The Resurrection is it provable?

[Subduction Zone]

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.

The stories of apostles be tortured and dying for Jesus appears to be more myth that was invented after the fact. Don't believe me??? Try finding reliable support for the claim. Paul,Peter, and perhaps one more is all that you will find.

 

[blü 2]

It is fulfilment of OT prophecy concerning the Messiah.

Where does the Tanakh say that a messiah will die by crucifixion and be resurrected?

So Jesus would not have been the Messiah without the resurrection

Same question.

and of course the apostles and disciples would have just gone back to their day jobs if Jesus had not risen.

I really don't see how that follows. All four gospel versions of Jesus purported to be God's messenger or envoy, and each expressly denied he was God. Why then would they think his actual death changed what they had come to believe?

The Jesuses of Mark, Matthew and Luke had also each promised that the Son of Man would come and establish the Kingdom of God on earth in the lifetime of some of Jesus' audience. The NT seems to strongly identify Jesus with the Son of Man without actually spelling it out, so why would the apostles go home just because Jesus was dead?

The fact of the resurrection sold the religion to the apostles.

It's unlikely to the point of impossible that Jesus had suffered irreversible cessation of his body's life functions, and nonetheless returned to life, Given that there is no eyewitness account, no contemporary account, no independent account of the resurrection and that the versions of it in the NT each contradict the others on major points, on the evidence of the bible why would you consider the resurrection a "fact"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where does the Tanakh say that a messiah will die by crucifixion and be resurrected?
Same question.
I really don't see how that follows. All four gospel versions of Jesus purported to be God's messenger or envoy, and each expressly denied he was God. Why then would they think his actual death changed what they had come to believe?

The Jesuses of Mark, Matthew and Luke had also each promised that the Son of Man would come and establish the Kingdom of God on earth in the lifetime of some of Jesus' audience. The NT seems to strongly identify Jesus with the Son of Man without actually spelling it out, so why would the apostles go home just because Jesus was dead?
It's unlikely to the point of impossible that Jesus had suffered irreversible cessation of his body's life functions, and nonetheless returned to life, Given that there is no eyewitness account, no contemporary account, no independent account of the resurrection and that the versions of it in the NT each contradict the others on major points, on the evidence of the bible why would you consider the resurrection a "fact"?

My prediction on the claimed prophecies are that he will provide some quote mined verses that are nt prophecy.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

Maybe it has become that in many places. I think though that in its beginnings it took the myths about resurrection (which were pagan) and remade them to allude to Israel. As one proceeds on a path of study into the canon there are few resurrections as you go back into older stories. The most prominent resurrection theme is Israel itself being resurrected with its hope. Other resurrections appear to me to be illustrations of this. For example there is the resurrection which happens when a dead man is thrown into a grave onto the bones of a prophet, and that dead man is resurrected but not the prophet. The one is resurrected but not the other alluding to the sacrifice of the scapegoat and in a broader sense to the sufferings of Israel for the sake of the world. Israel is described by prophets as suffering for the good of the world. It is called the suffering servant as well as the prince of peace. There is also a theme of the recurring death of Israel. It dies and is resurrected multiple times. This is what should come to mind when reading about the death and resurrection of Jesus, however that does not mean that the incantations of the liturgy are not to be followed. The Christian is still to say that Jesus has died and been resurrected and to believe in eating his body and drinking his blood. It is ritual, not engineering. You forgive and are forgiven, and that is what has transformed life making the modern world so much more brilliant than it ever was to my knowledge.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Whether the Gospels echoed Psalm 22 , or Psalm 22 foreshadowed the Gospels, is for the reader to decide.

One might argue that the story being overlooked in this discussion, is that the Gospels have resonated so clearly across two millennia, to the extent they are still being debated on forums such as this.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Whilst there are plenty of Christians who are not so myopic, there are plenty who try to drive the laws and culture of a country down Christian lines. Whether citizens of those countries believe in Christianity does not limit that they are impacted by it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Whether the Gospels echoed Psalm 22 , or Psalm 22 foreshadowed the Gospels, is for the reader to decide.

One might argue that the story being overlooked in this discussion, is that the Gospels have resonated so clearly across two millennia, to the extent they are still being debated on forums such as this.

Indeed that would be a key reason why I am here in the first place. It might not be 'overlooked' so much as it suggesting different implications to some than others.

 

[leroy]

No we don't.

Ok so most scholars are wrong just because you say so

 

[leroy]

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

Well then the case is closed,

1 Paul had experiences of visions of Jesus

2 atleast some of the information that he received from the visions is true

3 therefore the experience was reall, Paul really and trully saw Jesus


I wasn't expecting you to concid point 1 , but given point 1 the case for the resurrection is easy to build.

 

[leroy]

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?

You still have this annoying tendency of ignoring the point of my comment and make a bunch of random and unrelated claims.


All I am saying is that the fact that none of the gospels mentioned the 500 strongly suggest that the authors of the gospels didn't copied from Paul. (Nor had Paul as a source)

So ether agree or refute this particular point.

Answers such as "nobody knows who wrote the gospels " are just irrelevant and dishonest red harings intended to avoid the original point

 

[RestlessSoul]

Whilst there are plenty of Christians who are not so myopic, there are plenty who try to drive the laws and culture of a country down Christian lines. Whether citizens of those countries believe in Christianity does not limit that they are impacted by it.

Possibly. But as we've been progressing in the opposite direction in Europe for the last 400 years, I can only speak from that experience.

