Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

[Subduction Zone]

Why would you assume Richard Carrier is a "scholar"? Is he a New Testament scholar? What kind of scholar is he? Could you explain?

By the way, the mythicists are not just a minority, they are also "mythicists". You have to first make the case, not just go with the flow with the mythicists and say you believe them because you want to. That is called "blind faith".

Yes, Richard Carrier is a scholar. He has said doctorate of history. Centered on Rome at about the time of Jesus. He has ripped some Christian claims to shreds. His claims are a bit out there, but getting more respect as time has gone by.

 

[Sylvester Clark]

You mean to say the authors of the four gospels, and Paul are the so called "Independent witnesses"? Even they didnt witness anything. They are not independent. They dont meet any of your criteria.

By "witnesses," I was not implying that the authors of these texts necessarily claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus themselves. Perhaps "independent sources" would have been a better term, since Luke and Mark didn't necessarily claim to have seen Jesus risen from the dead. But some of them did claim to be eyewitnesses. Matthew, John and Paul all claimed to have seen Jesus risen from the dead, as well as Peter who is generally considered to be the eyewitness source behind the book of Mark.

By "Independent," I was saying that they were not basing their reports off previous texts, but rather off what they had seen firsthand, or information they received from others second hand. For instance, John tells his own version of the life of Jesus, based on his own firsthand experience, not drawing on the earlier texts of Matthew, Mark and Luke as sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By "witnesses," I was not implying that the authors of these texts necessarily claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus themselves. Perhaps "independent sources" would have been a better term, since Luke and Mark didn't necessarily claim to have seen Jesus risen from the dead. But some of them did claim to be eyewitnesses. Matthew, John and Paul all claimed to have seen Jesus risen from the dead, as well as Peter who is generally considered to be the eyewitness source behind the book of Mark.

By "Independent," I was saying that they were not basing their reports off previous texts, but rather off what they had seen firsthand, or information they received from others second hand. For instance, John tells his own version of the life of Jesus, based on his own firsthand experience, not drawing on the earlier texts of Matthew, Mark and Luke as sources.

The claim for Peter as a witness is rather weak. At least the one explanation that I have seen. Perhaps there are better ones.

 

[Sylvester Clark]

1 Corinthians 15 doesn't say 'Jesus' rose from the dead but that 'Christ' rose from the dead. Paraphrasing it as Jesus is your own idea to confirm your opinion that everything is about saving your individual life. You might consider that the church is Christ's body. Maybe that means things other than 'Me' and 'I' am saved. Perhaps its more in line with 'Peace on earth, goodwill towards all' rather than 'The earth is eventually destroyed and everyone but the Christians dies.' As an early Christian, would you follow a religion that was all about you and about saving you? How would this be different from a pagan religion?

Suppose you find evidence for physical resurrection. What, then, does God get out of all of it? People obey God for a little while in order to be resurrected, and God is served by this, how? God saves our individuality?

OK. Sure, the specific part of 1 Corinthians 15 I quoted says "Christ" not "Jesus." I was not trying to make any kind of claim by saying Jesus. If you read elsewhere in Paul's writings, it is abundantly clear that when he spoke of "Christ," he was referring to Jesus. Even in the same chapter, Paul refers to "Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Corinthians 15:31). "Christ" simply means "Messiah." The claims of Paul and the other Christians was that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Messiah promised to Israel.

"Paraphrasing it as Jesus is your own idea to confirm your opinion that everything is about saving your individual life." Where in the world did I communicate that I think everything is about saving my individual life? How can you claim to know my motives? And how would saying "Jesus" instead of "Christ" confirm that?

 

[firedragon]

His CV is attached for you.



I didn't say I believed the mythicist position because I want to.

Everything you just said also applies to the historicist position and its scholars who defend it, of course.

Personally I'm on the fence. I think both sides make good arguments and it's not a slam dunk either way.

The mythicists position is of a mythicists position. Not out of evidence, but the lack of evidence. Someone who takes a position based on no evidence is making a huge mistake. No evidence does not mean evidence of non-existence.

Brother. With all due respect, Richard Carrier is not considered a scholar of theology, religion or sociology of religion. His approach is not scholarly. His CV is everyones business and anyone who follows this field knows who these people are. You putting him in to a scholars list is just wishful thinking.

