The Resurrection is it provable?

[rational experiences]

A woman cannot be a virgin when impregnated.

If a baby is given presence as a man in a woman's ovary. Her healed ovary is renewed. If men's sperm was damaged it too would be renewed.

Women who could not become pregnant suddenly could become pregnant.

In ancient medical terms of human suffering it was termed miraculous.

Memory of a man adult. The first.

Medical references always about mother father perfect life health.

Both were virgin's first.

If medical documents said finally human man's baby son had returned bodily to his virgin parents. Then it had.

Would be using referring to historic medical determined reckoning.

As the whole Jesus event was correlated after all events occurred.

It was written to in-state human cellular healing had purposely been removed from life's healing by cruel vindictive men.

Technology causes.

They know today by the medical review in science it is real. Hence in public it is a moot discussion.

You open a sin hole you see the water. The reality spirit might walk on water but biological humans can't.

It's your choice in science if you claim spirit and not biological human is first by analogy of a humans sarcasm.

Seeing humanity are sick and tired of rich man's historic life abuses.

 

[leroy]

I just wanted to point out how much more effective your second approach to the same problem was than the first. In the first, you phrased it as a question, and got a response of the form, "I'm not looking that up for you." The implication is that the evidence exists and that you are too uniformed or lazy to be aware of it, or even how to find it. Imagine if you had also written the first comment as a statement, "You have no evidence." So far, you've had more success with the approach taken in the second comment - no response, no rebuttal. Debate over.

I only mention it because it's a topic that's been on my mind for months, and I have begun making the effort to NOT ask questions that I know the answer to (it's a habit of thought and a style of writing that has been hard to break), and simply state what might have gone into a rhetorical question as a declarative statement. When I'm told about spiritual truths one has discovered on his journey of discovery, for example, I used to ask for examples, but that would be fruitless and run on for several posts, asking repeatedly in vain for cooperation, for an answer. Now, I just post comments like, "I'd ask you for your evidence, but I know you have none." No rebuttal is ever offered, and so, the issue is resolved and debate over with one post.



Agreed, at least in the area of disagreement, but what good is their testimony then? The value of independent observers is that when they agree, they corroborate one another, and that where they contradict one another, at least one is wrong, emphasizing the unreliability of such testimony and making neither story trustworthy even if one is accurate.



That's why it is useful to know something about these people such as their character, how they process information, and their agendas. You seem to assume that they are all trustworthy and only interested in telling the truth. You're assuming that they are critical thinkers and not easily suggestible. What if I told you that there was another witness, Norm of Ephesus, the cook for the apostles, who says that there was no resurrection, just a plan to disseminate the story that there was to make it seem that a deity had come to earth to give the words they put in his mouth seem more authoritative. And what if Lester of Nazareth, Norm's sous chef, corroborated that? Would you believe them? They're eyewitnesses, or so we're told, and their stories, which might be independent, corroborate one another. No? Good thinking.

And unlike those claiming the miraculous revivification of a demigod three days dead, these people are saying something believable, something known to be common in the affairs of men: other people telling tales.



Assuming they agree, you can't if you don't know the people involved, their characters, their agendas, and their histories. Consider Norm and Lester. There is no way to know anything about whether they conspired or were independent witnesses, nor whether they were telling the truth.

The skeptic doubts both accounts, even the likelier one from Norm and Lester, because they're just words from anonymous people about whom we know too little to trust their accounts. The critical thinker simply need more than biblical scripture. Bottom line: words are never evidence of anything except that somebody chose to write or say them. They cannot be consider correct without corroboration using physical evidence.

Paul and the Gospels don’t contradict each other they simply make different infancies on different details, and some vents (like the 500 ) is in one but not the other.

Therefore we do have independent testomnies,.

because they're just words from anonymous people about whom we know too little to trust their accounts

Sure but given that we have more than one testimony, the alternative is that by chance alone they all invented the exact same lie, -(which is unlikely)

I am not saying that this proves that an actual miracle happened, but it certainly proves with high degree of certainty that something that was interpreted as a miracle happened

The critical thinker simply need more than biblical scripture. Bottom line: words are never evidence of anything except that somebody chose to write or say them. They cannot be consider correct without corroboration using physical evidence

Usually (if not always) multiple independent testimonies are enough to establish a historical fact, .so why making an arbitrary exception with the gospels and Paul. ?

