The evidence for the resurection of Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

why not?


How do you know that?
----
If the author Gary Habermas was free to invent any lie, and he is a “liar for jesus” then why inventing the 75% consensus? Why not inventing a 99% concensus?

You need to pay attention if you want to ask questions. I never said that Habermas was a liar for Jesus.
Try again.

 

[leroy]

No because apologetics is psuedo-science.
Did I not point out 2 examples of "it's true because the Bible says it's true"?

In the same way historians claim that “X” is true because Josephus says so, or because Tacitus says so, or because Plutarch says so,

The only first century documents that we have from stuff happening in Judea are the documents in the new testament, so why wouldn’t we used them as primary sources?

I showed he's using believers 3 to 1.

Again, so what?........ Imagine that you show a survey showing that 90% of scientists that have published about evolution, accept evolution (common ancestry)

Then I say ohhhh but in your survey 75% of the scientists are non-theists.

Would you claim that my objection is valid?.......or would you say "so what"?

"Christian apologists are confusing the word “independent” with the word “different.” A hundred different sources attest to the existence of Hercules. But they are not independent sources. They all derive, directly or indirectly, from the same single source, a myth about Hercules. Who never existed.
There is in fact only one explicit source for the historicity of Jesus: the Gospel of Mark. All other sources that mention the crucifixion of Jesus as an event in earth history derive that mention from Mark, either directly (e.g. Matthew, Luke, John; Celsus; Justin; etc.) or indirectly, as Christians simply repeat the same claims in those Gospels, which all embellish and thus derive from that same one Gospel, Mark, and their critics simply believed them because they would have thought it was too self-damning to make up, and because there was no way for them to check."

You are confused, Mark Luke and Mathew used different sources when it comes to the narrative concerning the empty tomb.

Mark used and early creed as a source, Luke used “L” and Mathew used “M” as a source…………

Plus we have Paul, so atleast we have 4 sources (and perhaps 6 if you count John and acts)

So ot is true that Luke used Mark as a source and many narratives where copied from Mark, but when it comes to the emty tomb he had his own sources. For example “Peter visiting the tomb” is not found in Mark, so Luke had his own source for that event.

The author writing fiction was incorporating themes, one of the big ones was the least shall be the first". Hence the woman (the least) were the first. Not history, a story

.
You are misunderstanding the criteria of embarrassment.

The claim is that “if one is going to make up a story about an empty tomb, and the goal is to convince everybody that the story is true”………. Using women rather than men as the main witnesses would go against that goal.

A fictional story with that goal is more likely to use men than women.

There were at least 5 other religions combining their ideas with Hellenistic ideas while the Jewish religion was also combining with Hellenistic ideas.

There are other dying/rising savior gods who through baptism into their cult you gain entry into the afterlife

There is a blackout period of 80 years where all criticisms, refutations and other versions of Christianity were blacked out. When we found the Dead Sea Scrolls along with letters from Bishop Ignateus we now know that at least 50% of Christianity was Gnostic in the 2nd century. They all considered the others to be heretical and had completely different theologies about Jesus and Yahweh. Elaine Pagels details all this in The Gnostic Gospels.

Irrelevant, you don’t have any ancient source, nor ancient historian that denies the empty tomb, that my cliam so ether agree with that claim or refute it

The gospels are the first accounts of an earthly Jesus, decades after the fact, wildly fictitious, every story has allegorical or propagandistic intent and Mark looks like a meta-parable (outsiders told a story while insiders are told what it really means) Mark 4:11-12.
Plus Mark is using OT narratives line by line as well as using Paul to create earthly stories. There are several papers on this.
So any content in the gospels is probably fiction. The tomb is no exception.

However it is still true that the Romans where claiming that the Christians stole the body, implying that they granted the empty tomb. And where trying to find an excuse to explain the empty tomb............thats my claim so ether agree or refute it

---


It is also true that exposing the body in the tomb would have been in the interests of the Romans and the Jews, because that would harm the Christian movement ……. So if the body was in the tomb, why wasn’t the body exposed?.......why inventing that the body was stolen if the body was in the tomb?

 

[leroy]

You need to pay attention if you want to ask questions. I never said that Habermas was a liar for Jesus.
Try again.

Ok. What about your other claims, are you going to support them? ………

for example

it is merely a place where almost anyone that pays can get an article published

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok. What about your other claims, are you going to support them? ………

for example

When I already supported my claims there is no need to do so again. When you appear to purposefully misunderstand explanations you cannot ask for explanations again. People have gone over the failings of that source countless times. You either ignore the refutations or ignore them.

Your source was not a well respected professional peer reviewed journal. It was an example of the glamour press. Look up that last term.