Nevertheless, this is all too vague. Can you tell me, what is Richard Carriers argument about Josephus and his thu legomenos christu? What does he say? Why do you agree with him? Can you explain?

 

[firedragon]

"independent sources"

but rather off what they had seen firsthand, or information they received from others second hand

None of the authors claims that. So how do you impose that upon authors who never claimed that?

For instance, John tells his own version of the life of Jesus, based on his own firsthand experience, not drawing on the earlier texts of Matthew, Mark and Luke as sources.

John was written 70 years later. How could that be a first hand account?

Nevertheless, you said independent witnesses. But it was retracted. No problem. They are neither witnesses, nor were they independent.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I don't recall that quote,, chapter/verse? Do you mean, "not one jot or tittle will pass away..."?



How do you know that?



Does this mean you think anyone who disagrees with you has not studied the Bible "carefully and with an open heart"? Would you be convinced if a member of another religion said that about your view of their holy book?



Ironically, the very Jews who read and believe the Hebrew Scriptures you cite, don't agree with you that the New Testament fit with their Scriptures! And although you claim remarkable consistency of the messages of the various books of the Bible, the literally thousands of different Christian groups who all believe the "consistent message" of the Bible teach wildly contradictory things demonstrates that's clearly not the case.

I'm not important. Jesus Christ is important!

John 10:35 contains the words 'scripture cannot be broken'.

Jesus said the scriptures of the Tanakh point to his coming [Luke 24:44]. Why should l need to repeat his claim? It's something you have to decide for yourself.

As l see it, if Jesus is the Messiah, he is the Word of God and Son of God. He chose the apostles, and His Spirit (the Spirit of the Father) filled the apostles, enabling them to prophesy the truth [John 15:26].

2 Timothy 3:16 says 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God' and that inspiration comes through Christ, and the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The key to the truth of the Bible lies with lsrael, and the person of Jesus Christ. Even the rejection of Jesus by the Jewish nation is prophesied in the scriptures, so we shouldn't be surprised that temporary blindness has occurred. Ultimately, a remnant of Jacob will be saved, scripture tells us.

Why reject other holy books? For the simple reason that God chose his prophets from amongst the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Israel has always been his chosen people, firstly under the law, and now under grace.

The evidence for that choice in not just in word, but in power!

 

[Brickjectivity]

OK. Sure, the specific part of 1 Corinthians 15 I quoted says "Christ" not "Jesus." I was not trying to make any kind of claim by saying Jesus. If you read elsewhere in Paul's writings, it is abundantly clear that when he spoke of "Christ," he was referring to Jesus. Even in the same chapter, Paul refers to "Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Corinthians 15:31). "Christ" simply means "Messiah." The claims of Paul and the other Christians was that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Messiah promised to Israel.

"Paraphrasing it as Jesus is your own idea to confirm your opinion that everything is about saving your individual life." Where in the world did I communicate that I think everything is about saving my individual life? How can you claim to know my motives? And how would saying "Jesus" instead of "Christ" confirm that?

This is good advice: When seeking definitions for scripture terms assume you are in a strange land unable to read the signage and on the run from the law, charged with murder. Some of the definitions could be worth millions, and you are charged with murder, on the run from the law, asking questions that you shouldn't be asking. Imagine being an American and a murderer in Moscow asking to see where the nuclear missile silos are. That's what you're doing when you ask things like "What's a messiah?" Who kills Jews? Christians, Muslims and goddamn everybody. Jews get killed all the time because of rumors about Jews. They don't exist to explain terms. They don't exist to help you reconstruct Christian History or to find evidence of a resurrection. They have their own problems, such as not getting killed by Christians. If you ask where the missile silo is you will be redirected to "Right off this pier. Its in the ocean. Would you like a push? Pushes are free today!"

It is surfing on a rolling ocean to say "Christ just means messiah." The word 'Messiah' like many other words is used in scripture, but its not defined by scripture. Who then do you turn to for a definition? People will tell you what they think you want to hear or what someone told them, heard on the radio, discussed in a bible reading circle, saw in wikipedia.. They'll tell you what feels right. They want to be nice or helpful or to make a buck off of you. Be on your guard, because this is not English we are working with. It is Hebrew with no vowels, a different sentence structure, a completely opaque and mysterious culture from the iron and bronze ages.

