• 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?

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
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.

No problems blu, you are free to believe as you wish as am I as a believer. Though I do not believe we can ever know God by trying to seek him through worldly ways. It was the so called scholars of the day that crucified Jesus according to the scriptures while God revealed his word to humble fisherman. Nice talking to you :)
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No problems blu, you are free to believe as you wish as am I as a believer. Though I do not believe we can ever know God by trying to seek him through worldly ways. It was the so called scholars of the day that crucified Jesus according to the scriptures while God revealed his word to humble fisherman. Nice talking to you :)
Thanks. Go well.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
But weren't the Gospels written by anonymous authors?

What I wrote was "Yes. Eyewitness accounts fill the NT and all 12 NT writers spoke of the resurrection. An apostle in NT times was one who saw the resurrected Christ and preached about that fact."

An author can remain anonymous while claiming to be reporting an eyewitness account, yes?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What I wrote was "Yes. Eyewitness accounts fill the NT and all 12 NT writers spoke of the resurrection. An apostle in NT times was one who saw the resurrected Christ and preached about that fact."
That won't alter the fact that there's not a single eyewitness account of an historical Jesus in the bible, not even a purported one.

If I'm wrong then all you have to do is cite a single eyewitness account of an historical Jesus in the NT. Not merely a report of someone else's alleged eyewitness account, of course ─ that would just be hearsay (at best). Instead, an account that reads along the lines of, "On the Wednesday before Passover, shortly after lunch, I was in the square near the Temple on the Wednesday before Passover talking to Arnold the Disciple, and I saw Jesus walk into the square from the south. He looked around, saw us and came over. He said to Arnold, "Hi, old buddy, can you stand me ten till payday?"

Or as the case may be.
An author can remain anonymous while claiming to be reporting an eyewitness account, yes?
That would be a deceit. Are you saying that the NT is deceitfully written?
 

night912

Well-Known Member
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
Modern day scholars didn't accept them as being accurate until they did some research and used other resources to confirm those records. It's only after all of that, then it can be accepted. And keep in mind that not everything from those ancient books are accepted as being true, some parts are exaggeration and other remain as unconfirmed. Those records that were written centuries later are only use as a broad and generalized historical account of Julius Caesar's life. Those may have written documentations saying that he led a campaign in Gaul, but the important and detailed accounts of that war are his actual writings. Those are the ones that give us insights on how the war was fought.

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.
That's the whole point of examining them to confirm their authencity. So then we can use the parts that are confirm to be accurate as evidence to support he events of Jesus. Those parts that are inaccurate are dismissed until further information can be found to authenticate them. But the most important principle that should be follow, although a lot of people especially believers obviously, failed to do it, either by accidently and/or intentionally. That is to not use it as evidence. What they like to do is use the argument that the bible is not one source, that it's a collection of several books in one. And that's fine, but what they sneak in is use the whole as evidence. For example, they use the four gospels and called it evidence for one another, disguising them as being accurate consistent. I see some individuals do this. Those four should be broken down and use as evidence only for particular events of the story of Jesus. Say, all 4 of them have accounts concerning the crucifixion of Jesus, but only 3 out 4 of them talks about the resurrection. This is where breaking each of them into parts come to play. The one gospel that does not include the resurrection cannot be use as evidence. People tend to lack full understanding of what is considered as evidence. They think that any piece of information having referenced the topic can be use as evidence. Irrelevant information is not evidence for a claim. Example. The claim is "Jesus resurrected, leaving an empty tomb," so give information about the resurrection, don't be throwing in irrelevant information that's useless for the claim. Don't be providing information about his birth or early life. Those are useless junk in regards to the resurrection, and are automatically dismissed as garbage to the claim.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
That won't alter the fact that there's not a single eyewitness account of an historical Jesus in the bible, not even a purported one.

If I'm wrong then all you have to do is cite a single eyewitness account of an historical Jesus in the NT. Not merely a report of someone else's alleged eyewitness account, of course ─ that would just be hearsay (at best). Instead, an account that reads along the lines of, "On the Wednesday before Passover, shortly after lunch, I was in the square near the Temple on the Wednesday before Passover talking to Arnold the Disciple, and I saw Jesus walk into the square from the south. He looked around, saw us and came over. He said to Arnold, "Hi, old buddy, can you stand me ten till payday?"

Or as the case may be.
That would be a deceit. Are you saying that the NT is deceitfully written?

