Are you suggesting Helena's scientific testing of the three crosses she found to determine which was the True Cross might have less veracity than some claim?
*Tongue firmly in cheek*
-
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 Resurrection is it provable?
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
Are you suggesting Helena's scientific testing of the three crosses she found to determine which was the True Cross might have less veracity than some claim?
*Tongue firmly in cheek*
Sadly it doesn't, as none of those alleged sources even claim to have been witnesses to either Jesus' death or resurrection.
Brian2
Veteran Member
There is Jewish view over the years that Jesus was a miracle worker however.
But yes, science does not say yes to miracles.
IV. Jewish opinions on Jesus' miracles in: Miracles of Jesus
Sheldon
Veteran Member
There is however conclusive evidence from many historical events. There is none of the resurrection, or anything assigned Jesus in the bible, except the crucifixion, and that is scant at best.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
No we don't, there are some unevidenced claims in the bible, if that was what you were referring to. There is some scant corroborating evidence for the crucifixion, no eyewitnesses though, why would you even claim that?
There are a plethora of Jewish views on Jesus much as there are a plethora of Jewish views on bagels, none of which are in the least relevant to this thread.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I stopped reading after this in the very first line, "Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document," that's risible.
Try another more credible source, who doesn't open with demonstrably false hyperbole. Or just quote where he claims evidence for eye witnesses. The first independent source he mentions is over a century later.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Apart from other sources the Bible itself provides evidence for the existence of and crucifixion of and miracles of Jesus. This is through Paul (assuming you will reject the witness evidence in the gospels) who lived at the time of Jesus and knew of Him and His death.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
That's a claim not proof, it doesn't really qualify as evidence, since it is a subjective unevidenced claim.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
No it doesn't, it just makes unevidenced claims, do you think the Harry Potter novels are evidence for magic?
There are no witness accounts or any sources in the gospels, only hearsay claims written long after the events they claim to depict, and by anonymous authors. Paul neither knew nor met Jesus. Hearing about someone's death isn't evidence for a resurrection, why would it be?
Last edited:
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Miracles are defined as events that are inexplicable by natural or scientific laws, if science can understand it, then it can't be a miracle. Miracles are simply appeals to mystery.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus are all less than a century.
Why do you think that anybody who was a witness to the resurrection would remain an unbeliever and therefore an independent witness? Therefore wanting an independent witness to the resurrection is just a silly ask.
Brian2
Veteran Member
If science can explain it away with natural laws then science does not call it a miracle.
If science cannot explain it away with natural laws then science still does not call it a miracle.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
So not contemporary, and not eyewitnesses, and not objective evidence for a resurrection.
Well I don't believe there was any resurrection, and there are no eyewitness accounts of the events described around it. There are also no independent accounts to corroborate any of the events.
I was referring to the events claimed in the bible, again I don't believe there was a resurrection for anyone to witness.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I know, I just said this?
Brian2
Veteran Member
The Bible is not a book written by a single author, so one author can verify another.
The miracles of Jesus are verified by the writers of the gospels and the other aspects of Jesus life also. But really it is the unquestioned existence of Paul and his proximity to the life of Jesus which verifies the life and death of Jesus.
Paul is a witness to the resurrection only in his claim to have met the risen Jesus.
Of course you believe the gospels were hearsay claims written long after the events and by anonymous authors. That is the sceptic position but it denies the evidence of history as to the authors of the gospels and denies the internal evidence in the New Testament itself concerning their dates being writing.
The sceptic position relies on sceptic bias concerning the prophecy about the destruction of the temple and so the dates and so authorship taken as after 70AD.
This is a presumed dating system (tossing out other evidence) and is circular reasoning.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Witness to the resurrection is the knowledge that Jesus was put to death combined with the knowledge that He was alive and well 3 days later.
The later historians of course cannot supply that evidence for the resurrection and you refuse to see those who claim to have seen these things as reliable so you have put it as far from you as possible.
Those who seek for what they call the real history of Jesus however do say that the first preaching about Him included the resurrection of Jesus.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Can you name this witness?