The Resurrection is it provable?

[Brian2]

If there are archaeologists who can present good evidence for their beliefs that's great. William Dever shows what evidence he finds. It's fairly straightforward. The first step forward was in the 70's by a scholar who had to leave the U.S. people were so upset with him. Now his work is considered standard reading.
The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham is a book by biblical scholar Thomas L. Thompson, Professor of Old Testament Studies at the University of Copenhagen.

There is proof of places and human people from the OT. I understand that. I think people with what you call "naturalistic bias" also would like evidence of supernatural things. I would. It just isn't there.
I know we all have beliefs to some degree but I want to believe true things. If something has evidence I would believe it.

When supernatural stories are automatically seen as untrue and when a lack of specific evidence is seen as evidence that the Biblical stories did not happen and when the Bible history is seen as untrue until shown to be true and when the archaeology and timing of the conquest is so far out usually, I don't know how you are going to get the evidence so that you can believe.
But I pray that you do end up believing in spite of all that and more.

 

[joelr]

When supernatural stories are automatically seen as untrue

Yes, untrue unless they have proper evidence. Your stories are definitely mythic copies ogf older religions.

and when a lack of specific evidence is seen as evidence that the Biblical stories did not happen and when the Bible history is seen as untrue until shown to be true and when the archaeology and timing of the conquest is so far out usually, I don't know how you are going to get the evidence so that you can believe.
But I pray that you do end up believing in spite of all that and more.

Oh, salvation. Right, also not in the OT in that sense. You are just mirroring Hellenism now.

-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.

Likewise I hope everyone who has been fooled into believing ancient syncretic myths about needing salvation to get to a fictional soul to a fictional heaven because a fictional God is picky like that can realize they became emotionally attached through cognitive bias and the evidence really shows it's just more of the same.

But if you like prayer for saving people then that's simple. I have a 9 digit number from pi. Pray to your deity to guide your hand and write it out correct and tell me what it is. That would be decent evidence.

 

[Brian2]

Oh, salvation. Right, also not in the OT in that sense. You are just mirroring Hellenism now.

-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.

Likewise I hope everyone who has been fooled into believing ancient syncretic myths about needing salvation to get to a fictional soul to a fictional heaven because a fictional God is picky like that can realize they became emotionally attached through cognitive bias and the evidence really shows it's just more of the same.

But if you like prayer for saving people then that's simple. I have a 9 digit number from pi. Pray to your deity to guide your hand and write it out correct and tell me what it is. That would be decent evidence.

If you knew the OT you would know that God in the OT speaks of salvation for the suffering servant bringing salvation for the gentiles and that He would be their King.
The OT starts with creation and then the fall and with death for all humans. The OT speaks of all the nations being the children of God.
If you knew the OT you would know that God in the OT speaks of salvation for the suffering servant bringing salvation for the gentiles and that He would be their King.
The OT also speaks of the suffering servant dying for the sins of us all, taking the penalty on Himself as the lamb sacrifices of the Law did.
The coming Messiah was to be Priest, Prophet and King. Appointed priest under the priesthood of Melchizedek. The King who would sit on the throne of David forever. The Prophet like Moses.
The OT speaks of God pouring out His Holy Spirit and giving a New Covenant for His people and also speaks of His people rejecting the appointed King and killing Him.
The OT even shows the method of death of this King.
Etc etc.
This is all in prophecies before the Babylonian period.
So the sceptic comes along and says "We don't believe in prophecies so they must have been written after the fact and so we'll say in the Babylonian period, and then that proves the gospel comes from the Babylonians and Greeks."
Interesting circular reasoning but that is what sceptic reasoning is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

OT or NT speaks. So what? It is and old scripture (mythic account) of the Jews and Christians. All religious scriptures have that kind of propaganda write-ups. That does not prove anything.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Is there any scientific proof or historic proof that Jesus was resurrected and crucified?

Plenty of historical evidence. Scientific evidence? Nah, not really.

 

[Brian2]

OT or NT speaks. So what? It is and old scripture (mythic account) of the Jews and Christians. All religious scriptures have that kind of propaganda write-ups. That does not prove anything.

