Let's discuss the Resurrection of Jesus

[rahl]

it is real yasu

It’s a real religion, just not real events that actually happened.

 

[rahl]

you can prove it easily

Then prove it. You would instantly become the most famous person in human history if you could prove it.

 

[rahl]

they are historical evidence of all those facts

there is no evidence any of the events happened.

what theory explains the rise of Christianity?

The same thing that led to the rise of every other religion on earth. Christianity is no more factual than the belief in Zeus or Jupiter.

 

[Dragonfly]

By the way: https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

The religious landscape of the United States continues to change at a rapid clip. In Pew Research Center telephone surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019, 65% of American adults describe themselves as Christians when asked about their religion, down 12 percentage points over the past decade. Meanwhile, the religiously unaffiliated share of the population, consisting of people who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular,” now stands at 26%, up from 17% in 2009.

I can't imagine this trend changing anytime soon.

As the older traditionalists die, and the younger more open minded generations rise to power, organized religion should continue to decline in popularity.

Education and worldwide communication with all cultures will erode blind-belief systems that otherwise have been stagnant within communities/countries for centuries.

 

[Daisy]

WHAT THE FACTS SHOW
Unlike fanciful legends, the Gospel writings reflect painstaking accuracy and attention to detail. For example, they abound with names of real places, many of which can be visited today. They tell about real people, whose existence has been corroborated by secular historians.—Luke 3:1, 2, 23.
Jesus himself is mentioned by secular writers of the first and second centuries.* His manner of death, as described in the Gospels, agrees with Roman executional methods of the time. Moreover, events are related in a factual and candid manner—even portraying some of Jesus’ disciples unfavorably. (Matthew 26:56; Luke 22:24-26; John 18:10, 11) All these factors strongly indicate that the Gospel writers were honest and accurate in what they wrote about Jesus.
WHAT ABOUT JESUS’ RESURRECTION?
While it is generally accepted that Jesus lived and died, some would question his resurrection. Even his apostles did not believe the initial report of his having returned to life. (Luke 24:11) All doubt was removed, however, when they and other disciples saw the resurrected Jesus on separate occasions. In fact, in one case, there were more than 500 eyewitnesses present.—1 Corinthians 15:6.
At the risk of being arrested and killed, the disciples courageously proclaimed Jesus’ resurrection to all—even to the very ones who had executed him. (Acts 4:1-3, 10, 19, 20; 5:27-32) Would so many disciples have been so bold if they were not absolutely sure that Jesus had really been resurrected? In fact, the reality of the resurrection of Jesus is the driving force behind the impact that Christianity has had on the world both then and now.
The Gospel accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection bear all the necessary marks of an authentic historical record. Carefully reading them will convince you that these events really happened. Your conviction can be further strengthened when you understand why they took place. The next article will explain.
Tacitus, born about 55 C.E., wrote that “Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.” Jesus is also referred to by Suetonius (first century); Jewish historian Josephus (first century); and Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (early second century).
Why Is There Not More Secular Support?
Given the profound influence that Jesus had on the world, should we expect more in the way of contemporary non-Biblical corroboration? Not necessarily. For one thing, the Gospels were written almost 2,000 years ago. Few other writings of that time have survived. (1 Peter 1:24, 25) Then, too, it is unlikely that Jesus’ many opposers would write anything that would lend credibility to the reports about him.
Regarding Jesus’ resurrection, Peter, one of his apostles, explained: “God raised this one up on the third day and allowed him to become manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses appointed beforehand by God, to us, who ate and drank with him after his rising from the dead.” (Acts 10:40, 41) Why not to all the people? Matthew’s Gospel tells us that when the religious enemies heard reports of Jesus’ resurrection, they schemed to suppress them.—Matthew 28:11-15.
Does this mean that Jesus wanted his resurrection to be kept secret? No, for Peter went on to say: “He ordered us to preach to the people and to give a thorough witness that this is the one decreed by God to be judge of the living and the dead.” True Christians have done and are doing just that.—Acts 10:42.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2016163#h=2:0-18:309

 

[Dragonfly]

What the facts show, followed by a bunch of bible quotes....

 

[NotreDame]

No no. I asked for evidence. You said evidence.

Stories in a book, that’s 1000’s of years old, written by unknown authors, decades or even a 100 years or more after the events it describes, then endlessly edited and translated into hundreds of different versions doesn’t represent evidence.

