• 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!

The evidence for the resurection of Jesus

leroy

Well-Known Member
But that has been shown to be largely false. For example Luke's screw up on the date of the first census of Judea. When it comes to reasonable tests they fail. Also you do not even know who the authors of the Gospels were, how are you going to show that they were well informed?


how are you going to show that they were well informed
again, if most of the verifiable data is correct then the author is well informed....... that is my stadard, if you think this standard is not appropriate then please suggest a better standard
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
again, if most of the verifiable data is correct then the author is well informed....... that is my stadard, if you think this standard is not appropriate then please suggest a better standard
No, that is not the standard. If an author makes a huge mistake that pretty much disqualifies him as being "well informed". The author of Luke appeared to be well versed upon geography. Very few historical claims were made that I am aware of and as I pointed out there is a major error in one of those.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No, that is not the standard. If an author makes a huge mistake that pretty much disqualifies him as being "well informed". The author of Luke appeared to be well versed upon geography. Very few historical claims were made that I am aware of and as I pointed out there is a major error in one of those.
having an error in the a date is not a "huge error"


so by your standards a "huge mistake" (whatever that means) is enough to reject a source? is that what you are saying?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
having an error in the a date is not a "huge error"


so by your standards a "huge mistake" (whatever that means) is enough to reject a source? is that what you are saying?
It is when a your mythical nativity story is based upon that date. That date refutes Luke's nativity.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
It is when a your mythical nativity story is based upon that date. That date refutes Luke's nativity.

The question is:

Do you accept my standard? “if most of the verifiable data is correct then the author is well informed”………………if not what other standard do you suggest to test the claim that an author was well informed?


You could say:

1 Yes I accept the standard, but all* the authors of the gospels fail to meet that standard

2 Yes I accept the standard, but some* authors fail to meet that standard

3 I reject the standard (please propose a better one)

4 Yes I accept the standard, and the authors meet the standards….. the authors are well informed, but I reject them as good sources for some other reason (for example an author could be both well informed and a liar)

5 Avoid a direct answer as you typically do
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
The evidence for the resurrection is grounded on 5 claims that are widely accepted by scholars (and people in general)

1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point)

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives

1 Reject some of these facts and explain why you think scholars are wrong

2 Accept this facts and provide an alternative explanation , and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis

3 a combination of 1 and 2

4 Do something dishonest like chaning the topic, ignoring the challenge, refute a strawman etc.

So which one do you pick?


5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

When you are grieving very heavily, the way they would be grieving for Jesus, it is quite common to hallucinate seeing them, it's a common experience When I was grieving for Michael Jackson I swore up and down and still do that I heard him say my name Elizabeth! He called to me! It happens a lot, and with my Mom, it was way worse,I could feel her presence with me.

BTW here's another explanation! It was his ghost!!!! Not him his ghost!!!!!!!!!!!!I believe in GHosts.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The question is:

Do you accept my standard? “if most of the verifiable data is correct then the author is well informed”………………if not what other standard do you suggest to test the claim that an author was well informed?


You could say:

1 Yes I accept the standard, but all* the authors of the gospels fail to meet that standard

2 Yes I accept the standard, but some* authors fail to meet that standard

3 I reject the standard (please propose a better one)

4 Yes I accept the standard, and the authors meet the standards….. the authors are well informed, but I reject them as good sources for some other reason (for example an author could be both well informed and a liar)

5 Avoid a direct answer as you typically do

I answered. You did not understand the answer. If you want an answer then apologize and ask again without a false narrative. When you make clear false accusations you lose the right to demand an answer.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

When you are grieving very heavily, the way they would be grieving for Jesus, it is quite common to hallucinate seeing them, it's a common experience When I was grieving for Michael Jackson I swore up and down and still do that I heard him say my name Elizabeth! He called to me! It happens a lot, and with my Mom, it was way worse,I could feel her presence with me.

.
The thing is that the experiences that early Christians had where experiences where they interacted, touched and even ate with Jesus, where in some occasions many people saw the same thing at the same time.

This is not analogous to your experience with Michael Jackson.

