The Resurrection is it provable?

[paarsurrey]

The existence of crucifixion at that culture and time is well-established.

The existence of a historical Jesus is not. In recent years it has become increasingly challenged, IMO with very good reason.

Even the Gospel of Matthew, in an interesting apparent lapse into commentary about the present, as much as says outright that there will never be any real evidence for Jesus' ressurrection - or at least that there was none until the time of his writing (Matthew 28:11-15).

Matthew 28:15
" 15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day."
What day?*
*"Alternatively, the entire account of the guard and the chief priests can be discounted as likely to be an ahistorical addition written by Matthew to make the stolen body hypothesis appear implausible. Among scholars, it "is widely regarded as an apologetic legend";[18] "
Stolen body hypothesis - Wikipedia

Regards
__________________
1*41

 

[Kenny]

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".

It isn't really quantified but it is estimated (for reasons of a possible riot) 4 per every 4 hours to 12 per every 4 hours with the possibility of having Jewish Temple guards there too.

 

[Kenny]

" 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

Not really....

When the spear pierced near his heart and water and blood flowed, it means that the water and the red corpuscles were already separating signifying death.

 

[Kenny]

Matthew 28:15
" 15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day."
What day?*
*"Alternatively, the entire account of the guard and the chief priests can be discounted as likely to be an ahistorical addition written by Matthew to make the stolen body hypothesis appear implausible. Among scholars, it "is widely regarded as an apologetic legend";[18] "
Stolen body hypothesis - Wikipedia

Regards
__________________
1*40

the day they were writing it.

 

[Sheldon]

Without going through all of you what you wrote (I really appreciate your effort) - this part sets the tone.

With the emboldened letters - this truly shows the bias.

The historicity of Jesus really can't be denied.

Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ? | GotQuestions.org

https://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

Given that source I don't think you can accuse anyone of bias with a straight face. There is some evidence that Jesus existed, and the majority of historians agree, but it certainly can and has been challenged by credible historians.

"In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D."

.

Now that's bias.

There really aren't many people who will support the position that Jesus never existed.

Whilst it is true that most historians accept that Jesus existed, it by no means well evidenced. In historical terms we have far more evidence for the existence of Mohamed. It is far from well evidenced, and certainly is not strongly proven.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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?

‘I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’

Yes, some well-known things couldn't be left out. Some embarrassing things were the baptism of Jesus, the temple incident, Messiah crucified, flight of the apostles, Kingdom didn't come soon... This all has higher historical probability.

Gospel writer had to justify all this and defend Jesus as Messiah.That's why John the Baptist is showed as inferior to Jesus, apostles as dumb and not getting it, the temple incident as fulfilling a prophecy, Jesus foretelling his suffering, death, resurrection and second coming (but not knowing the exact time) etc. This events are used as early apologetics and are historically questionable.

 

[Kenny]

Given that source I don't think you can accuse anyone of bias with a straight face. There is some evidence that Jesus existed, and the majority of historians agree, but it certainly can and has been challenged by credible historians.

.

Now that's bias.



Whilst it is true that most historians accept that Jesus existed, it by no means well evidenced. In historical terms we have far more evidence for the existence of Mohamed. It is far from well evidenced, and certainly is not strongly proven.

We have far more information that he existed than Shakespeare wrote his plays.

But I understand why you don't want him to exist.

 

[Kenny]

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

It's the explanation that you give that I don't agree with...

But I understand why you don't want to accept my explanation.

 

[Brian2]

Reply to post 211

What are written words evidence of apart from somebody had an idea and wrote it down? The Bible, like all books, is just words. Nothing written in it can be known to be true except with empirical confirmation, in which case the latter is the evidence that the words corresponded to reality, not the words.

That sounds like you are saying that witness evidence is useless even when it is confirmed by others.

Science doesn't presume that all things can be answered naturalistically. However, what cannot be answered empirically cannot be answered by any other method, all of which are some form of faith (insufficiently justified belief). If resurrection ever occurs, it will science that determines how to do so, and it will be empiricism (observation) that the method worked.

So empiricism is the only thing worth believing and witness evidence is nothing.

The observation that science hasn't answered everything is often a prelude to the claim that religion can answer the rest, as with claims of nonoverlapping magesteria. But where's the meat from religion? Where are the demonstrably correct answers? There are none, just guesses. I don't consider them answers or knowledge, both of which are always decided empirically and demonstrably correct. I realize that there are others with different epistemologies and different standards for belief, all of which I call some form of faith whether it be reading a Bible, consulting a Ouija board, believing a horoscope, reading chicken bones, etc., but one shouldn't expect empiricists to respect such beliefs if they can be demonstrated to be correct. This strict adherence to empiricism as the only path to knowledge is sometimes also called the correspondence theory of truth.

A problem I would have with extreme empiricism is the dismissing of evidence for the supernatural which is based on the experiences of others.

Do you think they should? If they did, they wouldn't be doing science any more. They'd be doing theology.

That's right they would not be doing science any more. Theology of course is OK for a person to do. It is a big call in this little life of ours to ignore theology because we have chosen one only source of knowledge.