Joelr has been saying that the NT story of Jesus comes from plagiarization of other scriptures/stories. I was showing that is not the case because the OT contains prophecy of the whole gospel and of Jesus and what He would do.
I think I showed my point.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you believe in prophecies? I don't.

 

[joelr]

If you knew the OT you would know that God in the OT speaks of salvation for the suffering servant bringing salvation for the gentiles and that He would be their King.

I am familiar with the OT to some degree.
The suffering servant in Isaih is Israel. Gerald Sigal is a Jewish scholar and has written several books about Jewish scripture Christians have misinterpreted.

Amazon.com

Some late OT passages do refer to a world savior. During the 2nd Temple Period 5 B.C. - 1 B.C. is when they were borrowing myths from the nations who occupied them, Persia and Greeks. World saviors who are virgin born and come to save humanity was in the Persian religion and later from Greek theology they got personal salvation in the sense of getting into heaven from a savior. This is not OT theology.

Belief in a world Saviour

An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil.c and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. T

The OT starts with creation and then the fall and with death for all humans. The OT speaks of all the nations being the children of God.
If you knew the OT you would know that God in the OT speaks of salvation for the suffering servant bringing salvation for the gentiles and that He would be their King.

Are you talking about Isaiah 53:12?

"Isaiah was one of the most popular works among Jews in the Second Temple period (c. 515 BCE – 70 CE).
Some Second Temple texts, including the Wisdom of Solomon and the Book of Daniel identified the Servant as a group – "the wise" who "will lead many to righteousness" (Daniel 12:3) – but others, notably the Similitudes of Enoch, understood it in messianic terms.[43]"

Second Temple Period. Yes, this is when they were introduced to messianic myths from the people who occupied them?

"Historically, the unique features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism,[5] messianism, belief in free will and judgement after death, conception of heaven, hell, angels, and demons, among other concepts, may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including the Abrahamic religions a"

The OT also speaks of the suffering servant dying for the sins of us all, taking the penalty on Himself as the lamb sacrifices of the Law did.
The coming Messiah was to be Priest, Prophet and King. Appointed priest under the priesthood of Melchizedek. The King who would sit on the throne of David forever. The Prophet like Moses.
The OT speaks of God pouring out His Holy Spirit and giving a New Covenant for His people and also speaks of His people rejecting the appointed King and killing Him.
The OT even shows the method of death of this King.

Jewish scholars do not agree this was Jesus.
Notes

1. v.3)
   The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is often claimed by Christian apologists to refer to Jesus. But seems to refer to a person who was currently living or had lived in the past, not a prophecy of a person who had not yet been born.

But their captors introduced messianic ideas to them anyways.

Etc etc.
This is all in prophecies before the Babylonian period.

No it isn't:

" It is identified by a superscription as the words of the 8th-century BCE prophet Isaiah ben Amoz, but there is extensive evidence that much of it was composed during the Babylonian captivity and later.[2] Johann Christoph Döderlein suggested in 1775 that the book contained the works of two prophets separated by more than a century,[3] and Bernhard Duhm originated the view, held as a consensus through most of the 20th century, that the book comprises three separate collections of oracles:[4][5] Proto-Isaiah (chapters 1–39), containing the words of the 8th-century BCE prophet Isaiah; Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–55), the work of an anonymous 6th-century BCE author writing during the Exile; and Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56–66), composed after the return from Exile.[6] Isaiah 1–33 promises judgment and restoration for Judah, Jerusalem and the nations, and chapters 34–66 presume that judgment has been pronounced and restoration follows soon.[7] While virtually no scholars today attribute the entire book, or even most of it, to one person,[4] the book's essential unity has become a focus in more recent research.[8]

 

[joelr]

So the sceptic comes along and says "We don't believe in prophecies so they must have been written after the fact and so we'll say in the Babylonian period, and then that proves the gospel comes from the Babylonians and Greeks."
Interesting circular reasoning but that is what sceptic reasoning is.

No, that isn't the reasoning. In fact it has nothing to do with the dating.

