The Resurrection is it provable?

[leroy]

Who else would have discovered him? Think about it.



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.


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.



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.

If the authors of the gospels would have been the liars that you claim they were, they would have omitted those details

For example if woman where not considered reliable witnesses why inventing that women witnessed the empty tomb?............ if I want to invent (and lie about) a story why would I claim that my 3yo daughter is the principal witness of the ghost? …. People consider 3yo children unreliable witness, so why not lying and inventing a better witness.


But granted we “don’t know for sure “ that the authors where no lying so by your standards you won the argument.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus was

In claims only. He is portrayed as sinning.

 

[ppp]

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

From the viewpoint of current history, their standards were ridiculously flawed.

 

[CG Didymus]

There is evidence for the truth of the story in the story.

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

If the authors of the gospels would have been the liars that you claim they were, they would have omitted those details

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but I was wondering if any of the Baha'is have given their interpretation of the resurrection? If not, then their belief is that the resurrection story was symbolic and not literal.

I don't believe the story was symbolic. And even though, I have my doubts about the resurrection being a literal, physical resurrection, I do believe that is what the gospel writers are saying... They saw him and touched him, and he had flesh and bone and was not a ghost, and then in Acts it says that Jesus showed himself to be alive by many proofs. Is that what you and Brian2 believe? That it was a physical resurrection? If so, then what type of physical body do you think it was? Do you think it was some sort of "glorified" body, since it could appear and disappear and float off into the clouds?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

No. It doesn't change just because it's "ancient history."

 

[Kenny]

.

That's why Jesus atoned for sins? Your not getting the parable and why it looks like myth. First the Romans didn't historically release prisoners like that. But Barabbas needs to be a murder? That makes the parable perfect? This is brilliant myth making.

What parable? Romans didn't historically release prisoners like that?

Again.. I understand the diet you have would make you believe that.

Just because we have no evidence of a custom doesn't mean it didn't happen.

But you can believe it wasn't if you want.

So Mark seems to be portraying the Jews as acting completely blind to the situation and choosing their sins (i.e. Barabbas) rather than their salvation (i.e. Jesus). Finally, this story seems to suggest that the Jews have also chosen the wrong model for the expected messiah. Whereas Barabbas could be seen as the murderous revolutionary, in line with the common Jewish belief that the messiah was expected to be a kind of revolutionary military leader, Jesus on the other hand, exemplified the suffering servant model of the messiah (another Jewish messianic model, though arguably less popular than the former), and one that would circumvent any need for a military revolution by enacting a spiritual victory through his death instead. So the Jews appear to have chosen the type of messiah they want, rather than the type of messiah that God wants instead (or so Mark believes anyway). Furthermore, rather than using a random lottery (i.e. God) to choose which “goat” would serve as the scapegoat, and which would serve as the atonement, the Jews removed God from the equation and made the choice themselves. If one looks at all of these elements together, we can see just how brilliant Mark’s story is, having multiple allegorical layers weaved into one.

So.. here I see nothing but your personal beliefs projected into Mark. In politics there are many reasons that one holds a position. Certainly the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herodians, with the Roman Empire breathing down their necks, there are many reasons why they wouldn't want Jesus on the scene,

But

You can believe it is false if you want.... I don't see it as such.

Both quotes do nothing to negate the idea?
We get further confirmation of this belief in the Epistle to the Hebrews (9-10), where we hear Jesus’ death described as the ultimate Yom Kippur atonement sacrifice. The people ARE choosing Barabbas? They are hugging him and making the mistake of choosing their sins instead of salvation. That is exactly whats happening. Mark is writing a brilliant narrative here.
The quotes you posted show Jesus is the atonement, that IS the point?! The correct choice is Jesus but Mark has them choose Barabas at first.

That is what happened.... you don't have to believe it, of course. I do.

That does happen like that, it's weaving multiple allegories into the story. Yes Jesus is the suffering messianic figure and Barabbas is the militant savior. Mark is writing against the Romulus narrative. Romulus is the savior of Rome who died and was resurrected (a myth) but he was Romes savior through military might.

