1. 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!

Featured Is this potential evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Jos, Jan 2, 2020.

  1. Jos

    Jos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,048
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Agnostic Theist
    When I say debate, I mean the whole question of whether or not Jesus rose from the dead and given that there's are entire gospels written about it, it suggests that some people were at least questioning it as a possibility.

    Good point, I wonder about that too

    Isn't it the case that historical record keeping was done like that at that time period in history since they didn't have any other choice?
     
  2. Jos

    Jos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,048
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Agnostic Theist
    @3rdAngel you posted a lot of information, some of which seems to have been addressed but thanks anyway it's all enlightening.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  3. Jos

    Jos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,048
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Agnostic Theist
    Well I would think that since they are scholars that they would be have all the proper information and expertise to be in the best position to make a judgement as to whether or not he existed also it wouldn't be difficult to grant the existence of a first century doomsday Jewish rabbi since they were pretty frequent in number at that time, or so I've heard anyway.

    Do you say this primarily because the Gospels are anonymous in authorship?
     
  4. Jos

    Jos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,048
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Agnostic Theist
    It was a hypothetical assumption, that's all.
     
  5. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    47,197
    Ratings:
    +11,115
    It sounds good.
    So long as you take into account possible biases, prejudices, loyalties, etc.
    Of course, this also goes for everyone, not merely scholars.
     
  6. 3rdAngel

    3rdAngel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2019
    Messages:
    2,781
    Ratings:
    +178
    Religion:
    truth
    Your welcome. Actually none of it was addressed it was simply ignored by someone repeating themselves stating their opinions over fact who cannot disprove the historicity of the empty tome generally agreed to by most scholars as factual. Nice to meet you Jos :)
     
    #146 3rdAngel, Jan 5, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2020
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Jos

    Jos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,048
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Agnostic Theist
    Don't the gospels establish it?

    Good point, no disagreement here.

    True but the women were supposedly there to see him die, so wouldn't that be enough to prove that he died?

    Yeah he should Idk.

    Wouldn't the Gospels accounts count as evidence that he died?

    Hmmm, interesting theory.

    Apparently, according to some, a lot of records from that time were lost, o don't know if that's true or not but that's the explanation given by apologists.

    Lol

    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

    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 does seem to be the case.
     
  8. Jos

    Jos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,048
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Agnostic Theist
    Idk, that's a good question.
     
  9. Jos

    Jos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,048
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Agnostic Theist
    Yeah true.
     
  10. Jos

    Jos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,048
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Agnostic Theist
    Nice to meet you too but how would one go about proving where Jesus was buried or if he even was buried in the first place?
     
  11. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    47,197
    Ratings:
    +11,115
    Seems that half the universes population at the time knew where he was buried....
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. 3rdAngel

    3rdAngel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2019
    Messages:
    2,781
    Ratings:
    +178
    Religion:
    truth
    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.
     
    #152 3rdAngel, Jan 5, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2020
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,201
    Ratings:
    +4,260
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  14. 3rdAngel

    3rdAngel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2019
    Messages:
    2,781
    Ratings:
    +178
    Religion:
    truth
    This is partly true for 3 of the 4 gospels but not true for the gospel of JOHN who was a first hand eye witness and one of the 12 Apostles who was with JESUS the whole time during his ministry, before his death, during his death and burial and an eye witness to his resurrection and everything JESUS as well as being privy to many things that many of the other apostles were not in the life of JESUS. What is amzing though is the other three gospels all tell a similar though not exactly the same accounts as the gospel of JOHN.
     
    #154 3rdAngel, Jan 5, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2020
  15. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,201
    Ratings:
    +4,260
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    The claim in John is that the author got his information from an eyewitness. The alleged eyewitness is not identified, and no eyewitness account of any historical event is attributable to that person from the text. John is written about 100 CE, seventy years after the customary date for the crucifixion, and it seems highly unlikely that any part of John is based on eyewitness accounts; but whether any part is or not, that doesn't make the author of John an eyewitness, and it leaves us where we came in, with precisely zero eyewitness accounts, actual or claimed. (There are claims here and there to have had visions of Jesus, or to have seen Jesus' 'glory', and so on, but they're not eyewitness accounts of anything historical.)
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  16. 3rdAngel

    3rdAngel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2019
    Messages:
    2,781
    Ratings:
    +178
    Religion:
    truth
    Actually this is not true. JOHN was the eyewitness to all the above events. John was one of the 12 Apostles that was with JESUS during his life, death, burial and witnessed his resurrection. The fact that the gospel of JOHN was not written until around 100 CE is not relevant because unlike all the other APOSTLES, who lost their lives in persecution, JOHN lived to old age and was sent to Patmos island where he also wrote the book of Revelation and 1 JOHN. The facts remain he was the only eyewitness in all of the gospel accounts of the life of JESUS; what he said and did in his life, and the only eye witness to the death, burial and resurrection of JESUS within all gospels.
     
    #156 3rdAngel, Jan 5, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2020
  17. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,201
    Ratings:
    +4,260
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    The author of John makes no such claim. On what evidence do you base your statement?
    There's no evidence that whoever wrote John was a disciple at all. I'm not aware of any evidence that the disciple John lived to a great age ─ only traditions from centuries later. The John on Patmos who wrote Revelation is not identified with the apostle John in anything I've read. But if you can cite ancient records to the contrary, I'd be pleased to read them.
    There are no eyewitness accounts of the resurrection, not even accounts claimed to be. There are no contemporary accounts or independent accounts either, though a real resurrection would be as newsworthy back then as it would be now. Instead there are six biblical accounts each of which disagrees with the other five on major points.
     
  18. 3rdAngel

    3rdAngel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2019
    Messages:
    2,781
    Ratings:
    +178
    Religion:
    truth
    It is true that there is much debate between the scholars on this topic and as usual none of them agree so at the end of the day here for either side it is simply an argument from silence. Here is a general and simple overview here in wiki linked; and here linked; here. An overview is also provided in the new world encyclopedia here. Another article in Zondaman Academic simply claims there is not enough evidence to state either way that the gospel of John was or was not written by the Apostle John, although I persoanlly believe that the scriptures reference in the gospel of John to the apostle who JESUS loved is in reference to the Apostle John's writing of the gospel of John IMO.
     
    #158 3rdAngel, Jan 5, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2020
  19. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    20,069
    Ratings:
    +5,259
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    But nobody alive today had that experience so all we have are written accounts of people who said a tomb was empty and they saw Jesus walking around after that. Imo, these were just stories, nothing that ever happened. There is no logical reason to believe any of it happened, since they cannot be confirmed from any sources outside the NT. And even if there were outside sources confirming it happened, how could we verify that those sources were reliable?

    There are just so many problems with believing Jesus actually rose from the dead and no problems dismissing it, since there is no reason to believe it is true, except that it was written in a book.

    Anyone can write a novel but at least novelists are not trying to convince anyone the characters and events are real. I don't know why the gospel writers tried to make the stories sound as if they were real, but there is no way for us to know why now. However, this seems very dishonest to me.
     
  20. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,201
    Ratings:
    +4,260
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    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.
     
Loading...