So evidence for the physical resurrection. If there were good evidence then people would not have made such a fuss over the Turing shroud.

 

[Left Coast]

The mythicists position is of a mythicists position. Not out of evidence, but the lack of evidence. Someone who takes a position based on no evidence is making a huge mistake. No evidence does not mean evidence of non-existence.

It doesn't seem like you've actually read what mythicists have said or why they hold the position they do.

Brother. With all due respect, Richard Carrier is not considered a scholar of theology, religion or sociology of religion.

By whom? CV speaks for itself.

His approach is not scholarly. His CV is everyones business and anyone who follows this field knows who these people are. You putting him in to a scholars list is just wishful thinking.

Again, CV speaks for itself.

Nevertheless, this is all too vague. Can you tell me, what is Richard Carriers argument about Josephus and his thu legomenos christu? What does he say? Why do you agree with him? Can you explain?

You can read his analysis yourself in
On the Historicity of Jesus. You could also check out his blog to see if he has an abbreviated summary?

Either way, let's assume for sake of argument that Carrier is an uneducated fool and has no clue what he's talking about. I mentioned others, but who cares - let's say you're right and some version of the historicist position is correct.

Can we agree that in no way demonstrates that the resurrection happened?

 

[Left Coast]

I'm not important. Jesus Christ is important!

I'd argue you're both important, in different ways. Right now your perspective is important, because you're the one I'm talking to. Jesus isn't here to give his opinion on the subject. If he'd like to join at any time, he's welcome. Until then, it's just us.

Jesus said the scriptures of the Tanakh point to his coming [Luke 24:44]. Why should l need to repeat his claim? It's something you have to decide for yourself.

Yes, I'm curious what caused you to decide to believe him.

As l see it, if Jesus is the Messiah, he is the Word of God and Son of God. He chose the apostles, and His Spirit (the Spirit of the Father) filled the apostles, enabling them to prophesy the truth [John 15:26].

Sure, and why do you believe any of that? Seems to me you are again just saying you believe those things because they are written in the Bible. Why do you believe things simply because they are written in the Bible? What is your rationale?

2 Timothy 3:16 says 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God' and that inspiration comes through Christ, and the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Ironically, that passage gives no indication which texts should be considered Scripture and which should not. The canon was decided by human beings after the texts were written. There is no list written in the Bible itself.

Why reject other holy books? For the simple reason that God chose his prophets from amongst the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Israel has always been his chosen people, firstly under the law, and now under grace.

Again, how do you know any of that?

The evidence for that choice in not just in word, but in power!

What does that mean?

 

[Sylvester Clark]

None of the authors claims that. So how do you impose that upon authors who never claimed that?


John was written 70 years later. How could that be a first hand account?


Nevertheless, you said independent witnesses. But it was retracted. No problem. They are neither witnesses, nor were they independent.

"None of the authors claims that. So how do you impose that upon authors who never claimed that?"
That is a fair critique. None of them speak very explicitly about being eyewitnesses or about who their sources are. Several do make claims to have been eyewitnesses to an extent, however.

Paul claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus.
"Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Co 9:1 ESV).
"Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." (1 Co 15:8 ESV).

John: "He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe" (John 19:35 ESV).
The author doesn't explicitly say that "he who saw it" is himself, but it's seems pretty clear that he is implying that.

I'm not aware that the author of Matthew makes any claims to have been an eyewitness.

Luke has this interesting introduction:
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus..." (Lk 1:1–3 ESV).
This does not definitively prove anything, but it has some interesting statements... Luke claims that "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" delivered a report of the "things that have been accomplished among us." Is he referring to written or oral accounts? I'm not sure. Either way, he is claiming to be reporting information passed on by eyewitnesses. It's also interesting that he says "the things that have been accomplished among us." If he was writing this long after the events had taken place, it wouldn't make much sense for him to say it this way. If that is the case, he could well have been receiving the reports of the events from eyewitnesses. I don't know. I haven't thought through it entirely.


"John was written 70 years later. How could that be a first hand account?"
Sure, I think from 50-75 years later would be a common estimation. That is not unreasonable to have been an eyewitness account. If it was really John, he could easily have been around the age of 20 at the time when he was with Jesus, so while he would have been old, it is not out of the question.


"They are neither witnesses, nor were they independent."
What do you mean by "independent"? What to you is an independent source?

