The Resurrection is it provable?

[Left Coast]

I disagree...

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

The Gospels aren't eyewitness accounts, though. That's the point.

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,

1 Peter is pseudipigraphal (ie not actually written by Peter). You know this is the consensus of NT scholarship, yes?

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?

Paul never says he laid eyes on Jesus while on Earth at all. He converted to Christianity because he had a vision of Jesus already being in heaven. So that isn't an eyewitness by any reasonable definition.

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.

Acts wasn't written by Peter. It was written by the same person who wrote Luke. And suffers the same kinds of fundamental problems the Gospels do.

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.

Matthew's author is anonymous.

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

Your only source for that claim is the Gospels.

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.

Your only source for that claim is the Gospels.

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

But they don't. None of them were witnesses to anything that happened to Jesus. They simply reported what was alleged by Christians at their time.

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

Actual eyewitness accounts that aren't full of completely absurd claims would be a good start.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your only source for that claim is the Gospels.

That claim might have come from Paul. of course he admitted to never seeing Jesus and he made that claim while over 1,000 miles away from Bethlehem at a time when most people did not travel more than 30 miles away from the place that they were born. It is far weaker than the claim of:
"I do have a girlfriend!! She lives in Canada. She is REALLY HOT."

 

[Dawnofhope]

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

The overwhelming consensus of historians supports the crucifixion as fact. There are proofs IMHO. To the contrary, there is no evidence to support the resurrection if interpreted literally from the New Testament.

 

[Left Coast]

That claim might have come from Paul.

Paul doesn't mention the upper room or Pentecost. You may be thinking of 1 Corinthians 15 where he claims that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus at one time - a claim that isn't corroborated even by the Gospels.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Paul doesn't mention the upper room or Pentecost. You may be thinking of 1 Corinthians 15 where he claims that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus at one time - a claim that isn't corroborated even by the Gospels.

Thank you. Yes. And back then any claim made at a distance was all but impossible for others to check.

 

[leroy]

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

Yes we have multiple independent testimonies from people that where in a position to know if those events happened, and form people who apparently had no reason to lie.

 

[leroy]

Pe claims that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus at one time - a claim that isn't corroborated even by the Gospels.

Which is evidence that Paul and the authors of the gospels had different primary sources.

 

[ElishaElijah]

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

Yeah, it’s with you. You have no clue what the criteria is to consider who is Christian so how can you even test that for yourself? Or are you relying on something or someone else? If you’re saying because a group of people say they are a Christian group then they are then you’d be wrong.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

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

In my opinion, which is based on my research into the authenticity of the Bible, I believe that the stories of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection were copied from Greek mythology and from other pagan religions that predated both the Bible and Christianity.

In my research, I learned that the accounts of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection are similar to the stories of the Greek god, Attis (1250 BCE). In Greek mythology, Attis was crucified on a tree; he descended into the underworld after his death; and he was raised from the dead after three days. The story of Attis also includes him being divinely born of a virgin. If you read this article: Attis: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, Crucified and Resurrected after Three Days, you will find other similarities between the lives of Attis and Jesus.

Furthermore, the stories of Jesus' life written in the Bible are more likely copied from other pagan religions that have similar stories of a holy man being born of a virgin, being tempted by the devil before his earthly ministry began, miraculously healing people, dying for mankind, and being resurrected from the dead after three days. If you read this article, 10 Christ-Like Figures that Predate Jesus, then you will read similar stories about these ten Christ-like figures' lives that parallel the stories of Jesus' earthly life written in the Bible.

Personally, I think that a lot of the stories in the Bible were taken from earlier pagan religions. Additionally, I think that pagan religions that existed before Christianity and the Bible had a significant impact on Christian beliefs and practices. You'll find plenty of examples of what I'm talking about by reading these articles: The Bible is Fiction: A Collection of Evidence and Parallels between Christianity and Ancient Pagan Religions. I also think that paganism has had a significant influence on the Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes we have multiple independent testimonies from people that where in a position to know if those events happened, and form people who apparently had no reason to lie.

No we don't.

 

[Left Coast]

Which is evidence that Paul and the authors of the gospels had different primary sources.

Paul admits openly that his only source was visions of Jesus.

"For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Galatians 1

 

[Sheldon]

Which is evidence that Paul and the authors of the gospels had different primary sources.

Nobody knows who wrote the gospels, and Paul never met nor did he know Jesus. You are just making up wild assumptions. Though how exactly having multiple hearsay sources strengthens the claims is baffling?

 

[Kenny]

The Gospels aren't eyewitness accounts, though. That's the point.

I think that is a viewpoint but not established as such.

1 Peter is pseudipigraphal (ie not actually written by Peter). You know this is the consensus of NT scholarship, yes?

I don't agree:

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, --Eusebius agree with this.

States who he is:-- and there are much more "for" Peter being the author than modern scholars who cast doubt on it.

Paul never says he laid eyes on Jesus while on Earth at all. He converted to Christianity because he had a vision of Jesus already being in heaven. So that isn't an eyewitness by any reasonable definition.

True... BUT... He is preaching the resurrection. So, obviously, he must have know what happened. After all, he was the head of the effort to stone Stephen.

Acts wasn't written by Peter. It was written by the same person who wrote Luke. And suffers the same kinds of fundamental problems the Gospels do.

No... it wasn't Peter but this is what it says of Luke 1:
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, 2 even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3 it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed.

It has been understood to be reliable

Matthew's author is anonymous.

Again... a modern position.

"The early church is unanimous in their acceptance of Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen all report Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias (c. AD 60-130) writes, “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”[2]"

Those closest to the writing would know better.

Your only source for that claim is the Gospels.

Again... Eye witnesses and those who spoke to eye witnesses - but you don't want to use eye witnesses.

Actual eyewitness accounts that aren't full of completely absurd claims would be a good start.

As noted, you don't want to use those who wrote down what happened who were eye witnesses.

So, is this simply a work of "why I don't believe and nothing you say will change my mind" or were you really interested when you asked the questions?

 

[Sheldon]

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

Yeah, it’s with you. You have no clue what the criteria is to consider who is Christian so how can you even test that for yourself?

So no then, you don't see the problem, ah well.

Or are you relying on something or someone else? If you’re saying because a group of people say they are a Christian group then they are then you’d be wrong.

No true Scotsman fallacy, it doesn't get any less irrational if you repeat it relentlessly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, it’s with you. You have no clue what the criteria is to consider who is Christian so how can you even test that for yourself? Or are you relying on something or someone else? If you’re saying because a group of people say they are a Christian group then they are then you’d be wrong.

Really? Then neither do you. You won't even study the Bible. So how would you know?

 

[ElishaElijah]

1 Peter is pseudipigraphal (ie not actually written by Peter). You know this is the consensus of NT scholarship, yes?

This isn’t true, depends on which consensus of scholars you are looking at.
A List Of Conservative And Liberal Bible Scholars

 

[ElishaElijah]

Really? Then neither do you. You won't even study the Bible. So how would you know?

You say I won’t even study the Bible? So that’s a lie. And when you’re asked to defend your comments you don’t. And I do know the criteria, it’s clearly shown in Scripture and I’ve shown that many times.

 

[ElishaElijah]

So no then, you don't see the problem, ah well.

I said I do see the problem, it’s with you. And I shared the reasons. If you don’t know who is considered a Christian according to the Bible or can’t look at a group of people, see what their statement of faith is and then test that with the Bible then you can’t say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that is a viewpoint but not established as such.

No, it is much more than a viewpoint. You might want to read what actual Bible scholars have to say on the matter.

I don't agree:

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, --Eusebius agree with this.

States who he is:-- and there are much more "for" Peter being the author than modern scholars who cast doubt on it.

Eusebius, the historian? The man that was born about 230 years after the crucifixion? Why would he be a better source? Do you know why modern scholars doubt that Peter wrote it?

True... BUT... He is preaching the resurrection. So, obviously, he must have know what happened. After all, he was the head of the effort to stone Stephen.



No... it wasn't Peter but this is what it says of Luke 1:
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, 2 even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3 it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed.

It has been understood to be reliable

No, parts are reliable. In other parts he or Matthew was definitely wrong. Frankly both of their birth stories for Jesus are Myths, but Luke's was verry confused. We cant really tell if Mary was supposed to be pregnant for 10 years (the story of meeting John the Baptist's mother and the jump for joy from inside her of John. is said by some to indicate that Mary was pregnant when that happened. But at any rate Luke has Jesus born around 6 CE.

Also if you read that without any false assumptions it only claims that the stories started with eyewitnesses. It does not say that the author of Luke spoke to any eyewitnesses.

Again... a modern position.

"The early church is unanimous in their acceptance of Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen all report Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias (c. AD 60-130) writes, “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”[2]"

Those closest to the writing would know better

It is not all that modern. And we know when the names first appeared. For Matthew it was close to a hundred years after it was written.

.



Again... Eye witnesses and those who spoke to eye witnesses - but you don't want to use eye witnesses.



As noted, you don't want to use those who wrote down what happened who were eye witnesses.

So, is this simply a work of "why I don't believe and nothing you say will change my mind" or were you really interested when you asked the questions?

And again no. What eyewitnesses? The Gospels do not even claim that.

 

[Sheldon]

I think that is a viewpoint but not established as such.

Of course it is established, the earliest gospel texts did not have any authorship, how can you not know this fact?

True... BUT... He is preaching the resurrection. So, obviously, he must have know what happened.

You're kidding right? If I describe Elvis's face exactly, does this mean I must have had a pint with him last night?

Again... Eye witnesses and those who spoke to eye witnesses - but you don't want to use eye witnesses.

There are no eye witness counts, since the gospels are all hearsay, written decades after the events they purport to describe, by unknown author(s), the facts don't support your accusation.

As noted, you don't want to use those who wrote down what happened who were eye witnesses.

Sigh, what is the earliest documented account of the resurrection myth? I'll give you a clue, it was not contemporary. Do you see what that means?