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. 3rdAngel

    3rdAngel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2019
    Messages:
    2,781
    Ratings:
    +178
    Religion:
    truth
    No problems blu, you are free to believe as you wish as am I as a believer. Though I do not believe we can ever know God by trying to seek him through worldly ways. It was the so called scholars of the day that crucified Jesus according to the scriptures while God revealed his word to humble fisherman. Nice talking to you :)
     
    #161 3rdAngel, Jan 6, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2020
  2. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,880
    Ratings:
    +3,977
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Thanks. Go well.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  3. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    9,860
    Ratings:
    +777
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    What I wrote was "Yes. Eyewitness accounts fill the NT and all 12 NT writers spoke of the resurrection. An apostle in NT times was one who saw the resurrected Christ and preached about that fact."

    An author can remain anonymous while claiming to be reporting an eyewitness account, yes?
     
  4. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,880
    Ratings:
    +3,977
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    That won't alter the fact that there's not a single eyewitness account of an historical Jesus in the bible, not even a purported one.

    If I'm wrong then all you have to do is cite a single eyewitness account of an historical Jesus in the NT. Not merely a report of someone else's alleged eyewitness account, of course ─ that would just be hearsay (at best). Instead, an account that reads along the lines of, "On the Wednesday before Passover, shortly after lunch, I was in the square near the Temple on the Wednesday before Passover talking to Arnold the Disciple, and I saw Jesus walk into the square from the south. He looked around, saw us and came over. He said to Arnold, "Hi, old buddy, can you stand me ten till payday?"

    Or as the case may be.
    That would be a deceit. Are you saying that the NT is deceitfully written?
     
  5. night912

    night912 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    1,161
    Ratings:
    +414
    Religion:
    Not religious
    Modern day scholars didn't accept them as being accurate until they did some research and used other resources to confirm those records. It's only after all of that, then it can be accepted. And keep in mind that not everything from those ancient books are accepted as being true, some parts are exaggeration and other remain as unconfirmed. Those records that were written centuries later are only use as a broad and generalized historical account of Julius Caesar's life. Those may have written documentations saying that he led a campaign in Gaul, but the important and detailed accounts of that war are his actual writings. Those are the ones that give us insights on how the war was fought.

    That's the whole point of examining them to confirm their authencity. So then we can use the parts that are confirm to be accurate as evidence to support he events of Jesus. Those parts that are inaccurate are dismissed until further information can be found to authenticate them. But the most important principle that should be follow, although a lot of people especially believers obviously, failed to do it, either by accidently and/or intentionally. That is to not use it as evidence. What they like to do is use the argument that the bible is not one source, that it's a collection of several books in one. And that's fine, but what they sneak in is use the whole as evidence. For example, they use the four gospels and called it evidence for one another, disguising them as being accurate consistent. I see some individuals do this. Those four should be broken down and use as evidence only for particular events of the story of Jesus. Say, all 4 of them have accounts concerning the crucifixion of Jesus, but only 3 out 4 of them talks about the resurrection. This is where breaking each of them into parts come to play. The one gospel that does not include the resurrection cannot be use as evidence. People tend to lack full understanding of what is considered as evidence. They think that any piece of information having referenced the topic can be use as evidence. Irrelevant information is not evidence for a claim. Example. The claim is "Jesus resurrected, leaving an empty tomb," so give information about the resurrection, don't be throwing in irrelevant information that's useless for the claim. Don't be providing information about his birth or early life. Those are useless junk in regards to the resurrection, and are automatically dismissed as garbage to the claim.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  6. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    9,860
    Ratings:
    +777
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    Your questions and comments are moot. We find a document from someone who pens a letter regarding their eyewitness account of the Vesuvius explosion from a small town a safe but visible distance from Pompeii... "Oh the horror! The gods have judged the ocean as a column of fire billows by day and smoke by night!"

    Scholars note the parchment dates to the period and has some traces of volcanic ash on it. Then they all reject it because the letter was unsigned! NOT.

    You should recall the Jews who wrote the NT were under threat of expulsion from Jewish religious and secular life and under threat of martyrdom from Rome. Stop this nonsense, please...
     
  7. night912

    night912 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    1,161
    Ratings:
    +414
    Religion:
    Not religious
    The letters are written by the eyewitness about what happened. But scholars don't accept everything in the letter to be accurate. Those parts concerning hi uncle.
     
  8. Jos

    Jos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,047
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Agnostic Theist
    OK I'll give it a read.
     
  9. Jos

    Jos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,047
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Agnostic Theist
    So none of the normal reasons used to establish the historicity of Jesus are good?

    What does Jtb mean?

    Maybe they spoke to eyewitnesses then? Isn't that at least a possibility?
     
  10. Jos

    Jos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,047
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Agnostic Theist
    You don't know that for sure. If the supernatural is real then it's quite possible for such experiences to be real, as for the rest of your post I don't disagree but what would say is the best argument a believer could use as evidence that the resurrection happened?
     
  11. Jos

    Jos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,047
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Agnostic Theist
    Yes they can but how would be able to evaluate whether such eyewitness accounts are trustworthy?
     
  12. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,880
    Ratings:
    +3,977
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    As I said, if you disagree, you simply have to point to an eyewitness account of an historical Jesus in the NT. Since you haven't done so, I repeat the invitation.
    You appear to be referring to Pliny the Elder's eyewitness notes on the destruction of Pompeii 79 CE. If you are, then I'm not aware of any reputable scholarship that disputes the making of those notes and their basic accuracy. So what's your point?
    Christianity began as a sect within Judaism, but by 100 CE was drawing away to form its own religion. I don't know what particular 'threat of expulsion' you have in mind, but the gospels seem to be proud of the stories of Jesus defying the Jewish religious establishment.