For example you accept That alexander the Grate was born in Macedonia, despite the fact that all you have are words (no physical evidence) so why don’t you apply the same level of skepticism with other historical events?

 

[leroy]

We were? Why even talk about Paul? Paul never supported the bodily resurrection. You appear to be confused again. If we are talking about the resurrectin that is mainly a gospel topic, not a one that involves Paul.

Maybe but you are changing the topic, the claim is that Paul and the gospels are independent sources in the sense that nobody copied from each other,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe but you are changing the topic, the claim is that Paul and the gospels are independent sources in the sense that nobody copied from each other,

No, the topic of this thread is the resurrection. That is a bodily resurrection. Paul is just not a source for that. So it is not an independent source. Once again, all of Paul's experiences were visions. Hallucinations would be a good description. He never saw a resurrected Jesus. Paul cannot help you. You still have only one source.

 

[Sheldon]

Usually (if not always) multiple independent testimonies are enough to establish a historical fact, .so why making an arbitrary exception with the gospels and Paul. ?

You don't have any independent sources, Paul isn't a primary source, nor do you have any evidence t

has a vested interest in promoting early Christian beliefs, the gospels are anonymous, so again you keep ignoring this and making claims about their motives, but ironically the one assertion we could reliably make, is that the gospels were all written to promote early Christian beliefs, so no historian would try to claim they're independent sources for the claims they make. None of them are primary sources either, they're second hand hearsay at best.

For example you accept That alexander the Grate was born in Macedonia, despite the fact that all you have are words (no physical evidence) so why don’t you apply the same level of skepticism with other historical events?

That claim doesn't involve appeals to magic, and there are multiple independent sources with no vested interest in the claim who substantiate his place of birth. We also know it is possible for people to be born, whereas people coming back to life after they've been dead long enough to start decomposing defies known natural and scientific laws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At one time Church tradition had unanimously regarded John son of Zebedee as both the beloved disciple and the author of the Gospel. According to Eusebius brings up a bishop who died about 220 mentioning he had not known the apostle himself but people who had been close to them. He mentions two names, Aristion and 'Presbyter John.' All this hints at the possibility of a Johannine school tracing its origins to Jesus 'beloved' disciple, but a certain Presbyter John presided as the final authority.

I know. But that was just Church tradition. It was not based upon the actual evidence. Now the Catholics like to pretend that their Church dates to Peter, but there was no formal Catholic Church at that time. One would really need to date that to the Council of Nicaea. It evolved more than it was born. You could definitely say that the Catholic Church existed then. You would be hard pressed to show that it existed in the second century.

 

[Kenny]

CITATION

"That the Gospels were not originally composed bearing their traditional titles is now a well-established matter in New Testament scholarship. This mainstream view is conceded even among various conservative scholars such as Craig L. Blomberg, who stated: “It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.”

that is still a personal opinion and a bandwagon fallacy. Finding one "conservative" to validate doesn't change what is historically accepted.

The more accepted position is:

Who wrote most of the New Testament? | GotQuestions.org

BUT... as one who has a non-theistic platform, you are welcome to hold on to Craig. L. Blomberg's position.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't have any independent sources, Paul has a vested interest in promoting early Christian beliefs, the gospels are anonymous, so again you keep ignoring this and making claims about their motives, but ironically the one assertion we could reliably make, is that the gospels all were written to promote early Christian beliefs, so no historian would try to claim they're independent sources.



That claim doesn't involve appeals to magic, and there are multiple independent sources with no vested interest in the claim who substantiate his place of birth. We also know it is possible for people to be born, whereas people coming back to life after they've been dead long enough to start decomposing defies known natural and scientific laws.

Even if one ignores the vested interest the topic of the thread is the resurrection. And Paul was never a witness to that in any way at all. At best he only says that Christians believe in it. That is not evidence for it.

 

[Left Coast]

You may have conflated Matthew and Mark when it came to what languages there were written in. Papias says extremely little about either of those two men. I quoted one source, but there are others that seem to say the same thing. When it comes to languages he noted that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, but as you said, the book shows all of the signs of being originally written in Greek.

Yes my bad, Papias claimed Matthew was written in Hebrew, you're right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

that is still a personal opinion and a bandwagon fallacy. Finding one "conservative" to validate doesn't change what is historically accepted.

The more accepted position is:

Who wrote most of the New Testament? | GotQuestions.org

BUT... as one who has a non-theistic platform, you are welcome to hold on to Craig. L. Blomberg's position.

