The Resurrection is it provable?

[joelr]

What I do follow is Jesus Christ and am under the New Covenant He instituted at the Passover.
“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: On the night when he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭11:23-26‬ ‭CSB‬‬
And I walk by the Holy Spirit:
“Therefore, do not let your good be slandered, for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭14:16-17‬ ‭CSB‬‬
I’m not under the Law but under Grace now and have peace with God, it’s a great life!

Good example. Mark took this and made it into an Earthly event. We see how this fiction was created.

The text in Paul, as translated from Greek by Dr Carrier

"For I received from the Lord what I also handed over to you, that the Lord Jesus, during the night he was handed over, took bread, and having given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in the remembrance of me.” Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you might drink it in remembrance of me.” For as often as you might eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."



MARK 14:22-26
"While they were eating, having taken bread, and having blessed it, he broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “Take; this is my body.” Then, having taken a cup, and having given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I tell you, that never again shall I drink from the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.” And having sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives."

Notice what’s changed. Paul is describing Jesus miming some actions and explaining their importance. His audience is future Christians. Mark has transformed this into a narrative story by adding people being present and having Jesus interact with them: now “they were eating” (Paul does not mention anyone actually eating) and Jesus gave the bread “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and instructs them to “take” it (no such instruction in Paul); and Jesus gave the cup “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and “they all drink it” (no such event in Paul); and Jesus describes the meaning of the cup “to them” (no such audience in Paul).

Then Jesus says he will not drink “again” until the kingdom comes, a statement that fits a narrative event, implying Jesus drank, and here drank, and often drank, and will pause drinking until the end times. Likewise Jesus “blesses” the bread (which also doesn’t happen in Paul), implying the actual literal bread he has in his hand is thereby rendered special to the ones about to eat it; whereas in Paul that makes no sense, because no one is there to eat it, Jesus is just depicting and explaining a ritual others will perform in his honor, not that he is performing for them. So it is notable that all of these things are absent from Paul. There is no narrative context of this being the last of many cups Jesus has drunk and of Jesus pausing drinking or of his blessing the bread and giving it to people present. In Paul, the whole scene is an instruction to future followers, not a description of a meal Jesus once had.

This is how Mark reifies a revelation in Paul, relating Jesus’s celestial instructions for performing a sacrament and its meaning, into a narrative historical event. Mark has even taken Paul’s language, about Jesus being “handed over,” which in Paul means by God (Romans 8:32, exact same word) and even by himself (Galatians 2:20, exact same word), not by Judas, and converted it into a whole new narrative of a betrayal by “the Jews” (the meaning of Judas, i.e. Judah, i.e. Judea). Paul has no knowledge of a betrayal. Indeed in Paul, all of “the twelve” get to see Jesus right after his death and are recognized as apostles (1 Corinthians 15:5; see Proving History, pp. 151-55).

 

[joelr]

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?"

Paul/Corinthians just claimed visions.
Acts is the most fictitious of all, demonstrated by Purvoe in his peer reviewed work https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Acts-Unraveling-Its-Story/dp/159815012X

Matthew is a re-work of Mark which was pretty much proven as Bible.com shows using Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction as a source.
But Mark Goodacres work has really ended that debate, - The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre


Because Matthew writes 3000 witnesses that holds zero weight. Matthew has 97% of the original Greek verbatim from Mark. But as the article and Steins work point out, Mark is the source for the other 2 synoptics. The additional details are fiction. Marks work is highly fictitious so they are copying fiction.



There isn't any evidence that holds up.

 

[joelr]

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.

People in the Gospels are likely fiction,.

 

[joelr]

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

Paul was going by new myths being told. Mark drew from several sources and may have made some details up. The other gospels are re-works of Mark.

 

[joelr]

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

Theologians start by assuming the scriptures are true. Historians look at all the evidence. No historians support the Bible narratives as true. None.

Here is a list of modern Islamic scholars who will all tell you the Quran is the true updated word of God. Which includes the fact that Christianity is wrong, Jesus is just a human prophet and all Christians are cursed and liers.

Modern theologians[edit]

• Sa'id Foudah
• A F M Khalid Hossain
• Abdul Baqi Miftah
• Abdolkarim Soroush
• Abdur Rahman Bangladeshi
• Abdul Halim Bukhari
• Abdul Matin Chowdhury
• Abdul Qadeer Khan
• Ahmed Rida Khan
• Allama Khalid Mahmood
• Ashraf Ali Thanwi
• Akhtar Raza Khan
• Ali Shariati
• Alija Izetbegović
• Anwar Shah Kashmiri
• Bilal Philips
• Ebrahim Desai
• Fazlur Rahman
• Hussain Ahmed Madani
• Idries Shah
• Inayat Khan
• Ismail Al-Faruqi
• Israr Ahmed
• Junaid Babunagari
• Khaled Abou Al-Fadl
• Leila Ahmed
• Mahmudul Hasan
• Mamunul Haque
• Mahmud Hasan Deobandi
• Mawlana Muhammad Ilyas
• Muhammad Abdul Wahhab
• Mohammed Amine Smaili
• Muhammad Asadullah Al-Ghalib
• Muhammad Ilyas al-Kandhlawi
• Muhammad Rafi Usmani
• Muhammad Shafi Deobandi
• Muhammad Taqi Usmani
• Muhammad Zakariyya al-Kandhlawi
• Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri
• Muzaffer Ozak
• Nurul Islam Olipuri
• Nasiruddin Albani
• Nur Hossain Kasemi
• Nur Uddin Gohorpuri
• Shah Ahmad Shafi
• Shabbir Ahmad Usmani
• Said Nursi
• Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi
• Shams-ul-haq Azeemabadi
• Sherman Jackson
• Seyyed Hossein Nasr
• Siraj Wahaj
• Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas
• Syed Nazeer Husain
• Tariq Jameel
• Yusuf Motala
• Ziauddin Sardar

