Did Jesus Christ actually die?

[Skywalker]

But since the Bible wasn’t written by eyewitnesses to the event, what it says isn’t evidence or proof. It’s anecdote.

Hundreds of people saw Jesus after his resurrection: it's no fairy tale. Jesus fulfilled all of the numerous prophecies about the promised Savior, written in the Holy Scriptures centuries before his birth. God did that so you could intellectually know that Jesus is the one and only Son of God and that only He can forgive our sins.

 

[sojourner]

The book of Acts has details that line up with history. 84 Historical Facts In The Book Of Acts | Reasons for Jesus

So? Harry Potter has details that line up with history too. Doesn’t make the Harry Potter stories either factual or history.

 

[sojourner]

Hundreds of people saw Jesus after his resurrection: it's no fairy tale. Jesus fulfilled all of the numerous prophecies about the promised Savior, written in the Holy Scriptures centuries before his birth. God did that so you could intellectually know that Jesus is the one and only Son of God and that only He can forgive our sins.

No, the Bible story says that hundreds of people saw him. But the Bible wasn’t written by anyone who actually saw Jesus after his resurrection. So it cannot be factual reporting.

Additionally, Jesus didn’t fulfill the requirements for the Messiah.

 

[sojourner]

But it does mean what motives could the eyewitnesses have had for lying?

They didn’t have a motivation for lying. They were creating myth, not history. Rowling wasn’t “lying” when she wrote Harry Potter. She was writing fiction. There’s a difference. Theology and history are separate genres.

 

[sojourner]

Historians got in trouble for writing inaccurate information back then.

Again: false.

 

[Skywalker]

So? Harry Potter has details that line up with history too. Doesn’t make the Harry Potter stories either factual or history.

Harry Potter doesn't have historical proof that supports it. The people who saw Jesus after he rose again had nothing to gain by proclaiming the gospel. They could have recanted their faith in Jesus but they didn't. 7 Aspects of Jesus’s Life That Are Historically Certain | Reasons for Jesus

2. The disciples had experiences that led them to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead.
It may surprise you to discover that nearly all historians accept that the disciples had experiences that led them to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Nearly all scholars agree that something happened on the first Easter Sunday. But what happened is where they differ.

3. The disciples were transformed by their experiences to the point that they were willing to die for what they knew to be true.
People die for what is false all the time. Many individuals have fallen in a war for nations that did not have noble causes. However, it is far different when the person dies for something they know to be true or false. The early disciples were willing to lay their lives on the line, and the lives of those they loved, for what they knew to be true or false. They literally believed that Jesus had risen from the dead.

 

[Skywalker]

Again: false.

Why do you believe that historians weren't required to write down accurate information?

 

[rational experiences]

So, people say that Jesus Christ rose from the dead...

But if he rose from being supposedly "dead", was he ever really dead?

Surely by definition death is final?

I think whatever condition he was in was not death

I think he returned from a state that was medically similar to death

And that if It was truly death then he wouldn't have got up again!​

Is a man human alive to be quoted by another's human observation?

Yes. You have to be living to be observed.

Do humans own names,?

No we use names for human reasons.

Did Jesus a name exist?

No names aren't real.
Did Christ exist?

No names aren't real.

Does natural reality exist?

Yes and it was not named.

Humans lie as well as telling a truth. By a choice. Word coercing is how they lie. Sophism science the reason.

 

[Skywalker]

They didn’t have a motivation for lying. They were creating myth, not history. Rowling wasn’t “lying” when she wrote Harry Potter. She was writing fiction. There’s a difference. Theology and history are separate genres.

There is historical evidence that the world turned dark when Jesus was crucified. Roman Historian Thallus Mentions Darkness During Jesus’ Crucifixion | Reasons for Jesus

By Erik Manning| Skeptics tell us that one of the reasons we can’t trust the Gospels is because they make so many historical gaffes. In particular, the evangelists tell us of far-out tales that aren’t corroborated by other contemporary historians. One of those stories is the darkness that happened during Jesus’ crucifixion, according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Here’s Mark’s version:

“And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.” Mark 15:33, cf. Matthew 27:45, Luke 23:44

We know from history that historians like Pliny and Seneca have carefully described much less exciting events in the same kind of remote regions. But they failed to note an eclipse occurring in Judea. What’s up with that? Pliny the Elder wrote a whole book on natural history. How could he have missed this?

ARGUMENTS FROM SILENCE ARE NOTORIOUSLY WEAK
The first thing we need to note here is that this is an argument from silence. And arguing from silence is almost always a poor way to make your point.

In 79 AD, Herculaneum and Pompeii were destroyed by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. We learn about it from Pliny’s nephew, Pliny the Younger, and it wasn’t in any of his histories but in a letter to Tacitus. The eruption killed at least 16,000 and up to 60,000 people. No one draws from the silence of other historians that the event didn’t happen. We have plenty of archaeological evidence that it did.

