Lets discuss problems with the "resurrection" story

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Using the Bible as documentation of an event of this caliber is highly disingenuous and misleading. The Bible has a very clear bias towards saying this occurred ( obviously) and the amount of editing or rewriting is not up to debate. The bible has no merit in a non-theological investigation.

The Bible is valid historical documentation. There is no disputing it. The issue arises in HOW the text is used, not why. Critics and scholars use it extensively. The text is used in conjunction with supporting documentation in order to pass the tests of historicity, i.e., multiple attestations of historical events. The Bible's merit has been firmly established for over 200 years for the purposes of archeology, history, politics, etc.​

Merely assigning merit to the Bible because it remarks on its contemporary events or locations is also highly disingenuous. It would be akin to saying that cloning dinosaurs as described by Jurassic Park happened because the book also mentions contemporary scientific research, and is set and describes contemporary human culture and real world locations.

There is no one using the text to remark on CURRENT events/locations in this thread so that criticism is invalid for the discussion. What is being done is applying CURRENT investigative techniques to ancient texts to extract history.
​

 

[Type Username Here]

The Bible is valid historical documentation. There is no disputing it. The issue arises in HOW the text is used, not why. Critics and scholars use it extensively. The text is used in conjunction with supporting documentation in order to pass the tests of historicity, i.e., multiple attestations of historical events. The Bible's merit has been firmly established for over 200 years.​

There is no one using the text to remark on CURRENT events/locations in this thread so that criticism is invalid for the discussion. What is being done is applying CURRENT investigative techniques to ancient texts to extract history.
​

What you essentially have said here is that the Bible is used as a document only when other documentation exists to provide merit to the aforementioned writing. Therefore, what is providing the merit to the Biblical assertions in specific sections is non-Biblical sources. Thus we can skip the Bible as an authentic source and just use the non-Biblical evidence.

That being said, because the Bible speaks about events or locations of its time doesn't give merit to any other claim in the book as I have shown with Jurassic Park. There may have been someone (or a few people) who could somewhat describe a modified existence of Jesus (non-Biblical evidence is weak but exists). That person or one of those people might even have been crucified (non-Biblical evidence is highly weak on this assertion). Right there though is where even the weak evidence stops. No proof of miracles. No proof of resurrection. No proof of a lot of things associated with Biblical Jesus. Using one (weakly supported yet supported) claim to justify all others is purely biased and disingenuous.

One thing to clear up, I meant contemporary as it relates in reference to the time the Bible was written, i.e., it speaks about locations of its time. I was not speaking on contemporary as it relates to currently. I should have worded it better.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

What you essentially have said here is that the Bible is used as a document only when other documentation exists to provide merit to the aforementioned writing. Therefore, what is providing the merit to the Biblical assertions in specific sections is non-Biblical sources. Thus we can skip the Bible as an authentic source and just use the non-Biblical evidence.

It is used as an authentic document regardless of outside documentation as one attestation. Other documents provide additional attestations. That's how history is done via multiple attestations/independent sources. You don't rely on ONE document especially concerning ancient history. Would you rely on ONE experiment? I thought not.

To further my point: The Book of Mark is one attestation. The Book of John is another attestation. Both are independent of one another. Matthew and Luke are based on Mark so are not independent. Tacitus' Annals is another independent attestation. All three independent sources describe Jesus being executed by Pontius Pilate in Judea. Mark and John are both early testimonies of events from eyewitnesses. Paul knew of these testimonies and wrote about them less than 20 years after the events described, well within the lifetimes of witnesses who would have corrected him were he wrong or flatly accused him of lying.

Your criticism is a big genetic fallacy. The premise of the thread is to examine the story. The story is contained in the Bible.

To not use the Bible in a thread about the Bible would be retarded and your accusations of disingenuousness are worthless, an indication of not being cognizant of what I'm arguing.
​

One thing to clear up, I meant contemporary as it relates in reference to the time the Bible was written, i.e., it speaks about locations of its time. I was not speaking on contemporary as it relates to currently. I should have worded it better.

