The Resurrection is it provable?

[joelr]

1 Christians where already proclaiming the resurrection within a few years (or months) after Jesus died. This makes any “legend that grew over time” unlikely………..

The growth rate of Christianity has been shown to be the same as Mormonism.

2 First century Jews considered pagan Gods and abomination, it would have been unlikely that that they would have inspired a new religion based on those Gods.

That's why most Jews didn't convert. Rabbi Tovia Singer on youtube is evangelizing this exact point as to why Christians should realize the religion is Greek and return to Judaism. He also uses scripture (Hebrew) to prove his point.

3 early Christians where persecuted and willing to die for their believes, it sounds strange that some people would have invented a religion based on other Gods, and then these same people fought and die in the name of a religion that they themselves invented and knew isn’t real.

Nope, Jesus was a savior demigod in Judaism. This was the Jewish version. Petra Pakken writes about how all the religions in that area were Hellenized, all taking on the same traits, each having their own savior.

The alternative is that early Christians “saw something “ that they interpreted to be a resurrection / therefore they became Christians / they thought that Jesus was God / which is why they changed their religion and where willing to die in his name. (this alternative seems more likely to me)

For example “Mythra was born from a rock” and people say “oh virgin birth just like Jesus”

The Mithra example is the one that isn't a dying/rising demigod. You have again been fooled by apologetics. What happened is a new myth and in the myth people saw a resurrection. But not in real life.


"Not all these savior gods were dying-and-rising gods. That was a sub-mytheme. Indeed, dying-and-rising gods (and mere men) were a broader mytheme; because examples abounded even outside the context of known savior cults (I’ll give you a nearly complete list below). But within the savior cults, a particular brand of dying-and-rising god arose. And Jesus most closely corresponds to that mythotype.

Other savior gods within this context experienced “passions” that did not involve a death. For instance, Mithras underwent some great suffering and struggle (we don’t have many details), through which he acquired his power over death that he then shares with initiates in his cult, but we’re pretty sure it wasn’t a death. Mentions of resurrection as a teaching in Mithraism appear to have been about the future fate of his followers (in accordance with the Persian Zoroastrian notion of a general resurrection later borrowed by the Jews). So all those internet memes listing Mithras as a dying-and-rising god? Not true. So do please stop repeating that claim. Likewise, so far as we can tell Attis didn’t become a rising god until well after Christianity began (and even then his myth only barely equated to a resurrection; previous authors have over-interpreted evidence to the contrary). Most others, however, we have pretty solid evidence for as actually dying, and actually rising savior gods."



Did you hear that apologetics followers?? "So do please stop repeating that claim." This is from 2018 yet you still come out with the same mis-information over and over and over. Almost like you have only one outcome you want to be true?????? Weird.......

 

[joelr]

Funny how you support your claims with blog posts written by people who actually make a living out of promoting anti Christian ideas……. But you demand that @KenS or me to provide peer review sources written by non-Christian apologetics

I am willing to play by your rules, If you think blog posts are acceptable it´s ok with me, I would be happy to read your sources and tell you specifically why I disagree but I expect the same courtesy from you.

HE DOESN'T PROMOTE ANTI CHRISTIAN IDEAS??????????
He is a historian? This is the evidence? If it was in favor of a resurrection he would say that? ALL historians say this is mythology? It has no evidence, the myths are borrowed, it's written like fiction?
Those are the facts?
Why can't you find a peer-reviewed historian to back your facts??? If Carrier wrote a historicity study on Islam would you expect him to buy into the revelations of Muhammad without proper evidence? Would you expect him to be saying "wow I guess Islam is real because he did have revelations and people believed it and quickly formed a religion? So it must be true????

You would be out of your mind in historians declared Islam the actual true religion. Same with Hinduism? Yet you want them to buy into psuedo-science apologetics because you believe in a myth?????

Carriers blog is peer-reviewed information and it's from a historian.

.
Well that confirms my initial claim / you are not willign to support your claims

Apologetics is often written by pastors, teachers, hobbyists in writing. They don't spend years studying how to do proper historical research or read original sources which is required?

I can source Joesph Atwell who's "research" proves Jesus was a creation of the Roman Empire. I can source proof that Jesus was based on Horus and the solar Gods. These are actual books, printed and on a publishing company. A company who publishes supernatural nonsense. That is crank, junk history. Not reliable. No amateur writers who have an agenda are writing accurate works.
Carrier wrote his Jesus historicity study (also its a scholarly monograph with sources on every page) thinking he would CONFIRM the consensus that there was a man named Jesus who the myths were put onto.