Apples and oranges IMV

Oh wow, you really don't care about what is true at all? So again, who is the source? Who is Nick Candy? Is his work peer-reviewed? Is he a PhD in statistical probability?

For every Post Hole Digger that you can find, I will find a dozen PhD that disagree.

As far as "don't care what is true" - that's relative and cuts both ways.

I'm dissapointed you ended on such wu however because there is a lot of good information in Carriers writing (or other scholars he's using) and you went with a ridiculous apologetics? There is incredibly solid evidence that Mark is re-writing several OT narratives. So he knows the OT and is using it for a source to create. So the odds that the Jesus character was written to fulfill the prophecies is extremely high.
Yet you post an amateur article about how amazing it is that.....? Mark wrote fiction? He wrote the character so he fulfills the prophecy? That's what writers do when writing a next chapter??????

Why would you post this?

(Bold) - if this was an attempt to demean or, for that matter, just to say that... it is childish, immature and irrelevant.

Ridiculous is still a matter of opinion. I don't agree.

Let's take a position outside of your box. What if it was fulfilled prophesy and that every time the Gospels says "that it might be fulfilled by that which the prophets spoke of" and that the quoted saying of Jesus is true that "The prophets, Moses and Psalms spoke of me" - you would still look at it as "created" and not true. So, do we really have a discussion or are we both simply "this is what I believe". I think the latter would be correct?

No they are not coincidences, Mark is reversing the story. This is mythology and it isn't even original but the writing is excellent. Interesting to see how fundamentalists deal with this information though.

Now nice of God to send a love letter that the entire Christian scholarship has decided means something entirely different. Is it fun for God to mess with people? That's a love letter? I think you are using the conspiracy theory logic.

OK... I see where you stand and how you look at it. I don't see it that way.

Well your own religion disagrees with you. Bible.org is not a historical site, It is actual Christian scholarship and they support the theology as being real.
Christian scholars have come to terms with the facts which cannot be denied. Mark is the source and that is why the gospels interlace.

There are some facts that cannot be denied but you certainly haven't enumerated them.

To sum up reasons for Markan priority, the following eight arguments have been given.

(1) The argument from length. Although Mark’s Gospel is shorter, it is not an abridgment, nor a gospel built exclusively on Matthew-Luke agreement. In fact, where its pericopae parallel Matthew and/or Luke, Mark’s story is usually the longest. The rich material left out of his gospel is inexplicable on the Griesbach hypothesis.

Inexplicable as a personal viewpoint. I'm sure Mark was fine with it.

(2) The argument from grammar. Matthew and especially Luke use better grammar and literary style than Mark, suggesting that they used Mark, but improved on it.

One of the problems we encounter is that we tend to imprint our customs to that of the Jewish culture of their time. An error.

They didn't have "plagiarism" at that time. Custom was that you did build on what someone else said. If adding to it improved the message - I'm sure they said "great".

In that they DID add to it, validates that what Mark said was true.

(3) The argument from harder readings. On the analogy of early scribal habits, Luke and Matthew apparently removed difficulties from Mark’s Gospel in making their own. If Matthean priority is assumed, then what is inexplicable is why Mark would have introduced such difficulties.

"Difficulty" is a viewpoint. I didn't see any "difficulties". Difficulty is in the eye of the beholder?

(4) The argument from verbal agreement. There are fewer Matthew-Luke verbal agreements than any other two-gospel verbal agreements. This is difficult to explain on the Griesbach hypothesis, much easier on the Lachmann/Streeter hypothesis.

So? Why does there have to be verbal agreements? and why are we comparing? First you say it is wrong to say what the other said and then you turn around and say they aren't saying what the other said? Speaking with two sides of the mouth?

(5) The argument from agreement in order. Not only do Luke and Matthew never agree with each other when they depart from Mark’s order, but the reasons for this on the assumption of Markan priority are readily available while on Matthean priority they are not.

????

(6) The argument from literary agreements. Very close to the redactional argument, this point stresses that on literary analysis, it is easier to see Matthew’s use of Mark than vice versa.

