Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus died on the cross, that is absolutely certain. We already see in the Bible that the question was never whether Jesus really died, but whether he was really raised from the dead. The authors of the gospels themselves admit that they did not believe in the resurrection, they thought Jesus was now dead forever. Only after Jesus was raised and stood before them did they believe in it. For their unbelief they were even criticized by Jesus. There are many witnesses who saw the death of Jesus and many who saw him after he was raised from the dead. Paul is also a witness, he was a murderer of Christians and testifies to have seen Jesus alive years later after the crucifixion.

There are only claims of witnesses in the Bible. There is no eyewitness testimony. And read Paul. He never saw Jesus, he saw visions of Jesus. Not the same thing at all

When Paul claimed that there were hundreds that saw Jesus he was over 500 miles away from Jerusalem during a time when most people never got further than 50 miles from their birth place during their lifetimes. It is easy to say "go and see if I am telling the truth" since no one was going to take that long journey.

 

[Teritos]

There is no eyewitness testimony.

The author of the Gospel of John is an eyewitness. At the end of the Gospel, he introduces himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved. This disciple was present at the crucifixion.

And read Paul. He never saw Jesus, he saw visions of Jesus. Not the same thing at all

Nowhere is there any mention of a vision. Paul asked "Who are you, Lord?" And the person answered him "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting" It was real and it was Jesus, not a "vision".

 

[Subduction Zone]

The author of the Gospel of John is an eyewitness. At the end of the Gospel, he introduces himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved. This disciple was present at the crucifixion.

Nowhere is there any mention of a vision. Paul asked "Who are you Lord?" And the person answered him "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting" It was real and it was Jesus, not a "vision".

The scholars that have studied John disagree with you. And the proper phrase is "The authors of John were not eyewitnesses". It was written far too long after the fact for them to be eyewitnesses.

And yes, that Paul saw just a vision or hallucination or delusion is clear from context. Read the entire passage.

 

[Teritos]

The scholars that have studied John disagree with you. And the proper phrase is "The authors of John were not eyewitnesses".

Scholars have different opinions among themselves. You will always find a scholar who says something different. And as I said, I refer to the author of the Gospel of John who introduces himself at the end of the Gospel. The author knows himself better than you know him, don't you think? According to his own testimony, he was an eyewitness to the crucifixion and saw Jesus after the resurrection.

It was written far too long after the fact for them to be eyewitnesses.

The Gospel of John was written in 70 AD, probably earlier(Hendricks 2007, p. 147). It is not at all unlikely that an eyewitness to the crucifixion of Jesus is still alive at this time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scholars have different opinions among themselves. You will always find a scholar who says something different. And as I said, I refer to the author of the Gospel of John who introduces himself at the end of the Gospel. The author knows himself better than you know him, don't you think? According to his own testimony, he was an eyewitness to the crucifixion and saw Jesus after the resurrection.

Yes, but there is a clear consensus today. You need to remember that there is a difference between scholars and apologists. Apologists try to defend their beliefs no matter what. Scholars merely want to learn. If they are wrong a proper scholar has little trouble changing his mind. And you do not know who the author of John is. The name was attached to the book after the fact.

The Gospel of John was written in 70 AD, probably earlier(Hendricks 2007, p. 147). It is not at all unlikely that an eyewitness to the crucifixion of Jesus is still alive at this time.

No, no, no. Your supposed source is worthless since there is no name for what this source is nor link to it. A simple Wikipedia article beats a quote like that. It does link sources and has been checked and rechecked by others:

"John reached its final form around AD 90–110,[5] although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier.[6] Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions.[7][8] It most likely arose within a "Johannine community",[9][10] and as it is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.[11]"

Gospel of John - Wikipedia

 

[Teritos]

Yes, but there is a clear consensus today. You need to remember that there is a difference between scholars and apologists. Apologists try to defend their beliefs no matter what. Scholars merely want to learn. If they are wrong a proper scholar has little trouble changing his mind. And you do not know who the author of John is. The name was attached to the book after the fact.




No, no, no. Your supposed source is worthless since there is no name for what this source is nor link to it. A simple Wikipedia article beats a quote like that. It does link sources and has been checked and rechecked by others:

"John reached its final form around AD 90–110,[5] although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier.[6] Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions.[7][8] It most likely arose within a "Johannine community",[9][10] and as it is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.[11]"

Gospel of John - Wikipedia

I believe the author of the Gospel of John. If he himself says he is an eyewitness, then I believe him, no matter what anyone else says. I maintain that the author knows himself best.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe the author of the Gospel of John. If he himself says he is an eyewitness, then I believe him, no matter what anyone else says. I maintain that the author knows himself best.

That is a very poor reason to believe and it means that books like the Harry Potter series are factual. You are simply believing because you want to believe, not because your belief is valid.

 

[firedragon]

I believe the author of the Gospel of John. If he himself says he is an eyewitness, then I believe him, no matter what anyone else says. I maintain that the author knows himself best.

Where does the author of the Gospel of John say "he himself is an eye witness"?

 

[Teritos]

That is a very poor reason to believe and it means that books like the Harry Potter series are factual. You are simply believing because you want to believe, not because your belief is valid.

I don't believe that the author of Harry Potter claims that the events in the books are based on true events.

 

[Teritos]

Where does the author of the Gospel of John say "he himself is an eye witness"?

The author of the Gospel of John introduces himself at the end of the Gospel as the disciple whom Jesus loves, see John 21:24. This disciple was present at the crucifixion, see John 19:26.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe that the author of Harry Potter claims that the events in the books are based on true events.

You have it backwards. You do not know who the author of John is. You are basing it only on the book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The author of the Gospel of John introduces himself at the end of the Gospel as the disciple whom Jesus loves, see John 21:24. This disciple was present at the crucifixion, see John 19:26.

And why don't scholars take those verses seriously?

 

[Teritos]

You do not know who the author of John is.

Of course I know, he is the disciple whom Jesus loves.

And why don't scholars take those verses seriously?

There are certainly scholars who take these passages seriously. As I said, not all scholars have the same opinion.

 

[firedragon]

The author of the Gospel of John introduces himself at the end of the Gospel as the disciple whom Jesus loves,

No he doesnt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I know, he is the disciple whom Jesus loves.

That is just the claim. It is not the evidence.

There are certainly scholars who take these passages seriously. As I said, not all scholars have the same opinion.

Not very many. To be a scholar not only does one have to have the ability to understand a work and its history, one also needs to be honest. A rock hard believe is very very rarely an honest belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess Huckleberry Finn is history. It was clearly written by Huck.