Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

[paarsurrey]

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......

Does one mean that Jesus did not die on the Cross, and he was a human being and he was neither god or son of god?

Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

Does one mean that Jesus did not die on the Cross, and he was a human being and he was neither god or son of god?

Regards

There are various opinions as to whether there was a Jesus or not. For me it does not matter whether he existed or not. None of the supernatural claims can be verified or tested, so if he had existed he is long dead now as far as anyone really knows.

 

[JJ50]

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

The balance of probability is that once Jesus died he stayed dead.

There are various opinions as to whether there was a Jesus or not. For me it does not matter whether he existed or not. None of the supernatural claims can be verified or tested, so if he had existed he is long dead now as far as anyone really knows.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[sojourner]

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.

"Giving a defense for hope" isn't the same thing as presenting hard evidence. That's not what the passage means. I can give a reasoned defense to the hope I have without pointing to evidence of an historical event, because hope doesn't lie in hard evidential proof. Hope lies in desire.

 

[sooda]

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......

I get it.. Between the myths and the supernatural it makes little sense. I don't think it was random.. I think it was amended for purpose.. largely political.

Judah hated Israel and there was never any "United Kingdom".

 

[Kilk1]

It has to do with creating a narrative..

A narrative of what?

 

[Kilk1]

"Giving a defense for hope" isn't the same thing as presenting hard evidence. That's not what the passage means. I can give a reasoned defense to the hope I have without pointing to evidence of an historical event, because hope doesn't lie in hard evidential proof. Hope lies in desire.

What's your reasoned defense for Jesus' resurrection, then? If it lies in desire, is that the same as saying you want it to be true so much that it must be?

 

[Kilk1]

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.

Are you saying that virtually all of scholarship is wrong about Jesus?

 

[Riders]

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.”

Wheres the proof saying it doesn't proove anything.

 

[Riders]

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.

Groups of people saw spider man climbing up the Wall street building too, sense groups saw Spiderman they wern't hallucinating.

 

[Spartan]

Sorry, but all such claims in the Bible are hearsay. What's worse, it's hearsay from 2000 years ago.

The vast majority of accounts of individuals from antiquity are hearsay. Are you ready to be CONSISTENT and rip out major portions of your history books? Plus, just because it's hearsay doesn't make it false.

The stories are anonymous

No, they aren't anonymous. That's a lie straight out of Hell. There's significant evidence for the traditional Gospel authors.

First, my NIV Bible says, about the authorship of Matthew, "The early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve disciples, was its author."
For Mark, the notation is, "...it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark."
For Luke is says, "...much unmistakable evidence points to Luke (as the author)."
And for John, "The author is the apostle John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved".

If you'd like further confirmations, here's a good reference article: Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

From another article:

"The early church fathers were unanimous in crediting the gospel to Matthew. Hiebert claims, “The earliest is the testimony of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, dating to the first half of the second century.” Following Papias is Irenaeus “who wrote his famous Against Heresies around A.D. 185.” The next church father to attribute authorship to Matthew is Origen, who wrote in the early third century. He is quoted by Eusebius, who wrote in the early fourth century. Finally, Eusebius himself, in the early fourth century, documents that Matthew wrote the first gospel.

There is an unbroken witness to Matthew as the author of the first gospel going back to at least the middle of the second century, and there is no contradictory witness found in any of the church fathers.

Who Wrote the Gospel of Matthew? – #5 Post of 2010

 

[sojourner]

What's your reasoned defense for Jesus' resurrection, then? If it lies in desire, is that the same as saying you want it to be true so much that it must be?

No, it’s simply saying that I hope it’s true, even though it can’t be proven. It’s the same as our own afterlife. There’s no proof for it, but we hope it’s true nonetheless, and we live our faith-lives as if it’s true. My reasoned defense is of the hope, not the resurrection. That’s what the passage says.

