There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Brian2]

The clear and specific definition of "evidence" eliminates the possibility of considering personal testimony of the supernatural and the miraculous as evidence justifying claims.

Personal testimony eliminates the possibility for atheists to claim that the supernatural is not true.

The problem extends to the rejection of science based ancient mythical texts with miraculous and supernatural claims of the history of our physical existence, the earth and humanity. These ancient views are illogical and irrational to the extreme.

So do you believe that it is wrong that God created all things and gave life?

 

[blü 2]

"It is a fact" and "Carrier say so" are two significantly different claims.

I'd be hesitant to offer a view simply because Carrier said so, hence I'm sympathetic to the point you make.

To the best of my knowledge the matter was first raised by theologian Ted Weeden jr in 2003.

So it appears to me that Carrier is reporting on what Weeden found, including the 24 points of agreement between the two accounts, the difference being that Carrier's version is handily available on the net, simplifying reference.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no "proof" of the authorship of the gospels but there is enough evidence in the New Testament and in the writings of the early church for that traditional authors and that the early church knew who they were.

... or that some in the early church thought they knew who they were.

1Tim 5:18 quotes Luke 10:7.

Thanks. BTW: see Lev 19:13.

 

[Brian2]

My point is that they're mental phenomena. They don't take place in the world external to the self.

Have you tested that hypothesis or not?

Science explores and describes reality and finds no spirits there. Simple as that.

Science does not say that the supernatural is not real. That is a leap of faith that atheists make................... despite evidence to the contrary. It is an example of scientism, which is a faith.

Then address your problem, which, as I said, is that the only manner in which supernatural entities are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains. They aren't found out there in reality. That's why there are no photographs, videos, interviews, no place in Linnaean taxonomy for them.

It is not my problem. I have faith that the supernatural is true.

To be credible, a prophesy would need to be a precise prediction, unambiguously stated and credibly recorded at the time of its making, which comes true in a clearly and credibly recorded manner so close to that predicted and so unlikely, that a supernatural explanation seems more credible than simply by chance, or by faking, or by devising. There are no real examples.

That is your problem not mine. I believe prophecies have happened. You believe the alternatives, things that you know are fictional, have been made up. Any one of them seem to be more probable to you than a supernatural prophecy, even when there is evidence that the prophecy was true.

We don't find names on the gospels till 200 CE or later. According to credible historians I've read, around that time the names were assigned by convention, not by knowledge.

That does not mean that the early church did not know who wrote the gospels.

Then your task should be easy ─ just lay on a satisfactory demonstration of the supernatural for them and me.

But that's always been the case, and yet nothing happens and nothing happens and nothing happens. It's not as if you'd lack an audience for your demonstration either. It would attract honest and impartial attention from seriously expert authorities.

What task? I cannot conjure up spirits doing things.
You repeat the same old tired unreasoning demands, knowing that there are no "seriously expert authorities" when it comes to the supernatural, but suggesting that there are.

 

[Brian2]

... or that some in the early church thought the knew who they were.

It is clear that the early church took the 4 gospels as reliable and authentic according to what they had been taught through preaching etc.
Yes it is not proof but there is enough evidence for me, even if not for you.

Thanks. BTW: see Lev 19:13.

Thanks but the quote is from what is in the gospel of Luke.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks but the quote is from what is in the gospel of Luke.

Lev 19.13​

You shall not defraud your neighbor; you shall not steal; and you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a laborer until morning.​

​

Luke 10.7​

Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the laborer deserves to be paid. Do not move about from house to house.​

​

1 Tim 5.18​

for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain” and “The laborer deserves to be paid.”​

​

I agree. Thanks again.

 

[shunyadragon]

Personal testimony eliminates the possibility for atheists to claim that the supernatural is not true.

Supernatural claims are not evidence by definition regardless of belief today and in the history of humanity.

So do you believe that it is wrong that God created all things and gave life?

This is a religious belief not dependent on the claim of the witness of supernatural events, I believe rationally and logically by the evidence that God Created our existence and humanity naturally by the objective verifiable evidence. God does not Create contradictions in Nature.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe it is because you are a skeptic thinker that you cannot see that the experiences of people in life and in history can be evidence for the supernatural.

I think I just demonstrated why that is folly.

People attribute all kinds of experience to "the supernatural" without ever being able to show what the supernatural is and how and why their experience can be considered supernatural. As just happened with the poster I was conversing with.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's not as if there is nobody who claims to have have supernatural experience. You however want authentication, as if a person should be able to repeat the experience with scientists testing and observing.
But science and nobody knows anything about spirits or how to test for them. If it knew that then there would be no need for testing, the existence of spirits would have been shown already by tests.

