Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

[Riders]

How did you determine who the dried out heal belonged to and how it got nailed to a piece of wood?

They found it not long ago archaeologists did and figured out that it was one of the messiahs.

 

[Milton Platt]

They found it not long ago archaeologists did and figured out that it was one of the messiahs.

Please link to source material??????
This is all I could find (duplicated in several other magazines or media sites). How do you come to the conclusion this man was in any way connected to Christians?

In Jerusalem around 2,000 years ago a Jew named Yehohanan, who was in his mid-twenties, committed a crime against Roman authority. The nature of his transgression has been lost to time, but his punishment is known — he was crucified.

 

[MJFlores]

If you were on trial in court, and there were witnesses that said you committed the crime, but you could not cross examine any of them or even prove they existed, should we convict you on their supposed word?

Then the situation becomes different.
But the events that transpired with the Lord Jesus would not fit the hypothetical situation.
And we come to know it because it is already written and a matter of public record.
We no longer need to prove the existence of Pontius Pilate in the same way we wont on Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti filius Augustus. Because these are beyond reasonable doubt they once upon a time ruled during their time.

But the witnesses, the butchers and executioners died a long time ago.
The Lord Jesus Christ is in heaven and seated at the right hand of God.
And to prove such, is to wait for Judgement Day to come
and on that day, I believe there will be no more doubts who is the Son of Man.

 

[Kilk1]

Are you quite sure Saul of Tarsus was a witness?

Yes, that Paul sincerely believed he saw Jesus is undisputed in historiography. For example, North America’s leading resurrection critic, Bart Ehrman, writes that “it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution,” citing as example “the apostle Paul, [who] claims quite plainly to have seen Jesus alive after his death.”

 

[Kilk1]

I agree that the writer says they “saw” Jesus. Did they? We don’t know, because, again, no evidence.

The point of debate is on whether Jesus was really there to be seen, yes, but it's clear to scholars of all strides that the witnesses weren't lying but sincerely believed they saw Jesus risen from the dead. That's what atheist Gerd Lüdemann meant by writing, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." In other words, they definitely experienced something, but the debate is centered on the cause of such experiences.

Lüdemann's interpretation was that the witnesses hallucinated. Is this your view?

None of the gospels say that any of the disciples were in the tomb, watching the body, saw it sit up, Yawn and stretch, and walk out of the tomb. That is admitting that there were no eyewitnesses. And before you claim that just because the gospels don’t mention it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, please take note of the literary fact that the narrator always knows everything in the world of the story. By remaining tacit, the narrators are admitting that this is something that they just don’t know happened in the world of the stories.

Oh, you're meaning that none of the disciples saw Jesus as His resurrection took place; yes, I believe this is correct. However, this is far from the Gospels saying there weren't any witnesses to Him rising from the dead. All four Gospels say Jesus died by crucifixion, and all four Gospels record witnesses of Him being alive afterward.

No, Paul had a vision. Paul didn’t actually see Jesus-in-the-flesh before the ascension.

Paul himself makes it clear that he saw Jesus. Information about it being a vision (or something like a vision, at least) comes from the Book of Acts. It explains that Paul didn’t know who was speaking to him; he found out after Jesus identified Himself. Also, those who went with Paul seem to be contrasted with him, “hearing a voice but seeing no one”—implying Paul did see someone, as he wrote.

While Paul didn't see Jesus' body before the ascension, he may have seen Jesus' body after the ascension. Notice that in Acts 13:35–37, Paul argues that Psalm 16:10 can’t refer to David because he “fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption,” unlike with Jesus, who “saw no corruption.” Paul is saying Jesus underwent no bodily decay but arose. This affirms a bodily resurrection, which may mean he saw Jesus' body when he saw Him.

Regardless, what's recorded in Acts about Paul's conversion can't be explained on naturalistic grounds. If I'm wrong, what naturalistic interpretation might you suggest? Thanks for the discussion.

 

[lukethethird]

Please link to source material??????
This is all I could find (duplicated in several other magazines or media sites). How do you come to the conclusion this man was in any way connected to Christians?

