Spartan
Well-Known Member
The Gospels of Matthew and John, and 1 Peter, and James, are all 1st had eyewitnesses to the major events in Jesus' life. You going to kick those to the curb also? By what standard?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection
- Thread starter Spartan
- Start date
The Gospels of Matthew and John, and 1 Peter, and James, are all 1st had eyewitnesses to the major events in Jesus' life. You going to kick those to the curb also? By what standard?
Hearsay is not a good description of what we are considering concerning history. Actually no, history is academically based on archaeological evidence and historical records. Academic history does not consider claims of miracle nor the supernatural in the scripture of any religion, nor in the fables. nor tales in ancient cultures as historical evidence based on facts..
The historical Jesus Christ is based on several historical factual source, but nonetheless third hand sources.
No not two standards at all. The same standards of academic history applies to all history. The claims of the supernatural and miracles are not supported by evidence in any of the ancient writings.
All of this represents anecdotal subjective testimony of miracles and the supernatural, which is not evidence based on archaeological nor documented historical facts based on evidence.
Again . . . No, not two standards at all. The same standards of academic history applies to all history. The claims of the supernatural and miracles are not supported by evidence in any of the ancient writings.
Last edited:
I would say the crux is loving one another as Christ did.
The Resurrection is an event for which we have to piece together inconclusive pieces of evidence.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
The evidence is quite good.
In fact there came to be a need for a anti grave robbery law at that time because it's hard to dispute a missing tomb with eyewitnesses willing to hold onto the story till death
Some like Paul were initially opponents of the gospel of God
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
There is so much evidence that not a few atheists studying it 'changed jerseys'.
http://blog.drwile.com/category/atheists-who-became-christians/
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Sadly, that entire site, is self-admitted a Liar For Jesus-- it is from the "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" which is one of the worst lies imaginable to tell an atheist.
So.
The fundamental problem that entire site has? It fails the most basic problem: Proof there ever even was anyone named "Jesus" or "Yeshua" or whatever, who lived and did *any* of the supposed things he was alleged to have done....
There remains, as always, zero evidence in support of such a person. He could have existed, but it's more likely he never did in the first place-- seeing as how the first documents (bible) came 60 to 90 years too late.
Oh well. I'd say, "nice try" but ... you really didn't even try, did you?
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Nope. You are using a Logical Fallacy, here-- for starters? There is no religion being forced into every facet of society, based on Socrates, or Plato, or Alexander the Great.
No Laws based on worship of George Washington. Nobody is forced to say trite tributes to Abraham Lincoln.
BUT WAIT! IT'S WORSE FOR YOU: Unlike the Jesus Legends? We have actual WORDS from each of the people I mentioned, above-- words THEY ACTUALLY WROTE THEMSELVES.
So, there you go! Show me words Jesus himself wrote? And you may have a case..
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
From another Liar For Jesus "blog" site? Hmmmm.... sure, that's credible...
... not!
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Actually? There were no other "witnesses" apart from Paul himself. Sure, he TOLD people... but nobody actually saw anything apart from Paul himself.
Fail.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
No. None of those are actual Eyewitness accounts. ALL are 2nd, 3rd and worse, Friend of a Friend stories.
So if you had any actual evidence? We've yet to see it...
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
OK. I read it. This one is not very informative. It's more of a journal entry.
OK. I read it. This one describes the method. It's rather short. A quick read.
OK. I read it. ( briefly ). This one is meaty. I liked it. I actually didn't need to read each and every word. This one presents a very strong argument that Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion.
OK. So, this is getting really interesting. What I like about this article is that the authors analytical approach to the claim is present and well executed. I really appreciate that. it makes a lot easier for me to digest the material and decide for myself whether or not the author makes a strong arument in support of their claim.
Claim: The Tomb was Empty
Supporting Evidence: The Jerusalem Factor - Weak Evidence / Conspiracy Theory
Evidence which the author describes as The Jerusalem Factor is the weakest of weak evidence. It is a "Conspiracy Theory". Amytime evidence comes in the form of "Why....?" then it's a conspiracy theory. Sometimes i hear it phrased a little differently if people are speaking face to face. Instead of the evidence being " Why?" It's "Well, what else could it be?" That's the tell-tale sign of a conspiracy theory. It's very simple to remember. If the evidence ends in the question mark... that's a conspiracy theory. The author actually does this in the article. If you read the section labeled "The Jerusalem Factor" it is plain as day: Here's the quote directly from the article:
Note: the evidence is actually just a series of questions ( "How?" "Why?" ) and then the author provides their own best guess at what happened, and then submits that to the reader as evidence. That's weak evidence. Super weak.
Note: the evidence is actually just a series of questions ( "How?" "Why?" ) and then the author provides their own best guess at what happened, and then submits that to the reader as evidence. That's weak evidence. Super weak.