Care to try again?

The Gospels were not written 100 years or more after the event described. Mark is dated to about 55 CE, Matthew, Luke, and John, borrowing in part from Mark, span about 60-90 CE.

We know who Luke was, the author of the Gospel of Luke. There’s sufficient evidence to rationally believe John, the disciple, was the author of John. There’s reasonable disagreement about A.) who wrote Matthew and B.) When Matthew was written, before 70 CE, as there’s evidence for this view, or around 75 CE?

Not sure where you are getting the “endlessly edited” idea. I’ve never read or seen evidence for the idea of “endlessly edited.”

All your reasons do not translate as “not evidence.” Many ancient texts we rely upon as evidence information of what transpired in the past aren’t perfect and have similar characteristics. Yet, they aren’t discounted as evidence.

William Lane Craig makes these points more eloquently.

“ 1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.

2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends." Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the "vanishing hitchhiker" rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.

3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.

4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.

5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.”

He expounds on them in greater detail. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri...-the-historical-jesus-the-evidence-for-jesus/

 

[Dragonfly]

The Gospels were not written 100 years or more after the event described.

How long after “creation”, and Adam & Eve were those stories written?

 

[NotreDame]

How long after “creation”, and Adam & Eve were those stories written?

I’m not debating that man. You want to discuss that tangent, take it to another thread. The point is you incorrectly dated the Gospels, misspoke when asserting the authors are unknown, conjured “endlessly edited,” all of which doesn’t establish the Gospels aren’t evidence.

Now, there is an intellectual and informed way to debate whether A.) The historical genre of the Gospels, and they aren’t in the mythical genre, but rather they belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography, as first proposed by Charles Talbert in 1977, and affirmed by subsequent scholarls, notably the initial skeptic Richard Burridge and B.) How much weight to give to the Gospels for certain accounts, but incorrectly dating the Gospels, incorrectly stating the authors are unknown, and the inaccurate “endlessly edited” idea, do not qualify as an informed and intellectual approach to discussing those two issues, which to be sure are germane to the question of the veracity of the resurrection.

 

[Dragonfly]

The point is you incorrectly dated the Gospels,

Quote where I said anything about the gospels. I’ll wait.

 

[Daisy]

How long after “creation”, and Adam & Eve were those stories written?

Adam was created in approximately 4026 BCE...Genesis was possibly completed by Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the year 1513 BCE...

 

[NotreDame]

Quote where I said anything about the gospels. I’ll wait.

Oh, so your comment has nothing to do with the topic because, the resurrection is the topic, as expressed in the Gospels. Rendering your comment irrelevant then to the dialogue. Splendid. “I’ll wait” until you can comment upon the subject matter, the resurrection, the Gospels as supporting evidence for the resurrection.

 

[NotreDame]

Quote where I said anything about the gospels. I’ll wait.

One more point.

Now, in “context,” the chronological history of your post is traced back to a poster discussing evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, which is told in the Gospels, and the NT. There doesn’t need to be an “explicit” reference to a subject/thing for the subject/thing to be reasonably understood as being discussed. Your post was a response to someone discussing the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, an account told in the Gospels. That’s the context. No explicitly mentioning is required.

 

[Dragonfly]

One more point.

Now, in “context,” the chronological history of your post is traced back to a poster discussing evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, which is told in the Gospels, and the NT. There doesn’t need to be an “explicit” reference to a subject/thing for the subject/thing to be reasonably understood as being discussed. Your post was a response to someone discussing the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, an account told in the Gospels. That’s the context. No explicitly mentioning is required.

So you admit I never posted anything about the gospels.

 

[NotreDame]

So you admit I never posted anything about the gospels.

I admit A.) Context says you did, as I explained previously and B) I admit you’ve confessed your post has nothing to do with the subject matter, which is the resurrection.

 

[Dragonfly]

I admit A.) Context says you did, as I explained previously and B) I admit you’ve confessed your post has nothing to do with the subject matter, which is the resurrection.

No. You manufactured “context” from out of nowhere.

Otherwise, you’d simply quote me.

So, you lose.

 

[NotreDame]

No. You manufactured “context” from out of nowhere.

Otherwise, you’d simply quote me.

So, you lose.

