Is this potential evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

[BilliardsBall]

The texts say what the texts say.

They say there are at least five different Jesuses in the NT, for instance ─ one ordinary Jew (Mark), two genetic sons of God (Matthew, Luke), and two demiurges (Paul, John). Mark's is not descended from David; the others are, two (Matthew, Luke) by blatantly fake genealogies, the other two merely by allegation.

I've already pointed out that the accounts of the resurrection are a forensic trainwreck.

And so on.

They're texts you study, so you already know these things.

Yes, and I know the refutations to the allegations made here, too, for example, the "ordinary Jew" of Mark performs miracles and has risen from the grave--even in a redacted Mark with a shortened last chapter.

The accounts of the resurrection are the best, most abundant testimonies of any ancient event!

 

[BilliardsBall]

You're also conveniently forgetting (or, perhaps were unaware) that "young disciples" in that time and place were very likely illiterate, as were most people -- but especially those who were common laborers, such as fishermen and even tax collectors. The fact that MOST things, whether it be sales invoices, or histories, were not permanently written (written things were usually written on wet clay tablets that could be scraped clean for reuse), is further evidence of both later authorship (and Gentile origin). Jesus' teachings at that time were too unimportant to have been written -- especially in a permanent fashion. It was to difficult, too sparse, and waaay too expensive. No, I'm afraid the reality cards are stacked against you for "young disciples" authorship.

Your points are valid, mostly, although they didn't address the substance of my point. My point was how very young disciples of Jesus (only Peter and Jesus were required to pay the tax of a half-coin, so one coin in a fish was used to tax them, Peter and Jesus being the adults of the group) indicates that it could be 50, 70, even 90 AD, and the former young disciples of Jesus, who preached lifelong, decided later to pen their experiences, as older adults, put differently, preach and convert and disciple for decades, and later, consider their legacy for future generations, having come to accept that scriptures could be written beyond the established Hebrew Tanakh.

I'm a little older, and in the day of my (first) college experience, the Jesus Seminar, the most liberal possible group of Bible critics, affirmed that the NT was completed by circa 90 AD.

I currently attend English conferences, where I get to chair panels, choose abstracts for presentation, and opine on all kinds of things regarding dead authors' works, that are honestly somewhere between educated guesses and some kind of well-meaning apophenia or pareidolia, put differently, I get to constantly see myself and others spin tales and just-so stories regarding authors' works. Honestly, I try very, very hard to find substantive subtexts and critiques that relate to the language used in the words, I do, but I "get" how modern Bible scholarship is the same--take potshots at the text and make guesses, some educated, some not very substantive.

Fortunately, the Greek language used, and the countless insightful historical details in the NT, unavailable to late writers, since archaeology came to be only in the past two centuries or so, helps us date the Greek NT early. I also have considered that we have 27 NT documents plus apocryphal documents and even Talmud (which criticizes Christianity but also informs us that Jesus was crucified on Passover at 33 1/2, did miracles, and Joseph wasn't His father), !, and no counter documents saying "I was alive in 30-33 AD, Jesus never did X and Y and Z and Saul the Rabbi never did X and Y and Z--on the contrary, ancient Roman and Jewish historians affirm the Nazarene sect was a growing presence, early on, that is, the preaching WAS important before the written word was, and no scholar I know denies that Jesus lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John in the Jordan, and was crucified, or that He had many disciples, early on, soon after His death.

Please be a little more open to what I'm suggesting, and please learn to take non-forensic "studies" (aka textual pontificating) with a pinch of salt!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Wikipedia is usually fairly accurate in this sort of claim, and though @BilliardsBall has a point that it is possible that for some of the books of the New Testament that it is possible that they spoke to eyewitnesses that does not man it happened. Nor would the eyewitnesses be a reliable source since it was forty years or more after the event according to the source he mentioned. How reliable are your memories about events that occurred forty years ago? Also the authors were agenda driven. This alone makes the claim of "eyewitnesses" useless. No names, forty or more years after the event, only the stories of those that supported the myth given any credence.

For the works to have any historical validity not only would names and witnesses be needed, but also tales of those that opposed the myth. One has to lower the quality of "eyewitness" testimony to less than that of hearsay to make any claims of eyewitnesses in the Bible.

I appreciate your fair-handed response, thank you.

My memory of forty-year events is dim except where circumstances draw clarity, for example, I remember what I ate, wore, said and did the day I married. It is difficult to conceive how believing their Lord had risen from the dead, His disciples endlessly spoke of Him, revisiting the key events again and again, holding them crisp in memory for 40 years, in a culture where storytelling was paramount, and where they had memorably preached to countless disciples themselves?