While it is widely accepted that the book of Isaiah is rooted in a historic prophet called Isaiah, who lived in the Kingdom of Judah during the 8th century BCE, it is also widely accepted that this prophet did not write the entire book of Isaiah.[9][23]

• Historical situation: Chapters 40–55 presuppose that Jerusalem has already been destroyed (they are not framed as prophecy) and the Babylonian exile is already in effect – they speak from a present in which the Exile is about to end. Chapters 56–66 assume an even later situation, in which the people are already returned to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple is already under way.[24]
• Anonymity: Isaiah's name suddenly stops being used after chapter 39.[25]
• Style: There is a sudden change in style and theology after chapter 40; numerous key words and phrases found in one section are not found in the other.[26]

The idea that this even refers to a savior is debated. But the OT was revised during the 2nd Temple Period as WorldHistory points out. OT Professor Fransesca S. also speaks on this. So the theology from the Persians and Greeks were added in. The NT is 100% Hellenism and Persian, even copying the Revelation myth exactly.

The Hellenistic World: The World of Alexander the Great

Hellenistic thought is evident in the narratives which make up the books of the Bible as the Hebrew Scriptures were revised and canonized during the Second Temple Period (c.515 BCE-70 CE), the latter part of which was during the Hellenic Period of the region. The gospels and epistles of the Christian New Testament were written in Greek and draw on Greek philosophy and religion as, for example, in the first chapter of the Gospel of John in which the word becomes flesh, a Platonic concept.



Jewish scholars point out that in context the "servant" is clearly not Jesus. They are correct. I'm sure you have corrected people when they used a verse without the full context.

"The broad consensus among Jewish, and even some Christian commentators, that the “servant” in Isaiah 52-53 refers to the nation of Israel is understandable. Isaiah 53, which is the fourth of four renowned Servant Songs, is umbilically connected to its preceding chapters. The “servant” in each of the three previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the nation of Israel.

Isaiah 41:8-9

But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.”

Isaiah 44:1

But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen!

Isaiah 44:21

Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant; I formed you; you are my servant; O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me.

Isaiah 45:4

For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I called you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me.

Isaiah 48:20

Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea, declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it, send it out to the end of the earth; say, “The Lord has redeemed his servant Jacob!”

Isaiah 49:3

And he said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”

According to this widespread rabbinic opinion, Isaiah 53 contains a deeply moving narrative which world leaders will cry aloud in the messianic age. The humbled kings of nations (52: 15) will confess that Jewish suffering occurred as a direct result of “our own iniquity,” (53:5) e.g., depraved Jew-hatred, rather than, as they previously thought, the stubborn blindness of the Jews."

Who is God's Suffering Servant? The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53 | Outreach Judaism

 

[joelr]

.




I really don't have any problem with you believing that. But I will also acknowledge that there are a plethora of PhD, historians, theologians, et a who would disagree with you (as I do)
!

Which PhD historian disagrees with the Synoptic problem or that Mark sources different authors?

 

[joelr]

Erhman has a noted anti-Bible stance. If that is your diet... I understand why you have the position.

No it's not my "diet". I read any historian on Biblical historicity.
Pagels, Price, Lataster, Purvoe, Goodacre, Crossan, Thompson and many others...

Ehrman works with facts not a "stance". If you read him you might understand.

 

[Brian2]

I am familiar with the OT to some degree.
The suffering servant in Isaih is Israel. Gerald Sigal is a Jewish scholar and has written several books about Jewish scripture Christians have misinterpreted.

World saviors who are virgin born and come to save humanity was in the Persian religion and later from Greek theology they got personal salvation in the sense of getting into heaven from a savior. This is not OT theology.

Personal and corporate salvation is OT theology.
The OT and NT teaches that God will be in Zion/Jerusalem forever and be with His people.
Heaven is not eliminated in that way however.

Are you talking about Isaiah 53:12?

Not just Isa 53:12.

Second Temple Period. Yes, this is when they were introduced to messianic myths from the people who occupied them?

The Jewish Messiah is in the OT before this time.

"Historically, the unique features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism,[5] messianism, belief in free will and judgement after death, conception of heaven, hell, angels, and demons, among other concepts, may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including the Abrahamic religions a"

Zoroastrianism may have been influenced by the Israeli religion.