 

[sojourner]

Harry Potter doesn't have historical proof that supports it.

Neither do the Resurrection accounts. Both contain details that are real, but the subject matter of both are not proven to be real. For example: Pilate was governor. And London has a railway station. But neither wizards nor resurrection are proven in either examples to be real.

Why do you believe that historians weren't required to write down accurate information?

1) History wasn’t written in that particular culture. It was recited.
2) their concept of history was not expected rely on factual reporting.
3) The gospels weren’t intended to be history.

 

[sojourner]

There is historical evidence that the world turned dark when Jesus was crucified.

There’s historical evidence that workhouses were extant in London. That doesn’t make A Christmas Carol history, and it doesn’t make Scrooge a historical figure.

 

[sojourner]

The people who saw Jesus after he rose again had nothing to gain by proclaiming the gospel.

The gospelers were not eyewitnesses to Jesus, either before or after the Resurrection.

 

[Skywalker]

Neither do the Resurrection accounts. Both contain details that are real, but the subject matter of both are not proven to be real. For example: Pilate was governor. And London has a railway station. But neither wizards nor resurrection are proven in either examples to be real.


1) History wasn’t written in that particular culture. It was recited.
2) their concept of history was not expected rely on factual reporting.
3) The gospels weren’t intended to be history.

The difference is that there is historical evidence for the resurrection account. Historians in those times had to be accurate. 12 Historical Facts About The Resurrection Of Jesus Most Scholars Agree Upon | Reasons for Jesus

By James Bishop| When the historian wishes to learn about the life and ministry of Jesus he evaluates the primary sources (the gospels, Pauline epistles, and the rest of the New Testament) using what is known as the Criterion of Authenticity. Through this process the historian may come to the conclusion that the gospel accounts are generally reliable when they report on the deeds and sayings of Jesus.

This process assigns probability to the deeds and sayings of Jesus, and, of course, the greater the probability the more confident we can be in an alleged saying or event. There are several aspects to this criteria that scholars routinely apply in their professional work. These are identified as multiple attestation, dissimilarity to Christian teaching, linguistic semitisms, traces of Palestinian milieu, retention of embarrassing material, coherence with other authentic material, and so on.

This method is aimed at affirming sufficient, not necessary, conditions of historicity. In other words, we could grant that a saying of Jesus is both multiply attested and dissimilar but not embarrassing. However, if the historian were to grant embarrassment as a necessary condition of authenticity for Jesus’ saying then it would have to be seen as inauthentic.

Yet that would obviously be the wrong approach since both multiple attestation and dissimilarity would be quite sufficient for affirming authenticity. The criteria is not infallible and can be mistaken, however, it remains, that they can be generally accepted as indications of authenticity.

Criteria for historical reliability
Philosopher William Lane Craig outlines several criterion than can be used to establish the likelihood of a specific event (S) ascribed to Jesus (1):

(1) Historical congruence: S fits in with known historical facts concerning the context in which S is said to have occurred.

(2) Independent, early attestation: S appears in multiple sources which are near to the time at which S is alleged to have occurred and which depend neither upon each other nor a common source.

(3) Embarrassment: S is awkward or counter-productive for the persons who serve as the source of information for S.

(4) Dissimilarity: S is unlike antecedent Jewish thought-forms and/or unlike subsequent Christian thought-forms.

(5) Semitisms: traces in the narrative of Aramaic or Hebrew linguistic forms.

(6) Coherence: S is consistent with already established facts about Jesus.

If a saying/event of Jesus can pass one or more of these criteria then one may be in a good position to affirm its historicity. We should keep in mind that this list does not presuppose the general reliability of the gospels, nor the inspiration of the New Testament. Instead they focus on a particular saying/event and give reason for thinking that a specific aspect of Jesus’ life is historical independent of the general reliability of the document.

 

[Skywalker]

The gospelers were not eyewitnesses to Jesus, either before or after the Resurrection.

The followers of Jesus were eyewitnesses to Jesus after the Resurrection. 10 Reasons To Accept The Resurrection Of Jesus As A Fact | Reasons for Jesus

1) The First Eyewitnesses were Women

The first eyewitnesses of the resurrection were women. All the Gospels note that the first individuals to discover the tomb empty were women. Matthew notes that “After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to view the tomb…The angel told the women, ‘Don’t be afraid, because I know you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here. For he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the play where he lay” (Matthew 28:1, 5-6).[1]

Women were not held in high esteem. In Greco-Roman culture, a woman’s testimony was not admissible in court. In Jewish circles, it took the testimony of two women to equate that of one man. If one were to invent a story, the last people one would place as the first witnesses would have been women, unless it were otherwise true.

