Is this potential evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

[tas8831]

Does it matter to you? You going to accept Jesus if it does?

I'll take that as a "NO, there is no legitimate corroboration of the things claimed to have accompanied the crucifiction."

 

[tas8831]

The accounts of the resurrection are the best, most abundant testimonies of any ancient event!

Just missing any extra-biblical corroboration... Weird...

 

[BilliardsBall]

You're discounting the high probability that none of them was literate and could write. There are serious cultural reasons why we have no good reasons for apostolic authorship (other than Paul).


I studied under one of the members when I was in seminary, and attended seminars with another. The Seminar changed their opinion on that matter (admittedly, no one knows for sure when they were written).


It is a crap shoot. The best one can do is to "pick a camp" and work from that perspective. I choose the "later camp," which makes the most sense to me.

I'm not discounting that possibility, but most of the NT documents show a scribal helper(s), including Paul's.

The later your camp, the more likely that there are issues, since the countless people/places/things mentioned show either psychic ability (archaeology didn't exist yet) or early writing OR the "illiterates" were a lot more literate that you imagine.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It would be interesting to compare video of what happened on your wedding day to what you remember happening. Memory over that length of time is not especially reliable. And no, you really do not know very much about what Jesus's disciples said. Where did they say this? If you claim the Gospels you need to remember that those were not eyewitness accounts and were written about 40 years after the event at the earliest. Mark is heavily copied by Matthew and Luke which is the main reasons that those accounts agree with each other to the extent that they do. John may also have been affected by Mark. What you do not see are all of the Gospels that were declared not part of the canon. Many of those were purposefully destroyed. Some have survived and the stories are quite different. Oral tradition causes new versions to appear and it is all but impossible to judge which ones are the "most accurate".

And please, I do not have a bias so much as a reasonable doubt since when examined the claims of the sort that you and other theists make tend to fail under scrutiny. "I remember" is a bout the worst evidence that there is. You may be rock solid sure, but when very often when facts are presented the memory is not reliable. The mind is very good at making up its own narrative. That is why eyewitness evidence is the least reliable of all legal sources of evidence. It is not the gold standard when it comes to evidence, it is the bottom of barrel of acceptable evidence.

1) Funnily enough, I have video of my wedding day and compare notes

2) The wedding is impactful, and I've told the stories over and again, refreshing them--that was my point, that I don't remember/care what I wore/ate/said two weeks prior

3) Now compare and contrast with "HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD!" and I tell everyone I meet, everywhere, for 40 years, the many wonderful things Jesus did

4) Now add "Look, a book of documents with hundreds of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled as I watched--remember what Isaiah said about the people in Naphtali? Or the prediction of Rachel weeping for Bethlehem's children? Or how ...

I agree with your true statement, "The mind is very good at making up its own narrative," however, we are talking about a dozen teams of NT authors.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's not a "shortened" last chapter. The shorter version is the original version. The longer version is the lengthened version.

And the original ending just describes an empty tomb. There are plenty of ways a tomb can be emptied without the corpse "rising from the grave."

Yes, now please address:

1) Who got the body past the guards (Roman guards under multiple penalities of death for dereliction of duty)?

2) Why wasn't the body produced to explain away the Christian heresy?

3) Etc. like "Who unsealed the tomb and moved the stone?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

In your dreams. Theologies concerning gods are not actual events, but I'm sure you know that much.

Not in my dreams, across multiple documents written by multiple teams of authors, confirming multiple prophecies, while citing multiple historical details and multiple testimonies.

I have a 2,000-page collection of 66 documents testifying to the Christ. You have "dreams", that is, just-so stories.

Give me some counter-evidence from ancient documents, perhaps? Oh, right, none exist!

 

[BilliardsBall]

The ordinary Jew of Mark was unable to do magic until after God adopted him. And he never became a descendant of David. He's also the most sad, forsaken, defeated Jesus on the cross, the most human.

The evidence for the resurrection is, as you know, a forensic catastrophe, not credible at any level.

As for being well attested, no, the Flood is vastly better attested, in Mesopotamia going back at least a thousand years before Yahweh was invented, and also found in stories in Canaan, Greece, Rome, Armenia and so on. And of course that never happened either.

What was the ordinary man of Mark crucified?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Just missing any extra-biblical corroboration... Weird...

Not so! There are multiple apocrypha, multiple points of corroboration in the anti-Christian Talmud, and multiple ancient Jewish and Roman scholars who comment on the Christian phenomenon.

And without the above, saying "missing any extra-biblical corroboration" is denying "12 teams of authors gave us the New Testament". It's silly to say "Only 12 parties wrote large documents about this phenomenon, so I cannot accept any of what they wrote as historically significant."

Do we have 12 ancient sources for the life of Julius Caesar, for example? That's a contemporaneous event...

 

[blü 2]

What was the ordinary man of Mark crucified?

As the only one of the five principal Jesuses of the NT who became the son of God in accordance with Jewish, rather than Greek, traditions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, now please address:

1) Who got the body past the guards (Roman guards under multiple penalities of death for dereliction of duty)?

Were there guards? Mark doesn't mention them. That detail doesn't show up until the later versions of the story.

2) Why wasn't the body produced to explain away the Christian heresy?

Why would you think that the Romans would see the need to do this for an inconsequential cult?

BTW: it seems like you're suggesting that if Jesus wasn't miraculously wooshed into Heaven, the Romans would have had possession of his body. Care to unpack the basketful of assumptions packed into this?

3) Etc. like "Who unsealed the tomb and moved the stone?"

