Jesus Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

Ok why don’t you do something?

Provide objective criteria to determine if a historical source is reliable. Then explain why Paul fails to meet this criteria

First off it needs to be confirmed by other independent resources. There are none that do this.

 

[leroy]

First off it needs to be confirmed by other independent resources. There are none that do this.

Please define”independent sources”

 

[leroy]

He admitted to seeing and hearing things. I tend not to trust those that see and hear things that are not there.

Irrelevant, Paul was quoting from an early creed when he affirmed the burial of Jesus. So even if he were a Lunatic, his own authority is not relevant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please define”independent sources”

That should be obvious from the use of the word "independent". You do not seem to understand the by the fact that the makers of the Bible not only preserved only the books that agreed with a preset agenda, but also destroyed those books that did not agree that they made those books no longer independent. They are all dependent upon agreeing with what their chosen beliefs were.

Your problem may be that you have too much emotions invested in the Bible.

Let's say that after Nero died a group of loyalists to Nero took over Rome and cleaned up all texts that said anything bad about him. There may have been hundreds of texts but only twenty texts were left after their efforts. All praising Nero. Does that mean that these formerly independent texts are evidence that Nero was the most benevolent emperor of Rome ever? Or does it mean that those texts cannot be trusted?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant, Paul was quoting from an early creed when he affirmed the burial of Jesus. So even if he were a Lunatic, his own authority is not relevant.

Really? Which one? He was not a witness in any way by his own admission. At best he can only repeat stories that he had heard.

 

[leroy]

LOL, reread the post that you did not understand.

By the way, he had nothing to do with cheese, as far as I know.

Your point seems to be that the New Testament is not reliable, because other “gospels” where not included……………right? (Correct me if I am wrong)


There are many writings about Alexander the great, but only a few of them are considered reliable sources by the experts. The rest are dismiss as legends myths or frauds

This is analogous to “There are many writings about Jesus, but only a few of them are considered reliable (and made it to the new testament) the rest (apocryphal gospels) are dismiss as legends, myths or frauds…..where does the analogy fail. I am honestly trying to understand your view


Now pretend that a group of scholars analyses all the documents that talk about Alexander the Grate, and they make book with the documents that they consider reliable, ……….would you therefore conclude that there is only 1 source for Alexander the grate?

 

[leroy]

Really? Which one? He was not a witness in any way by his own admission. At best he can only repeat stories that he had heard.

Sure he went to Jerusalem to see the witnesses, and then he reported what they told him. (Including the burial of Jesus)……

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your point seems to be that the New Testament is not reliable, because other “gospels” where not included……………right? (Correct me if I am wrong)


There are many writings about Alexander the great, but only a few of them are considered reliable sources by the experts. The rest are dismiss as legends myths or frauds

This is analogous to “There are many writings about Jesus, but only a few of them are considered reliable (and made it to the new testament) the rest (apocryphal gospels) are dismiss as legends, myths or frauds…..where does the analogy fail. I am honestly trying to understand your view


Now pretend that a group of scholars analyses all the documents that talk about Alexander the Grate, and they make book with the documents that they consider reliable, ……….would you therefore conclude that there is only 1 source for Alexander the grate?

One reason that we cannot assume the gospels to be reliable is that all countervailing versions were destroyed.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Forget about Alexander the Great, but it is nice to see that you are over your cheese fixation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure he went to Jerusalem to see the witnesses, and then he reported what they told him. (Including the burial of Jesus)……

Where does he say that he did that? All I have seen him do is to make a vague claim of "five hundred witnesses". It is rather amazing that Paul knew of 500 witnesses, but no one else did.

 

[Jollybear]

Would you care to try again and respond politely and properly to that post. You in effect lied by breaking it up excessively. There is no excuse to respond to every sentence separately and breaking up sentences is simply an admission that you are wrong and cannot deal with a line of thought.

Oh my God! Your incredable man! What a joke.

Hop to it already..you want polite? Ok. PLEASE answer my questions and points about paul. The three times he told his testimony, show me the contradictions in it. Address variation vs contradiction. Address the point on memories of childhood and babyhood.

Quit saying im lying, which is an obvious absurdity and a waste of both our times and just answer the current points made.

PLEASE.

 

[Jollybear]

Where does he say that he did that? All I have seen him do is to make a vague claim of "five hundred witnesses". It is rather amazing that Paul knew of 500 witnesses, but no one else did.

Galatians 1:11-24

Paul says

"11I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.15But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas (peter)b and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24And they praised God because of me."

 

[leroy]

That should be obvious from the use of the word "independent". You do not seem to understand the by the fact that the makers of the Bible not only preserved only the books that agreed with a preset agenda, but also destroyed those books that did not agree that they made those books no longer independent. They are all dependent upon agreeing with what their chosen beliefs were.

Your problem may be that you have too much emotions invested in the Bible.

Let's say that after Nero died a group of loyalists to Nero took over Rome and cleaned up all texts that said anything bad about him. There may have been hundreds of texts but only twenty texts were left after their efforts. All praising Nero. Does that mean that these formerly independent texts are evidence that Nero was the most benevolent emperor of Rome ever? Or does it mean that those texts cannot be trusted?

Ok but they are independent in the sense that they were written by different authors (with different sources)

As for your Nero example:

Short answer: Yes if those 20 sources (or even 2) claim that Nero was buried in a tomb, and no other source claims the opposite, I would grant that he was buried.

