• 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!

Is this potential evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

Jos

Well-Known Member
Yes, they're assumptions ─ axioms, if you like
Are axioms faith based assumptions?

We first meet Jesus in the letters of Paul, all written in the 50s CE. Paul says he never met an historical Jesus, only a visionary one. He says Jesus pre-existed in heaven, created the material universe (which in gnosticism, God, being pure remote spirit, would never do, casting Jesus as the gnostic demiurge) and mediates between God and man. As for his earthly bio, he was born of unspecified parents of the line of David, may or may not have had a brother James, had a ministry to the Jews teaching the end-times, had followers including one named Peter, initiated the Eucharist (a Greek idea), was 'handed over' to 'the rulers of the age' who crucified him for unstated reasons, a process which involved the Jewish leadership, and was physically buried. That's it.

Next is Mark. He's writing in the mid-70s, after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE). His Jesus is an ordinary Jew born without prophecies or annunciations, who doesn't become the son of God until John the Baptist baptizes him (washes him clean of sin). At that point the heavens open and God declares that he adopts Jesus as his son (on the model of God adopting David as his son in Psalm 2:7, a point made explicit in Acts 13:33). What follows is the only (purported) account of Jesus' earthly mission, those in Matthew, Luke and, more remotely, John, being based on it. Why might it not be an accurate bio? Because its episodes can be mapped onto the Tanakh, passages which the author likes to think of as messianic prophecy, through which he moves his principal character as he wishes. This suggests that at the least the author was not concerned with history but with story, and that he knew little or nothing about his principal character at all ─ perhaps excepting some sayings attributed to Jesus (though as Crossan shows, which if any were from the one original source can't be determined with any confidence), and perhaps excepting some anecdotes, perhaps the most curious being that Jesus with just the one exception, never mentions his mother except in scathing terms (Mark 3:31, Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40, Matthew 10:35, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast John 19:26).

Was there an historical Jesus? Perhaps, but if so we know very little about him. And the argument is there that no historical Jesus is necessary to account for the documents of the NT, since the author of Mark has devised a bio independently of history.
This is all very interesting but outside of Mark how is it possible for this entire story to be concocted without there being an actual Jesus on whom it's based?
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
I already told you, comparing it with other sources. What makes you think that it was common back then for people to fake each other's hand writting? I've never heard of that.
Sorry I miswrote, it's more like they wrote under the person's name and made them say whatever it is they wanted them to say.

Again, it's irrelevant to the resurrection. The of existence of Jesus and his resurrection are two separate issues. We're talking about the resurrection of Jesus here. It doesn't matter if there are detailed information about how long his birth process was or how much he weigh. That's not evidence for the resurrection. His existence is evidence for the resurrection. Evidences are pieces of information that support a claim. It validate that whatever is being claim is true. Any information that doesn't do that is irrelevant, therefore is disregarded because it's useless.
Ok fair enough, I was just telling you how the other side might view things though.
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
Yes. Using the wrong method will never get you to find what's is true. But by knowing what methods don't work, you eliminate the trial and error guesswork. This saves time that leads to learning new things. That's how we progress.
Yeah, I guess it's the only method one can really have in trying to attain truth.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
The author of Mark has Jesus "predict" the destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 13:2), so he's writing after 70 CE.

Nuts. It's called prophecy and Mark was written BEFORE 70 AD.

"John Wenham, in his book, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, puts the Gospel of Mark at 45 AD."

(Liberal) "John A. T. Robinson, put the Gospel of Mark also at 45 AD"

"F. F. Bruce, puts the Gospel of Mark in AD 64"

Early Dating for the Gospel according to Mark

You shouldn't late date the Gospels based on your anti-supernatural bias - in this case kicking prophecy to the curb.
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
Yes, stories convey experiences but the problem is that we do not know if the person(s) telling the stories actually had those experiences. In order to know if Jesus ever rose from the dead, we would need to have the experiences verified by external sources but that is impossible to do now.
What would an external source be? How would go about externally verifying something like that? Would it be externally verified if everyone had an experience with the risen Christ? Would that be enough external evidence?
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
You've been sold a bill of goods in thinking "most scholars" claim the Gospels are anonymous. From my review most conservative scholars affirm the traditional Gospel authors, and here are the evidences why: Early church Fathers UNANIMOUSLY confirm traditional Gospel authors -

