• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is this potential evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The resurrection would be a supernatural event if it happened, would it not? So yes, literally the entire point of the article is to prove something supernatural. Perhaps you should reread the article?
Would it be supernatural?

IMO, "supernatural" isn't actually a thing. It's just a term that gets applied to things that people want to believe despite sketchy evidence and despite them violating our understanding of how things work.

Once we get a better understanding of the thing, it either gets labelled "natural" or dismissed as false.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes. As well as the many witnesses who saw him, as well a the witnesses who wrote about what they saw.

They were so committed by what they saw, that they suffered constant persecution, and most died violently, in poverty.

If they were pulling a scam, or perpetuating a lie, I can't imagine they would live and die like this knowing it wasn't true.
What witnesses wrote about what they saw? Please enlighten me.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Would it be supernatural?

IMO, "supernatural" isn't actually a thing. It's just a term that gets applied to things that people want to believe despite sketchy evidence and despite them violating our understanding of how things work.

Once we get a better understanding of the thing, it either gets labelled "natural" or dismissed as false.

Good point, I agree. Generally arguments like these from apologist types, though, object to naturalism and argue that supernatural phenomena are real and shouldn't be dismissed unfairly just because they, you know, violate everything we know about how the world works.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Actually it has everything to do with the resurrection. This is the hope of every Christian and the promise of eternal life. 1 Corinthians 15:7 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
It is not the hope of every Christian, only the hope of Christians who believe as you do. My interpretation of that verse is that if the Cause of Christ had not been brought back to life after Jesus died on the cross, the faith of the disciples would be in vain because the Cause of Christ could not have moved forward; it would have died if they had remained disheartened and gave up hope because they never would have spread the gospel message far and wide.
At the same time that does not mean that the resurrection was not true and you cannot prove that it was not true can you.
It is not my responsibility to prove it was not true. It is your responsibility to prove it is true, since you are the one making the claim.

I cannot prove lots of things are not true but that does not mean they are true.
Not according to Paul... 1 Corinthians 15:7 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
So you are going to base your entire eternal life on one verse or verses from 1 Cor 15, wonderful.

I explained what I believe the verses in that chapter mean on my thread The Resurrection: Why does it matter? #9

It is not true that Paul believed that the body of Jesus was raised from the dead. There are alternate explanations of what Paul believed:

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death:
Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. Legends without a historical basis were created by the early church; these included the empty tomb and described Jesus returning in his original body to eat and talk with his followers.

In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ***, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events. Retired bishop John Shelby Spong commented:

"I do admit that for Christians to enter this subject honestly is to invite great anxiety. It is to walk the razor's edge, to run the risk of cutting the final cord still binding many to the faith of their mothers and fathers. But the price for refusing to enter this consideration is for me even higher. The inability to question reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died." 3
http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm
Yet here you are and cannot prove that the resurrection did not happen. Does it worry you?
It does not worry me one single bit, because in my mind I have absolutely no doubts that it never happened.
Well that is not true. Try reading the gospel of John.
C:\Users\Home\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif
Jesus did not claim to be God in the gospel of John. There were just some verses that were terribly misconstrued.
According to the scriptures JESUS was fully God who became fully man *JOHN 1:1-4; 14. God became man in order that we could become God's children.
Those verses do not mean Jesus was God. God cannot become a man. God has no children. Only humans have children.
All you have provided are your own opinions unsupported by fact.
That is what you have done, because there are no facts that prove the resurrection is true. If there were, it would be a fact everyone accepts, but it is rather only a belief that some Christians believe.
Nonsense. All you have provided is your opinion you cannot prove.
I can support my opinion with verses that show that Jesus was not God.
Yet it was always the so called scholars of the day that did not know that the very scriptures they claimed to teach and understand all pointed to JESUS as the Messiah. He came unto his own and his own received him not *JOHN 1:10. They put him on a tree and crucified him. Yikes would not want to be in that camp.
Jesus was ‘a Messiah’ but He was not “end times Messiah” that the Jews were waiting for and that is one reason why they did not recognize Him. If they knew what the Baha’is know now they would have recognized Jesus. Baha’u’llah wrote that the Jews turned away from the Face of God when they rejected Jesus, what He wrote was not nice.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Yet you put your hope in some a prophet that does not beleive the bible? JESUS warns us about false prophets in MATTHEW 24:24 how do you know your not following one? Scripture is my guide how about you?

Referring to God, Baha’u’llah said to the Muslims that the Bible is “His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures.” Of course He believed in the Bible. I also believe in the Bible but what Baha’u’llah wrote is my guide because I believe He had the final authority to speak for God since He was a Manifestation of God who spoke for God, and the latest Messenger of God.
Sure the religions of the world contradict each other and have different beliefs. Even if your considering Christianity in isolation to every other religion in the world there is over 40,000 all prefession to have the correct understanding of the scriptures. You post above is contradicting itself.
It is the religious followers who disagree, not the scriptures of their religions.
God gives mankind free will to follow his Word of not follow his Word. We are all free to do as we wish. According to the scriptures we all answer only to God come judgment day and will be judged by the Word of God *JOHN 12:47-48.
The problem is that the Bible is not the only Word of God that ever existed, Imo.
You will never find God by requesting evidence or a sign. Faith in God's Word is the criterea for knowing God and finding God according to the scriptures. According to the scriptures the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God and the fool says in his heart there is no God.
I found God in my own scriptures. I do not need any other scriptures.
I do not have a problem with that because of historical evidence and the many eye witnesses that testify to it's credibility. Your problem on the other hand is can you prove that the resurrection did not happen? If you can't does it not worry you that maybe it did? If it does not then it should according to the scriptures.
It is not my job to prove it didn’t happen. A negative cannot be proven. It is your job to prove it did happen.
Yes you keep telling yourself this dispite evidence of the empty tomb being provided from the Jewish sources from the Toledot Yeshu; Martyr, Justin. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CVIII and the biblical narrative. Yet here you still are not able to provide any proof that there was no resurrection.
This is not proof that there was a resurrection. It is not my job to prove it didn’t happen. A negative cannot be proven. It is your job to prove it did happen.
Where does it say that in the bible?
Where does it say that Jesus was the Way for all time and eternity? The Bible was written for the Dispensation of Jesus, not as a scripture that was to be followed for all time, Imo.
Sure it does. Read the following scriptures that you say the bible does not say;

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"

Luke 20:35-36 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Romans 6:5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,

John 5:24-25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

John 6:39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

Acts 26:23 that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.

Romans 6:8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him

1 Corinthians 6:14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power.

1 Corinthians 15:20-23 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

2 Corinthians 4:14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you.
None of these verses refer to a resurrection of the physical body. They refer to a resurrection of the spirit. They are talking about resurrection of those who are spiritually dead whose spirits will be raised from the death of non-belief. Bodies do not rise from graves. The body once dead remains dead.

John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Yet Christians still believe they will enter the Kingdom of God in a physical body.
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
Yes, I'm afraid they are. Please do some reading of peer-reviewed Biblical studies literature.

Nonsense! Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig and J. P, Moreland are biblical scholars and historians. Yes they are also apologists. Your comments here are not true. Go to the links in the names linked to wiki that disagree with you. I thought you picked them up.

The resurrection would be a supernatural event if it happened, would it not? So yes, literally the entire point of the article is to prove something supernatural. Perhaps you should reread the article?

Not at all it was to prove the historicity of the events in scripture. It is you that did not read the article by the sounds of things and some of the comments you have made. That being said you cannot disprove the resurrection can you now that the histroical facts have been establsihed. Neither can you prove that the historicity is not true with all the evidence that has been provided from both within and outside of Christianity.

If you tell me I don't have to trust the NT to make your case, and then your case is repeatedly dependent on trusting the NT, you're contradicting yourself.

You do not have to believe in the NT to prove historicity which was the point of the article, no bias is how historicity is establsihed and was the point being made in the article.

You're not actually responding to the content of what I said. Do you deny that people have religious experiences you don't think correspond with reality? Do you deny that religions have formed and spread that teach things that are untrue?