 

[Milton Platt]

The vast majority of accounts of individuals from antiquity are hearsay. Are you ready to be CONSISTENT and rip out major portions of your history books? Plus, just because it's hearsay doesn't make it false.



No, they aren't anonymous. That's a lie straight out of Hell. There's significant evidence for the traditional Gospel authors.

First, my NIV Bible says, about the authorship of Matthew, "The early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve disciples, was its author."
For Mark, the notation is, "...it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark."
For Luke is says, "...much unmistakable evidence points to Luke (as the author)."
And for John, "The author is the apostle John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved".

If you'd like further confirmations, here's a good reference article: Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

From another article:

"The early church fathers were unanimous in crediting the gospel to Matthew. Hiebert claims, “The earliest is the testimony of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, dating to the first half of the second century.” Following Papias is Irenaeus “who wrote his famous Against Heresies around A.D. 185.” The next church father to attribute authorship to Matthew is Origen, who wrote in the early third century. He is quoted by Eusebius, who wrote in the early fourth century. Finally, Eusebius himself, in the early fourth century, documents that Matthew wrote the first gospel.

There is an unbroken witness to Matthew as the author of the first gospel going back to at least the middle of the second century, and there is no contradictory witness found in any of the church fathers.

Who Wrote the Gospel of Matthew? – #5 Post of 2010

The names were ascribed by someone else and they are not signed by an author. We have no originals, as well. Scholars still speculate and give forth various justifications, but it is all hearsay in the end. I don't know what "church fathers" you are referencing, but it would be interesting to see the particular evidence they felt was so convincing. It is interesting to note that the earliest person you quote made his statements over 100 years after the death of Jesus. In fact, the earliest gospel is thought to have been written no earlier than half a century after the death of Jesus. I think I read one claim of 35 years, but other bible scholars are close to unanimous on a later date.

I will certainly try and find the articles you suggested.

 

[Spartan]

The names were ascribed by someone else and they are not signed by an author.

"The external evidence (outside the Bible) for the authorship of Matthew includes: 1. The Didache (c. A.D. 110) quotes Matthew more than any other Gospel, establishing a terminus date of writing and the significance that the book already held in the early church. 2. The letters of Ignatius and Polycarp (c. A.D. 110) reveal a familiarity with the book. 3. The Christians in Rome were acquainted with the book by A.D. 120 (especially the account of the Magi). 4. The epistle of Barnabas (c. A.D. 130) uses the expression, “It is written” in quotation of Matthew 20:16 and 22:14. 5. Many of the early Church Fathers (Justin Martyr, Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Dionysius, Theophilus, Cerinthus, Valentinus, and Tatian) attribute the book to Matthew. B. The internal evidence for the authorship of Matthew includes:

1. The Gospel’s superscription is the oldest known witness to its authorship with the earliest form of the title “according to Matthew” with Matthew spelled Maththaios in the uncials Aleph, B, and D. The superscription is found on all known manuscripts of the Gospel. In other words, no one other than Matthew was even suggested as the author of the first Gospel."

http://www.danielakin.com/wp-content/uploads/old/resource_346/matthew.pdf

And from my previous link:

"A superscription is text added to an ancient manuscript by a scribe for purposes of identification; it acts as a title. According to NT scholar D. Edmond Hiebert, the first gospel’s “identifying superscription, ‘The Gospel According to Matthew,’ is the oldest known witness concerning its authorship.” Scholars believe the superscription was added as early as A.D. 125 and the “superscription is found on all known manuscripts of this gospel.” This fact is a powerful testimony to the uniformity of evidence with regard to the authorship of Matthew."