Matthew

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel

Mark Authorship

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel

Luke Authorship

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel

John Authorship

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel
Look I don't know it for sure but that's what I've heard and again this goes to back my frustrations surrounding the facts of Jesus life, which is that everyone has their own set of facts which differs from other people's facts and it's all confusing and difficult to figure who has the correct details about his life.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Look I don't know it for sure but that's what I've heard

And now you've heard from ALL the early church fathers that the traditional Gospel authors wrote their Gospels. There's a ton of liberal Christ-deniers in these forums. They tend to base their late-dating of the Gospels to try to discredit the historical Jesus and because they tend to deny the supernatural - such as prophecy. The God of the Bible is supernatural. The liberals try to reduce him to be an impotent fairy tale. Don't trust the liberals and their revisionism of the Gospels and New Testament. I've got 40+ years of research on these issues and I'm giving it to you straight up.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Are axioms faith based assumptions?


This is all very interesting but outside of Mark how is it possible for this entire story to be concocted without there being an actual Jesus on whom it's based?

blu's theology is some of the worst stuff I've ever seen. You want the truth? Here's some recommended reading for you:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;

“The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,” by Dr. Craig Keener

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former SKEPTIC Josh McDowell

So do yourself a favor and read those. You'll have a good foundation of the historical facts once you do.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
What would an external source be? How would go about externally verifying something like that? Would it be externally verified if everyone had an experience with the risen Christ? Would that be enough external evidence?
An external source would be anything other than the NT.
The resurrection was not externally verified, and it is too late to do that now.
How do you think it would have been possible for everyone to have an experience with the risen Christ?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Are axioms faith based assumptions?
I wouldn't put it that way. The fact that we all share them suggests they're evolved aspects of human nature, indeed animal nature ─ even microorganisms respond appropriately to stimuli from external reality.
This is all very interesting but outside of Mark how is it possible for this entire story to be concocted without there being an actual Jesus on whom it's based?
There was, says Paul, a sect within Judaism featuring Jesus, and he'd persecuted them. If such a cult existed ─ and although we have no other record of them than from Paul, it seems reasonably likely ─ then it was apparently the source of some formal sayings or poems in Paul's letters (eg Romans 1:3-4, and the 'kenosis hymn', Philippians 2:5-11 ─ which rather weirdly says Jesus was not named Jesus until after his resurrection, and arguably raises a question, based on the scansion of the Greek, about whether he died by crucifixion or not). So it could have been the repository of stories and sayings about Jesus. Its existence wouldn't of itself affirm the existence of an historical Jesus because Paul himself, and the later authors, knew next to nothing of the earthly deeds of such a person. Hence the centrality of Mark to the whole issue.

If there was an historical Jesus, and if shadows of an historical Jesus can be found in the gospels, then the part of Jesus' ministry that mattered happened over only a year or so, meaning that this sect would have been very young at the crucifixion, usually said to be 30 CE. It was vigorous enough to have had a Roman branch by the time Paul wrote Romans, perhaps 55-58 CE.

(However, there's a possibility that it was older than that, going back to the last decades of the first century BCE, suggested by the Gabriel's Vision stone, which may refer to someone rising from the dead after three days, though there's no shortage of disputes. If it actually says that, it's another small straw on the scale for the no-historical Jesus argument.)
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Nuts. It's called prophecy and Mark was written BEFORE 70 AD.
Prophecy? No, there's not a single authenticated instance in the whole of history of supernatural foreknowledge. It's just a kind of magic ─ you'll recall the large role given to it in the Harry Potter books, By attributing prophecy to his hero, the author of Mark makes it clear he's writing after the event.
"John Wenham, in his book, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, puts the Gospel of Mark at 45 AD."