But the evidence wasn't there. So he evaluated it honestly.
Now Raphael Lataster, Ph.D has also come out with a book on mythicism giving his take.

Find some scholars. Bible.org has most of the Christian scholarship. It doesn't often agree with history but at least it's something?

 

[joelr]

So, what I am saying, with all the hoopla you have shared, you really haven't convinced me that all those people are wrong but today's scholars (who are millenniums away) somehow have a better knowledge?

I know that you aren't suggesting that.

The Greek in Matthew starts out with "as told to me by Matthew"


There were no scholars 2000 years ago who did historicity. Historians only mentioned people who followed the gospels. Any anti-Christian material from the time is long erased by centuries of rule.

Only now do modern historians have available a wide variety of sources, comparative literature, literary analysis and the ability to do history without a bias. You could not suggest the Bible was of Pagan origin or the OT was super Mesopotamian in origin. You would have been burned alive. Now you can. Even in the early 1900's it wasn't something universities wanted to be associated with. The Egyptologist from the late 1800's who suggested connections to Christian mythology in Egyptian myths (also Moses contains many Egyptian myths, put in a reed as a child, stone laws from a deity on a mountain) was run out of town.

Many of the older myths were not yet found at sites for comparisons. Stone tablets from Mesopotamia and other finds are fairly new. One of Proverbs which was copied from an Egyptian text is a new discovery I think.

Evidence for Acts as historical fiction is a process. Carrier does a presentation using Pervo, McDonald and Crossan material as well as some of his.

 

[Kenny]

Subscribing or not has no relation to what is true. What matters is what is the evidence. But I don't think you even know what you are talking about, clearly you just skim over anything that doesn't agree with your position.

Actually, I have studied it so much that I know what I believe. Perhaps you have only looked at one side?

First, this is not Carriers position. This is the consensus in the field. All peer-reviewed papers and books have given evidence that demonstrates Peter 2 is a forgery.
One paper cited is The Apologetic Use of the Transfiguration in 2 Peter, Jerome Neyrey, Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

I'm sorry, peer-reviewed by whom? Which paper? Source?

 

[Kenny]

The Greek in Matthew starts out with "as told to me by Matthew"

Let's start here.... source?

 

[1213]

Do you know what your criteria are for belief and rejection? I can't tell. There used to be good reason to believe the earth was flat. I imagine Neanderthals all believed that, since that's what their senses reveal....

I think there has never been a good reason to think earth is flat, because even Bible tells there was mountains. But, I think in this issue it would be also good to notice, when Bible speaks about earth, it means dry land (continent), not the planet earth.

God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:10

By what the Bible tells, in the beginning there was just one continent (earth). And in a way continents are relatively flat, or slabs, which is why it is not entirely bad idea.

...Hopefully, you haven't acted on that belief. Many others who have are having legal difficulties (false electors, insurrectionists).

Why do you think Ray Epps is still free, all though he incited the "fedsurrection"? He is the only one that evidently is committing insurrection in many videos, but he is till free, I think that proves the whole "insurrection" was fake and arranged to get rid of Trump and all debate about the problems in the election.

...Did you know that there are reflecting mirrors on the moon aimed to reflect back to earth, whose signals are used to determine the precise distance to the moon? ...

I know the claim, I have not seen them and even if they would be on moon, they could be there by some other means.

...I hope you got yourself vaccinated.
....

Why do you want me to die to a blood clot?

 

[1213]

I think you may want to look into photosynthesis and how it works. Plants did not exist before our sun, nor would sufficient light for photosynthesis. ....

how do you know?

But, as said before, the plants were created as seeds first, it didn't require sun light.

 

[1213]

Incorrect. You may not be able to understand that, but you cannot claim that I cannot show that.

Ok, then prove you can show it?

 

[Sheldon]

Why do you want me to die to a blood clot?

Study sheds more light on rate of rare blood clots after Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine
There was a very slight increase in the risk of rare blood clots, but only short term after the first dose, but given the vaccines have saved countless lives, and that the Covid vaccine itself can increase the rates of blood clots, this was statistically irrelevant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, then prove you can show it?

Are you willing to learn? Can you drop your fears long enough to deal honestly with facts that will threaten your beliefs?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think there has never been a good reason to think earth is flat, because even Bible tells there was mountains.