BTW here's another explanation! It was his ghost!!!! Not him his ghost!!!!!!!!!!!!I believe in GHosts
But people concluded that they saw the risen Jesus, (not a ghost) early Christians where proclaiming a bodily resurrection………. People see “gohsts” all the time, and nobody ever concludes that a bodily resurrection occurred. People conclude “ohhhhh a spiritual non physical thing visited me”

Those kind of “ghost” experiences where ok, and even expected by the Jews, a bodily resurrection was unexpected, ghost experiences would have had the benefit of the doubt, given that they were proclaiming a bodily resurrection, this means that there was no doubt. (people saw something that they interpreted as a bodily resurrection)

+ we have the empty tomb, the Ghost hypothesis doesn’t explain the empty tomb.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I answered. You did not understand the answer. If you want an answer then apologize and ask again without a false narrative.

ok so you whent for number 5

5 Avoid a direct answer as you typically do


When you make clear false accusations you lose the right to demand an answer.[

I am not demanding an answer, if you what to play your silly word games and avoid any sort of civilized conversation you are free to do so.


You did not understand the answer.
Maybe, so why didn’t you answer again?.......... honestly all you had to do is type a number, that would have been much more faster and easier than starting another childish game[/QUOTE]
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ok so you whent for number 5






I am not demanding an answer, if you what to play your silly word games and avoid any sort of civilized conversation you are free to do so.



Maybe, so why didn’t you answer again?.......... honestly all you had to do is type a number, that would have been much more faster and easier than starting another childish game
[/QUOTE]
Reread my previous post.
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
The thing is that the experiences that early Christians had where experiences where they interacted, touched and even ate with Jesus, where in some occasions many people saw the same thing at the same time.

This is not analogous to your experience with Michael Jackson.


But people concluded that they saw the risen Jesus, (not a ghost) early Christians where proclaiming a bodily resurrection………. People see “gohsts” all the time, and nobody ever concludes that a bodily resurrection occurred. People conclude “ohhhhh a spiritual non physical thing visited me”

Those kind of “ghost” experiences where ok, and even expected by the Jews, a bodily resurrection was unexpected, ghost experiences would have had the benefit of the doubt, given that they were proclaiming a bodily resurrection, this means that there was no doubt. (people saw something that they interpreted as a bodily resurrection)

+ we have the empty tomb, the Ghost hypothesis doesn’t explain the empty tomb.


There were many messiahs back then it could've been another Messiah or still they're imaginations. Your imagination can play big tricks on you.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
There were many messiahs back then it could've been another Messiah or still they're imaginations. Your imagination can play big tricks on you.
Yes *it could have been* hallucinations, just like it could have been anything else ………. The question is : is hallucinations a better explanation than resurrection? Would you affirm that?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Ok but the objection “you belive its true just because the bible says so” is not a good objection, unless you show that the bible is a bad source……………..agree?

We have shown the Bible is not a good source of history.
The original OT myths and Gods are taken from Mesopotamina myths. Gods from Canaanites who Israel emerged from. 2nd temple Judaism (Persian/Greek invasion) is where all modern concepts of afterlife, heaven, Satan, resurrection and messianism came from, dying/rising savior gods were already popular myths then the NT was all taken from Mark which writes in a mythic style, re-works OT and other stories, line by line, uses incredibly improbably mythic literary devices that never happen in history but always in fiction and feature a character who scores higher than King Arthur on the mythotype scale. Then there are no outside verifications except ones that confirm people followed gospels or called them harmless superstitious people.
Not to mention the link about Ehrman explaining the first gospel was written 40 years later and in a language none of Jesus followers spoke. And that over 50% of the other gospels of the time were Gnostic with bizarre theologies.
Yes scripture has been confirmed as a bad historical source.








Well then why doesn’t Carrier publish his case in a Peer review article and see what happens.?

Most scholars agree that Carrier is wrong

I don't understand what you mean? Carrier's book On the Historicity of Jesus has passed peer-review? Many scholars in his field are moving to his side. There is a video where he lists several who have come over. His debates with other scholars were to put his ideas to being tested. The only person who will not debate him is Bart Ehrman.

Now when scholars say he is "wrong" you need to understand what that means. Most of his lectures like the one entitles Why the Gospels Are Myth, are using long accepted material from other scholars.
J.D. Crossan, Ehrman and others only disagree with Carrier on the mythicist issue. They do not believe the gospel narratives to be any more likely true than Hindu stories about Krishna.
Other historians believe Jesus was a man who was later mythicized into a demigod.
But many of them are going to Carrier's side.
Carrier simply came out and noticed their were assumptions about historicity that noone had bothered to actually check and they do not hold up.
When Thompson came out with his work that demonstrated Moses was a myth he had to move to Canada to work. Now it's a standard belief in the OT historicity field.
His PhD advisor (was a Cardinal) refused to accept his work. Now it's a classic and standard reading for OT studies:


https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-...AC1YQEX9VZV&psc=1&refRID=R1DX58F7XAC1YQEX9VZV




why is Q relevant, If I am not usign it as a source?