That is an invalid criticism, then. It makes absolutely no sense to call the testimony of people who were not in the location at the time 'eyewitness reports'.​

 

[tmonster]

What you essentially have said here is that the Bible is used as a document only when other documentation exists to provide merit to the aforementioned writing. Therefore, what is providing the merit to the Biblical assertions in specific sections is non-Biblical sources. Thus we can skip the Bible as an authentic source and just use the non-Biblical evidence.

That being said, because the Bible speaks about events or locations of its time doesn't give merit to any other claim in the book as I have shown with Jurassic Park. There may have been someone (or a few people) who could somewhat describe a modified existence of Jesus (non-Biblical evidence is weak but exists). That person or one of those people might even have been crucified (non-Biblical evidence is highly weak on this assertion). Right there though is where even the weak evidence stops. No proof of miracles. No proof of resurrection. No proof of a lot of things associated with Biblical Jesus. Using one (weakly supported yet supported) claim to justify all others is purely biased and disingenuous.

One thing to clear up, I meant contemporary as it relates in reference to the time the Bible was written, i.e., it speaks about locations of its time. I was not speaking on contemporary as it relates to currently. I should have worded it better.

why must you troll so hard

 

[Type Username Here]

It is used as an authentic document regardless of outside documentation as one attestation. Other documents provide additional attestations. That's how history is done via multiple attestations/independent sources. You don't rely on ONE document especially concerning ancient history. Would you rely on ONE experiment? I thought not.​

You don't rely on a document that has a clear bias towards something supernatural being true. For the supernatural to be presented as true, selective writings, editing and re-writing occurred to present a false narrative. Islam, which is 600 years younger and documented much more extensively, is the best example to show this. Hadiths, writings and documentation not favorable to Islam are disregarded as slander or non-authentic. These religions and documents exist to push a narrative, not present objective evidence.
​

To further my point: The Book of Mark is one attestation. The Book of John is another attestation. Both are independent of one another. Matthew and Luke are based on Mark so are not independent. Tacitus' Annals is another independent attestation. All three independent sources describe Jesus being executed by Pontius Pilate in Judea. Mark and John are both early testimonies of events from eyewitnesses. Paul knew of these testimonies and wrote about them less than 20 years after the events described, well within the lifetimes of witnesses who would have corrected him were he wrong or flatly accused him of lying.

They are retelling of the same stories. They are modified in each account because of this. All three are independent, but independent accounts of a story, not eyewitness testimony. Not to even mention the amount of time that transpired between the event or how the Catholic Church was very selective on what accounts to keep (or what they would re-write). Also, your logic is faulty when talking about Paul. He was probably regarded as wrong and some I'm sure did flatly accuse of him of lying. Most likely, they would have ignored him. Paul is not an objective source on Jesus or the Biblical story of Jesus. It would be like going to L Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith Jr for objective evidence or testimony of authenticity for their respective religions.

​

Your criticism is a big genetic fallacy. The premise of the thread is to examine the story. The story is contained in the Bible and a historically verified event in multiple 1st Century documents.

There are maybe one or two sources (many years after) that someone fitting the description of Jesus might have existed and was possibly crucified. Most likely they were documenting stories being told. Even if we take that weak evidence into account as true, nowhere does it say he was resurrected. There are some scholars who think he did not exist and some who can't find any true concrete evidence of his crucifixion. The Quran has their own account of it but I'm sure you have no issue dismissing that as a biased account.

​

That is an invalid criticism, then. The purpose of using the text in this thread is due to it being eyewitness testimony written early after the event. Not for any social/geographical commentary.​

​

The "testimony" is not valid. It's not objective and serves only one purpose: to bolster the Christian faith. You act as if there weren't other gospels or accounts that were discredited or disregarded. There are testimonies, descriptions and accusations of crimes or events that are altered or non-accurate after hours of large events and you want to present documents written decades after, which were selectively chosen and edited, as objective proof? No. You can't act like there are gospels in the New Testament that present evidence he wasn't divine. It's not an objective source when discussing the life and death of Jesus.

