• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Gospels are eyewitness accounts

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
If the Buddha as described never existed then of what value are his teachings or accounts of attaining Nirvana. They describe things that never happened and of which noone can directly testify.
It is irrelevant to us whether or not the Buddha truly existed as we believe he did in the stories we have about him, because faith in him and/or his life story is not necessary to achieve nibbana. We cannot know that any of his stories are true, in any case, since history is directly unverifiable.

Our faith rests in the Dhamma - the teachings attributed to the "Buddha". The Dhamma is described as that which can "be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be experienced by the observant for themselves." We can know the Dhamma in the here-and-now, as its claims about suffering & its cessation are directly testable and verifiable by each disciple.

Christians can refute such a lack of correspondence to reality by referring to a gospel that describes real people and events and thereby affirms what is taught as demonstrated in history. They can also refer to a direct personal relationship to the Saviour described in scripture. On both counts Jesus being a real person matters.
I perceive no difference between the Christian gospels and the Buddhist suttas in that they both allege a historical reality that is directly unverifiable in the here-and-now.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Site Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,685
416
Canada
✟306,478.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The genre of historical reflection was affirmed by direct experience in those times. Both Josephus and Thucydides were regarded as authoritative precisely because of their direct experience of the events they described and their nearness to sources that could affirm what they said. So Josephus for example had experience of both sides of the Jewish - Roman war and included direct testimony from key generals for instance. In the same way the gospel writers were direct witnesses or the immediate disciples of those who were and their accounts were regarded as authoritative because they could be checked by actual witnesses to the events. It is not just that there were apostles who provided the key texts but also that there was a wider network of witnesses many of them named in the gospels who would also witness and confirm testimony. Bauckmanns book on the gospels as eyewitnesses has an interesting chapter where he reviews the usage of names in the gospel accounts. He concludes that the varying patterns of gospel writers sometimes declaring a name and sometimes referring to anonymous person had to do with naming witnesses still alive at the time of writing. These witnesses were still able to testify at the time of writing to the truthfulness of the accounts in the contexts in which the gospel was being received. The gospel writers (unlike later apocalyptic writers or indeed in Muslim scholarship where fabrication seems a crucial issue) did not tend to increase the naming of individuals (with excruciating but ultimate made up details of their lives) but rather they preferred anonymous references to them except when naming them could directly affirm the authenticity of the gospel. So if you belonged to a congregation which also included the children of Simon Cyrene then it was useful to see them named in the scripture as witnesses who could confirm the events of their fathers life for instance.

I randomly pick one for you.

The Antiquities of the Jews, book 8, chapter 5, section 1,

How Solomon Built Himself A Royal Palace, Very Costly And Splendid; And How He Solved the Riddles Which Were Sent Him By Hiram.

1. After the building of the temple, which, as we have before said, was finished in seven years, the king laid the foundation of his palace, which be did not finish under thirteen years, for he was not equally zealous in the building of this palace as he had been about the temple; for as to that, though it was a great work, and required wonderful and surprising application, yet God, for whom it was made, so far co-operated therewith, that it was finished in the forementioned number of years: but the palace, which was a building much inferior in dignity to the temple, both on account that its materials had not been so long beforehand gotten ready, nor had been so zealously prepared, and on account that this was only a habitation for kings, and not for God, it was longer in finishing. However, this building was raised so magnificently, as suited the happy state of the Hebrews, and of the king thereof. But it is necessary that I describe the entire structure and disposition of the parts, that so those that light upon this book may thereby make a conjecture, and, as it were, have a prospect of its magnitude.

What Solomon built is neither witnessed by Josephus, nor experienced by him. To Josephus as a historian, this is a fact by examining the credibility of information at hand that this was eye-witnessed by the Jews back in Solomon's days.

That's how history is written. We Chinese have around 5000 years of written history. Books written by authors more than 1000 years after the occurrence of events/figures can be considered legitimate, as long as credible information can be acquired through writings done by previous historians, which subsequently are believed to have information ultimately from eye-witnesses back to the time of occurrence.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Site Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,685
416
Canada
✟306,478.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If we restrict reliability to only what was written by the eyewitnesses themselves, there is very little history.

Exactly. Humans basically don't have the capability to get to past occurrence. We thus have to rely on limited sources to accept them as our history, as long as the sources are considered credible by the researching effort of the authors (i.e., our historians). Usually these sources refer to writings written by previous historians and believed to be ultimately eye-witnessed as a true occurrence.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,995
London, UK
✟1,004,385.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I randomly pick one for you.

The Antiquities of the Jews, book 8, chapter 5, section 1,

How Solomon Built Himself A Royal Palace, Very Costly And Splendid; And How He Solved the Riddles Which Were Sent Him By Hiram.