 

[joelr]

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

Absolutely established in scholarship.
The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[8] Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources.[9][10] The authors of Matthew and Luke both independently used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, supplementing it with a collection of sayings called the Q source and additional material unique to each

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.

At 5:07, Ian N Mills Ph.D. Duke University. explains, nobody believes (in scholarship) that Peter wrote the Gospel of Peter.

Gospel according to Peter, is an ancient text concerning Jesus Christ, only partially known today. It is considered a non-canonical gospel and was rejected as apocryphal by the Church's synods of Carthage and Rome

If you are going to source non-canonical text then you have all sorts of different versions of Jesus and Christianity to deal with.

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.

Many scholars date this 2nd century. So he's heard about the myth or read about it.

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

There were 40 gospels and many other writings. Everyone wanted to the the "one" of course they are going to say things like this? Look, here is a religion you completely don't believe in telling people it's all true and God sent reassurance. That is not evidence.

When those who disbelieve had set up in their hearts zealotry, the zealotry of the Age of Ignorance, then Allah sent down His peace of reassurance upon His messenger and upon the believers and imposed on them the word of self-restraint, for they were worthy of it and meet for it. And Allah is Aware of all things.

27 Allah hath fulfilled the vision for His messenger in very truth. Ye shall indeed enter the Inviolable Place of Worship, if Allah will, secure, (having your hair) shaven and cut, not fearing. But He knoweth that which ye know not, and hath given you a near victory beforehand.

We punished the disbelievers with a painful punishment.

28 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion. And Allah sufficeth as a Witness.

Allah will cause Islam to prevail over all other religions.

29 Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves. T

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.

That is a fallacy that modern scholarship knows less? Do you think out knowledge of hominids or Egypt or Mesopotamia was better centuries ago? It wasn't. We find new things and scholars do work that was not done in the past.. It is known Matthew is copying Mark, often verbatim and is in fact polemically redacting Mark as Carrier demonstrates in ch 10 of his book. He also shows that much of what was added was ridiculous and literarily crafted, not eyewitness material. Which is not the behavior of a witness but a late literary redactor.

Going against the overwhelming consensus is conspiracy theory territory.

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

The majority view among critical scholars is that the authors of Matthew and Luke have based their narratives on Mark's gospel, editing him to suit their own ends, and the contradictions and discrepancies between these three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable.[13] In addition, the gospels we read today have been edited and corrupted over time, leading Origen to complain in the 3rd century that "the differences among manuscripts have become great, ... [because copyists] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please".[49] Most of these are insignificant, but many are significant,[50] an example being Matthew 1:18, altered to imply the pre-existence of Jesus.[51] For these reasons modern scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically, but nevertheless they do provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of the later authors.[3][4]

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?

But the scholars who spend their lives work on this have concluded it isn't eyewitness. These are not eyewitnesses and the original story is Mark. It's likely a work of fiction and has all the markers of fiction. Most of the sources are known leaving no room for any oral tradition.

 

[joelr]

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.

Because Matthew wants members to return to traditional Judaism first it seems when they were exposed to all the new theology from Hellenism and Persian religions and it was expanding into many of the other nearby religions (see Petra Pakken the Hellenization of Early Religion) the Jewish people also wanted to have their own savior and were also exposed to baptism, eucharist, cosmopolitian ideas and all the other features in mystery religions. It should have been an expansion on Judaism but it wasn't accepted by many Jews because they saw what it really was, pagan concepts. So it branched off. It is very pagan. The list of things in Hellenism and Zoroastrianism are all of the changes from Judaism into Christianity. It's kind of surprising.

 

[firedragon]

Gospel according to Peter, is an ancient text concerning Jesus Christ, only partially known today. It is considered a non-canonical gospel and was rejected as apocryphal by the Church's synods of Carthage and Rome

If you are going to source non-canonical text then you have all sorts of different versions of Jesus and Christianity to deal with.

Brother. Ken is referring to 1 peter, not the Gospel of Peter. 1 Peter is an epistle. First epistle of Peter.

 

[firedragon]

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.