 

[leroy]

When I already supported my claims there is no need to do so again.

no you havent.

When you appear to purposefully misunderstand explanations you cannot ask for explanations again.

I am not asking you to explain anything, just support your assertions. you said that "anyone can publish any information in that journal as long as they can pay for it"

Your source was not a well respected professional peer reviewed journal. It was an example of the glamour press. Look up that last term.

Support your assertion.

Under what basis do you claim that it is not a well respected journal?

Not respectect by whom?

 

[Subduction Zone]

no you havent.






I am not asking you to explain anything, just support your assertions. you said that "anyone can publish any information in that journal as long as they can pay for it"




Support your assertion.

Under what basis do you claim that it is not a well respected journal?

Not respectect by whom?

I supported it. You did not understand it.

By the way it is never proper to edit a quote.

 

[leroy]

I supported it. You did not understand it.

By the way it is never proper to edit a quote.

Ok so I´ll just added to your endless list of assertions that you are not willing to support.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so I´ll just added to your endless list of assertions that you are not willing to support.

Once again you have not found any such claims. I am merely not repeating supporting claims to a denier.

 

[leroy]

Once again you have not found any such claims. I am merely not repeating supporting claims to a denier.

The difference between you and I is that I can quote the exact claims that you are not willing to support.

our source was not a well respected professional peer reviewed journal. It was an example of the glamour press. Look up that last term.

it is merely a place where almost anyone that pays can get an article published

 

[Subduction Zone]

The difference between you and I is that I can quote the exact claims that you are not willing to support.

Those were supported. I linked to sites that did so.

 

[leroy]

Those were supported. I linked to sites that did so.

Random links from random sites is not good enough…..

Provide the link, an quote the exact portion of text that support your claim

 

[Subduction Zone]

Random links from random sites is not good enough…..

Provide the link, an quote the exact portion of text that support your claim

But I did not provide "Random links from random sites".

Try again.

 

[rational experiences]

Fact. Natural human life self present first.

Equal existing living.

Men group together brothers thought the same agreed science.

Just as humans.

Creation existed. Science a human practice thinking did not exist.

Biological science living science medical. A living ape is closest human life form. Owns lesser not conscious intelligence body like human is.

Just medical advice. Thinking observation research. Human chosen ideas.
Living medical advice.
Not geology.
Not archaeology.
Not paleontology.

Medical. Life survival.
Humans lying say my thoughts as a thesis invented you.

Medical science paternity proves living humans parents are human.

Biological chemicals is an abstract reasoning of comparisons. Between bodies living.

Science first thought for invention was not first thought for a theory of life's creation.

The actual science lie believing you owned data that had a step by step reason for any body existing. As a state evolution by God conditions.

Evolution was cooling in space from destructive bodies. Applied reasoning to convert to get energy.

We never evolved we healed a teaching about what Egypt Moses science did to human life. Most family human parent sons daughter genetics destroyed. Were humans but not whole humans. A human statement.

Science had sacrificed human life.

Yet still argue a thought process with other humans by egotism and machine status

What you threatened life via. Machines as a pretend God reaction.

The secrecy today. No human invented God the science body our planet earth.

 

[sayak83]

ok
you said:

Ok and was John P Meier, part of the survey that Gary Habermas published?.

Link the survey paper again and I will demonstrate.

 

[leroy]

Link the survey paper again and I will demonstrate.

Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?

 

[sayak83]

Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?

Quotation from paper
"Most of the critical scholars are theologians or New Testament scholars, while a number of philosophers and historians, among other fields, are also included."
Most of the survey members are NOT historians but Biblical scholars and theologians according to the paper itself. But whether Jesus resurrected or not is a topic of history, and only a survey of historians hold water. The view of religious scholars has no bearing on the case.

" represented here, some of which differ from mainline conclusions, such as the works of Michael Goulder,[18] G.A. Wells,[19] and Duncan Derrett.[20] Still, the majority of British writings support what we have called the moderate conservative position. Examples are the publications of Thomas Torrance,[21] James D.G. Dunn,[22] Richard Swinburne,[23] and Oliver O’Donavan.[24] Most recently, the writings of N.T. Wright[25] have contributed heavily to this outlook."

Let's look at James D G Dunn.

James Douglas Grant Dunn FBA (21 October 1939 – 26 June 2020),[8] also known as Jimmy Dunn, was a British New Testament scholar, who was for many years the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology at the University of Durham.

He graduated from the University of Glasgow, where he took both a master’s degree in economics and statistics and a bachelor of divinity degree, and received his Ph.D. in New Testament studies from Cambridge University in 1968. A licensed minister of the Church of Scotland, he served as senior assistant minister of St. David’s Church in Knightswood, Glasgow, and as chaplain to overseas students in Edinburgh before beginning his academic career at the University of Nottingham as a lecturer and then a reader in theology

He was a theologian with degree in divinity and NT studies... NOT History.

