Is this potential evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

[BilliardsBall]

Now you come back with yet another commonly held religious belief. Do you have a single original thought in your head, it doesn't appear so?

It's not "a common religious belief," for one example, that there are ZERO counter-documents against the NT and apocrypha, rather, that is an observable fact.

If you continue to disagree, please name a counter-document you are aware of from that period.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hard to say exactly what the apostles did. And I doubt if you talked about your wedding day every day. If so you would be one rather boring conversationalist.

It's hard to say if the apostles preached Christ frequently? Did you get that from reading the NT, in which, they CONSTANTLY preach Christ via the written word?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's hard to say if the apostles preached Christ frequently? Did you get that from reading the NT, in which, they CONSTANTLY preach Christ via the written word?

Did they? Some of them did., and that is using the NT, a rather biased source. Most were not heard of after the crucifixion.

 

[blü 2]

So why was the "ordinary" Jesus in Mark crucified?

From the start, his mission was intended to end in his own death. See for example Mark 2:20, and of course the 'Let this cup' speech where he declines to avoid the end.

What was the claim He made in Mark, the reason the Pharisees/Saducees put him to death via Rome?

I assume you mean Mark 14:61-62? He should have made it clear can only claim to be the adopted son, of course.

Yes, but textual criticism is not an exacting form. I do it personally for annual English conferences, where I co-chair several panels.

You think that ascribing what, when, who, why to ancient documents is not exacting? Might I suggest you tighten your technique to conform with reasoned enquiry, not least historical method? Apologetics should never raise its ugly head in such matters.

 

[Jos]

Sorry I haven't been responding but I've come to the conclusion that the answer to this question is inconclusive and that it makes no sense for me to continue discussing it but thanks to all the participants for your contributions, I learned a lot.

 

[Audie]

Just saying what Matthew's account says. If it's accurate, my thesis stands. That's not to say that the account is historically accurate. We just don't know.

An awful lot is totally inaccurste in the book, lots
that is fractionally accurate.

Id not trust anything in such a book without outside verification.

 

[sojourner]

An awful lot is totally inaccurste in the book, lots
that is fractionally accurate.

Id not trust anything in such a book without outside verification.

Well, that’s why I said that the Gospels aren’t history; they’re mythic.

 

[lukethethird]

It's not "a common religious belief," for one example, that there are ZERO counter-documents against the NT and apocrypha, rather, that is an observable fact.

If you continue to disagree, please name a counter-document you are aware of from that period.

You can read about non believers in the NT itself.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm not really a believer but one question that's really intriguing and could potentially be evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is the fact that doubting Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection but upon touching Jesus' wounds he became a believer in the resurrection. Now assuming the story is true, unless someone can provide reason to doubt that Thomas existed or reason to doubt that he was skeptical of the resurrection even if he did exist, wouldn't the fact that Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection but then became a believer in the resurrection be potential evidence for the resurrection?

Well if you're reading the story of doubting Thomas from the Bible, then you best be starting with the question if the Bible itself can be relied upon and trusted enough to tell the truth in the first place?

I don't believe any book that just comes out of the blue with no authorship or an accurate historical foundation to go on.

With the Bible it just isn't there.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Did they? Some of them did., and that is using the NT, a rather biased source. Most were not heard of after the crucifixion.

I see, what documents/sources would you like me to use to understand or make an educated guess about what the early followers of Jesus did or didn't do, besides the NT/apocrypha? For example, there is no NT passage of any length where the gospel resurrection of Jesus isn't preached. Should we:

1) Go ahead and say "Yes, like someone retelling a wedding story/favorite story, they constantly anchored the details of Jesus for posterity"? ...or

2) The NT is wholly unreliable, so saying every page in the NT that they preached, we can assume they never preached, and the thousands of converts across the Roman world came from another source?

 

[BilliardsBall]

From the start, his mission was intended to end in his own death. See for example Mark 2:20, and of course the 'Let this cup' speech where he declines to avoid the end.
I assume you mean Mark 14:61-62? He should have made it clear can only claim to be the adopted son, of course.
You think that ascribing what, when, who, why to ancient documents is not exacting? Might I suggest you tighten your technique to conform with reasoned enquiry, not least historical method? Apologetics should never raise its ugly head in such matters.