 

[firedragon]

Sure, I think from 50-75 years later would be a common estimation.

Not really SC. The common estimation is 70 plus years after Jesus.

What do you mean by "independent"? What to you is an independent source?

An independent source is someone like Josephus. No dependency. It is not really necessary, but I am only bringing it up because you said so. But that's not a problem. You can leave it.

Luke has this interesting introduction:
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus..." (Lk 1:1–3 ESV).
This does not definitively prove anything, but it has some interesting statements... Luke claims that "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" delivered a report of the "things that have been accomplished among us." Is he referring to written or oral accounts? I'm not sure. Either way, he is claiming to be reporting information passed on by eyewitnesses. It's also interesting that he says "the things that have been accomplished among us." If he was writing this long after the events had taken place, it wouldn't make much sense for him to say it this way. If that is the case, he could well have been receiving the reports of the events from eyewitnesses. I don't know. I haven't thought through it entirely.

The beginning of Luke does not claim he was an eye witness. He claims that he inherited information from others.

Paul claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus.
"Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Co 9:1 ESV).
"Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." (1 Co 15:8 ESV).

Well. Paul never even met Jesus. He is claiming a divine occurrence, after Jesus's death.

I dont know how that could be deemed an eye witness.

Brother. Not a single person, who ever met Jesus, ever wrote anything in the Bible. Maybe that's a topic for a new thread.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I'd argue you're both important, in different ways. Right now your perspective is important, because you're the one I'm talking to. Jesus isn't here to give his opinion on the subject. If he'd like to join at any time, he's welcome. Until then, it's just us.



Yes, I'm curious what caused you to decide to believe him.



Sure, and why do you believe any of that? Seems to me you are again just saying you believe those things because they are written in the Bible. Why do you believe things simply because they are written in the Bible? What is your rationale?



Ironically, that passage gives no indication which texts should be considered Scripture and which should not. The canon was decided by human beings after the texts were written. There is no list written in the Bible itself.



Again, how do you know any of that?



What does that mean?

I can only speak the truth as it has been revealed to me.

Over forty years ago, l was sitting alone in my student accommodation reading the Gospel of John. I came to this verse, John 15:13.

'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'

I was suddenly aware that the love of Jesus Christ was very real. I had been listening to his voice through the words of scripture, and now the word cut through to my heart. I understood in that moment that Jesus had died for me, and that his sacrifice was very personal and very real.

This placed me in a difficult position. How do you respond to a friend who has made the ultimate sacrifice to save you from death? All he was asking of me was TRUST. He wanted me to turn away from my selfish path and follow him.

I chose to listen to his words, and have followed him.

Since then l have discovered his love to be unlike any love l have ever known. He teaches, corrects, guides and offers fellowship. He listens and is ever the good shepherd.

In turning to Jesus in faith, l received a baptism in the Holy Spirit. This has enabled me to know the Lord in a way that goes beyond religion.

That's my testimony, and the reason that l know the God of the Bible to be real. His love is a very present reality.

 

[Valjean]

I'm not important. Jesus Christ is important!

John 10:35 contains the words 'scripture cannot be broken'.

Jesus said the scriptures of the Tanakh point to his coming [Luke 24:44]. Why should l need to repeat his claim? It's something you have to decide for yourself.

As l see it, if Jesus is the Messiah, he is the Word of God and Son of God. He chose the apostles, and His Spirit (the Spirit of the Father) filled the apostles, enabling them to prophesy the truth [John 15:26].

2 Timothy 3:16 says 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God' and that inspiration comes through Christ, and the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The key to the truth of the Bible lies with lsrael, and the person of Jesus Christ. Even the rejection of Jesus by the Jewish nation is prophesied in the scriptures, so we shouldn't be surprised that temporary blindness has occurred. Ultimately, a remnant of Jacob will be saved, scripture tells us.

Why reject other holy books? For the simple reason that God chose his prophets from amongst the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Israel has always been his chosen people, firstly under the law, and now under grace.

The evidence for that choice in not just in word, but in power!

You're preaching; making unsupported religious assertions.
If you're going to give citations, please establish the authority of your source, first.
Thanx

 

[Valjean]

I can only speak the truth as it has been revealed to me.

Over forty years ago, l was sitting alone in my student accommodation reading the Gospel of John. I came to this verse, John 15:13.