In regards to your point, I am CERTAINLY "agenda-driven" when recounting my Christian experiences, just like my marriage (my wife was beautiful that day and always since, we were very much in love, the food and music were great, etc.) but I perceive you have a bias when judging anyone who recounts anything supernatural. I HAVE THE SAME BIAS, and remain a skeptic at first, second and third encounter with any such testimony (wisely so, since there is frequent fraud in these matters), however, I've re-re-re-re-re-re-reconsidered Jesus and the Bible countless times, and still do.

One challenge for you? Answer me if you wish, but do not trim my response, and quote me fully, instead of selectively, or at least mark your redactions with [snip] so other readers know your selections.

Thank you.

 

[sojourner]

the former young disciples of Jesus, who preached lifelong, decided later to pen their experiences, as older adults, put differently, preach and convert and disciple for decades, and later, consider their legacy for future generations, having come to accept that scriptures could be written beyond the established Hebrew Tanakh.

You're discounting the high probability that none of them was literate and could write. There are serious cultural reasons why we have no good reasons for apostolic authorship (other than Paul).

I'm a little older, and in the day of my (first) college experience, the Jesus Seminar, the most liberal possible group of Bible critics, affirmed that the NT was completed by circa 90 AD.

I studied under one of the members when I was in seminary, and attended seminars with another. The Seminar changed their opinion on that matter (admittedly, no one knows for sure when they were written).

Honestly, I try very, very hard to find substantive subtexts and critiques that relate to the language used in the words, I do, but I "get" how modern Bible scholarship is the same--take potshots at the text and make guesses, some educated, some not very substantive.

It is a crap shoot. The best one can do is to "pick a camp" and work from that perspective. I choose the "later camp," which makes the most sense to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I appreciate your fair-handed response, thank you.

My memory of forty-year events is dim except where circumstances draw clarity, for example, I remember what I ate, wore, said and did the day I married. It is difficult to conceive how believing their Lord had risen from the dead, His disciples endlessly spoke of Him, revisiting the key events again and again, holding them crisp in memory for 40 years, in a culture where storytelling was paramount, and where they had memorably preached to countless disciples themselves?

In regards to your point, I am CERTAINLY "agenda-driven" when recounting my Christian experiences, just like my marriage (my wife was beautiful that day and always since, we were very much in love, the food and music were great, etc.) but I perceive you have a bias when judging anyone who recounts anything supernatural. I HAVE THE SAME BIAS, and remain a skeptic at first, second and third encounter with any such testimony (wisely so, since there is frequent fraud in these matters), however, I've re-re-re-re-re-re-reconsidered Jesus and the Bible countless times, and still do.

One challenge for you? Answer me if you wish, but do not trim my response, and quote me fully, instead of selectively, or at least mark your redactions with [snip] so other readers know your selections.

Thank you.

It would be interesting to compare video of what happened on your wedding day to what you remember happening. Memory over that length of time is not especially reliable. And no, you really do not know very much about what Jesus's disciples said. Where did they say this? If you claim the Gospels you need to remember that those were not eyewitness accounts and were written about 40 years after the event at the earliest. Mark is heavily copied by Matthew and Luke which is the main reasons that those accounts agree with each other to the extent that they do. John may also have been affected by Mark. What you do not see are all of the Gospels that were declared not part of the canon. Many of those were purposefully destroyed. Some have survived and the stories are quite different. Oral tradition causes new versions to appear and it is all but impossible to judge which ones are the "most accurate".

And please, I do not have a bias so much as a reasonable doubt since when examined the claims of the sort that you and other theists make tend to fail under scrutiny. "I remember" is a bout the worst evidence that there is. You may be rock solid sure, but when very often when facts are presented the memory is not reliable. The mind is very good at making up its own narrative. That is why eyewitness evidence is the least reliable of all legal sources of evidence. It is not the gold standard when it comes to evidence, it is the bottom of barrel of acceptable evidence.

 

[lukethethird]

The accounts of the resurrection are the best, most abundant testimonies of any ancient event!

In your dreams. Theologies concerning gods are not actual events, but I'm sure you know that much.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, and I know the refutations to the allegations made here, too, for example, the "ordinary Jew" of Mark performs miracles and has risen from the grave--even in a redacted Mark with a shortened last chapter.

The accounts of the resurrection are the best, most abundant testimonies of any ancient event!

The ordinary Jew of Mark was unable to do magic until after God adopted him. And he never became a descendant of David. He's also the most sad, forsaken, defeated Jesus on the cross, the most human.

The evidence for the resurrection is, as you know, a forensic catastrophe, not credible at any level.

As for being well attested, no, the Flood is vastly better attested, in Mesopotamia going back at least a thousand years before Yahweh was invented, and also found in stories in Canaan, Greece, Rome, Armenia and so on. And of course that never happened either.

 

[night912]

Baloney. Your whole anti-resurrection crusade isn't worth a tinker's dam. Jesus is resurrected in all four Gospels and various epistles.