 

[Sheldon]

Erhman has a noted anti-Bible stance.

That's pretty disingenuous, no one could deny Dr Erhman's credentials as a biblical historian, and of course he studied biblical history because he was a Christian, his atheism developed as he began to realise how little credible evidence supported the bible and the gospel claims. No one could accuse him of bias, quite the opposite.

 

[Sheldon]

The early church knew the gospel writers and so applied those names to the gospels.

Something of a circular argument, the names assigned the gospels did not first appear in connection with them until the 2nd century, and were assigned in 325 AD at the first council of Nicaea. The gospels were anonymous, and no one knowns who wrote them.

 

[PearlSeeker]

That's pretty disingenuous, no one could deny Dr Erhman's credentials as a biblical historian, and of course he studied biblical history because he was a Christian, his atheism developed as he began to realise how little credible evidence supported the bible and the gospel claims. No one could accuse him of bias, quite the opposite.

No, he was still a (liberal) Christian after this realization. This wasn't the reason why he finally became an agnostic:

... I started out as an evangelical Christian. I got interested in biblical studies because I was actually a fundamentalist as a late teenager. That got me interested in the bible. But as I developed my scholarship through graduate school, I realized that my beliefs about the bible were completely wrong, that the bible’s not some kind of inherent revelation from God. And so for years I’d become a liberal Christian. I still went to church, I still believed in God, but I didn’t believe the bible was the inspired word of God. But after many years of being a liberal Christian, I finally became an agnostic for reasons unrelated to my scholarship, reasons having to do with why there is suffering in the world, if there is a God who is in control? I, for years, had thought about it, had read what the biblical authors said, what theologians, philosophers said. I got to the point where I just didn’t believe it anymore. So I just acknowledged at one point then that I’m probably an agnostic, and that’s what I’ve been for maybe 15 or 16 years.

(B. Ehrman in an interview: Bart Erhman - Freedom From Religion Foundation)​

 

[Kenny]

That's pretty disingenuous, no one could deny Dr Erhman's credentials as a biblical historian, and of course he studied biblical history because he was a Christian, his atheism developed as he began to realise how little credible evidence supported the bible and the gospel claims. No one could accuse him of bias, quite the opposite.

Not really. Just understanding where you are coming from.

There are Christians that become atheists and atheists that become Christians -- all looking at the same evidence.

But do understand where you coming from.

 

[Sheldon]

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

LINK
"Most scholars believe the gospel was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110; a pre-70 date remains a minority view. The work does not identify its author, and the early tradition attributing it to the apostle Matthew is rejected by modern scholars."

LINK
"Most scholars date Mark to c. 66–74 AD, either shortly before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD. They reject the traditional ascription to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Peter, which probably arose from the desire of early Christians to link the work to an authoritative figure, and believe it to be the work of an author working with various sources..The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.

LINK
"Most modern scholars agree that the main sources used for Luke were a), the Gospel of Mark, b), a hypothetical sayings collection called the Q source, and c), material found in no other gospels, often referred to as the L (for Luke) source. The author is anonymous; The most probable date for its composition is around AD 80–110, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century."

LINK
"John reached its final form around AD 90–110, although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier. Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions."

 

[Sheldon]

No, he was still a (liberal) Christian after this realization. This wasn't the reason why he finally became an agnostic:

... I started out as an evangelical Christian. I got interested in biblical studies because I was actually a fundamentalist as a late teenager. That got me interested in the bible. But as I developed my scholarship through graduate school, I realized that my beliefs about the bible were completely wrong, that the bible’s not some kind of inherent revelation from God. And so for years I’d become a liberal Christian. I still went to church, I still believed in God, but I didn’t believe the bible was the inspired word of God. But after many years of being a liberal Christian, I finally became an agnostic for reasons unrelated to my scholarship, reasons having to do with why there is suffering in the world, if there is a God who is in control? I, for years, had thought about it, had read what the biblical authors said, what theologians, philosophers said. I got to the point where I just didn’t believe it anymore. So I just acknowledged at one point then that I’m probably an agnostic, and that’s what I’ve been for maybe 15 or 16 years.

(B. Ehrman in an interview: Bart Erhman - Freedom From Religion Foundation)​

You're right, I worded that very poorly, I meant to say his examination of the historicity of the biblical claims and gospels contributed, rather than imply they were the reason. He attributes the problem of suffering as the big issue that led his agnosticism.

He is also an atheist though he prefers to refer to himself as an agnostic, but acknowledges his is both.

 

[Sheldon]

Not really. Just understanding where you are coming from.

There are Christians that become atheists and atheists that become Christians -- all looking at the same evidence.

But do understand where you coming from.

As was pointed out above, Dr Erhman attributes his agnosticism originally to what he calls the problem of suffering. His historical study of the bible and gospels are objective, and he is a credible historian, his work certainly isn't moulded by his lack of belief, if anything his work contributed to that.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Got it!