It's not exacting, it's subjective. You can likely find one scholarly detractor for every textual biblical theory in existence, even removing all conservative/religious scholars!

PS. Mark 14 alludes to the Messiah of Daniel, and was understood to be plain claim of Messiahship and GODHEAD.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You can read about non believers in the NT itself.

The honest Bible writers reported on skeptics. We have skeptics now and then. But a gospel or epistle recounting a resurrection and a dozen miracles of Jesus, with a half-verse about contemporary skeptics, is not a counter-document.

By counter-document, I don't mean "Some who saw His miracles or heard His teaching disbelieved when we reported we'd seen the risen Christ," a natural response for anyone, really, but a true counter-document, "I lived in Jerusalem at the time and Jesus did NOT reprove the Pharisees, heal a blind man, preach to thousands, etc., etc., etc., etc. as reported/preached".

 

[lukethethird]

The honest Bible writers reported on skeptics. We have skeptics now and then. But a gospel or epistle recounting a resurrection and a dozen miracles of Jesus, with a half-verse about contemporary skeptics, is not a counter-document.

By counter-document, I don't mean "Some who saw His miracles or heard His teaching disbelieved when we reported we'd seen the risen Christ," a natural response for anyone, really, but a true counter-document, "I lived in Jerusalem at the time and Jesus did NOT reprove the Pharisees, heal a blind man, preach to thousands, etc., etc., etc., etc. as reported/preached".

No one at the time said it did happen, so how do you expect there to be a counter argument?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see, what documents/sources would you like me to use to understand or make an educated guess about what the early followers of Jesus did or didn't do, besides the NT/apocrypha? For example, there is no NT passage of any length where the gospel resurrection of Jesus isn't preached. Should we:

1) Go ahead and say "Yes, like someone retelling a wedding story/favorite story, they constantly anchored the details of Jesus for posterity"? ...or

2) The NT is wholly unreliable, so saying every page in the NT that they preached, we can assume they never preached, and the thousands of converts across the Roman world came from another source?

There are very few documents even within the church on what the apostles did after Jesus died. A couple definitely preached, but you tried to claim all, and that was a claim that tells us you are unaware of your own religion.

 

[blü 2]

It's not exacting, it's subjective. You can likely find one scholarly detractor for every textual biblical theory in existence, even removing all conservative/religious scholars!

And you can find scholars who care about the what, where, when, who and why of ancient documents, and others who care instead about apologetics. But either way, historical method calls for informed opinion, as you say, and in many places, because of the scantiness of direct evidence, must work with surmises. However, this is done expressly, and as with all reasoned enquiry is open to informed dispute.

PS. Mark 14 alludes to the Messiah of Daniel, and was understood to be plain claim of Messiahship and GODHEAD.

Please cite the passages you rely on for that conclusion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No one at the time said it did happen, so how do you expect there to be a counter argument?

If you accept the latest, most liberal possible dates, for say, the four gospels (70-80 AD), you have local readers with living memory of the alleged ministry of Jesus (30-33 AD). Where are the counter documents? I know there were a lot of JEWISH CONVERTS who could have relied on living memory to COUNTER the truth claims of the NT!

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are very few documents even within the church on what the apostles did after Jesus died. A couple definitely preached, but you tried to claim all, and that was a claim that tells us you are unaware of your own religion.

Huh? 23 of the 27 NT books are after Jesus died (not the 4 gospels), plus there are apocrypha, and accepting late liberal dates (post-70 AD) we have living witnesses who refused to counter-claim the alleged events of 30-33 AD (many converts in Israel).

 

[BilliardsBall]

And you can find scholars who care about the what, where, when, who and why of ancient documents, and others who care instead about apologetics. But either way, historical method calls for informed opinion, as you say, and in many places, because of the scantiness of direct evidence, must work with surmises. However, this is done expressly, and as with all reasoned enquiry is open to informed dispute.
Please cite the passages you rely on for that conclusion.