Sure I have responded to the content. Perhaps you do not accept it that does not mean what has been shared with you is not true. You are free to believe as you wish. I do not accept your views which are not based on any fact. You cannot prove the resurrection did not happen or can you dsiprove the historicity presented.

LOL I'm not the one with a case to make! If you want to assert that the resurrection happened, it's your job to demonstrate it.

I do not need to do any such thing. The article was to demonstrate historicity. You cannot prove it not true, the same as you cannot prove the resurrection not true despite countless witnesses confirming it true.

No, my claiming the NT does not have to be taken as trustworthy is what your own article said. Please don't lie about what your own source said verbatim.

No that is your claim. The article says this to establish that historicity cannot be achieved through bias.

I had to use some ellipses to make my comments fit in the post, so there may be some misunderstanding here. The statement I was responding to was: "As Paul Althaus writes, the resurrection proclamation "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned." "

Perhaps that was your intent so thanks for the clarification. That does not really make that statement not true. As the resurrection was the basis of the early disciples preaching after the death of JESUS as shown in ACTS 2:23-38.

This is plainly not true. There were all kinds of competing sects running around claiming things. They'd be treated like any sidewalk preacher today : largely ignored.

This has nothing to do with the Apostles preaching the death and resurrection of JESUS on the day of Pentecost.

But there is no consistency here, as I explained. This is claimed in Matthew, and no where else in contemporary writings at the time.
The earliest manuscript is from the 11th century. The earliest references to it are from the Middle Ages. It's no where near a contemporary document of the period in question. Try again. Toledot Yeshu | Program in Judaic Studies

As posted earlier Scholars cannot agree as to the dates and there is many versions of the Toledot Yeshu (ספר תולדות ישו, The Book of the Generations/History/Life of Jesus) often abbreviated as Toledot Yeshu, is an early Jewish text taken to be an alternative biography of Jesus. The fact it the empty tomb is recorded in Jewish literature is a fact you cannot deny or disprove. The fact that independent Jewish literature holds these facts outside of Christianity is a verifiable fact independent of christianity and the scriptures that support the scripture account of historicity.

1) the Dialogue with Trypho was written by Justin Martyr, a Christian, who puts words in the mouth of a Jewish interlocutor and responds to him. It's hardly a reliable source of information of what Jews actually thought. For that, you'd need to consult, you know, Jews.

2) it was written in the mid-2nd century, over 100 years after the alleged resurrection. Justin has zero first-hand knowledge of what happened at the tomb, and certainly didnt interview any Jews about it from 50 years before he was even born.

Your missing the point here. It is a recorded debate between a Justin Martyr (Christian) and Trypho (Jew) on the resurrection and evidence of the empty tomb which verifies the biblical historicity of the empty tome acknowledged by the Jews being a hostile source outside of Christianity.

continued...
 
Last edited:

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
"Pre-Markan" just means, "before Mark." It doesn't identify the actual piece of writing in question. If they have the information, they publish it, so it can be examined by others. That's how actual academia works. So please, tell me: what is this pre-Markan source, and where can I read it?

Maybe you have not understood this section of the article. Let's look at some of the detail as perhaps the source section could have been explained a little better.

One discovers that Christ’s burial is attested in early sources, one of which is Paul’s authentic letters within which there is an early creed. 1 Corinthians was penned by Paul around the early 50’s AD, and the creed within it is dated to within three to five years of Christ’s crucifixion (1). Accord to the creed Christ “was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:4, emphasis added). According to historian Gary Habermas, these creeds “preserve some of the earliest reports concerning Jesus from about AD 30-50,” and therefore constitutes early evidence for Christ’s burial (2).

The burial narrative is also part of Mark’s pre-passion narrative material. Exegete William Lane Craig explains that “The burial account is part of Mark’s source material for the story of Jesus’ Passion. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and dates to within several years of Jesus’ crucifixion” (3). Other scholars agree to the earliness of Mark’s pre-passion narrative which, according to scholar Rudolf Pesch, dates no later than 37 AD, a few years after Christ’s crucifixion (4). Scholar Bauckham also dates this material prior to 40 AD, stating that it probably “goes back to the Jerusalem church” (5).

Independent Attestation


From the above we have two early and independent sources for the burial account in the form of a creed and Mark’s pre-passion narrative. However, one learns that all four canonical gospels attest to the burial of Christ after the event of his crucifixion. The earliest gospel Mark narrates it in chapter 15 verses 42 through 47. However, it is important to note that Mark’s burial narrative was used by the authors of Luke and Matthew, and they therefore do not count as independent sources. John, however, is independent of the synoptics, and in which the burial story is also found (John 19:38-42) (6).

Although Matthew obtains his content from Mark’s gospel, Matthew’s author does, however, appear to make use of another tradition, that being M material. According to Craig,

“As for the other Gospels, that Matthew has an independent tradition of the empty tomb is evident not only from the non-Matthean vocabulary (e.g., the words translated “on the next day,” “the preparation day,” “deceiver,” “guard [of soldiers],” “to make secure,” “to seal”; the expression “on the third day” is also non-Matthean, for he everywhere else uses “after three days;” the expression “chief priests and Pharisees” never appears in Mark or Luke and is also unusual for Matthew), but also from Matt. 28.15: “this story has been spread among Jews till this day,” indicative of a tradition history of disputes with Jewish non-Christians” (7).

Further, the gospels of Luke and John have the non-Markan story of Peter and another disciple inspecting the tomb, which, given John’s independence of Luke, indicates a separate tradition behind the story. This suggests it must have come from some other source apart from Mark.

A final source is from the book of Acts which narrates Christ’s execution by Pilate, his burial in a tomb, resurrection, and resurrection appearances (13:28-31).

In terms of independent attestation, the historian has six independent sources attesting to Christ’s burial in the form of the pre-Mark passion narrative, the source behind Luke and John not found in Mark, M, John, Acts, and Paul. Given that historians are often pleased to have just two independent sources confirming a historical event, this appears quite compelling. According to John Robinson, the burial is perhaps one of “the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus” (8)

Enemy Attestation


According to the criterion of enemy attestation an event is attested to by the enemies of a historical figure or movement which historians believe gives it a high probability. The burial seems to satisfy this criterion. Three historical sources claim that Jews accused the disciples of stealing Christ’s body from the tomb, namely, the Gospel of Matthew (28:13), Dialogue with Tryphyo (Justin Martyr), and De Spectaculis (Tertullian). However, the strength of this ultimately rides on the reliability of Matthew’s narrative of the Jews alleging that the disciples stole the body (28:13), which has come into doubt for some historians as a matter of objective history. However, assuming that Matthew’s detail can be accepted, it would suggest that Christ’s tomb was found empty which would assume that he was buried within it. At no point, according to Matthew, did the Jews claim that Christ wasn’t buried, rather they claimed that the disciples had stolen his body from the tomb.

Christ’s Burial by Joseph of Arimathea

All four gospels state that a man by the name of Joseph of Arimathea was the one who buried Christ in a tomb after the crucifixion, which is attested to in two independent sources (Mark and John). It is also unlikely that Joseph of Arimathea have been a Christian invention given that,

“There was strong resentment against the Jewish leadership for their role in the condemnation of Jesus (I Thess. 2.15). It is therefore highly improbable that Christians would invent a member of the court that condemned Jesus who honors Jesus by giving him a proper burial instead of allowing him to be dispatched as a common criminal” (9).

Professor Raymond Brown gives the burial the designation of “very probable,” since it is “almost inexplicable” why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right by Jesus (11).

No Competing Accounts

Other than the accounts of Christ’s burial in six independent sources there no other competing explanations. As Craig explains,

“No other competing burial story exists. If the burial by Joseph were fictitious, then we would expect to find either some historical trace of what actually happened to Jesus’ corpse or at least some competing legends. But all our sources are unanimous on Jesus’ honorable interment by Joseph” (12).

