The Resurrection is it provable?

[Kenny]

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

I think we tend to place a modern-western thought to the culture of 2000 years ago. If I deliver to you a verbal message - I delivered to you personally the message.

If after being with someone for 30 years and write a "biography" - it probably is worth the read.

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.

No... that isn't what it says. (Again, you can disagree with me but it still isn't what it said)

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.

In Luke he is talking about the time when the Apostles were with Jesus. In Acts, he hung around the Apostles (as well as Paul). So, you are right... he isn't the "eyewitness" of the life of Jesus... but he did speak, hung around with, heard the preaching of what happened, watched the miracles et al when he hung around them in the book of Acts.

Now... I know you are skeptical and I am fine with that. But there isn't anything that debunks my logic (yet)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

I believe that any naturalistic explanation is more likely to be correct than any supernaturalistic one, and that the naturalistic explanation I consider likeliest to be correct is that the resurrection story is not based in observation, but in the stories told in older cultures just like the virgin births of demigods.

I don't know what you mean about a symbolic resurrection. Symbol representing what? A symbol stands for something else. I believe that in some cultures, resurrection symbolizes the rebirth of the sun at winter solstice, of the rebirth of the invincible sun, which, after about three days of apparent lifelessness, begins rising further north on the eastern horizon every day until the summer solstice. I don't believe the biblical resurrection symbolizes anything. It's there to give cred to Jesus being a son of God.

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)

That's close enough, although the transformation of the Santa story meant not just embellishing it, but removing everything but the embellishments. If legend is a combination of history and fiction, and myth is all fiction, the story of Jesus would be considered legend except by those who believe he never lived and therefore contains no history of Jesus. They would consider the story a myth.

I don't know what the stumbling block is here. My answers, which you've seen several times, seem pretty clear and explicit like this one. Hopefully, you have your answers now.

 

[leroy]

I believe that any naturalistic explanation is more likely to be correct than any supernaturalistic one, and that the naturalistic explanation I consider likeliest to be correct is that the resurrection story is not based in observation, but in the stories told in older cultures just like the virgin births of demigods.

I don't know what you mean about a symbolic resurrection. Symbol representing what? A symbol stands for something else. I believe that in some cultures, resurrection symbolizes the rebirth of the sun at winter solstice, of the rebirth of the invincible sun, which, after about three days of apparent lifelessness, begins rising further north on the eastern horizon every day until the summer solstice. I don't believe the biblical resurrection symbolizes anything. It's there to give cred to Jesus being a son of God.



That's close enough, although the transformation of the Santa story meant not just embellishing it, but removing everything but the embellishments. If legend is a combination of history and fiction, and myth is all fiction, the story of Jesus would be considered legend except by those who believe he never lived and therefore contains no history of Jesus. They would consider the story a myth.

I don't know what the stumbling block is here. My answers, which you've seen several times, seem pretty clear and explicit like this one. Hopefully, you have your answers now.

So on your view the apostles (peter, james, paul etc.) had this awesome teacher (Jesus) and they also heard about some other Gods who where born form a virgin and resurrected …. So they simply embellished their teacher´s life and dead borrowing some of the materials of these other Gods.

The apostles and Everybody back then knew that Jesus didn’t really resurrected, only further generations started to proclaim the resurrection.

Does this describe your view?

which you've seen several times, seem pretty clear

well what can I say, I still have this question about your view..........

 

[Subduction Zone]

So on your view the apostles (peter, james, paul etc.) had this awesome teacher (Jesus) and they also heard about some other Gods who where born form a virgin and resurrected …. So they simply embellished their teacher´s life and dead borrowing some of the materials of these other Gods.

The apostles and Everybody back then knew that Jesus didn’t really resurrected, only further generations started to proclaim the resurrection.

Does this describe your view?


well what can I say, I still have this question about your view..........

Only two of the Gospels, both of which were written about 55 to 65 years after the crucifixion support the virgin birth myth.

And why did you say "the apostles"? Only Peter and one or two others are ever heard of after the crucifixion with the exception of some events recently after the crucifixion in Acts..

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Got it!

But that is not what they author of Luke claimed to do. There may be a bit of cognitive dissonance obstructing your ability to understand it. He only says that the stories started with eyewitnesses. He does not claim to have interviewed any at all.

A quick FYI, when someone sits down with an eyewitness he makes a note of the name of the eyewitness, and a bit of corroborating evidence that the person is reliable is often included. Do you see that anywhere in any of the Gospels?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think we tend to place a modern-western thought to the culture of 2000 years ago. If I deliver to you a verbal message - I delivered to you personally the message.

If after being with someone for 30 years and write a "biography" - it probably is worth the read.



