Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Clement would not have known that Isaiah 53 amazingly describes many aspects of the crucifixion if he had not read the gospels. So plainly he did know about them and read them.

dm: Clement couldn't have heard about the crucifixion by word of mouth? Why not?

He could have, but it is more rational that as a highly educated leader of the Church it is much more probable that he also had read the gospels and probably even had copies readily available to him.

dm: If Clement wanted to describe the crucifixion, and had a copy of the gospels, why didn't he quote from them? Here is what Clement has to say about the crucifixion:

1Clem 16:2
The scepter of the majesty of God, even our Lord Jesus Christ, came
not in the pomp of arrogance or of pride, though He might have done
so, but in lowliness of mind, according as the Holy Spirit spake
concerning Him.
1Clem 16:3
For He saith Lord, who believed our report? and to whom was the arm
of the Lord revealed? We announced Him in His presence. As a child
was He, as a root in a thirsty ground. There is no form in Him,
neither glory. And we beheld Him, and He had no form nor
comeliness, but His form was mean, lacking more than the form of
men. He was a man of stripes and of toil, and knowing how to bear
infirmity: for His face is turned away. He was dishonored and held
of no account.
of the Lord revealed? We announced Him in His presence. As a child
was He, as a root in a thirsty ground. There is no form in Him,
neither glory. And we beheld Him, and He had no form nor
comeliness, but His form was mean, lacking more than the form of
men. He was a man of stripes and of toil, and knowing how to bear
infirmity: for His face is turned away. He was dishonored and held
of no account.
1Clem 16:4
He beareth our sins and suffereth pain for our sakes: and we
accounted Him to be in toil and in stripes and in affliction.
1Clem 16:5
And He was wounded for our sins and hath been afflicted for our
iniquities. The chastisement of our peace is upon Him. With His
bruises we were healed.
1Clem 16:6
We all went astray like sheep, each man went astray in his own
path:
1Clem 16:7
and the Lord delivered Him over for our sins. And He openeth not
His mouth, because He is afflicted. As a sheep He was led to
slaughter; and as a lamb before his shearer is dumb, so openeth He
not His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment was taken away.
1Clem 16:8
His generation who shall declare? For His life is taken away from
the earth.
1Clem 16:9
For the iniquities of my people He is come to death.
1Clem 16:10
And I will give the wicked for His burial, and the rich for His
death; for He wrought no iniquity, neither was guile found in His
mouth. And the Lord desireth to cleanse Him from His stripes.
1Clem 16:11
If ye offer for sin, your soul shall see along lived seed.
1Clem 16:12
And the Lord desireth to take away from the toil of His soul, to
show Him light and to mould Him with understanding, to justify a
Just One that is a good servant unto many. And He shall bear their
sins.
1Clem 16:13
Therefore He shall inherit many, and shall divide the spoils of the
strong; because His soul was delivered unto death, and He was
reckoned unto the transgressors;
1Clem 16:14
and He bare the sins of many, and for their sins was He delivered
up.
1Clem 16:15
And again He Himself saith; But I am a worm and no man, a reproach
of men and an outcast of the people.
of men and an outcast of the people.
1Clem 16:16
All they that beheld me mocked at me; they spake with their lips;
they wagged their heads, saying, He hoped on the Lord; let Him
deliver him, or let Him save him, for He desireth him.
1Clem 16:17
Ye see, dearly beloved, what is the pattern that hath been given unto
us; for, if the Lord was thus lowly of mind, what should we do, who
through Him have been brought under the yoke of His grace? [ from First Clement: Clement of Rome]
He says we can learn from Christ's humility, and then turns to lengthy quotes of Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22 as his source of information about the life of Christ. This is one reason that many think that people like Paul and Clement found Christ in their interpretations of scripture, and had never even known him to be a man on earth. If Clement had thought Jesus to be a man on earth, why, when describing his humility, would he not turn to the record of events that happened on earth?

It appears somewhat obviously that in this particular letter he was trying to demonstrate the accuracy of OT prophecy regarding Christ.

dm: But we digress again. Whether Paul and Clement thought Jesus was mythical is a topic for the other thread if you want to get back to that. This thread is about the resurrection. Once again, when you look at early books like Clement, we don't find clear references to the gospels. Even at places where we would expect it, such as the quote above, there is not a hint of knowing that the four gospels exist and are filled with information on Clement's topic.

No, it is quite obvious to me that in this letter he was demonstrating the power and accuracy of OT prophecy.

ed: The earliest record is not the epistles. It is the ancient hymn Paul quotes in I Cor. 15:3-8, of which there is strong evidence it was written around 35 AD. It plainly mentions a bodily resurrection.

dm: You have repeated this numerous times on this thread, but you still have not shown us one piece of evidence that I Cor 15:5-8 were was from around 35 AD. You have scholars that agree with you. I have scholars that agree with me.

And my scholars can beat up your scholars.

