There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Subduction Zone]

Don't talk down to me.

I was not doing so. Your post indicated that you had not watched it.

My brothers and many of my family and friends are atheists, I'm in the workplace with all sorts of other people. I have close gay friends and family and a gay married cousin. All atheists. I work with all sorts of people. We don't judge and talk down to one another.

Again, you are being overly sensitive.

I acknowledge there is controversy about authorship and will continue my own research. Don't talk down to me about apologists. You don't know anything about me

You are not an apologist, I hope. I have as of yet to meet an honest apologist. Again, I was not "talking down" to you.

As for not talking about Jesus, he introduced the letter with: James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ

Right, He was a Christian. Whoever the author was he was a Christian. I do not doubt that. But Christian beliefs were rather varied at that time. Again if you study Bart Ehrman you would know that there may have been on the order of a hundred "Gospels" but the time that early Catholics chose what books were scripture and which ones were not.

The topic of this thread is eyewitness accounts of Jesus and that letter had no accounts of Jesus in it. I do not think that the letters attribute to Peter have any such accounts either. The accounts are pretty much limited to the Gospels and perhaps a couple in Acts.

That is why I say that no matter what the letter of James does not apply. Even if it was written by James the brother of Jesus in it it has no tales of acts of Jesus. That was why I asked you if you read the letter. Perhaps you forgot what the thread is supposed to be about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I watched this discussion and thank you. The other guy decidedly scored a couple of body shots on Bart, imo

Do you have any time stamps for that? Bart Ehrman did not seem to be too impressed by his performance.

The following quote describes what Bart thought of Peter's tactics:

'It’s the kind of book that anyone who wants very much to trust the Gospels will come away from saying “See, we CAN trust them.” But anyone who actually looks at what he’s saying, and who knows about the actual reasons people have for NOT thinking the Gospels are historically reliable, will say, “Wait a second! He’s simply countering arguments that no one makes, and is not addressing the arguments they do! That’s just building a straw man an knocking it down. That ain’t gonna work!” ;

Video Debate with Peter Williams: Can We Trust the Gospels | The Bart Ehrman Blog

This was a video debate I did last summer in London with British Biblical scholar Peter Williams. Peter has been a friend for a long time, and is a real expert on the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. He is also a committed evangelical Christian who does not believe…

ehrmanblog.org

 

[Sumadji]

Even if it was written by James the brother of Jesus in it it has no tales of acts of Jesus.

James the brother of Jesus was obviously an eyewitness to Jesus. He was killed for talking about Jesus 'whom they call Messiah' according to Josephus. Of course the letter of James, if authentic, is eyewitness to Jesus

 

[Subduction Zone]

James the brother of Jesus was obviously an eyewitness to Jesus. He was killed for talking about Jesus 'whom they call Messiah' according to Josephus. Of course the letter of James, if authentic, us eyewitness to Jesus

Once again the title of the thread is "There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament". I did not say that he was not an eyewitness. I said that there are no accounts of Jesus in his short letter. That is why I asked you if you read it. There were no accounts of Jesus in that letter.

 

[leroy]

The New Testament was written by people who were not eye witnesses to Jesus.

How do you know that?...how do you know that say the author of Luke was not a witness?



Given that most (if not all) of the verifiable data in the NT is true, we can conclude that the authors where well informed, ether because they were witnesses or because they had good sources, any of these 2 possibilities is good enough as a starting point for me

Given what I said above, which is explained in the video below, what logical reason would anyone have to believe that the Gospels are an accurate depiction of the life of Jesus? Why should we believe that what these anonymous authors wrote about Jesus is true?

Because we know that the authors where well informed, that is why we trust them…………if they happen to be witnesses that would be a nice (but not indispensable) bonus

BTW.............How do you (and historians) know that Alexander the Great was born in Macedonia if none of his biographies where written by witnesses?

Answer: because being a witness is not deal breaker, a source could still be reliable even if it was not written by a witness. There are many other criteria that determine if a source is reliable or not

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know that?...how do you know that say the author of Luke was not a witness?