I expressly tell when I make an apologetics surmise or when I'm evidence-based, also, of course...

Please confer Mark 14:61-62 - “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

with Daniel 7: I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

 

[joelr]

The honest Bible writers reported on skeptics. We have skeptics now and then. But a gospel or epistle recounting a resurrection and a dozen miracles of Jesus, with a half-verse about contemporary skeptics, is not a counter-document.

By counter-document, I don't mean "Some who saw His miracles or heard His teaching disbelieved when we reported we'd seen the risen Christ," a natural response for anyone, really, but a true counter-document, "I lived in Jerusalem at the time and Jesus did NOT reprove the Pharisees, heal a blind man, preach to thousands, etc., etc., etc., etc. as reported/preached".

In Pagels book The Gnostic Gospels there are many accounts of Gnostic christians calling what the bishops were teaching (similar to current orthadox) as heretical and false.

"He denounces as especially "full of blasphemy" a famous gospel called the Gospel of Truth. Is Irenaeus referring to the same Gospel of Truth discovered at Nag Hammadi' Quispel and his collaborators, who first published the Gospel of Truth, argued that he is; one of their critics maintains that the opening line (which begins "The gospel of truth") is not a title. But Irenaeus does use the same source as at least one of the texts discovered at Nag Hammadi--the Apocryphon (Secret Book) of John--as ammunition for his own attack on such "heresy." Fifty years later Hippolytus, a teacher in Rome, wrote another massive Refutation of All Heresies to "expose and refute the wicked blasphemy of the heretics."
This campaign against heresy involved an involuntary admission of its persuasive power; yet the bishops prevailed."
Excerpt from: The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels -- The Nag Hammadi Library


There was eventually a blackout period where all counter evidence was destroyed. Pagelas touches on this from the Gnostic perspective in an interview:
I would say that in the early Christian movement, many different groups claimed to have the best possible understanding of Jesus. And one of those groups which was widely consolidated and widely spread prevailed over the others. You can give it that kind of very negative read, and some of us may agree about that. But they were, from their point of view, trying to salvage the church as they saw it.

Q: Why was the church afraid of the Gnostic Gospels?

A: The people who disliked these other Gospels included leaders such as Bishop Athanasius, who was very much concerned about establishing his authority over all the monks in Egypt.

Q: And who ordered them burned?

A: Right. These books were treasured in one of the oldest monasteries in Egypt by monks who saw them as guides to spiritual development. There are monks today who see them that way, as well. But the bishop, who wanted authority consolidated in himself, told them, “Get rid of all those books. You don’t need all those books. All you need are the ones that I will mention now.” He mentions a list, which is our first list of the 27 books of the New Testament. He told them, “Get rid of your library, and just keep these.”

Q: Do you think that belief in Jesus as God has been overemphasized in Christianity?

A: I think it has. Christianity as we know it is almost defined as belief in Jesus as God. What we lose when we see it that way [are] many other perspectives. The Gospel of Mark doesn’t picture Jesus as God. The Gospel of Matthew doesn’t picture Jesus as God. Matthew pictures Jesus as a rabbi, as a new Moses who teaches the divine Torah — “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.” In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says to people, “Do not call me good. There’s only one who is good, and that is God.” The Gospel of Matthew does not suggest that Jesus is in any way God. It is a much more traditionally Jewish book which speaks about love of God and love of the neighbor as the essential devotion of any person.
October 10, 2003 ~ Elaine Pagels Extended Interview | October 10, 2003 | Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly | PBS

But Richard Carrier often mentions the "blackout" period were we have no information from detractors because this material was not allowed. The only reason the Nag Hamanndi fragments were found was because they were deeply hidden in a cave.
Once Rome took over counter examples were punished by death.

 

[lukethethird]

If you accept the latest, most liberal possible dates, for say, the four gospels (70-80 AD), you have local readers with living memory of the alleged ministry of Jesus (30-33 AD). Where are the counter documents? I know there were a lot of JEWISH CONVERTS who could have relied on living memory to COUNTER the truth claims of the NT!

Outside of the NT there are no non-Christian writings at all in the first century that make comment either way, so what do you know about Jewish converts?