No, as I said, your post has a chronological history that can be traced back to the poster you were addressing. The post you addressed discussed the evidence for the resurrection, and the resurrection of Jesus is the Gospels and NT.

That’s the context, surely you can trace backwards.

And I haven’t lost, as you confessed your post was irrelevant, few people would make such a confession so I admire your candor, but context says it is relevant.

 

[NotreDame]

No. You manufactured “context” from out of nowhere.

Otherwise, you’d simply quote me.

So, you lose.

Your post, number 84.
____________________________________
the facts:

1.Jesus's tomb was empty
2.The disciples were convinced Jesus saw came back after their death, something that must have compelled them to even get martyred for the cause
3. Paul, a sworn enemy of the church, suddenly converted
4. James, the brother of Jesus suddenly became a christian even though they were discrimanted against and there was no reason to
5.Jesus died by Crucifixion.

These facts need an explanation- the best explanation is that the Resurrection is real and no other theory can explain it nor the rise of Christianity

this is how the apologetic argument goes, i just learned about this 3 days ago when i did research on the topic goes and i support it
_______________________________________________
No no. I asked for evidence. You said evidence.

Stories in a book, that’s 1000’s of years old, written by unknown authors, decades or even a 100 years or more after the events it describes, then endlessly edited and translated into hundreds of different versions doesn’t represent evidence.

Care to try again?
_____________________________________________

Context? The resurrection of Jesus, as reported in the Gospels, in the NT. The information provided is sourced from the Gospels and Acts, in the NT. The context of your reply renders it reasonable to believe you were referencing the Gospels.

But, if you insist you weren’t addressing the Gospels, which is the source of the resurrection, or his evidence for the resurrection, as told in the Gospels and Acts, then this necessarily means your reply above to the poster had absolutely NOTHING to do with what the poster said. Which means your criticism, he isn’t citing to evidence because the “book” isn’t evidence, is vacuous.

So, you can’t have it both ways. Either you were addressing those parts of the “book” discussing the resurrection, which are a source for the information used by the poster, and telling him that isn’t evidence, or your reply about not being evidence isn’t applicable at all to what the poster said.

 

[NotreDame]

What changed their minds?
Let's continue looking at this alternative explanation from the same link for the answer to that


That would explain the sudden confidence that the apostles acquired. They ate him and acquired his belief through his flesh and blood.

Again noit an unreasonable assumption as it is a belief among cannibalistic primitive tribes such as the maori that eating parts of a person will give the consumer that persons ability.ie. if you ate the eyes of someone who was known to have good vision that would give you that power as well.

There is far better reasons to assume cannibalism than there is ressurection.

You’ve provided some reasonable reasons why it isn’t a reasonable assumption. The disciples/apostles didn’t belong to any “cannibalistic primitive tribe,” much less such a tribe with said belief. Neither did they live in a society with where said belief was prevalent, wide spread, and indeed said belief may have been nonexistent in their society. The disciples were Jews, raised in Judaism, practiced Judaism, and cannibalism of the kind you discuss was not a belief in Judaism and Judaism disparaged negatively cannibalism.

 

[nota bene]

The ten ossuaries of the Talpiyot Rock-cut tomb and the ossuary of James, son of Joseph tell a very different story. But hey, what's archeological evidence and statistical analysis in the face of faith and belief.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

That's rather a throwaway line. Could you amplify please?

 

[nota bene]

The Gospels were not written 100 years or more after the event described. Mark is dated to about 55 CE, Matthew, Luke, and John, borrowing in part from Mark, span about 60-90 CE.

We know who Luke was, the author of the Gospel of Luke. There’s sufficient evidence to rationally believe John, the disciple, was the author of John. There’s reasonable disagreement about A.) who wrote Matthew and B.) When Matthew was written, before 70 CE, as there’s evidence for this view, or around 75 CE?

Not sure where you are getting the “endlessly edited” idea. I’ve never read or seen evidence for the idea of “endlessly edited.”

All your reasons do not translate as “not evidence.” Many ancient texts we rely upon as evidence information of what transpired in the past aren’t perfect and have similar characteristics. Yet, they aren’t discounted as evidence.

William Lane Craig makes these points more eloquently.

“ 1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.

2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends." Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the "vanishing hitchhiker" rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.

3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.

4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.

5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.”

He expounds on them in greater detail. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri...-the-historical-jesus-the-evidence-for-jesus/

Thank you for the link; I enjoyed reading this.