Supporting Evidence: All Four Gospels Feature Women As Witnesses - Moderately Good Evidence
OK. This one doesn't need a lot of support, IMHO. I think the author makes a good point about the principle of embarrassment. This was an idea introduced at the beginning of the series of articles. So, I grant that having 4 eye witnesses, all 4 2nd class citizens, is good evidence. It's using the Bible for historical evidence, so, that's going to prevent it from being accepted as 100% fact. But, besides that I think the author made a good point.
But,
I do need to point out that the Talmud quotes used in this article are cherry picked.
Yes. Male Chauvinist behavior was alive and well I'm sure, but I can find plenty of alternative Talmudic references which demonstrate the opposite point of view.
Spartan, with all due respect, the Talmud is not an encyclopedia as you may imagine it. Sometimes It gives both positive and negative examples of behavior. Some of the the stories I find in the Talmud are not to be emulated and it takes a lot of research and cross referencing to determine this with any level of confidence. And that's the point I'm trying to make. The Talmud is not "scripture" in that classic definition of the word. And it's definitely not an encyclopedia. A person can't just look into it and find a topic clearly defined like one may expect. And because of that, anytime someone quotes it like the author of the article did, it is generally weak unconvincing evidence on it's own.
But really... even if I forget about the Talmudic support, I can certainly grant that Women may very well have been second class citizens. I don't think the Talmud quote is needed, to be honest. But since the Talmud quote is in the article, and, it may leave readers with a negative, potentially inaccurate impression of what is in the Talmud... I hope you don't mind this interjection.
Spartan, with all due respect, the Talmud is not an encyclopedia as you may imagine it. Sometimes It gives both positive and negative examples of behavior. Some of the the stories I find in the Talmud are not to be emulated and it takes a lot of research and cross referencing to determine this with any level of confidence. And that's the point I'm trying to make. The Talmud is not "scripture" in that classic definition of the word. And it's definitely not an encyclopedia. A person can't just look into it and find a topic clearly defined like one may expect. And because of that, anytime someone quotes it like the author of the article did, it is generally weak unconvincing evidence on it's own.
But really... even if I forget about the Talmudic support, I can certainly grant that Women may very well have been second class citizens. I don't think the Talmud quote is needed, to be honest. But since the Talmud quote is in the article, and, it may leave readers with a negative, potentially inaccurate impression of what is in the Talmud... I hope you don't mind this interjection.
Supporting Evidence: The Enemies Of Christianity Presupposed The Vacancy Of The Tomb When They Said That The Disciples Stole The Body - Weak Evidence
I'm very sorry, but this is very weak evidence.
This piece of evidence requires the Book of Matthew to be 100% inerrant. And there is not evidence for that. The previous evidence is good because all 4 gospels reflect a similar story. So each Gospel supports the other and the result is 1 good piece of evidence. Note: 4 four gospels rendered 100% of 1 good piece of evidence. In this example, though, only one gospel is brought, and that means that this evidence is only 25% of 1 good piece of evidence, and that means it's weak. I'm sorry. The author claimed that this was "powerful evidence". It's not. It's only 25% good.
This piece of evidence requires the Book of Matthew to be 100% inerrant. And there is not evidence for that. The previous evidence is good because all 4 gospels reflect a similar story. So each Gospel supports the other and the result is 1 good piece of evidence. Note: 4 four gospels rendered 100% of 1 good piece of evidence. In this example, though, only one gospel is brought, and that means that this evidence is only 25% of 1 good piece of evidence, and that means it's weak. I'm sorry. The author claimed that this was "powerful evidence". It's not. It's only 25% good.
Supporting Evidence: The Empty Tomb Is Multiply Attested - Strong Evidence ( assuming the author is not misquoting )
To me this is a no brainer. At this point I trust that the author knows what they're talking about and wouldn't intentionally misquote anyone. I don't agree with the assessment of what is convincing evidence, but, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information provided.
Note: This one piece of strong evidence makes all the other weak evidence irrelevant and unneeded in my opinion. Even the evidence from the 4 gospels is not needed at this point. Baring any other string refutation ( which wouldn't come from this author ), I'm ready to grant that the tomb was indeed empty. I don't even need to keep reading the article. So I'll move on to the next one.
OK. I read this one a little differently based on what I found in the previous article. This time I read the whole thing looking for strong evidence that would be an easy "win" for the author. And I found none. Then I went back through and read it again, looking for any good evidence. And I found none. All I found was weak evidence all the way through the article.
Now.
I expect you, Spartan, are confused by this. because the evidence about the 4 women and the empty tomb was accepted by me as good, but this evidence from the Bible is valued by me to be weak.