Your questions and comments are moot. We find a document from someone who pens a letter regarding their eyewitness account of the Vesuvius explosion from a small town a safe but visible distance from Pompeii... "Oh the horror! The gods have judged the ocean as a column of fire billows by day and smoke by night!"

Scholars note the parchment dates to the period and has some traces of volcanic ash on it. Then they all reject it because the letter was unsigned! NOT.

You should recall the Jews who wrote the NT were under threat of expulsion from Jewish religious and secular life and under threat of martyrdom from Rome. Stop this nonsense, please...
 

night912

Well-Known Member
Your questions and comments are moot. We find a document from someone who pens a letter regarding their eyewitness account of the Vesuvius explosion from a small town a safe but visible distance from Pompeii... "Oh the horror! The gods have judged the ocean as a column of fire billows by day and smoke by night!"

Scholars note the parchment dates to the period and has some traces of volcanic ash on it. Then they all reject it because the letter was unsigned! NOT.

You should recall the Jews who wrote the NT were under threat of expulsion from Jewish religious and secular life and under threat of martyrdom from Rome. Stop this nonsense, please...
The letters are written by the eyewitness about what happened. But scholars don't accept everything in the letter to be accurate. Those parts concerning hi uncle.
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
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.
OK I'll give it a read.
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
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.
So none of the normal reasons used to establish the historicity of Jesus are good?

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.
What does Jtb mean?

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.
Maybe they spoke to eyewitnesses then? Isn't that at least a possibility?
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
But nobody alive today had that experience
You don't know that for sure. If the supernatural is real then it's quite possible for such experiences to be real, as for the rest of your post I don't disagree but what would say is the best argument a believer could use as evidence that the resurrection happened?
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
What I wrote was "Yes. Eyewitness accounts fill the NT and all 12 NT writers spoke of the resurrection. An apostle in NT times was one who saw the resurrected Christ and preached about that fact."

An author can remain anonymous while claiming to be reporting an eyewitness account, yes?
Yes they can but how would be able to evaluate whether such eyewitness accounts are trustworthy?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Your questions and comments are moot.
As I said, if you disagree, you simply have to point to an eyewitness account of an historical Jesus in the NT. Since you haven't done so, I repeat the invitation.
We find a document from someone who pens a letter regarding their eyewitness account of the Vesuvius explosion from a small town a safe but visible distance from Pompeii... "Oh the horror! The gods have judged the ocean as a column of fire billows by day and smoke by night!"

Scholars note the parchment dates to the period and has some traces of volcanic ash on it. Then they all reject it because the letter was unsigned! NOT.
You appear to be referring to Pliny the Elder's eyewitness notes on the destruction of Pompeii 79 CE. If you are, then I'm not aware of any reputable scholarship that disputes the making of those notes and their basic accuracy. So what's your point?
You should recall the Jews who wrote the NT were under threat of expulsion from Jewish religious and secular life
Christianity began as a sect within Judaism, but by 100 CE was drawing away to form its own religion. I don't know what particular 'threat of expulsion' you have in mind, but the gospels seem to be proud of the stories of Jesus defying the Jewish religious establishment.

They also explicitly say that Jesus from the beginning intended his mission to end in his death, which makes it rather silly to blame Judaism for the crucifixion ─ as Jesus Christ Superstar points out, in the stories Jesus uses Judas Iscariot, not the other way round.
and under threat of martyrdom from Rome.
That's because they chose to step away from Judaism, which was exempt from the Roman Empire's obligations to paganism. And though there were undoubtedly cases where Christian leaders were publicly executed in the arena, we also have reports of Roman officials going out of their way to avoid having to kill anyone, and expressing dismay that Christians in large numbers were insisting on volunteering for martyrdom, since they believed it was a passport direct to heaven.
Stop this nonsense, please...
You agree there are no eyewitness accounts of an historical Jesus in the NT, then? Or you're going to give us an unambiguous example from the NT? Either of those things will stop the nonsense.
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
Modern day scholars didn't accept them as being accurate until they did some research and used other resources to confirm those records. It's only after all of that, then it can be accepted. And keep in mind that not everything from those ancient books are accepted as being true, some parts are exaggeration and other remain as unconfirmed. Those records that were written centuries later are only use as a broad and generalized historical account of Julius Caesar's life. Those may have written documentations saying that he led a campaign in Gaul, but the important and detailed accounts of that war are his actual writings. Those are the ones that give us insights on how the war was fought.
How would one be able to identity Caesar's writings if we weren't there?