So you chose to run away again. Just remember that I do have the bragging rights to say that I made you run away in regards to this discussion. Don't worry, I don't consider that as being a high achievement since it is just you. Nobody really has put any effort in doing that.

And you're not qualify to judge its worth since you're not a thinker. If you were a thinker, then you wouldn't have used Paul's vision as evidence for the resurrection.

And just because Paul said that he's an apostle, doesn't mean that he was an eyewitness to the resurrection. He wasn't even a member of Jesus's click. That was the reason why he wasn't a believer during life time of Jesus. And since you're ignorant of a lot of things written in the bible, I'll throw in an extra piece of information to help enlightened you. According to the bible, the resurrection of Jesus wasn't the reason for Paul becoming a believer. He wasn't even a believer until several years after the supposed ascension of Jesus. You might have posted pieces of information in here, but they weren't evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. This also show that your claim about skeptics kicking evidence to the curb is wrong. That only applies to the evidence that was presented. Like the evidences that I presented, in which you kicked it to the curb after seeing it because you couldn't think of any counter arguments since it was different from those you found in apologetic sites.

BTW, what you called my "anti-resurrection crusade," was worth your time in continuing with this discussion. So I thank you for spending some of your time from your life and partake in this discussion.

 

[Spartan]

So you chose to run away again. Just remember that I do have the bragging rights to say that I made you run away in regards to this discussion. Don't worry, I don't consider that as being a high achievement since it is just you. Nobody really has put any effort in doing that.

And you're not qualify to judge its worth since you're not a thinker. If you were a thinker, then you wouldn't have used Paul's vision as evidence for the resurrection.

And just because Paul said that he's an apostle, doesn't mean that he was an eyewitness to the resurrection. He wasn't even a member of Jesus's click. That was the reason why he wasn't a believer during life time of Jesus. And since you're ignorant of a lot of things written in the bible, I'll throw in an extra piece of information to help enlightened you. According to the bible, the resurrection of Jesus wasn't the reason for Paul becoming a believer. He wasn't even a believer until several years after the supposed ascension of Jesus. You might have posted pieces of information in here, but they weren't evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. This also show that your claim about skeptics kicking evidence to the curb is wrong. That only applies to the evidence that was presented. Like the evidences that I presented, in which you kicked it to the curb after seeing it because you couldn't think of any counter arguments since it was different from those you found in apologetic sites.

BTW, what you called my "anti-resurrection crusade," was worth your time in continuing with this discussion. So I thank you for spending some of your time from your life and partake in this discussion.

Is there some reason I should humor your theological ignorance? I don't think so. Even the demons believe in Jesus. Perhaps you can learn from them at some point.

 

[Audie]

So you chose to run away again. Just remember that I do have the bragging rights to say that I made you run away in regards to this discussion. Don't worry, I don't consider that as being a high achievement since it is just you. Nobody really has put any effort in doing that.

And you're not qualify to judge its worth since you're not a thinker. If you were a thinker, then you wouldn't have used Paul's vision as evidence for the resurrection.

And just because Paul said that he's an apostle, doesn't mean that he was an eyewitness to the resurrection. He wasn't even a member of Jesus's click. That was the reason why he wasn't a believer during life time of Jesus. And since you're ignorant of a lot of things written in the bible, I'll throw in an extra piece of information to help enlightened you. According to the bible, the resurrection of Jesus wasn't the reason for Paul becoming a believer. He wasn't even a believer until several years after the supposed ascension of Jesus. You might have posted pieces of information in here, but they weren't evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. This also show that your claim about skeptics kicking evidence to the curb is wrong. That only applies to the evidence that was presented. Like the evidences that I presented, in which you kicked it to the curb after seeing it because you couldn't think of any counter arguments since it was different from those you found in apologetic sites.

BTW, what you called my "anti-resurrection crusade," was worth your time in continuing with this discussion. So I thank you for spending some of your time from your life and partake in this discussion.

For credibility dont forget pauls snake story.

 

[Audie]

Is there some reason I should humor your theological ignorance? I don't think so. Even the demons believe in Jesus. Perhaps you can learn from them at some point.

How about if you stop humouring anyone, and just
go away?

 

[night912]

Is there some reason I should humor your theological ignorance? I don't think so. Even the demons believe in Jesus. Perhaps you can learn from them at some point.

So if a demon tell you to eat the fruit from a forbidden tree, you would do it and don't think that it's wrong? Don't the bible teach about demons believing that evil is the way to go? I know that you are pretty ignorant in theology, even your own religion of Christianity. I'm not a Christian, but I always thought that Christianity/Christians follow the teachings of the one called Jesus christ and not the one called Satan. Now this explains a lot about your way of reasoning and why you've misunderstood the bible so much. Do you even know which characters from the stories in the bible that are supposed to be the good ones and the bad ones?