(Liberal) "John A. T. Robinson, put the Gospel of Mark also at 45 AD"

"F. F. Bruce, puts the Gospel of Mark in AD 64"

Early Dating for the Gospel according to Mark

You shouldn't late date the Gospels based on your anti-supernatural bias - in this case kicking prophecy to the curb.
What about dating Mark because it draws on a book that wasn't available till 75 CE?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
blu's theology is some of the worst stuff I've ever seen.
Please feel free to say that to my face and to present a reasoned case on whatever you disagree with.
You want the truth? Here's some recommended reading for you:

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former SKEPTIC Josh McDowell

So do yourself a favor and read those. You'll have a good foundation of the historical facts once you do.
I don't know Mr McDowell, but why would someone interested in the facts of history turn to an apologist like Habermas? The job of the apologist, as you know, is, like the defense attorney, to get his or her client, the denomination in question, off the hook; truth mustn't get in the way of the party line.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
What contemporary records of Jesus exist? I am being dead serious. Sources and links please.

I still seek harmony with you but I don't see you looking to further conversation.

When atheists protest that the 12 teams of NT authors aren't enough to serve as contemporary records (within 70 years of the events or less) I remind them the early apocrypha also serve as a record, plus we have Roman and secular Jewish historians who write about the Christ, His followers and there beliefs. How did you not know all this and need sources and links? I've mentioned these before!
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Not least because there was no such thing as the NT before the Council of Rome in 380 CE.

Meanwhile, the letters of Paul were unknown to Christians generally until the 2nd century, when supporters of Marcion made them public. Mark appears in the mid 70s, Matthew and Luke in the mid-80s, John and Acts around 100 CE. Their circulation was by hand-copy or word of mouth among the faithful; they weren't particularly public documents.
The author of Mark has Jesus "predict" the destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 13:2), so he's writing after 70 CE. The author of Matthew copies Mark but specifies the Temple (Matthew 24:2). And Luke 19:22 sets out a parallel passage.
It was theologian Ted Weeden who pointed out that the author of Mark based his account of the trial of Jesus on Josephus' trial of Jesus son of Ananias in Wars Bk 6 Ch. 5.3. You couldn't buy a copy of Wars till 75 CE or so.
First, I didn't say people in Jesus' day could read any of those documents. I simply referred to evidence of when they were written. See above.

Second, if there was an historical Jesus, one thing he didn't do was rise from the dead. As I've pointed out to you more than once previously, and in some detail, the "evidence" for the resurrection is a forensic disaster. If you've forgotten, just say so and I'll take you through it again.
What's a "secret kingdom", exactly? How can you tell whether something is a "secret kingdom" or not?

And as you doubtless know, it's the Son of Man who's going to return to administer the Kingdom ─ which as you also know is to happen within the lifetime of some of those present when Jesus spoke (Mark 9:1, Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27; and Mark 13:28-30 and Matthew 24:32-34). That appointment seems to have slipped Jesus' mind after he ascended, but although it's not hard to infer that Jesus and the Son of Man are the same entity, there's no unambiguous statement to that effect. (So you could eg argue that although the Kingdom is running a couple of millennia late. don't blame Jesus until you're sure that it's his department that has responsibility for that project.)

To paraphrase The Last Jedi, everything you wrote is remarkably wrong...

The problem is it seems closed-minded and deliberate on your part, for example, you seem wholly unaware of the secret kingdom of individuals who trusted Jesus for salvation but concealed their faith many times to avoid Roman or Jewish persecution or to follow the example of Jesus who told Pilate "not here for a military takeover but for a spiritual renewal".

**Not least because there was no such thing as the NT before the Council of Rome in 380 CE.**

Are you saying the NT documents were undistributed before then? That people didn't quote the NT documents or excerpt them as God's scripture before then? Of course not... you are simply using a term of convenience I work with "NT" and creating a straw man. What were the councils before 380 called for? To uphold, debate and discuss the teachings of WHAT TEXTS?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Wait are you saying that Luke actually wrote Luke? If that's the case, why is it that most scholars believe that the Gospels were written by anonymous writers?

I use LUKE to reference the 3rd book of the NT, you know, the way it's been done for millennia. I can, if you like, use 3rd4:16 to tell you Jesus loves you, but I think that's awkward!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I still seek harmony with you but I don't see you looking to further conversation.