Jewish scholars do not agree this was Jesus.
Notes

1. v.3)
   The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is often claimed by Christian apologists to refer to Jesus. But seems to refer to a person who was currently living or had lived in the past, not a prophecy of a person who had not yet been born.

How could that be if the Jews claim Isa 53 is about Israel and their future suffering?

No it isn't:

" It is identified by a superscription as the words of the 8th-century BCE prophet Isaiah ben Amoz, but there is extensive evidence that much of it was composed during the Babylonian captivity and later.[2] Johann Christoph Döderlein suggested in 1775 that the book contained the works of two prophets separated by more than a century,[3] and Bernhard Duhm originated the view, held as a consensus through most of the 20th century, that the book comprises three separate collections of oracles:[4][5] Proto-Isaiah (chapters 1–39), containing the words of the 8th-century BCE prophet Isaiah; Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–55), the work of an anonymous 6th-century BCE author writing during the Exile; and Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56–66), composed after the return from Exile.[6] Isaiah 1–33 promises judgment and restoration for Judah, Jerusalem and the nations, and chapters 34–66 presume that judgment has been pronounced and restoration follows soon.[7] While virtually no scholars today attribute the entire book, or even most of it, to one person,[4] the book's essential unity has become a focus in more recent research.[8]

There were what is known as schools of prophets. It is thought that different parts of Isaiah may have been written by different people in the same school.
The dating of course is related to the naturalistic methodology and people say that the mention of Cyrus in prophecy (last verse of Isa 44 and Isa 45:1) means that this part of Isaiah must have been written after Cyrus conquered Babylon. Naturalistic methodology also determines the dating of other parts of Isaiah.

 

[Brian2]

No, that isn't the reasoning. In fact it has nothing to do with the dating.

While it is widely accepted that the book of Isaiah is rooted in a historic prophet called Isaiah, who lived in the Kingdom of Judah during the 8th century BCE, it is also widely accepted that this prophet did not write the entire book of Isaiah.[9][23]

• Historical situation: Chapters 40–55 presuppose that Jerusalem has already been destroyed (they are not framed as prophecy) and the Babylonian exile is already in effect – they speak from a present in which the Exile is about to end. Chapters 56–66 assume an even later situation, in which the people are already returned to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple is already under way.[24]
• Anonymity: Isaiah's name suddenly stops being used after chapter 39.[25]
• Style: There is a sudden change in style and theology after chapter 40; numerous key words and phrases found in one section are not found in the other.[26]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah#cite_note-FOOTNOTECate1990b414-26

There may have been more than one writer but the dating is due to the naturalistic methodology.
In the Hebrew there is something called to present prophetic tense (where prophecy is written as if it has already happened,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that is how certain it is).

Jewish scholars point out that in context the "servant" is clearly not Jesus. They are correct. I'm sure you have corrected people when they used a verse without the full context.

"The broad consensus among Jewish, and even some Christian commentators, that the “servant” in Isaiah 52-53 refers to the nation of Israel is understandable. Isaiah 53, which is the fourth of four renowned Servant Songs, is umbilically connected to its preceding chapters. The “servant” in each of the three previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the nation of Israel.

Isaiah 41:8-9

But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.”

Isaiah 44:1

But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen!

Isaiah 44:21

Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant; I formed you; you are my servant; O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me.

Isaiah 45:4

For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I called you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me.

Isaiah 48:20

Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea, declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it, send it out to the end of the earth; say, “The Lord has redeemed his servant Jacob!”

Isaiah 49:3

And he said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”

According to this widespread rabbinic opinion, Isaiah 53 contains a deeply moving narrative which world leaders will cry aloud in the messianic age. The humbled kings of nations (52: 15) will confess that Jewish suffering occurred as a direct result of “our own iniquity,” (53:5) e.g., depraved Jew-hatred, rather than, as they previously thought, the stubborn blindness of the Jews."

Who is God's Suffering Servant? The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53 | Outreach Judaism

The servant is Israel and in some places it is clearly Israel through one person and cannot mean the nation of Israel.
Israel, like David is a type of the Messiah and prophecy about Israel and about David can refer to the Messiah in places and is clearly not literally about David or Israel the nation.