1. After the building of the temple, which, as we have before said, was finished in seven years, the king laid the foundation of his palace, which be did not finish under thirteen years, for he was not equally zealous in the building of this palace as he had been about the temple; for as to that, though it was a great work, and required wonderful and surprising application, yet God, for whom it was made, so far co-operated therewith, that it was finished in the forementioned number of years: but the palace, which was a building much inferior in dignity to the temple, both on account that its materials had not been so long beforehand gotten ready, nor had been so zealously prepared, and on account that this was only a habitation for kings, and not for God, it was longer in finishing. However, this building was raised so magnificently, as suited the happy state of the Hebrews, and of the king thereof. But it is necessary that I describe the entire structure and disposition of the parts, that so those that light upon this book may thereby make a conjecture, and, as it were, have a prospect of its magnitude.

What Solomon built is neither witnessed by Josephus, nor experienced by him. To Josephus as a historian, this is a fact by examining the credibility of information at hand that this was eye-witnessed by the Jews back in Solomon's days.

That's how history is written. We Chinese have around 5000 years of written history. Books written by authors more than 1000 years after the occurrence of events/figures can be considered legitimate, as long as credible information can be acquired through writings done by previous historians, which subsequently are believed to have information ultimately from eye-witnesses back to the time of occurrence.

I was thinking more about the Jewish war by Josephus and The account of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides. Even in the Antiquities Josephus is basically translating the established and verified historical Jewish account of the OT and then contemporary period to a Roman audience. His commentary on James the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church was also something he may have directly experienced. That he stands between the partisan Jewish and Roman traditions also adds some credibility to him. He did not simply buy into nor feel the need to subscribe to the consciously chosen antiChristian bias of the Jewish religious leadership that formed the basis of the next 2000 years of unbelief on their part
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,714
11,552
Space Mountain!
✟1,364,240.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A lot of twentieth century doubt, scepticism and unbelief is founded on the liberal notion of distance. The idea is that the New Testament is concocted rather than descriptive and can be ignored with the same gusto as one would an advertiser or Hollywood film producer with a dubious message. The essential nearness of the testimony to the reality it described compares with the output of apocalyptic literature in the day and today with a media and news industry that has lost its moral anchor and which is no longer honest to God.
Yes, much unbelief seems to come out of a sense of temporal "distance" between the said events claimed to have happened in the New Testament (or the Old) and the actually alleged time of writing of the documents in question.

However, I'm not sure how many of these same skeptics also integrate considerations of either full blown Hermeneutics or of Philosophy of History into their evaluations about the possible authenticity, or the fair representation, of the tropes and narratives we find in the Bible. No, they seem to just rely on some detached expertise in Textual Criticism.

But yes there were direct witnesses and even recipients of miracles who never grasped who was healing them ( eg the account of the 10 lepers). So even having established the authenticity of the testimony to Christ - people will still ignore it.
Yep.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
But yes there were direct witnesses and even recipients of miracles who never grasped who was healing them ( eg the account of the 10 lepers). So even having established the authenticity of the testimony to Christ - people will still ignore it.
Yep.
I think the main issue is this: different people hold different standards when it comes to authenticating things.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,714
11,552
Space Mountain!
✟1,364,240.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think the main issue is this: different people hold different standards when it comes to authenticating things.

Yep. That surely does play into it. Unfortunately, we have people on both sides of the Belief/Unbelief debate who seem surer about the solidity of their position than a rooster on a sunny morning. ([bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-a-doodle-doooooooooo!)
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
Yep. That surely does play into it. Unfortunately, we have people on both sides of the Belief/Unbelief debate who seem surer about the solidity of their position than a rooster on a sunny morning. ([bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-a-doodle-doooooooooo!)
True, and everyone is correct in their own way.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,714
11,552
Space Mountain!
✟1,364,240.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
True, and everyone is correct in their own way.

...I don't know that I'd say it just like that. It's one thing to be "correct," it's another to simply say that we each see the world (at present) as we each do. Otherwise, flat-earthers, or those with a similar composite of evaluations about the world, are "right" too. Not everyone can be right all at the same time, in the same way, or to the same extent. And I think we both know that in the final analysis, it can't be BOTH Buddha and Jesus ...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Silmarien
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
...I don't know that I'd say it just like that. It's one thing to be "correct," it's another to simply say that we each see the world (at present) as we each do. Otherwise, flat-earthers, or those with a similar composite of evaluations about the world, are "right" too. Not everyone can be right all at the same time, in the same way, or to the same extent. And I think we both know that in the final analysis, it can't be BOTH Buddha and Jesus ...
I understand that. My own standards of authentication requires me to know verifiable things directly for myself, which aligns with what the Buddha taught and not the belief-based (IMO: unknowable & unverifiable) system of general Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,714
11,552
Space Mountain!
✟1,364,240.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I understand that. My own standards of authentication requires me to know verifiable things directly for myself, which aligns with what the Buddha taught and not the belief-based (unknowable) system of general Christianity.

