The Resurrection is it provable?

[PearlSeeker]

1 Paul had experiences of visions of Jesus

2 atleast some of the information that he received from the visions is true

3 therefore the experience was reall, Paul really and trully saw Jesus

2 not much information is known:
I am Jesus.
Go to Gentiles.
Go to Rome.

Everything else is clouded in mystery:
He "heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat".

 

[Brian2]

Who do you think was at the resurrection and was a witness? You also do not appear to know what an "independent" witness is. Some Christians try to claim that the Gospel accounts are the accounts of four different witnesses when none of them are that at all. First the three synoptic Gospels would only count as one at the most since Mark is largely copied by Matthew and Luke. That is why they are not independent. Worse yet none of them appear to be eyewitness accounts. They are merely repeating the oral tradition that arose after the death of Jesus. And it looks as if the author, or authors of John also may have read a bit of Mark which means that is not totally independent either. And worse yet it is even later than the other Gospels.

So where are the independent witnesses?

What is wrong with the story being repeated and added to because of other information?
Why do you say they were merely repeating oral tradition and none appear to be eye witnesses. How do you figure this out.
Which part of John is from Mark? Why is it improbably that John and Mark's source (probably Peter) would not have seen the same things?

 

[Brian2]

Indeed, there are 45k varyingly different sects and denominations globally within the umbrella term Christian. Which suggest the bible that they all cite, is about as reliable as a chocolate skateboard in the desert.

Most of them believe in the same Jesus and the same gospel. No problem.
The variations in the teaching in the minor issues is not so important and is nowhere near 45K.

 

[Kenny]

1. This betrays that you are not familiar with the very common phenomenon of pseudepigrapha in early Christanity. All kinds if writings floated around in the early centuries of the Church alleging to have been written by this or that apostle. Scholars today recognize that many of these are not believable.
   [*]That is simply incorrect, as even Wikipedia notes:
   [*]First Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia
   [*]Imagine making this claim about literally any non-Christian who defends their beliefs. Does it make sense?
   [*]So the author of Luke claims that he constructed his version of events from eyewitness testimony. Yet he names none of these witnesses or which of them told him which details or when. There is a reason for this - the Gospels aren't eyewitness testimonies, they are collections of early oral stories told by Christians.
   [*]The Earth has been understood to be flat. Is that at all meaningful as a claim?
   [*]If by modern you mean...for the last 150 years since critical Bible scholarship took off, sure. So what?
   [*]Papias had no direct knowledge of that. He reported what was commonly believed by Christians around him.
   [*]You have named zero eyewitnesses. You've named one person who claimed to have gathered information from eyewitnesses, but with zero details to substantiate that.
   [*]As noted, that's incorrect.
   [*]Perhaps it's simply of a work of "why I'll keep believing no matter how ****ty the evidence is." Or were you really interested when you asked the questions?

OK... so we see you are attacking this under the purview of "it is false". With that understanding, let's look at your statements:

1. This betrays your understanding of why it is not pseudepigrapha. I would suggest you look at the opposing views before adopting this position. To my point, which stares starkly against yours is: 1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed - He is a witness, states that he wrote it.
2. Wikipedia is NOT a source. It is a viewpoint of who wrote it.
3. Please look for a counter point in as much as Wikipedia is NOT a source. It is the viewpoint of him who wrote it.
4. It is clear that your statement did not address my point. He was killing Christians and then preached Jesus. He stated in his writings that the whole of the message is based on the resurrection of Jesus. You will have to be more convincing that referencing an irrelevant point
5. Again... back to the point. "Let's just eliminate all witnesses, their statements and a thorough review" and then say "What do you have to convince me?" . A very weak position. Who do you think he spoke to when he said "eye-witnesses"? And how many letters were expressed that were anti-Luke/Acts saying they were false? None -- except for people living in the 20/21st century. A flat-earth position
6. Apples and oranges. We might as well say that the documents of Declaration of Independence is a fabric of our imagination.
7. Because it eradicates all that was written between 0AD and 300AD which have a more "been there or was close to there" application. If I were to review you 2000 years ago, I might hold to the position you were a bot.
8. Again... Just erase history so that we can establish our viewpoint.
9. Ignoring facts and history
10. As noted, your notation is incorrect.
11. So... we have established that you really weren't asking but rather simply enumerating your position (which is fine) but you certainly haven't presented a case that would cut the mustard.

 

[Brian2]

The stories of apostles be tortured and dying for Jesus appears to be more myth that was invented after the fact. Don't believe me??? Try finding reliable support for the claim. Paul,Peter, and perhaps one more is all that you will find.

Three. OK I'll take your word for it.

 

[blü 2]

Paul knew Jesus had died and knew He had risen because he met Him.

Which seems more probable to you ─ that if you dream of a dead person, it's really that dead person? Or if you dream of a dead person, it's something your own brain devised? (And the same would go for any hallucination, drug trip, whatever, wouldn't it?)

What sort of evidence do you think would be better?

One credible eyewitness account by a non-Christian would be a good start, no?

The claim of the first preachers is that they witnessed the resurrected Jesus.

See the first para above.

There are records that were written within 30 years but that was no good even though the evidence points to their authorship being within that time.

The only records of any substance within about 20 years are the early letters of Paul, and Paul was never an eyewitness.

Why is that no good? Because they dare to mention Jesus prophecy about the temple and so they are automatically relegated to a late writing date and by people other than the names given by the early church, the ones who knew.

