-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Resurrection is it provable?
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
leroy
Well-Known Member
False analogy
If
1 multiple inpendent sources confirm that Elvis was seen after his dead
2 if the witnesses reported clear an unambiguous experiences where they say touched and even ate with Elvis
3 if the witnesses were willing to die for the truth of that believe.
4 if you go to his tomb and the tomb is empty
Then you would have an analogous case,
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Well I was born a few months after he died, so I’m a great witness to his life. My middle school music class even tried and embarrassed ourselves to record a song where Elvis did. I’ve been to his house multiple times growing up. I loved to sing his songs as a toddler. Thus, I am a reliable witness of any Elvis story out there.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
These events happened relatively recently, by people who are still alive today, whom we could go and talk to and interview about their sightings. So it's actually a better claim than the one about Jesus resurrecting, because that claim is basically unverifiable at this point in time, given how far removed we are from the supposed occurrence of the event. And we actually know that Elvis Presley existed.
1. Oh, we have that.
Elvis has apparently been sighted at Memphis International Airport in 1977 buying a ticket to Buenos Aires, on the day he died.
A lady said she spotted him wearing his famous white jumpsuit while waiting in line at a supermarket in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Several viewers of the movie Home Alone claim Elvis can be seen in the background in the scene where the mother is stuck at the airport. Viewers claim the man's mannerisms were identical to Elvis' so it must have been him.
Elvis sightings - Wikipedia
Is Elvis Presley alive? All the weirdest Elvis sightings and conspiracy theories - Smooth
2. How about seeing him in a vision, as Paul supposedly did? I mean, that's enough evidence for you, right?
3. Someone willing to die for a belief doesn't make a belief true. Lots of people have died for false beliefs.
4. A story in an old book says the tomb was empty and so it must be true that the tomb's former occupant ascended to heaven? Nah.
Or.... (rather than using unreliable Wikipedia)
Source #1
Author: The Gospel of Luke does not identify its author. From Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-3, it is clear that the same author wrote both Luke and Acts, addressing both to “most excellent Theophilus,” possibly a Roman dignitary. The tradition from the earliest days of the church has been that Luke, a physician and a close companion of the Apostle Paul, wrote both Luke and Acts (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11). This would make Luke the only Gentile to pen any books of Scripture.
Date of Writing: The Gospel of Luke was likely written between A.D. 58 and 65.
Gospel-of-Luke.html
Source #2
The date and place of composition are uncertain, but many date the Gospel to 63–70 CE,
Gospel According to Luke | Description, History, & Facts Encyclopedia Britannica
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
'LOL!! Your argument is a false claim of what others believe, that is the definition of a strawman.
Because you asked if they met the authors.
Modern archaeological findings simply find what was written before... so we are back to "the ones closest to the event have the best view"
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is extremely poorly stated.
People of that time knew of Jesus's crucifixion.
I know that you usually do not understand analogies but let's see if you can understand this one:
We know that the news reported that Biden won the election. Even extreme Trumpophile loonies know this.
We also know that the Trump supporters made up lies about how Trump actually won the election, even though there is zero evidence for this and tons of evidence against it.
Many Trump supporters still believe the lies about Trump. And that is something that happened very very recently.
Do you think that it would be all that difficult for people that followed Jesus to believe lies about him raising from the dead, even though they saw him crucified?
Denying Jesus crucifixion would not pass when many supporters of him saw him on the cross. But they could convince themselves about a myth that he rose from the dead.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Not if they don’t have the information they need.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
He is not portrayed as a trustworthy witness. Next.
But there is no reason to believe they didn't (since they wrote what they found out "according to eye-witnesses)
Your opinion.
Like I said ages ago... "Just eliminate everyone that wrote something and then prove that what you have is true".
Might as well not go to court in any prosecution or defense if you did that.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Wikipedia is not unreliable, but I used a second source anyway to corroborate it.
So you accept the fact the gospels are anonymous finally then, and the names assigned later?
This is earlier, but not by much, and this still supports @Subduction Zone's point, that at the time of writing it would be unlikely any contemporaries to the alleged events of the resurrection was still alive.
You seem to have omitted something from that text, here's the full quote from your link:
"The date and place of composition are uncertain, but many date the Gospel to 63–70 CE, others somewhat later."
Dear oh dear...note the part from your second source in red.
Again however even without the dishonest omission, this confirms the point you had disputed when you asked for confirmation, I gave two sources, and now you quote two more, and they all support @Subduction Zone's point. Given when it was written, surviving contemporaries would have been unlikely. The percentage of people making into their 80's in that epoch would have been extremely small, so using a hypothetical contemporary of just 20 years, they'd have been 83 to 90, very unlikely, and as your own second source explains, many scholars date it later than that.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And we may have one short epistle by him, though even that is doubted today. It only has one mention of the resurrection but has no details about it at all. Was it a bodily resurrection as in the Gospels, and the ones that mention tell that story were all written at least 45 years after the event. Or merely a vision or hallucination as in Paul's case?