The Burial in an Early Sermon


Although Acts 13:28-31 directly attests to the burial, one discovers that it is indirectly attested to in an early sermon in which the apostle Peter compared David’s occupied tomb to Christ’s empty one (Acts 2:29). Acts 2:29 presents an early apostolic preaching of the empty tomb. Craig writes,

“The empty tomb is implied in the contrast between David’s tomb and Jesus’: “David died and was buried and his tomb is with us to this day.” But “this Jesus God has raised up” (2:29-32; cf. 13.36-7). Finally, the third line of the tradition handed on by Paul summarizes, as I have said, the empty tomb story” (13).

Historians Accept Christ’s Burial as a Historical Fact

Near universal academic consensus holds that the burial of Christ is one of the surest things we can know about him. It is one of the events often cited in the Minimal Fact approach, a method which outlines the facts that are “so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones” (Source: Bishop's Encyclopedia of Religion, Society and Philosophy)

Hope this helps
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
It is not the hope of every Christian, only the hope of Christians who believe as you do. My interpretation of that verse is that if the Cause of Christ had not been brought back to life after Jesus died on the cross, the faith of the disciples would be in vain because the Cause of Christ could not have moved forward; it would have died if they had remained disheartened and gave up hope because they never would have spread the gospel message far and wide.

Sure it is. I quoted you the scripture from Paul. What do you think the early disciples preached after Pentecost *ACTS 2:23-38. This is the hope of every Christian and the promise of eternal life. 1 Corinthians 15:7 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Not to mention all the scriptures posted to you that you have not quoted and ignored from the last post that shows your claims to be in error. JOHN 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" According to the scriptures if we do not believe and follow God's Word we are not Christians *JOHN 10:26-27.

It is not my responsibility to prove it was not true. It is your responsibility to prove it is true, since you are the one making the claim.

Sure it is if your claiming something is not true as you have stated. Your simply making claims you cannot prove while ignoring the historicity and eyewitness accounts of the biblical record because you do not believe Gods Word.

So you are going to base your entire eternal life on one verse or verses from 1 Cor 15, wonderful.

Who says I based me entire eternal life of 1 CORINTHIANS 15. How many scriptures were posted to you in the second post that I got tired of posted and asked you if you want me to post more I would be happy to do so? I guess you simply choose not to read them.

It is not true that Paul believed that the body of Jesus was raised from the dead. There are alternate explanations of what Paul believed:

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death:
Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself..... snipped http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm

I have to admit I have never read such nonsense. You can believe the above if you would like to. I choose to believe the scriptures from God's Word which say...

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"

Luke 20:35-36 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Romans 6:5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,

John 5:24-25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

John 6:39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

Acts 26:23 that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.

Romans 6:8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him

1 Corinthians 6:14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power.

1 Corinthians 15:20-23 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

2 Corinthians 4:14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

2 Timothy 2:11 It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him

1 Corinthians 15:49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

Psalm 17:15 As for me, I shall behold Your face in righteousness; I will be satisfied with Your likeness when I awake.

Matthew 22:24-30 "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.' "Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh Last of all, the woman died. "In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her." But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven

1 Corinthians 15:51-53 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Philippians 3:21 who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-14 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.

Isaiah 26:19 Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy, For your dew is as the dew of the dawn, And the earth will give birth to the departed spirits.

John 11:24 Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day

Acts 24:15 having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

Luke 14:12-14 And He also went on to say to the one who had invited Him, "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, otherwise they may also invite you in return and that will be your repayment. "But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous

1 Corinthians 15:30-32 Why are we also in danger every hour? I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE.

Why you would believe the teachings of men over biblical record is beyond me. It either shows you do not know what the scriptures teach or you do not believe them if you do.

Seems the scriptures disagree with you.
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
Referring to God, Baha’u’llah said to the Muslims that the Bible is “His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures.” Of course He believed in the Bible. I also believe in the Bible but what Baha’u’llah wrote is my guide because I believe He had the final authority to speak for God since He was a Manifestation of God who spoke for God, and the latest Messenger of God.

You say you believe in the bible but you do not follow it or believe the scriptures that show why your claims are in error in relation to the resurrection. Don't your find your position a contradiction to what your posting here? I guess that is how I am seeing it. I do not say this in disrespect but only as an observation which is why I have cited examples to scripture and your claims to believe them.

3rdAngel said: Sure the religions of the world contradict each other and have different beliefs. Even if your considering Christianity in isolation to every other religion in the world there is over 40,000 all prefession to have the correct understanding of the scriptures. You post above is contradicting itself.
Your response...
It is the religious followers who disagree, not the scriptures of their religions.
No one said that the scriptures do not agree. This is simply you stating things no one has said my reply that you are quoting from was to your claims that you posted... Trailblazer said: "No, the world's religions do not contradict each other." Your back peddling now.

The problem is that the Bible is not the only Word of God that ever existed, Imo.

Yet here you are saying on one hand the bible is God's Word and you believe it and on the other religions also are God's Word yet they contradict each other and have even warred with each other throughout history. The bible does not teach what you claim. In fact it teaches that there is no other Word and those who claim that their is are false prophets. Can you see the contradiction in your claims here? I do not think you can but I do.

Where does it say that Jesus was the Way for all time and eternity? The Bible was written for the Dispensation of Jesus, not as a scripture that was to be followed for all time, Imo.

Here.. JOHN 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

None of these verses refer to a resurrection of the physical body. They refer to a resurrection of the spirit. They are talking about resurrection of those who are spiritually dead whose spirits will be raised from the death of non-belief. Bodies do not rise from graves. The body once dead remains dead.

According to the scriptures I believe We need to be born again in the Spirit today if we want to be resurrected tommorrow as the resurrection comes at the second coming...

1 THESSALONIANS 4:15-17 [15], For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain to the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. [16], For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: [17], Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

1 CORITHIANS 15:50-57
[50], Now this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither does corruption inherit incorruption.
[51], Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
[52], In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
[53], For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
[54], So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
[55], O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?
[56], The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
[57], But thanks be to God, which gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Seems the scriptures disagree with you.

Hope this helps.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Nonsense! Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig and J. P, Moreland are biblical scholars and historians. Yes they are also apologists. Your comments here are not true. Go to the links in the names linked to wiki that disagree with you. I thought you picked them up.

I'm well aware of who they are. The only trained historian among them is Habermas, the other two are philosophers. Habermas' views are fringe and he's not taken seriously by anyone in mainstream academia.

Not at all it was to prove the historicity of the events in scripture. It is you that did not read the article by the sounds of things and some of the comments you have made. That being said you cannot disprove the resurrection can you now that the histroical facts have been establsihed. Neither can you prove that the historicity is not true with all the evidence that has been provided from both within and outside of Christianity.

Again, this is not how burden of proof works. If you claim the resurrection occurred, the burden is on you to prove it true, not on me to disprove it.

You do not have to believe in the NT to prove historicity which was the point of the article, no bias is how historicity is establsihed and was the point being made in the article.

Precisely. Which is why it's contradictory to then repeatedly rely on the NT to make your case that the resurrection happened.

Sure I have responded to the content.

No you haven't, or you would've answered the two direct questions I asked you.

Perhaps you do not accept it that does not mean what has been shared with you is not true. You are free to believe as you wish. I do not accept your views which are not based on any fact. You cannot prove the resurrection did not happen or can you dsiprove the historicity presented.

See previous comments on burden of proof. It's on you/the article, not me.

I do not need to do any such thing.

Yes, you do, if you assert the resurrection happened. Sorry to break it to you.

The article was to demonstrate historicity. You cannot prove it not true, the same as you cannot prove the resurrection not true despite countless witnesses confirming it true.

Countless witnesses didn't confirm it true, we have the testimony of zero eyewitnesses to the event. And that's still not how burden of proof works. The time to believe something is when there is good evidence for it. If I say there are invisible fairies floating around my head, it's not on you to disprove that. It's on me to demonstrate that it's true. If you claim the resurrection happened, it's on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it.

No that is your claim. The article says this to establish that historicity cannot be achieved through bias.

***edit***

The article says, "It is worth pointing out that in establishing the historicity of the resurrection, we do not need to assume that the New Testament is inspired by God or even trustworthy."