No... that isn't what it says. (Again, you can disagree with me but it still isn't what it said)



In Luke he is talking about the time when the Apostles were with Jesus. In Acts, he hung around the Apostles (as well as Paul). So, you are right... he isn't the "eyewitness" of the life of Jesus... but he did speak, hung around with, heard the preaching of what happened, watched the miracles et al when he hung around them in the book of Acts.

Now... I know you are skeptical and I am fine with that. But there isn't anything that debunks my logic (yet)

"Luke" is not even known to have written the book of Luke. That is just church tradition. By the time it was named no one that knew Luke would have been alive.

 

[Sheldon]

Supportive documentation please.

I have already linked it more than once, your own link confirmed it, and I highlighted it for you as well, go back and actually read the response, and you will see this fact.

One more time then, from your own post and source above:

Source #1
Author: The Gospel of Luke does not identify its author.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have already linked it more than once, your own link confirmed it, and I highlighted it for you as well, go back and actually read the response, and you will see this fact.

One more time then, from your own post and source above:

Hmm, I wonder if that is what he meant when he demanded supporting documentation. And I generally do not mind supporting my claims, that is if a person is honesty enough to admit their own ignorance of a claim. But as I said, by the time the title "Luke" was attached to that Gospel Luke was long dead. Remember @KenS 's claim. He said that Luke was in contact with the apostles for his Acts book. That would be before CE 40. The first person recorded to claim that Luke was the author of Luke/Acts was born in 130 CE. You can do the math.

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia

 

[paarsurrey]

Is there any scientific proof or historic proof that Jesus was resurrected and crucified?

(Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah did not die on the Cross to start with, so there is no question of his resurrection from the dead, one get to know from the so many clues very much in the Bible itself, please. Right?

Regards
_________
page 1* 40

 

[Subduction Zone]

(Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah did not die on the Cross to start with, so there is no question of his resurrection from the dead, one get to know from the so many clues very much in the Bible itself, please. Right?

Regards

That is an interesting spin on the story. What "evidence" in the Bible is there that he did not die?

i would say that the Muslim claim that he did not die is more probable. When it comes to miracles any mundane explanation is more probable. But I wonder if there is any evidence at all for that.

 

[paarsurrey]

Rome had some horrific methods of execution reserved for different crimes
So crucifixion waa easy the easy bit,

Any slave who broke roman law or any traitor to rome, (terrorism, anarchist etc) was crucified.

If he existed (no hard evidence) then he could have been crucified if he were a slave (doubtful) or a traitor to rome (probable)

Resurrection, nope, although it is remotely possible for someone to be bought from the guards after (apparent) death and let down from the cross.

If this person recovered from their wounds sufficiently they could have been seen out and about. They would in all probability die of blood poisoning from the iron nails used in the crucifixion.

" They would in all probability die of blood poisoning from the iron nails used in the crucifixion. "

In Jesus' case it did not happen, please.
Jesus himself was a good physician, he had taught his other physician disciples/friends, one gets to know, of an ointment prepared of aloe and myrrh that was effective in such cases, please. Right?
In the ancient medical books it is known as Marham-e Essa (ointment of Jesus) or Marham-e-Hawariyyeen ( ointment of disciples), one understands, please. Right?

Regards

Regards

 

[Kenny]

Hmm, I wonder if that is what he meant when he demanded supporting documentation. And I generally do not mind supporting my claims, that is if a person is honesty enough to admit their own ignorance of a claim. But as I said, by the time the title "Luke" was attached to that Gospel Luke was long dead. Remember @KenS 's claim. He said that Luke was in contact with the apostles for his Acts book. That would be before CE 40. The first person recorded to claim that Luke was the author of Luke/Acts was born in 130 CE. You can do the math.

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia

Modern math

 

[Subduction Zone]

Modern math

Modern math is the same as ancient math. It is only the explanation that is different.

 

[Subduction Zone]

" They would in all probability die of blood poisoning from the iron nails used in the crucifixion. "

In Jesus' case it did not happen, please.
Jesus himself was a good physician, he had taught his other physician disciples/friends, one gets to know, of an ointment prepared of aloe and myrrh that was effective in such cases, please. Right?
In the ancient medical books it is known as Marham-e Essa (ointment of Jesus) or Marham-e-Hawariyyeen ( ointment of disciples), one understands, please. Right?

Regards

Regards

Wrong.

