The Resurrection is it provable?

[ElishaElijah]

The "New Covenant" is never laid out clearly. It is largely just a matter of interpretation. If you can't properly support your claims that means that you probably are not following the Bible. You are only following your personal version of it.

And it is a very bad sign when one has to quote mine the Bible to support one's claims. That is a big red flag. I can play that game too. Remember that the Bible says at least a dozen times "there is no God".

You were going to bet on it that I wasn’t following the Bible so I told you the Covenant I am under so now you can support your view.
The New Covenant is very clear

 

[Kenny]

Sadly it doesn't, as none of those alleged sources even claim to have been witnesses to either Jesus' death or resurrection.

So... this is how I see it and let me use an analogy...

A robbery took place and you have multiple witnesses. The witnesses give their story and it is recorded. 2000 years later, a person wants to know what really happened but they can't use the eye-witness recorded stories. And even corroborating outside sources are also non-admissible.

Is this really fair?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You were going to bet on it that I wasn’t following the Bible so I told you the Covenant I am under so now you can support your view.
The New Covenant is very clear

That is the problem. You are only following a very small part of it. That is not "following the Bible". And the New Covenant is far from clear. There is quite a bit of disagreement about it among just Christians.

But just for fun, let's see if you are "following the Bible". Quote the verses of the New Covenant, in context,. tell us what you think that they mean, and how one follows them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So... this is how I see it and let me use an analogy...

A robbery took place and you have multiple witnesses. The witnesses give their story and it is recorded. 2000 years later, a person wants to know what really happened but they can't use the eye-witness recorded stories. And even corroborating outside sources are also non-admissible.

Is this really fair?

What "eye-witness recorded stories"? There do not appear to be any in the Bible.

 

[ElishaElijah]

That is the problem. You are only following a very small part of it. That is not "following the Bible". And the New Covenant is far from clear. There is quite a bit of disagreement about it among just Christians.

But just for fun, let's see if you are "following the Bible". Quote the verses of the New Covenant, in context,. tell us what you think that they mean, and how one follows them.

So you have no clue what you’re talking about, lol

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus are all less than a century.
Why do you think that anybody who was a witness to the resurrection would remain an unbeliever and therefore an independent witness? Therefore wanting an independent witness to the resurrection is just a silly ask.

Did any of them attend the crucifixion? Did they confirm a lack of vital signs? Did they see him wake up later?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you have no clue what you’re talking about, lol

How did you come to that conclusion? Unlike you I can support my claims. I challenged you first, but I will make a deal, you can simply admit that you are wrong and demand that I support my claim. Or you could try to for once properly support what you claimed and were challenged to support. I did challenge your claim first. So it is your turn.

Do you understand that? It appears to me that you know that your belief is not only not supported, but does not follow the Bible. Let's see if you have there is any "there there" in your argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus are all less than a century.
Why do you think that anybody who was a witness to the resurrection would remain an unbeliever and therefore an independent witness? Therefore wanting an independent witness to the resurrection is just a silly ask.

Who do you think was at the resurrection and was a witness? You also do not appear to know what an "independent" witness is. Some Christians try to claim that the Gospel accounts are the accounts of four different witnesses when none of them are that at all. First the three synoptic Gospels would only count as one at the most since Mark is largely copied by Matthew and Luke. That is why they are not independent. Worse yet none of them appear to be eyewitness accounts. They are merely repeating the oral tradition that arose after the death of Jesus. And it looks as if the author, or authors of John also may have read a bit of Mark which means that is not totally independent either. And worse yet it is even later than the other Gospels.

So where are the independent witnesses?

 

[firedragon]

The witnesses give their story and it is recorded.

None of the witnesses recorded anything, and there is no evidence of anyone recording their testimony. There is no evidence of even Chinese whispers.

 

[ElishaElijah]

How did you come to that conclusion? Unlike you I can support my claims. I challenged you first, but I will make a deal, you can simply admit that you are wrong and demand that I support my claim. Or you could try to for once properly support what you claimed and were challenged to support. I did challenge your claim first. So it is your turn.