The passage uses early primitive Semitic phrases. These terms show that the reports are early and are not touched up to reflect later ways of speaking. Most of your scholars are liberal scholars, I use a mix of liberal and conservative. Such as James D. G Dunn and Laird Harris and even jewish scholars like Pinchas Lapide agree that this passage is very early within five years of the resurrection. So my scholars are more diverse.

dm: And whether "was seen" in I Cor 15:5-8 means a tomb was empty and a body came out has been discussed many times on this thread. You have heard my views on this, and refuse to even acknowledge my views. I think Paul is clear that his sighting of Jesus was a heavenly vision, and I see nothing here that indicates Paul thought anybody else saw anything other than what Paul saw. You think otherwise. So the readers of this thread are welcome to judge if "was seen" proves they were claiming a tomb was empty and a former corpse came walking out.

The reference to being buried and the third day confirms that the tomb was empty.

dm: Back to my questions. Can you answer, please, when you get time?

I did, see above.

dm: Do you think Paul was describing a physical Jesus made of atoms in his risen body? If not, what does it even mean to say that the body is physical if it is not made of atoms?

We don't know for certain but probably new spiritual transformed atoms just as Jesus was given a new spiritual transformed physical body.

dm: Paul says Jesus lives in him. How is that even possible if Jesus currently consists of a physical body? I think Paul thought Jesus was a spirit.

We know from the context that he was referring to Jesus' Holy Spirit lives in Him.

dm: You believe that the earthly body of Paul decayed, and exists no longer, yes? If Paul thought his body would decay and exist no longer, why did he not think Jesus's body would do the same? If you think Paul lives in spirit even though his body is decayed, why could not Paul have thought the same about Jesus?

See my post just prior to this one where I explain this.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But Mark records in verses 5-8 that three women went to the tomb and the tomb was empty. He records that the women were told that He had risen. The fact that it is recorded that women discovered the tomb empty is one of the main reasons even the most liberal of new testament scholars think that in fact the tomb was empty.

Mark 16:1-8 says they were told the tomb was empty by a stranger. It does not say they confirmed it was empty.

Liberal scholars do not agree the tomb was empty. Likely Jesus was buried like any other crucified person, in a mass grave where nobody could verify which body was still there. Or it could be the women only heard a stranger say the tomb was empty, and never verified. It could have been a mistaken identity, where they thought he was in one grave but he was in another. Or he could have survived unconscious, and been nursed back to life by Joseph of Arimathea. Or the whole story could be simply legend.

Much the same way biographers today supplement information already in print about a particular person with material they gathered from other sources when compiling a biography about said person.

Just because Luke has more detail in his biography than Mark does, does not mean the additional information is mythological or made up. Think about it. If Luke's gospel comes after Mark's we would expect Luke to be more detailed would we not?

Not to mention Luke was a historian/physician! Would we not expect his gospel to contain additional information?

The whole notion that a biographical document is unreliable because it contains additional information in it than is contained in a preceding document is fallacious.

Understood. Nobody is saying that since Luke added material, therefore it was made up.

The point is that where Mark tells the story, Matthew and Luke use that framework for telling their story. If they had other sources, one would think sometimes the other sources that they used would tell the same story as Mark, and Matthew and Luke would choose the other framework sometimes. They always seem to use Mark where Mark speaks, indicating they had no other source for anything Mark said, and thus, probably had no other source.

Therefore you will have to have some other reason for thinking that the accounts of Peter confirming the empty tomb or the post mortem appearances of Jesus to hundreds for example, are false.

Resurrections are rare, if they occur at all. Judging by the sketchy evidence, I would think other explanations are more likely than resurrection.

Why think this was the case and even if there was editing, why assume that said editing was of such a nature as to render the accounts unreliable when it comes to the claims of Jesus' resurrection?

My claim has always been that I don't know what editing was done before 150 AD. So you can hardly get from "I don't know" to "I know it was such that rendered the accounts unreliable". As I have said many times, even if the accounts were never edited, there are still signs of legendary development from Paul to Mark 16:1-8 to the first Matthew and Luke.

If I approached these texts with the assumption that miracles can't happen then I would probably ascribe to some similar theory, no matter how contrived it was. I would be loathe to mention it to anyone though as I would just be too embarrassed to do so. Thankfully, I have no such bias. I can approach the texts objectively without bias for I have no axe to grind and no presuposition I have to confirm.

I also can approach without bias. I do not rule out a resurrection caused by forces we do not currently understand. But seeing that this is quite unlikely, I see other explanations as more likely.

You have no bias? Wouldn't your life be changed in a big way if you started believing the resurrection had not happened? Are you not biased to hang unto the beliefs you now have?

 

[doubtingmerle]

He could have, but it is more rational that as a highly educated leader of the Church it is much more probable that he also had read the gospels and probably even had copies readily available to him.

If the gospels were widely known, then yes, Clement, a highly educated leader of the church in Rome and reported disciple of Peter would have know about the gospels. If the gospels were widely used, one would expect Papias in the early second century to rely on them as a source for his book on the sayings of Jesus. If the gospels were widely known, we would expect Justin, who accurately quotes the Old Testament, to quote them accurately.