So?

7) The argument from redaction. The redactional emphases in Mark, especially in his stylistic minutiae, are only inconsistently found in Matthew and Luke, while the opposite is not true. In other words, Mark’s style is quite consistent, while Luke and Matthew are inconsistent—when they parallel Mark, there is consistency; when they diverge, they depart from such. This suggests that Mark was the source for both Matthew and Luke.

So?

(8) The argument from Mark’s more primitive theology. On many fronts Mark seems to display a more primitive theology than either Luke or Matthew. This suggests that Matthew and Luke used Mark, altering the text to suit their purposes.

so... you wanted them to get together and speak like each other?

OBVIOUSLY, you are set in what you believe.

I really don't have any problem with you believing that. But I will also acknowledge that there are a plethora of PhD, historians, theologians, et a who would disagree with you (as I do)



So let's live our merry lives with our world view application and love each other!

 

[Kenny]

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.

I really don't follow that analogy. Need help on these statements.

 

[Kenny]

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.

So... you wanted a doctored up, non-historical, "the winner writes his own story in a good light", type of letter?

Do you think that in real life, there aren't people who would "betray their family to save their hide"?

No... it is too real to not be reliable.

 

[Kenny]

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

So... when someone sits down to an eye-witness and took their deposition, it isn't admissible.

Got it!

 

[Kenny]

In claims only. He is portrayed as sinning.

no
Luke 23:4
Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

Mark 14:55-59
Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any. For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was not consistent. Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying,

“We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you would have to elaborate an argument that shows that such a thing [existence outside of time] is incoherent.

I did: "Imagine yourself existing outside of time. Are you conscious? Can you think or act? To exist is to be. "Be" has tenses - was, is, will be. To be conscious is to experience the theater of consciousness, of conscious phenomena parading by and evolving, coming into consciousness and going out again."

Once again, it would have been nice if you had addressed that argument when you saw it. Why in your opinion is that incorrect? Does "be" NOT have tenses? Can one be conscious outside of time given that consciousness established a sense of time, of now, of was, of will be? Is consciousness not a parade of conscious phenomena experienced as an evolution of thoughts, urges, and feelings coming then going? Do you disagree with any of those, and if so, how and why.

The words existence implies the passage of time. Everything that exists has a temporo-spatial address. It exists in some part of space - perhaps all of it if we are talking about energy - over a series of consecutive instants. And things that exist, that is, are real, together comprise reality - the collection of objects and processes that can interact with one another. The nonexistent are the opposite. The cannot be found at any place at any time, and is unable to affect reality or be affected by it.

Recently, somebody was telling the thread that God exists outside of time but can enter into our world. That illustrates the incoherent nature of the phrase existing out of time. What is described is a before and after state, a transformation where there is no before in the before stage because there is no time. It's an incoherent idea that a god is thinking it wants to enter our world and then does that, but from a starting place with no time. It had an idea outside of time. Having ideas is a change in mental state, and like existence, implies the passage of time.

What's happening with all of this existence outside of time stuff is people trying to make the nonexistent real, the things that don't exist that others want to imagine exist, but don't recognize that as soon as they put something outside of time they put it outside of existence. Santa Claus is outside of time. There is no place and no time when one can visit him, and one can not affect him or be affected by him (don't confuse Santa, who doesn't exist and can affect nothing, with the idea of Santa, which does exist, and causes visions of sugar plums to dance through heads)

I don't expect you to accept this, but it would be nice if you would attempt to rebut it, that is, present a counterargument that shows not just that you don't agree, but why the argument can't be correct or might not be correct. You can't do it. I can't do it. Just as neither of us could rebut an argument that a married bachelor is impossible. What are you going to offer as a counterargument? Nothing, because the phrase is internally inconsistent (incoherent, self-contradictory), just like existence outside of time or thought outside of time, or action such as entering another world outside of time.

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

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about Craig's Kalam argument, but we also discussed his quote about rejecting evidence if it conflicts with his faith-based beliefs. But I'll assumethat we are discussing Kalam now. The argument, like all arguments, stands or falls on its own merits, not any alleged context not included in it.