Do you understand that? It appears to me that you know that your belief is not only not supported, but does not follow the Bible. Let's see if you have there is any "there there" in your argument.

You talk in general terms like the Bible has many meanings but never mention any verses. You’re the one who is betting I’m not following the Bible yet you don’t mention any Bible verses I’m not living. I told you the Covenant we are under now that Jesus came and rose from the dead and you still can’t communicate that, except you say it’s vague and unclear which leads me to believe that your claim to know the Bible better isn’t supported.

 

[Left Coast]

So... this is how I see it and let me use an analogy...

This is a profoundly bad analogy from my perspective, and I'll walk through how so.

A robbery took place and you have multiple witnesses.

1) We don't have this for Jesus' death or resurrection. I asked you for some, and you linked me to an apologetics site that cited zero witnesses.

2) A robbery is a mundane event that has occurred probably millions of times in human history. So if someone tells me they were robbed, and renders a plausible story of how that happened, I'm likely to believe them, all else being equal.

Crucifixion was at one time much more common in the Roman Empire, so in terms of prior probability it's not that much of a stretch to say that someone, somewhere in Palestine in the 1st century was crucified.

The claim that someone was crucified and died and then rose from the dead a day and a half later, however, is a completely wild, implausible claim that literally contradicts all available evidence of how human bodies work. So if someone wants to claim that happened, I'm very reasonably going to want incredibly strong, virtually incontrovertible evidence that such a crazy thing actually happened. So in that sense, it's qualitatively nothing like a claim of a robbery.

The witnesses give their story and it is recorded.

If you're making an analogy here to the 4 Gospels - no, it isn't. The Gospels don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts, save arguably for John which is the least plausible to have been an eyewitness account, being latest and most divergent, even contradictory, to the other three.

2000 years later, a person wants to know what really happened but they can't use the eye-witness recorded stories. And even corroborating outside sources are also non-admissible.

Again, if the "eyewitness recorded stories" you're referring to here are the Gospels, let's step back and look at these documents objectively for a second. Aside from being decades removed from the alleged completely implausible incident, and being anonymous, and for which we don't have any of the originals, these stories are filled on nearly every page with dozens of other wildly implausible claims of events that happened in the lead up to the alleged resurrection.

Imagine, if you want to use an analogy, a person claiming they were visited by the Aztec God Quetzalcoatl. Not a demon, not some other Christian interpretation of the story - the actual Aztec god as believed back in their day. And in this supposedly eyewitness account of meeting Q, the witness also claims they saw people floating in the sky, dead Aztecs come back to life to hang out with the living, people having full conversations with animals, swimming hundreds of miles in a day without aid, magically causing storms to appear from no where, and other such obviously wild inplausible things. Would you find that account remotely reliable?

I wouldn't. I don't think you would either. The truth is, if we replaced the names and culture of the Gospel stories and put them in a different setting, you'd almost certainly dismiss them as obvious myth and not spend more than a passing minute considering their plausibility as actual historical accounts.

Is this really fair?

Once we adjust your analogy to be more accurate, absolutely it's fair.

 

[Kenny]

But just for fun, let's see if you are "following the Bible". Quote the verses of the New Covenant, in context,. tell us what you think that they mean, and how one follows them.

Not that we follow it perfectly... but here's one:
John 13:34
So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other.

Here's another:

John 14:17
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Part of the New Covenant.

 

[Kenny]

This is a profoundly bad analogy from my perspective, and I'll walk through how so.



1) We don't have this for Jesus' death or resurrection. I asked you for some, and you linked me to an apologetics site that cited zero witnesses.

2) A robbery is a mundane event that has occurred probably millions of times in human history. So if someone tells me they were robbed, and renders a plausible story of how that happened, I'm likely to believe them, all else being equal.

Crucifixion was at one time much more common in the Roman Empire, so in terms of prior probability it's not that much of a stretch to say that someone, somewhere in Palestine in the 1st century was crucified.