    They also explicitly say that Jesus from the beginning intended his mission to end in his death, which makes it rather silly to blame Judaism for the crucifixion ─ as Jesus Christ Superstar points out, in the stories Jesus uses Judas Iscariot, not the other way round.
    That's because they chose to step away from Judaism, which was exempt from the Roman Empire's obligations to paganism. And though there were undoubtedly cases where Christian leaders were publicly executed in the arena, we also have reports of Roman officials going out of their way to avoid having to kill anyone, and expressing dismay that Christians in large numbers were insisting on volunteering for martyrdom, since they believed it was a passport direct to heaven.
    You agree there are no eyewitness accounts of an historical Jesus in the NT, then? Or you're going to give us an unambiguous example from the NT? Either of those things will stop the nonsense.
     
  13. Jos

    Jos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,047
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Agnostic Theist
    How would one be able to identity Caesar's writings if we weren't there?

    I guess they do that to establish that there was an actual Jesus in the first place.
     
  14. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,880
    Ratings:
    +3,977
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    They can be applied to what we know. The trouble is that when this is done, and consideration given to the problems, my view is that there's so far no clincher either way ─ there may not have been an historical Jesus, or there may have been, in which case he little resembled any Jesus of the bible except perhaps Mark's in parts. Mark's is the only purported biography of an earthly Jesus that we have ─ the other three gospels are simply other writers' takes on how it ought to read instead. An historical Jesus isn't necessary to explain either Paul or the gospels (Mark again being the key), there's no external record of any historical Jesus anyway, and the NT accounts are manifestly unhistorical on a large number of matters.
    "John the Baptist" ─ apologies if I was unclear.
    Yes it is; but if there were such eyewitnesses, we have no record of what they said. And a great deal of the gospels is spent on maneuvering Jesus through "fulfillment of prophecy" tales (often out loud and proud) which lead to such absurdities as Jesus entering Jerusalem astride both a donkey and a colt (Matthew 21), and to the wholly unhistorical, not to say silly, tales in Matthew and Luke about Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, the Massacre of the Innocents, the Flight into Egypt and so on.
     
  15. Jos

    Jos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,047
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Agnostic Theist
    Interesting... you keep saying "in my view" or "this is the way I see it" (I'm paraphrasing) so my question now is: is this all that history is, just people looking at the facts and drawing there own individual conclusions, thus making it subjective and not objective?

    Ok understood.

    Don't the gospels claim to report what the eyewitnesses witnessed?
     
  16. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,880
    Ratings:
    +3,977
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Even in the heights of science there's no escaping subjectivity and opinion. The aim is therefore simply to be as objective as possible, and consensus is a good part of that. Hence, for example, the ultimate arbiters of any conclusion of science in any particular field are the leading scientific experts in that field and of that day. For example, it was scientists who decided that if odds of being wrong were assessable, and were less than a million to one, the conclusion could be accepted as correct (= true); and this was the test which the Higgs boson passed in 2011-12, based on the known results of the LHC. At the same time, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory has been the dominant view since before WW2, but continues to draw debate and challenge within the scientific community, in a way that eg relativity does not. Likewise our understanding of gravity has been revisited (though so far not altered) in the search for answers to the questions known as 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'.

    Compared to history, though, scientists have it cushy, not least because the subject of history is humans, and the when, where, how and what for of humans. In many cases the evidence is a single artifact, a single word in a report, a single fossil bone or footprint, and so on. It's a process of learning ─ a pin in our mental map here, another there, until connections suggest themselves, with later evidence needed to rebut them or make them persuasive. There's such a thing as >historical method<, of course.
    There are no eyewitness reports anywhere in the NT. (There are visions of Jesus by Paul and others, but they're not reports of an historical Jesus.) The author of Luke begins (Luke 1:2), "... a narrative ... just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word ..." but he names none of them, attributes no particular part of his text to any of them, never gives or hints at a direct quote. Instead he builds his account on Mark's, not infrequently copying Mark word for word (as does the author of Matthew) but adding things he likes and omitting or altering things he doesn't like. The author of John (John 21:24) says "This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true" ─ but that's unlikely because John is written about 70 years after 30 CE (the usual date for the crucifixion) and doesn't name his source and anyway once again attributes no particular part to that alleged source and quotes none of the writings referred to.
     
  17. Jos

    Jos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,047
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Agnostic Theist
    Learned a lot by reading the discussion between you two and now I'm even more confused as to who or what to believe. It's amazing that both sides can make decent arguments for their position which makes coming to the right conclusion almost impossible, so I guess I'm stuck, not knowing what to believe.
     
  18. Jos

    Jos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,047
    Ratings:
    +167
    Religion:
    Agnostic Theist
    That makes me wonder what's the point in searching for any type of knowledge. If the facts keep changing and our methods are flawed in constant need of revision then why bother trying to learn anything when it's all up to faulty interpretation?

    Is there historical consensus on this?
     
  19. night912

    night912 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    1,161
    Ratings:
    +414
    Religion:
    Not religious
    With multiple sources and compare them. His hand written signed letters.

    Or maybe so it appear as if there are a lot of evidence? But it doesn't matter, it gets dismiss because it's not relevant to the resurrection. This is why some people who don't understand what evidence means, would complain about not reading their so called evidence.
     
    #179 night912, Jan 7, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2020
  20. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    18,469
    Ratings:
    +4,677
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    The only evidence would be if a believer actually witnessed Jesus rise from the dead after three days. Anything else is just what someone wrote, and should not be taken seriously, Imo. Anyone can write stories, but a story does not prove the story is true.
     
Loading...