It would be like me using multiple accounts of King Arthur (someone who may have really existed that best fits that description) in conjunction with the Canterbury Tales to say that the headless Green Knight really happened.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You don't rely on a document that has a clear bias towards something supernatural being true. For the supernatural to be presented as true, selective writings, editing and re-writing occurred to present a false narrative. Islam, which is 600 years younger and documented much more extensively, is the best example to show this. Hadiths, writings and documentation not favorable to Islam are disregarded as slander or non-authentic. These religions and documents exist to push a narrative, not present objective evidence.

Yep, you have NO idea what I'm arguing.
​

They are retelling of the same stories. They are modified in each account because of this. All three are independent, but independent accounts of a story, not eyewitness testimony. Not to even mention the amount of time that transpired between the event or how the Catholic Church was very selective on what accounts to keep (or what they would re-write). Also, your logic is faulty when talking about Paul. He was probably regarded as wrong and some I'm sure did flatly accuse of him of lying. Most likely, they would have ignored him. Paul is not an objective source on Jesus or the Biblical story of Jesus. It would be like going to L Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith Jr for objective evidence or testimony of authenticity for their respective religions.

First and foremost, not much time had passed before Mark or John were written. Second, the Catholic Church wasn't even an established institution when the Gospels were being circulated therefore, doesn't matter. Third, Paul is not being used as testimony, only to establish the early documentation of Mark and John. Fourth, the Gospels (Mark and John) are independent eyewitness testimonies. Fifth, there are no corroborating documents or archeological finds to support L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith's 'stories'. Sixth, your logic and theory are implausible since Paul, himself, states how he was treated and not once was he accused of anything except in matters of theology. Lastly, Jesus was worshiped as a 'deity' within two years of his death.
​

There are maybe one or two sources (many years after) that someone fitting the description of Jesus might have existed and was possibly crucified. Most likely they were documenting stories being told. Even if we take that weak evidence into account as true, nowhere does it say he was resurrected. There are some scholars who think he did not exist and some who can't find any true concrete evidence of his crucifixion. The Quran has their own account of it but I'm sure you have no issue dismissing that as a biased account.

This is false since the Gospels of Mark and Luke were written before Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians. This is proven by Paul's reference to both works in ~52 CE (19 years after Jesus was executed). Compared to other historical figures in antiquity, that's nothing. Don't let your bias cloud your judgment of the evidence. There is no 'someone fitting the description'. That's Jesus. There are some scholars that believe the pyramids were built by aliens and the world is only 6,000 years old. I dismiss the Quranic account because it contradicts established multiply-attested historical fact as pertaining to this thread and is written 600 years later.
​

The "testimony" is not valid. It's not objective and serves only one purpose: to bolster the Christian faith. You act as if there weren't other gospels or accounts that were discredited or disregarded. There are testimonies, descriptions and accusations of crimes or events that are altered or non-accurate after hours of large events and you want to present documents written decades after, which were selectively chosen and edited, as objective proof? No. You can't act like there are gospels in the New Testament that present evidence he wasn't divine. It's not an objective source when discussing the life and death of Jesus.

Your hypercriticism is invalid. The testimony is actually objectively valid, written within a couple years (not decades) of the events, and serves more than one purpose. The primary purpose is to accurately record the events. The 'other' Gospels are written too late. I'm not arguing Jesus 'divinity'.
​

It would be like me using multiple accounts of King Arthur

It might if King Arthur actually existed, but he didn't.
​

 

[Type Username Here]

