• 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?

Jos

Well-Known Member
What debate? Why would you assume that there was even a debate to be had at the time?
When I say debate, I mean the whole question of whether or not Jesus rose from the dead and given that there's are entire gospels written about it, it suggests that some people were at least questioning it as a possibility.

Even Mark with its empty tomb narrative wasn't written until decades after Jesus supposedly died. Who can say how much even the tame version in Mark varied from the actual events? Was the empty tomb tacked onto the story?
Good point, I wonder about that too

Remember that these stories were circulating - and changing - orally for decades before they were written down.
Isn't it the case that historical record keeping was done like that at that time period in history since they didn't have any other choice?
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
The question is, why does any particular scholar think that? It always seems to boil down to two arguments ─ the one you're using, everyone thinks so, and Paul's mention of James the brother of the Lord; but the first is circular ─ they say it's true because they say it's true ─ and the second is open to the objection that Paul calls people 'brothers of the lord' who are plainly followers, not kin.
Well I would think that since they are scholars that they would be have all the proper information and expertise to be in the best position to make a judgement as to whether or not he existed also it wouldn't be difficult to grant the existence of a first century doomsday Jewish rabbi since they were pretty frequent in number at that time, or so I've heard anyway.

We have no eyewitness account of Jesus, no contemporary mention of him, no independent mention of him.
Do you say this primarily because the Gospels are anonymous in authorship?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
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?
It sounds good.
So long as you take into account possible biases, prejudices, loyalties, etc.
Of course, this also goes for everyone, not merely scholars.
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
@3rdAngel you posted a lot of information, some of which seems to have been addressed but thanks anyway it's all enlightening.
Your welcome. Actually none of it was addressed it was simply ignored by someone repeating themselves stating their opinions over fact who cannot disprove the historicity of the empty tome generally agreed to by most scholars as factual. Nice to meet you Jos :)
 
Last edited:

Jos

Well-Known Member
My primary issue is that 1) his death needs to be established
Don't the gospels establish it?

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.
Good point, no disagreement here.

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.
True but the women were supposedly there to see him die, so wouldn't that be enough to prove that he died?

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?
Yeah he should Idk.

Like what? You have autopsy reports?
Wouldn't the Gospels accounts count as evidence that he died?

I think "rising to heaven" meant escaping the Romans by going over mountains. I think he fled since obviously things kinda went south
Hmmm, interesting theory.

Even if one argues that his followers were illiterate, he ticked off authorities who most definitely would've been, so where are their records?
Apparently, according to some, a lot of records from that time were lost, o don't know if that's true or not but that's the explanation given by apologists.

The same thing I do when my mother says her relatives are spying on her through the internet thanks to Obama: *eyeroll*
Lol

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.
Aren't there historical records that are accepted as being accurate even though they're written centuries after the event? eg. Julius Caesar's life

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?
I believe it should be consistent, but the argument is that different authors were writing at different times and had different information to work with so that would explain the contradictions, so Idk.

But it doesn't matter. The authors didn't care. They NEED Jesus to resurrect.
That does seem to be the case.
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
Your welcome. It was not addressed it was simply ignored by someone repeating themselves stating their opinions over fact who cannot disprove the historicity of the empty tome generally agreed to by most scholars as factual. Nice to meet you Jos :)
Nice to meet you too but how would one go about proving where Jesus was buried or if he even was buried in the first place?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Nice to meet you too but how would one go about proving where Jesus was buried or if he even was buried in the first place?
Seems that half the universes population at the time knew where he was buried....
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
Nice to meet you too but how would one go about proving where Jesus was buried or if he even was buried in the first place?

Most of the early accounts and locations are from the biblical records in the Gospels. I do not think anyone knows for sure as there was so many buriel places in Jerusalem but here is in interesting article from the National Geogrphic that gives a little historical background with scientific input you might find interesting linked.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well I would think that since they are scholars that they would be have all the proper information and expertise to be in the best position to make a judgement as to whether or not he existed
Then I wish they'd set out their reasons in a manner I could find persuasive. It's not as if I have anything to gain or lose by there being or not being an historical Jesus.
also it wouldn't be difficult to grant the existence of a first century doomsday Jewish rabbi since they were pretty frequent in number at that time, or so I've heard anyway.
A good point. If there was an historical Jesus, and if the reports in Mark contain grains of fact, he would likely have been of that kind, an end-times preacher in the style of JtB.
Do you say this primarily because the Gospels are anonymous in authorship?
No, I say it because none of the authors claims to have met an historical Jesus, or to be an eyewitness to anything an historical Jesus might have said or done. Paul never met an historical Jesus and says so. The earliest gospel is Mark, and that's 45 years or so after the usual date of the crucifixion, and neither it nor the other gospels make any such claim.
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
No, I say it because none of the authors claims to have met an historical Jesus, or to be an eyewitness to anything an historical Jesus might have said or done. Paul never met an historical Jesus and says so. The earliest gospel is Mark, and that's 45 years or so after the usual date of the crucifixion, and neither it nor the other gospels make any such claim.