1. You said Eusebius agrees with "this". Why do you agree with Eusebius on that? Do you agree with everything he says or do you pick and choose what you like? What is your criteria?

2. What are the "Much More" evidences and what are they?

 

[Clara Tea]

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

In the old days, before interbreeding with Germans (producing blond Jews), Jesus would have had brown skin, and black hair on his head and on his very hairy body. After resurrection, Jesus had white/blond hair, red eyes, and bronze feet, thus proving that He was the same person, and proving that it was a miracle that he looked like two different people.

Jesus had apostles who vouched for His existence. Santa has a lot of reindeer who will vouch for him, as well (Comet, Cupid, Dasher, Dancer, Donner, Blitzen, Prancer, Vixen, and sometimes Rudolf).

The bible was written in the first century AD with some added much later. Some say that the apostles each wrote their version of events, but we don't know that the author (unknown person) had access to those writings or not. We don't know if the bible was inspired by God. But was that inspiration a very clear communication, or garbled? We know that the bible has a lot of contradictions, so how could it be the perfect act of God?

Is it true that God is love? Is it true that God forgives? If God is so forgiving, why did God require a blood sacrifice (the horrible death of Jesus) to forgive?

 

[Clara Tea]

Brother. Ken is referring to 1 peter, not the Gospel of Peter. 1 Peter is an epistle. First epistle of Peter.

So that's why the Religious Right requires membership in the National Rifle Association. They confuse the word epistle with the word pistle.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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?"

The apostles ran off after the arrest so they witnessed didly squat.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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."

I won’t get the Avenue Q song out of my head now. Thanks.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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

Paul: I did no research. I pulled everything out of my behind.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

There are people who claim TFG won the 2020 election and even though they were there, he didn’t.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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."

Exxon was around earlier than I thought lol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exxon was around earlier than I thought lol.

It is the middle of the night. I should be in bed. It took me too long to get that.
Thank you.

 

[firedragon]

Good example. Mark took this and made it into an Earthly event. We see how this fiction was created.

The text in Paul, as translated from Greek by Dr Carrier

"For I received from the Lord what I also handed over to you, that the Lord Jesus, during the night he was handed over, took bread, and having given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in the remembrance of me.” Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you might drink it in remembrance of me.” For as often as you might eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."



MARK 14:22-26
"While they were eating, having taken bread, and having blessed it, he broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “Take; this is my body.” Then, having taken a cup, and having given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I tell you, that never again shall I drink from the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.” And having sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives."

Notice what’s changed. Paul is describing Jesus miming some actions and explaining their importance. His audience is future Christians. Mark has transformed this into a narrative story by adding people being present and having Jesus interact with them: now “they were eating” (Paul does not mention anyone actually eating) and Jesus gave the bread “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and instructs them to “take” it (no such instruction in Paul); and Jesus gave the cup “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and “they all drink it” (no such event in Paul); and Jesus describes the meaning of the cup “to them” (no such audience in Paul).

Then Jesus says he will not drink “again” until the kingdom comes, a statement that fits a narrative event, implying Jesus drank, and here drank, and often drank, and will pause drinking until the end times. Likewise Jesus “blesses” the bread (which also doesn’t happen in Paul), implying the actual literal bread he has in his hand is thereby rendered special to the ones about to eat it; whereas in Paul that makes no sense, because no one is there to eat it, Jesus is just depicting and explaining a ritual others will perform in his honor, not that he is performing for them. So it is notable that all of these things are absent from Paul. There is no narrative context of this being the last of many cups Jesus has drunk and of Jesus pausing drinking or of his blessing the bread and giving it to people present. In Paul, the whole scene is an instruction to future followers, not a description of a meal Jesus once had.

This is how Mark reifies a revelation in Paul, relating Jesus’s celestial instructions for performing a sacrament and its meaning, into a narrative historical event. Mark has even taken Paul’s language, about Jesus being “handed over,” which in Paul means by God (Romans 8:32, exact same word) and even by himself (Galatians 2:20, exact same word), not by Judas, and converted it into a whole new narrative of a betrayal by “the Jews” (the meaning of Judas, i.e. Judah, i.e. Judea). Paul has no knowledge of a betrayal. Indeed in Paul, all of “the twelve” get to see Jesus right after his death and are recognized as apostles (1 Corinthians 15:5; see Proving History, pp. 151-55).

JoelR. Are you quoting Richard Carrier? Out of curiosity, do you believe Jesus never existed?

 

[Brian2]

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.

Strictly speaking the gospels are anonymous but the names were attached because of the knowledge about authorship in the early Church and because of the internal evidence which pointed to the truth of that knowledge.

 

[Brian2]

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.

It is fulfilment of OT prophecy concerning the Messiah. So Jesus would not have been the Messiah without the resurrection and of course the apostles and disciples would have just gone back to their day jobs if Jesus had not risen.
The fact of the resurrection sold the religion to the apostles.
They actually knew the truth of the resurrection and all suffered and even died rather than deny what they knew to be true.
No doubt it was a good thing in the pagan world of the time to actually have living witnesses that the resurrection was true.