 

[Skywalker]

There’s historical evidence that workhouses were extant in London. That doesn’t make A Christmas Carol history, and it doesn’t make Scrooge a historical figure.

There is no historical evidence supporting the events of the Christmas Carol. There was no reason for Pliny or Seneca to report the Eclipse. Roman Historian Thallus Mentions Darkness During Jesus’ Crucifixion | Reasons for Jesus

WHY WOULD PLINY OR SENECA REPORT THE ECLIPSE?
Neither Pliny nor Seneca lived in Judea or near Judea during the time of Jesus. We’re not even sure that the darkness was due to a solar eclipse, it could have been some other natural or supernatural occurrence. Furthermore, while Pliny does write in great detail about other natural events, he doesn’t go into detail about eclipses. There’s a one-sentence ‘chapter’ on the topic in Natural History 2.30. Here it is:

“Unusually long, portentious eclipses of the sun also take place, as when Caesar the dictator was slain; and in the war against Antony, the sun remained dim for nearly a year.”

This isn’t what you’d call a full history of strange periods of darkness throughout the Roman Empire! The critics are overstating their case here.

 

[sojourner]

The difference is that there is historical evidence for the resurrection account.

Historians in those times had to be accurate

Repetition does not equal authoritative. See my previous post.

 

[Skywalker]

Neither do the Resurrection accounts. Both contain details that are real, but the subject matter of both are not proven to be real. For example: Pilate was governor. And London has a railway station. But neither wizards nor resurrection are proven in either examples to be real.


1) History wasn’t written in that particular culture. It was recited.
2) their concept of history was not expected rely on factual reporting.
3) The gospels weren’t intended to be history.

Not all history was recited. Historians view the gospels as historical documents. They are viewed as historical documents. How We Know The Gospels Are Reliable | Reasons for Jesus

The Gospels as Historical Sources
It is clear that almost all historians within New Testament studies and other relevant fields (i.e. Greco-Roman history, classical history etc.) hold that the gospels provide historical information that can be used to reconstruct objective history. To what degree they do will certainly differ depending on which historian one decides to ask.

However, that the gospels are devoid of historical value or that they are entirely legendary and mythical is a view no longer held within scholarship. Instead, the gospels are treated as valuable historical documents on the ministry of Christ. Scholar Bart Ehrman explains that,

“If historians want to know what Jesus said and did they are more or less constrained to use the New Testament Gospels as their principal sources. Let me emphasize that this is not for religious or theological reasons—for instance, that these and these alone can be trusted. It is for historical reasons, pure and simple” (2).

Biblical scholar Richard Burridge says that when the gospels are,

“judged by the criteria of the 1st century and I think they are pretty reliable documents. They share essentially the same story of Jesus’ public ministry, his teaching, his preaching, his activity, his healing and the events of the week leading to his death – and the fact that something very odd happened afterwards” (3).

Some of the reasons below will demonstrate why scholars have reasoned to these conclusions.

 

[sojourner]

There is no historical evidence supporting the events of the Christmas Carol

There is no historical evidence for the Resurrection.

 

[Skywalker]

Repetition does not equal authoritative. See my previous post.

What is questionable about the resurrection account? Do The Resurrection Stories Contradict In The Gospels? | Reasons for Jesus

By Erik Manning| The apostle Paul said that if Christ hasn’t risen, Christianity is a sham. (1 Corinthians 15:17) Many atheists agree and will happily point to the gospel accounts. Just how seriously should they take the claim of the resurrection? After all, aren’t the accounts riddled with contradictions? How can they possibly be trusted?

Historians don’t normally conclude that just because individual accounts have apparent contradictions that the event in question didn’t occur. But let’s allow that to pass for now. I think the majority of the discrepancies that critics bring up can be easily resolved. Here’s a list of four of the most popular contradictions in the resurrection account that skeptics like to point to.

#1. HOW MANY WOMEN WERE AT THE TOMB OF JESUS?
HOW MANY WOMEN CAME TO THE TOMB EASTER MORNING? WAS IT ONE, AS TOLD IN JOHN? TWO (MATTHEW)? THREE (MARK)? OR MORE (LUKE)?…

Atheist blogger Bob Seidensticker
LET’S LOOK AT THE TEXTS
“On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. She saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.” (John 20:1)

“After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to view the tomb.” (Matthew 28:1)

“When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they could go and anoint him.” (Mark 16:1)

“On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices they had prepared…Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them were telling the apostles these things.” (Luke 24:1,10)

Whoa there! On the face of it, you can see why skeptics would point to these passages to discredit the gospels. It seems like they can’t get their details straight. But are these accounts really so contradictory? Not really.

 

[sojourner]

Not all history was recited. Historians view the gospels as historical documents

They are historical documents because they are documents that were written in the past. But they are not documents intended as historical accounts. And any historian worth his salt knows that.