The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

[TagliatelliMonster]

Tsk tsk... That's myopic thinking.

I call it rational thinking.
This level of discrepancy between accounts is problematic.

This is not on the same level of not remembering the color of someone's shoes at some specific time...

Actually, all four Gospel writers do believe in the resurrection – they all confirmed it.

They all CLAIMED it. These ARE the claims. Confirmation is something very very different.

In addition, those events are not contradictory, they’re complementary.

No, they aren't.

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.

Whatever dude... Even if I would completely ignore all contradictions and pretend that all 4 stories claim the exact same thing with the exact same detail, then STILL all you have are JUST stories.

Stories, from biased sources - of all things, are never sufficient to confirm such extra-ordinary claims.
In fact, these stories ARE the claims. That's how you know about that. Because they wrote their claims down.

These claims require evidence and the stories aren't evidence of themselves any more then Lord Of The Rings is evidence of Gandalf.

 

[Spartan]

I call it rational thinking.
This level of discrepancy between accounts is problematic.

No, it's not.

Whatever dude... Even if I would completely ignore all contradictions and pretend that all 4 stories claim the exact same thing with the exact same detail, then STILL all you have are JUST stories.

Stories, from biased sources - of all things, are never sufficient to confirm such extra-ordinary claims.
In fact, these stories ARE the claims. That's how you know about that. Because they wrote their claims down.

These claims require evidence and the stories aren't evidence of themselves any more then Lord Of The Rings is evidence of Gandalf.

Sorry, you're not very convincing with that.

And if the Gospels are nothing but a load of fairy tales then show me ONE (1 - just 1, your best ONE) example of a fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and present your argument and evidence. Should be a piece of cake exercise, right? Let's see that bad boy.

 

[JJ50]

There is no evidence to support many of the stories in the

No, it's not.



Sorry, you're not very convincing with that.

And if the Gospels are nothing but a load of fairy tales then show me ONE (1 - just 1, your best ONE) example of a fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and present your argument and evidence. Should be a piece of cake exercise, right? Let's see that bad boy.

It is for people who claim the much less than credible to be factual to produce evidence that cannot be refuted to support the claim, you have produced none.

 

[Spartan]

There is no evidence to support many of the stories in the
It is for people who claim the much less than credible to be factual to produce evidence that cannot be refuted to support the claim, you have produced none.

Do your homework for a change.

 

[JJ50]

Do your homework for a change.

As I said you have produced no evidence, only what you believe to be true. BIG DIFFERENCE!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

Sorry, you're not very convincing with that.

I undestand that you must believe that. But it's the fact.
No amount of mere words and stories or claims will ever be sufficient to support such extra-ordinary claims.

And again I'll repeat that these stories you are referring to ARE the claims. Without these stories - you wouldn't know about them. These stories thus ARE the claims. Evidence for these claims must necessarily come from other sources. Unless you don't mind engaging in fallacious circular reasoning, off course.

And if the Gospels are nothing but a load of fairy tales then show me ONE (1 - just 1, your best ONE) example of a fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and present your argument and evidence. Should be a piece of cake exercise, right? Let's see that bad boy.

First of all, that's a blatant shift of the burden of proof. YOU are claiming that these stories are accurate. Upto you to support them.

Secondly, I don't think I ever claimed that these are fairy tales. I just don't believe these stories to be accurate. And the reason for that is failure of people like you to meet the burden of proof. What I will say though, is that because you fail to meet your burden of proof, these stories are indistinguishable from fairy tales.

Asking to prove that a character in a story is a fictional character, moreover, is a dishonest request in and off itself, because it's a logical impossibility to do so.

You can't demonstrate the non-existance of something like that. You can only demonstrate the opposite.
At best, you can point out that there is no contemporary independent corroborating evidence to support the existance of said character. But that doesn't mean the character didn't exist. It just means that there is currently no valid reason to think otherwise.


So, all in all, your request here is a prime example of fallacious reasoning from top to bottom.
Meet your own burden proof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do your homework for a change.

He doesn't have any homework concerning claims that YOU are making.
The homework is entirely your responsability, if you are the one making the claim.

 

[JJ50]

He doesn't have any homework concerning claims that YOU are making.
The homework is entirely your responsability, if you are the one making the claim.

I am a SHE, not a he.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I call it rational thinking.
This level of discrepancy between accounts is problematic.

This is not on the same level of not remembering the color of someone's shoes at some specific time...



They all CLAIMED it. These ARE the claims. Confirmation is something very very different.



No, they aren't.




Whatever dude... Even if I would completely ignore all contradictions and pretend that all 4 stories claim the exact same thing with the exact same detail, then STILL all you have are JUST stories.

Stories, from biased sources - of all things, are never sufficient to confirm such extra-ordinary claims.
In fact, these stories ARE the claims. That's how you know about that. Because they wrote their claims down.

These claims require evidence and the stories aren't evidence of themselves any more then Lord Of The Rings is evidence of Gandalf.

The claims about the resurrection also ignore all the other books and stories of the death (or not) and resurrection (or not) of Jesus that were floating around in the first couple of centuries from early believers.

 

[Spartan]

The claims about the resurrection also ignore all the other books and stories of the death (or not) and resurrection (or not) of Jesus that were floating around in the first couple of centuries from early believers.