Plenty of people didn't have the benefit of biblical counsel, including the Neanderthals, whom I mentioned. The meaning of flat here is not mountain-free like a table top, but two-dimensional rather than spheroidal. I'm pretty sure that I would have thought the world was flat had I lived in man's pre-linguistic days. They didn't have the evidence of distant ships sinking below the horizon.

Why do you think Ray Epps is still free, all though he incited the "fedsurrection"? He is the only one that evidently is committing insurrection in many videos, but he is till free, I think that proves the whole "insurrection" was fake and arranged to get rid of Trump and all debate about the problems in the election.

I hadn't heard about Ray Epps before now, but I don't see how his life proves that the insurrection was faked or why. I found this at Republicans spread the conspiracy theory that Trump supporter Ray Epps was an undercover FBI agent who incited the Capitol riot. Epps says it ruined his life. | Business Insider México | Noticias pensadas para ti , which also implies you've accepted a conspiracy theory that ruined that man's life:

"A video of Epps taken on January 5 showed him telling other Trump supporters they needed to go into the Capitol the following day. Epps was never arrested, prompting right-wing internet sleuths to accuse him of being an undercover FBI agent or informant trying to stir up violence — despite videos that show Epps urging others to be peaceful and trying to deescalate confrontations between police and the rioters on January 6."

How does that support your view that the election was stolen or that the insurrection was something other than what it appeared to be - angry Trump supporters violently venting their anger? And if you had it wrong, would it matter to you to know that and get it right? That is, if it was Trump supporters after all as it appeared, would knowing that change anything for you?

I know the claim, I have not seen them and even if they would be on moon, they could be there by some other means.

What other means account for manufactured and aimed mirrors being on the moon?

Why do you want me to die to a blood clot?

Sorry to read that. Your beliefs about the insurrection and the moon landing won't likely hurt you, but this one could.

 

[leroy]

Sorry, but you won't play by the rules. You merely try to distort them. You need to support your claims by actual scholars and not apologists, aka Liars for Jesus. I said that as a source you need someone that publishes in the professional journals. Journal articles themselves are far to often behind a pay wall, but those same people will publish in the more popular press. Apologetics sies are out unless one can show that the author has some authority. Merely being a pastor only tells us that he studied the text of the Bible. It does not tell us that

One cannot use sites that are easily proven wrong. If they support the Flood myth that tells us that they are not scholars. If they support the Adam and Eve myth that tells us that they are not scholars. If they support the Moses myth, that tells us that they are not scholars. Al of those ideas have been refuted. You should know that by now.

By the way, haver you followed along and seen how @KenS 's claims were refuted? He did the typical creationist trick of dumping a number of names saying that they all claimed that Mark and Matthew were written by the people whose names that they bore. Checking that claim it was found out that the first name that I checked did not support his claim. Papias has a record of only two quotes about Mark and Matthew and in neither of them does he say that they were the author of any gospels. If anything it was evidence against the claim of Matthew being an author. His claim noted that Matthew kept some written records . . . in Hebrew. Matthew was originally written in Greek.

As to Peter's work he makes unsupported claims about Peter as well. There is no recorded date of his death. Some think that he died in prison 20 years earlier than others. And that is by using the Bible as a source. But the Bible does not say when or how he died. That is a bit odd for such an important early leader. The Catholics have their tradition, but it does not seem to be supported by any evidence as so many other claims are from that time.

At any rate, I did support my claims with the work of an actual scholar. One that could be said to be an authority. There is a dearth of Christian authorities. I recently watched a video that featured a man that was an evangelical Christian that became a scholar specifically to support the works of the Bible. He ended up being an atheist. The more he learned and the more he read the Bible, especially the earliest manuscripts, the more he realized that the book does not match history.

Just to be clear any post written by a scolar is a good source worthy of readign it and worthy of consideration, is that what you are saying?

So people like William Lane Creig, Gary Habermas, Mickael Licona, Tim Mcgrew etc are all scholars that have published in profetional journals and have relevant credentials …… do you accept them as source?

 

[rational experiences]

What science in modern times has shown. Is about new Tombs opening and gods spirits leaving. Sin...or sin X k holes. Sink hole in new experiments. Atmospheric. Nuclear mass gas types.

Water is swirling underneath the ground as mass as it disintegrates into sin hole and is no longer held entombed.

Non alight body of gods earth mass means the deceased God as deceased. Entombed is an old science description.