This is partly true for 3 of the 4 gospels but not true for the gospel of JOHN who was a first hand eye witness and one of the 12 Apostles who was with JESUS the whole time during his ministry, before his death, during his death and burial and an eye witness to his resurrection and everything JESUS as well as being privy to many things that many of the other apostles were not in the life of JESUS. What is amzing though is the other three gospels all tell a similar though not exactly the same accounts as the gospel of JOHN.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This is partly true for 3 of the 4 gospels but not true for the gospel of JOHN who was a first hand eye witness and one of the 12 Apostles who was with JESUS the whole time during his ministry, before his death, during his death and buriel and an eye witness to his resurrection and everything JESUS as well as being privy to many things that many of the other apostles were not in the life of JESUS. What is amzing though is the other three gospels all tell a similar though not exactly the same story as the gospel of JOHN.
The claim in John is that the author got his information from an eyewitness. The alleged eyewitness is not identified, and no eyewitness account of any historical event is attributable to that person from the text. John is written about 100 CE, seventy years after the customary date for the crucifixion, and it seems highly unlikely that any part of John is based on eyewitness accounts; but whether any part is or not, that doesn't make the author of John an eyewitness, and it leaves us where we came in, with precisely zero eyewitness accounts, actual or claimed. (There are claims here and there to have had visions of Jesus, or to have seen Jesus' 'glory', and so on, but they're not eyewitness accounts of anything historical.)
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
The claim in John is that the author got his information from an eyewitness. The alleged eyewitness is not identified, and no eyewitness account of any historical event is attributable to that person from the text. John is written about 100 CE, seventy years after the customary date for the crucifixion, and it seems highly unlikely that any part of John is based on eyewitness accounts; but whether any part is or not, that doesn't make the author of John an eyewitness, and it leaves us where we came in, with precisely zero eyewitness accounts, actual or claimed. (There are claims here and there to have had visions of Jesus, or to have seen Jesus' 'glory', and so on, but they're not eyewitness accounts of anything historical.)

Actually this is not true. JOHN was the eyewitness to all the above events. John was one of the 12 Apostles that was with JESUS during his life, death, burial and witnessed his resurrection. The fact that the gospel of JOHN was not written until around 100 CE is not relevant because unlike all the other APOSTLES, who lost their lives in persecution, JOHN lived to old age and was sent to Patmos island where he also wrote the book of Revelation and 1 JOHN. The facts remain he was the only eyewitness in all of the gospel accounts of the life of JESUS; what he said and did in his life, and the only eye witness to the death, burial and resurrection of JESUS within all gospels.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Actually this is not true. JOHN was the eyewitness to all the above events. John was one of the 12 Apostles that was with JESUS during his life, death, burial and witnessed his resurrection.
The author of John makes no such claim. On what evidence do you base your statement?
The fact that the gospel of JOHN was not written until around 100 CE is not relevant because unlike all the other APOSTLES, who lost their lives in persecution, JOHN lived to old age and was sent to Patmos island where he also wrote the book of Revelation and 1 JOHN.
There's no evidence that whoever wrote John was a disciple at all. I'm not aware of any evidence that the disciple John lived to a great age ─ only traditions from centuries later. The John on Patmos who wrote Revelation is not identified with the apostle John in anything I've read. But if you can cite ancient records to the contrary, I'd be pleased to read them.
The facts remain he was the only eyewitness in all of the gospel accounts of the life of JESUS; what he said and did in his life, and the only eye witness to the death, burial and resurrection of JESUS.
There are no eyewitness accounts of the resurrection, not even accounts claimed to be. There are no contemporary accounts or independent accounts either, though a real resurrection would be as newsworthy back then as it would be now. Instead there are six biblical accounts each of which disagrees with the other five on major points.
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
The author of John makes no such claim. On what evidence do you base your statement?
There's no evidence that whoever wrote John was a disciple at all. I'm not aware of any evidence that the disciple John lived to a great age ─ only traditions from centuries later. The John on Patmos who wrote Revelation is not identified with the apostle John in anything I've read. But if you can cite ancient records to the contrary, I'd be pleased to read them.
There are no eyewitness accounts of the resurrection, not even accounts claimed to be. There are no contemporary accounts or independent accounts either, though a real resurrection would be as newsworthy back then as it would be now. Instead there are six biblical accounts each of which disagrees with the other five on major points.

It is true that there is much debate between the scholars on this topic and as usual none of them agree so at the end of the day here for either side it is simply an argument from silence. Here is a general and simple overview here in wiki linked; and here linked; here. An overview is also provided in the new world encyclopedia here. Another article in Zondaman Academic simply claims there is not enough evidence to state either way that the gospel of John was or was not written by the Apostle John, although I persoanlly believe that the scriptures reference in the gospel of John to the apostle who JESUS loved is in reference to the Apostle John's writing of the gospel of John IMO.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran 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.
But nobody alive today had that experience so all we have are written accounts of people who said a tomb was empty and they saw Jesus walking around after that. Imo, these were just stories, nothing that ever happened. There is no logical reason to believe any of it happened, since they cannot be confirmed from any sources outside the NT. And even if there were outside sources confirming it happened, how could we verify that those sources were reliable?

There are just so many problems with believing Jesus actually rose from the dead and no problems dismissing it, since there is no reason to believe it is true, except that it was written in a book.

Anyone can write a novel but at least novelists are not trying to convince anyone the characters and events are real. I don't know why the gospel writers tried to make the stories sound as if they were real, but there is no way for us to know why now. However, this seems very dishonest to me.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It is true that there is much debate between the scholars on this topic and as usual none of them agree so at the end of the day here for either side it is simply an argument from silence. Here is a general and simple overview here in wiki linked; and here linked; here. An overview is also provided in the new world encyclopedia here. Another article in Zondaman Academic simply claims there is not enough evidence to state either way that the gospel of John was or was not written by the Apostle John, although I persoanlly believe that the scriptures reference in the gospel of John to the apostle who JESUS loved is in reference to the Apostle John's writing of the gospel of John IMO.
Thanks for the links. I'm familiar with those positions, but as you'll have noticed, I think historical skepticism is the firmest approach to these questions.
 
Top