not to foreground the practice of Judaism, but to counter the arguments of Marcion, a Christian teacher who promoted the idea that the God of the Old Testament was not the one revealed by Jesus (the stereotype of the "Old Testament God of wrath" vs. the "New Testament God of love" is a recrudescence of the Marcionite heresy).​
So, when you look to Luke 1.1 as evidence of a tradition grounded on eyewitness testimony, you are arguably relying on
  1. an anonymous Gentile author
  2. writing primarily to a Gentile audience
  3. decades after the storied life of Jesus,
  4. an apologist who is making an ambiguous claim*
  5. in a verse that some believe to be a later anti-Marcionite addition.
(* the reference to unnamed but presumed folk - people he does not even claim to have met - who were presumably "eyewitnesses and servants of the word" seems exceedingly poor evidence.)
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
That is the reason that the life of Jesus is said to have been a fiction, to fit prophecy.
Any explanation is more plausible than a supernatural explanation.
Yes, because once again, NOBODY HAS EVER DEMONSTRATED THE EXISTENCE OF SUPERNATURAL ANYTHING.

Therefore, you can't posit it as an explanation for anything. It's not in the running until you can show it actually exists in the first place.
It doesn't provide one iota of explanatory power either.

I've been explaining this to you for years, at this point. And here you are just repeating the same thing you've been saying since Day 1.
 

Sumadji

Active Member
NOBODY HAS EVER DEMONSTRATED THE EXISTENCE OF SUPERNATURAL ANYTHING.
Jesus did, if the New Testament is to be believed.

The fact a person chooses not to believe Jesus did the things he is said to have done, makes it simply a contest of beliefs? It's one belief against another.

People report miraculous healings all over the world all the time, against all medical knowledge.

The fact a person doesn't like the idea that Jesus performed miracles, regardless of how, doesn't mean it didn't happen
 
Last edited:

Sumadji

Active Member
There are, however, good reasons to prioritize peer reviewed scholarship over religious bias.
I'm talking about peer reviewed scholarship. There's lots of debate about the origin date of the gospels, and the origin of John. It's been discussed earlier in this thread. Even a quick google will lead to alternative theories, that can be followed up.

It's like someone talking about Inflation and the Big Bang and Dark Energy as if such things are concrete facts. They are theories, and there are alternative theories. There's string theory and M Theory and more modern theories of quantum loop gravity and so on.

Nobody really knows
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Swedenborg may have thought that, but can you show me a Biblical passage where "resurrection" has that meaning? I don't know, maybe you can show me one where you can twist it around to mean that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but if so, it contradicts the many others where "resurrection" means what it means in the normal sense of the word, and which Baha'is have to reject in favor of Baha'i teaching.
I'll show you that right after you show me Biblical passages where you believe "resurrection" means physically rising from a grave, within the context of what happens after we die. Then I will explain what I believe those passages mean.

Please don't bother showing me John 11:38-44, because I already know about that. If Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, that was just to demonstrate His power to perform miracles. It is no indication of what will happen to anyone else after they die.

John 11:25 within that chapter is about eternal life, not about physical life. When Jesus said "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live" He meant that person will have eternal life.

I Am the Resurrection and the Life​

17 So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four days. 18 Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about [a]two miles away. 19 And many of the Jews had joined the women around Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother.

20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met Him, but Mary was sitting in the house. 21 Now Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.”

23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

24 Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

Eternal life has nothing to do with physical life and that is where the Christians got it wrong. Jesus never said that eternal life means rising from the grave and living forever. In John 17:3 Jesus tells is clearly and plainly what eternal life is, which is exactly the same as what Baha'is believe.

John 17:3 NIV
3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.


When Jesus referred to eternal life, He was not referring to physical life of the body. He was to spiritual life, which comes by knowing God and Jesus.

The soul is eternal, the body perishes. That is why Jesus said: John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life

All the verses below refer to eternal life of the soul, not life of the physical body.

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

1 John 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

All souls will continue to exist in the spiritual world after the body dies but not all souls will have eternal life (everlasting life).
Eternal life refers to a “quality” of life, nearness to God which, according to Jesus, comes from believing in Him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I just happened upon this interesting article on some meanings of resurrection for a Baha'i.

 
Last edited:
Top