Also, when you say that something has been taken out of context, you are saying that there are words missing that reveal that the citation meant something other than what it appears to mean missing some relevant context. A classic example is from scripture, which includes a passage that says that a fool says that there is no God. If I tell you that the Bible says there is no God, I'm creating the opposite impression to what was meant and is easily seen when the missing context is restored. If that's not what you mean, the criticism of missing context is empty and meaningless. There's always more context surrounding every citation - words that came before and words that came after. Unless they are important to understanding the excised citation, it's irrelevant to point out that they exist.

So here is your chance to restore the missing content in the video that reveals that Craig didn't mean what the quoted words suggest he meant.

Paul Peter James for example

These were martyrs for Jesus? OK. I'll take your word for it. Not that it matters to the discussion of whether resurrection actually occurred, but are you saying that they were they all executed for being Christian? How would you know? Because the same source that says they witnessed a resurrection also says they were killed for their beliefs? That second part is obviously possible, but as we've discussed before, the Bible is never the evidence or argument. It is the unevidenced claim. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. If the question has an answer, it will need to come from external sources, not just scripture.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

I thought it proved my point, and thank you for addressing it this time. This part of the discussion simply wasn't possible until you weighed in. I understood you to be arguing that when people are willing to die for their beliefs, that made the beliefs more likely to be true in a significant sense, as if one should believe they were correct. If all you are saying is that people held these beliefs rather than that they were probably right if they died for them, then that is irrelevant. Wasn't the discussion about the likelihood of resurrection and not just belief in that?

I think the Heaven's Gate matter nicely illustrates an aspect of human nature that negates any claim that resurrection is more likely if people are willing to die because they believe it. People are going to prison in America over the belief that an election was stolen, but no matter how many of them there are, their willingness to take risks based in those beliefs is not an indicator that they are correct. Likewise with the needlessly dead for fear of a vaccine. They died for their beliefs, but they were still incorrect. They would rather risk the virus than being chipped by Bill Gates and having Dr. Fauci alter their DNA. Does that mean anything to you other than that people can die for false beliefs?

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.

I don't think you understand what the principle of parsimony is. It says that the least complicated explanation that DOES explain observations is the preferred one. This is self-evidently correct. If later observations aren't accounted for by the present explanation, we modify it to do that with the simplest narrative that does that. We're continually asked to inject gods into the theory of evolution by people who simply don't believe that evolution occurred or could occur without a god, but if you do, you've explained nothing extra, and have added a huge load of unnecessary complexity for no increase in predictive or explanatory power in return.

Go ahead and stick a god into the theory and explain how that makes it explain more or be more useful. Occam and parsimony advise us not to do that before we need to in order to account for some new finding not explained by the theory such as irreducible complexity in a biological system. Darwin's theory does not allow for that, its demonstration would falsify the theory, and force a paradigm shift in the narrative to include an intelligent designer. But not before then. We could do that now, and throw a race of superhuman extraterrestrials into the theory, but they would account for no observation as long as the theory isn't falsified, and would add unneeded complexity.

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.

I'm adding complexity by suggesting that the resurrection story is about something that never happened, or any other naturalistic, logically possible explanation? I've removed actual resurrection and God from the explanation. I don't think one can simplify an answer any more than remove those from the answer.

How do you go from [1] God could have done it differently To [2] therefore it is not FT? therefore the designer is constrained?

Did I do that? You're the one saying God could have done it differently. I'm saying that if that's so, the universe cannot be called finely tuned. I am also saying that if the universe was finely tuned, that if a transcendent intelligence was needed to identify those narrow constraints and implement them, that means that the physical parameters necessary for life and mind to thrive are constrained.

What does finely tuned mean to you? Your video game is not analogous. It involves digital characters imagining that their digital world could only have been programed one way when it could have been programmed differently. There are a countless number of virtual realities that can created, meaning that none of them is fine tuned in the sense meant in the fine tuning argument - it could only have been done this one way. You're toggling back and forth between a universe that requires fine tuning for life and mind to exist, to one that could have been made many other ways. Only the first is finely tuned. The other can be tuned in an infinite number of ways. If you want to argue that the universe could have had any number of combinations of physical constants as you have in [1] above.

