The Resurrection is it provable?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But there is no reason to believe they didn't (since they wrote what they found out "according to eye-witnesses)

For example, the Dead Sea scrolls weren’t uncovered until the 20th century I think. That means that your theologians could never have seen them. That is one example of later people knowing more than earlier people.

 

[Brian2]

Sorry ,but the Gospels are not a reliable source for this. The Gospels are the claim. They cannot be the evidence.

Replying to post 180
So the gospels are not history even if one gospel verifies another.
The gospels were written to show that the stories were not made up but were witnessed.
If the stories did not contain supernatural then they would be documents that verified each other.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

He is consistently portrayed in canon and non canon as an egotistical coward who denied Jesus several times to save his life. People have died in his presence.

In terms of modern courts, Peter need only describe Jesus glowing in the dark while Peter was asleep and they would dismiss him.

 

[blü 2]

That would depend on which passages are seen as Messianic.
Isa 53 is Messianic and insinuates atoning suffering and death and resurrection.

On the contrary, Isaiah 53 is about the Suffering Servant, the nation of Israel.

Psalm 22 shows details of what happened to Jesus when crucified.

Other way round. Psalm 22 was used by the author of Mark, and from Mark the others, to script his crucifixion scene. So were various other parts of the Tanakh.

Nobody denies Jesus is God. The gospels do affirm that He is the Son of God however.

Not quite nobody. Paul's Jesus, Mark's Jesus, Matthew's Jesus, Luke's Jesus and John's Jesus each expressly deny they're God, and never claim to be God. It would be rather silly if they made such a claim, since that would mean each was praying to himself ('If it be my will, let this cup pass from me' for instance), and the Jesuses of Mark and of Matthew would be saying on the cross, 'Me, me, why have I forsaken me?'

Instead they serve the Jewish God (though in the case of Paul and the author of John, a distinctly gnostic version of the Jewish God), and if there's one thing that's clear about the Jewish God, it's that [he]'s not triune.

The Bible evidence gives different accounts of the same events at the grave when Jesus rose and so they differ.

They don't just differ, they each baldly contradict the others. And none is by an eyewitness, none is contemporary within 20 years (Paul) and the first with any detail is Mark's, more than 40 years after the traditional date of the crucifixion; and none is an independent account.

There is enough in the accounts to see that Jesus died on the cross and rose again. No eye witness of Jesus actually coming back to life is going to make any difference to people who do not believe the stories.

We'll never know ─ there isn't one.

What you said shows you do not believe because it was miraculous.

That's a perfectly ordinary rule of history and historiography. If you acknowledge the reality of miracles by Christians, you must equally allow the miracles of Sumer, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Roman, the Celts, the Norse, Wicca, of every religion in the world.

John's account was eye witness since John was an apostle.

We have no idea who wrote the gospels. The names were not added till later centuries.

Mark is supposed to have his account from Peter, an eye witness as John and Matthew were.

That's simply untrue. No gospel author ever met an historical Jesus or was present at the purported resurrection.

The evidence shows the 3 synoptic gospels were written between 25 and 30 years after Jesus died.

The evidence shows that the first gospel written was Mark and that Mark was written not earlier than 75 CE. I think I mentioned this before, but anyway, Mark's Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem, which dates Mark later than 70 CE, and Mark's trial of Jesus is based on Josephus' account of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem aka Jesus son of Ananias / Ananus in his Wars, which didn't became available till around 75 CE.

 

[Brian2]

Reply to post 186

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?)

There is evidence for the truth of the story in the story. The healing of Paul's blindness by a named person who was part of the early Church.

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

Do you think that a witness to the resurrection would remain a non believer?

See the first para above.

Do you think that evidence for the supernatural should be rejected until there is evidence that the supernatural exists?

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

Paul knew whether Jesus existed and if He was a miracle worker however.

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.

The only reason that Mark is dated by some as being after 75AD is because of the prophecy of the temple destruction.
That makes what you said circular reasoning.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Supportive documentation please.

Do you think if I told you a story that my friend told me, that that's an eyewitness account?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Replying to post 179


True Paul did not claim to have seen Jesus, but to have had an encounter with Him.
These claims were accompanied by his blindness and subsequent healing through a Christian whom had been told about Paul.
The early church knew the gospel writers and so applied those names to the gospels.

No, the early church leaders did not know the Gospel writers. That is a myth given to you by dishonest sources. They will sometimes site an obscure work by an early leader, but they tend to refute their claims when fully checked out. For example Papias noted that Matthew wrote records in Hebrew. There is a huge problem with this since the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in very very well educated Greek. If one is fluent in two languages one can normally tell which of the two a piece of literature was written in.

