There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Brian2]

You've demonstrated it yourself on these threads. I have pointed that out to you several times throughout our discussions.

That is not an answer to the question.

If you want god included in the process, you'll have to demonstrate that one exists and requires inclusion.

If I was a scientist and wanted God included in science then I would have to demonstrate that one exists.
So the question is, why talk science in a religious forum, a forum about faith? Do you have faith in science? Do you think that we all should put our faith in science and forget about anything else?

 

[Sumadji]

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

I don't know if it's mentioned in the gospels*. It would be easy to google. It is mentioned in Josephus's account of the stoning of James in Antiquities of the Jews Book 20 Chapter 9:1

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road, so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ (Messiah), whose name was James, and some others [or some of his companions] and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"

I know amongst African tribes the terms father, mother, brother and so on are not a reliable guide to actual extended family structure. A tribal African will refer to any old man as Father (Babba) as a term of respect and to most elderly female relatives, aunts and so on, as Mother. Cousins would often be called brothers and sisters.

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

I do not know. Ehrman seems to be the go-to guy about these things at the present time. He makes the statement in a blog article Gospel Evidence that Jesus Existed | The Bart Ehrman Blog

*EDIT: AI overview:
Yes, James is referred to as the brother of Jesus in the New Testament:

• Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55–56: James is named at the head of four brothers of Jesus.
• Galatians 1:19: The apostle Paul refers to meeting James, "the Lord's brother".

 

[GoodAttention]

I don't know if it's mentioned in the gospels. It would be easy to google. It is mentioned in Josephus's account of the stoning of James in Antiquities of the Jews Book 20 Chapter 9:1

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road, so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ (Messiah), whose name was James, and some others [or some of his companions] and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"

I know amongst African tribes the terms father, mother, brother and so on are not a reliable guide to actual family structure. An tribal African will refer to any old man as Father (Babba) as a term of respect and to most elderly female relatives, aunts and so on, as Mother. Cousins would often be called brothers and sisters.


I do not know. Ehrman seems to be the go-to guy about these things at the present time. He makes the statement in a blog article Gospel Evidence that Jesus Existed | The Bart Ehrman Blog

I think Bart Ehrman has moved away from looking at who wrote what and when, and instead to the spiritual message of the Christian scriptures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know if it's mentioned in the gospels*. It would be easy to google. It is mentioned in Josephus's account of the stoning of James in Antiquities of the Jews Book 20 Chapter 9:1

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road, so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ (Messiah), whose name was James, and some others [or some of his companions] and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"

I know amongst African tribes the terms father, mother, brother and so on are not a reliable guide to actual extended family structure. A tribal African will refer to any old man as Father (Babba) as a term of respect and to most elderly female relatives, aunts and so on, as Mother. Cousins would often be called brothers and sisters.


I do not know. Ehrman seems to be the go-to guy about these things at the present time. He makes the statement in a blog article Gospel Evidence that Jesus Existed | The Bart Ehrman Blog

*EDIT: AI overview:
Yes, James is referred to as the brother of Jesus in the New Testament:

• Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55–56: James is named at the head of four brothers of Jesus.
• Galatians 1:19: The apostle Paul refers to meeting James, "the Lord's brother".

You still seem to have lost track of what this thread is about.

 

[oldbadger]

I don't know if it's mentioned in the gospels*. It would be easy to google. It is mentioned in Josephus's account of the stoning of James in Antiquities of the Jews Book 20 Chapter 9:1

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road, so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ (Messiah), whose name was James, and some others [or some of his companions] and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"

Of course, Josephus was not intimately acquainted with those disciples and would have repeated what had been passed down. This also shows itself in his descriptions of the Baptist.

I do not know. Ehrman seems to be the go-to guy about these things at the present time. He makes the statement in a blog article Gospel Evidence that Jesus Existed | The Bart Ehrman Blog

Having read some of Ehrman's ideas, I most definitely would need to see his workings for any of his proposals.

*EDIT: AI overview:
Yes, James is referred to as the brother of Jesus in the New Testament:

• Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55–56: James is named at the head of four brothers of Jesus.
• Galatians 1:19: The apostle Paul refers to meeting James, "the Lord's brother".

