The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

[Spartan]

By the way, referring to Bible believers referring to their personal beliefs based upon the Jesus myths is not an example of "extra-biblical".

There's another one of your bs claims - the Jesus "myth". For once it would behoove you to start substantiating your feeble, self-serving claims. Where's your evidence for your Jesus myth claim?

Your fulminations are all hat and no cattle.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, it is. If the Gospel accounts are false, show me.

And there's plenty of articles about the eyewitnesses to Jesus on the net. People just need to do their own due-diligence.

Mate. All eye witness accounts that you are speaking about were written by unknown individuals who never even met Jesus. So first in this case you must establish that the writers of these books had been firsthand eyewitnesses of the eyewitnesses they are speaking of.

That would never happen. Impossible to establish. These writers were writing based on the inherited information they had and/or their theological statements they wished to make. You can only make out some possibilities and faith based theories. I dont mean to insult your faith but this is in light of the conversation.

 

[JJ50]

There's another one of your bs claims - the Jesus "myth". For once it would behoove you to start substantiating your feeble, self-serving claims. Where's your evidence for your Jesus myth claim?

Your fulminations are all hat and no cattle.

Where is your evidence it is all true, you haven't yet produced anything that isn't just a belief?

 

[Spartan]

Mate. All eye witness accounts that you are speaking about were written by unknown individuals who never even met Jesus.

False. Peter, John, Matthew, etc., etc. were eyewitnesses to Jesus. There's excellent attestations about the traditional Gospel authors. Once you get that established in your mind then you will have evidence for the eyewitness accounts.

Matthew

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel


Mark Authorship

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel


Luke Authorship

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel


John Authorship

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's another one of your bs claims - the Jesus "myth". For once it would behoove you to start substantiating your feeble, self-serving claims. Where's your evidence for your Jesus myth claim?

Your fulminations are all hat and no cattle.

Do you not understand what a myth is? Let me help you with that first. Here is the lead definition of Merriam Webster's dictionary on myth:

"1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon"

The Gospels themselves are evidence that the stories are myths. It shows events that supposedly happened, but are totally lacking in reliable evidence. You do not seem to understand that being a mythical character does not mean that they definitely did not exist, like Noah or Moses. There could have been a real Jesus. In fact there probably was a real Jesus in my opinion. The fact that there probably was a real Jesus does not make the stories about him myths.

For example we wil probably all agree that Abraham Lincoln was a real person. But Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, not so much.

Your tales of magic are evidence that the Jesus of the Bible is largely mythical just as the movie Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter is evidence that that version of Lincoln is mythical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. Peter, John, Matthew, etc., etc. were eyewitnesses to Jesus. There's excellent attestations about the traditional Gospel authors. Once you get that established in your mind then you will have evidence for the eyewitness accounts.

Matthew

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel


Mark Authorship

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel


Luke Authorship

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel


John Authorship

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel

And back to the bogus sources. Real scholars put their ideas through peer review. I know that you hate Wiki, but many of their articles have links that lead to the peer review that supports their claims. Where is the peer review for your claims?

And looking through that mess I do not see any evidence of when the Gospels were written or even who wrote them.

 

[Spartan]

And back to the bogus sources.

Prove it. You make a lot of horse manure claims but zero evidence. That's how you operate.

 

[firedragon]

False. Peter, John, Matthew, etc., etc. were eyewitnesses to Jesus. There's excellent attestations about the traditional Gospel authors. Once you get that established in your mind then you will have evidence for the eyewitness accounts.

Matthew

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel


Mark Authorship

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel


Luke Authorship

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel


John Authorship

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel

Nope. I think you should understand some scholarship prior to asking others about their academic qualifications and experience.

There is no indication of any of the gospels having any known author. Please brush up.

 

[JJ50]

Prove it. You make a lot of horse manure claims but zero evidence. That's how you operate.

I thought that was your stock in trade.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Prove it. You make a lot of horse manure claims but zero evidence. That's how you operate.

Your reading comprehension cannot be that bad. I told you what was wrong with your sources. If you cannot show that they are based upon peer reviewed history rather than mere believers in the Bible you have nothing. When you use a source you need to be able to show that it is reliable. I can quote Flat Earthers. Does that mean that the Earth is flat?

Once again when the burden of proof is upon you demanding that others "prove me wrong" is a an admission that you have nothing.

 

[sooda]

False. Peter, John, Matthew, etc., etc. were eyewitnesses to Jesus. There's excellent attestations about the traditional Gospel authors. Once you get that established in your mind then you will have evidence for the eyewitness accounts.

