Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

[TagliatelliMonster]

The disciples, etc. (Matthew, John, Jude, Peter) who wrote about the Jesus they lived with for some 3 years or so were contemporary companions of him. The are independent, historical confirmations of his life, death, and resurrection. What's more, there are over 40 different authors who wrote about Jesus within 150 years of his life.

No. They are the claims of biased believers. The very claims that are in question. The very claims that would require independent corroborating contemporary evidence.

As I just said in the post you are replying to:

We only have original mentions of the dude in biased religious scripture.
Or from people who are just repeating what biased believers have told them

The disciples you are talking about, are the ones from the first group: their story is the biased religious scripture. And it's quite likely that they aren't even the authors of those bible books, as those were written 70+ years after the supposed facts.

Recommended reading for you:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

I'm really not interested in apologetics by biased believers.
If you have extra-biblical, independent evidence for a historical Jesus, then just point me directly to that evidence, instead some apologist's interpretation of this supposed evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's a great deal of historical accounts in the Bible - i.e. the sacking of Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar, etc., etc. Plus extra-biblical confirmations of numerous historical individuals.

And marvel comics mentions New York, real US presidents and likely there are a few Peter Parkers living in Manhatten. But that doesn't mean that one of them is actually Spiderman.

However, there seems to be no evidence you will ever accept about Jesus, etc., due to your bias and lack of historical research.

I've never been presented with such evidence.

 

[Spartan]

No. They are the claims of biased believers. The very claims that are in question. The very claims that would require independent corroborating contemporary evidence.

As I just said in the post you are replying to:

We only have original mentions of the dude in biased religious scripture.
Or from people who are just repeating what biased believers have told them

The disciples you are talking about, are the ones from the first group: their story is the biased religious scripture. And it's quite likely that they aren't even the authors of those bible books, as those were written 70+ years after the supposed facts.

I'm really not interested in apologetics by biased believers.
If you have extra-biblical, independent evidence for a historical Jesus, then just point me directly to that evidence, instead some apologist's interpretation of this supposed evidence.

Lookie here - another skeptic who refuses to read the historical accounts that would refute his unbiblical beliefs.

Can't help you. You refuse to learn.

By the way, how would you possibly know those five books I recommended for you are biased if you haven't read them?

 

[Audie]

There's a great deal of historical accounts in the Bible - i.e. the sacking of Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar, etc., etc. Plus extra-biblical confirmations of numerous historical individuals.

List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources - Wikipedia

However, there seems to be no evidence you will ever accept about Jesus, etc., due to your bias and lack of historical research.

Of course there are historical accounts,
of varying accuracy. Nobody denies that.

There are also fanciful accounts of things
that did not happen at all. Some can be readily
disproved, others are more fuzzy.
Nobody but the uneducated, or worse, the intellectually
dishonest denies that.

As for events around the time of Jesus'
execution, none know the time or place.

Whatever really happened can be surmized with different
degrees of confidence for various theories.

None can be proven to be correct.

 

[Spartan]

Of course there are historical accounts,
of varying accuracy. Nobody denies that.

There are also fanciful accounts of things
that did not happen at all. Some can be readily
disproved, others are more fuzzy.
Nobody but the uneducated, or worse, the intellectually
dishonest denies that.

As for events around the time of Jesus'
execution, none know the time or place.

Whatever really happened can be surmized with different
degrees of confidence for various theories.

None can be proven to be correct.

Documenting A Miracle

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense.

The disciples, etc. (Matthew, John, Jude, Peter) who wrote about the Jesus they lived with for some 3 years or so were contemporary companions of him. The are independent, historical confirmations of his life, death, and resurrection. What's more, there are over 40 different authors who wrote about Jesus within 150 years of his life.

Recommended reading for you:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

It appears that you got your supposed theology degree from a creationist degree mill. The gospels are all anonymous and were not thought to have been written by the disciples. The only possible one actually written by the person that it is name for was Luke, and he was not a disciple. He was a follower of Paul. And they are far from independent for two clear reasons. First both Luke and Matthew copied large sections form Mark. If written today they would both be charged with plagiarism. Second the works went through a homogenization. The early church through out all sorts of works at the Council of Nicea. If it did not fit in the Bible that the church wanted they were not just banned, they were often destroyed. That effectively makes it one source. A student of the Bible would have known this. Again, if you need this backed up no problem.

Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell are both major idiots on your list. They pretended to be skeptics and assumed that if they could not disprove Jesus that he was real. That is not the way it works. One tries to see if there is valid evidence for something and then decides whether it is real or not.

 

[Audie]

Documenting A Miracle

As mark twain said, for a miracle, any sort of evidence will do,
for facts you need proof.

