Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection

[Spartan]

And that's what was done. The bible is the claim, therefore, outside sources are need to investigate if the claims have merit. Investigating the claims and then using those claims as evidence to support the claims, is what's known as being circular.


To use the gospels and the new testament to prove the gospels and the new testament is circular reasoning. There, now it's been correctly used.

And you're wrong about what is the claim and what is the source and whether or not it's independent. Pertaining the resurrection, the investigations and debates that are being done is not to "prove" whether there is an independent resurrection of Jesus. It's purpose is to "prove" whether or not the gospels and new testament were indeed factual. More specifically, if those stories are historical facts or not. This is what a lot of people have misunderstood. The claims are the stories itself, not the book(s), manuscripts, scrolls, etc. This is why it doesn't matter if the stories in the bible were separate works before being consolidated into the book called, the bible. So your second point is not important at all.

I stand by my statement that, "... the Gospels and New Testament were not "the Bible" in the 1st and 2nd centuries. They were instead independent manuscripts written by mostly different authors, at different time, and in different places. As such they are independent confirmations."

 

[Spartan]

The point is all the other bibles have messiahs who did miracles too Buddha, Hare Krishna etc...........they could say the same thing about their bible, I am sure Krishna had thousands of people who claimed to see him do miracles too.

So for you to be able to use the bible to prove the bible is circular, but every other religion can do the same thing you do and you would not be able tot ell them theirs is not historical either, Jesus is just like all the other messiahs!

For you to use the other Bibles and stories to prove your other deities, etc., is circular reasoning. You can't use those accounts to prove their own stories.

How do you like those apples?!

 

[night912]

"historically inaccurate with the time"? Please explain.

My comment was in response to your comment about what was posted by Rider regarding Roman crucifixion. You dismissed the historical evidence presented. The principle deals with being accurate and being aligned with history of the certain period. Making Jesus' crucifixion an exception to the norm would indeed violate that principle.

Yeah, there is. Early church fathers confirm traditional Gospel authors - including eyewitnesses Matthew and John.

Nope, you're wrong. It's probably due to the misconceptions regarding the four gospels. The vast majority of modern and present day biblical scholars agrees that we don't know who wrote them. And since the authors are unknown, it's just a bald assertion to say that Mathew and John were eyewitnesses. First hand eyewitness documented source refers to the actual accounts written by the person who witnessed an event.


Who wrote Matthew, Mark and Luke?

 

[night912]

I stand by my statement that, "... the Gospels and New Testament were not "the Bible" in the 1st and 2nd centuries. They were instead independent manuscripts written by mostly different authors, at different time, and in different places. As such they are independent confirmations."

Let me clarify myself. I am referring to the resurrection of Jesus event itself, not the narrative or story of it. The four gospels are used to compare with one another for consistency and what not. The four stories have inconsistency and contradiction, in which at most, they only still just support that the followers of Jesus believed that he was crucified. Mark says nothing about Jesus resurrecting. And the others have stories that contradict each other and are inconsistent. With all that, one wouldn't use them as supporting evidence, or at least shouldn't because it's actually evidence for going against the argument. Then we're back to square one again, with separate claims, or at most one claim of the resurrection of Jesus. That only leaves with providing evidence to support the claim from outside source. So claims using claims for support is not evidence.

We are talking about claims, and not the actual bible or manuscript itself. And asserting that the gospels were written by the people whose names were given to the books when there's no evidence to support it is nothing but a bald assertion. Which the fact that majority of modern biblical scholars, apologetics and skeptics alike, agrees on.

 

[Spartan]

Let me clarify myself. I am referring to the resurrection of Jesus event itself, not the narrative or story of it. The four gospels are used to compare with one another for consistency and what not. The four stories have inconsistency and contradiction, in which at most, they only still just support that the followers of Jesus believed that he was crucified.

So called inconsistencies and contradictions in the Gospels are way, way overblown. If you have one pet example of a contradiction in the Gospels, please cite it along with the scripture #, and your argument and evidence to support your claim. I just want your BEST ONE example.

Mark says nothing about Jesus resurrecting.

I don't know what Bible you're reading but all mine show Jesus is risen in Mark 16:6.