What I have noticed is that the prophecy of the temple destruction is what takes the dating to after 70AD or so close that someone might have guessed what would happen.
The evidence for early writing is thrown out do that the naturalistic methodology will not be contradicted.
So in this way the authors have to be people other than the ones we know the gospels by and where and to whom the gospels were written has to be ascertained by this post 70 dating also.
13 Good Historical Reasons For The Early Dating of The Gospels | Is Jesus Alive?
Arguments for a pre-70 CE Dating of Matthew's Gospel — Danny Zacharias

Yes, you can find an extremist or two among scholars that do not go by the later dates. . They do not appear to be able to convince the majority of modern scholars and some of his arguments appear to be rather thin to say the least. It is almost as if he had an agenda rather than wanting to know it was written.

 

[leroy]

Yes, and Craig's Kalam argument contains a glaring one.

Well i disagree

No, it demonstrates the incoherence of the phrase "existing outside of time."

Maybe but you would have to elaborate an argument that shows that such a thing is incoherent.

No, and the argument doesn't come from a video, even if it was once presented in one.

Yes the original quote comes from a video, if you watch the video you will understand the quote in the proper context………

You'll need to be specific. Please name examples of apostles who died because they believed they witnessed a resurrection and were killed for so saying.

Paul Peter James for example

I'm sure at least some did. We've been over that as well. Remember my reference to Heaven's Gate? It might have been nice had you responded to that then and explained why it wasn't relevant,

That proves my point, the fact that people where willing to pay for “Alien insurance” and then committed suicide strongly suggest that these people honestly and sincerely believed in the truth of that cult.

Similarly first generation Christians also honestly believed that Jesus did resurrected.

No, my suggestions account for the evidence you've cited much more parsimoniously. They don't require that a god actually exist or a resurrection actually occurred. Yours does.

First parsimony is not the only nor the most important criteria to determine which hypothesis is better. Other factors like explanatory scope and explanatory power tend to be more important and your theory lacks those attributes.

Second: you keep adding complexity to your theory, for example you are adding additional explanations to explain the empty tomb so I am not even sure if your theory is more parsimonious.

Then the universe isn't fine tuned if it could have been been the same universe with different fundamental physical constants. The apologists can't have it both ways - the universe is so finely tuned that only a transcendent intelligence could have discovered and implemented that tuning, because what are the odds that this universe existed if not for that fine tuning that only a deity could provide? That's the argument. And then when painted into a logical corner, it becomes, god could have done it any number of ways - they all work. He just happened to choose this way.

How do you go from

1 God could have done it differently

To

2 therefore it is not FT? therefore the designer is constrained?

Obviously there are some missing premises in your argument.

Yes, but he is constrained by the laws of physics. That's the point. The designer is constrained by what is possible to design - what can be done with the existing materials and algorithms available. He makes those physical laws work for him to generate the screen graphic he designed, but he didn't create those laws, just the program that must obey them.

In this analogy the video game is the universe, Mari o is us, and the programmer is God…………all I am saying is that the programmer could a}have created a FT game where if you change a parameter it would become impossible to save the princess, or a non-FT game with wider ranges, where there are many ways to save the princess, (so changing some parameters would not make saving the princess impossible)

The point is that the fact that the programmer can do a non-ft game doesn’t prove that the game is not FT.

 

[leroy]

Do you think if I told you a story that my friend told me, that that's an eyewitness account?

yes

 

[rational experiences]

The theme only god is good is said by men.

No man is God said by men.

Man created his own sin. Said men.

Man hence can't be good as no man is God.

Misread.

As God is good a man has to know and understand what good means.

You cannot understand what you cannot compare by thesis. Thought by the man human.

So if a man is not God. Men want energy he says that is God. He wants God for his resource. Then he claims he is Satan evil power that hence created God.

As a human a theist lying.

So as God is entombed as rock stone dead by not being alight.

As men state my life lives Living by light.

Giving God light did he ressurect his own life spirit.

Human theists question.

No. Of course not. As the entombed dead tomb body unwrapped it's spirit leaving an empty tomb.

Man's sin. Sink hole.

As gods first alight resurrection was by a sun. And what was saved resurrected was dusts the layered body of various sheets of layers.

Hence if you think a thesis first.

Then change the thesis second.

You lose your mind consciousness as stated.

Lose DNA you lose consciousness and your mind taught.

How a theist going back over theisms proves he lost the meanings he first used as thinking paths.

 

[blü 2]

There is evidence for the truth of the story in the story. The healing of Paul's blindness by a named person who was part of the early Church.

Paul, if he's to be believed, suffered a mental event which temporarily blinded him. End of story.

Do you think that a witness to the resurrection would remain a non believer?

Again, we'll never know. But if I had been present at a purported resurrection of a dead man, the first thing that would occur to me was that he was never actually dead. If modern medicine encounters cases where they can't determine whether the apparent cessation of vital signs is irreversible or not, what chance would the average onlooker in 1st century CE Jerusalem have?

Do you think that evidence for the supernatural should be rejected until there is evidence that the supernatural exists?

As it stands, there is no meaningful definition of a real supernatural entity or world ─ the word itself means 'outside of nature' and nature means reality, so the only way the supernatural can exist is as a concept / thing imagined in an individual brain. It can't have objective existence. (Nothing changes if for supernatural you substitute 'immaterial', 'spiritual' or the like.