 

[soylentgreen]

You’ve provided some reasonable reasons why it isn’t a reasonable assumption. The disciples/apostles didn’t belong to any “cannibalistic primitive tribe,” much less such a tribe with said belief. Neither did they live in a society with where said belief was prevalent, wide spread, and indeed said belief may have been nonexistent in their society. The disciples were Jews, raised in Judaism, practiced Judaism, and cannibalism of the kind you discuss was not a belief in Judaism and Judaism disparaged negatively cannibalism.

They do not need to belong to any such tribe. Pointing out that some tribes used cannibalism was to point out that cannibalism actually exists where as resurrection is a story. The link provided a good reason as to why the apostles ate jesus because that is what jesus told them to eat him.

Again from the link.

The following thoughts of Jesus Christ are cited in the Gospel according to John:
‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life <…> For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. <…> This is the bread that came down from heaven…’ (John, 6, 53-58)

Christian theologians usually interpret this as a metaphor. Such an interpretation corresponds best with the interests of Christianity, but the words by no means sound metaphorically in the original text of the Gospel.

If Jesus Christ perceived his body and blood as a meal that had to be eaten, then it seems that the scene of the ‘Last supper’ – is nothing but the last reminder to the followers about their obligation to eat up their teacher’s body.

 

[Mulefoot]

The ten ossuaries of the Talpiyot Rock-cut tomb and the ossuary of James, son of Joseph tell a very different story. But hey, what's archeological evidence and statistical analysis in the face of faith and belief.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Accepting the statistical analysis without challenging the assumptions that underpin that analysis requires a lot of belief and faith as well.

 

[Evilroddy]

That's rather a throwaway line. Could you amplify please?

note bene:

In 1980 in a southeastern suburb of Jerusalem a tomb was discovered when construction of an apartment complex revealed it. The tomb had been flooded during an earthquake in the fourth century CE with water and a distinct red silt. Everything in the tomb was stained with the bright red silt which has a distinctive chemical footprint. At discovery the tomb was found to have been damaged prior to its discovery in 1980. In the tomb were ten ossuaries (stone boxes with lids for storing the bones of the dead. On the the ossuaries were inscriptions with the names of of a family whose patriarch was "Joseph". Other names on the tomb's ossuaries were consistent with the family of Jesus of Narareth including an ossuary for on "Jesus son of Joseph" written in Aramaic. An earlier discovered eleventh ossuaries pyramid was discovered earlier with the inscription of James son of Joseph with the same characteristic red silt stains and chemical footprint. However this was know to be in a private collection before the Talpiyot tomb was discovered. In 1996 the existence of the tomb and its contents was made public because the lead archiologist had tried to keep the tomb's significance a secret fearing its discovery would trigger waves of antisemitism, as he was convinced this was the tomb of Jesus's family.

Then in 2007 the story of the tomb was told to the world in a book and simultaneous TV programme. The book was written by the archaeologist Charles Pellegrino and the Israel journalist Simcha Jacobovici. The TV programme was produced by Jacobovici and James Cameron (of "Titanic" fame). As part of the analysis a statistical analysis of the probability of the six well known names was done and the odds that a tomb with these six names occuring in a tomb by chance was calculated to be just under 1/2,500,000. If the James ossuary was included as the 7th name the odds became much smaller that such a random tob could have existed between about 538BCE and 70 BCE - the time when the temple was in use in Talpiyot.

When the programme and book came out they created quite a stir, especially the reports that bones and bone fragments had been found in the ossuaries (which had been quickly reburied after the 1980 discovery in accordance with Jewish law). The whole thing degenerated into acrimonious academic bickering. The ossuaries were not reburied and were extensively studied. The tomb is not open to the public although it has not been secured well. For a more detailed overview there are plenty of articles on the web centring around the years 1996, 2007-08 and 2015. In lieu of doing the leg work I have linked you to the Wikipedia article.

Talpiot Tomb - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

Accepting the statistical analysis without challenging the assumptions that underpin that analysis requires a lot of belief and faith as well.

Mashmont:

Not really. It's just math and probability calculations based on the likelihood of all six (later seven) names carved into ossuaries which were discovered in the tomb, except the one which was believed to have been removed earlier but has the chemical footprint of the ossuaries found in the tomb. Math and spectroscopic chemistry, not faith and belief.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.