Because for a while it was considered the written common source. The sources you mentioned were hypothetical oral transmissions.
Both have been shown to be unlikely but oral transmission is the least probable. Q was considered a better candidate. The Markan priority has now been proven to be by far the most likely source.
But Mark has been demonstrated in several papers to have taken Pauls authentic letters and crafted Earthly narratives.
That is another line of evidence that the gospels are not good history. Mark was taking phrases Paul said, like when Jesus mentioned a message to future Christians, "tell them, this is my body and blood..." and so on. Mark took that and made it into a story about a supper and a crowd of people being present. The breaking bread metaphor became actually breaking bread. There are dozens of examples of Mark using Paul and creating events.
As well as how he created the empty tomb story and what he likely sourced.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes *it could have been* hallucinations, just like it could have been anything else ………. The question is : is hallucinations a better explanation than resurrection? Would you affirm that?
Of course hallucination is a better explanation. Think about it.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
The thing is that the experiences that early Christians had where experiences where they interacted, touched and even ate with Jesus, where in some occasions many people saw the same thing at the same time.

This is not analogous to your experience with Michael Jackson.


But people concluded that they saw the risen Jesus, (not a ghost) early Christians where proclaiming a bodily resurrection………. People see “gohsts” all the time, and nobody ever concludes that a bodily resurrection occurred. People conclude “ohhhhh a spiritual non physical thing visited me”

Those kind of “ghost” experiences where ok, and even expected by the Jews, a bodily resurrection was unexpected, ghost experiences would have had the benefit of the doubt, given that they were proclaiming a bodily resurrection, this means that there was no doubt. (people saw something that they interpreted as a bodily resurrection)

+ we have the empty tomb, the Ghost hypothesis doesn’t explain the empty tomb.


Ha, no the experience of Michael Jackson is far more credible. The Mark story first has Jesus scare away 7 demons who were busy posessing Mary M. (yeah whatever). But it's a story and exactly as fictional as Lord of the Rings. Then he gives people super powers to heal and cast away demons (wow, lot's of demons then, funny they don't show up much anymore).
There are other bodily resurrections in the cultures of the region so it isn't that surprising.
There wasn't an empty tomb. Not any more than there was an Angel Moroni talking to J Smith. This story has no verifying evidence, is written like a myth and we can see how it was taken from Psalms :
Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb? • Richard Carrier


"
This third-day motif was certainly widespread, and may be very ancient. In Jewish tradition it could lie behind the prophecy of Hosea 6:2 that “He will revive us after two days, He will raise us up on the third day, that we may live before him.” The Jewish belief that corruption sets in on the third day might even have entailed the savior’s resurrection then, to fulfill Psalms 16:9-11 that the savior’s body would not see corruption. Other possible origins of the idea include Jonah 1:17 and 2 Kings 20:5. The covenantal use of the third day motif in Exodus 19:11, 15, and 16 is also an inviting possibility, as is the story in 2 Kings 2, where, after his ascension men search for Elijah for three days and don’t find him (2:17).

The same idea was popular long before Judaism. The first recorded myth of a crucified and resurrected deity, that of the Sumerian goddess Innana, relates that after her naked, murdered corpse is nailed up, her minions come to feed her the food and water of life and she is raised back to life “after three days.” Many pagan legends of resurrection feature rising “on the third day,” including that of Aridaeus, Timarchus, and Rufus of Philippi (Not the Impossible, p. 122 nn. 17-18). Parallels with then-contemporary Osiris cult are curiously strong, too, though I see no need for so precise a connection. Among the links: Osiris was sealed in a casket (equivalent to a tomb) by seventy-two conspirators, while the Sanhedrin who condemned Christ consisted of seventy-one men, and Judas makes seventy-two; Osiris was then resurrected on the third day, and died during a full moon, just like Christ (Passover occurs during the full moon). I don’t know what to make of this, though it does seem an improbable coincidence (see Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 39 and 42, where Osiris is buried on the 17th of Athyr, the concluding day of the full moon, and raised on the 19th, two days later—thus three days inclusively, just like Jesus.