 

[Milton Platt]

"The external evidence (outside the Bible) for the authorship of Matthew includes: 1. The Didache (c. A.D. 110) quotes Matthew more than any other Gospel, establishing a terminus date of writing and the significance that the book already held in the early church. 2. The letters of Ignatius and Polycarp (c. A.D. 110) reveal a familiarity with the book. 3. The Christians in Rome were acquainted with the book by A.D. 120 (especially the account of the Magi). 4. The epistle of Barnabas (c. A.D. 130) uses the expression, “It is written” in quotation of Matthew 20:16 and 22:14. 5. Many of the early Church Fathers (Justin Martyr, Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Dionysius, Theophilus, Cerinthus, Valentinus, and Tatian) attribute the book to Matthew. B. The internal evidence for the authorship of Matthew includes:

1. The Gospel’s superscription is the oldest known witness to its authorship with the earliest form of the title “according to Matthew” with Matthew spelled Maththaios in the uncials Aleph, B, and D. The superscription is found on all known manuscripts of the Gospel. In other words, no one other than Matthew was even suggested as the author of the first Gospel."

http://www.danielakin.com/wp-content/uploads/old/resource_346/matthew.pdf

And from my previous link:

"A superscription is text added to an ancient manuscript by a scribe for purposes of identification; it acts as a title. According to NT scholar D. Edmond Hiebert, the first gospel’s “identifying superscription, ‘The Gospel According to Matthew,’ is the oldest known witness concerning its authorship.” Scholars believe the superscription was added as early as A.D. 125 and the “superscription is found on all known manuscripts of this gospel.” This fact is a powerful testimony to the uniformity of evidence with regard to the authorship of Matthew."

Thanks again for providing the basis for your beliefs. It is refreshing when someone cares enough to not just shout "This is what I believe so you have to believe it too!!!!" (Figuratively speaking).

I would counter that what you are presenting is still hearsay evidence. We don't know WHY the name was ascribed to the gospel. Did he know the author? Or was he told that by someone else who believed that was the author or had been told by yet someone else it was the author? How did he verify the truth of the claim of authorship? All unanswered questions.

 

[samtonga43]

No, it’s simply saying that I hope it’s true, even though it can’t be proven. It’s the same as our own afterlife. There’s no proof for it, but we hope it’s true nonetheless, and we live our faith-lives as if it’s true. My reasoned defense is of the hope, not the resurrection. That’s what the passage says.

Why do you hope it's true?

 

[Marcion]

It appears all the apostle were willing to hold that belief till death

Watergate had only a matter of 5 weeks or so before the whole lot of em were singing like canaries or incriminated various ways

You are assuming that the idea of the orthodox part of the early Christians that there really had been so-called apostles was a historic fact.

I would say no, there was no real resurrection event and there were no christian apostles, but rather it was a carefully created myth upon which the Christian religion was based (turning them away from the original focuss on the teachings of Jesus).

Christians think that they are saved by the myth of the resurrected Jesus whereas the original disciples believed that Jesus had taught them to follow His teachings instead of waste their time in worshipping and praying.

 

[sojourner]

Why do you hope it's true?

Why do you hope it's true?

 

[sojourner]

No, they aren't anonymous. That's a lie straight out of Hell. There's significant evidence for the traditional Gospel authors.

An entitled condemnation considering there's no hard evidence to back you up.

First, my NIV Bible says, about the authorship of Matthew, "The early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve disciples, was its author."

"The early church fathers were unanimous in crediting the gospel to Matthew. Hiebert claims, “The earliest is the testimony of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, dating to the first half of the second century.” Following Papias is Irenaeus “who wrote his famous Against Heresies around A.D. 185.” The next church father to attribute authorship to Matthew is Origen, who wrote in the early third century. He is quoted by Eusebius, who wrote in the early fourth century. Finally, Eusebius himself, in the early fourth century, documents that Matthew wrote the first gospel.

There is an unbroken witness to Matthew as the author of the first gospel going back to at least the middle of the second century, and there is no contradictory witness found in any of the church fathers.