Such is the profile of most people on the survey... mostly Divinity professors and theologians... Not historians.

Their opinion and work on historicity of resurrection therefore is NOT a consensus of expert historians and hence has no real weight.

 

[leroy]

Quotation from paper
"Most of the critical scholars are theologians or New Testament scholars, while a number of philosophers and historians, among other fields, are also included."
Most of the survey members are NOT historians but Biblical scholars and theologians according to the paper itself. But whether Jesus resurrected or not is a topic of history, and only a survey of historians hold water. The view of religious scholars has no bearing on the case.

" represented here, some of which differ from mainline conclusions, such as the works of Michael Goulder,[18] G.A. Wells,[19] and Duncan Derrett.[20] Still, the majority of British writings support what we have called the moderate conservative position. Examples are the publications of Thomas Torrance,[21] James D.G. Dunn,[22] Richard Swinburne,[23] and Oliver O’Donavan.[24] Most recently, the writings of N.T. Wright[25] have contributed heavily to this outlook."

Let's look at James D G Dunn.

James Douglas Grant Dunn FBA (21 October 1939 – 26 June 2020),[8] also known as Jimmy Dunn, was a British New Testament scholar, who was for many years the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology at the University of Durham.

He graduated from the University of Glasgow, where he took both a master’s degree in economics and statistics and a bachelor of divinity degree, and received his Ph.D. in New Testament studies from Cambridge University in 1968. A licensed minister of the Church of Scotland, he served as senior assistant minister of St. David’s Church in Knightswood, Glasgow, and as chaplain to overseas students in Edinburgh before beginning his academic career at the University of Nottingham as a lecturer and then a reader in theology

He was a theologian with degree in divinity and NT studies... NOT History.

Such is the profile of most people on the survey... mostly Divinity professors and theologians... Not historians.

Their opinion and work on historicity of resurrection therefore is NOT a consensus of expert historians and hence has no real weight.

I thought that you were going to show that John P Meier was part of the survey will you admit that you where wrong?

----

As for the rest of your comments, my claim (and therefore my burden proof) was that most Scholars that have publish on the topic accept the empty tomb.

And I succeeded in showing that my claim is true.

So given that this specific claim is true, is there any other claim in the OP that you disagree with?

---

Granted I failed in supporting the claim that most scholars that have the specific degrees and world view that you personally approve accept the empty tomb, but that was never my claim and therefore I have no burden proof.


It would be interesting a survey that includes only non-Christian historians, but as far as I know such a survey doesn’t exist.

Most of the critical scholars are theologians or New Testament scholars,

You seem to be making some hidden assumptions like for example “theologians and NT scholars are not reliable” these assumptions have to be supported by evidence.



The only documents that we have from 1st century Palestine are the documents in the new testament, so the new testament should be the prime source when it comes to events from that time/place .....Given this; NT scholars are the best type of scholar to comment on events that happened during that time.

It makes no sense to discriminate NT scholars just because they don’t share your world view.

 

[leroy]

But I did not provide "Random links from random sites".

Try again.

You provided links that don’t support your assertions…………..and you know it……….otherwise you wouldn’t be dancing around and avoiding your burden proof.

 

[sayak83]

I thought that you were going to show that John P Meier was part of the survey will you admit that you where wrong?

----

As for the rest of your comments, my claim (and therefore my burden proof) was that most Scholars that have publish on the topic accept the empty tomb.

And I succeeded in showing that my claim is true.

So given that this specific claim is true, is there any other claim in the OP that you disagree with?

---

Granted I failed in supporting the claim that most scholars that have the specific degrees and world view that you personally approve accept the empty tomb, but that was never my claim and therefore I have no burden proof.


It would be interesting a survey that includes only non-Christian historians, but as far as I know such a survey doesn’t exist.




You seem to be making some hidden assumptions like for example “theologians and NT scholars are not reliable” these assumptions have to be supported by evidence.



The only documents that we have from 1st century Palestine are the documents in the new testament, so the new testament should be the prime source when it comes to events from that time/place .....Given this; NT scholars are the best type of scholar to comment on events that happened during that time.

It makes no sense to discriminate NT scholars just because they don’t share your world view.

Scholars of NT literature or scholars of religion are not history experts and hence their consensus regarding what happened in history means very little. Your OP tried to argue that this consensus means one should take the resurrection as a fact of history. That argument is refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You provided links that don’t support your assertions…………..and you know it……….otherwise you wouldn’t be dancing around and avoiding your burden proof.

You did not understand them. They supported my claims. I am not dancing. Reread the articles.