​

Yep, you have NO idea what I'm arguing.
​

First and foremost, not much time had passed before Mark or John were written. Second, the Catholic Church wasn't even an established institution when the Gospels were being circulated therefore, doesn't matter. Third, Paul is not being used as testimony, only to establish the early documentation of Mark and John. Fourth, the Gospels (Mark and John) are independent eyewitness testimonies. Fifth, there are no corroborating documents or archeological finds to support L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith's 'stories'. Sixth, your logic and theory are implausible since Paul, himself, states how he was treated and not once was he accused of anything except in matters of theology. Lastly, Jesus was worshiped as a 'deity' within two years of his death.
​

This is false since the Gospels of Mark and Luke were written before Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians. This is proven by Paul's reference to both works in ~52 CE (19 years after Jesus was executed). Compared to other historical figures in antiquity, that's nothing. Don't let your bias cloud your judgment of the evidence. There is no 'someone fitting the description'. That's Jesus. There are some scholars that believe the pyramids were built by aliens and the world is only 6,000 years old. I dismiss the Quranic account because it contradicts established multiply-attested historical fact as pertaining to this thread.
​

The testimony is actually objectively valid and serves more than one purpose. The primary purpose is to accurately record the events. The execution of Jesus is recorded in the 'canonical' Gospels, referred to in Biblical epistles and attested to in other ancient sources. The 'other' Gospels are written too late. I'm not arguing Jesus 'divinity'.
​

It might if King Arthur actually existed, but he didn't.
​

1) Mark. John, or any of the NT gospels are not eyewitness accounts. They are interpretations of a story that claim people witnessed those events. They were also selected because of the narrative they push. Others were erased from history or discarded. Some of those 4 were most likely edited. They are not objective testimonies but merely tools to provide false evidence in order to spread a religion.

2) Mohammed was accepted as the final Prophet of God during his lifetime. There are exponentially larger pools of historical data about his existence and life. There are witnesses and accounts of him existing. He also supposedly flew on a winged horse around the world. One or few items being true does not imply the other is true. Same with Yeshua and Biblical Jesus. He might have existed. he might have been crucified. That's where it stops. Nothing else is authentic.

3) 19 years after Jesus was executed is a long time. It doesn't really matter though since everything written about him was probably fabricated, edited, or words of faith. Take Joseph Smith. That was 200 years ago. The US Census and historical accounts show that he existed. People wrote of him.
There are also eye-witness accounts of Joseph Smith curing and healing people (and doing other miracles):

According to a number of eye-witness accounts, Joseph Smith is credited with the miraculous healings of a large number of individuals.

Miracles of Joseph Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I guess Mormonism is the truth! Those eyewitness HAD to be telling the truth and since we have a US Census and newspaper articles that Joseph Smith existed, it must make Mormonism even more true!

Something tells me that you don't apply the scrutiny you do towards Mormonism and Joseph Smith that you do with Christianity. We've been down this road before. You're a Christian masquerading as an objective theological scholar. Yet here we are again (for the 100th time). I am pointing out your obvious bias once more.

Also, King Arthur has much more evidence of historical existence than Jesus does. But over a billion people don't follow the King Arthur religion so people have no problem scrutinizing his existence.

 

[Type Username Here]

In his personal journal, Wilford Woodruff recorded an event that occurred on July 22, 1839 in which he described Smith walking among a large number of Saints who had taken ill, immediately healing them all.

Smith attracted thousands of devoted followers before his death in 1844 and millions in the century that followed.[163] Among Mormons, he is regarded as a prophet on par with Moses and Elijah.

Everyone, Mormons are the true Christians! People documented Joseph Smith's miracles. His divinity was established while he was alive! The US Census documented his existence! His birth and death were documented! People wrote about him while he was alive! He was persecuted and shunned while he was alive! Everything else in the Book of Mormon must be true!

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

1) Mark. John, or any of the NT gospels are not eyewitness accounts. They are interpretations of a story that claim people witnessed those events. They were also selected because of the narrative they push. Others were erased from history or discarded. Some of those 4 were most likely edited. They are not objective testimonies but merely tools to provide false evidence in order to spread a religion.