"If the gospel was written in the 80s or 90s, some sixty hears have passed since the time of Jesus. This time gap makes authorship by one of Jesus' disciples most unlikely. Further, it would be improbable … for an eyewitness and disciple of Jesus to rely so heavily on another gospel as a source for his own account. These factors make it most unlikely that the apostle Matthew was the author of the gospel. Therefore the authorial audience is not reading an eyewitness account.

The lack of clear external evidence, the late date of origin, and reliance on Mark, all indicate the unlikelihood that this change is the signature of Matthew, Jesus' disciple.

Two possible explanations for its choice arise from the text. 1) The name Matthew means "gift of God." Matthew may represent the "many tax collectors and sinners" with whom Jesus associates in the scene (9:10-13). 2) Kiley suggests a name association between Maththaios (Matthew), mathetai ("disciples") and the verb mathein which means "learn" and appears at the end of the scene in 9:13. Kiley connects the words "disciples" (mathetai) and "learn" (mathein), to propose that the concept of "learning disciples" suggested the name Maththaios. The character "Matthew" may be a representative disciple who portrays these realities in the scene.

Neither external sources nor the gospel itself support authorship by Matthew the disciple. Matthew, moreover, has a minimal role in the narrative. Apart from 9:9, his name appears only once, eighth on the list of the twelve disciples in 10:3."

What role did the disciple Matthew play in the period before the gospel came into existence? Maybe he assisted in reflecting on OT writings and applying them to Jesus' life. Or maybe he was a source of stories and sayings of Jesus that subsequently became part of the gospel. Perhaps Papias was referring to one of these roles when he said that Matthew "collected oracles." Subsequently Paapias' statement was understood as referring to the whole gospel. Or perhaps the scene involving Matthew as the learning disciple (9:9) powerfully grasped people's imagination as a representative scene, and the name stuck.

Warren Carter, Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (2004, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody MA) pp. 22-24

"The tradition that the author is the "publican" or tax collector mentioned in Matthew 9:9-13 dates from the late second century and cannot be verified. The main problem with accepting the Apostle Matthew's authorship is that the writer relies heavily on Mark as a source. It is extremely unlikely that one of the original Twelve would depend on the work of Mark, who was not an eyewitness to the events he describes.

The oldest apparent reference to the Gospel's authorship is that of Papias. As many commentators have noted, the Sayings, or logia are not the same as the "words" [logoi] of Jesus, nor are they the same as the Gospel of Matthew we have today. Papias' use of logi may refer to an early collection of Jesus' sayings, or it may allude to a list of messianic prophecies from the Hebrew Bible... Most scholars do not believe that Papias' description applies to the canonical Gospel of Matthew."

Stephen Harris, The New Testament: A Student's Introduction, fourth edition (2002, MacGraw-Hill) pp. 149, 152

"The principal difficulty with the tradition [of ascribing the work to the apostle] is … the character of the Gospel itself -- a Greek Gospel, using Greek sources, written for a predominantly Gentile church, at a time when the tradition had become mixed with legend, and when the ethical teaching of Jesus was being reinterpreted to apply to new situations and codified into a new law. A careful reading of Matthew, especially when it is compared with Mark, show that the book cannot have been written by an eyewitness. It is a compendium of church tradition, artistically edited, not the personal observations of a participant."

ed. George A. Buttrick, The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 7 (1951, Abingdon Press, New York, NY) p. 242

Sounds more like solid scholarship than "Satan's Lies" to me...

 

[sojourner]

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.

"Hermann Samuel Reimarus, a professor of Near Eastern languages, argued that the gospels were documents with a theological rather than historical agenda. They were written with twenty-twenty hindsight. They put their own theological spin on things. Reimarus claimed that after Jesus' death, his followers used the gospels to paint a portrait of Jesus that differed greatly from Jesus' own life. Most scholars have accepted and developed Reimarus' insight that a gap exists between what the church taught as revealed dogma and what could be shown to have happened in history."

Warren Carter, Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (2004, Hendrickson Publishers) p. 31