An apologetics site is not a proper site for a scholarly discussion. That source does not help your claims at all. It only shows what most Christians believe at best. It does not show the opinion of scholars.

By the way, most Christians ignore their Bibles quite a bit since most of the Bibles that I have seen tell the reader that the Gospels are anonymous.

 

[Kenny]

He's telling you why he doesn't accept your claims unevidenced claims, but he has no duty to do so, much less prove his position.

And I thought I was telling him why I didn't accept his unevidenced claims. Communication is an art, I guess.

 

[Kenny]

An apologetics site is not a proper site for a scholarly discussion.

Why?

 

[leroy]

No, the topic of this thread is the resurrection. That is a bodily resurrection. Paul is just not a source for that. So it is not an independent source. Once again, all of Paul's experiences were visions. Hallucinations would be a good description. He never saw a resurrected Jesus. Paul cannot help you. You still have only one source.

Ok but do you grant that Paul and the Gospels are independent in the sense that they didn’t copied from each other?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why?

Because they do not tend to be scholars. They are merely believers. People should not care what others believe. They should care about the ideas that they can support. That link only tells you what people believe, not what they know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok but do you grant that Paul and the Gospels are independent in the sense that they didn’t copied from each other?

There was no copying. I have heard some argue that the author of Mark was aware of Paul, but that does not matter either way for this thread. This thread is about the resurrection. Your Paul argument is just a red herring here.

 

[Left Coast]

Because they do not tend to be scholars. They are merely believers. People should not care what others believe. They should care about the ideas that they can support. That link only tells you what people believe, not what they know.

Actually it's worse than them being mere believers. They're people whose paid job it is to convince us that we should be Christians. So they're not neutral, objective sources at all. They have a specific, biased agenda.

It would be like going only to Scientologist sources to learn about Scientology.

 

[leroy]

You don't have any independent sources, Paul isn't a primary source, nor do you have any evidence t

has a vested interest in promoting early Christian beliefs, the gospels are anonymous, so again you keep ignoring this and making claims about their motives, but ironically the one assertion we could reliably make, is that the gospels were all written to promote early Christian beliefs, so no historian would try to claim they're independent sources for the claims they make. None of them are primary sources either, they're second hand hearsay at best.



That claim doesn't involve appeals to magic, and there are multiple independent sources with no vested interest in the claim who substantiate his place of birth. We also know it is possible for people to be born, whereas people coming back to life after they've been dead long enough to start decomposing defies known natural and scientific laws.

Ok so would you reject all anonymous sources written to promote a particular idea, or are you just making an arbitrary exception with the Gospels?

 

[leroy]

The Spiderman film is based in New York, this is a real place, ipso facto Spiderman is real?

That's not a very compelling rationale.

The Spiderman film is based in New York, this is a real place, ipso facto Spiderman is real?

That's not a very compelling rationale.

No but is evidence that the author of Spiderman IS well informed and knows about the cities that existed when then film was done. (it just that his intent was not to describe real people)

So do you grant that the authors of the Gospels where well informed?

 

[Kenny]

Because they do not tend to be scholars.

that's a fallacy...

It may be true that not all people who deal with apologetics are scholars but all believing scholars are apologists.

So your point is quite mute..

 

[Sheldon]

CITATION

"That the Gospels were not originally composed bearing their traditional titles is now a well-established matter in New Testament scholarship. This mainstream view is conceded even among various conservative scholars such as Craig L. Blomberg, who stated: “It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.”

that is still a personal opinion and a bandwagon fallacy.

No it's neither, it seems you don't know what a mainstream view among historians means, but it is not based on just their subjective opinions.

Finding one "conservative" to validate doesn't change what is historically accepted.

Not interested in the evidence presented then, quelle surprise.

The more accepted position is:

Who wrote most of the New Testament? | GotQuestions.org

Nope, that's just a subjective opinion, and it is at odds with the consensus among historians.

BUT... as one who has a non-theistic platform, you are welcome to hold on to Craig. L. Blomberg's position.

I treat all claims the same, and how would an atheist hold onto the position of a conservative Christian exactly? You're just falsely trying to misrepresent this as subjective opinion again, when it's not. You don't want to learn the facts about this I guess, as you view it as a threat to your beliefs. For me it's largely irrelevant to my atheism, since the gospels being authored wouldn't necessarily represent objective evidence for any of the claims, and especially for claims about magic.