The claim that someone was crucified and died and then rose from the dead a day and a half later, however, is a completely wild, implausible claim that literally contradicts all available evidence of how human bodies work. So if someone wants to claim that happened, I'm very reasonably going to want incredibly strong, virtually incontrovertible evidence that such a crazy thing actually happened. So in that sense, it's qualitatively nothing like a claim of a robbery.



If you're making an analogy here to the 4 Gospels - no, it isn't. The Gospels don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts, save arguably for John which is the least plausible to have been an eyewitness account, being latest and most divergent, even contradictory, to the other three.



Again, if the "eyewitness recorded stories" you're referring to here are the Gospels, let's step back and look at these documents objectively for a second. Aside from being decades removed from the alleged completely implausible incident, and being anonymous, and for which we don't have any of the originals, these stories are filled on nearly every page with dozens of other wildly implausible claims of events that happened in the lead up to the alleged resurrection.

Imagine, if you want to use an analogy, a person claiming they were visited by the Aztec God Quetzalcoatl. Not a demon, not some other Christian interpretation of the story - the actual Aztec god as believed back in their day. And in this supposedly eyewitness account of meeting Q, the witness also claims they saw people floating in the sky, dead Aztecs come back to life to hang out with the living, people having full conversations with animals, swimming hundreds of miles in a day without aid, magically causing storms to appear from no where, and other such obviously wild inplausible things. Would you find that account remotely reliable?

I wouldn't. I don't think you would either. The truth is, if we replaced the names and culture of the Gospel stories and put them in a different setting, you'd almost certainly dismiss them as obvious myth and not spend more than a passing minute considering their plausibility as actual historical accounts.



Once we adjust your analogy to be more accurate, absolutely it's fair.

I disagree...

You said, "Don't say the Gospel writers " which eliminates all testimonies... so I think it was very applicable.

Peter was a witness:

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Paul knew he resurrected 1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

Peter preached it: Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Matthew acknowledged it: Matthew 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

The whole 130+ in the upper room believed he rose from the dead.

and all the other statements that convinces the 3,000 on the first sermon and 5,000 later on. It didn't start because there was still a body in the tomb.

The "outside support" is just to give auxiliary support to what happened.

So... back to, "if you don't want to use the eyewitness accounts, what do you want us to use?"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

RF threads drift. Before the post count reaches triple digits, would somebody please note the posts that offer proof of the resurrection?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not that we follow it perfectly... but here's one:
John 13:34
So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other.

Here's another:

John 14:17
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Part of the New Covenant.

Quote mining again I see. And do you not understand that different sects have different interpretations of that concept?

 

[Subduction Zone]

RF threads drift. Before the post count reaches triple digits, would somebody please note the posts that offer proof of the resurrection?

There is no "proof". The only evidence is that of the Bible. That is rather weak of course.

 

[Sheldon]

Please, now you are relying on extremely prejudiced confirmation bias. You appear to only believe that you follow the Bible, I am willing to bet in many ways that you do not. What you do not seem to understand is that Christianity is a smorgasbord religion. People can choose whatever parts of the Bible that they like and convince themselves that they are following it while ignoring other parts.

Indeed, there are 45k varyingly different sects and denominations globally within the umbrella term Christian. Which suggest the bible that they all cite, is about as reliable as a chocolate skateboard in the desert.

 

[Sheldon]

What I do follow is Jesus Christ

You and all the other 45k different Christian sects and denominations, do you see the problem?

 

[Sheldon]

So... this is how I see it and let me use an analogy...

A robbery took place and you have multiple witnesses. The witnesses give their story and it is recorded. 2000 years later, a person wants to know what really happened but they can't use the eye-witness recorded stories. And even corroborating outside sources are also non-admissible.

Is this really fair?

No analogy is necessary, and this is a very poor one, as you use a begging the question fallacy when you assume the robbery took place at all.

 

[Sheldon]

What "eye-witness recorded stories"? There do not appear to be any in the Bible.

Well there are claims in the bible, just as there are claims that eye witnesses saw Frodo going to Mordor, and throwing Sauron's ring into the fires of mount Doom, if you read the right books.

I'm dubious about both claims, and for the same reason I ever doubt any claims, there is no objective evidence...