And asserting that the gospels were written by the people whose names were given to the books when there's no evidence to support it is nothing but a bald assertion. Which the fact that majority of modern biblical scholars, apologetics and skeptics alike, agrees on.

You cited this falsehood in several posts. That's 100% incorrect. The early church fathers were unanimous in citing Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the authors who wrote their Gospels. Evidences in the links below.

Matthew

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel

Mark Authorship

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel

Luke Authorship

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel

John Authorship

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel

 

[night912]

So called inconsistencies and contradictions in the Gospels are way, way overblown. If you have one pet example of a contradiction in the Gospels, please cite it along with the scripture #, and your argument and evidence to support your claim. I just want your BEST ONE example.

• What were the last words of Jesus? Three gospels give three different versions.
• Who buried Jesus? Matthew says that it was Joseph of Arimathea. No, apparently it was the Jews and their rulers, all strangers to Jesus (Acts).
• How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?
• Did an angel cause a great earthquake that rolled back the stone in front of the tomb? Yes, according to Matthew. The other gospels are silent on this extraordinary detail.
• Who did the women see at the tomb? One person (Matthew and Mark) or two (Luke and John)?
• Was the tomb already open when they got there? Matthew says no; the other three say yes.
• Did the women tell the disciples? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark says, “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” And that’s where the book ends, which makes it a mystery how Mark thinks that the resurrection story ever got out.

That's just some of it. And the age old excuse saying that they are written from different perspective of the author fails. The point of using different sources as evidence to support the claims is show its consistency and be logically coherent. With those differences, one should question the validity of the gospels in regards to the resurrection claim.

I don't know what Bible you're reading but all mine show Jesus is risen in Mark 16:6.

I wasn't referring to bible. The bible is collections of different books put together, just like what you had said. I was referring to the earliest known manuscript of Mark 16. There was only the empty tomb and nothing about Jesus resurrecting and appearing to his followers.

You cited this falsehood in several posts. That's 100% incorrect. The early church fathers were unanimous in citing Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the authors who wrote their Gospels. Evidences in the links below.

I don't recall posting it in several other posts. Sorry, but you're incorrect. There are no evidence to support those claims. None of the manuscripts had anything showing who wrote them. Your cites only shows that the early church fathers believe that the gospels were written by those individuals. The opinions of the early church fathers are not evidence. Their assertions doesn't make it fact.

 

[Riders]

For you to use the other Bibles and stories to prove your other deities, etc., is circular reasoning. You can't use those accounts to prove their own stories.

How do you like those apples?!

Just like you can't use the bible to prove the bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For you to use the other Bibles and stories to prove your other deities, etc., is circular reasoning. You can't use those accounts to prove their own stories.

How do you like those apples?!

LOL! Oh my! Major logical fail. By your standards all of those of those other beliefs are true since they can use the same sort of "logic" that you have been using. That was the point of her post.

Sometimes people that reason in the way that you do try to claim that they age of the Bible is somehow evidence for it. The only problem is that then the holy texts of Hindus are even stronger evidence for their beliefs since they are quite a bit older.

Logic and rational thinking is the enemy of literalism.

 

[night912]

If you rather prefer something from a more objective view, than here it is. The site is consists of individuals with academic background in that field. By the way, it's a Christian based website.

Below is the conclusion. Pay close attention to what's in bold. So, yea, I was in fact 100% correct that we don't know who wrote the them because no author was identified. Facts are facts whether one believes it or not.

Who Wrote the Gospels, and How Do We Know for… | Zondervan Academic

Conclusion
At the end of the day, the gospels are still anonymous. Not one of them identifies its author. We have good reason to support the authors church tradition has named, but we don’t have to simply take their word for it. However, even after examining textual evidence and clues from other writings, none of the evidence for or against these authors is 100% conclusive.

So the early church fathers must be one of these three "L's" either, liars, lunitcs or leaders with an agenda, although either of the first two can put into the last one.