Paul knew whether Jesus existed and if He was a miracle worker however.

Paul says quite explicitly (Galatians 1:11-12) that everything he tells you about Jesus comes out of his own head, has no other source.

The only reason that Mark is dated by some as being after 75AD is because of the prophecy of the temple destruction.

No, as I said elsewhere, the use of Josephus' Wars to derive the trial scene in Mark means Mark couldn't have been written earlier than 75 CE when Wars became available.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Reply to post 198
The knowledge about the writers of the gospels came from the centuries before Nicea. I have never heard of Nicea in relation to the naming of the authors of the gospels
How the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers Preserved the Eyewitness Gospel Accounts | Cold Case Christianity

 

[leroy]

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.

ok then I am not making a straw man right? You do claim exactly what I said you claimed.

Of course I would like to ask for evidence supporting your claim but I know you won’t provide such evidence.,




What about other embarrassing details such as

1 women discovered the empty tomb

2 Jesus was buried by a member of the Sanhedrin

3 Peter denied Jesus

4 Jesus had limited knowledge (he didn’t know when the end times be)

5 Jesus own brothers and parents didn’t believed in him at the beginning

Where this also hard to cover up?

 

[leroy]

He is not portrayed as a trustworthy witness. Next.

why not

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reply to post 186


There is evidence for the truth of the story in the story. The healing of Paul's blindness by a named person who was part of the early Church.



Do you think that a witness to the resurrection would remain a non believer?



Do you think that evidence for the supernatural should be rejected until there is evidence that the supernatural exists?



Paul knew whether Jesus existed and if He was a miracle worker however.



The only reason that Mark is dated by some as being after 75AD is because of the prophecy of the temple destruction.
That makes what you said circular reasoning.

The Trump election results serve as a good example of people that are willing to go to extremes for a lie.

Please note, though there were many Christians that were persecuted the claims of "Christian martyrs going willingly to death" is not well supported. Please do not use the argument of "would people die for a lie" unless you can show that they were given a chance to recant.

 

[leroy]

Wjy do you think that help you? Once again, .

Because normal people with normal standards accept this as a hint that the source is reliable.

some of the errors are very very egregious

I am not saying that there are no errors, all ancient historical sources have errors , the claim is that there are many “corrects” and few errors in comparison.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

yes

The answer is no.
If my friend told you the story herself, that would be an eyewitness account. Me telling you a story that my friend told me is hearsay.
I can't go into court and testify as a witness and then tell a story about what my friend saw.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok then I am not making a straw man right? You do claim exactly what I said you claimed.

Of course I would like to ask for evidence supporting your claim but I know you won’t provide such evidence.,




What about other embarrassing details such as

1 women discovered the empty tomb

Who else would have discovered him? Think about it.

2 Jesus was buried by a member of the Sanhedrin

Was he though? And without knowing enough of the culture it appears to be a big "So what" either way. Wouldn't it be a good thing if Jesus could convince someone of note? It does not appear embarrassing at all. It only appears to be part of the myth. It is a good story telling element.

3 Peter denied Jesus

4 Jesus had limited knowledge (he didn’t know when the end times be)

Gods in the past were often of limited power. Omniscience appears to be more of a recent invention. So that is not evidence. Peter denying Jesus is just good story telling.

5 Jesus own brothers and parents didn’t believed in him at the beginning

Where this also hard to cover up?

Just more story telling elements. You are really grasping at straws.

It is best to admit the obvious. You have no rational reason to believe the resurrection myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok then I am not making a straw man right? You do claim exactly what I said you claimed.

Of course I would like to ask for evidence supporting your claim but I know you won’t provide such evidence.,




What about other embarrassing details such as

1 women discovered the empty tomb

Who else would have discovered him? Think about it.

2 Jesus was buried by a member of the Sanhedrin

Was he though? And without knowing enough of the culture it appears to be a big "So what" either way. Wouldn't it be a good thing if Jesus could convince someone of note? It does not appear embarrassing at all. It only appears to be part of the myth. It is a good story telling element.

3 Peter denied Jesus

4 Jesus had limited knowledge (he didn’t know when the end times be)

Gods in the past were often of limited power. Omniscience appears to be more of a recent invention. So that is not evidence. Peter denying Jesus is just good story telling.

5 Jesus own brothers and parents didn’t believed in him at the beginning

Where this also hard to cover up?

Just more story telling elements. You are really grasping at straws.

It is best to admit the obvious. You have no rational reason to believe the resurrection myth.

 

[leroy]

The answer is no.
If my friend told you the story herself, that would be an eyewitness account. Me telling you a story that my friend told me is hearsay.
I can't go into court and testify as a witness and then tell a story about what my friend saw.

The answer is no.
If my friend told you the story herself, that would be an eyewitness account. Me telling you a story that my friend told me is hearsay.
I can't go into court and testify as a witness and then tell a story about what my friend saw.

From the point of view of ancient history such a testimony would count as first hand testimony