Given that most (if not all) of the verifiable data in the NT is true, we can conclude that the authors where well informed, ether because they were witnesses or because they had good sources, any of these 2 possibilities is good enough as a starting point for me


Because we know that the authors where well informed, that is why we trust them…………if they happen to be witnesses that would be a nice (but not indispensable) bonus

BTW.............How do you (and historians) know that Alexander the Great was born in Macedonia if none of his biographies where written by witnesses?

Answer: because being a witness is not deal breaker, a source could still be reliable even if it was not written by a witness. There are many other criteria that determine if a source is reliable or not

What do you mean by "verifiable data"? There really is not that much and in it there is at least one clear error and a historian could probably list more.

As you probably know there are two different nativity myths in the New Testament. One has Jesus born in the year 6 CE and the other has him born in 4 BCE or earlier. A difference of at least ten years.

 

[leroy]

The topic of this thread is eyewitness accounts of Jesus and that letter had no accounts of Jesus in it. I do not think that the letters attribute to Peter have any such accounts either. The accounts are pretty much limited to the Gospels and perhaps a couple in Acts.

How do you know that the authors of the gospels and acts where not witnesses?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know that the authors of the gospels and acts where not witnesses?

By how they were written for one thing. They were written by people that were classically educated in Koine Greek and that does not apply to any of the disciples They were also written to late to be eyewitness accounts.

I would not say so much as "know" but rather it is the only rational conclusion, Especially when one knows that the names associated with them were not given until the mid second century. Over a hundred years after the evident.

And you in reality are trying to shift the burden of proof. Based upon what we know about the Gospels the more than reasonable assumption is that they were not written by eyewitnesses. If you want to claim that they were written by eyewitnesses the burden of proof is upon you.

 

[leroy]

What do you mean by "verifiable data"?

Historical data (or any other type of data) that we can test and see if it´s true or not.

Verifiable data: that Pontius Pilate was the governor of the Roman province of Judaea,

Non verifiable data: that there was a guy named Barabbas who was a prisioner that was chosen to be saved by the crown instead of Jesus

The first is verifiable because we have other independent sources that confirm (or could falsify) this information…………… the second is not verifiable because there are no other sources that confirm or refute the statement



in the case of the gospels there are hundrets of similar examples where verifiable data happens to be true and very few if any mistakes

There really is not that much and in it there is at least one clear error and a historian could probably list more.

I error is not enough………………. You need more than just one error to dismiss a source as “unreliable”……….. all ancient historians made mistakes but we dont reject them all

As you probably know there are two different nativity myths in the New Testament. One has Jesus born in the year 6 CE and the other has him born in 4 BCE or earlier. A difference of at least ten years.

This alleged error assumes that Josephus is correct (and Luke wrong) in his dates………. Which is coin tossing at best anyone could be wrong…………. How do you know that Luke (and not Josephus) made the mistake?



---
But anyway my claim is that most (not all) of the verifiable data is true……….. and given that you haven’t explicitly disagree with my claim, I will assume that you agree

 

[Subduction Zone]

Historical data (or any other type of data) that we can test and see if it´s true or not.

Verifiable data: that Pontius Pilate was the governor of the Roman province of Judaea,

Non verifiable data: that there was a guy named Barabbas who was a prisioner that was chosen to be saved by the crown instead of Jesus

The first is verifiable because we have other independent sources that confirm (or could falsify) this information…………… the second is not verifiable because there are no other sources that confirm or refute the statement



in the case of the gospels there are hundrets of similar examples where verifiable data happens to be true and very few if any mistakes


I error is not enough………………. You need more than just one error to dismiss a source as “unreliable”……….. all ancient historians made mistakes but we dont reject them all

One error is enough to demonstrate that Bible is not infallible and worse yet since you are trying to claim "magic" the burden of proof is far heavier on you than it is on others. It is not a level playing field since the book can be better explained by rejecting the magical claims.