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

First-hand testimony comes directly from the witness. Even if there had been a resurrection, nobody alive today saw it, and therefore, there are no eye-witnesses for us. We only have retold stories.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So... when someone sits down to an eye-witness and took their deposition, it isn't admissible.

Got it!

That's not the same thing.

The point is that if I'm relaying to you a story that someone else told me, I'm not an eyewitness to the event, therefore it is not an eyewitness account. I'm telling you something somebody else told me.
An eyewitness account comes from the person who witnessed the event. So my friend's account is the eyewitness account - not my recounting of it to you.

I don't know why this is such a difficult concept, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that there are no eyewitness accounts to the resurrection, and so we have to re-define words to mean something they don't mean and invent an eyewitness account that doesn't exist.

 

[Kenny]

That's not the same thing.

t.

It is what I am talking about. Luke sat down with eye-witnesses and then wrote down (as detailed as a doctor writes) what these eye-witnesses said.

 

[leroy]

I thought it proved my point, and thank you for addressing it this time. This part of the discussion simply wasn't possible until you weighed in. I understood you to be arguing that when people are willing to die for their beliefs, that made the beliefs more likely to be true in a significant sense, as if one should believe they were correct. If all you are saying is that people held these beliefs rather than that they were probably right if they died for them, then that is irrelevant. Wasn't the discussion about the likelihood of resurrection and not just belief in that?

I think the Heaven's Gate matter nicely illustrates an aspect of human nature that negates any claim that resurrection is more likely if people are willing to die because they believe it. People are going to prison in America over the belief that an election was stolen, but no matter how many of them there are, their willingness to take risks based in those beliefs is not an indicator that they are correct. Likewise with the needlessly dead for fear of a vaccine. They died for their beliefs, but they were still incorrect. They would rather risk the virus than being chipped by Bill Gates and having Dr. Fauci alter their DNA. Does that mean anything to you other than that people can die for false beliefs?



I don't think you understand what the principle of parsimony is. It says that the least complicated explanation that DOES explain observations is the preferred one. This is self-evidently correct. If later observations aren't accounted for by the present explanation, we modify it to do that with the simplest narrative that does that. We're continually asked to inject gods into the theory of evolution by people who simply don't believe that evolution occurred or could occur without a god, but if you do, you've explained nothing extra, and have added a huge load of unnecessary complexity for no increase in predictive or explanatory power in return.

Go ahead and stick a god into the theory and explain how that makes it explain more or be more useful. Occam and parsimony advise us not to do that before we need to in order to account for some new finding not explained by the theory such as irreducible complexity in a biological system. Darwin's theory does not allow for that, its demonstration would falsify the theory, and force a paradigm shift in the narrative to include an intelligent designer. But not before then. We could do that now, and throw a race of superhuman extraterrestrials into the theory, but they would account for no observation as long as the theory isn't falsified, and would add unneeded complexity.



I'm adding complexity by suggesting that the resurrection story is about something that never happened, or any other naturalistic, logically possible explanation? I've removed actual resurrection and God from the explanation. I don't think one can simplify an answer any more than remove those from the answer.



Did I do that? You're the one saying God could have done it differently. I'm saying that if that's so, the universe cannot be called finely tuned. I am also saying that if the universe was finely tuned, that if a transcendent intelligence was needed to identify those narrow constraints and implement them, that means that the physical parameters necessary for life and mind to thrive are constrained.

What does finely tuned mean to you? Your video game is not analogous. It involves digital characters imagining that their digital world could only have been programed one way when it could have been programmed differently. There are a countless number of virtual realities that can created, meaning that none of them is fine tuned in the sense meant in the fine tuning argument - it could only have been done this one way. You're toggling back and forth between a universe that requires fine tuning for life and mind to exist, to one that could have been made many other ways. Only the first is finely tuned. The other can be tuned in an infinite number of ways. If you want to argue that the universe could have had any number of combinations of physical constants as you have in [1] above.