Neither Paul nor the author of G-Mark were witnesses or acquainted with the estranged family of Jesus.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the early Church needed to bring Jesus closer to family, just as it needed to bring his mother closer. Religious competitors had beautiful mothers suckling their young gods, such as Isis/Horus (?) and Roman/Greek equivalents which I don't study.

 

[leroy]

It goes against the Bible. Joseph was supposed to be simple carpenter.

No idea what "simple" means in this context....but why can't a carpenter have a property?

Here is the hypothesis please explain what is wrong with it

1 there was a carpenter named Joseph that was born and raised in Bethlehem, where he bought his own house (or some other property)

2 at some point for some reason he decided to move Nazareth where he meat a young woman named Marry

3 after a few years he had to travel back to Bethlehem to register his house for tax purposes ... Due to a Roman decree

What do you find so bizarre about this hypothesis? ..... Sure I can't prove it... But none of the 3 points seem unlikely nor unreasonable nor hard to believe.

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.

Even if true . I don't see why that affects the hypothesis above

Yes and we know that for many reasons.


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.

Luke even says that it was not.

Ok granted there are good reasons to think that luke was not a witness.


What about the other 3 gospels..... How do you know that say the author of Mark was not a witness ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No idea what "simple" means in this context....but why can't a carpenter have a property?

Here is the hypothesis please explain what is wrong with it

1 there was a carpenter named Joseph that was born and raised in Bethlehem, where he bought his own house (or some other property)

2 at some point for some reason he decided to move Nazareth where he meat a young woman named Marry

3 after a few years he had to travel back to Bethlehem to register his house for tax purposes ... Due to a Roman decree

What do you find so bizarre about this hypothesis? ..... Sure I can't prove it... But none of the 3 points seem unlikely nor unreasonable nor hard to believe.



Even if true . I don't see why that affects the hypothesis above




Ok granted there are good reasons to think that luke was not a witness.


What about the other 3 gospels..... How do you know that say the author of Mark was not a witness ?

Please, try to have a rational response. I do not play your games any longer. You are making ad hoc explanations that do not fit with either the Bible narrative or the culture at that time. You need evidence for your claims. Excuses are not refutations. Try again.


You also ignore the fact that we know where Quirinius was and when from multiple sources. Not just Josephus. Historians and Bible scholars now why there would not have been a Roman census under Herod the Great. You have not even dealt with the problem. The Luke myth fails on several levels.

So does the myth of Matthew, it does not do so nearly as badly.

 

[Brian2]

That is false. Assumptions are not allowed in the sciences. They are evidence based. Are you willing to learn the basics of science? You really should since you are claiming that God is a liar. The evidence tells us that there was no flood.

Maybe you should read my post before replying.
But the evidence tells us that there was a big local flood.

 

[Brian2]

You insist on reading it literally. For all practical purposes if you insist on the Noah's Ark myth there is almost no difference between you and those that insist that the Earth is flat due to what the Bible says.

No I do not insist on reading it literally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe you should read my post before replying.
But the evidence tells us that there was a big local flood.

There was a good sized flood in the Tigris Euphrates valley system, but nowhere big enough for the Biblical myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I do not insist on reading it literally.

You read it excessively literally..

 

[leroy]

Please, try to have a rational response. I do not play your games any longer. You are making ad hoc explanations that do not fit with either the Bible narrative or the culture at that time. You need evidence for your claims. Excuses are not refutations. Try again.

What is irrational about the idea of a man traveling for tax issues?

You also ignore the fact that we know where Quirinius was and when from multiple sources. Not just Josephus.

Ok share those other mysterious sources

The Luke myth fails on several levels.

Maybe but so far you haven't shown any failure except for

1 there are other sources (not just Josephus) because I say so

2 the trip to Bethlehem is absurd because I say so


...

You are claiming with certainty that mark was not written by a witness...... Please support your claim

 

[Sumadji]

What is irrational about the idea of a man traveling for tax issues?

One argument against it is that Herod as a Jew would never consent to a census. But Herod is also described as more of a Roman than a Jew, so that argument is not sound.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is irrational about the idea of a man traveling for tax issues?

