leroy
Well-Known Member
ok then you are wrong
-
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!
The evidence for the resurection of Jesus
- Thread starter leroy
- Start date
leroy
Well-Known Member
ok justify your claim (in red) why my attempt to provide evidence fails?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Liberty "University" is not a scholarly source.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
sure I can support my claim.
most scolars acccept that the disciples had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen jesus
You haven't supported your claim by simply making ANOTHER unsubstantiated claim. You need to support your claim with some actual VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. Where is your EVIDENCE that MOST scholars accept this unsubstantiated claim?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
First claim for you to support.
And by support, I mean actually present a list of the scholars that actually support it, not by linking to someone else making the same bold empty claim.
leroy
Well-Known Member
why not?
leroy
Well-Known Member
in the source,
the author of the source made a survey on NT scholars and concluded that most accept the claim.
the claim is verifiable, anyone can repeat the survey, anyone can see the original sources.
leroy
Well-Known Member
sure fist claim is that the existance of God is possible. (with this I mean that there is no conclusive evidence against the existance of God)
most scholars agree with this claim.....
37% of scientists from natural sciences dont believe in God and 31% in the sociall sciences
(source http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~ehe/doc/Ecklund_SocialProblems_54_2.pdf)
go to table 3 in that paper..... i cant copy the table in the post because of the format
as a bonus i would add that "not believing in God does not imply that they claim that the existance of God is impossible...... so the number of academics that would deny point 1 is probably much much much lower than 30%
that is a stupid and unrealistic request......... can you show that most scholars accept the theory of evolution (common ancestry) using you stupid and unrealistic standards?
if a research paper that made a survey is not enough for you then sorry I cant meat your standards of evidence
...
besides if I where to bet, Ill bet that you dont reject point 1...... am i wrong?...... you are just "playing skeptic" why?[/QUOTE]
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
And the author of the article that I cited stated that according to his investigations the majority of NT scholars do NOT accept the claim. Thus your original contention is clearly in dispute.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Your really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
The first claim you need to support is:
"The evidence for the resurrection is grounded on 5 claims that are widely accepted by scholars"
"most scholars agree with this claim....."
So it is the claim that your claims are "widely supported by scholars" that is the first claim you need to support.
You know, the very claim I quoted in the post the above is in response to...
Remember, YOU are the one who wanted this painstakingly slow point by point presentation, the least you can do is honour your own rules, right?
leroy
Well-Known Member
can you quote anywhere in the article that you quoted, where it says that the majority of scholars reject any of the 5 claims?
. . . because beyond the historical events known of the life of Jesus there is no evidence for the supernatural events. Historical records document a number Jewish rebels at the time claiming to be the King of the Jews, and yes many were crucified.
There is no records of Jesus Christ during his life or even existing at time outside the New Testament. Yes, it is the consensus of the historians the Jesus Christ existed, preached at the time he was the King of the Jews, and as convicted of rebellion against Rome by claiming to be the King of the Jews, and crucified for treason against Rome.
Most historians even Christian historians who believe do not support the existence of historical proof of the Resurrection. They believe in the Resurrection by faith
It is not a matter of rejecting the 5 claims, but that there is historical proof for the Resurrection.
leroy
Well-Known Member
that way I can know exactly what are you taking about.
of the 5 claims that I mentioned and that I claim are supported by the majority of academics
claim 1 is supported in this post
claims 2 - 5 supported in this post
can you show that the opposite is true? care to provide your sources?
leroy
Well-Known Member
irrelevant
none of the 5 claims in the OP are supernatural events.
you can ether accept . or reject these claims (claims 2-5) based on the historical evidence
leroy
Well-Known Member
yes it is, Accepting or rejecting these 5 claims is relevant for this thread
do you accept these claims? would you reject any if these claims?
The historical events are widely accepted by most historians.
Here is a review of what is commonly accepted by historians,
Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible
. . . the Testimonium Flavianum is based on an original report by Josephus29 that has been modified by others, probably Christian scribes, seems most likely. After extracting what appear to be Christian additions, the remaining text appears to be pure Josephus. As a Romanized Jew, Josephus would not have presented these beliefs as his own. Interestingly, in three openly Christian, non-Greek versions of the Testimonium Flavianum analyzed by Steve Mason, variations indicate changes were made by others besides Josephus.30 The Latin version says Jesus “was believed to be the Messiah.” The Syriac version is best translated, “He was thought to be the Messiah.” And the Arabic version with open coyness suggests, “He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” Alternative 3 has the support of the overwhelming majority of scholars.
We can learn quite a bit about Jesus from Tacitus and Josephus, two famous historians who were not Christian. Almost all the following statements about Jesus, which are asserted in the New Testament, are corroborated or confirmed by the relevant passages in Tacitus and Josephus. These independent historical sources—one a non-Christian Roman and the other Jewish—confirm what we are told in the Gospels:31
1. He existed as a man. The historian Josephus grew up in a priestly family in first-century Palestine and wrote only decades after Jesus’ death. Jesus’ known associates, such as Jesus’ brother James, were his contemporaries. The historical and cultural context was second nature to Josephus. “If any Jewish writer were ever in a position to know about the non-existence of Jesus, it would have been Josephus. His implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that the extra-Biblical evidence is not probative on this point,” Robert Van Voorst observes.32 And Tacitus was careful enough not to report real executions of nonexistent people.
2. His personal name was Jesus, as Josephus informs us.
3. He was called Christos in Greek, which is a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, both of which mean “anointed” or “(the) anointed one,” as Josephus states and Tacitus implies, unaware, by reporting, as Romans thought, that his name was Christus.
4. He had a brother named James (Jacob), as Josephus reports.
5. He won over both Jews and “Greeks” (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture), according to Josephus, although it is anachronistic to say that they were “many” at the end of his life. Large growth in the number of Jesus’ actual followers came only after his death.
6. Jewish leaders of the day expressed unfavorable opinions about him, at least according to some versions of the Testimonium Flavianum.
7. Pilate rendered the decision that he should be executed, as both Tacitus and Josephus state.
8. His execution was specifically by crucifixion, according to Josephus.
9. He was executed during Pontius Pilate’s governorship over Judea (26–36 C.E.), as Josephus implies and Tacitus states, adding that it was during Tiberius’s reign.
Some of Jesus’ followers did not abandon their personal loyalty to him even after his crucifixion but submitted to his teaching. They believed that Jesus later appeared to them alive in accordance with prophecies, most likely those found in the Hebrew Bible. A well-attested link between Jesus and Christians is that Christ, as a term used to identify Jesus, became the basis of the term used to identify his followers: Christians. The Christian movement began in Judea, according to Tacitus. Josephus observes that it continued during the first century. Tacitus deplores the fact that during the second century it had spread as far as Rome.
As far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist.33 Referring to the first several centuries C.E., even a scholar as cautious and thorough as Robert Van Voorst freely observes, “… [N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.”34
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
and the very first time I did exactly that, you did not even address the claim I quoted...
The letter 's' in a quote bubble does not support anything, let alone your specific claims.
Now don't get me wrong, I strongly suspect it to be a technical error....
show the opposite of what is true?
If you are asking for something that shows your "most scholars support it" claim is in major dispute, QuestioningMind has already done that.
I do not reject the five claims, but they do not prove the Resurrection of Jesus,
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
The entire article is literally about how much disagreement there is among experts as to whether or not Jesus actually existed. Since you can't demonstrate that the majority of experts actually agree that Jesus existed, all of your 5 points become unsubstantiated claims.