First-hand testimony comes directly from the witness. Even if there had been a resurrection, nobody alive today saw it, and therefore, there are no eye-witnesses for us. We only have retold stories.

I thought it proved my point, and thank you for addressing it this time. This part of the discussion simply wasn't possible until you weighed in. I understood you to be arguing that when people are willing to die for their beliefs, that made the beliefs more likely to be true in a significant sense, as if one should believe they were correct. If all you are saying is that people held these beliefs rather than that they were probably right if they died for them, then that is irrelevant. Wasn't the discussion about the likelihood of resurrection and not just belief in that?

I think the Heaven's Gate matter nicely illustrates an aspect of human nature that negates any claim that resurrection is more likely if people are willing to die because they believe it. People are going to prison in America over the belief that an election was stolen, but no matter how many of them there are, their willingness to take risks based in those beliefs is not an indicator that they are correct. Likewise with the needlessly dead for fear of a vaccine. They died for their beliefs, but they were still incorrect. They would rather risk the virus than being chipped by Bill Gates and having Dr. Fauci alter their DNA. Does that mean anything to you other than that people can die for false beliefs?



I don't think you understand what the principle of parsimony is. It says that the least complicated explanation that DOES explain observations is the preferred one. This is self-evidently correct. If later observations aren't accounted for by the present explanation, we modify it to do that with the simplest narrative that does that. We're continually asked to inject gods into the theory of evolution by people who simply don't believe that evolution occurred or could occur without a god, but if you do, you've explained nothing extra, and have added a huge load of unnecessary complexity for no increase in predictive or explanatory power in return.

Go ahead and stick a god into the theory and explain how that makes it explain more or be more useful. Occam and parsimony advise us not to do that before we need to in order to account for some new finding not explained by the theory such as irreducible complexity in a biological system. Darwin's theory does not allow for that, its demonstration would falsify the theory, and force a paradigm shift in the narrative to include an intelligent designer. But not before then. We could do that now, and throw a race of superhuman extraterrestrials into the theory, but they would account for no observation as long as the theory isn't falsified, and would add unneeded complexity.



I'm adding complexity by suggesting that the resurrection story is about something that never happened, or any other naturalistic, logically possible explanation? I've removed actual resurrection and God from the explanation. I don't think one can simplify an answer any more than remove those from the answer.



Did I do that? You're the one saying God could have done it differently. I'm saying that if that's so, the universe cannot be called finely tuned. I am also saying that if the universe was finely tuned, that if a transcendent intelligence was needed to identify those narrow constraints and implement them, that means that the physical parameters necessary for life and mind to thrive are constrained.

What does finely tuned mean to you? Your video game is not analogous. It involves digital characters imagining that their digital world could only have been programed one way when it could have been programmed differently. There are a countless number of virtual realities that can created, meaning that none of them is fine tuned in the sense meant in the fine tuning argument - it could only have been done this one way. You're toggling back and forth between a universe that requires fine tuning for life and mind to exist, to one that could have been made many other ways. Only the first is finely tuned. The other can be tuned in an infinite number of ways. If you want to argue that the universe could have had any number of combinations of physical constants as you have in [1] above.



First-hand testimony comes directly from the witness. Even if there had been a resurrection, nobody alive today saw it, and therefore, there are no eye-witnesses for us. We only have retold stories.

Just to be clear I am taking that your view is the “legend hypothesis” you claim that the legend hypothesis is better than the resurrection hypothesis (please if I am wrong correct me)

The legend hypothesis states that Jesus was just a nice guy with some followers, he died and resurrected in a symbolic way (something like Jesus now lives in our hearts) this story was told generation after generation for centuries, and slowly but surely this “symbolic resurrection” started to became a physical resurrection.

Something like Santa Clause, who started as a priest that helped children but after many generations he became a fat guy who lives in the north pole and provides gifts to everybody.

Is this your view? If not please correct me so that I can have a correct version of your view (I don’t want to straw man you)

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is what I am talking about. Luke sat down with eye-witnesses and then wrote down (as detailed as a doctor writes) what these eye-witnesses said.