If that's true, then the argument for historicity should not rely on the trustworthiness of the NT. Yet it does, repeatedly. This is a contradiction.


Perhaps that was your intent so thanks for the clarification. That does not really make that statement not true. As the resurrection was the basis of the early disciples preaching after the death of JESUS as shown in ACTS 2:23-38.

Acts is not an eyewitness account, was written decades after the alleged events, and is clearly myth. And as we just covered, the article you posted says the historicity of the resurrection does not depend on trusting the NT.

This has nothing to do with the Apostles preaching the death and resurrection of JESUS on the day of Pentecost.

It has everything to do with it. You're not paying attention, you're just regurgitating Bible verses. The article's argument is that early Christians couldn't have preached the resurrection in Jerusalem if it weren't true because no one would believe them. I explained why that's just nonsense. All kinds of different sects and preachers were around at that time preaching all sorts of things. Christians would've been treated by the masses like any of them

As posted earlier Scholars cannot agree as to the dates and there is many versions of the Toledot Yeshu (ספר תולדות ישו, The Book of the Generations/History/Life of Jesus) often abbreviated as Toledot Yeshu, is an early Jewish text taken to be an alternative biography of Jesus.

And as I posted earlier, the earliest version is from the 11th century. I cited the Princeton workgroup that translated the texts, and they say the earliest possible reference to the text is 6th century. No scholar thinks it's a 1st century document.

Try again.

The fact it the empty tomb is recorded in Jewish literature is a fact you cannot deny or disprove. The fact that independent Jewish literature holds these facts outside of Christianity is a verifiable fact independent of christianity and the scriptures that support the scripture account of historicity.

It's a document from centuries after the alleged events. It's not contemporary. Please stop. You don't know what you're talking about.

Your missing the point here. It is a recorded debate between a Justin Martyr (Christian) and Trypho (Jew) on the resurrection and evidence of the empty tomb which verifies the biblical historicity of the empty tome acknowledged by the Jews being a hostile source outside of Christianity.

No, sir, I'm afraid you're missing the point. Again. The Dialogue is not a recorded debate. It was written by Justin Martyr, who was a Christian. It's not even known if Trypho was a real person, or just a hypothetical person. It was common back in the day for writers to make an argument by inventing a hypothetical dialogue with an opponent to respond to possible criticisms of their view. But even if it was Justin's honest recollection of a conversation he had, he's obviously biased because he's a Christian. You're relying on a Christian to tell you what Jews thought about Jesus. Surely you can see the obvious problem with that?

And secondly, the document is 100 years too late. Justin has no clue if there was an empty tomb, he wasn't even born till over 50 years later.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Maybe you have not understood this section of the article. Let's look at some of the detail as perhaps the source section could have been explained a little better.

Given your poor track record to date, I'm skeptical, but sure let's see.

One discovers that Christ’s burial is attested in early sources, one of which is Paul’s authentic letters within which there is an early creed. 1 Corinthians was penned by Paul around the early 50’s AD, and the creed within it is dated to within three to five years of Christ’s crucifixion (1).

No, it isn't. I'm wondering what the (1) citation is there, because that's a made up number that has no basis in anything historical.

Paul did not get the gospel from anywhere else, he explicitly says it was given to him directly by revelation from Jesus and not from any man.

Accord to the creed Christ “was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:4, emphasis added). According to historian Gary Habermas, these creeds “preserve some of the earliest reports concerning Jesus from about AD 30-50,” and therefore constitutes early evidence for Christ’s burial (2).

Again, Habermas is fringe and a Christian apologist, and he gives no historical reasoning for this, he just claims it. Not good evidence.

The burial narrative is also part of Mark’s pre-passion narrative material. Exegete William Lane Craig explains that “The burial account is part of Mark’s source material for the story of Jesus’ Passion. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and dates to within several years of Jesus’ crucifixion” (3).

Craig is a Christian apologist and gives no historical reasoning for this claim, he just claims it.

Other scholars agree to the earliness of Mark’s pre-passion narrative which, according to scholar Rudolf Pesch, dates no later than 37 AD, a few years after Christ’s crucifixion (4).

Another Christian, another assertion with no explanation.

Scholar Bauckham also dates this material prior to 40 AD, stating that it probably “goes back to the Jerusalem church” (5).

Another Christian, another assertion with no explanation. This is pure argument from authority.

Independent Attestation
From the above we have two early and independent sources for the burial account in the form of a creed and Mark’s pre-passion narrative.

No, we don't. We learn that fundamentalist Christians assert things without demonstrating them.

However, one learns that all four canonical gospels attest to the burial of Christ after the event of his crucifixion. The earliest gospel Mark narrates it in chapter 15 verses 42 through 47. However, it is important to note that Mark’s burial narrative was used by the authors of Luke and Matthew, and they therefore do not count as independent sources. John, however, is independent of the synoptics, and in which the burial story is also found (John 19:38-42) (6).

This, again, is widely out of step with NT scholarship. The author of John was clearly aware of the Synoptics and borrowed material from them. Again, please read some peer-reviewed material about this, not just apologetics articles.

Although Matthew obtains his content from Mark’s gospel, Matthew’s author does, however, appear to make use of another tradition, that being M material. According to Craig,

“As for the other Gospels, that Matthew has an independent tradition of the empty tomb is evident not only from the non-Matthean vocabulary (e.g., the words translated “on the next day,” “the preparation day,” “deceiver,” “guard [of soldiers],” “to make secure,” “to seal”; the expression “on the third day” is also non-Matthean, for he everywhere else uses “after three days;” the expression “chief priests and Pharisees” never appears in Mark or Luke and is also unusual for Matthew), but also from Matt. 28.15: “this story has been spread among Jews till this day,” indicative of a tradition history of disputes with Jewish non-Christians” (7).

Matthew depends extremely heavily on Mark and plagiarizes it verbatim throughout the Gospel. It's largest points of divergence are the Nativity (a completely implausible, fantastical story about Jesus being miraculously born of a virgin), and the Passion/Resurrection narrative, where Matthew adds even more legendary, absurd details to the story than Mark, such as a bunch of dead people rising from their graves when Jesus died and wandering around Jerusalem.

The idea that Matthew depended on an earlier non-Markan tradition (usually called Q) was in vogue among some scholars for a period of time, but that's really waning because the evidence for it is not strong. There's little reason to think that the unique details in Matthew didnt come directly from Matthew's head. If he did depend on an earlier non-Markan source, we have no access to it and thus can't evaluate it.

Further, the gospels of Luke and John have the non-Markan story of Peter and another disciple inspecting the tomb, which, given John’s independence of Luke, indicates a separate tradition behind the story. This suggests it must have come from some other source apart from Mark.

All it suggests is that the authors weren't the same, and thus added different details to the story. There's no reason to assume that the contradictory details on John didn't just come from the author's head.

A final source is from the book of Acts which narrates Christ’s execution by Pilate, his burial in a tomb, resurrection, and resurrection appearances (13:28-31).

Wrong again. Acts was written by the same person who wrote Luke. It's not an independent source.

In terms of independent attestation, the historian has six independent sources attesting to Christ’s burial in the form of the pre-Mark passion narrative,
Which we have no evidence for

the source behind Luke and John not found in Mark,

Which we have no reason to think wasn't just the heads of the authors of Luke and John


Which, again, we have no evidence for


Which is not independent as it was clearly aware of the Synoptics and borrowed from them - please read some peer-reviewed work on this.


Which was written by the same person who wrote Luke - so not independent.

and Paul.

Who provides little to zero biographical information about an earthly Jesus, and knows information about him strictly through direct revelation.

Given that historians are often pleased to have just two independent sources confirming a historical event, this appears quite compelling.

No, it doesn't.

According to John Robinson, the burial is perhaps one of “the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus” (8)

No, it really isn't.

Enemy Attestation
According to the criterion of enemy attestation an event is attested to by the enemies of a historical figure or movement which historians believe gives it a high probability. The burial seems to satisfy this criterion. Three historical sources claim that Jews accused the disciples of stealing Christ’s body from the tomb, namely, the Gospel of Matthew (28:13), Dialogue with Tryphyo (Justin Martyr), and De Spectaculis (Tertullian).