Sheldon
Veteran Member
That's not true, this is just an unevidenced claim the authors made, and since nothing can be substantiated it is just hearsay.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
In its very early days Wikipedia was unreliable at times. But of course it improved its algorithm as time went by. Now it is as reliable or more reliable than any other encyclopedia out there. And the reason why is due to what deniers of reality so often complain about. Anyone (well not really, let's add a qualifier) almost anyone can edit Wikipedia. But you do not just sign up for a membership and they then hand you keys to the castle. One's earliest edits are moderated. It takes ten edits to become an "auto-confirmed" user. That is enough to eliminate almost all trolls. And one can lose one's ability to edit if shown wrong often enough.Wikipedia is not unreliable, but I used a second source anyway to corroborate it.
So you accept the fact the gospels are anonymous finally then, and the names assigned later?
This is earlier, but not by much, and this still supports @Subduction Zone's point, that at the time of writing it would be unlikely any contemporaries to the alleged events of the resurrection was still alive.
You seem to have omitted something from that text, here's the full quote from your link:
"The date and place of composition are uncertain, but many date the Gospel to 63–70 CE, others somewhat later."
Dear oh dear...note the part from your second source in red.
Again however even without the dishonest omission, this confirms the point you had disputed when you asked for confirmation, I gave two sources, and now you quote two more, and they all support @Subduction Zone's point. Given when it was written, surviving contemporaries would have been unlikely.
How to Become a Wikipedia Editor - Make Tech Easier
I remember an argument between a poster here and me that was an auto-confirmed user. I had been telling him that Wikipedia's algorithm made it so that false edits were very very rare. To "prove" that I was wrong he edited an article. The only problem was that he added a verifiable claim to it When I pointed out that and asked him why didn't he put a false claim in to support his belief about Wiki being unreliable his response that he did not want to risk his ability to edit there. He made my point for me. People that do the work that it takes to edit there are not going to throw it away by trolling false or unsupported claims.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And they did not even make that claim. He is referring to a very in Luke where it only claims that the first people to tell the tales were eyewitnesses. It does not say or imply that the author of Luke when out and interviewed a bunch of people.; Luke is essentially saying that it is hearsay:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
And we do not know anything about Theophilus, except for his tendency to sift thistles.
Supportive documentation please.
joelr
Well-Known Member
This is taken from ch10 of Dr carriers scholarly monograph - On the Historicity of Jesus. The chapter does 56 pages just on Mark and his sources. There are many scholarly sources given on every page so I won't list them all. The blog post gives some of the information in the chapter but not all.
The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark
Previously, I’ve written about the historicity of Jesus, and mentioned how the most recent analysis, in Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus (the first comprehensive, academically published, and formally peer-reviewed book written on the subject), showed that it was in fact very unlikely that Jesus Christ ever existed as a historical person, but rather likely began as a celestial deity who was later euhemerized, that is, placed into history as if he were a real person. As a part of Carrier’s comprehensive analysis, he analyzed the Gospels, and thoroughly demonstrated (as many other scholars have before him, though to varying degrees) that the Gospels are quite obviously mythical allegorical fictions, and thus can not be used as evidence to support the historicity of Jesus. As a former Christian, I never analyzed the Gospels from a literary or historical-critical perspective, as this wasn’t particularly relevant nor entirely feasible with my faith-based assumption that I was reading an “inerrant book inspired by God” supposedly based on nothing but true history. As a result, I never gave it much thought, nor realized just how much literary invention there was. In some cases, the care and thought taken to write these narratives is nothing short of brilliant. I wanted to share some of the content and literary devices discovered not only to illustrate that the Gospels are demonstrably mythical allegorical fictions, but also because I thought some of the literary devices used were impressive feats in themselves which I believe deserve recognition. I’ll be discussing a few of these elements found within the Gospels, as mentioned (though in greater detail) by Carrier in his comprehensive analysis. I’ve decided to split this into a series of four posts, one for each Gospel.
First of all, before even identifying or examining these literary constructs, allegories, and prospective elements of myth, we can already see by reading the Gospels that they fail to show any substantive content of being actual researched histories. Nowhere in the Gospels do they ever name their sources of information, nor do they read as eye witness testimonies (nor do they identify themselves as such), nor is it mentioned why any sources used would be accurate to rely upon. The authors never discuss any historical method used, nor do they acknowledge how some contents may be less accurate than others, nor do they mention alternate possibilities of the events given the limited information they had from their sources. They never express amazement or any degree of rational skepticism no matter how implausible an event within the story may be — something we would expect from any rational historian (even one living in antiquity). The authors never explain why they changed what their sources said, nor do they even acknowledge that they did such a thing in the first place — despite the fact that Matthew and Luke clearly relied on Mark as a source (as did John, though less obviously so), for example, and then they all redacted Mark’s version as needed to serve their own literary and theological purposes (which explains some of the contradictions found between one Gospel and another). Instead, the Gospels appear to be fictional historical biographies, likely written by specially interested Christians whose intent was to edify Jesus, just like many other fictional historical biographies that were made for various heroes and sages in antiquity. In fact, all students of literary Greek (the authors of the Gospels wrote their manuscripts in literary Greek), commonly used this fictional biographical technique as a popular rhetorical device — where they were taught to invent narratives about famous and legendary people, as well as to build a symbolic or moral message within it, and where they were taught to make changes to traditional stories in order to make whatever point they desired within their own stories.