Not as Luke describes it, it isn't.

" 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."

Also, I'm wondering why you cut out the part of my post that contained my explanation.

 

[Kenny]

Not as Luke describes it, it isn't.

" 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."

Also, I'm wondering why you cut out the part of my post that contained my explanation.

My apologies for cutting the rest out.

So many times people write a compendium which, in most cases but not yours, become irrelevant information. "habit" kicked in on yours... I saw your first statement and then just "assumed".

Wrong on my part.

I'm not sure what version you are quoting but this is what I have:

KJ21
even as they were delivered unto us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word,

ASV
even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,

AMP
exactly as they were handed down to us by those [with personal experience] who from the beginning [of Christ’s ministry] were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word [that is, of the teaching concerning salvation through faith in Christ],

AMPC
Exactly as they were handed down to us by those who from the [official] beginning [of Jesus’ ministry] were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word [that is, of the doctrine concerning the attainment through Christ of salvation in the kingdom of God],

BRG
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

CSB
just as the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us.

CEB
They used what the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed down to us.

I like the ASV which explains that it was handed down directly from those who were eye-witnesses. So, for me, it is like a deposition.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My apologies for cutting the rest out.

So many times people write a compendium which, in most cases but not yours, become irrelevant information. "habit" kicked in on yours... I saw your first statement and then just "assumed".

Wrong on my part.

Fair enough. I just found it strange because that part was the bulk of the post.

I'm not sure what version you are quoting but this is what I have:

KJ21
even as they were delivered unto us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word,

ASV
even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,

AMP
exactly as they were handed down to us by those [with personal experience] who from the beginning [of Christ’s ministry] were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word [that is, of the teaching concerning salvation through faith in Christ],

AMPC
Exactly as they were handed down to us by those who from the [official] beginning [of Jesus’ ministry] were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word [that is, of the doctrine concerning the attainment through Christ of salvation in the kingdom of God],

BRG
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

CSB
just as the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us.

CEB
They used what the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed down to us.

I like the ASV which explains that it was handed down directly from those who were eye-witnesses. So, for me, it is like a deposition.

And that translates into Luke sitting down with eyewitnesses and recording their testimony .... how, exactly? That's not what he is saying he's done here.
I mean, he says right it in there that these stories were handed down from others. That means Luke isn't an eyewitness. That means he got his "eyewitness accounts" from someone else (probably from oral tradition).

 

[Kenny]

Fair enough. I just found it strange because that part was the bulk of the post.


And that translates into Luke sitting down with eyewitnesses and recording their testimony .... how, exactly? That's not what he is saying he's done here.
I mean, he says right it in there that these stories were handed down from others. That means Luke isn't an eyewitness. That means he got his "eyewitness accounts" from someone else (probably from oral tradition).

I just don't read it that way. (And again, my apologies)

First version - "even as they were delivered unto us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses"

It doesn't say "delivered to us by a friend who spoke to the eye-witnesses" - specifically "delivered" by "those who were eyewitnesses"

In my view it wouldn't be hard. Whoever wrote it (I believe it was Luke) also wrote Acts. That person actually hung out on missionary trips with the originals (my view--obviously others can have a different view). I do follow the traditional understanding.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I just don't read it that way. (And again, my apologies)

First version - "even as they were delivered unto us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses"

It doesn't say "delivered to us by a friend who spoke to the eye-witnesses" - specifically "delivered" by "those who were eyewitnesses"

In my view it wouldn't be hard. Whoever wrote it (I believe it was Luke) also wrote Acts. That person actually hung out on missionary trips with the originals (my view--obviously others can have a different view). I do follow the traditional understanding.

What do you think "delivered to us" means? You think a scribe came and literally handed him a bunch of manuscripts signed by eyewitnesses?

He's most likely referring to oral traditions that were passed down over time, which is how the stories tended to be passed down before they were actually written down. So again, not eyewitness accounts.

Luke's account is definitely not that of an eyewitness. He would have had to have witnessed the events himself, in order for that to be the case.