Lets discuss problems with the "resurrection" story

[tmonster]

Yep.

​

yep, sure is

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I'm ignorant of modern scholarship and dikkride others even more ignorant than myself.

Undoubtedly.

​

 

[tmonster]

I'm ignorant of modern scholarship and dikkride others even more ignorant than myself.

Undoubtedly.

​

oh snap!!

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

oh snap!! I still won't win so I'll continue ing for attention on the Internet.

Yep.

​

 

[tmonster]

Yep.

​

oh mah bad I forgot, you certainly can have the last word

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I'm mad that I can only this thread since I have no argument.

I see.

​

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Great back and forth @Type Username Here and @Dafunkdoc_Unlimited. props

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

This may be obvious, but the Bible can be used as historical evidence of events happening at the time, but such an old text with clear motive outside of being relied upon as solely historical information has to be taken with a large grain of salt.

Any document or book used for similar reasons would be foolish to not have "eye witness accounts". It adds to the believability. The overall veracity of the eye witness accounts can be debated to no end and no certainty will come of it.

If I was to write a text in the same vein as the Bible, it would be both logical and necessary to add eye witness accounts to the text..of which would have some merit in absolute truth and also have some parts of those accounts or others to be exaggerated without being indefeasible.

Think about it like this. Let's all say that the events documented in the NT (or OT) for that matter began today and developed for the next 40 years through various additions and modifications..would it be as believable as a text written 2000 years ago? No, because of the vastly grown capabilities of information gathering and photographic and video recording documentation.

In fact, I would be more inclined (and am) to believe some of the supernatural aspects of the Torah/Bible more than some of the historical evidence provided simply because the supernatural aspects cannot be proven true or false, while the historical information can be distorted and corroborated by equally or more recent information written on it, providing the illusion that it is more likely to be true while ignoring the obvious momentum the Christian movement had picked up in the years after what happened, happened.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

This may be obvious, but the Bible can be used as historical evidence of events happening at the time, but such an old text with clear motive outside of being relied upon as solely historical information has to be taken with a large grain of salt.

“The fact that [the Christian’s] books later became documents of faith has no bearing on the question of whether the books can still be used for historical purposes. To dismiss the gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly. ........The problem, of course, is that most sources are biased: if they didn’t have any feelings about the subject matter, they wouldn’t be talking about it.”

 

[Type Username Here]

The people dismissing it are biased but the people who continued to tell the story orally, those who wrote those stories down and those who helped organize the collections of the aforementioned writings are not biased?

Anyway, if we're talking about analyzing these documents for historical perspective about architecture, culture, language, and so on, there's not really an issue. There is merit in that just like there is merit in dissecting other works of fiction.

Now if you're saying a man was executed and was resurrected in the manner as described by the NT, there is no historical basis for this. There is no historical basis for Biblical Jesus. There exists weak evidence that someone like that may have lived and been baptized. Weaker evidence exists that he was crucified. Zero evidence that he was resurrected from the dead. There exists more testimony from eye witnesses about Joseph Smith and his miracles than Biblical Jesus. Same for Mohammed. None of it should be taken serious when we consider there are cult members alive in the present who would swear their cult leader has the ability to heal people or that people can survive decades without food and/or water.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

@Dafunkdoc_Unlimited Im not dismissing it from historical record at all.

I would also challenge that point Ehrman made by saying the books became those of faith when they were originally not supposed to be. Not sure about that one.

Btw, Happy Memorial Day Weekend. Much respect for your service.

 

[tmonster]

The people dismissing it are biased but the people who continued to tell the story orally, those who wrote those stories down and those who helped organize the collections of the aforementioned writings are not biased?

Anyway, if we're talking about analyzing these documents for historical perspective about architecture, culture, language, and so on, there's not really an issue. There is merit in that just like there is merit in dissecting other works of fiction.

Now if you're saying a man was executed and was resurrected in the manner as described by the NT, there is no historical basis for this. There is no historical basis for Biblical Jesus. There exists weak evidence that someone like that may have lived and been baptized. Weaker evidence exists that he was crucified. Zero evidence that he was resurrected from the dead. There exists more testimony from eye witnesses about Joseph Smith and his miracles than Biblical Jesus. Same for Mohammed. None of it should be taken serious when we consider there are cult members alive in the present who would swear their cult leader has the ability to heal people or that people can survive decades without food and/or water.

Wow, so that can't be used evidence huh?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

The people dismissing it are biased but the people who continued to tell the story orally, those who wrote those stories down and those who helped organize the collections of the aforementioned writings are not biased?

The stories were circulating before any 'organization' and a bias doesn't invalidate the information. No document is completely trustworthy or completely untrustworthy. That's a false dichotomy.
​

Now if you're saying a man was executed and was resurrected in the manner as described by the NT, there is no historical basis for this.

There is no historical basis for anything until it actually happens.
​

There is no historical basis for Biblical Jesus.

This is false. All the Gospels assume a historical Jesus, that's why they wrote about him.​

There exists weak evidence that someone like that may have lived and been baptized. Weaker evidence exists that he was crucified. Zero evidence that he was resurrected from the dead.

This is all false. The facts are that if Jesus didn't exist, there would be NO evidence at all since there would be nothing to write about.
​

There exists more testimony from eye witnesses about Joseph Smith and his miracles than Biblical Jesus. Same for Mohammed. None of it should be taken serious when we consider there are cult members alive in the present who would swear their cult leader has the ability to heal people or that people can survive decades without food and/or water.

All those writings assume Joseph Smith and Mohammed were historical figures. Neither were in Judea when the events in the Gospels were written and are irrelevant to the discussion.

There is no good evidence to deny the existence of Jesus.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

@Dafunkdoc_Unlimited Im not dismissing it from historical record at all.

I would also challenge that point Ehrman made by saying the books became those of faith when they were originally not supposed to be. Not sure about that one.

The books of the faith, during the time of Jesus, were in the Hebrew Bible. The Gospels were outside of the 'canon'. Christians and Jews were one-in-the-same until the second century .​

 

[Type Username Here]

The stories were circulating before any 'organization' and a bias doesn't invalidate the information. No document is completely trustworthy or completely untrustworthy. That's a false dichotomy.​

There were multiple stories circulating. Multiple stories. The faith you believe happens to be one (or possibly a few) of those stories that were chosen.
​

There is no historical basis for anything until it actually happens.

Yes, and a man has never been killed and resurrected in a manner described by the NT. That has never happened. Which is my point entirely.
​

This is false. All the Gospels assume a historical Jesus, that's why they wrote about him.

They wrote about him? It must be true then. And Mohammed must be the Last Prophet of God and that Jesus was never resurrected (according to his religion). The fact that they wrote about a man doesn't mean that mean existed in that capacity.​

This is all false. The facts are that if Jesus didn't exist, there would be NO evidence at all since there would be nothing to write about.

Do the angels they wrote about exist?

There is no good evidence to deny the existence of Jesus.

I'm not doing such a thing. I've said all along I'm in the camp that believes a political figure of that nature probably existed. I have no problem saying a human male existed. It's all the other nonsense.

I'm denying the existence of the Biblical Jesus. He wasn't the son of God. He didn't have supernatural powers. He wasn't resurrected in the manner described (the premise of this thread). There is no historical or authentic proof of any of those things. Those things are taken on faith and faith alone.