Mark implies that the stone wasn't that heavy.

In that version of the story, the empty tomb is discovered when Mary and Salome go to anoint Jesus's body; this implies that they expected that it was light enough that it could be moved easily enough by two women... otherwise, the premise of the story doesn't work.

 

[Spartan]

I'll take that as a "NO, there is no legitimate corroboration of the things claimed to have accompanied the crucifiction."

You err if you do that. Here's one you shouldn't overlook: Documenting A Miracle

 

[Spartan]

Hahaha. By parroting, you mean copying the same thing as someone who said it before you did. Humm. Let's go back to memory lane, you copy and paste your arguments from what you found on the internet and just keep repeating it with no thoughts of your own. Basically you copy and paste them in an outline format. And when I use critical thinking and present counter arguments to yours, it throws you off because they're not the same ones that are on the site that you got your information from. So of course you lacking any kind of critical thinking skills and being ignorant of the majority of the stuff on your parroting outline, you run away without addressing my points. So having only the parroting skills of copy and paste, anything that is thrown at you that deviates from the original preset outline you got from the internet, you basically just ignore it and run away.



Hahaha. Only fools like yourself would cherry pick a verse like that to try and draw away your foolishness and put it on others. The funny thing about that is because you're ignorant of its meaning. Don't get me wrong, it's a good verse, if you understand its meaning. That's exactly, why I answered your arguments with my own counter arguments providing evidence to support them. Instead of using ad hominem and being a fool like you, I responded by actually explaining as to why your responses were foolish. And I'll provide a verse from proverbs 26 as well. It's the following verse, proverbs 26:5. If you weren't so ignorant of the meaning, you would have realize that those two verses are meant to compliment one another.

"Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."

I'll explain It to you in modern terms. It means to call out a fool telling him why he is a fool. The reason is so that the fool knows why and realize that his words are not the words of wisdom. Don't deceive yourself and others as if you are wise. Now you see the difference that when a fool such as yourself, who's ignorant of their meaning only use the first verse, you end up showing that you are the fool for still having this discussion and only spitting out silly assertions about me.

Here's another good quote for you since that's what you've been doing.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Flush. Don't bother me with your follies.

 

[Spartan]

Thanks for that.

However, our topic was your approach to, and attributions of, 'theological ignorance' ─ where, I was suggesting, care might benefit you.

You're too kind. Good luck to you.

 

[Audie]

Were there guards? Mark doesn't mention them. That detail doesn't show up until the later versions of the story.


Why would you think that the Romans would see the need to do this for an inconsequential cult?

BTW: it seems like you're suggesting that if Jesus wasn't miraculously wooshed into Heaven, the Romans would have had possession of his body. Care to unpack the basketful of assumptions packed into this?


Mark implies that the stone wasn't that heavy.

In that version of the story, the empty tomb is discovered when Mary and Salome go to anoint Jesus's body; this implies that they expected that it was light enough that it could be moved easily enough by two women... otherwise, the premise of the story doesn't work.

Having heavy spikes driven through wrists and ankles would
pretty much guarantee death, even if a person were to be
"rescued".
Guards? I doubt it.
Plus the habit was to leave corpses up on display.
Not much point in that kind of execution otherwise.

 

[Audie]

Flush. Don't bother me with your follies.

Was that a Christian Charm school, or a secular one?

 

[Audie]

You err if you do that. Here's one you shouldn't overlook: Documenting A Miracle

In fewer words, and to better effect-

If it is a Miracle, any sort of evidence will answer, but if it is a Fact, proof is necessary

Mark Twain

 

[Spartan]

Was that a Christian Charm school, or a secular one?

Look who's talking.

 

[tas8831]

You err if you do that. Here's one you shouldn't overlook: Documenting A Miracle

You're serious?

"Apparently at one time there were historical accounts of the strange darkness that came over the land that were kept in the official archives of Tiberius Caesar, though they are likely lost to history."

So... this darkness can only be 'found' in 2 or 3 dubious sources, yet it totally happened.

Did just the area of the crucifiction experience this darkness?

That seems.... impossible.

Why no mentions of it in ANY writings of ANYONE not associated, in some way, with the bible stories? And why no independent verification?

Sorry - this does not come close to passing muster.

Here is one of many reasons I do not believe tales of "miracles" - if the modern-day religionists will embellish to the point of lying to claim miracles, what can we expect of Bronze Age numerologists, whose tall tales had virtually no chance of receiving skeptical examination ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

1) Funnily enough, I have video of my wedding day and compare notes

2) The wedding is impactful, and I've told the stories over and again, refreshing them--that was my point, that I don't remember/care what I wore/ate/said two weeks prior

3) Now compare and contrast with "HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD!" and I tell everyone I meet, everywhere, for 40 years, the many wonderful things Jesus did

4) Now add "Look, a book of documents with hundreds of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled as I watched--remember what Isaiah said about the people in Naphtali? Or the prediction of Rachel weeping for Bethlehem's children? Or how ...

I agree with your true statement, "The mind is very good at making up its own narrative," however, we are talking about a dozen teams of NT authors.

Do you not see how that is different? You probably have watched that video several times. It corrects errors before they become set. Your analogy fails because you had a correcting mechanism. That was not the case with the stories about Jesus.

What often happens in a case like your wedding when there is no way to correct the changes that naturally occur is that a person's memories change. If he runs into someone else from the same event 40 years later the memories of "what happened" are often quite different.

 

[Audie]

Look who's talking.

Pointing fingers doth not make thine light shine brighter.