So we already have a bit of contemporary background information showing us that fictional biographies were commonplace at the time, and thus warrant caution when examining writings that may look like histories upon first glance. However, there are also certain things we should expect to find in writings that are laden with myth and allegory as opposed to history. We can’t simply try to categorize the writings as fitting within some particular genre, as myths have been written in any and all genres, even as historical biographies (as was just mentioned), for example Plutarch’s Life of Romulus. In fact, quite a large amount of ancient biography, even of real people, was composed of myth and fiction, and thus we are forced to actually examine the content in detail to determine whether or not it is more likely to be myth or history. Some characteristics of myth include (but are not necessarily limited to): potent and meaningful emulation of previous myths, or potent emulation of real events in some cases; the presence of historical improbabilities — which is not only limited to magic or miracles, but also natural events and human behaviors that are unrealistic as well as the presence of amazing coincidences; and also the absence of external corroboration of key (rather than peripheral) elements, since a myth often incorporates some real historical people and places that surround a central mythical character and story (just as we see in most fiction, e.g., though Dorothy’s home-state of Kansas is a real place, the primary setting, main characters, and story in The Wizard of Oz, including the Wizard of Oz himself, are fictional constructs). It should be noted that not all of these characteristics need be present simultaneously for a story to be myth, but the more that are, or the more instances of each type found, only increases the likelihood that what one is reading is in fact myth rather than history.
From a historical-critical perspective, the most important thing to note is that whenever there are elements of myth found in a story, the rest of the story can no longer be used as reliable historical evidence (concerning any of the more plausible events found within the same story), due to the principle of contamination — just as a court of law assumes that a personal testimony that contains claims of magic, miracles, amazing coincidences or other implausibilities occurring is highly suspect, unreliable, and therefore must be dismissed from the pool of evidence under consideration. So in the context of the Gospels, if they are in fact demonstrated to be filled with highly devised literary structures constituting elements of allegory and myth, though that fact isn’t in itself evidence against a historical Jesus, it means that the Gospels can no longer be used as evidence for a historical Jesus. Furthermore, if any mythic content found in the Gospels can be cross-examined with other examples of myth found in history, for example, if one demonstrates that there is a historically high probability that any person claimed to possess certain attributes (e.g. being born of a virgin) are usually non-historical people, then the Gospels can in fact be used as evidence against the historicity of Jesus (as opposed to them merely being unusable to support historicity). Before I begin, I want to mention that although the Gospels in the New Testament (NT) had anonymous authors, for the sake of simplicity, I will refer to the authors as Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.
Beginning with the later story of Barabbas in Mark’s crucifixion narrative (Mark 15.6-15), Mark tells us:
“At the feast, Pilate used to release to them one prisoner of their choice. And there was one called Barabbas, chained up with those who’d engaged in rebellion, who in the insurrection had committed murder. The mob went up and began to ask him to do what he usually did for them. And Pilate answered them saying, ‘Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?’ For he realized the chief priests had seized [Jesus] out of jealousy. But the chief priests stirred up the mob, so he would release Barabbas to them instead. And Pilate again answered and said to them, ‘So what should I do about the one you call the King of the Jews?’ And they cried out again, ‘Crucify him!’ And Pilate, wishing to satisfy the mob, released to them Barabbas, and sent Jesus to be whipped and crucified.”
There are several elements in this passage alone that suggest it is surely myth, and not historical fact. For one, no Roman magistrate, let alone the infamously ruthless Pontius Pilate, would let a violent and murderous rebel go free, and most importantly, no such Roman ceremony (i.e. letting the mob choose to free a particular prisoner) is attested as ever having taken place, as we simply don’t have any Roman documentation or archeological artifact found thus far to support such a claim. Even more telling though, is the fact that this ceremony quite obviously emulates the Jewish Yom Kippur ritual, namely the scapegoat and atonement, and this apparent allegory takes place in a story that is itself about atonement (Jesus’ fundamental role as portrayed in Mark’s Gospel). Since there is quite a bit of evidence that the earliest Christians believed that Jesus’ death served to merge the sacrifices of the Passover and Yom Kippur, it is surely no coincidence that Mark appears to have done just that, by having Jesus be a Yom Kippur sacrifice during Passover.