The USA appears to be an outlier in this regard, as it is in so many other things. Fortunately for them, they have a constitution to protect them from the encroachment of religion into affairs of state.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

That's nice, but the question asked in this thread is not "are people who believe in the resurrection OK?" but "is the resurrection provable?".

 

[RestlessSoul]

Indeed that would be a key reason why I am here in the first place. It might not be 'overlooked' so much as it suggesting different implications to some than others.

Are you of the opinion that the influence of Christianity around the globe has been predominately negative? I concede that for some populations - like native Australians, and Americans - it would be hard to argue the opposite.

However, while Christianity was undoubtedly tainted by European imperialism, I'd argue that the true source of that problem was imperialism rather than Christianity.

 

[Brian2]

No they can't, since it's authorship is anonymous. Also you would need to demonstrate one author was offering a credible account, anymore than another. You are making a bare appeal to numbers, it's called an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

That has nothing to do with argumentum ad populum fallacy. That fallacy is when you point to most scholars and claim that what they say must be right because it is most scholars.

The gospel author or authors are unknown, the names Mathew Mark Luke and John are fictitious, and were assigned centuries later, to make it appear as if they authored by disciples.

If that is what happened they would not have had Mark or Luke.

Paul never met nor knew Jesus. His claims are mostly subjective opinion after the fact, hearsay in other words.

Nevertheless Paul did not start believing in a Jesus who was crucified and rose from the dead if he knew that Jesus did not exist and was not crucified.

So not a witness then, just claiming to have been one. If someone claims they've seen Elvis, does this make them an eyewitness to Elvis resurrection? What if they knew him personally, unlike Paul with Jesus?

Nobody witnessed the resurrection, not even the original apostles. However they all are witnesses of the resurrected Jesus after His crucifixion.

The gospels are anonymously authored, long after the alleged events, they are hearsay, by definition, I don't need to be sceptical to know this, though I am astonished how often Christians are unaware of it. Most bibles even say this inside the cover nowadays.

We all know the gospels are anonymously authored, but it is only sceptical thinkers who use the naturalistic methodology to ascertain the date of writing to a time after the destruction of the temple and because of this they say the authors were not the ones that history and the internal evidence in the NT suggests.
The whole idea of late authorship is obtained by circular reasoning.

This is a separate claim, and scepticism is not the same as bias, you're projecting. You however believe claims from one religion, and reject identical claims form others, so I don't bias is a word you should throw around.

What sort of identical claims from other religions are you talking about?

What is?

Presuming that Jesus prophecies about the temple destruction are wrong and so the date of the authorship of the synoptics is after 70AD. It tosses out evidence for earlier dating for the sake of the naturalistic methodology presumption.
It is a garbage in garbage out type of scholarship and is circular reasoning because of that.
Conservatives just use the available evidence to work out the pre 70AD dating.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Nobody witnessed the resurrection, not even the original apostles. However they all are witnesses of the resurrected Jesus after His crucifixion.

What lovely - albeit deceitful - wordplay,

 

[blü 2]

My prediction on the claimed prophecies are that he will provide some quote mined verses that are nt prophecy.

Stay tuned ...

 

[Brian2]

That's a claim, I already explained the bible contains unevidenced claims that people witnessed these events. These are hearsay claims written long after the events they claim to describe, either anonymously, or as if the case with Paul, by someone who wasn't there.

Paul knew Jesus had died and knew He had risen because he met Him.
What sort of evidence do you think would be better?
The writers of the gospels are know by the earth Church.

So people who believe in the resurrection believe in the resurrection, that's a pretty vapid tautology. There are no eyewitnesses, and no contemporary records.

The claim of the first preachers is that they witnessed the resurrected Jesus.
There are records that were written within 30 years but that was no good even though the evidence points to their authorship being within that time.
Why is that no good? Because they dare to mention Jesus prophecy about the temple and so they are automatically relegated to a late writing date and by people other than the names given by the early church, the ones who knew.

 

[Brian2]

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

In John's gospel these people were there.
John 20:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
This is what we are given concerning the death of Jesus. The soldiers made sure He had died and the signs of the blood and water indicate death.
John 20:33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”
They did not see Him wake up later, but they knew He died and saw Him up and well 3 days later. It is not that He was hobbling around or had bandages all over Him to help heal the wounds.
Then after making all this up, they began to teach it to the Jews and the whole world even though they were persecuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Paul knew Jesus had died and knew He had risen because he met Him.
What sort of evidence do you think would be better?
The writers of the gospels are know by the earth Church.

Nope. Paul only had visions. Those are his own claims. He never made claims about seeing a material Jesus. And the early Church began to apply names to the Gospels quite a while after they were written. They were not "known".

The claim of the first preachers is that they witnessed the resurrected Jesus.
There are records that were written within 30 years but that was no good even though the evidence points to their authorship being within that time.
Why is that no good? Because they dare to mention Jesus prophecy about the temple and so they are automatically relegated to a late writing date and by people other than the names given by the early church, the ones who knew.

Citation needed. The prophecy is only one of the factors for dating the Gospels. Have you not noticed that there is more to the dating than that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In John's gospel these people were there.
John 20:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
This is what we are given concerning the death of Jesus. The soldiers made sure He had died and the signs of the blood and water indicate death.
John 20:33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”
They did not see Him wake up later, but they knew He died and saw Him up and well 3 days later. It is not that He was hobbling around or had bandages all over Him to help heal the wounds.
Then after making all this up, they began to teach it to the Jews and the whole world even though they were persecuted.

Sorry ,but the Gospels are not a reliable source for this. The Gospels are the claim. They cannot be the evidence.