Because that goes against the purposes of a census. Once again, people are counted based upon where they live and earn money. Worse yet you are making up a ridiculous excuse that is not in the Bible.

Ok share those other mysterious sources

I already did. I linked and quoted a source. If you are not paying attention that is your problem not mine.

Maybe but so far you haven't shown any failure except for

1 there are other sources (not just Josephus) because I say so

2 the trip to Bethlehem is absurd because I say so

That is wrong again. Now you may not to be able to understand why you are wrong but if you are going to just spew false claims were are not going to get anywhere.

...

You are claiming with certainty that mark was not written by a witness...... Please support your claim

No, we are not taking any detours. You also keep forgetting who has the burden of proof here.

 

[leroy]

Because that goes against the purposes of a census. Once again, people are counted based upon where they live and earn money. Worse yet you are making up a ridiculous excuse that is not in the Bible.

Again there is nothing ridiculous in a mad traveling for tax purposes

No, we are not taking any detours. You also keep forgetting who has the burden of proof here.

You are the one who is claiming that mark was not written by a witness.... therefore the burden proof is on you.

already did. I linked and quoted a source. If you are not paying attention that is your problem not mine.

Honestly I am tired of you lies...... No you didn't quote any source

 

[Sumadji]

Again there is nothing ridiculous in a mad traveling for tax purposes



You are the one who is claiming that mark was not written by a witness.... therefore the burden proof is on you.


Honestly I am tired of you lies...... No you didn't quote any source

Don't feed the troll. Why?

 

[Brian2]

You don't. You do not even seem to understand the concept.

Is there a need to understand the concept of scientific evidence on a religious forum?

Science has demonstrated that there is no need for a God.

That is like saying "Here I am alive and I do not see any God around so there is no need for a God for me to be alive."
I suppose you do not get it.

You need to try to argue properly. If one claims that science refutes God that is a an error. Science can only refute false versions of God. Like yours.

It would be nice if science could refute false versions of God.

Because it is almost always a lie. People that understand the sciences very rarely abuse them. The scientific method answers scientific questions. It does not answer all questions. If you accuse someone of "scientism" the burden of proof is upon you. If I accused you of being a cannibal the burden of proof would be on me. You would not accept such a false accusation and those that use the sciences properly will not accept false accusations of "scientism".

And yes, when it comes to physical things we go to the sciences. One of the reasons that we do that is because almost all theists believe that God is not a liar. The sciences do not answer spiritual questions. If one tried to do so that would be "scientism".

You say that science has shown that there is no need for a God. That is a spiritual question.

 

[Brian2]

I would say hearsay is poor evidence. And much of the Bible does not even qualify as that. Tell me what your supposed evidence is and I can explain why it is reliable or not.

And rational evidence is part of a rational argument. That means that one cannot use logical fallacies when gathering what one thinks is evidence.

You're the one who said:
""That is hardly "evidence". Or at best it is very poor evidence. Evidence is supposed to be rational and your argument is definitely not rational.""
You should already know what evidence you were talking about.

 

[Brian2]

"Proof" is a poor term to use. What is wanted is either solid evidence, it is rather silly to base one's most important hopes on falsehoods,, or at least a good rational argument for a God. If one could support a God logically then physical evidence would not be needed.

God is needed for us to have hope.
Logically if Jesus was prophesied about and did what was prophesied then that gives us a hope that was not there before and physical evidence is not needed.
If you say that physical evidence for God is needed then that shows what you want to deny, that you are a believer in scientism and think that God needs to be and can be shown to exist by science.
If you deny that a spirit God can be shown to exist by science then you are a hard line atheist.

Tell me, what would it take you to believe in Bigfoot or Leprechauns?

I don't care if bigfoot or leprechauns exist. They are of no explanatory value and supply no hope for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're the one who said:
""That is hardly "evidence". Or at best it is very poor evidence. Evidence is supposed to be rational and your argument is definitely not rational.""
You should already know what evidence you were talking about.

No, the reason that is 'hardly evidence " is because it is the result of an irrational argument. You should at least try to understand the concept of scientific evidence.