A spritz of Bactine will not fix that owie.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is historic evidence if you accept the gospel writers as being who the evidence shows them to be. (Matthew and John, apostles. Luke, the companion of Paul and who got his gospel information from witnesses and others who had been there from the beginning. Mark, a companion of Peter)
Paul is accepted as having been a real person who lived close to the time of Jesus and when Jesus was alive. He knew Jesus lived (so there should be no question on that issue) and he knew Jesus was crucified (there should be no question on that issue). He did not believe the story of the resurrection that the apostles were spreading around but he says he had his own experience of the risen Jesus and so was a witness to the resurrection that way.
And yes, the resurrection story is considered to have been there from the beginning of the spreading of the gospel by the apostles.
As a historical happening it seems that independent witness is first needed before something is accepted historically, and for something like a resurrection many people it seems would want a lot of independent witness. Paul of course is an independent witness who became a Christian because of that witness. This is the same with all independent witnesses. If they witnessed the resurrected Jesus and knew He had died they would become Christians and so automatically disqualify themselves from being a witness because they would be believers than and so not trustworthy.
And of course if they claimed to be witnesses and were not Christians then their witness would be questioned and it would be asked why they did not believe if they had really seen the risen Lord.
Scientifically there is a presumption that all things can be answered naturalistically.
So there is no acceptance in scientific thinking just as there is no acceptance of the witness reports in sceptical thinking.

" risen Jesus "

Jesus did not die a cursed death on the Cross, he was delivered from the Cross in near-dead condition, and some of the disciples saw Jesus, after treatment of his wounds in the tomb of Joseph Arimathea , and Thomas even got confirmation for the posterity that Jesus was not in any sort of different glorious-body/spirit, but Jesus had the same physical body as Jesus had before he was put on the Cross, it transpires, please. Right?

Regards
___________
page 1* 40

 

[paarsurrey]

There is historic evidence if you accept the gospel writers as being who the evidence shows them to be. (Matthew and John, apostles. Luke, the companion of Paul and who got his gospel information from witnesses and others who had been there from the beginning. Mark, a companion of Peter)
Paul is accepted as having been a real person who lived close to the time of Jesus and when Jesus was alive. He knew Jesus lived (so there should be no question on that issue) and he knew Jesus was crucified (there should be no question on that issue). He did not believe the story of the resurrection that the apostles were spreading around but he says he had his own experience of the risen Jesus and so was a witness to the resurrection that way.
And yes, the resurrection story is considered to have been there from the beginning of the spreading of the gospel by the apostles.
As a historical happening it seems that independent witness is first needed before something is accepted historically, and for something like a resurrection many people it seems would want a lot of independent witness. Paul of course is an independent witness who became a Christian because of that witness. This is the same with all independent witnesses. If they witnessed the resurrected Jesus and knew He had died they would become Christians and so automatically disqualify themselves from being a witness because they would be believers than and so not trustworthy.
And of course if they claimed to be witnesses and were not Christians then their witness would be questioned and it would be asked why they did not believe if they had really seen the risen Lord.
Scientifically there is a presumption that all things can be answered naturalistically.
So there is no acceptance in scientific thinking just as there is no acceptance of the witness reports in sceptical thinking.

" There is historic evidence if you accept the gospel writers as being who the evidence shows them to be. "

Isn't it a big if for history for the obvious reasons, please? Right?

Regards
__________
page 1,40

 

[Subduction Zone]

" There is historic evidence if you accept the gospel writers as being who the evidence shows them to be. "

Isn't it a big if for history for the obvious reasons, please? Right?

Regards
__________
page 1,40

Why would you make that error?

 

[paarsurrey]

Best arguments for the resurrection I've seen come from Bill Craig, David Wood etc.

Can one describe/paraphrase the gist of one, the best one of their arguments, please?
It will be interesting to know it as Jesus' resurrection from being dead on the Cross never happened, one gets to know, please. Right?

Regards
______________
page 1*40

 

[paarsurrey]

I would say, "yes" if but by logic and deduction (by witnesses) and historic.

We have witnesses of crucifixion and witnesses of resurrection.

Scientific would only be "the dead body isn't in the tomb and the soldiers were there to stop anyone from stealing it".

"and the soldiers were there"

How many soldier guards were there on the tomb of Jesus, please?

Regards
____________
Stolen body hypothesis
Stolen body hypothesis - Wikipedia

1*40

 

[ChristineM]

" They would in all probability die of blood poisoning from the iron nails used in the crucifixion. "

In Jesus' case it did not happen, please.
Jesus himself was a good physician, he had taught his other physician disciples/friends, one gets to know, of an ointment prepared of aloe and myrrh that was effective in such cases, please. Right?
In the ancient medical books it is known as Marham-e Essa (ointment of Jesus) or Marham-e-Hawariyyeen ( ointment of disciples), one understands, please. Right?

Regards

Regards

And your evidence is?

An ointment is topical, it may have helped with the wounds but is totally useless against blood poisoning.