Stated by and as consciousness ours... biology ours ...lives only by God's light. We do the theory I compare terms.

Science changes earths God body mass brings it back to life. Out of the entombed deceased body. Science term. Converting. Now Alight.

It becomes lit... alight....leaves. How holes of man's sin form by their occult science nuclear. A cause and effect.

Leaves mass as fused and is moving upon the face of water. Walking on water term.

Now as men were using temple machine transmitters. The floor plans look like the inside of a radio transmitter. The substance of man's science began with earths mass.

Men. Conscious. Own a biology body that aligns interacts with a humans brain mind.

You design yet what you design isn't life... it's machines. Yet you do achieve the status by biology ownership. Non stop bio thoughts. Cells blood constantly change leaves body as living.

Hence theism aligns with your own body changes.

Hence by converting mass virtually destroying the pre alchemic paths you used to build a machine. The machines presence is virtually taken back to its ground beginnings. A cause owning an effect.

How ground mass released as the converting gods entombed mass made new sin holes. Empty tomb science statement Entombed spirit left its dead bindings it was bound to its dead state. Old science terms.

It communicated into the deceased human images seen. Moved upon as walked on water. No different from human designed machines today causing using similar machine transmitters.

Mass owns science status first.

Reason man's DNA sacrificed was origin man scientist life historic already pre sacrificed. A Long time ago. Man's life then healed returned to DNA.. resacrificed died as a mans scientists life.

Just like Stephen Hawking demonstrated. In full awareness of science.

The gases or spirit mass of earths machine causes cool. They talk as voice is recorded. They are witnessed. They move cool then disappear.

I've seen it happen.

As the teacher of mans sacrificed life had his petition it was advice medical healer versus science of Rome. He had died from his wounds. The witness of his deceased image emerging out of ground mass sure scared the beejezus out of you.

As it was mans science history versus machine destruction of biology causes. Did it to himself the human scientist theist ...and everything else he harmed.

You then saw his image emerge in cloud mass. Where old men images were already seen witnessed in cloud mass. Designer of science man. Machines causes.

As transmitters by his man's temple design were via mountains using cloud cooling.

Why it's linked to Satan angels images falling out also as very ancient images of humans. Also science caused on origin earth.

Reason sun metal particles burning fall into the clouds heavy. Place a virtual caused cloud image of designs in the cloud to emerge. Being a large amount of the mass used to own and build a machine.

Reason of the phenomena only. Where design came from originally. You already said the alien taught science design by causes imagery. Cloud effect.

As above causes emerges as science changes nuclear ground mass as portional to the same type mass in asteroid dusts above.

Why the teaching said as below so above. Known.

I'm only restating what you already knew.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Jesus, the man, on the other hand, is not in us or among us in any way but as an idea. Like the idea of the man my father was is still with me, and in me, though my father is no longer here. He has passed away. The thing to understand is that Christ is an ideology about a way of being, while Jesus was the primary representative and revelation of that ideology. The ideology lived even when the human representative was killed, in an attempt to kill the ideology. This is what the "resurrection" part of the story of Jesus represents. What it is trying to convey to us. And it is true, if we understand it properly, and without all the silly magical thinking and religious dogma.

Yes, Christ can be understood as a symbol/archetype. But the story was written as a belief in the person (not ideology).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just to be clear any post written by a scolar is a good source worthy of readign it and worthy of consideration, is that what you are saying?

So people like William Lane Creig, Gary Habermas, Mickael Licona, Tim Mcgrew etc are all scholars that have published in profetional journals and have relevant credentials …… do you accept them as source?

William Lane Craig is a questionable source at best. Part of being a scholar is admitting when you have been shown to be wrong and that is not in his makeup. The man may have been a scholar at one point, but when one lacks honesty one can no longer maintain that claim. Habermas appears to believe that the Gospels are reliable, but he does not appear to believe that they were written by those whom they were name for. And when he says "reliable" it appears that he means the teachings of Jesus. Does he claim that the resurrection stories are reliable? But if you want to try to use their arguments, go ahead. They may or may not hold water. I knew about Craig of course. His terrible arguments have all been refuted and he won't admit it, not even when he got his butt kicked by Steven Carroll did he acknowledge that his physics was all wrong. Licona does not take all of the Gospels literally. He was kicked out of a fundamentalist seminary for that belief. And that action tells us that that seminary may not be a properly scholarly one, though they may still turn out a scholar here and there. Dogma cannot be allowed in a scholarly institution. One can be a seminary and have dogma, but then one is breaking of the rules of scholarship which is the same as that of science. One has to follow the evidence.