This alleged error assumes that Josephus is correct (and Luke wrong) in his dates………. Which is coin tossing at best anyone could be wrong…………. How do you know that Luke (and not Josephus) made the mistake?

No, it does not. And if you are going to reject Josephus then you lose your Pontius Pilate claim also. But I am pretty sure that others than Josephus wrote about Quirinius. For example since Josephus was not in Rome he was unlikely to know when he left Rome. That also refutes the Gospel account. I am not a historian, but there are likely more sources than just Josephus.

---
But anyway my claim is that most (not all) of the verifiable data is true……….. and given that you haven’t explicitly disagree with my claim, I will assume that you agree

You only gave one example. Your was rather minor. Mine was much stronger. As to Luke's narrative refuting it does not rely only on Josephus. Do you not realize how self contradictory that it is?

 

[leroy]

By how they were written for one thing. They were written by people that were classically educated in Koine Greek and that does not apply to any of the disciples They were also written to late to be eyewitness accounts.

And perhaps some witnesses (disciples or not) knew Koine Greek……….what is so unlikely bout that?...................

We know that Jesus had many followers, why is it soooooooo unlikelyl that some of his followers knew Koine Greek?

I would not say so much as "know" but rather it is the only rational conclusion,

Really?

The hypothesis: Jesus had followers that knew Koine Greek and witnessed some of the events of his life (like the crucifixion) is an irrational hypothesis to you? What is irrational about that?

Especially when one knows that the names associated with them were not given until the mid second century. Over a hundred years after the evident.

That at most would suggests that the authors where not Mathew Luke Mark and John (and I am being toooooo generous)……………… but that does nothing to show that the authors where not witnesses.

And you in reality are trying to shift the burden of proof. Based upon what we know about the Gospels the more than reasonable assumption is that they were not written by eyewitnesses. If you want to claim that they were written by eyewitnesses the burden of proof is upon you.

No sir, the burden proof is on the one who is making the claim………….. in this case the author of the OP (and you apparently) are claiming that the authors of the gospels where not witnesses

Would you like to retreat from your radical claim, and change it for “we don’t know who wrote the gospels” “we don’t know if they were witnesses or not”?



I am not claiming that the gospels where written by witnesses, my only claim is that it is not an improbable possibility.................. We have good reasons to think that Jesus and the authors lived in the same area and period of time ……….so to say that the authors knew Jesus and witnessed some of the events that they report, is far from irrational in my opinion-………….. and deep inside you agree………… but you won’t admit it

 

[leroy]

One error is enough to demonstrate that Bible is not infallible and worse yet since you are trying to claim "magic" the burden of proof is far heavier on you than it is on others. It is not a level playing field since the book can be better explained by rejecting the magical claims.

The good news is that i am not claiming that the bible (the gospels) are infallible, I am just claiming that they are good reliable sources (like say Josephus or Tacitus)

No, it does not. And if you are going to reject Josephus then you lose your Pontius Pilate claim also. But I am pretty sure that others than Josephus wrote about Quirinius. For example since Josephus was not in Rome he was unlikely to know when he left Rome. That also refutes the Gospel account. I am not a historian, but there are likely more sources than just Josephus.

nope, no other sources, feel free to show me one

And if you are going to reject Josephus then you lose your Pontius Pilate claim also.

I am not rejecting Josephus, all I am doing is acknowledging that he is not perfect and could have made a mistake.

If we have 2 realible (but not perfect) sources contradicting each other, then anyone could be wrong…………… I am not aware of any good reasons to conclude that Josephus is correct and Luke wrong,

You only gave one example.

Why providing more examples, if you don’t seem to disagree with the point? (the point being that most verifiable data is correct)

. As to Luke's narrative refuting it does not rely only on Josephus.

ok I am open to more evidnece that would suggest that Luke (and not josephus) is wrong.......please share it

Do you not realize how self contradictory that it is?

According to you where is the contradiction?