Are you offering evidence, or proof that you
will dodge any challenge outside your
cut n paste comfort zone?

 

[Spartan]

It appears that you got your supposed theology degree from a creationist degree mill. The gospels are all anonymous and were not thought to have been written by the disciples. The only possible one actually written by the person that it is name for was Luke, and he was not a disciple. He was a follower of Paul. And they are far from independent for two clear reasons. First both Luke and Matthew copied large sections form Mark. If written today they would both be charged with plagiarism. Second the works went through a homogenization. The early church through out all sorts of works at the Council of Nicea. If it did not fit in the Bible that the church wanted they were not just banned, they were often destroyed. That effectively makes it one source. A student of the Bible would have known this. Again, if you need this backed up no problem.

Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell are both major idiots on your list. They pretended to be skeptics and assumed that if they could not disprove Jesus that he was real. That is not the way it works. One tries to see if there is valid evidence for something and then decides whether it is real or not.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Please take me off your debate list.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Never claimed to be a scholar. But, as usual, you haven't done your homework.

Recommended Reading for you:

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2nd ed. - Richard Bauckham : Eerdmans

Wrong again, unlike you I have done my homework. Doing your homework is not swallowing every book written by authors that do not know how to investigate an event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Please take me off your debate list.

No, you are sooo much fun. We are all still waiting for you to produce something besides works by rather ignorant apologists.

 

[Audie]

It appears that you got your supposed theology degree from a creationist degree mill. The gospels are all anonymous and were not thought to have been written by the disciples. The only possible one actually written by the person that it is name for was Luke, and he was not a disciple. He was a follower of Paul. And they are far from independent for two clear reasons. First both Luke and Matthew copied large sections form Mark. If written today they would both be charged with plagiarism. Second the works went through a homogenization. The early church through out all sorts of works at the Council of Nicea. If it did not fit in the Bible that the church wanted they were not just banned, they were often destroyed. That effectively makes it one source. A student of the Bible would have known this. Again, if you need this backed up no problem.

Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell are both major idiots on your list. They pretended to be skeptics and assumed that if they could not disprove Jesus that he was real. That is not the way it works. One tries to see if there is valid evidence for something and then decides whether it is real or not.

Creo ranks are full of shills.

I saw a book about some preacher, " A Man Sent of God".

I found a passage where he describes a ruffian
comes into church, a threatenin' and a cursin'!

"Kneel before me, Satan!" the preacher calls out!

The Satan possessed advances! Tension mounts!

"Kneel, I say in the name of The Most Holy!!!"

Then-gasps from audience- the fiend wavers!
He goes down, in defeat!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lookie here - another skeptic who refuses to read the historical accounts that would refute his unbiblical beliefs.

Can't help you. You refuse to learn.

By the way, how would you possibly know those five books I recommended for you are biased if you haven't read them?

From the sources that you site and what you say that conclusion is more than reasonable. You name some of the most PRATTy authors that exist and expect to be taken seriously.

Here are some friendly suggestions if you want people to take you seriously. Try to find serious authors. Quote from them and provide links, don't just link biased books that no one is going to read. When someone provides evidence acknowledge it. And perhaps learn what evidence is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creo ranks are full of shills.

I saw a book about some preacher, " A Man Sent of God".

I found a passage where he describes a ruffian
comes into church, a threatenin' and a cursin'!

"Kneel before me, Satan!" the preacher calls out!

The Satan possessed advances! Tension mounts!

"Kneel, I say in the name of The Most Holy!!!"

Then-gasps from audience- the fiend wavers!
He goes down, in defeat!!

I truly wish that we could have a serious debater rather than a shill that can be refuted with Wiki articles. Of course the ridiculous claims do go away when that happens. When a person claims to be able to defend the New Testament and then runs away from the first challenge we know he was not well prepared for "battle".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well first of all there's no evidence from any source from antiquity that Jesus was left on the cross (to rot or whatever). That's an unfounded theory you have.

Second, there are historical sources that say Jesus was taken down from the cross. Even the corrupt Jewish authorities argued that the disciples stole the body.

This was an oldie but a goodie. As I showed there is evidence that Jesus would have been left on the cross. It was SOP at the time. That means since it is an exception the burden of proof for him being taken down falls on those that claim he was taken down, it is not our burden to prove that he was left up there. And your claim about Jews appears to be unfounded since there are no contemporary accounts of this. Perhaps after Christianity got popular some Jews wrote their own apologetics, but those have as much credibility as Christian apologeitics. Generally apologetics are simply examples of people lying for their religious beliefs. Not to be treated as evidence from either side.

 

[Audie]

From the sources that you site and what you say that conclusion is more than reasonable. You name some of the most PRATTy authors that exist and expect to be taken seriously.