See what I mean when I said it doesn't take much effort?

BTW, I did learn some stuff about demons and what they believe as written in the bible. Those who are ignorant are easy to be persuaded. I believe one can learn a lot from bad or evil beings, I just don't hold them to be at a high stature as you do for them. And I also believe that Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter books, really believes in magic and that he can use it as well. But I still have enough reasoning in me to know that he is just a character from a novel.

 

[night912]

Is there some reason I should humor your theological ignorance? I don't think so. Even the demons believe in Jesus. Perhaps you can learn from them at some point.

Just a little bragging reminder for you, you're running away again because you can't think of any way to show that I was wrong about Saul. And you've ran right back to what you did those other times, to not doing any thinking.

 

[blü 2]

Is there some reason I should humor your theological ignorance? I don't think so. Even the demons believe in Jesus. Perhaps you can learn from them at some point.

Might I commend circumspection to you on your approach to 'theological ignorance', ol' buddy? I'm not wholly unfamiliar with the amount you know.

 

[Spartan]

Just a little bragging reminder for you, you're running away again because you can't think of any way to show that I was wrong about Saul. And you've ran right back to what you did those other times, to not doing any thinking.

You don't learn. You just keep parroting the same antichrist nonsense that's common amonst the Biblically-challenged. So that's why I don't waste much time with you. And there's a Biblical precedent also that warns against wasting one's time and energy answering foolish arguments:

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him." - Proverbs 26:4

 

[Spartan]

Might I commend circumspection to you on your approach to 'theological ignorance', ol' buddy? I'm not wholly unfamiliar with the amount you know.

Don't need to second guess my beliefs, based on decades of research. The core beliefs I hold are the ones written about in the scriptures and in the Apostle's Creed, to wit:

"I believe in God, the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Church of Jesus Christ,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen."

Now you know what I believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, and I know the refutations to the allegations made here, too, for example, the "ordinary Jew" of Mark performs miracles and has risen from the grave--even in a redacted Mark with a shortened last chapter.

It's not a "shortened" last chapter. The shorter version is the original version. The longer version is the lengthened version.

And the original ending just describes an empty tomb. There are plenty of ways a tomb can be emptied without the corpse "rising from the grave."

 

[blü 2]

Don't need to second guess my beliefs, based on decades of research. The core beliefs I hold are the ones written about in the scriptures and in the Apostle's Creed, to wit:

"I believe in God, the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Church of Jesus Christ,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen."

Now you know what I believe.

Thanks for that.

However, our topic was your approach to, and attributions of, 'theological ignorance' ─ where, I was suggesting, care might benefit you.

 

[night912]

You don't learn. You just keep parroting the same antichrist nonsense that's common amonst the Biblically-challenged. So that's why I don't waste much time with you. And there's a Biblical precedent also that warns against wasting one's time and energy answering foolish arguments:

Hahaha. By parroting, you mean copying the same thing as someone who said it before you did. Humm. Let's go back to memory lane, you copy and paste your arguments from what you found on the internet and just keep repeating it with no thoughts of your own. Basically you copy and paste them in an outline format. And when I use critical thinking and present counter arguments to yours, it throws you off because they're not the same ones that are on the site that you got your information from. So of course you lacking any kind of critical thinking skills and being ignorant of the majority of the stuff on your parroting outline, you run away without addressing my points. So having only the parroting skills of copy and paste, anything that is thrown at you that deviates from the original preset outline you got from the internet, you basically just ignore it and run away.

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him." - Proverbs 26:4

Hahaha. Only fools like yourself would cherry pick a verse like that to try and draw away your foolishness and put it on others. The funny thing about that is because you're ignorant of its meaning. Don't get me wrong, it's a good verse, if you understand its meaning. That's exactly, why I answered your arguments with my own counter arguments providing evidence to support them. Instead of using ad hominem and being a fool like you, I responded by actually explaining as to why your responses were foolish. And I'll provide a verse from proverbs 26 as well. It's the following verse, proverbs 26:5. If you weren't so ignorant of the meaning, you would have realize that those two verses are meant to compliment one another.

"Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."

I'll explain It to you in modern terms. It means to call out a fool telling him why he is a fool. The reason is so that the fool knows why and realize that his words are not the words of wisdom. Don't deceive yourself and others as if you are wise. Now you see the difference that when a fool such as yourself, who's ignorant of their meaning only use the first verse, you end up showing that you are the fool for still having this discussion and only spitting out silly assertions about me.

Here's another good quote for you since that's what you've been doing.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

 

[night912]

And there's a Biblical precedent also that warns against wasting one's time and energy answering foolish arguments:

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him." - Proverbs 26:4

But you are using your time and energy whenever you reply to posts. So, yea, you are actually showing us that you are a fool.