All three of those are Christian accounts of what Jews said. That is obviously biased. If you want to know what Jewish folks thought in a way that removes bias, you'd need to cite them directly.

However, the strength of this ultimately rides on the reliability of Matthew’s narrative of the Jews alleging that the disciples stole the body (28:13), which has come into doubt for some historians as a matter of objective history.

Rightly so, given how obviously mythological and historically dubious the whole thing is.

However, assuming that Matthew’s detail can be accepted, it would suggest that Christ’s tomb was found empty which would assume that he was buried within it. At no point, according to Matthew, did the Jews claim that Christ wasn’t buried, rather they claimed that the disciples had stolen his body from the tomb.

All of this rides on the assumption that what Matthew said is true, which I don't grant.

Christ’s Burial by Joseph of Arimathea
All four gospels state that a man by the name of Joseph of Arimathea was the one who buried Christ in a tomb after the crucifixion, which is attested to in two independent sources (Mark and John). It is also unlikely that Joseph of Arimathea have been a Christian invention given that,

“There was strong resentment against the Jewish leadership for their role in the condemnation of Jesus (I Thess. 2.15). It is therefore highly improbable that Christians would invent a member of the court that condemned Jesus who honors Jesus by giving him a proper burial instead of allowing him to be dispatched as a common criminal” (9).

You ignored my previous explanation about Joseph of Arimathea, so I'll wait for you to actually go read it and respond to what I wrote.

No Competing Accounts
Other than the accounts of Christ’s burial in six independent sources there no other competing explanations. As Craig explains,

“No other competing burial story exists. If the burial by Joseph were fictitious, then we would expect to find either some historical trace of what actually happened to Jesus’ corpse or at least some competing legends. But all our sources are unanimous on Jesus’ honorable interment by Joseph” (12).

I addressed this before; you're just repeating yourself. Go respond to what I actually wrote.

The Burial in an Early Sermon
Although Acts 13:28-31 directly attests to the burial, one discovers that it is indirectly attested to in an early sermon in which the apostle Peter compared David’s occupied tomb to Christ’s empty one (Acts 2:29). Acts 2:29 presents an early apostolic preaching of the empty tomb. Craig writes,

“The empty tomb is implied in the contrast between David’s tomb and Jesus’: “David died and was buried and his tomb is with us to this day.” But “this Jesus God has raised up” (2:29-32; cf. 13.36-7). Finally, the third line of the tradition handed on by Paul summarizes, as I have said, the empty tomb story” (13).

This, again, just credulously assumes that what Acts says is true, which I don't grant.

Historians Accept Christ’s Burial as a Historical Fact
Near universal academic consensus holds that the burial of Christ is one of the surest things we can know about him.

Not true. Notable that this consensus is not demonstrated.

It is one of the events often cited in the Minimal Fact approach, a method which outlines the facts that are “so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones” (Source: Bishop's Encyclopedia of Religion, Society and Philosophy)

Hope this helps

That last claim comes again from Habermas, who is fringe and doesn't demonstrate his claim. This whole article is just an apologist circle jerk. Please read some material on this subject that's not from apologists.

Hope this helps.
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
I'm well aware of who they are. The only trained historian among them is Habermas, the other two are philosophers. Habermas' views are fringe and he's not taken seriously by anyone in mainstream academia.
Sorry I do not think you are. I have provided you the wiki links that disagreed with your earlier statements here you seem to be shifting your story a little from them being only Christian apologists but this is still not the truth and simply your opinion over evidence provided that disagrees with you.
Again, this is not how burden of proof works. If you claim the resurrection occurred, the burden is on you to prove it true, not on me to disprove it.
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. You cannot make claims and statements in regards to something not being true without showing evidence as to why something is not true. All you have provided is your opinion and no evidence for what you believe and have ignored evidence showing historicity from within Christianity and outside of Chrsitianity.
Precisely. Which is why it's contradictory to then repeatedly rely on the NT to make your case that the resurrection happened.
It is not contradictory at all. You have misinterpreted what the article was stating and why it was being stated in reference to bias. This is why the article was provided as it shows that it doesn't rely solely on the NT alone but examines both the scriptures for plausability and evidence inside and outside of Christianity to prove Historicity.
No you haven't, or you would've answered the two direct questions I asked you. See previous comments on burden of proof. It's on you/the article, not me.
Nonsense! You made claims that were not questions but statements to which I responded; You were missing the point of why the debate between a Justin Martyr (Christian) and Trypho (Jew) on the resurrection was important. It provided evidence of the empty tomb which verifies the biblical historicity of the empty tomb. This was acknowledged by in the debate from Trypho (Jew) being a hostile source outside of Christianity (evidence 1) and the Toledot Yeshu (evidence 2) both Jewish sources which are both hostile sources outside of Christianity that acknowledge the empty tomb.
Countless witnesses didn't confirm it true, we have the testimony of zero eyewitnesses to the event. And that's still not how burden of proof works. The time to believe something is when there is good evidence for it. If I say there are invisible fairies floating around my head, it's not on you to disprove that. It's on me to demonstrate that it's true. If you claim the resurrection happened, it's on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it.
Not according to the biblical record and sources outside of Christianity that prove the historicity. Your statement here are only your words that do not have any evidence for your claims that do not believe the biblical record that most scholars acknowledge as true in this regards.
You're now lying, which is telling.
Well this is not true and reportable but I will let it slide for now as I guess some of the truths are hitting home to you.
The article says, "It is worth pointing out that in establishing the historicity of the resurrection, we do not need to assume that the New Testament is inspired by God or even trustworthy." If that's true, then the argument for historicity should not rely on the trustworthiness of the NT. Yet it does, repeatedly. This is a contradiction.
As posted earlier that statement is made to establish that we do not need to have bias in relation to believing the NT in order to establish historicity. You still do not get it that it is not a contradiction.
3rdAnget wrote: Perhaps that was your intent so thanks for the clarification. That does not really make that statement not true. As the resurrection was the basis of the early disciples preaching after the death of JESUS as shown in ACTS 2:23-38.
Your response...
Acts is not an eyewitness account, was written decades after the alleged events, and is clearly myth. And as we just covered, the article you posted says the historicity of the resurrection does not depend on trusting the NT
Where did I say that the book of ACTS is an eyewitness account of the resurrection? I said no such thing. That is you trying to say things I have never said seeking to build an argument that no one is arguing about. Acts was posted in relation to Pentecost and what was being preached in Jerusalem after the death and resurrection in support of the Historicity. It is a written record however of those who witnessed the event.
Left Coast said: This is plainly not true. There were all kinds of competing sects running around claiming things. They'd be treated like any sidewalk preacher today : largely ignored.
responded to with...
3rdAngel wrote: This has nothing to do with the Apostles preaching the death and resurrection of JESUS on the day of Pentecost.
Your response...
It has everything to do with it. You're not paying attention, you're just regurgitating Bible verses. The article's argument is that early Christians couldn't have preached the resurrection in Jerusalem if it weren't true because no one would believe them. I explained why that's just nonsense. All kinds of different sects and preachers were around at that time preaching all sorts of things. Christians would've been treated by the masses like any of them
What bible verses am I regurgitating here in this section of the conversation? The articles statement was true. Your not paying attention. This section of the article was written in relation to the truth of the empty tomb for which the JEWS could not deny which was building on the evidence already provided. As the JEWS were the ones who organised with the Romans the tombs security guarding the body of JESUS for which they could not deny. Now look at your statement here. Your comparing Christianity to all the sects around at the time which has nothing to do with what we are talking about and trying to compare it to Christianity that has not disappeared and now covers just about the whole world.
And as I posted earlier, the earliest version is from the 11th century. I cited the Princeton workgroup that translated the texts, and they say the earliest possible reference to the text is 6th century. No scholar thinks it's a 1st century document.
As posted earlier Scholars cannot agree as to the dates and there is many versions of the Toledot Yeshu (ספר תולדות ישו, The Book of the Generations/History/Life of Jesus) often abbreviated as Toledot Yeshu, is an early Jewish text taken to be an alternative biography of Jesus. It makes no difference when the document was made it is a historical manuscript that is hostile to Christianity in support of and acknowledges the emtpy tomb. The fact it the empty tomb is recorded in Jewish literature is a fact you cannot deny or disprove. The fact that independent Jewish literature holds these facts outside of Christianity is a verifiable fact independent of christianity and the scriptures that support the scriptures account of historicity.
No, sir, I'm afraid you're missing the point. Again. The Dialogue is not a recorded debate. It was written by Justin Martyr, who was a Christian. It's not even known if Trypho was a real person, or just a hypothetical person. It was common back in the day for writers to make an argument by inventing a hypothetical dialogue with an opponent to respond to possible criticisms of their view. But even if it was Justin's honest recollection of a conversation he had, he's obviously biased because he's a Christian. You're relying on a Christian to tell you what Jews thought about Jesus. Surely you can see the obvious problem with that? And secondly, the document is 100 years too late. Justin has no clue if there was an empty tomb, he wasn't even born till over 50 years later.
As posted earlier it is you who is missing the point here not me. The debate between Justin Martyr (Christian) and Trypho (Jew) on the resurrection is evidence of the empty tomb which verifies the biblical historicity of the empty tome acknowledged by the Jews being a hostile source outside of Christianity. The rest of your post is simply speculation unsupported by evidence that you cannot prove.