What I'd like is for you to show that the experience you had is actually supernatural, rather than that you just think it was.
Those are quite different things.

If there is a supernatural realm, I want to know about it. I want to know everything that is true about the world I live in.

No, it is that believers realise that all the huffing and puffing by atheists about needing scientific proof for the supernatural is illogical.

You forgot the part where you explain how you think it's illogical.

I've not seen you use logic in any conversation we've had, to this point.

Even prophecies which history has shown to have been true are dismissed by non believers who prefer to demand more proof and to make up reasons that the prophecies did not happen,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, any fictional reason being more acceptable than witnesses to the fulfilment of prophecy it seems.

Because they haven't been show to be have come true. You and I have been back and forth on this one before.

And I suppose you are not prepared to accept that the early church knew who wrote the gospels for some reason.

They didn't know that.

You have presented no evidence. All you have done is to state that sceptics (and that includes modern historians) believe that the supernatural is not true and so Mark must have been written after 70 AD.

Where's your evidence for the existence of supernatural anything?

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no "proof" of the authorship of the gospels but there is enough evidence in the New Testament and in the writings of the early church for that traditional authors and that the early church knew who they were.
It seems that for you the views of modern historians are enough to convince you or anything.



1Tim 5:18 quotes Luke 10:7.

My Bible says right in it that the Gospels are anonymous.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Personal testimony eliminates the possibility for atheists to claim that the supernatural is not true.

How? Explain.

Also, I don't say the "supernatural isn't true." I say, I don't believe in the supernatural because I've not seen evidence for it. Do you have any?"

The problem is that nobody ever has any. Just a "personal testimony" about what happened with no explanation as to how it ties to the supernatural. Just a declaration that it does.

So do you believe that it is wrong that God created all things and gave life?

 

[Trailblazer]

Also, I don't say the "supernatural isn't true." I say, I don't believe in the supernatural because I've not seen evidence for it. Do you have any?"

I have seen evidence for the supernatural, but it would just be my personal testimony, and you would probably not believe it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have seen evidence for the supernatural, but it would just be my personal testimony, and you would probably not believe it.

I would believe that you experienced something, of course. I wouldn't deny that.
It's your attribution of the experience to the supernatural that I take issue with because the connection isn't demonstrated, only claimed.

 

[Trailblazer]

If there is a supernatural realm, I want to know about it. I want to know everything that is true about the world I live in.

I think that's good, because I think you should want to know everything that is true.
I know that there is another realm of existence beyond this earthly realm of existence, although I don't know anything about it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I would believe that you experienced something, of course. I wouldn't deny that.
It's your attribution of the experience to the supernatural that I take issue with because the connection isn't demonstrated, only claimed.

How do you know that the connection wasn't demonstrated, only claimed?
When there is no natural explanation, that only leaves the supernatural.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're wrong. But please do ask those who claim to be theists why they are theists. Thank you.

So you are claiming to be a liar? Are you sure that you want to take that route? You want to openly claim that God is a liar?

Seriously, I do not think that you understand the basics of science at all and you have never gone through a discussion of those concepts without running away.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you are claiming to be a liar? Are you sure that you want to take that route? You want to openly claim that God is a liar?

Seriously, I do not think that you understand the basics of science at all and you have never gone through a discussion of those concepts without running away.

That's ok about your ideas. You're entitled.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's ok about your ideas. You're entitled.

They are demonstrable facts. That you do not understand this shows that you not understand the basics of science.

 

[YoursTrue]

They are demonstrable facts. That you do not understand this shows that you not understand the basics of science.

Have a good one. Bye for now.

 

[CG Didymus]

There are always going to be arguments of the late writing and alternative authorship. And the opinions of people opposed to the traditions of the Church will always be picked up on by others opposed to those traditions and used as if they were facts.
Iranaeus of Lyons and the Muratorian Canon seem late attestations to the authorship of the gospels but there were plenty of quotes from writings earlier than that, which show what New Testament books were known and used.

I was just wondering, where each of the different gospels first showed up? Is there any idea?

Then, when they did show up, where did they come from? Did Mark or Luke just pop into town and say, "Hey, I wrote up a little story about Jesus. You guys want to read it?" Or, someone just shows up with it and says, "Here's the story about Jesus somebody gave me."

But then, wouldn't there have been some eyewitnesses still around that could verify the stories? Or at least people that had heard one of the apostles speak about those things?