Lets make a summary of my view

1 nether Luke, nor Josephus are perfect and infallible authors, but they are usually correct (this is why we should trust them and give them the benefit of the doubt)

2 There is a possible contradiction between Luke and Josephus on one specific event that both are reporting.

3 I see no reason to trust Josephus over Luke (nor Luke over Josephus)

What is contradictory about that?


Which of these 3 points do you find so controversial and difficult to grant?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The good news is that i am not claiming that the bible (the gospels) are infallible, I am just claiming that they are good reliable sources (like say Josephus or Tacitus)


nope, no other sources, feel free to show me one


I am not rejecting Josephus, all I am doing is acknowledging that he is not perfect and could have made a mistake.

If we have 2 realible (but not perfect) sources contradicting each other, then anyone could be wrong…………… I am not aware of any good reasons to conclude that Josephus is correct and Luke wrong,



Why providing more examples, if you don’t seem to disagree with the point? (the point being that most verifiable data is correct)



ok I am open to more evidnece that would suggest that Luke (and not josephus) is wrong.......please share it


According to you where is the contradiction?

Lets make a summary of my view

1 nether Luke, nor Josephus are perfect and infallible authors, but they are usually correct (this is why we should trust them and give them the benefit of the doubt)

2 There is a possible contradiction between Luke and Josephus on one specific event that both are reporting.

3 I see no reason to trust Josephus over Luke (nor Luke over Josephus)

What is contradictory about that?


Which of these 3 points do you find so controversial and difficult to grant?

LOL! You obviously have not read Luke. Do you not remember the nutso thing that he said about the census? The purpose of the Census of Quirinius was for the purposes of taxation. Having people go to their ancestral homes is the opposite of what one would want. Seriously, how can you not understand that?

EDIT: And as usual when you make a positive claim you were terribly wrong again. I had not checked yet, but I knew that Quirinius was fairly well known and he should have been mentioned by others besides Josephus. You just denied that as if it were a fact. The first source I found on him refutes you:

" He is mentioned by numerous ancient authors, including Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Elder, Cassius Dio, Tacitus, Strabo, and Caesar Augustus himself."

Quirinius: An Archaeological Biography

“In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And …

biblearchaeologyreport.com

By the way, that is a Christian source that then tries to excuse the errors of Luke, but those can all be shown to be merely wishing on the wind. So if even a Christian source admits that multiple scholars mention Quirinius even you should own up to your incredible error.

In other words, even without Josephus where he was and when it probably well known. I have found sources that state when he left Rome in the past. Since Josephus was mostly a historian of the area of Israel I did not think that he was the source of that.

 

[leroy]

LOL! You obviously have not read Luke. Do you not remember the nutso thing that he said about the census? The purpose of the Census of Quirinius was for the purposes of taxation. Having people go to their ancestral homes is the opposite of what one would want. Seriously, how can you not understand that?

Why did you change the topic? Should I take that as a tacit admission that you agree with my previous post? (the one you are replying to)

Unless you show otherwise I will assume that:

1 you don’t have other sources confirming the date of the census

2 you agree on that the gospels are correct in most of the verifiable data (beign the census issue just a possible exception)

3 The claim that the gospels where written by witnesses is not unlikely nor unreasonable

and I will assume that you agree with the 3 points that I made in the post that your are responding to
--

As for this new objection, well Perhaps Joseph had to go to his ancestral home in Bethlehem because he had properties in that town, he had to register them for taxation purposes. … I can´t prove it, but I don’t see anything unlikely nor unreasonable about it………….do you?........

The purpose of the census was to tax people, and there is nothing stage nor bizarre about someone having to travel to a different town to register his property

please explain what exactly do you find unreasonable about the idea of a man having to travel for tax/census purposes?....................for example my brothers who currently live in Canada and USA will have to travel to Mexico City within 2 or 3 months for some tax issues with a property, my point is that if people travel today for tax issues, why would things be different 2000 years ago?



But even Luke was wrong in his nativity narrative that would still wouldn’t validate the claim that the source is reliable (even if not inherent)

So for the purpose of this discussion lets agree on that Luke made some mistakes.