When atheists protest that the 12 teams of NT authors aren't enough to serve as contemporary records (within 70 years of the events or less) I remind them the early apocrypha also serve as a record, plus we have Roman and secular Jewish historians who write about the Christ, His followers and there beliefs. How did you not know all this and need sources and links? I've mentioned these before!
Within seventy years is not contemporaneous.. It is not even close. If half of the Jesus stories were true one would expect at least some contemporaneous mention of him.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
you seem wholly unaware of the secret kingdom of individuals who trusted Jesus for salvation but concealed their faith many times to avoid Roman or Jewish persecution or to follow the example of Jesus who told Pilate "not here for a military takeover but for a spiritual renewal".
Indeed I don't know the expression "secret kingdom" in this context. What, where, when, who, and (as ever, above all) evidence?
Are you saying the NT documents were undistributed before then?
Obviously not, since I was mentioning dates associated with various documents which made the cut at the Council of Rome. But as you know, the NT itself includes pseudepigraphs ─ only seven of the letters attributed to Paul pass muster, Peter didn't write Peter, and so on; we have no idea who actually wrote any of the rest. We have no copies of the original versions of any. And even now, what are apocrypha to one church are orthodoxy to another.
What were the councils before 380 called for? To uphold, debate and discuss the teachings of WHAT TEXTS?
All the texts, the ones that were what they appeared to be, and many others, because until 380 there was no canon (and with Eastern Orthodoxy, not till the 7th century).
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Within seventy years is not contemporaneous.. It is not even close. If half of the Jesus stories were true one would expect at least some contemporaneous mention of him.

So we're back to "If God doesn't do what SZ expects," which subverts "God is a god of miracle surprises" as it is... sigh.

The NT authors kept transmitting stories orally, building converts, and as mortality neared, got scribal help to transmit their stories for posterity. Does that help?

Again (and again and again and again and again) I've also suggested that no one with living memory within the 70 years or FAR less for early NT docs wrote a counter claim of any kind. You've never once responded to that!

Where is the rabbi or Roman who writes, "The hated Christians are now in the thousands, claiming the Jewish Law is unneeded due to their mythical figure. I lived in Jerusalem and Yeshua of Nazareth never traveled the length and breadth of Israel for years, healing thousands or rising from the dead!"
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Indeed I don't know the expression "secret kingdom" in this context. What, where, when, who, and (as ever, above all) evidence?
Obviously not, since I was mentioning dates associated with various documents which made the cut at the Council of Rome. But as you know, the NT itself includes pseudepigraphs ─ only seven of the letters attributed to Paul pass muster, Peter didn't write Peter, and so on; we have no idea who actually wrote any of the rest. We have no copies of the original versions of any. And even now, what are apocrypha to one church are orthodoxy to another.
All the texts, the ones that were what they appeared to be, and many others, because until 380 there was no canon (and with Eastern Orthodoxy, not till the 7th century).

Do you not see a disconnect between "All the NT is anonymous, which falsifies" and "Paul didn't even write the books attributed to him, so that falsifies . . ."?

Guess what? The texts have endured beyond 380 as a third of Earth says Jesus is Lord, another third, Lord of Judgment Day over Muhammed. Because the texts are so good, verifiable, and authentic!

I'm going back to Israel next month, praise Jesus, for days and days of exploring archaeological proof of the veracity of the holy scriptures.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So we're back to "If God doesn't do what SZ expects," which subverts "God is a god of miracle surprises" as it is... sigh.

The NT authors kept transmitting stories orally, building converts, and as mortality neared, got scribal help to transmit their stories for posterity. Does that help?

Again (and again and again and again and again) I've also suggested that no one with living memory within the 70 years or FAR less for early NT docs wrote a counter claim of any kind. You've never once responded to that!

Where is the rabbi or Roman who writes, "The hated Christians are now in the thousands, claiming the Jewish Law is unneeded due to their mythical figure. I lived in Jerusalem and Yeshua of Nazareth never traveled the length and breadth of Israel for years, healing thousands or rising from the dead!"
Please, you can do better than this. Is this massive bit of dishonest mere deflection on your part? Let's drop the personal attacks and try to deal with the facts. We are not talking about what God should have done. We are talking about what was claimed by Christians. Try to learn the difference.

And please, don't try to shift the burden of proof. Rebuttals of unknown loons do not tend to get published. There are far too many of them. Your act of clutching at straws only shows that you know how devastating it is that no one, besides those that drank the Koo-Aid, wrote of the magical feats of Jesus.
 
Top