 

[Spartan]

• What were the last words of Jesus? Three gospels give three different versions.
• Who buried Jesus? Matthew says that it was Joseph of Arimathea. No, apparently it was the Jews and their rulers, all strangers to Jesus (Acts).
• How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?
• Did an angel cause a great earthquake that rolled back the stone in front of the tomb? Yes, according to Matthew. The other gospels are silent on this extraordinary detail.
• Who did the women see at the tomb? One person (Matthew and Mark) or two (Luke and John)?
• Was the tomb already open when they got there? Matthew says no; the other three say yes.
• Did the women tell the disciples? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark says, “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” And that’s where the book ends, which makes it a mystery how Mark thinks that the resurrection story ever got out.

First, these are not contradictions about the resurrection. All four Gospels and various epistles affirm / confirm the resurrection. Except for your first reach, the rest of these are about events AFTER the resurrection. What's more, when you ask "How many women came to the tomb Easter morning?", the answer is, what time was it when the first one came, then what time was it when the second one arrived, etc. Put these kinds of issues on a timeline and a great many of your alleged contradictions disappear. And if you'd bother to dig deeper (as you should), you'd learn the following:

There’s an investigative technique that Cold Case Detective J. Warner Wallace calls “literary spotlighting.” One skeptic would argue that John’s Gospel only mentions Mary Magdalene at the tomb. That’s who John focused the “spotlight” on initially. But in reality, John was aware of the presence of other women at the tomb because later in the Gospel John wrote, “So she (Mary Magdalene) came running to the Simon and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and WE (“We”) don’t know where they have put him.’” – John 20:2

Finally, if you had done your due diligence of the Gospels, you would have known about Simon Greenleaf’s “Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts,” which places the resurrection scriptures in chronological order.

Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

The bible is collections of different books put together, just like what you had said. I was referring to the earliest known manuscript of Mark 16. There was only the empty tomb and nothing about Jesus resurrecting and appearing to his followers.

You blew it again. The earliest known manuscripts end at Mark 16:8, which is two verses AFTER Jesus is "risen" in Mark 16:6. Get yourself a good study Bible, like the NIV Study Bible, which has the following note after Mark 16:8: "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

The opinions of the early church fathers are not evidence. Their assertions doesn't make it fact.

Says who, you? You're not convincing. The early church fathers, who UNANIMOUSLY confirm the traditional Gospel authors, are. There's also internal evidences within the gospels that add additional credence to the traditional authors.

Let me help you out. Read this excellent work: "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas

 

[Spartan]

Just like you can't use the bible to prove the bible.

Archaeology, and other historical sources confirm a great deal about the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Archaeology, and other historical sources confirm a great deal about the Bible.

And refute even more.

 

[lukethethird]

I totally disagree. There is evidence and logic behind the resurrection. And even though most atheists are seemingly hard-wired to ignore the truth of Jesus Christ and the resurrection, some do see the light and become believers.

How many atheists have become believers since you started this thread?

 

[Spartan]

How many atheists have become believers since you started this thread?

Why don't you submit it to prayer and ask God?

 

[Skreeper]

Why don't you submit it to prayer and ask God?

I did that as a child. But I grew up and stopped talking to myself like a crazy person.

 

[night912]

First, these are not contradictions about the resurrection. All four Gospels and various epistles affirm / confirm the resurrection. Except for your first reach, the rest of these are about events AFTER the resurrection. What's more, when you ask "How many women came to the tomb Easter morning?", the answer is, what time was it when the first one came, then what time was it when the second one arrived, etc. Put these kinds of issues on a timeline and a great many of your alleged contradictions disappear. And if you'd bother to dig deeper (as you should), you'd learn the following:

There’s an investigative technique that Cold Case Detective J. Warner Wallace calls “literary spotlighting.” One skeptic would argue that John’s Gospel only mentions Mary Magdalene at the tomb. That’s who John focused the “spotlight” on initially. But in reality, John was aware of the presence of other women at the tomb because later in the Gospel John wrote, “So she (Mary Magdalene) came running to the Simon and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and WE (“We”) don’t know where they have put him.’” – John 20:2

The investigative technique you said that was being used did find there being more than one woman at the tomb, unfortunately, the detective work was being done at the wrong time, resulting in using wrong data to come up with the proposed solution. And the that investigation unintentionally proved the inconsistency. In John, Mary wasn't alone when she first saw the empty tomb and went to tell the disciples. But according to the data found, Mary was alone at the tomb when the angel appeared before her. So, inconsistent "eyewitness" of the angel and the time of which that event took place. See how following the evidence works? The evidence can lead to a different conclusion from what was originally proposed.