Don't be providing information about his birth or early life. Those are useless junk in regards to the resurrection, and are automatically dismissed as garbage to the claim.
I guess they do that to establish that there was an actual Jesus in the first place.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So none of the normal reasons used to establish the historicity of Jesus are good?
They can be applied to what we know. The trouble is that when this is done, and consideration given to the problems, my view is that there's so far no clincher either way ─ there may not have been an historical Jesus, or there may have been, in which case he little resembled any Jesus of the bible except perhaps Mark's in parts. Mark's is the only purported biography of an earthly Jesus that we have ─ the other three gospels are simply other writers' takes on how it ought to read instead. An historical Jesus isn't necessary to explain either Paul or the gospels (Mark again being the key), there's no external record of any historical Jesus anyway, and the NT accounts are manifestly unhistorical on a large number of matters.
What does Jtb mean?
"John the Baptist" ─ apologies if I was unclear.
Maybe they spoke to eyewitnesses then? Isn't that at least a possibility?
Yes it is; but if there were such eyewitnesses, we have no record of what they said. And a great deal of the gospels is spent on maneuvering Jesus through "fulfillment of prophecy" tales (often out loud and proud) which lead to such absurdities as Jesus entering Jerusalem astride both a donkey and a colt (Matthew 21), and to the wholly unhistorical, not to say silly, tales in Matthew and Luke about Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, the Massacre of the Innocents, the Flight into Egypt and so on.
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
They can be applied to what we know. The trouble is that when this is done, and consideration given to the problems, my view is that there's so far no clincher either way ─ there may not have been an historical Jesus, or there may have been, in which case he little resembled any Jesus of the bible except perhaps Mark's in parts. Mark's is the only purported biography of an earthly Jesus that we have ─ the other three gospels are simply other writers' takes on how it ought to read instead. An historical Jesus isn't necessary to explain either Paul or the gospels (Mark again being the key), there's no external record of any historical Jesus anyway, and the NT accounts are manifestly unhistorical on a large number of matters.
Interesting... you keep saying "in my view" or "this is the way I see it" (I'm paraphrasing) so my question now is: is this all that history is, just people looking at the facts and drawing there own individual conclusions, thus making it subjective and not objective?

"John the Baptist" ─ apologies if I was unclear.
Ok understood.

Yes it is; but if there were such eyewitnesses, we have no record of what they said.
Don't the gospels claim to report what the eyewitnesses witnessed?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Interesting... you keep saying "in my view" or "this is the way I see it" (I'm paraphrasing) so my question now is: is this all that history is, just people looking at the facts and drawing there own individual conclusions, thus making it subjective and not objective?
Even in the heights of science there's no escaping subjectivity and opinion. The aim is therefore simply to be as objective as possible, and consensus is a good part of that. Hence, for example, the ultimate arbiters of any conclusion of science in any particular field are the leading scientific experts in that field and of that day. For example, it was scientists who decided that if odds of being wrong were assessable, and were less than a million to one, the conclusion could be accepted as correct (= true); and this was the test which the Higgs boson passed in 2011-12, based on the known results of the LHC. At the same time, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory has been the dominant view since before WW2, but continues to draw debate and challenge within the scientific community, in a way that eg relativity does not. Likewise our understanding of gravity has been revisited (though so far not altered) in the search for answers to the questions known as 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'.

Compared to history, though, scientists have it cushy, not least because the subject of history is humans, and the when, where, how and what for of humans. In many cases the evidence is a single artifact, a single word in a report, a single fossil bone or footprint, and so on. It's a process of learning ─ a pin in our mental map here, another there, until connections suggest themselves, with later evidence needed to rebut them or make them persuasive. There's such a thing as >historical method<, of course.
Don't the gospels claim to report what the eyewitnesses witnessed?
There are no eyewitness reports anywhere in the NT. (There are visions of Jesus by Paul and others, but they're not reports of an historical Jesus.) The author of Luke begins (Luke 1:2), "... a narrative ... just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word ..." but he names none of them, attributes no particular part of his text to any of them, never gives or hints at a direct quote. Instead he builds his account on Mark's, not infrequently copying Mark word for word (as does the author of Matthew) but adding things he likes and omitting or altering things he doesn't like. The author of John (John 21:24) says "This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true" ─ but that's unlikely because John is written about 70 years after 30 CE (the usual date for the crucifixion) and doesn't name his source and anyway once again attributes no particular part to that alleged source and quotes none of the writings referred to.
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry if this is blunt, but your ignorance of the subject matter and your blind allegiance to both the Bible, and to highly questionable claims by Christian apologists whose paid job is to convince you that Christianity is true, is very worrying. But it is also very much par for the course among fundamentalist Christians. Thank you for the dialogue, it's been a while since I interacted with this material and it was a good reminder why I'm no longer a Christian.