I don't think I ever said that Christianity is "unknowable." Rather, I said more specifically that its belief structure is not comprehensive and remains open to being "filled-in" by God's Will AND with our own ongoing existential experiences in life. As Paul said,

1 Corinthians 13:11-13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.​
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
39
New York
✟223,224.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I understand that. My own standards of authentication requires me to know verifiable things directly for myself, which aligns with what the Buddha taught and not the belief-based (IMO: unknowable & unverifiable) system of general Christianity.

I would not single out Christianity like this, since you seem to have similar issues with secular history and scientific realism in general. Basically anything beyond solipsism seems to run afoul of your standards of authentication, which... sure. That's a legitimate standard to insist upon. But if the choice were between a system that encourages solipsism and one that insists upon a faith that reaches beyond the self, I'd prefer the second approach.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
I don't think I ever said that Christianity is "unknowable." Rather, I said more specifically that its belief structure is not comprehensive and remains open to being "filled-in" by God's Will AND with our own ongoing existential experiences in life. As Paul said,

1 Corinthians 13:11-13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.​
Yes, I know you didn't say that - I am saying it is "unknowable", e.g. I cannot directly know the alleged historical facts in the Bible, etc.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
I would not single out Christianity like this, since you seem to have similar issues with secular history and scientific realism in general. Basically anything beyond solipsism seems to run afoul of your standards of authentication, which... sure. That's a legitimate standard to insist upon. But if the choice were between a system that encourages solipsism and one that insists upon a faith that reaches beyond the self, I'd prefer the second approach.
Of course. We just need to come to an understanding that we each hold to different standards, which was my point.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,714
11,552
Space Mountain!
✟1,364,240.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes, I know you didn't say that - I am saying it is "unknowable", e.g. I cannot directly know the alleged historical facts in the Bible, etc.

Right. And I can't know the person of Siddhartha Guatama, or reproduce his experience under the Bo Tree, either. So..........:dontcare:

;)
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,714
11,552
Space Mountain!
✟1,364,240.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I addressed that point in this prior post.

Well then. Doesn't Jesus also have claims about suffering? But it seems that many times when we see or experience some of this "evidence" that Jesus said to expect, we're tempted to scram from the occasion...and from the evidence. ;)
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
Well then. Doesn't Jesus also have claims about suffering? But it seems that many times when we see or experience some of this "evidence" that Jesus said to expect, we're tempted to scram from the occasion...and from the evidence. ;)
The Buddha - whomever he/she/it may have been - explained the nature of suffering, and gave a map which provides a way outlining a path out of suffering. His way is testable, in that the path is said to be progressively revealing in terms of the path's goal - that is, as I diligently follow the map, verify its reliability for myself, and practice the path, I should expect a progressively observable decrease in suffering.

IMO Jesus' path is not testable. I cannot take his path and reveal for myself a progressive increase in the goal: of salvation or even an extension of lifespan.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,714
11,552
Space Mountain!
✟1,364,240.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Buddha - whomever he/she/it may have been - explained the nature of suffering, and gave a map which provides a way outlining a path out of suffering. His way is testable, in that the path is said to be progressively revealing in terms of the path's goal - that is, as I diligently follow the map, verify its reliability for myself, and practice the path, I should expect a progressively observable decrease in suffering.

IMO Jesus' path is not testable. I cannot take his path and reveal for myself a progressive increase in the goal: of salvation or even an extension of lifespan.

Well then, in conjunction with the focal point of the OP, we'll just have to agree to disagree since I'm finding at least one place in the Gospels where Jesus seems to counter what you're asserting here:

John 7:15-17 New King James Version (NKJV)
15 And the Jews marveled, saying, “How does this Man know letters, having never studied?”
16 Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.

So from the above statement, it seems that Jesus thought that on at least some points, we'd be able to make some pragmatic determinations about His teaching. It's interesting, too, that in the same gospel, we see Jesus saying:


John 16:32-33 New King James Version (NKJV)
32 Indeed the hour is coming, yes, has now come, that you will be scattered, each to his a]">[a]own, and will leave Me alone. And yet I am not alone, because the Father is with Me. 33 These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
Well then, in conjunction with the focal point of the OP, we'll just have to agree to disagree since I'm finding at least one place in the Gospels where Jesus seems to counter what you're asserting here:

John 7:15-17 New King James Version (NKJV)
15 And the Jews marveled, saying, “How does this Man know letters, having never studied?”
16 Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.

So from the above statement, it seems that Jesus thought that on at least some points, we'd be able to make some pragmatic determinations about His teaching. It's interesting, too, that in the same gospel, we see Jesus saying:


John 16:32-33 New King James Version (NKJV)
32 Indeed the hour is coming, yes, has now come, that you will be scattered, each to his a]">[a]own, and will leave Me alone. And yet I am not alone, because the Father is with Me. 33 These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”
How do you figure "know[ing] ... the doctrine" is equivalent to experiencing the promised end-goal?
 
Upvote 0