The Resurrection is it provable?

[Sheldon]

The Bible is not a book written by a single author, so one author can verify another.

No they can't, since it's authorship is anonymous. Also you would need to demonstrate one author was offering a credible account, anymore than another. You are making a bare appeal to numbers, it's called an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

The miracles of Jesus are verified by the writers of the gospels and the other aspects of Jesus life also.

The gospel author or authors are unknown, the names Mathew Mark Luke and John are fictitious, and were assigned centuries later, to make it appear as if they authored by disciples.

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 never met nor knew Jesus. His claims are mostly subjective opinion after the fact, hearsay in other words.

Paul is a witness to the resurrection only in his claim to have met the risen Jesus.

So not a witness then, just claiming to have been one. If someone claims they've seen Elvis, does this make them an eyewitness to Elvis resurrection? What if they knew him personally, unlike Paul with 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.

Hearsay
noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

The gospels are anonymously authored, long after the alleged events, they are hearsay, by definition, I don't need to be sceptical to know this, though I am astonished how often Christians are unaware of it. Most bibles even say this inside the cover nowadays.

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 separate claim, and scepticism is not the same as bias, you're projecting. You however believe claims from one religion, and reject identical claims form others, so I don't bias is a word you should throw around.

This is a presumed dating system (tossing out other evidence) and is circular reasoning.

What is?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Depends what you mean by " proof".
Eyewitness testimony, yes.
Ironclad proof beyond doubt?
No but that doesn't exist for anything, IMO.
You can't even prove beyond doubt that reality isn't all a computer simulation.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Can you name this witness?

Can you name this witness?

Mary was the first.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

That's a claim, I already explained the bible contains unevidenced claims that people witnessed these events. These are hearsay claims written long after the events they claim to describe, either anonymously, or as if the case with Paul, by someone who wasn't there.

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.

So people who believe in the resurrection believe in the resurrection, that's a pretty vapid tautology. There are no eyewitnesses, and no contemporary records.

 

[Sheldon]

Depends what you mean by " proof".
Eyewitness testimony, yes.
Ironclad proof beyond doubt?
No but that doesn't exist for anything, IMO.

There is no evidence for any eyewitnesses, only hearsay claims.

You can't even prove beyond doubt that reality isn't all a computer simulation.

That's hardy a reason to believe it is for any rational observer. Though it's a good analogy, as the evidence is just as scant for a resurrection, and we know computer simulations are possible, and getting more complex all the time.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Is there any scientific proof or historic proof that Jesus was resurrected and crucified?

I found the Bible to be the most reliable source in the world for life, attaining wisdom and understanding, for prosperous living, for knowing God, how to enter into a relationship with Him and getting your own proof and guarantee of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and eternal life.

 

[stvdv]

Is there any scientific proof or historic proof that Jesus was resurrected and crucified?

IF resurrection could be proven Scientifically THEN my guess is, that it would have been proven by now

Also proving the Crucifixion is hard...those peaces of wood integrated into what? Atoms?
It must be a hell of a Scientist who manages to fit those pieces together after 2000 years
It's possible of course, but very few will be able to do that

Some mistakenly/ignorantly call it the "Resurrection Myth". Not smart. The claim "it's a Myth" makes the burden of proof on them.

Good luck proving that

Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. Since "myth" is widely used to imply that a story is not objectively true, the identification of a narrative as a myth can be highly controversial

 

[ElishaElijah]

IF resurrection could be proven Scientifically THEN my guess is, that it would have been proven by now

Also proving the Crucifixion is hard...those peaces of wood integrated into what? Atoms?
It must be a hell of a Scientist who manages to fit those pieces together after 2000 years
It's possible of course, but very few will be able to do that

Some mistakenly/ignorantly call it the "Resurrection Myth". Not smart. The claim "it's a Myth" makes the burden of proof on them.

Good luck proving that

I doubt they want to know the truth on the resurrection to begin with.

 

[Sheldon]

I found the Bible to be the most reliable source in the world for life, attaining wisdom and understanding, for prosperous living, for knowing God, how to enter into a relationship with Him and getting your own proof and guarantee of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and eternal life.

It has profoundly the opposite effect on me, I have heard other atheists claim the same. I remember someone asking the late Christopher Hitchens what books he recommended for sceptics to become atheists, and he said the Bible, or the Quran. He wasn't being entirely facetious either.

 

[Sheldon]

I doubt they want to know the truth on the resurrection to begin with.

No true Scotsman fallacy....If you're going to accuse people of bias, maybe you could explain your criteria for disbelieving other resurrection myths?

 

[firedragon]

Mary was the first.

You mean Mary the mother of Jesus or Mary Magdalene?

Who witnessed them or spoke to them and got the information?

 

[Sheldon]

IF resurrection could be proven Scientifically THEN my guess is, that it would have been proven by now

Science can't evidence supernatural claims, they are unfalsifiable for a start, therefore would be considered unscientific.

Some mistakenly/ignorantly call it the "Resurrection Myth".Not smart. The claim "it's a Myth" makes the burden of proof on them. Good luck proving that

Myth
noun

1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

That is factually correct in every facet?

 

[Wildswanderer]

You mean Mary the mother of Jesus or Mary Magdalene?

Who witnessed them or spoke to them and got the information?

The other disciples
Mary Magdalene, Mark 16:9, “Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.”

 

[Tinker Grey]

The other disciples
Mary Magdalene, Mark 16:9, “Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.”

How did the author of Mark ascertain this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This may help...
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Your source referred to the Testonium Flavium. as if it were reliable. Almost no modern scholar would agree:

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

None of those sources support the resurrection. They only support the possible existence of a man name Jesus that had a following.

Have you ever seen Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter? You should. Not because it is a good movie. It isn't. But it is an example of how a historic person can be made to be mythical.

 

[Sheldon]

The other disciples
Mary Magdalene, Mark 16:9, “Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.”

That wasn't written by a disciple, it's authorship is unknown, and like the gospels of Mathew Luke and John, were made up and assigned the gospels centuries later, to give the appearance they were authored by disciples. I'm really surprised how many Christians I encounter who are unaware of this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The other disciples
Mary Magdalene, Mark 16:9, “Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.”

That is a story from a book that was written over thirty years after the event. No eyewitnesses.

 

[Sheldon]

Your source referred to the Testonium Flavium. as if it were reliable. Almost no modern scholar would agree:

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

None of those sources support the resurrection. They only support the possible existence of a man name Jesus that had a following.

Have you ever seen Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter? You should. Not because it is a good movie. It isn't. But it is an example of how a historic person can be made to be mythical.

That's a bit harsh, it was an ok movie.

 

[ElishaElijah]

It has profoundly the opposite effect on me, I have heard other atheists claim the same. I remember someone asking the late Christopher Hitchens what books he recommended for sceptics to become atheists, and he said the Bible, or the Quran. He wasn't being entirely facetious either.

Well yeah the Bible even says that, why I love the Word of God.
“Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, “Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.” Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.”
‭‭I Peter‬ ‭2:4-10‬ ‭

 

[Wildswanderer]

How did the author of Mark ascertain this?

Probably by talking to Mary immediately after the event.