Ah, I see now from the link you provided. So the citation is to a work by Ludemann in 1994. Do you know who Ludemann is? He is a NT scholar who started out a Christian, and eventually left Christianity because he realized over time how baseless the claims of the religion are. In 1999 he came out with a book called, "The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did," "in which he argued that only about five per cent of the sayings attributed to Jesus are genuine and the historical evidence does not support the claims of traditional Christianity." Gerd Lüdemann - Wikipedia

So the reference is out of date, and appears to have been disavowed by the very scholar who said it. Thanks for asking me to check the references, that was helpful. :)



Paul explains what the gospel is in 1 Cor 15: it's the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He says explicitly in Galatians that he received the gospel from direct revelation, not from any man. So yes, he may have been aware of the claims of Christians prior to his conversion, but what actually convinced him was not "historical evidence," but a vision of Jesus talking to him from heaven.



Again you misunderstand the burden of proof. It's on you, not me.



My whole point was that they provided no evidence to examine. If they had provided it, I would have examined it. But they didn't.



My comments were that these gentlemen aren't taken seriously outside of conservative Christian circles. This is true. Sorry to break it to you.



You do know that we don't know who wrote the Gospel of John, right? And that it appears to have gone through a couple of editors to get the version we have now, right? And that it was written decades after the Synoptics, which were written decades after the alleged events in question, right?



Sure. Compare Mark 1:1-11 and Matthew 3, as one obvious example (there are many).



Not my job. If you claim there was a virgin birth, it's your job to demonstrate it. For the 20th time.



LOL wait a minute. You think that a virgin claiming they supernaturally got empregnated by God isn't a fantastical story? That's totally mundane and expected, to you? What in the world does a fantastical story look like, to you?



You're just projecting because your evidence is poor. So you're shifting the burden of proof to me. Sorry, won't work.



I'm sorry, you think we do have access to a non-Markan source that informed Matthew? Where is it? Send me a link so I can read it.



If you can explain why John's unique content had to come from somewhere other than the author's head, please tell me.



For the 25th time. Justin Martyr is not a Jewish account. It's a Christian account of what one Jew said, maybe. That's not a Jewish account. And it's 100 years too late to be relevant.

The TY is centuries too late to be relevant.



The audience can be the judge of that, I suppose. I've responded to everything you've said, point by point, while you've ignored whole portions of what I said. I'll leave it to the reader to decide who's ignoring things.



I would strongly recommend that you do some peer-reviewed academic reading of Biblical studies literature and lay off the apologetics. Thanks again.
Sorry I do not think you are. I have provided you the wiki links that disagreed with your earlier statements here you seem to be shifting your story a little from them being only Christian apologists but this is still not the truth and simply your opinion over evidence provided that disagrees with you.

Sorry you cannot have it both ways. You cannot make claims and statements in regards to something not being true without showing evidence as to why something is not true. All you have provided is your opinion and no evidence for what you believe and have ignored evidence showing historicity from within Christianity and outside of Chrsitianity.

It is not contradictory at all. You have misinterpreted what the article was stating and why it was being stated in reference to bias. This is why the article was provided as it shows that it doesn't rely solely on the NT alone but examines both the scriptures for plausability and evidence inside and outside of Christianity to prove Historicity.

Nonsense! You made claims that were not questions but statements to which I responded; You were missing the point of why the debate between a Justin Martyr (Christian) and Trypho (Jew) on the resurrection was important. It provided evidence of the empty tomb which verifies the biblical historicity of the empty tomb. This was acknowledged by in the debate from Trypho (Jew) being a hostile source outside of Christianity (evidence 1) and the Toledot Yeshu (evidence 2) both Jewish sources which are both hostile sources outside of Christianity that acknowledge the empty tomb.

Not according to the biblical record and sources outside of Christianity that prove the historicity. Your statement here are only your words that do not have any evidence for your claims that do not believe the biblical record that most scholars acknowledge as true in this regards.

Well this is not true and reportable but I will let it slide for now as I guess some of the truths are hitting home to you.