I'm sorry, but it's true. I'm trying to be fair, and offset my own bias to approach this subject matter sympathetically. But that doesn't make the evidence in this article anything other than weak. If you would like to know why I feel that way, here is the explanation in a spoiler:
The part of the evidence about the 4 woman and the 4 gospels that made it good was that the detail about the woman being the witnesses did not effect the theme of the Bible. Do you see what I mean. There's not obvious reason for the authors of each of the Gospels to include this seemingly random detail unless it was a factual account of what happened. On the other hand, the author of each Gospel and other books in the Christian Canon would have obvious incentive to falsify the accounts of post-mortem accounts of Jesus. And it is no surprise that anyone developing a religion would choose books to include in the Canon which reflected the intended theme. That's why it's weak evidence. The authors of each book, and the people who put together the book list for the bible, and the editors of the texts of the Bible **all of them** all have 1 purpose. They want to tell the story of Jesus Resurrecting, and that is what they did. The Bible is weak evidence of the Resurrection. It's that simple. I'm sorry. The only way for this to be strong evidence is if a person believes that the Bible is true. And there is no evidence of that. Not yet.
This whole article reads very strangely, IMHO. I briefly read the article. I looked for strong evidence, and I found none. I'm seeing a lot of theories, but no evidence at all not even weak evidence. There are questions posed and then the author shares some possible explanations. But that's not evidence; it's speculation.
This also isn't evidence; it's defusing the common alternative explanations. But that's not evidence; it's refutation. It's actually approaching a straw-man argument, to be honest.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Well... dude????
Now I'm off the wagon. Now the author has lost all credibility with me. This whole article is a passive agressive attempt at spiking the football and dancing in the end-zone. I mean... no strong evidenc has been provided at all. Nothing. Nada. Zip. And now the author is pondering...
View attachment 35731
That's obvious. A better question is: Who do people believe it?
At this point, please understand. The author has lost me as a reader. There is no credibility left. The previous article puts the author is the category of charlatan and snake-oil sales-person.
I stopped reading right here:
No. The best explanation is the Bible was written by believers who were heavily biased and not at all objective. They had motive and opportunity to adjust the story to suit their own intentions.
Yeah, I'm not even going to read the conclusion. The author is not delivering on the promise of p[providing evidence.
Sorry Spartan. It's Christmas, but I'll I've got for you is a lump of coal. This series of 10 articles / blog posts is not at all convincing. Not. At. All.
Continued from post #13
Acts 26:22-23 states, "I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen 23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead,would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”
But Lazuras was allegedly raised from the dead before the Passion and Jesus' own resurection (John 11:1–44).
So what is it, was Lazuras the first to raise from the dead or was Christ?! If we interpret the story of raising from the dead literally, we have a clear contradiction, and if the story was concocted we may well expect to find contradictions between the narratives.
Other points to consider
-Mathew 27:51-53 The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
So an alegedly literal mass resurrection occured in front of the Roman guards and never made it into any of the Roman histories? Where did all the dead people that were raised go, why aren't they still here with us?
-1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time
So Christ has the power to appear at will, and is allegedly so prepared to prove His literal resurrection powers that He appears to more than 500, yet He won't do the same for modern man? The discrimination alone is a glaring inconsistency that raises doubt.
Acts 26:22-23 states, "I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen 23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead,would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”
But Lazuras was allegedly raised from the dead before the Passion and Jesus' own resurection (John 11:1–44).
So what is it, was Lazuras the first to raise from the dead or was Christ?! If we interpret the story of raising from the dead literally, we have a clear contradiction, and if the story was concocted we may well expect to find contradictions between the narratives.
Other points to consider
-Mathew 27:51-53 The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
So an alegedly literal mass resurrection occured in front of the Roman guards and never made it into any of the Roman histories? Where did all the dead people that were raised go, why aren't they still here with us?
-1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time
So Christ has the power to appear at will, and is allegedly so prepared to prove His literal resurrection powers that He appears to more than 500, yet He won't do the same for modern man? The discrimination alone is a glaring inconsistency that raises doubt.
Last edited:
Spartan
Well-Known Member
I would think Satan would be more active in your life, since you strive to kick Christ to the curb.
Presumably you claim not to "kick Christ to the curb", has the ressurected body of Jesus made an appearance to you? If not I think my point stands
McBell
Unbound
Alas, if only the world were as black and white as you would like for i to be
I cannot understand how belief is counted as evidence but hey, ho, ...
Some ancient history has physical evidence to back it up, that which doesn't is identified as conjecture in academic papers (but not usually in popular media) where you parhaps get your ideas from
However most people dont live their lives for history, most people do not kill in the name of history, most people do not indicate children with history, can you say the same of religion?
Skwim
Veteran Member
In as much as there are no extra-biblical eyewitness accounts of the resurrection (part 2 listed above is abysmal apologetics) the whole issue comes down to; why believe the Bible? A book that has shown to be filled with mistakes, contradictions, and fables; and whose reputed author admits to making mistakes.
.
Last edited: