The Resurrection is it provable?

[Sheldon]

I said I do see the problem

Except you don't, clearly. You don't even understand that I am not claiming who is a Christian, or more pointedly who is not. You simply don't understand what a no true Scotsman fallacy is, or what it means. More importantly it was clear months ago, you don't care that such claims are irrational.

 

[Left Coast]

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:

This betrays that you are not familiar with the very common phenomenon of pseudepigrapha in early Christanity. All kinds if writings floated around in the early centuries of the Church alleging to have been written by this or that apostle. Scholars today recognize that many of these are not believable.

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

That is simply incorrect, as even Wikipedia notes:

First Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia

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.

Imagine making this claim about literally any non-Christian who defends their beliefs. Does it make sense?

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.

So the author of Luke claims that he constructed his version of events from eyewitness testimony. Yet he names none of these witnesses or which of them told him which details or when. There is a reason for this - the Gospels aren't eyewitness testimonies, they are collections of early oral stories told by Christians.

It has been understood to be reliable

The Earth has been understood to be flat. Is that at all meaningful as a claim?

Again... a modern position.

If by modern you mean...for the last 150 years since critical Bible scholarship took off, sure. So what?

"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]"

Papias had no direct knowledge of that. He reported what was commonly believed by Christians around him.

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

You have named zero eyewitnesses. You've named one person who claimed to have gathered information from eyewitnesses, but with zero details to substantiate that.

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

As noted, that's incorrect.

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?

Perhaps it's simply of a work of "why I'll keep believing no matter how ****ty the evidence is." Or were you really interested when you asked the questions?

 

[Sheldon]

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

Or buy a bible, as new bibles state clearly that the gospels are anonymous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or buy a bible, as new bibles state clearly that the gospels are anonymous.

Most do, but I am betting that there are some more fundamentalist versions that somehow forgot to include that fact in there.

 

[Left Coast]

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

Yes, the ones who aren't constrained by the Bible colleges and seminaries they're employed by to never contradict the dogmas of their Church are in agreement that it's pseudepigraphal. See the wiki article I referenced.

 

[Sheldon]

Most do, but I am betting that there are some more fundamentalist versions that somehow forgot to include that fact in there.

Makes sense I suppose, like creationists having their own "museum" with plastic models of Diplodocus being ridden by small children.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Oh not this again, this is just a list of people's subjective beliefs, this has been dismantled on here enough times by now surely?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Makes sense I suppose, like creationists having their own "museum" with plastic models of Diplodocus being ridden by small children.

An interesting read on the matter. It notes that one of the earliest writers to say that the Gospels were written by apostles also clearly remembers stories from those writings that are not in the gospels:

Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1

"An important final remark on Justin Martyr: As I explained in my first article and as reiterated here, the common understanding among scholars and theologians is that Justin’s “memoirs” were probably a compilation of the four Gospels. Yet, experts in the Patristics have noted that the “memoirs” feature some curious peculiarities. For instance, there are occasions where Justin repeats stories from the “memoirs of the apostles” to which the narrative content does not match any of the New Testament gospels. One of the more notable examples is when Justin cites the ‘memoirs’ as saying that the River Jordan caught fire when Jesus was baptized."

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Clear enough to produce 45k varyingly different Christian sects and denominations. So not that clear then, at all.

 

[Wildswanderer]

This betrays that you are not familiar with the very common phenomenon of pseudepigrapha in early Christanity. All kinds if writings floated around in the early centuries of the Church alleging to have been written by this or that apostle. Scholars today recognize that many of these are not believable.

Because they aren't. They lack historically context and detail and apostolic support. Anyone with a brain can see the difference.

 

[Left Coast]

Because they aren't. They lack historically context and detail and apostolic support. Anyone with a brain can see the difference.

And that includes 1 Peter, which is why most scholars today agree. Thank you!

 

[Wildswanderer]

And that includes 1 Peter, which is why most scholars today agree. Thank you!

Lol is that your opinion? Based on what?

 

[Sheldon]

An interesting read on the matter. It notes that one of the earliest writers to say that the Gospels were written by apostles also clearly remembers stories from those writings that are not in the gospels:

Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1

"An important final remark on Justin Martyr: As I explained in my first article and as reiterated here, the common understanding among scholars and theologians is that Justin’s “memoirs” were probably a compilation of the four Gospels. Yet, experts in the Patristics have noted that the “memoirs” feature some curious peculiarities. For instance, there are occasions where Justin repeats stories from the “memoirs of the apostles” to which the narrative content does not match any of the New Testament gospels. One of the more notable examples is when Justin cites the ‘memoirs’ as saying that the River Jordan caught fire when Jesus was baptized."

Good link, this leapt out straight away:

"That the Gospels were not originally composed bearing their traditional titles is now a well-established matter in New Testament scholarship. This mainstream view is conceded even among various conservative scholars such as Craig L. Blomberg, who stated: “It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.”

"The age-old tradition that the canonical Gospels were authored by Mark the companion of Peter, Luke the physician to Paul, Matthew the tax collector, and John the Disciple comes down to us from the second century CE Patristic era of the Catholic Church.[2] Yet, even the Catholic Church now recognizes that those traditional titles are pseudonymous. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “the first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. […] It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves.”

I believe in sporting parlance this is called a slam dunk.

 

[blü 2]

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

Given an historical Jesus, then as @Subduction Zone said, there's possible evidence of a crucifixion.

One small hint to the contrary is the poem or recital sometimes called the "kenosis hymn, in Philippians 2:5-11, which contains the verse

8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
​

According to people whose sense of classical Greek poetic meter is better than mine ─ a low hurdle ─ the words "even on a cross" don't fit the meter and it's thus very likely they're a later addition. Since the "kenosis hymn" is understood to be a quote (one of several in the NT) from the earliest Christians, before Paul or anything else in the NT, it might be thought to raise the question whether the crucifixion is a later addition to the story.

Having mentioned it as a possibility, which it appears to be, I think it's unlikely, but there it is.

But as for the resurrection, the quality of the evidence for it as an historical event (as distinct from a tale, a metaphor, &c) is not just poor but extremely poor. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary demonstration yet the evidence is instead extraordinarily weak.

For a start, there is no eyewitness account. There is no contemporary account ─the earliest, in Paul, is at least 20 years after the traditional date of the crucifixion and the first with any details is Mark, some 45 years after. There is no independent account.

Instead there are six accounts ─ the four gospels have elaborated reports, and there are mentions in Paul and in Acts 1. Each of the six contradicts the other five in major ways. It's a forensic trainwreck.

If you're in any doubt, try it for yourself: check the answers given by Paul and the respective authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Acts ─ six answers or non-answers per question ─ to such questions as ─

1. Who went to the tomb?
2. What did they see?
3. Were there guards?
4. What did those at the tomb do?
5. Did they see anyone at or in the tomb?
6. What did they do next?
7. To whom did Jesus first appear?
8. In what manner?
9. What did the others do?
10. To whom did Jesus second appear?
11. Where?
12. With what result?
13. To whom did Jesus third appear?
14. Fourth?
15. Fifth?
16. From where did Jesus ascend to heaven?

And so on.

 

[Left Coast]

Lol is that your opinion? Based on what?

No it's the opinion of actual New Testament scholars. Again, see the Wiki article I linked earlier in the thread.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Clear enough to produce 45k varyingly different Christian sects and denominations. So not that clear then, at all.

No kidding. The glaring truth is that Christianity is fragmented and has been since the beginning of the religion. If you get a group of diverse protestant Christians together and ask about salvation in Christ, then you will more than likely instigate the age-old debate of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, which is an ad nauseam debate among Christians about whether salvation in Christ is conditional or not.

You will hear Christians tell you that salvation is eternal and it can't be lost no matter what; you will hear other Christians tell you that salvation can be lost if a Christian continues to sin; you will hear other Christians tell you that baptism is a requirement for salvation; and you will hear Christians talk about salvation being by faith alone, while other Christians will insist that works (good deeds) play a part in salvation. And all of these Christians will cite the Bible to justify their answer, despite the fact that their answers are different.

The issue of salvation in Christ is merely one topic that Christians disagree about. They also disagree about proper baptism, speaking in tongues, eschatology, female pastors, church doctrine, and ceremonial rituals. The list goes on. You should never expect the same answer to any of these topics because most Christians believe that they are absolutely correct in their theology and interpretation of the Bible and all other Christians are completely dead wrong in theirs. And for the record, Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the one and only true church, and salvation only comes through Christ and his Catholic Church (source). I have heard some Orthodox Christians claim that the Orthodox Church is the one and only true church, and I have heard plenty of Protestants claim that the true Christian Church is universal and includes all believers in Jesus Christ, despite their church affiliation. Which one is the "true church"?

In my opinion, Christians should not insist that Christianity is the only true religion in the world and the Bible is "God's Word" when they can't even agree amongst themselves what the Bible actually teaches and be united with each other in interpreting the Bible.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It has profoundly the opposite effect on me, I have heard other atheists claim the same. I remember someone asking the late Christopher Hitchens what books he recommended for sceptics to become atheists, and he said the Bible, or the Quran. He wasn't being entirely facetious either.

One of the things I did when I was young and earnest, and wanted to challenge my own lack of belief was to read the Bible, and attend a Bible Study group (even a few sermons).

This had the opposite effect.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

It has profoundly the opposite effect on me, I have heard other atheists claim the same. I remember someone asking the late Christopher Hitchens what books he recommended for sceptics to become atheists, and he said the Bible, or the Quran. He wasn't being entirely facetious either.

One of the things I did when I was young and earnest, and wanted to challenge my own lack of belief was to read the Bible, and attend a Bible Study group (even a few sermons).

This had the opposite effect.

When I was a devout Christian, I read the Bible through rose-colored glasses, but now I see it entirely differently than I did then. I can remember being shamed by other Christians for questioning God, so I learned to keep my doubts about God's "love and mercy" and my concern about his sadistic and inhumane behavior to myself. I brushed it off, as many Christians do, by blaming "sinful" people and the devil for all the evil and mayhem in the world. It wasn't until I renounced my Christian faith that I took off those rose-colored glasses and read the Bible without being under the influence of Christianity. It was a slow process for me to go from believing that the Bible was inerrant and infallible to seriously doubting the authenticity of the Bible. I was a devout Christian for thirty years, so it was a difficult process for me to go from being a devout Christian to an agnostic too. If God does not exist, then my faith and hope in him were for naught, and I prayed for nothing. If he does exist, then I will consider him to be an abhorrent monster who isn't deserving of my love, reverence, and praise. It was a difficult journey for me to go from being a devout Christian to an agnostic, but it was worth it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

From what I can see, it’s mostly people who don’t believe, obsessing about what they don’t believe in. Which is pretty much par for the course really.

 

[Riders]

To me whomever a person chooses for a higher power is personal to them. So I have nothing against folks who believe in the resurrection of Jesus if it is true for them. However, it is not true for me. To me, it wreaks of Pagan thought, a way to sell the religion.