There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Subduction Zone]

There's more reason to believe the accounts of the Gospel than
the accounts of Alexander the Great or Socrates. Far less time elapsed between Jesus and the gospel writing that when these people lived and
the writings we have of others about them.

In cases where people are emotionally tied to someone myths can pop up almost immediately. Are you old enough to remember when Elvis died? There were countless sightings of him after he died. I know that you are old enough to remember the election four years ago when Biden roundly defeated Trump. He lost. There was no cheating. It was probably the most secure election ever and yet endless myths arose about Democratic cheating when almost all of the cases of cheating found (and they were all rather minor) was by Republicans. We have at least one generation if not two between when the first gospel was written and the events in it. There are no eyewitness accounts in the Bible. Paul was the earliest and all that he had were "visions" aka hallucinations.

If Gary Habermas's evidence is "rock solid" then you should be able to tell us what it is.

 

[Feedmysheep]

In cases where people are emotionally tied to someone myths can pop up almost immediately.

Like there is something wrong with loving the Lord your God with also your whole heart?
Sure my emotions are involved. The presence of strong emotions to the resurrected Christ is perfectly valid.
What else?

Are you old enough to remember when Elvis died?

I don't want to talk about rock stars.
Elvis has no impact on my eternal destiny. People have no powerful vested interest in debunking Elvis sightings.
Convincing themselves that they need not pay heed to the Son of God, now that requires some dedication.

There were countless sightings of him after he died.

So countless alledged sightings of a Rock star you want to compare with the One who said this:

For neither does the Father judge anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,
In order that all may honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. Truly, truly, I say to you, He who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life, and does not come into judgment but has passed out of death into life. (John 5:22-24)

You're going to comfort your heart with "Now, now, that's just the same as Elvis Presley sightings. There now."

That is not a serious comparison to what these two people mean to one's life.
You'll find many fold more effort at men soothing their conscience by trying to disprove Christ's life and words than that of Rock star Elvis Presley. Remember the Pharasees sent armed attendents to arrest Jesus. They came back astounded instead -

The attendants therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and these said to them, Why did you not bring Him?
The attendants answered, Never has a man spoken as this man has. (John 7:45,46)

Paul was the earliest and all that he had were "visions" aka hallucinations.

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.

For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures;

And that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve;
Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; (1 Cor. 15:3-6)

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 Jersusalem 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 comemorating 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 its reasonable evidence of a miracle having taken place- Jesus rising from the dead.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

The First Corinthian letter where Paul mentions that there were 500 people saw Jesus after His resurrection is not a historical document.
Anyone can write a story saying that 500 hundred people saw Jesus after His resurrection, but that does not mean the story is true.

While the Bible contains historical narratives, historians do not use the Bible as direct historical evidence of historical claims. That is because much of what was written in the Bible was written decades or centuries after the fact.

The Bible as History | Accuracy, Structure & Purpose - Study.com

 

[Feedmysheep]

The First Corinthian letter where Paul mentions that there were 500 people saw Jesus after His resurrection is not a historical document.

Yes it is.

Anyone can write a story saying that 500 hundred people saw Jesus after His resurrection, but that does not mean the story is true.

No anyone cannot and say to the audience that most of the 500 are still alive to confirm or deny the report.

While the Bible contains historical narratives, historians do not use the Bible as direct historical evidence of historical claims. That is because much of what was written in the Bible was written decades or centuries after the fact.

Why didn't the Romans or the Jews simply produce the corpse of Jesus and nip it in the bud?
And it is noted that you did not explain the sudden shift of Jerusalem Jews from Saturday Sabbath worship
to "the Lord's Day" worship of the next day.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes it is.

Can you prove that it is a historical document, actual history?

No anyone cannot and say to the audience that most of the 500 are still alive to confirm or deny the report.

None of the 500 are still alive to confirm or deny the report.

Why didn't the Romans or the Jews simply produce the corpse of Jesus and nip it in the bud?

The missing body is no proof that Jesus rose from the dead and walked around town. There is no proof of that, so it is only a belief that some (but not all) Christians hold.

And it is noted that you did not explain the sudden shift of Jerusalem Jews from Saturday Sabbath worship
to "the Lord's Day" worship of the next day.

What do you think that proves? By the way, Jesus was not the Lord. God is the Lord.

 

[Esteban X]

Why didn't the Romans or the Jews simply produce the corpse of Jesus and nip it in the bud

There are many possible explanations. That the Christ figure was the amalgamation and apotheosis of several individuals and the crucifixion as described in the Bible did not occur, is the most likely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like there is something wrong with loving the Lord your God with also your whole heart?
Sure my emotions are involved. The presence of strong emotions to the resurrected Christ is perfectly valid.
What else?

You do not even know if that is "The Lord God". What led you to that conclusion?