--

As a summery

1 We don’t know if the gospels where written by witnesses or not (the OP and you are wrong in affirming NO with certainty)

2 a source could still be reliable even if it was not written by witnesses.(there are other criteria)

3 one important and strong criteria is that if the source is correct in most of the verifiable data, then the source is reliable and deserves the benefit of the doubt

4 Luke meats that criteria

please let me know if you disagree with any of these 4 points

 

[YoursTrue]

Why did you change the topic? Should I take that as a tacit admission that you agree with my previous post? (the one you are replying to)

Unless you show otherwise I will assume that:

1 you don’t have other sources confirming the date of the census

2 you agree on that the gospels are correct in most of the verifiable data (beign the census issue just a possible exception)

3 The claim that the gospels where written by witnesses is not unlikely nor unreasonable

and I will assume that you agree with the 3 points that I made in the post that your are responding to
--

As for this new objection, well Perhaps Joseph had to go to his ancestral home in Bethlehem because he had properties in that town, he had to register them for taxation purposes. … I can´t prove it, but I don’t see anything unlikely nor unreasonable about it………….do you?........

The purpose of the census was to tax people, and there is nothing stage nor bizarre about someone having to travel to a different town to register his property

please explain what exactly do you find unreasonable about the idea of a man having to travel for tax/census purposes?....................for example my brothers who currently live in Canada and USA will have to travel to Mexico City within 2 or 3 months for some tax issues with a property, my point is that if people travel today for tax issues, why would things be different 2000 years ago?



But even Luke was wrong in his nativity narrative that would still wouldn’t validate the claim that the source is reliable (even if not inherent)

So for the purpose of this discussion lets agree on that Luke made some mistakes.

--

As a summery

1 We don’t know if the gospels where written by witnesses or not (the OP and you are wrong in affirming NO with certainty)

2 a source could still be reliable even if it was not written by witnesses.(there are other criteria)

3 one important and strong criteria is that if the source is correct in most of the verifiable data, then the source is reliable and deserves the benefit of the doubt

4 Luke meats that criteria

please let me know if you disagree with any of these 4 points

I hope I'm not off the subject too much but there is the concept of argument from silence and because a particular event is not exactly delineated as desired by naysayers does not mean it's not true or wrong. This is true in the case of false assumptions by some regarding the birth of Jesus and placement of the census.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why did you change the topic? Should I take that as a tacit admission that you agree with my previous post? (the one you are replying to)

Unless you show otherwise I will assume that:

1 you don’t have other sources confirming the date of the census

2 you agree on that the gospels are correct in most of the verifiable data (beign the census issue just a possible exception)

3 The claim that the gospels where written by witnesses is not unlikely nor unreasonable

and I will assume that you agree with the 3 points that I made in the post that your are responding to
--

As for this new objection, well Perhaps Joseph had to go to his ancestral home in Bethlehem because he had properties in that town, he had to register them for taxation purposes. … I can´t prove it, but I don’t see anything unlikely nor unreasonable about it………….do you?........

The purpose of the census was to tax people, and there is nothing stage nor bizarre about someone having to travel to a different town to register his property

please explain what exactly do you find unreasonable about the idea of a man having to travel for tax/census purposes?....................for example my brothers who currently live in Canada and USA will have to travel to Mexico City within 2 or 3 months for some tax issues with a property, my point is that if people travel today for tax issues, why would things be different 2000 years ago?



But even Luke was wrong in his nativity narrative that would still wouldn’t validate the claim that the source is reliable (even if not inherent)

So for the purpose of this discussion lets agree on that Luke made some mistakes.

--

As a summery

1 We don’t know if the gospels where written by witnesses or not (the OP and you are wrong in affirming NO with certainty)

2 a source could still be reliable even if it was not written by witnesses.(there are other criteria)

3 one important and strong criteria is that if the source is correct in most of the verifiable data, then the source is reliable and deserves the benefit of the doubt

4 Luke meats that criteria

please let me know if you disagree with any of these 4 points

Sorry, I will not answer long diatribes and false claims. I did not change the argument.