Which seems more probable to you ─ that an accurate prediction in an ancient piece of writing is a unique example of supernatural foreknowledge? Or that it was written after the event? We know, for example, that Mark, the first gospel and template for the others, was not completed before 75 CE, and it contains the prediction attributed to Jesus for the destruction of Jerusalem 70 CE.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1. Ignoring facts and history

Which "facts" would those be? With what substantiation?

Please note:

"It's a fact because some apologist writing decades later wrote about it." is not a credible claim.​

 

[Kenny]

You're kidding right? If I describe Elvis's face exactly, does this mean I must have had a pint with him last night?

Are you saying you don't believe he existed, the people who saw him didn't see him, that the articles about him by those who were with him were all made up?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you saying you don't believe he existed, the people who saw him didn't see him, that the articles about him by those who were with him were all made up?

"the people who saw him" according to whom?

 

[Kenny]

Paul/Corinthians just claimed visions.
Acts is the most fictitious of all, demonstrated by Purvoe in his peer reviewed work https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Acts-Unraveling-Its-Story/dp/159815012X

Matthew is a re-work of Mark which was pretty much proven as Bible.com shows using Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction as a source.
But Mark Goodacres work has really ended that debate, - The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre


Because Matthew writes 3000 witnesses that holds zero weight. Matthew has 97% of the original Greek verbatim from Mark. But as the article and Steins work point out, Mark is the source for the other 2 synoptics. The additional details are fiction. Marks work is highly fictitious so they are copying fiction.



There isn't any evidence that holds up.

I really can't agree... and ultimately, IMV, it just depends on who you subscribe to.

If Richard Pervo, sentenced for child possession and distribution of child porn is considered a reliable source, one would need their head examined.

Again, ultimately it will be on just who you subscribe to as reliable.

I subscribe to this position as historically correct:
On the Historical Accuracy of the Book of Acts.

Obviously if one subscribed to Erhman, you would have a different position.

I have no problem with the synopsis of Mark, Matthew and Luke. There are very marked differences.

So I have no problem with it.

I also love how people use numbers to benefit their position such as "Matthew has 97% of the original Greek verbatim from Mark."

you would almost think that there is only 3% difference between the two. But Matthew has 26 chapter while Mark only has 16.

Maybe you should check out an opposing view?

 

[Kenny]

Which "facts" would those be? With what substantiation?

Please note:

"It's a fact because some apologist writing decades later wrote about it." is not a credible claim.​

In this context, John, Matthew, Mark & Peter and even Luke.

If, as you stated in your quote, I would subscribe to that position, I would have to reject every auto-biography and every biography.

Is it really credible to think that, with all that happened, 5 years later one of the disciples would say "OOPS, I better write something down now because 2000 years from now, Jack is going to wonder what was true."?

I don't think so.

 

[Left Coast]

Well then the case is closed,

1 Paul had experiences of visions of Jesus

2 atleast some of the information that he received from the visions is true

3 therefore the experience was reall, Paul really and trully saw Jesus

I wasn't expecting you to concid point 1 , but given point 1 the case for the resurrection is easy to build.

I see, so anyone who has a vision of some supernatural being that contains some correct information means they really and truly interacted with said being, and it wasn't just in their head?

You understand that does not follow, yes?

On point two, I'm curious to know which information you think was correct and how you arrived at that conclusion?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In this context, John, Matthew, Mark & Peter and even Luke.

Seriously? Let's see ...

Give us a credible list noting each and telling us

• who they were,
• when they wrote,
• to whom they wrote, and
• the evidence upon which you make these claims.

I'll give you a head start: see The History and Mythology of New Testament Writings by Udo Schnelle.

 

[Altfish]

There is no proof for any historic matter.

Err, I beg to differ

 

[Subduction Zone]

Three. OK I'll take your word for it.

You can check yourself. Or ask some modern scholars. The tales appear to have been invented by the fairly early church. There is no historical or even biblical support for them except for Paul, Peter, and James the brother of Jesus.

 

[pearl]

Is it really credible to think that, with all that happened, 5 years later one of the disciples would say "OOPS, I better write something down now because 2000 years from now, Jack is going to wonder what was true."?

That might be a good point except that it was not the disciples who wrote but the anonymous authors after the passing of the original apostles, and still no 'return' of Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying you don't believe he existed, the people who saw him didn't see him, that the articles about him by those who were with him were all made up?

What articles are you talking about? And are you talking about Jesus or Elvis? The latter would at least make a some sense.

 

[Sheldon]

Strictly speaking the gospels are anonymous but the names were attached because of the knowledge about authorship

Oh dear, that claim is absurdly asinine. The gospels are anonymous, and the first council of Nicaea knew this when they made up names, in order to pretend they were eyewitness accounts, written by disciples. They had no knowledge about authorship, that is what anonymous means.

 

[Sheldon]

Whether the Gospels echoed Psalm 22 , or Psalm 22 foreshadowed the Gospels, is for the reader to decide.

So entirely unevidenced subjective opinion then.

One might argue that the story being overlooked in this discussion, is that the Gospels have resonated so clearly across two millennia, to the extent they are still being debated on forums such as this.

That's just a bare appeal to numbers, an argumentum ad populum fallacy. There are forums debating episodes of Star Trek, this doesn't make them objectively true or real.

 

[Sheldon]

we have multiple independent testimonies from people that where in a position to know if those events happened

No we don't.

Ok so most scholars are wrong just because you say so

Straw man fallacy, and I am being polite because the forum rules forbid a candid appraisal of that claim. There is a scholarly consensus that the gospels are anonymous, and no credible scholar can offer any independent validation for any of it, beyond the crucifixion. Your list offered people's subjective beliefs. just because someone is an historical biblical scholar, does not mean their subjective beliefs are historically valid. This is the very definition of an appeal to authority fallacy.