All false assertions with no evidence to support them and much evidence that falsifies them.​

2) Mohammed........

..........is not the subject of the discussion and is irrelevant.​

3) 19 years after Jesus was executed is a long time. It doesn't really matter though since everything written about him was probably fabricated, edited, or words of faith. Take Joseph Smith. That was 200 years ago. The US Census and historical accounts show that he existed. People wrote of him.
There are also eye-witness accounts of Joseph Smith curing and healing people (and doing other miracles):

19 years is nothing and only applies to Paul's writing, not Mark or Luke who wrote years earlier. Joseph Smith's claims are unsupported by any evidence which is unlike Jesus. Take Joseph Smith out of the conversation. He's not helping you.
​

2) Mohammed........

....is irrelevant.​

So I guess Mormonism is the truth! Those eyewitness HAD to be telling the truth and since we have a US Census and newspaper articles that Joseph Smith existed, it must make Mormonism even more true!

Yet again, I'm not arguing 'miracles'. Your point is moot.​

Something tells me that you don't apply the scrutiny you do towards Mormonism and Joseph Smith that you do with Christianity. We've been down this road before. You're a Christian masquerading as an objective theological scholar. Yet here we are again (for the 100th time). I am pointing out your obvious bias once more.

I'm not arguing about Joseph Smith or Mormonism. The bias is yours. I've told you and others more than once why I'm interested in any of this. Your assertion doesn't disprove it nor does it invalidate anything I've posted thus far. It's nothing more than a thinly-disguised appeal to ridicule. A fallacious argument. The information I access is available to anyone interested in the subject regardless of theological stance. Being ignorant of the subject and using bad/fallacious arguments is due to intellectual laziness on the part of so-called 'critics'.​

Also, King Arthur has much more evidence of historical existence than Jesus does.

No, he doesn't. That's a flat-out lie.​

 

[Type Username Here]

All false assertions with no evidence to support them.​

..........is not the subject of the discussion and is irrelevant.​

19 years is nothing and only applies to Paul's writing, not Mark or Luke who wrote years earlier. Joseph Smith's claims are unsupported by any evidence which is unlike Jesus. Take Joseph Smith out of the conversation. He's not helping you.
​

....is irrelevant.​

Yet again, I'm not arguing 'miracles'. Your point is moot.​

I'm not arguing about Joseph Smith or Mormonism. The bias is yours. I've told you and others more than once why I'm interested in any of this. Your assertion doesn't disprove it nor does it invalidate anything I've posted thus far. Assertions made without evidence.......​

No, he doesn't. That's a flat-out lie.​

1) Mohammed and Joseph Smith are very relevant to the conversation. I merely using your logic about the authenticity of Jesus and the NT towards other religions (one that you don't believe in). Why don't you apply the same logic towards the religion of those two that you do about Jesus and Christianity? Hmmmm.

2) Historical basis for King Arthur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3)

The Gospel of Thomas also lacks any mention of Jesus' birth, baptism, miracles, travels, death, and resurrection

Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Gospel was most likely a retelling of the historical Jesus or a b*stardized retelling passed on for centuries. There was selective editing of the NT from the start. It sought to push a narrative, which was later affirmed by the Romans and the Catholic Church. Paul was not an objective source, neither are the gospels in the NT. They are purposely painting one narrative.

Do you believe in Mormons and Joseph Smith? The evidence for that religion is much greater. We had people document and witness his miracles and prophecies during his lifetime 200 years ago. You don't think those could have been fabricated or lies do you?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

1) Mohammed and Joseph Smith are very relevant to the conversation.

No, they aren't. Neither were there for the event. You're not using logic (or evidence) at all.​

2) Historical basis for King Arthur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First sentence says it all: The historical basis of King Arthur is a source of considerable debate among historians. Due to the poverty of British records in the period 450-550 CE, historian Thomas Charles-Edwards noted that "at this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been an historical Arthur [but …] the historian can as yet say nothing of value about him".