But wait, you got one thing right. The purpose of the census was to tax people. That is based upon where they live and make money. It is not based upon where they came from. Thank you for refuting yourself.

 

[leroy]

Sorry, I will not answer long diatribes and false claims. I did not change the argument.

But wait, you got one thing right. The purpose of the census was to tax people. That is based upon where they live and make money. It is not based upon where they came from. Thank you for refuting yourself.

Again

Maybe Joseph had properties (or made money) in Bethlehem, which is why he had to travel………… what is so improbable about that?

Sorry, I will not answer long diatribes and false claims. I did not change the argument.

Yes you did change the topic over and over again…………….

A summary of our fist interaction was

1 you and the OP claimed that the gospels where not written by witnesses

2 my reply, we don’t know who wrote the gospels therefore we don’t know if they were witnesses or not, (there is nothing unlikely nor unreasonable about that possibility that the authors witnessed some of the events that they reported)

So on this particular topic do you have anything to add? Did you find my reply convincing enough?

Do you agree on that the claim “the gospels where not written by witnesses” is an unsupported claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again

Maybe Joseph had properties (or made money) in Bethlehem, which is why he had to travel………… what is so improbable about that?

It goes against the Bible. Joseph was supposed to be simple carpenter. That claim puts a very heavy burden of proof upon you. Even worse, Joseph lived in Nazareth according to Luke. That was not part of Judea at that time. It was not under control of Archelaus. There was no census there.

Yes you did change the topic over and over again…………….

A summary of our fist interaction was

1 you and the OP claimed that the gospels where not written by witnesses

Yes and we know that for many reasons.

2 my reply, we don’t know who wrote the gospels therefore we don’t know if they were witnesses or not, (there is nothing unlikely nor unreasonable about that possibility that the authors witnessed some of the events that they reported)

Yes, but you also made a BS claim about "verifiable facts" and you were shown to be wrong immediately. If anyone changed the topic you did. Why did accuse me of changing the topic when you did? But to get back to the original topic, there is no good reason to assume that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. None of them claim it and Luke even says that it was not.

So on this particular topic do you have anything to add? Did you find my reply convincing enough?

Do you agree on that the claim “the gospels where not written by witnesses” is an unsupported claim?

No, as usual you failed terribly. And no, there is far more support for the Gospels not being written by witnesses is far stronger than the claim that they were.

 

[oldbadger]

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

I'm not sure that the 'James' mentioned was really a brother of Jesus. I wonder if the disciples had called each other their bothers?

According to Bart Ehrman Paul was talking about Jesus within two years of Jesus’s death.

I wonder how Bart Ehrman worked that out? Without his clear workings shown his ideas are just ideas.

 

[Brian2]

Anything other than "the supernatural" is a better explanation because there is no evidence for the supernatural and therefore no reason to consider it as an option. Why don't you consider "inter-dimensional space aliens" as an option? What about invisible pixies? Why or why not?

But there is evidence for the supernatural in history. If there was evidence for "inter-dimensional space aliens" or "invisible pixies" in history then they should be considered.
So the pertinent question is "Why dismiss human experience and history as evidence for the supernatural?"

And simply invoking "the Supernatural" itself has no explanatory power anyway. It doesn't tell you anything. It doesn't provide you with any additional information. It's just a placeholder to say "I don't understand this thing."

To say "I understand this thing" does not mean that you fully understand it and does not mean that you have gotten rid of a need for God with that particular thing.
It sounds to me like you have a science of the gaps in your reality, and all the gaps in science that you have no scientific answer for are a placeholder for future science discoveries because your superstition is that it can all be understood naturalistically and even those things that we have no idea about, we can confidently invoke science to explain them some time maybe, but never the supernatural or God because you don't believe in them because science has not found them even if it is said that humans have experienced them.