 

[Kenny]

Which PhD historian disagrees with the Synoptic problem or that Mark sources different authors?

Which historian has the "Q" document? Are the synoptics in complete agreement?

Is this what you mean that they copied each other?

(Mt. 9:6) But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.”

(Mk. 2:10-11) “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic, 11 “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.”

(Lk. 5:24) “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,”—He said to the paralytic—”I say to you, get up, and pick up your stretcher and go home.

 

[Kenny]

No it's not my "diet". I read any historian on Biblical historicity.
Pagels, Price, Lataster, Purvoe, Goodacre, Crossan, Thompson and many others...

Ehrman works with facts not a "stance". If you read him you might understand.

I prefer facts and not opinions. Like the fact that Paul said,
1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

Or the historical account of Luke and Acts. above opinions of historians and quasi-believers.

But you are welcome to continue your diet as Jesus said, Mark 4:23 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. 24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given. 25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.

 

[Riders]

Plenty of historical evidence. Scientific evidence? Nah, not really.

What's the historical evidence?

 

[questfortruth]

Is there any scientific proof or historic proof that Jesus was resurrected and crucified?

Shroud of Turin is from first AD.

 

[Sheldon]

There is plenty of evidence that a deity is possible

So theists keep claiming, yet none can demonstrate any objective evidence or any deity.

What would make it objective

I don't understand the question sorry, do you not know what objective means?

Sounds like argumentum ad populum to me.

Ah I see, you actually don't know what objective means, or what a bare appeal to numbers is either apparently. Here's a clue it isn't asking a question asking for objective evidence, it's a claim that a belief is valid because the majority believe it. You know, like the one's theists use here all the time.

But maybe there is something else that would make the evidence objective.
Any ideas?

You're asking me for ideas of what would evidence a belief you hold, but that I don't? Really?

I presume you have made an adult choice about the existence of god/s.

Do you, is atheism another word you don't understand then?

Have you done that using objective evidence or is it something like a religious religious belief?

Done what? Is what like a religious religious belief?

I know, you do not believe, you just lack belief, so the burden is on me to show you

The why would you ask the two previous questions?

as far as you are concerned the god/s have not given enough evidence for you

You're going in circles, I am an atheist, so I don't believe any deity or deities exist, thus I would hardly believe they have given insufficient evidence, and FYI I have seen no objective evidence for any deity, none.

even if all start off as atheists and the god/s have given enough evidence for most people to believe.

Yet like countless theists you reel off these claims, while failing to offer any, whatever could it mean?

 

[Sheldon]

I like to parallel the charisma of faith in God, to faith in innovations, by their inventors.

All forms of innovation and invention begin as a seed idea, only in the imagination of the inventor. It is typically not accepted, up front, because the doubters cannot see how the seed idea can grow into its claimed potential. They need to see it to believe it, which is not yet possible, expect for the inventor. The inventors see the future. and not just the now. This can create a fear in the doubters.

If all seed ideas had been left to only the doubters to decide, we would still be in the Stone Age. Each layer of progress started out as a seed idea, not yet fully formed out of matter, for the doubters to see.

The faithful in God are like innovators of the mind and spirit. Their vision is not easily seen by those who only depend on their senses in the here and now. They will need to see to believe. They would like to stay in their own Stone Age of spiritual innovation. But the innovators push their ideas forward and help make life better for the doubters of the future. After the doubters can see, then a connection between all humans occurs and a new age appears. BC to AD was based on spiritual innovation.

A rather hilarious idea, since inventors who fail to create a shred of evidence their imagined ideas are even possible after millennia of trying, is hardly an analogy a theists should use.

But thanks for the analogy, yes like dismally failed inventors then, who fail to invent anything, and after millennia of trying have naught but their imagination. You're right I'd not have much confidence that such an inventor's ideas had any value at all, and with good reason.

 

[Sheldon]

Shroud of Turin is from first AD.

A fake from the middle ages, and even were it not, it's not evidence for anything supernatural, at best it would be an inexplicable relic, more likely one of the many pieces of chicanery the RCC has duped the sheeple with for centuries.

Roll up roll up, get your splinters of the cross here, a snip at $100 dollars, guaranteed to ward off evil, and bring good luck.