Whatever the case, Paul’s conviction in 1 Corinthians 15:4 that Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the scriptures” must derive from some Old Testament passage, even if it was also developed (then or by Mark) in conjunction with Jewish or Pagan ideology. However, in choosing how to illuminate this motif in his parable of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, Mark drew upon the Psalms. He consciously modeled his crucifixion narrative on Psalm 22, adapting phrases directly from the Septuagint text thereof (as countless scholars have long noted), including Christ’s cry on the cross, the taunts of the onlookers, and the dividing of garments by casting of lots. Crucifixion also calls up that Psalm’s image of the messiah’s pierced hands and feet. This begins a logical three-day cycle of psalms: Psalm 22 marks the first day (the crucifixion), Psalm 23 the next (the Sabbath, during which Christ’s body rests in the grave), and then Psalm 24 predicts and informs the resurrection on Sunday, the third day.................



rest is - Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb? • Richard Carrier


"Thus, by inventing an empty tomb, Mark can exploit all these layers of meaning through his allusions to the Psalms, and convey deep truths about the Gospel. This is mythmaking. Not history."
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
We have shown the Bible is not a good source of history.
The original OT myths and Gods are taken from Mesopotamina myths. Gods from Canaanites who Israel emerged from. 2nd temple Judaism (Persian/Greek invasion) is where all modern concepts of afterlife, heaven, Satan, resurrection and messianism came from, dying/rising savior gods were already popular myths then the NT was all taken from Mark which writes in a mythic style, re-works OT and other stories, line by line, uses incredibly improbably mythic literary devices that never happen in history but always in fiction and feature a character who scores higher than King Arthur on the mythotype scale. Then there are no outside verifications except ones that confirm people followed gospels or called them harmless superstitious people.
Not to mention the link about Ehrman explaining the first gospel was written 40 years later and in a language none of Jesus followers spoke. And that over 50% of the other gospels of the time were Gnostic with bizarre theologies.
Yes scripture has been confirmed as a bad historical source.

I don't understand what you mean? Carrier's book On the Historicity of Jesus has passed peer-review? Many scholars in his field are moving to his side. There is a video where he lists several who have come over. His debates with other scholars were to put his ideas to being tested. The only person who will not debate him is Bart Ehrman.

Now when scholars say he is "wrong" you need to understand what that means. Most of his lectures like the one entitles Why the Gospels Are Myth, are using long accepted material from other scholars.
J.D. Crossan, Ehrman and others only disagree with Carrier on the mythicist issue. They do not believe the gospel narratives to be any more likely true than Hindu stories about Krishna.
Other historians believe Jesus was a man who was later mythicized into a demigod.
But many of them are going to Carrier's side.
Carrier simply came out and noticed their were assumptions about historicity that noone had bothered to actually check and they do not hold up.
When Thompson came out with his work that demonstrated Moses was a myth he had to move to Canada to work. Now it's a standard belief in the OT historicity field.
His PhD advisor (was a Cardinal) refused to accept his work. Now it's a classic and standard reading for OT studies:

https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-...AC1YQEX9VZV&psc=1&refRID=R1DX58F7XAC1YQEX9VZV

Because for a while it was considered the written common source. The sources you mentioned were hypothetical oral transmissions.
Both have been shown to be unlikely but oral transmission is the least probable. Q was considered a better candidate. The Markan priority has now been proven to be by far the most likely source.
But Mark has been demonstrated in several papers to have taken Pauls authentic letters and crafted Earthly narratives.
That is another line of evidence that the gospels are not good history. Mark was taking phrases Paul said, like when Jesus mentioned a message to future Christians, "tell them, this is my body and blood..." and so on. Mark took that and made it into a story about a supper and a crowd of people being present. The breaking bread metaphor became actually breaking bread. There are dozens of examples of Mark using Paul and creating events.
As well as how he created the empty tomb story and what he likely sourced.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
joelr wrote, " the first gospel was written 40 years later and in a language none of Jesus followers spoke. "

" historians believe Jesus was a man who was later mythicized into a demigod "
" But Mark has been demonstrated in several papers to have taken Pauls authentic letters and crafted Earthly narratives "

" Mark was taking phrases Paul said, like when Jesus mentioned a message to future Christians, "tell them, this is my body and blood..." and so on. Mark took that and made it into a story about a supper and a crowd of people being present. The breaking bread metaphor became actually breaking bread. There are dozens of examples of Mark using Paul and creating events.
As well as how he created the empty tomb story and what he likely sourced.
"

Very good points about the 4-Gospels by friend @joelr . Kindly provide the references from the sources, please. Right?

Regards
 
Top