Not if there is no evidence to corroborate there ever were any eyewitnesses, then no this wouldn't satisfy the methods of historical verification. The Gospels being anonymous, and everything in them beyond the crucifixion being unsubstantiated by any independent source, is simply hearsay. Of course I'm not sure what you mean by admissible, they simply are hearsay rather then reliable historical evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Luke wasn't the author, the gospel was anonymous, and the name assigned later to lend it credence, and there is no evidence the author sat down with anyone, only the claim. An eyewitness account is just that, a second hearsay account of someone claiming to be an eyewitness differs and of course loses some credence, but the gospels can't even be claimed to be the that, it is an anonymous claim, that there were eyewitnesses, and what they allegedly claimed to see, and even the earliest was written decades after the events they allegedly portray.

LINK

"The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward. Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110, and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century."

So beyond there being no evidence of eyewitnesses, and the authorship being anonymous hearsay, this suggest eyewitnesses would be extremely unlikely, given estimates of average life expectancy in that epoch were 30 to 40 years.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That sounds like you are saying that witness evidence is useless even when it is confirmed by others.

What I said is that words in a book are not evidence of anything except that somebody wrote them down. The words may report the truth, but one can't know that just from the words alone. He has to confirm them empirically. Thus, the Bible say that there was a man named Moses and a king named David. Neither of those is true because words in a book said so. But in the case of David, we have empirical evidence that such a king once ruled in the region the words say he did. Now, we know David was real, but Moses, lacking empiric confirmation, may be a fictional character or a composite or part historical and part legend - we just can't say if all we have are words in a book.

Regarding the Bible, consider the Qur'an. Open it and read it. Do you believe it's all factual? Probably not. Some of it might be true. All of it might be true. We don't have any way to determine which if any parts are knowledge, that is, words that accurately describe some part of reality, unless we look elsewhere. Until we do that, all we can say is that these are the words that the authors of the Qur'an chose to write down, some or all may be true, or none at all. Even if we find contradictory scriptures ensuring that at least one is incorrect, we can't tell which one without looking at the world.

The skeptic takes that same attitude to the Bible. He's not going to believe something just because it is written in that book any more than you believe that something you read in the Qur'an is true because it appears there.

So empiricism is the only thing worth believing and witness evidence is nothing.

Empiricism, or experience, is the only path to knowledge, knowledge being the collection of ideas that accurately map some aspect of reality. That can only be determined empirically. So, yes, only that which has been discovered empirically is worth believing.

A problem I would have with extreme empiricism is the dismissing of evidence for the supernatural which is based on the experiences of others.

I don't count those reports as being what they are claimed to be - experience of the supernatural. I don't know it's not, just that words alone aren't enough to decide. So when you say dismiss, please understand that not believing is not the same as saying that the comment is wrong, just that there is insufficient evidence to decide the matter.

It is a big call in this little life of ours to ignore theology because we have chosen one only source of knowledge.

I don't consider theology knowledge, by which I mean the study of things that believers believe, things that presume the existence of God and the validity of a holy book. If we're talking about the Bible as history or literature or as a cultural influence, I'm not including that in theology. Those are topics an unbeliever can profit from studying. Theology as I've defined it is all metaphysical speculation that can not be confirmed or disconfirmed. This is not knowledge as I've defined that word.

I'd add here that it is often thought that what words like mine mean are that no experience is valuable except through the senses, empirical, and that only rational thought has value. That is not my position. I am referring to the process of deciding what is true about the world, not how that information is used. There are other kinds of mental processes of value, such as experiencing good music or a good meal. Empiricism is how we discover which songs and which recipes bring us pleasure and which don't. When it's time to enjoy them, we put our empiricist hat aside and simply enjoy life. THAT is the goal of reason, not merely knowing. We use that knowledge to manage our other experiences such as feelings and urges to maximize the kinds of experiences we enjoy and minimizing those we don't. Knowledge is information for living, but living a satisfying life is the goal, and the value of the knowledge is limited to how well it lets us do that.

Theology doesn't do anything for me. It doesn't make me happier or wiser or able to make better decisions. If such ideas did that, as it seems to do for many struggling to stay sober or out of prison, which is part of managing experience to facilitate a happy life, then they would have value, but they still wouldn't constitute knowledge.

 

[Sheldon]

We have far more information that he existed than Shakespeare wrote his plays.

I don't see the relevance sorry, this just seems like whataboutism? I'd be more than happy to accept the plays attributed to William Shakespeare were in fact not written by him. Since the authorship seems trivial in comparison to the literary work itself. Whereas your beliefs are done if Jesus didn't exist, and my atheism is not affected at all just because someone called Jesus existed.

But I understand why you don't want him to exist.

His existence would not lend any credence per se, to the supernatural claims made about him, his non-existence clearly would. So clearly you're projecting here, as whilst you obviously have a strong motive for wanting it to be true, I clearly have no stake in the question either way.

I also have not denied he existed, in fact I stated plainly there is a consensus among historians that he did, the only thing I disputed was your biased claim there was "strong proof he existed", which simply isn't the case of course.