In Jerusalem around 2,000 years ago a Jew named Yehohanan, who was in his mid-twenties, committed a crime against Roman authority. The nature of his transgression has been lost to time, but his punishment is known — he was crucified.
View attachment 30087

It appears from that photo that the crucified may have survived and walked for many years with that nail through his foot.

 

[Milton Platt]

It appears from that photo that the crucified may have survived and walked for many years with that nail through his foot.

How do you figure?

 

[Milton Platt]

Yes, that Paul sincerely believed he saw Jesus is undisputed in historiography. For example, North America’s leading resurrection critic, Bart Ehrman, writes that “it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution,” citing as example “the apostle Paul, [who] claims quite plainly to have seen Jesus alive after his death.”

So we know he BELIEVED he saw Jesus...how do we KNOW he saw Jesus?

 

[JJ50]

So we know he BELIEVED he saw Jesus...how do we KNOW he saw Jesus?

I reckon Paul had an epileptic seizure, which screwed his brain up .

 

[Milton Platt]

I reckon Paul had an epileptic seizure, which screwed his brain up .

We have only 2000 year old hearsay evidence, so we will never know.

 

[sojourner]

Lüdemann's interpretation was that the witnesses hallucinated. Is this your view?

I don't know. But I do know that second hand information written years after the fact cannot constitute evidence. It constitutes story.

All four Gospels say Jesus died by crucifixion, and all four Gospels record witnesses of Him being alive afterward.

Mark doesn't. And Mark is the earliest gospel. Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and added their own material. Did they, then, add stories or eyewitness accounts?

Regardless, what's recorded in Acts about Paul's conversion can't be explained on naturalistic grounds. If I'm wrong, what naturalistic interpretation might you suggest?

Perhaps Paul had a "vision." Visions are products of meditative states. I believe many visions are real, but there's no evidence to back that up. At any rate, it cannot be said from an evidentiary conclusion that Paul was an eyewitness to a resurrected Jesus.

Please don't misunderstand me -- I believe in the resurrection. But I don't have evidence for that occurrence. And I don't pretend to. All I have is the tradition of the religion I follow. For me, that's enough.

 

[samtonga43]

Do you think that the Holy Spirit plays any part in your belief in the resurrection of Christ?

 

[Kilk1]

So we know he BELIEVED he saw Jesus...how do we KNOW he saw Jesus?

Yes, this is the core issue of the debate on Jesus' resurrection and where things get controversial. Paul, a skeptic turned Christian, delivers in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 what is “first of all” concerning the gospel:

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas [Peter], then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

We have here appearances to individual disciples, to groups of disciples, and even to unbelievers (Paul himself and James). The Gospels and the Book of Acts both corroborate and add to this list. In the words of atheist Gerd Lüdemann, Germany’s leading resurrection skeptic, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ" (What Really Happened to Jesus, pg. 80).

But how do we explain these experiences? Lüdemann's interpretation is that the witnesses hallucinated. However, since hallucinations occur in the mind without a real, external referent, how could unbelievers like Paul and James see something they didn't even believe in and then become so convinced of its authenticity that they would convert? Could you see this happening to, say, Richard Dawkins? Furthermore, how could groups hallucinate Jesus? If I hallucinate an apple in front of me, no one else will be able to see it. If everyone does see the apple, then it must be there! By extension, since groups saw Jesus, they weren't hallucinating.

 

[sooda]

Yes, this is the core issue of the debate on Jesus' resurrection and where things get controversial. Paul, a skeptic turned Christian, delivers in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 what is “first of all” concerning the gospel:

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas [Peter], then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

We have here appearances to individual disciples, to groups of disciples, and even to unbelievers (Paul himself and James). The Gospels and the Book of Acts both corroborate and add to this list. In the words of atheist Gerd Lüdemann, Germany’s leading resurrection skeptic, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ" (What Really Happened to Jesus, pg. 80).