You blew it again. The earliest known manuscripts end at Mark 16:8, which is two verses AFTER Jesus is "risen" in Mark 16:6. Get yourself a good study Bible, like the NIV Study Bible, which has the following note after Mark 16:8: "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

Risen. So Jesus rose up into heaven, leaving Mark with no encounter of Jesus appearing before any of his followers. So with no mentions of Jesus appearing before his followers, you automatically leap forward to making the conclusion that he was resurrected. Using scripture that mentioned Jesus but nothing about him being resurrected as evidence to support the resurrection is an irrational. It is however, evidence for desperation and dishonestly, not saying you, but the research done from which you used. I guess I did blow up your so called "evidence" using the gospel.

Says who, you? You're not convincing. The early church fathers, who UNANIMOUSLY confirm the traditional Gospel authors, are. There's also internal evidences within the gospels that add additional credence to the traditional authors

Not just me, but says the modern biblical scholars, who happens to be Christians. Once again, opinions of early church fathers with agendas are not evidence, therefore are easily dismissed.

So the gospels themselves ended up contradicting each other resulting in the gospels having no merit what so ever as evidence to support the resurrection of Jesus.[/QUOTE]

 

[Spartan]

The investigative technique you said that was being used did find there being more than one woman at the tomb, unfortunately, the detective work was being done at the wrong time, resulting in using wrong data to come up with the proposed solution. And the that investigation unintentionally proved the inconsistency. In John, Mary wasn't alone when she first saw the empty tomb and went to tell the disciples. But according to the data found, Mary was alone at the tomb when the angel appeared before her. So, inconsistent "eyewitness" of the angel and the time of which that event took place. See how following the evidence works? The evidence can lead to a different conclusion from what was originally proposed.

I don't buy it that Mary was alone when the angel appeared. That's your claim.

But you want to know something? Even when all four Gospels confirm the resurrection you're still going to deny and question it. Real Christians believe Jesus is resurrected.

Risen. So Jesus rose up into heaven, leaving Mark with no encounter of Jesus appearing before any of his followers. So with no mentions of Jesus appearing before his followers, you automatically leap forward to making the conclusion that he was resurrected. Using scripture that mentioned Jesus but nothing about him being resurrected as evidence to support the resurrection is an irrational. It is however, evidence for desperation and dishonestly, not saying you, but the research done from which you used. I guess I did blow up your so called "evidence" using the gospel.

According to that twisted logic since Mark didn't mention the sacking of Jerusalem years later that didn't happen either.

Not just me, but says the modern biblical scholars, who happens to be Christians. Once again, opinions of early church fathers with agendas are not evidence, therefore are easily dismissed.

Baloney. You have nothing but one lame denial and specious claim after another. Jesus was raised from the dead and, as the Bible says, anyone who denies it is dead in their sins (1 Corinthians 15).

 

[Spartan]

I did that as a child. But I grew up and stopped talking to myself like a crazy person.

Works for me and countless millions of Christians. Sorry for you.

 

[Riders]

Works for me and countless millions of Christians. Sorry for you.

But you have no faith. You have said it yourself this whole thread and what its about. Your thread says you can scientifically and historically prove Jesus was real and he rose from the dead from science. You know what if it were true all historians and scholars would believe and the whole world would become Christian. Then there would be no faith because we would not need it.

The truth is the bible harps on and o about faith which means the bible itself does not approve of you trying to get rid of faith. Infact, sense you think you can scientifically and absolutely prove Jesus rose from the dead this is obviously why you believe, you think its a proven scientific fact, which basically means you have no faith. If you had faith there would not be this need.

But the bible rebukes such attitudes as yours. Doubting Thomas also required scientific proof like you Jesus rebuked him told him to have faith aha!

(John 20:24–29) is:

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 ¶ And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

He had to have physical scientific proof just like you!

 

[lukethethird]

Why don't you submit it to prayer and ask God?

Why don't you explain to us why it is that we can submit a prayer to a jug of milk and get the same results?