I don't want to talk about rock stars.
Elvis has no impact on my eternal destiny. People have no powerful vested interest in debunking Elvis sightings.
Convincing themselves that they need not pay heed to the Son of God, now that requires some dedication.

Lying to oneself often does. Here is the problem, if your beliefs are false they are no different from a belief in Elvis. They will not affect your afterlife.

So countless alledged sightings of a Rock star you want to compare with the One who said this:

For neither does the Father judge anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,
In order that all may honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. Truly, truly, I say to you, He who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life, and does not come into judgment but has passed out of death into life. (John 5:22-24)

You're going to comfort your heart with "Now, now, that's just the same as Elvis Presley sightings. There now."

That is not a serious comparison to what these two people mean to one's life.
You'll find many fold more effort at men soothing their conscience by trying to disprove Christ's life and words than that of Rock star Elvis Presley. Remember the Pharasees sent armed attendents to arrest Jesus. They came back astounded instead -

The attendants therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and these said to them, Why did you not bring Him?
The attendants answered, Never has a man spoken as this man has. (John 7:45,46)

You keep making the same errors. You keep assuming that the Bible is accurate. You do not get to make those claims in an argument until you demonstrate that they are factual

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.

For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures;

And that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve;
Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; (1 Cor. 15:3-6)

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 Jersusalem 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 comemorating 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 its reasonable evidence of a miracle having taken place- Jesus rising from the dead.

LOL! Yes, Paul has a Canadian girlfriend. She's really hot. You do not know how laughably weak that claim of Paul's is. Please note that he claims that Jesus appeared to 500. That does not mean that he did. The audience that he spoke to had no way of checking just as they could not check to see if he really had a hot Canadian girlfriend. You are using massive circular reasoning and you are showing that there is no difference between you and Elvis seers and election deniers.

 

[Feedmysheep]

Can you prove that it is a historical document, actual history?

Are you unaware that the NT is the most copied document in history?
In your next post name another collection of writings which have as much attestation as the NT books?

You cannot dismiss it as non-historical because you don't believe its contents.
Any historian 1,000 years from today would love to get their hands on, let's say, a letter by George Washington concerning
the American Revolution. Even if they regarded it as baised toward the American cause, it still would be a valuable document to
have.

You cannot dismiss the importance of the First Corinthian letter as a historical document just because you regard it
as untrue propoganda.

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

None of the 500 are still alive to confirm or deny the report.

But Paul says they were at the moment the letter was being read by the Corinthian church.

The missing body is no proof that Jesus rose from the dead and walked around town. There is no proof of that, so it is only a belief that some (but not all) Christians hold.

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. What we're told is that they PAID Romans guards to circulate the rumor that the disciples
stole His body by night.

And after the chief priests had gathered with the elders and had taken counsel, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers,
Saying, Say this, His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we slept.

And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him and make sure that you have nothing to worry about.
And they took the money and did as they were instructed. And this account has been widely spread among the Jews until this very day.

This is a historical writing that when written explains what the ongoing rumor was about the missing body of Jesus.
Now you may not believe in the resurrection. But the historical significance of this report you cannot dismiss.

You're not in good company from even many atheist NT scholars that the NT documents are not historical documents.
Watch a fair debate on it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you unaware that the NT is the most copied document in history?
In your next post name another collection of writings which have as much attestation as the NT books?

All I have to say to that is so what? What do you think that proves? Christianity is the largest religion in the world so of course there are many copies of the NT.

You cannot dismiss it as non-historical because you don't believe its contents.

You cannot claim that it is historical because you believe its contents.

Any historian 1,000 years from today would love to get their hands on, let's say, a letter by George Washington concerning
the American Revolution. Even if they regarded it as baised toward the American cause, it still would be a valuable document to
have.

You cannot dismiss the importance of the First Corinthian letter as a historical document just because you regard it
as untrue propoganda.

You cannot claim that the First Corinthian letter is a historical document just because you regard it as true.

This is a historical writing that when written explains what the ongoing rumor was about the missing body of Jesus.
Now you may not believe in the resurrection. But the historical significance of this report you cannot dismiss.

There is some history in the Bible but it is not all historically accurate. I can dismiss anything I want to dismiss.

You're not in good company from even many atheist NT scholars that the NT documents are not historical documents.
Watch a fair debate on it.

Sorry, that video is too long. Maybe someday when I have time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you unaware that the NT is the most copied document in history?
In your next post name another collection of writings which have as much attestation as the NT books?

What on Earth makes you think that lends any credibility to the Bible at all? Especially since scholars know that copying did add changes.

You cannot dismiss it as non-historical because you don't believe its contents.
Any historian 1,000 years from today would love to get their hands on, let's say, a letter by George Washington concerning
the American Revolution. Even if they regarded it as baised toward the American cause, it still would be a valuable document to
have.

Oh, it does have some historical value. But then so does the Iliad. It also has some clear historical errors in it.

You cannot dismiss the importance of the First Corinthian letter as a historical document just because you regard it
as untrue propoganda.

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


But Paul says they were at the moment the letter was being read by the Corinthian church.

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. What we're told is that they PAID Romans guards to circulate the rumor that the disciples
stole His body by night.

And after the chief priests had gathered with the elders and had taken counsel, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers,
Saying, Say this, His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we slept.

And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him and make sure that you have nothing to worry about.
And they took the money and did as they were instructed. And this account has been widely spread among the Jews until this very day.

This is a historical writing that when written explains what the ongoing rumor was about the missing body of Jesus.
Now you may not believe in the resurrection. But the historical significance of this report you cannot dismiss.

You're not in good company from even many atheist NT scholars that the NT documents are not historical documents.
Watch a fair debate on it.

No, it is not a "historical writing". It appears to be a lie. I am not saying that the disciples stole the body. If you understood history you would say that Jesus was probably never in the tomb. In Roman crucifixion they would not take the victim down. Jesus was most likely left up on the cross after he died. At any rate that verse is a defensive verse and if I recall correctly only found in Matthew.

 

[stvdv]

There's more reason to believe the accounts of the Gospel than
the accounts of Alexander the Great or Socrates. Far less time elapsed between Jesus and the gospel writing that when these people lived and
the writings we have of others about them.

This thread claims:
"Bible verses don't come from eyewitnesses".
1) Do you agree with that?
IF true THEN the Bible can't be 100% true
2) Do you agree with that?

I ask this, because I have experienced that some people don't like to acknowledge certain uncomfortable facts about their Religion, Guru (Teacher like Jesus, Muhammad, Krishna etc). And in that case there is no real "Truth conversation" possible

So, IF you agree
THEN we can talk about Alexander the Great and Socrates, and whether His verses are more or less reliable than Jesus His verses.
I do think it's a valid point to also check if Socrates verses are 100% reliable and accurate.

Most important:
IF we want to find out about The Truth, we MUST acknowledge whether or not Bible/Koran/Gita/Socrates verses are 100% reliable and accurate or not
3) Do you agree with that?

Below 5min YouTube also clarifies:
"Bible was not written by eyewitnesses"

 

[stvdv]

Thank you for sharing this.
"Starting exactly on 2m44s";
neatly done, adding :164

 

[Brian2]

I assume that you believe the Christian God is the right one?

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.

 

[Brian2]

I definitely think that the church DID spin it's own Jesus, and nothing like the real Jesus. The gospel of John was surely written with Church influence, and the whole picture was changed to fit in with what was needed. Just compare it with the account shown in the gospel of Mark.
It was disciples that supported and followed Jesus, not 'apostles', and Paul certainly could not have claimed to be a disciple.
It had become necessary for a female 'Goddess' to be part of the new religion, preferably with an infant child in arms, and so Mary was drawn in to the story and placed down by the cross, and a blood brother was magicked on to the scene in place of the disciple, maybe? Jesus had been estranged by all his family.

The list is huge but there are just some examples for you.

It is hard for me to understand what your complaints are and why.
You seem to be conflating the Middle Ages Catholic Church with the gospel of John, amongst other things.

 

[Sumadji]

There are no eyewitness accounts in the Bible. Paul was the earliest and all that he had were "visions" aka hallucinations.

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.

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

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.

Anyone can write a story saying that 500 hundred people saw Jesus after His resurrection, but that does not mean the story is true.

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?

 

[Brian2]

I don't.

You say that skepticism is "the choice to not believe claims unless they are sufficiently evidenced,"
So when you think something is sufficiently evidenced you take a leap of faith and believe it.
Same with people who believe in God and Jesus.

Of course, you might be conflating justified and unjustified belief. Unfortunately, as different as those things are, they are both called faith. But justified belief is not guessing, whereas faith that an idea is correct without good evidentiary reason to believe so is guessing as surely as picking lottery numbers is guessing. That kind of guessing is fine as long as one remembers that he is just guessing and probably won't win the lottery.

Yes I probably conflate what you call justified belief with unjustified belief. They are both part of a spectrum and even people with what you call justified belief are shown to be wrong. Showing that is what science does after all, and the tentative but justified beliefs have to give way to other more justified but still tentative beliefs.
If you are talking about winning the lottery, that sounds like Pascal's wager, and is a wager that those who do not believe cannot win.

There is no leap of faith there. Nature is here. It is everywhere. Our only experience is of nature. Adding supernaturalism to the mix is where the leap of faith comes in.

To say that nature is all there is, is a leap of faith. The supernatural is evidenced in human history and experience and in nature imo.

Disagree. It is foundational to critical thinking and empiricism that we do not accept insufficiently evidenced claims. That's how we keep false and unfalsifiable ideas out of our belief set.

The boundary that you put up is that the supernatural must be able to be tested by science which is able only to test the natural world. In this way, your naturalist, empiricist faith is also exclusivist and does not tolerate the evidence that is there for the supernatural.

The time to start considering gods seriously is when we discover something not potentially explainable without them.

You do have things that you think are potentially explainable without God, and so you have taken a leap of faith into the non believing camp also dismissing any potential evidence for God that cannot be scientifically tested.
Any alternative explanation other than the supernatural is better for you.
It is a faith but you cannot see that it is a faith.

Disagree. It's an ancient belief, but not supported by evidence. In fact, if by "God" you mean the god of Abraham, who is said to have created the world including the first two human beings in six days, we know that that god doesn't exist, because we know that those things didn't happen.

Yes hiding in the idea that Genesis had to be literal days is not logical when a day in the Bible is definitely not always a 24 hour period.
And there are scientists who believe in God partly because of what Genesis tells us about creation, which in their opinion agrees with the science they know and love.
Here is one. At 9 min 20 seconds there is an interesting introductory statement/question for the next section of the talk, and John Lennox is saying that it has been shown that children aren't born atheists.

 

[Brian2]

I am not opposed to faith at all. I support YOUR faith. I am a woman of faith myself.

My only point is that those of us who do have faith need to be honest with ourselves that we do not have sufficient evidence to prove it. Knowledge (knowing a fact) and faith (trusting that something is true despite lack of sufficient evidence) are not the same thing.

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.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So when you think something is sufficiently evidenced you take a leap of faith and believe it.

That's a leap of reason.

even people with what you call justified belief are shown to be wrong

People with unjustified beliefs are extremely unlikely to be correct. They're guessing, and there are many more ways to guess wrong than correctly.

To say that nature is all there is, is a leap of faith.

I don't say that. Is say that nature is all that we can and have ever experienced, and that therefore it is all that we can or should assume exists.

The supernatural is evidenced in human history and experience and in nature

You have no evidence for the supernatural, just a faith-based belief.

your naturalist, empiricist faith is also exclusivist and does not tolerate the evidence that is there for the supernatural.

But you have no evidence for the supernatural

you have taken a leap of faith into the non believing camp

I don't think you understand what faith is. You keep using the word incorrectly.

Genesis had to be literal days is not logical when a day in the Bible is definitely not always a 24 hour period.

It is when it contains a morning and an evening. The creation story is incorrect as written.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Like there is something wrong with loving the Lord your God with also your whole heart?
Sure my emotions are involved. The presence of strong emotions to the resurrected Christ is perfectly valid.
What else?

I don't want to talk about rock stars.
Elvis has no impact on my eternal destiny. People have no powerful vested interest in debunking Elvis sightings.
Convincing themselves that they need not pay heed to the Son of God, now that requires some dedication.

So countless alledged sightings of a Rock star you want to compare with the One who said this:

For neither does the Father judge anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,
In order that all may honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. Truly, truly, I say to you, He who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life, and does not come into judgment but has passed out of death into life. (John 5:22-24)

You're going to comfort your heart with "Now, now, that's just the same as Elvis Presley sightings. There now."

That is not a serious comparison to what these two people mean to one's life.
You'll find many fold more effort at men soothing their conscience by trying to disprove Christ's life and words than that of Rock star Elvis Presley. Remember the Pharasees sent armed attendents to arrest Jesus. They came back astounded instead -

It's an apt comparison if you'd take just a single second to think it through.
Instead you've just brushed it off.

The attendants therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and these said to them, Why did you not bring Him?
The attendants answered, Never has a man spoken as this man has. (John 7:45,46)

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.

And yet we don't have the testimony of a single one of those supposed 500 people.
Not one. Nothing.
We have no idea what a single one of those people supposedly saw.
Just one guy saying 500 people saw something. Well, anyone can claim that.

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.

You're assuming all those people were there, and that they all saw the same thing.
When in actuality, we have no idea they even existed in the first place and no idea what any single one of them supposedly saw or didn't see.

For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures;

And that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve;
Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; (1 Cor. 15:3-6)

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 Jersusalem 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 comemorating 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 its reasonable evidence of a miracle having taken place- Jesus rising from the dead.

I'd say it certainly doesn't take a miracle to get people to believe a thing.

How many people currently believe Trump actually won the 2020 election? Did a miracle have to occur for them to wrongly believe that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

I am not a person of any faith.
I have zero use for religious faith.
I eschew faith in favour of evidence.
Faith is not a pathway to truth, because anything can be believed on faith. I am interested in believing what is true, and so I have no use for a tool that allows me to just believe whatever I want, whether it's true or not. I want to believe true things.