Hope this helps
 
Last edited:

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
Given your poor track record to date, I'm skeptical, but sure let's see.
I would say it is your track record supported by your bias no to believe the scriptures and evidence that has been provided that you cannot disprove that is the problem here and nothing more. You know the saying "you can lead a horse to water..." . I guess no one can make someone here something they do not want to when they close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears. So this one will be my last post to you but I thank you for the conversation and only wish you well.
3rd Angel wrote: One discovers that Christ’s burial is attested in early sources, one of which is Paul’s authentic letters within which there is an early creed. 1 Corinthians was penned by Paul around the early 50’s AD, and the creed within it is dated to within three to five years of Christ’s crucifixion (1).
Your response..
No, it isn't. I'm wondering what the (1) citation is there, because that's a made up number that has no basis in anything historical.
Nonsense! All your providing is your opinion again without evidence or proof. Go to the source the link is provided in at the end of the post. The bracketed numbers are further links to the source of scholar references to the statements and claims made.
Paul did not get the gospel from anywhere else, he explicitly says it was given to him directly by revelation from Jesus and not from any man.
All the word gospel means in the Greek is εὐαγγέλιον; euaggelion a good message. It does not mean that Paul did not have access to historical events that he may not have been aware of. Being a JEW persecuting the Christians I am sure he would have been aware of JESUS and his followers and their origin and claims through the Sanhedrin don't you?
Again, Habermas is fringe and a Christian apologist, and he gives no historical reasoning for this, he just claims it. Not good evidence. Craig is a Christian apologist and gives no historical reasoning for this claim, he just claims it.
Nonsense! This is just you trying stating things that are not true trying to attack the messenger because you cannot dispute the facts presented. You cannot disprove the historicity of the emtpy tome as you cannot disprove the resurrection. So your seeking to try to belittle those who present something that disagrees with your believe without examining evidence. You are free to believe as you wish it is up to you but slander is simply dishonest in my view as it has no truth in it and is simply a distraction to what is being said. At least wiki (linked) tells the truth here on Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig and J. P, Moreland that thsey are biblical scholars and historians as well as apologists. Your comments on the other hand are simply not true.
This, again, is widely out of step with NT scholarship. The author of John was clearly aware of the Synoptics and borrowed material from them. Again, please read some peer-reviewed material about this, not just apologetics articles.
Nonsense! You do know that JOHN was an eye witness to the death, burial and resurrection of JESUS right so how would he need to borrow the material of others? That does not make any sense now does it?
Matthew depends extremely heavily on Mark and plagiarizes it verbatim throughout the Gospel. It's largest points of divergence are the Nativity (a completely implausible, fantastical story about Jesus being miraculously born of a virgin), and the Passion/Resurrection narrative, where Matthew adds even more legendary, absurd details to the story than Mark, such as a bunch of dead people rising from their graves when Jesus died and wandering around Jerusalem.
Yet here you are making statement again you cannot prove. Perhaps you would like to provide evidence that Matthew plagarised Mark, or maybe you can prove the their was no virgin birth and that it is a fantastical story or that any of the detials provided are not true? If you cannot than all you have more friend is your bias against the written Word of God. You are entittled to your opinion however your opinions does not mean that your claims are true but simply your opinions that you cannot disprove one way or another.
The idea that Matthew depended on an earlier non-Markan tradition (usually called Q) was in vogue among some scholars for a period of time, but that's really waning because the evidence for it is not strong. There's little reason to think that the unique details in Matthew didnt come directly from Matthew's head. If he did depend on an earlier non-Markan source, we have no access to it and thus can't evaluate it.
Zzz this is just your opinion again without supporting evidence.
All it suggests is that the authors weren't the same, and thus added different details to the story. There's no reason to assume that the contradictory details on John didn't just come from the author's head.
"Ditto see above"
3rdAngel wrote: According to the criterion of enemy attestation an event is attested to by the enemies of a historical figure or movement which historians believe gives it a high probability. The burial seems to satisfy this criterion. Three historical sources claim that Jews accused the disciples of stealing Christ’s body from the tomb, namely, the Gospel of Matthew (28:13), Dialogue with Tryphyo (Justin Martyr), and De Spectaculis (Tertullian).
Your repsonse...
All three of those are Christian accounts of what Jews said. That is obviously biased. If you want to know what Jewish folks thought in a way that removes bias, you'd need to cite them directly.
The problem with your reply is that they are not Christian accounts they are JEWISH accounts hostile to the Christian position that historically support the empty tomb. Your claims here have no basis in truth and are simply hand waiving the evidence that disagrees with you as does the rest of your post which is simply you ignoring the truth.

So my friend we might leave this here. I appreciate the conversation with you but I do not think it will be fruitful to continue as I can see this is going nowhere fast so we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. I will leave you with the last say as you seem to need it more than I do. I wish you all the best and thankyou for the discussion.

Hope this is helpful to those who may be interested.
 
Last edited:

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
I'm not really a believer but one question that's really intriguing and could potentially be evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is the fact that doubting Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection but upon touching Jesus' wounds he became a believer in the resurrection. Now assuming the story is true, unless someone can provide reason to doubt that Thomas existed or reason to doubt that he was skeptical of the resurrection even if he did exist, wouldn't the fact that Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection but then became a believer in the resurrection be potential evidence for the resurrection?
My primary issue is that 1) his death needs to be established and 2) Jesus' resurrection can't be explained medically. That's gonna be hard considering no one checks his pulse and we don't exactly have medical records. Jesus heals a comatose girl who people thought was dead, which brings his resurrection into question. I have a feeling if Jesus had been buried in dirt or beheaded or something rather specifically fatal, we wouldn't have this conversation. Resurrections tend to happen when the causes of death are rather vague and convenient.

If they were pulling a scam, or perpetuating a lie, I can't imagine they would live and die like this knowing it wasn't true.
They could die for what they believed was true and yet it wasn't.

Since the custom was to leave people on the cross
until they rotted off, that would be quite a laz trick.
There are certain details that make a medical recovery likely: Jesus had supposedly healed a centurion's servant and a centurion would outrank the guards at the tomb. The tomb was owned by some rich dude who "convinced" the guards at the cross to go ahead and take him down early. Even Pilate thinks it was curious he died so soon. Combine soldier gratitude with rich guy bribes, and you get a nice 3 day weekend to recover from your injuries in a nice cool tomb that wasn't air tight.

But what if Thomas was a historical person and was skeptical until he had that encounter with Jesus? Wouldn't it be at least some evidence potentially for the resurrection?
Witnessing a guy you assumed was dead (after all, the apostles had run off and only John, I think, says John was there) was really alive doesn't really prove anything supernatural going on.