But how do we explain these experiences? Lüdemann's interpretation is that the witnesses hallucinated. However, since hallucinations occur in the mind without a real, external referent, how could unbelievers like Paul and James see something they didn't even believe in and then become so convinced of its authenticity that they would convert? Could you see this happening to, say, Richard Dawkins? Furthermore, how could groups hallucinate Jesus? If I hallucinate an apple in front of me, no one else will be able to see it. If everyone does see the apple, then it must be there! By extension, since groups saw Jesus, they weren't hallucinating.

What do you think the motivations were for the myth of Noah's flood and the Exodus or the conquests of Joshua?

 

[Kilk1]

I don't know. But I do know that second hand information written years after the fact cannot constitute evidence. It constitutes story.


Mark doesn't. And Mark is the earliest gospel. Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and added their own material. Did they, then, add stories or eyewitness accounts?


Perhaps Paul had a "vision." Visions are products of meditative states. I believe many visions are real, but there's no evidence to back that up. At any rate, it cannot be said from an evidentiary conclusion that Paul was an eyewitness to a resurrected Jesus.

Please don't misunderstand me -- I believe in the resurrection. But I don't have evidence for that occurrence. And I don't pretend to. All I have is the tradition of the religion I follow. For me, that's enough.

According to 1 Peter 3:15, Christians should "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear" (NKJV). I don't know how you can give a reasoned defense if you don't have a reasoned defense, and so I believe the Bible endorses the use of evidence. However, since we agree the resurrection happened, I'd probably prefer to save my time defending it with those who don't believe in it.

 

[Kilk1]

What do you think the motivations were for the myth of Noah's flood and the Exodus or the conquests of Joshua?

This isn't my area of expertise, sorry. Does this relate to Jesus' resurrection?

 

[sooda]

This isn't my area of expertise, sorry. Does this relate to Jesus' resurrection?

It has to do with creating a narrative..

 

[Milton Platt]

Yes, this is the core issue of the debate on Jesus' resurrection and where things get controversial. Paul, a skeptic turned Christian, delivers in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 what is “first of all” concerning the gospel:

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas [Peter], then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

We have here appearances to individual disciples, to groups of disciples, and even to unbelievers (Paul himself and James). The Gospels and the Book of Acts both corroborate and add to this list. In the words of atheist Gerd Lüdemann, Germany’s leading resurrection skeptic, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ" (What Really Happened to Jesus, pg. 80).

But how do we explain these experiences? Lüdemann's interpretation is that the witnesses hallucinated. However, since hallucinations occur in the mind without a real, external referent, how could unbelievers like Paul and James see something they didn't even believe in and then become so convinced of its authenticity that they would convert? Could you see this happening to, say, Richard Dawkins? Furthermore, how could groups hallucinate Jesus? If I hallucinate an apple in front of me, no one else will be able to see it. If everyone does see the apple, then it must be there! By extension, since groups saw Jesus, they weren't hallucinating.

Sorry, but all such claims in the Bible are hearsay. What's worse, it's hearsay from 2000 years ago. The stories are anonymous (with a possible single exception) and none of the supposed witnesses can be examined or questioned. It is just taking an anonymous writer's word that something is true.

 

[sooda]

Sorry, but all such claims in the Bible are hearsay. What's worse, it's hearsay from 2000 years ago. The stories are anonymous (with a possible single exception) and none of the supposed witnesses can be examined or questioned. It is just taking an anonymous writer's word that something is true.

Our tradition says its true, but there is no proof. For Jesus even to have been put in the tomb is highly unlikely.

 

[Milton Platt]

Our tradition says its true, but there is no proof. For Jesus even to have been put in the tomb is highly unlikely.

I am an atheist, and while I disbelieve such stuff, it has been a very long time, there is no way to interview said characters (or even know who they were or if they existed in most cases), or investigate the events. My disbelief is not resting so much on evidence against, but lack of good evidence for such things. In the absence of such evidence, I must reject the propositions.
Those propositions rest upon an even greater proposition, that of the existence of a supernatural being that creates universes and alters the laws of physics to answer prayers for a particular species of animal on a rather insignificant planet in one of billions, perhaps trillions, of galaxies.

Sorry, that turned into a rant, didn't it......