Here are some friendly suggestions if you want people to take you seriously. Try to find serious authors. Quote from them and provide links, don't just link biased books that no one is going to read. When someone provides evidence acknowledge it. And perhaps learn what evidence is.

Thing is, it is all " you are biased no you are"

The so called resurrection is really
unarguable, which may be why some
would choose to shelter behind obscrutity's
gauzy veil, rather than risk coming out
in the glare where data, real time observation,
emperical evidence, sound theory and
investigative techniques used in a climate of
doubt are employed.

As in my fav. metaphor, claims of
historical accuracy for major portions
of the bible wither like a salted slug
when exposed to the horrors of objective
investigation.

Watch and see. They aint going out
there. And it is no use going in to fight
the fog-monster.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know of no so called contradictions that are not resolvable in the New Testament

I think what you are describing as a bit of 'tough love' with the moneychangers.

I do have to offer a bit of an apology to @Spartan. I thought that the above post was by him and challenged him based upon my error. He probably would agree with that post, but maybe not and since he did not make this specific claim I am currently removing my demand that he defend the Nativity of Luke, for now.

But that leaves @whirlingmerc. How do you deal with the fact that Luke claims Jesus was born in both roughly 4 BCE and 6 CE?

 

[Audie]

I truly wish that we could have a serious debater rather than a shill that can be refuted with Wiki articles. Of course the ridiculous claims do go away when that happens. When a person claims to be able to defend the New Testament and then runs away from the first challenge we know he was not well prepared for "battle".

Oh, I think honest debate probably does happen between
Christians, about the Bible.
You can honestly debate about the meanings in
Moby Dick, too

Problems would arise if someone wanted to make
Moby Dick out to be an accurate historical account.

An honest debate of science v creo may in theory
not be impossible. In practice, so far, it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thing is, it is all " you are biased no you are"

The so called resurrection is really
unarguable, which may be why some
would choose to shelter behind obscrutity's
gauzy veil, rather than risk coming out
in the glare where data, real time observation,
emperical evidence, sound theory and
investigative techniques used in a climate of
doubt are employed.

As in my fav. metaphor, claims of
historical accuracy for major portions
of the bible wither like a salted slug
when exposed to the horrors of objective
investigation.

Watch and see. They aint going out
there. And it is no use going in to fight
the fog-monster.

I know. One actual scholar that they hate is Richard Carrier. He studied the work and languages of the era, and he applied a new methodology. He applied Bayesian Probability to the New Testament and concluded that Jesus was likely mythical. He did something that most theists will not do, he got an expert in the field to "peer review" his work to make sure his methodology was correct. Technically I do not think that qualifies as true peer review since it is usually a panel of experts that check one's work. But still it is far more than the "prove me wrong" claims of so many experts.

The problem with the beliefs of his "experts" is that they are inconsistent in their standards of belief. When it comes to the Bible they will believe it anything. When it comes to anything else they will accept it only if it does not go against their preset beliefs.

 

[Jos]

So what happened to the body of Jesus? Why didn't the Jewish leaders who opposed Him display His dead body and end the "story" right then and there?

Yeah this is a good point... why didn't other people tell Christians that Jesus was actually dead and show them where His dead body was? I could never quite answer that question.

 

[Audie]

Yeah this is a good point... why didn't other people tell Christians that Jesus was actually dead and show them where His dead body was? I could never quite answer that question.

All kinds of possible reasons. Lets try simple, with no
involvement of the supernatural.

Then we have one of many itinerant "healers"
No particularly large following. (later inflated)
The Roams thought him suspicious, so, they
killed him.

When, where,nobody knows.

If you like questions you cannot quite answer,
how odd is that for such a presumably important
event?

Nobody thought much of it, or, wanted to be
associated as they saw what could happen.

Nobody was interested in another corpse at the
place of the skull, bone hill, or however it translates.

Later, the idea of turning defeat into victory occurred
to what followers he had left, and they thought up
the story of him coming back to life By then, they
could get away with it.

If they had said at the time, "Hey you remember the
sky going dark, all the zombies, and the earthquake
last week?"

"Uh, earthquakes and the sky does dark? Earthquake?
We, ahh, dont exactly recall any of that... you feeling ok?"

It is not terribly original, there are many stories of
gods dying and coming back to life.

I am no psychologist or expert on religious passions,
so I dont know why they'd do that. Would anyone make
up such things?

Going by what happened with Joseph Smith's
story, or Mohammed's story, or or or, well, I guess
that it is not exactly unheard of to make things up
and get fanatical followers.

Why did those religious succeed so far, while
many others have failed? I dunno. It sure
is not because they are all true

Anyone can come up with a different scenario, but
I dont think they can come up with a more likely
one, especially if they require magic to make them work.