What I find curious is that Thomas touches a couple of wounds but shouldn't Jesus look like ground hamburger meat from all the torture he also went through?

This is all very interesting but it doesn't make sense for that to have happened with Jesus since just about everyone believed that he was dead and there are sources that confirm that he died.
Like what? You have autopsy reports?

If he did live on why aren't there accounts of him still walking and talking with people?
I think "rising to heaven" meant escaping the Romans by going over mountains. I think he fled since obviously things kinda went south.

OK, then what methodology other than stories and personal testimonies can one use to determine the historicity or lack thereof of a person? Because other than those two pieces of evidences, I can't see how we can do so.
Even if one argues that his followers were illiterate, he ticked off authorities who most definitely would've been, so where are their records?

what I am doing or trying to do is trying figure out how trustworthy personal testimony and experiences are in reaching conclusions about purported historical events.
It is Trump's personal testimony that his inauguration had more spectators than Obama's. Photo evidence says otherwise, but he continues to think it.

So how would you deal with claims of personal experience?
The same thing I do when my mother says her relatives are spying on her through the internet thanks to Obama: *eyeroll*

Luke was a medic, btw
That's only relevant if he examined the body.

Wow really? I didn't know that. I thought he had touched and that's what made him believe.
Now imagine people several decades from the supposed event sure that it happened. Just as we didn't read carefully (I honestly didn't care enough to because I think the entire scene is silly), we remembered something that wasn't accurate.

What if an apologist argued that contradictions show that the story is true since they all look at the same story from different perspectives?
That doesn't even work in a court of law. Besides, those apologists also like to think that God inspired the authors, and since there would only be one source of info, it should be consistent, right?

Good point but what about the fact that the romans could have trotted Jesus' body for everyone to see that He didn't rise from the dead and that could have shut down the whole debate?
But it doesn't matter. The authors didn't care. They NEED Jesus to resurrect.

Therefore, any theory must be able to adequately account for these data.
No, they don't. You need a historical Jesus, a valid death, and a valid return from life that even modern medical science can't even hope to explain. None of that is a thing.

Instead, their "stolen body" theory admitted the significant truth that the tomb was in fact empty.
So what? Prove that any body had been placed there, for starters.

Why is this important? Remember that the Jewish leaders were opposed to Christianity. They were hostile witnesses.
Jewish problems and the schism leading to Christianity was later on, though. The authors wrote these stories AFTER the JEWISH apostles had died out already.

In essence, if a source admits a fact that is decidedly not in its favor, the fact is genuine."
So it's genuine that the apostles stole the body? You can't say they confirm the tomb is empty but say the theft was a lie without evidence.

Third, the empty tomb account in the gospel of Mark is based upon a source that originated within seven years of the event it narrates. This places the evidence for the empty tomb too early to be legendary, and makes it much more likely that it is accurate.
In this very thread, the OP said that Thomas touched Jesus' wounds when that's not what it says in the text, and that's not even a day's worth of memory to screw up.

Something similar happened to me ages ago, on this forum or another, I forget. I asked why the serpent could be in the tree of knowledge if Eve thought anyone who touched it died. It was explained to me that I was thinking about common art representations ,not the text itself.

Seventh, the tomb was discovered empty by women. Why is this important? Because the testimony of women in 1st century Jewish culture was considered worthless.
Saw this on a youtube vid. Women did the body cleaning. Dead bodies were unclean. It wouldn't make sense for men to do it.

The disciples would have had no motive, either.
They had all the motive.

Because of their preaching on the resurrection, they were beaten, killed, and persecuted. Why would they go through all of this for a deliberate lie?
Their 15 minutes were up when Jesus died. His death was inconvenient. Peter, especially, acts like he NEEDS to be the head honcho.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time...
I thought he appeared to those women first.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Sorry I do not think you are. I have provided you the wiki links that disagreed with your earlier statements here you seem to be shifting your story a little from them being only Christian apologists but this is still not the truth and simply your opinion over evidence provided that disagrees with you.

I didn't claim they were "only" apologists. I'm well aware of who they are, I own and have read more than one of their works and listened to multiple debates with them.

Please stop. You don't know what you're talking about.

Sorry you cannot have it both ways. You cannot make claims and statements in regards to something not being true without showing evidence as to why something is not true. All you have provided is your opinion and no evidence for what you believe and have ignored evidence showing historicity from within Christianity and outside of Chrsitianity.

My claim is that I haven't seen enough evidence to warrant belief in the resurrection. To be clear, I am not claiming the resurrection didn't happen, simply that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant it. If you claim there is enough evidence to warrant it, it's your job to demonstrate it. This is the last time I'm going to explain this incredibly basic concept to you.

It is not contradictory at all. You have misinterpreted what the article was stating and why it was being stated in reference to bias. This is why the article was provided as it shows that it doesn't rely solely on the NT alone but examines both the scriptures for plausability and evidence inside and outside of Christianity to prove Historicity.

Again, untrue, and not what the article actually said, which I quoted.

Nonsense! You made claims that were not questions but statements to which I responded;

Wrong. Again. I asked you two very specific questions, which you ignored.

1) Do you agree that people have religious experiences that don't comport with objective reality?

2) Do you agree that religions have been founded and spread that teach things that are untrue?

You were missing the point of why the debate between a Justin Martyr (Christian) and Trypho (Jew) on the resurrection was important. It provided evidence of the empty tomb which verifies the biblical historicity of the empty tomb. This was acknowledged by in the debate from Trypho (Jew) being a hostile source outside of Christianity (evidence 1)

Wrong. Again. This will now be the third time I explain this to you. The debate was written by one person, a Christian. He puts words in the mouth of a Jewish person, and responds to them. That is not the same as reading the actual perspective of a Jewish person. Please learn the difference.

and the Toledot Yeshu (evidence 2) both Jewish sources which are both hostile sources outside of Christianity that acknowledge the empty tomb.

The TY is not a contemporary document of the period. It's from the Middle Ages. For the third time.

Not according to the biblical record and sources outside of Christianity that prove the historicity. Your statement here are only your words that do not have any evidence for your claims that do not believe the biblical record that most scholars acknowledge as true in this regards.

The Biblical account does not contain eyewitness testimony, other than Paul whose only knowledge of Jesus was through direct revelation. The "outside sources" you cite are either not actually outside sources, or not from the 1st century.

Well this is not true and reportable but I will let it slide for now as I guess some of the truths are hitting home to you.

:rolleyes: Standard apologetic emotional appeal.

As posted earlier that statement is made to establish that we do not need to have bias in relation to believing the NT in order to establish historicity. You still do not get it that it is not a contradiction.

You still don't get what words mean. I can't help you. If you say, "we don't need to regard the NT as trustworthy," it is absurd to include the NT as a trustworthy source of information as a pivotal part of your argument. I can only explain this to you so many times.

Where did I say that the book of ACTS is an eyewitness account of the resurrection? I said no such thing. That is you trying to say things I have never said seeking to build an argument that no one is arguing about. Acts was posted in relation to Pentecost and what was being preached in Jerusalem after the death and resurrection in support of the Historicity. It is a written record however of those who witnessed the event.

LOL. I want you to look at the two statements of yours in bold.

You claim you didn't say Acts is eyewitness account.

Then you say Acts, "is a written record of those who witnessed the event."

o_O

If you're saying that Acts is a secondary source that relied on eyewitnesses even though the author himself wasn't an eyewitness, that's something you'd need to demonstrate. Which eyewitnesses did the author of Acts interview and which details did he get specifically from them?

What bible verses am I regurgitating here in this section of the conversation?

I meant throughout the conversation, not specifically here.

The articles statement was true.

No, it wasn't.

Your not paying attention. This section of the article was written in relation to the truth of the empty tomb for which the JEWS could not deny which was building on the evidence already provided. As the JEWS were the ones who organised with the Romans the tombs security guarding the body of JESUS for which they could not deny. Now look at your statement here. Your comparing Christianity to all the sects around at the time which has nothing to do with what we are talking about and trying to compare it to Christianity that has not disappeared and now covers just about the whole world.