But I doubt if these scholars will help you much because in some areas their only evidence is "cuz the Bible tells me so".

 

[PureX]

Yes, Christ can be understood as a symbol/archetype. But the story was written as a belief in the person (not ideology).

I disagree. Though at the time I don't think anyone really understood the difference. As with all mythical stories, they usually begin with actual people and events and then morph over time to better exemplify the ideals the story has come to represent for people. The resurrection is a very important part of the story of Jesus because it represents the idea that his revelation and promise to us could not be "killed" by any act of man. Not even by a brutal, public execution of the man embodying and preaching them.

 

[Sheldon]

William Lane Craig is a questionable source at best.

Lane Craig's qualifications are in theology and philosophy, he's a Christian apologist, and has zero qualifications as a historian. His ability as a philosopher is also questionable based on some of his public arguments.

He is most notable for his unashamedly biased work "Reasonable Faith", and for being thoroughly drubbed in a public debate by the late Christopher Hitchens.

 

[leroy]

William Lane Craig is a questionable source at best. Part of being a scholar is admitting when you have been shown to be wrong and that is not in his makeup. The man may have been a scholar at one point, but when one lacks honesty one can no longer maintain that claim. Habermas appears to believe that the Gospels are reliable, but he does not appear to believe that they were written by those whom they were name for. And when he says "reliable" it appears that he means the teachings of Jesus. Does he claim that the resurrection stories are reliable? But if you want to try to use their arguments, go ahead. They may or may not hold water. I knew about Craig of course. His terrible arguments have all been refuted and he won't admit it, not even when he got his butt kicked by Steven Carroll did he acknowledge that his physics was all wrong. Licona does not take all of the Gospels literally. He was kicked out of a fundamentalist seminary for that belief. And that action tells us that that seminary may not be a properly scholarly one, though they may still turn out a scholar here and there. Dogma cannot be allowed in a scholarly institution. One can be a seminary and have dogma, but then one is breaking of the rules of scholarship which is the same as that of science. One has to follow the evidence.

But I doubt if these scholars will help you much because in some areas their only evidence is "cuz the Bible tells me so".

Ok you said a lot of things, but it seems to me that you are willing to consider sources from the scholars that I mentioned.

I am curious can you you quote a mistake made by WLC?

1 quote the actual mistake

2 explain why is he wrong

3 provide evidence that WLC was told about that mistake

As for Bart Erman, well we know that some people where crucified and buried, we know this because the tombs have been found………… so perhaps Jesus was just another exception, there is nothing “wild nor extraordinary” about that. So I don’t think Bart has a strong point.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I disagree. Though at the time I don't think anyone really understood the difference. As with all mythical stories, they usually begin with actual people and events and then morph over time to better exemplify the ideals the story has come to represent for people. The resurrection is a very impirtant part of the story of Jesus because it represents the ideal that his revelation and promise to us could not be "killed" by any act of man. Not even by a brutal, public execution of the man embodying them.

This was believed:

12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised; 14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also is in vain. 15Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified [g]against God that He raised [h]Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If we have hoped in Christ only in this life, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Cor 15)

30Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. (Acts 2)

"In the canonical gospels, the resurrection of Jesus is described as a resurrection of the flesh: from the empty tomb in Mark; the women embracing the feet of the resurrected Jesus in Matthew; the insistence of the resurrected Jesus in Luke that he is of "flesh and bones" and not just a spirit or pneuma; to the resurrected Jesus encouraging the disciples to touch his wounds in John." (Wiki)

CHURCH FATHERS: On the Resurrection of the Flesh (Tertullian)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok you said a lot of things, but it seems to me that you are willing to consider sources from the scholars that I mentioned.

I am curious can you you quote a mistake made by WLC?

1 quote the actual mistake

2 explain why is he wrong

3 provide evidence that WLC was told about that mistake

As for Bart Erman, well we know that some people where crucified and buried, we know this because the tombs have been found………… so perhaps Jesus was just another exception, there is nothing “wild nor extraordinary” about that. So I don’t think Bart has a strong point.

Nope. Just watch his debate with WLC. Time for you to do some of your own homework for once. And you might see how his various arguments have all been refuted as well. He is not quite at a Kent Hovind level when it comes to dishonesty and delusion, but he is close.