Long answer: you are correct, given that we only have Christian sources we should be skeptical of any claim of Jesus being praised. We should be skeptical about the virgin birth, water turned in to wine, Jesus being 100% honest 100% good, 100% benevolent etc.

The good historian knows how to indentify that kind of propaganda.

But the burial of Jesus is a theologically neutral claim, if anything it was an embarrassing event for the apostles, because the “good guy” that gave Jesus a proper burial was not an apostole but a member of the Sanhedrin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh my God! Your incredable man! What a joke.

Hop to it already..you want polite? Ok. PLEASE answer my questions and points about paul. The three times he told his testimony, show me the contradictions in it. Address variation vs contradiction. Address the point on memories of childhood and babyhood.

Quit saying im lying, which is an obvious absurdity and a waste of both our times and just answer the current points made.

PLEASE.

You were dishonest and rude. And you denied the contradictions. By the way, why use a dishonest and rude technique if you were not lying? What purpose do you think that you can accomplish by such an improper tactic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Galatians 1:11-24

Paul says

"11I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.15But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas (peter)b and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24And they praised God because of me."

So Paul is back to relying on delusion. At least he admitted that he was never taught this. I too can claim that I have a perfect knowledge of Jesus that was planted into my brain. Also like many delusional people he claimed to be "advanced". Please note that he admits that he saw only Peter and James (who was not an apostle, the "James" that was an apostle was not Jesus's brother).

Thank you for clarifying that the "500 witnesses" appears to be an invention of Paul's.

 

[Jollybear]

You were dishonest and rude. And you denied the contradictions. By the way, why use a dishonest and rude technique if you were not lying? What purpose do you think that you can accomplish by such an improper tactic.

I was not being dishonest at all. At this point your being dishonest.

 

[leroy]

One reason that we cannot assume the gospels to be reliable is that all countervailing versions were destroyed.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?
.

Again

1 the sources where not destroyed, they are widely available, you can read them for free,

2 none of these apocryphal sources deny the burial of Jesus

3 a source does not become more reliable nor less reliable just because a group of scholars decided to include it their book (ether the NT or any other book)

 

[Jollybear]

So Paul is back to relying on delusion. At least he admitted that he was never taught this. I too can claim that I have a perfect knowledge of Jesus that was planted into my brain. Also like many delusional people he claimed to be "advanced". Please note that he admits that he saw only Peter and James (who was not an apostle, the "James" that was an apostle was not Jesus's brother).

Thank you for clarifying that the "500 witnesses" appears to be an invention of Paul's.

James jesus brother would have also known about jesus buriel and ressurrection. Peter too.

And this dont mean paul invented the 500 witnesses. What did he halucinate 500 witnesses now? Because you yourself said hes honest, so he cant INVENT this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok but they are independent in the sense that they were written by different authors (with different sources)

As for your Nero example:

Short answer: Yes if those 20 sources (or even 2) claim that Nero was buried in a tomb, and no other source claims the opposite, I would grant that he was buried.

Long answer: you are correct, given that we only have Christian sources we should be skeptical of any claim of Jesus being praised. We should be skeptical about the virgin birth, water turned in to wine, Jesus being 100% honest 100% good, 100% benevolent etc.

The good historian knows how to indentify that kind of propaganda.

But the burial of Jesus is a theologically neutral claim, if anything it was an embarrassing event for the apostles, because the “good guy” that gave Jesus a proper burial was not an apostole but a member of the Sanhedrin.

And yes, good historians can refute some of those claims. Take the "virgin birth" myth for example. That was based upon a misintepretation of a historic verse, not a prophecy and was used as part of the false tale that got Jesus born in Bethlehem, even though he was supposedly from Nazareth. We know of the errors in Luke's account and Matthew has some obviously bogus claims as well, Such as the undocumented "slaughter of innocents".

And no, you do not understand how those puff pieces on Nero are rendered almost valueless by the fact that all opposing stories would have been destroyed in the example given. This indicates some severe cognitive dissonance on your part.

Let me help you out a bit. Many parts of the Bible are clearly false. If you the Jesus story has an merit at all that story is true regardless of the errors in the Bible, but you can't defend the Bible properly if you do not honestly admit to the problems with it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again

1 the sources where not destroyed, they are widely available, you can read them for free,

2 none of these apocryphal sources deny the burial of Jesus

3 a source does not become more reliable nor less reliable just because a group of scholars decided to include it their book (ether the NT or any other book)

And they are all but worthless due to the selection process. You can't rely on "documents" that went through a heavily biased selection process.

What you can't seem to find, and what would be of some value to your claim are actual eyewitnesses that support the resurrection myth. All that you have is hearsay. Evidence of such a low quality that it would not be allowed in a court of law.

And yes, a source becomes much less reliable if it was felt necessary to destroy any contradicting documents. It tells us that those that did so were afraid. If one truly believes without fear there would be no need to destroy contradicting documents.

 

[leroy]

Let me help you out a bit. Many parts of the Bible are clearly false. If you the Jesus story has an merit at all that story is true regardless of the errors in the Bible, but you can't defend the Bible properly if you do not honestly admit to the problems with it.

Granted, some parts of the bible are controversial, like the virgin birth. But the burial of Jesus is not controversial,