As posted earlier that statement is made to establish that we do not need to have bias in relation to believing the NT in order to establish historicity. You still do not get it that it is not a contradiction.

Your response...

Where did I say that the book of ACTS is an eyewitness account of the resurrection? I said no such thing. That is you trying to say things I have never said seeking to build an argument that no one is arguing about. Acts was posted in relation to Pentecost and what was being preached in Jerusalem after the death and resurrection in support of the Historicity. It is a written record however of those who witnessed the event.

responded to with...

Your response...

What bible verses am I regurgitating here in this section of the conversation? The articles statement was true. Your not paying attention. This section of the article was written in relation to the truth of the empty tomb for which the JEWS could not deny which was building on the evidence already provided. As the JEWS were the ones who organised with the Romans the tombs security guarding the body of JESUS for which they could not deny. Now look at your statement here. Your comparing Christianity to all the sects around at the time which has nothing to do with what we are talking about and trying to compare it to Christianity that has not disappeared and now covers just about the whole world.

As posted earlier Scholars cannot agree as to the dates and there is many versions of the Toledot Yeshu (ספר תולדות ישו, The Book of the Generations/History/Life of Jesus) often abbreviated as Toledot Yeshu, is an early Jewish text taken to be an alternative biography of Jesus. It makes no difference when the document was made it is a historical manuscript that is hostile to Christianity in support of and acknowledges the emtpy tomb. The fact it the empty tomb is recorded in Jewish literature is a fact you cannot deny or disprove. The fact that independent Jewish literature holds these facts outside of Christianity is a verifiable fact independent of christianity and the scriptures that support the scriptures account of historicity.

As posted earlier it is you who is missing the point here not me. The debate between Justin Martyr (Christian) and Trypho (Jew) on the resurrection is evidence of the empty tomb which verifies the biblical historicity of the empty tome acknowledged by the Jews being a hostile source outside of Christianity. The rest of your post is simply speculation unsupported by evidence that you cannot prove.

Hope this helps

Learned a lot by reading the discussion between you two and now I'm even more confused as to who or what to believe. It's amazing that both sides can make decent arguments for their position which makes coming to the right conclusion almost impossible, so I guess I'm stuck, not knowing what to believe.
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
Even in the heights of science there's no escaping subjectivity and opinion. The aim is therefore simply to be as objective as possible, and consensus is a good part of that. Hence, for example, the ultimate arbiters of any conclusion of science in any particular field are the leading scientific experts in that field and of that day. For example, it was scientists who decided that if odds of being wrong were assessable, and were less than a million to one, the conclusion could be accepted as correct (= true); and this was the test which the Higgs boson passed in 2011-12, based on the known results of the LHC. At the same time, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory has been the dominant view since before WW2, but continues to draw debate and challenge within the scientific community, in a way that eg relativity does not. Likewise our understanding of gravity has been revisited (though so far not altered) in the search for answers to the questions known as 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'.
That makes me wonder what's the point in searching for any type of knowledge. If the facts keep changing and our methods are flawed in constant need of revision then why bother trying to learn anything when it's all up to faulty interpretation?

There are no eyewitness reports anywhere in the NT. (There are visions of Jesus by Paul and others, but they're not reports of an historical Jesus.) The author of Luke begins (Luke 1:2), "... a narrative ... just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word ..." but he names none of them, attributes no particular part of his text to any of them, never gives or hints at a direct quote. Instead he builds his account on Mark's, not infrequently copying Mark word for word (as does the author of Matthew) but adding things he likes and omitting or altering things he doesn't like. The author of John (John 21:24) says "This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true" ─ but that's unlikely because John is written about 70 years after 30 CE (the usual date for the crucifixion) and doesn't name his source and anyway once again attributes no particular part to that alleged source and quotes none of the writings referred to.
Is there historical consensus on this?
 

night912

Well-Known Member
How would one be able to identity Caesar's writings if we weren't there?
With multiple sources and compare them. His hand written signed letters.

I guess they do that to establish that there was an actual Jesus in the first place.
Or maybe so it appear as if there are a lot of evidence? But it doesn't matter, it gets dismiss because it's not relevant to the resurrection. This is why some people who don't understand what evidence means, would complain about not reading their so called evidence.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
what would say is the best argument a believer could use as evidence that the resurrection happened?
The only evidence would be if a believer actually witnessed Jesus rise from the dead after three days. Anything else is just what someone wrote, and should not be taken seriously, Imo. Anyone can write stories, but a story does not prove the story is true.
 
Top