Matthew

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel


Mark Authorship

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel


Luke Authorship

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel


John Authorship

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel

On a mainstream scholarly analysis of dates, Mark could have met Jesus, though it is unlikely, Matthew might have but probably didn’t, John almost certainly didn’t, and Luke never claimed that he had.

 

[Spartan]

On a mainstream scholarly analysis of dates, Mark could have met Jesus, though it is unlikely, Matthew might have but probably didn’t, John almost certainly didn’t, and Luke never claimed that he had.

If you read the early church fathers, you'll find out Mark wrote down Peter's accounts of Jesus for the Mark Gospel.

 

[sooda]

If you read the early church fathers, you'll find out Mark wrote down Peter's accounts of Jesus for the Mark Gospel.

Historically, Mark is seen as one of Peter's disciples. The historian Papias in the 2nd Century refers to him as such. Likewise, the evidence in the narrative, for example, indicates that Peter was a significant source for most of the material, and most theologians accept Mark as "Peter's" Gospel.

apostles - Who Were Mark and Luke? - Christianity Stack ...
christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/18966/who-were-mark-and-luke

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you read the early church fathers, you'll find out Mark wrote down Peter's accounts of Jesus for the Mark Gospel.

So at best Mark is hearsay. And how did the church fathers know this? They came along much later.

What you actually have is only hearsay about hearsay. That is very weak evidence.

 

[sooda]

So at best Mark is hearsay. And how did the church fathers know this? They came along much later.

What you actually have is only hearsay about hearsay. That is very weak evidence.

See link at #373

 

[Subduction Zone]

See link at #373

The problem with Papias, and was one of the earliest of so called church fathers, is that even his earliest works are dated to 95 CE. He appears to be talking to third hand sources at the earliest:

"I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice."

Papias of Hierapolis - Wikipedia

And any of his references to the Gospels do not seem to be directly stating who wrote them.

 

[sooda]

The problem with Papias, and was one of the earliest of so called church fathers, is that even his earliest works are dated to 95 CE. He appears to be talking to third hand sources at the earliest:

"I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice."

Papias of Hierapolis - Wikipedia

And any of his references to the Gospels do not seem to be directly stating who wrote them.

Yes. I noticed that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope. All four report the resurrection. Any differences are related to events AFTER the resurrection.

No. Concerning the supposed discovery of the resurection. How many people were in the tomb? How many angels? What about the cover stone, was it open? One says yes the other no. And if it was closed, who opened it? One says X, the other says Y.
And so it continues.

If such amount of discrepancy would exist today between 4 different accounts concerning an alleged event in a courtroom, the case would be dismissed based on the claimers not being able to get their story straight.

It's exactly the kind of thing I expect from legend / myth building.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evidently the NORMAL thing would have been to leave the body on the cross or throw the body on the city dump. Who knows?

To play the devil's advocate for a second (lol, see that pun there... hahaha), I could certainly imagine that IF there was a historical Jesus that got crucified and IF he actually had a hardcore / fundamentalist following of people who actually indeed believed he was the messiah... That they might have gone out of their way to snatch the body away after Romans dumped it on the city dump, to give him a proper burial.

It certainly would be what I would want to do in such a situation.

Although I have no idea how feasable such a thing would have been.

 

[Spartan]

No. Concerning the supposed discovery of the resurection. How many people were in the tomb? How many angels? What about the cover stone, was it open? One says yes the other no. And if it was closed, who opened it? One says X, the other says Y.
And so it continues.

Tsk tsk... That's myopic thinking.

Actually, all four Gospel writers do believe in the resurrection – they all confirmed it. It’s not the resurrection that’s in question in the Gospels, it’s events that have occurred AFTER the resurrection that skeptics question. You proved that in your remarks above, citing things that happened AFTER the resurrection. In addition, those events are not contradictory, they’re complementary. If you put them on a timeline (How many angels were at the tomb? Answer: What time was it when the first one appeared, and then the second?), then most of the alleged contradictions disappear. Then there’s also what Cold Case Detective J. Warner Wallace calls “literary spotlighting.” One skeptic would argue that John’s Gospel only mentions Mary Magdalene at the tomb. That’s who John focused the “spotlight” on initially. But in reality, John was aware of the presence of other women at the tomb because later in the Gospel John wrote, “So she (Mary Magdalene) came running to the Simon and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and WE (“We”) don’t know where they have put him.’” – John 20:2

Finally, if you had done your due diligence of the Gospels, you would have known about Simon Greenleaf’s “Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts,” which places the resurrection scriptures in chronological order.

Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

So you have nothing.