The Gospels are 1st century and were written by the earliest eyewitnesses (Matthew, John, and Mark for eyewitness Peter) and Luke, who carefully investigated and spoke to the earliest eyewitnesses. The other "books" you're referring to are 2nd century or later works that were not written by those who knew Jesus. A number of them are pseudepigrapha (books that attempt to imitate Scripture but that were written under false names) - r.e. the "Gospel of Thomas," which wasn't written by Thomas. That's the reason they weren't included in the New Testament/

 

[Spartan]

Yes, it is

I undestand that you must believe that. But it's the fact.
No amount of mere words and stories or claims will ever be sufficient to support such extra-ordinary claims.

And again I'll repeat that these stories you are referring to ARE the claims. Without these stories - you wouldn't know about them. These stories thus ARE the claims. Evidence for these claims must necessarily come from other sources. Unless you don't mind engaging in fallacious circular reasoning, off course.

First of all, that's a blatant shift of the burden of proof. YOU are claiming that these stories are accurate. Upto you to support them.

Secondly, I don't think I ever claimed that these are fairy tales. I just don't believe these stories to be accurate. And the reason for that is failure of people like you to meet the burden of proof. What I will say though, is that because you fail to meet your burden of proof, these stories are indistinguishable from fairy tales.

Asking to prove that a character in a story is a fictional character, moreover, is a dishonest request in and off itself, because it's a logical impossibility to do so.

You can't demonstrate the non-existance of something like that. You can only demonstrate the opposite.
At best, you can point out that there is no contemporary independent corroborating evidence to support the existance of said character. But that doesn't mean the character didn't exist. It just means that there is currently no valid reason to think otherwise.

So, all in all, your request here is a prime example of fallacious reasoning from top to bottom.
Meet your own burden proof.

You can make all the brash claims you want against the Gospels, but IMO you haven't done your homework to the extent you really understand the historic underpinnings of the earliest Gospels, Acts, etc. It's also noteworthy you were unable to point out any fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels.

So, I have the earliest independent accounts of Jesus and his resurrection, and you have denials, and no credible foundation for your denials.

 

[Spartan]

As I said you have produced no evidence, only what you believe to be true. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Yeah, I have produced evidence (see Post #98, etc.). You haven't. All you do is akin to the "No No" song of the Beatles.

 

[JJ50]

Yeah, I have produced evidence (see Post #98, etc.). You haven't. All you do is akin to the "No No" song of the Beatles.

Nothing you have produced can be verified.

 

[Spartan]

Nothing you have produced can be verified.

Flush. You've got NOTHING but denials.

 

[JJ50]

Flush. You've got NOTHING but denials.

I wouldn't be able to deny it if there was any evidence which couldn't be refuted, which there isn't.

 

[Spartan]

I wouldn't be able to deny it if there was any evidence which couldn't be refuted, which there isn't.

Well go tell that tripe to somebody who believes you.

 

[JJ50]

Well go tell that tripe to somebody who believes you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can make all the brash claims you want against the Gospels, but IMO you haven't done your homework to the extent you really understand the historic underpinnings of the earliest Gospels, Acts, etc.

What claims?

It's also noteworthy you were unable to point out any fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels.

Did you even read the post you are replying to?
I just explained to you at length how it is a logical impossibility to do this and therefor a dishonest request, and how the burden of proof is ON YOU and how this request is just another attempt at shifting that burden.

It's not upto me to prove your stories false. It's upto you to demonstrate the accuracy thereof instead.
If I can't show it false, that doesn't mean it must be seen as correct by default.

You still have your entire work in front of you.

Not being able to demonstrate how Darth Vader is a fictional character, doesn't mean that Star Wars is a true story. Your apostles and bible aren't any different.

So, I have the earliest independent accounts of Jesus and his resurrection

These aren't independent accounts. They are the exact opposite of independent.
Perhaps you should look up what "independent" means.

BELIEVERS of a religion making religious claims about there religion, is the exact opposite of "independent".
Not to mention that none of these accounts are contemporary.

, and you have denials, and no credible foundation for your denials.

I don't need any particular foundation to express being unconvinced of fantastical stories that don't have one shred of valid evidence.

 

[JJ50]

What claims?




Did you even read the post you are replying to?
I just explained to you at length how it is a logical impossibility to do this and therefor a dishonest request, and how the burden of proof is ON YOU and how this request is just another attempt at shifting that burden.

It's not upto me to prove your stories false. It's upto you to demonstrate the accuracy thereof instead.
If I can't show it false, that doesn't mean it must be seen as correct by default.

You still have your entire work in front of you.

Not being able to demonstrate how Darth Vader is a fictional character, doesn't mean that Star Wars is a true story. Your apostles and bible aren't any different.



These aren't independent accounts. They are the exact opposite of independent.
Perhaps you should look up what "independent" means.

BELIEVERS of a religion making religious claims about there religion, is the exact opposite of "independent".
Not to mention that none of these accounts are contemporary.



I don't need any particular foundation to express being unconvinced of fantastical stories that don't have one shred of valid evidence.

Hear! Hear!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Gospels are 1st century and were written by the earliest eyewitnesses (Matthew, John, and Mark for eyewitness Peter) and Luke

This is simply not true, as just about every biblical scholar will tell you.
The gospels weren't written by these people, that's just how they are named.
The authors of the gospels are completely anonymous and certainly not eyewitnesses.