Meanwhile, the execution of Jesus is an historical fact along with several others including his baptism and the persecution/execution of his followers. There's also this......
​

Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did. If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed.

Using a faulty comparison makes your argument even more worthless. Attempting to question the existence of Jesus is a display of ignorance, not critical thought, on-par with questioning the historicity of Caeser Augustus or the Burning of Rome.
​

3)
Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Gospel was most likely a retelling of the historical Jesus. There was selective editing of the NT from the start. It sought to push a narrative, which was later affirmed by the Romans and the Catholic Church.

The Gospel of Thomas was composed in the 2nd Century and based on Mark, Matthew and Luke. Too late to be used for eyewitness testimony and not an independent source.
​

Do you believe in Mormons and Joseph Smith? The evidence for that religion is much greater. We had people document and witness his miracles and prophecies during his lifetime 200 years ago. You don't think those could have been fabricated or lies do you?

........

Mormons In Transition - National Geographic Society Statement on the Book of Mormon

Mormons In Transition - Smithsonian Institution statement on the Book of Mormon​

 

[Thsnnor]

The Bible is not a self referencing book. It has names to verify the accounts and accuracy. If they were proven false Christianity would have collapsed on itself. Instead the more archeologists look the more they affirm the accounts and accuracy of the Bible. It is widely regarded that no serious historical scholar denies the New Testament (The ones who are actually doing the digging).

Pagan, Jewish, Roman and other writings confirm Jesus, his miracles and his teachings. Some people have a problem with the slight differences in descriptions between the Gospels so let me ask you this. If you were a judge and had four people come before you with slight differences but the story was the same vs four people who had the same story word for word, letter for letter which would you believe?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

In 1987 Gerd Lüdemann presented a sustained critical attempt to assess the historical value of Acts. In his introductory essay to this work, after a brief overview of the history of scholarship on the question of the historical worth of Acts, he reformulates this issue in terms of the “historical value of the traditions in Acts.” Thus his aim “is to look at each individual section to see the tradition which may possibly be contained in it and then if possible to give a reasoned judgment on its historical value.” Lüdemann understands his efforts to be a resumption of Foakes Jackson and Lake’s five-volume project The Beginnings of Christianity inasmuch as his objective is to “investigate what historical facts can be gained from Acts which could be the basis for assured knowledge about earliest Christianity.” His preliminary conclusion that “Acts remains an important source for the history of early Christianity” primarily reflects his investigations of the “Pauline” sections of Luke’s work. Although he assumes that “ in Acts 1–5 Luke relied on individual oral traditions from the early period of the Jerusalem community,” he acknowledges that those sections of Acts that cannot be corroborated by Paul’s letters “pose a special problem.” It may be “possible only to reconstruct individual traditions, and in many cases judgments as to their historicity have a lesser degree of probability because our possibilities of controlling them are less.”

Lüdemann’s procedure is to analyze the text of Acts, section by section, according to a four-part schema: (1) structure and outline of content, (2) redactional-critical analysis, (3) identification of traditional elements, and (4) indication of the historical worth of the isolated traditions. So let’s cut to the chase: What does Lüdemann place under the rubric “historical” in Acts 1:1–8:3?

ACTS1:1–14

Oddly enough, first among the items to emerge as historical are the Jerusalem appearances of the risen Jesus. Of course, for Lüdemann such “visions” are accounted for by “psychological processes” leading to “mass psychoses,” so that “the assumption of a resurrection of Jesus is completely unnecessary as a presupposition to explain these phenomena.”

~Redescribing Christian Origins, 2004, pg. 163-164

“There were in fact appearances of the heavenly Jesus in Jerusalem (after those in Galilee)” pg. 29-30.

Gerd Lüdemann's Homepage​

 

[tmonster]

Gerd Lüdemann's Homepage​

this is evidence isn't it?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

this is me still ing because all my arguments are refuted.

Yep.

​