'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'

But people do this all the time. It's no big deal. Our soldiers did it in WWII, so did the Nazis, and the Japanese. Even animals will do this, defending their young or pack.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes -- but I'd change "prove" to "convince yourself of."

Everyone 'convinces' themselves of the existential question
Some 'convince' themselves that God.is the creator
Others 'convince' themselves that the universe created itself from absolute
nothingness and for no reason at all.
When it comes to such questions we are all religious - we all have to decide:

1 - where do we come from?
2 - why are we here?
3 - where are we going?

 

[Valjean]

Everyone 'convinces' themselves of the existential question
Some 'convince' themselves that God.is the creator
Others 'convince' themselves that the universe created itself from absolute
nothingness and for no reason at all.
When it comes to such questions we are all religious - we all have to decide:

1 - where do we come from?
2 - why are we here?
3 - where are we going?

True, but some rely on faith; on what they've been taught and are familiar with. Others seek empirical evidence to analyse.

 

[nPeace]

What evidence can you cite that the "vast majority of scholars" think Jesus was crucified? I am unaware of any corroborating evidence for this. I am aware that most think he was a historical person, but that is rather different.

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia
The baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus.

 

[Left Coast]

I can only speak the truth as it has been revealed to me.

Over forty years ago, l was sitting alone in my student accommodation reading the Gospel of John. I came to this verse, John 15:13.

'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'

I was suddenly aware that the love of Jesus Christ was very real. I had been listening to his voice through the words of scripture, and now the word cut through to my heart. I understood in that moment that Jesus had died for me, and that his sacrifice was very personal and very real.

This placed me in a difficult position. How do you respond to a friend who has made the ultimate sacrifice to save you from death? All he was asking of me was TRUST. He wanted me to turn away from my selfish path and follow him.

I chose to listen to his words, and have followed him.

Since then l have discovered his love to be unlike any love l have ever known. He teaches, corrects, guides and offers fellowship. He listens and is ever the good shepherd.

In turning to Jesus in faith, l received a baptism in the Holy Spirit. This has enabled me to know the Lord in a way that goes beyond religion.

That's my testimony, and the reason that l know the God of the Bible to be real. His love is a very present reality.

Thank you very much for explaining this. It helps me understand where you're coming from. Your belief in these things didn't come from a rational analysis of the objective evidence; it came from a personal experience you had, a feeling of love you experienced while reading the Bible. I can understand why that would be so powerful emotionally.

 

[rational experiences]

Science abstract to self human life.

Human present. Human living. Human owning natural heavens life support. In past any living form not living today destroyed. Any living form owns equal environmental status.

No such state life in the past. relativity wisdon.

Relativity.
Thinking about a planets history.

Science.

Reason. All products to practice science as a human taken first from the planet.

Human science origin planet only.

Said O God was like a man.

Science origins to speak symbolic male female terms as God goddess. Yet just science. Not human.

What you argue today. Terms. Science symbolism.

No man is God stated in bible for the human to reason why it was said.

Confusion.
Lying.
Coercing. Human traits of evil implication.

O earth released by stone law its body a mountain erection volcano that released first hot dense gases. Into space inferred as a womb.

Womb vacuum sucking removed heat.

Immaculate gas spirit formed. A human science teaching.

Law erection built up of mountain.

Not science. Natural change.

Science caused earth to get sin X K holes. Removal of original sin as burning form.

Removed origin of sin. Our stone tomb body. Gases held direct inside earth not alight. Not alive meaning.

The deceased gases. A science relativity teaching.

Meaning alight spirit supports living. Relative science.

Science never owned natural light constant gases burning in the vacuum.

Relativity why science set alight by radiation conversion earth mass it's entombed gases.

Exactly what was said.

Ice the twelve monthly earth + cross cycle reborn yearly was sacrificed saving our life. Sea of son holy statement. Seasons support.

Burning irradiated at ground by hot gas UFO release the witnessed statement. Science practice resurrected it. Ice our water saviour put water oxygen back. Life was saved.

Sin original was sealed by water saved a long time ago. Science relativity why microbes in water was found in stone.

Water holy. Relativity life's survival. Not science. Just wisdom.

Life saved was by newly born state ice. Ice melted. What was taught.

How you interpret the statement is based on personal human want not truth.