The fact that Christianity survived and other sects died out is a complete non sequitur. Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire by force. You knew that, right?

Second, you have no first century information from any non-Christian Jews attesting to the empty tomb. Zero. All you have are the claims of Christians about what Jews allegedly said. This is a flagrantly biased source of information.

As posted earlier Scholars cannot agree as to the dates and there is many versions of the Toledot Yeshu (ספר תולדות ישו, The Book of the Generations/History/Life of Jesus) often abbreviated as Toledot Yeshu, is an early Jewish text taken to be an alternative biography of Jesus.

None of the versions have been dated by any scholar, anywhere close to the 1st century.

Please stop. You don't know what you're talking about.

It makes no difference when the document was made

:tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy:

OK, so you have literally no clue what is going on.

It makes no difference if the document was written in the 1st century or the 11th century? Seriously? You can't be this clueless. It is very very obviously makes a difference.

it is a historical manuscript that is hostile to Christianity in support of and acknowledges the emtpy tomb.

From centuries after the fact. So, totally irrelevant to what first century Jews actually thought at the time.

As posted earlier it is you who is missing the point here not me. The debate between Justin Martyr (Christian) and Trypho (Jew) on the resurrection is evidence of the empty tomb which verifies the biblical historicity of the empty tome acknowledged by the Jews being a hostile source outside of Christianity. The rest of your post is simply speculation unsupported by evidence that you cannot prove.

Hope this helps

You're just repeating yourself and not interacting with the content of what I said.

Hope this helps.
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
There are more red vehicles involved in accidents than any other color.
Which stands to reason because there are more red vehicles than any other color.
Fair enough but the scholars would have studied up on his life and should be in the best position to make a judgement about whether he existed right?

Another thing to keep in mind is that even if there is a specific person the Jesus stories are based upon, that does not mean the stories are true.
Take Santa Clause for example
I agree, I'm not disputing that at all.
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
This is somewhat of a pickle for me personally.
I hear people claim "using the Bible to evidence the Bible is circular reasoning".
I am not so sure that it is circular reasoning because there were different authors for the different books in the Bible which were written at different times.
It's a pickle for me too given the same reasons that it's a pickle for you too... Christians could make the claim that different authors did write different books at different times which would make them independent sources.
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
all the secondary sources we have a) are written by die-hard believers
I'm not disputing your other points but on this point, I've it argued that accounts from believers should be trusted since, if they did have an actual experience of the risen Christ they would have no choice but to be believers and therefore they should be trusted.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I would say it is your track record supported by your bias no to believe the scriptures and evidence that has been provided that you cannot disprove that is the problem here and nothing more. You know the saying "you can lead a horse to water..." . I guess no one can make someone here something they do not want to when they close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears. So this one will be my last post to you but I thank you for the conversation and only wish you well.

I'm sorry if this is blunt, but your ignorance of the subject matter and your blind allegiance to both the Bible, and to highly questionable claims by Christian apologists whose paid job is to convince you that Christianity is true, is very worrying. But it is also very much par for the course among fundamentalist Christians. Thank you for the dialogue, it's been a while since I interacted with this material and it was a good reminder why I'm no longer a Christian.

Your response..

Nonsense! All your providing is your opinion again without evidence or proof. Go to the source the link is provided in at the end of the post. The bracketed numbers are further links to the source of scholar references to the statements and claims made.

Ah, I see now from the link you provided. So the citation is to a work by Ludemann in 1994. Do you know who Ludemann is? He is a NT scholar who started out a Christian, and eventually left Christianity because he realized over time how baseless the claims of the religion are. In 1999 he came out with a book called, "The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did," "in which he argued that only about five per cent of the sayings attributed to Jesus are genuine and the historical evidence does not support the claims of traditional Christianity." Gerd Lüdemann - Wikipedia

So the reference is out of date, and appears to have been disavowed by the very scholar who said it. Thanks for asking me to check the references, that was helpful. :)

All the word gospel means in the Greek is εὐαγγέλιον; euaggelion a good message. It does not mean that Paul did not have access to historical events that he may not have been aware of. Being a JEW persecuting the Christians I am sure he would have been aware of JESUS and his followers and their origin and claims through the Sanhedrin don't you?

Paul explains what the gospel is in 1 Cor 15: it's the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He says explicitly in Galatians that he received the gospel from direct revelation, not from any man. So yes, he may have been aware of the claims of Christians prior to his conversion, but what actually convinced him was not "historical evidence," but a vision of Jesus talking to him from heaven.

Nonsense! This is just you trying stating things that are not true trying to attack the messenger because you cannot dispute the facts presented. You cannot disprove the historicity of the emtpy tome as you cannot disprove the resurrection.

Again you misunderstand the burden of proof. It's on you, not me.

So your seeking to try to belittle those who present something that disagrees with your believe without examining evidence.

My whole point was that they provided no evidence to examine. If they had provided it, I would have examined it. But they didn't.

You are free to believe as you wish it is up to you but slander is simply dishonest in my view as it has no truth in it and is simply a distraction to what is being said. At least wiki (linked) tells the truth here on Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig and J. P, Moreland that thsey are biblical scholars and historians as well as apologists. Your comments on the other hand are simply not true.

My comments were that these gentlemen aren't taken seriously outside of conservative Christian circles. This is true. Sorry to break it to you.

Nonsense! You do know that JOHN was an eye witness to the death, burial and resurrection of JESUS right so how would he need to borrow the material of others? That does not make any sense now does it?

You do know that we don't know who wrote the Gospel of John, right? And that it appears to have gone through a couple of editors to get the version we have now, right? And that it was written decades after the Synoptics, which were written decades after the alleged events in question, right?

Yet here you are making statement again you cannot prove. Perhaps you would like to provide evidence that Matthew plagarised Mark

Sure. Compare Mark 1:1-11 and Matthew 3, as one obvious example (there are many).

, or maybe you can prove the their was no virgin birth

Not my job. If you claim there was a virgin birth, it's your job to demonstrate it. For the 20th time.

and that it is a fantastical story

LOL wait a minute. You think that a virgin claiming they supernaturally got empregnated by God isn't a fantastical story? That's totally mundane and expected, to you? What in the world does a fantastical story look like, to you?

when they're or that any of the detials provided are not true? If you cannot than all you have more friend is your bias against the written Word of God. You are entittled to your opinion however your opinions does not mean that your claims are true but simply your opinions that you cannot disprove one way or another.

You're just projecting because your evidence is poor. So you're shifting the burden of proof to me. Sorry, won't work.

Zzz this is just your opinion again without supporting evidence.

I'm sorry, you think we do have access to a non-Markan source that informed Matthew? Where is it? Send me a link so I can read it.

"Ditto see above"

If you can explain why John's unique content had to come from somewhere other than the author's head, please tell me.

The problem with your reply is that they are not Christian accounts they are JEWISH accounts hostile to the Christian position that historically support the empty tomb.

For the 25th time. Justin Martyr is not a Jewish account. It's a Christian account of what one Jew said, maybe. That's not a Jewish account. And it's 100 years too late to be relevant.

The TY is centuries too late to be relevant.

Your claims here have no basis in truth and are simply hand waiving the evidence that disagrees with you as does the rest of your post which is simply you ignoring the truth.

The audience can be the judge of that, I suppose. I've responded to everything you've said, point by point, while you've ignored whole portions of what I said. I'll leave it to the reader to decide who's ignoring things.

So my friend we might leave this here. I appreciate the conversation with you but I do not think it will be fruitful to continue as I can see this is going nowhere fast so we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. I will leave you with the last say as you seem to need it more than I do. I wish you all the best and thankyou for the discussion.

Hope this is helpful to those who may be interested.

I would strongly recommend that you do some peer-reviewed academic reading of Biblical studies literature and lay off the apologetics. Thanks again.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm not disputing your other points but on this point, I've it argued that accounts from believers should be trusted since, if they did have an actual experience of the risen Christ they would have no choice but to be believers and therefore they should be trusted.

How would a person know if they had an actual experience of the risen Christ vs. a hallucination?
 
Top