But Clement shows little if any knowledge of the gospels. Papias says he didn't think there would be anything in books about Jesus that would help him write about Jesus. Justin's "Memoirs of the Apostles" seems to be something different from the modern gospels. So maybe the four gospels were not widely known in the first half of the second century?

It appears somewhat obviously that in this particular letter he was trying to demonstrate the accuracy of OT prophecy regarding Christ.

Have you even read what Clement wrote? I quoted a lengthy portion. His emphasis was that Jesus suffered in humility, not that Isaiah prophesied. You simply made up a message that Clement does not state.

And as I said, if Clement knew about the gospels, that would have been a better source to show that Jesus humbly suffered.

No, it is quite obvious to me that in this letter he was demonstrating the power and accuracy of OT prophecy.

Can you show me where in Clement you read this? I quoted the entire section that included the Isaiah 53 quote. He simply does not say what you just make up here. Why not go by what he actually says?

The passage uses early primitive Semitic phrases. These terms show that the reports are early and are not touched up to reflect later ways of speaking.

Oh puhleeze. Paul wrote I Cor in the 50's. What phrases are you referring to that would have been common in the 30's but not in the 50's? I have asked you repeatedly in this thread to back up this claim. You just ignore me, and make the same claim again and again.

We know from the context that he was referring to Jesus' Holy Spirit lives in Him.

Flapdoodle. What part of the context of Galatians 2:20 proves that Paul meant Holy Spirit even though he says Christ? You simply wrote your own theology into this verse, and called your theology "context".

See my post just prior to this one where I explain this.

See this link where I answered everything you said in that post.

 

[anonymous person]

I also can approach without bias.

I know you can. We all can approach these issues without bias if we have no axe to grind and no presuppositions to confirm. You have a presupposition of naturalism which means for you that miracles like a man rising from the dead are impossible. This prohibits you from taking these accounts at face value and leaves you appealing to things like the swoon theory.

I do not rule out a resurrection caused by forces we do not currently understand. But seeing that this is quite unlikely, I see other explanations as more likely.

You rule out the resurrection because your prejudice against the miraculous is necessitated by your naturalistic precommitments. To demonstrate this, all I have to do is ask you a simple question and your answer to it will confirm what I am saying.

Are miracles possible? Yes or no?

You have no bias? Wouldn't your life be changed in a big way if you started believing the resurrection had not happened? Are you not biased to hang unto the beliefs you now have?

I can't start believing the resurrection never happened anymore than I can start beleiving that the external world is not real or that I do not exist.

Your life would no doubt be drastically changed if you started belieivng that the resurrection happened but that does not necessarily mean you are biased. You are biased for other reasons, reasons I already alluded to.

 

[anonymous person]

And I think here and now is just as good a place and time as any to empasize to doubtingmerle and any other "free thinker" that may be here, that it is unscientific as it is unphilosophical to be surprised that in an unsympathetic atmosphere certain extraordinary sympathies do not arise.

You might as well insist on perfect sunlight in order to see a solar eclipse.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
From Wikipedia:
"The Gospel of Barnabas is a book depicting the life of Jesus, and claims to be by the biblical Barnabas, who in this work is one of the twelve apostles. Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th century, with one written in Italian and the other in Spanish." Sorry I meant late 16th century not 17th century.

dm: Got it. We are talking about two different books. That is the source of the confusion.

I was talking about the Epistle of Barnabas Epistle of Barnabas - Wikipedia . You are referring to the Gospel of Barnabas. I was not even aware of that book. Although the earliest existing copies of that book are perhaps 16th century, we don't know when the book was actually written. But all of that is irrelevant because this is not the book I was referring to.

I am the one who brought this topic up, and mentioned that Barnabas is an example of an early book that could have clearly referenced the gospels, but does not. I was referring to the Epistle of Barnabas ( Epistle of Barnabas - Wikipedia ).

No, actually he did quote from the gospels from your own link: "He quotes from the New Testament gospels twice (4:14, 5:9),[4] and is in general agreement with the New Testament presentation of salvation-history." So that disproves your thesis. But the writer of this epistle is not known, he plainly cannot be the biblical Barnabas that traveled with Paul due to the late date.

ed: Luke 24:39.

dm: Interesting. I was not aware of that. But no, this is not a direct quote of the gospel, and is not represented as a quote of a gospel.

Huh? If that is not a quote from Luke then I don't know what is. It reflects a quote from a gospel far more than your examples of Ignatius and Matthew below.

dm: You continuously argue that the "creed" in 1 Corinthians was handed down by word of mouth. So how is it that you are so insistent on this path for handing down information from the apostles, without accepting that other information may have come from the apostle by word of mouth or through documents that no longer survive? What was Ignatius's source? It is hard to get from this quote to a confirmation that Ignatius definetely knew of one or more of the current gospels.

I found this link that has the closest correspondences between Ignatius and Matthew that you may find interesting -- Did Ignatius know the gospel of Matthew?

As an educated leader of the early church, it is very rational to assume that he knew one or more of the gospels and most likely had access to at least one or more copies of the gospels. And your link may confirm that though some of them are a stretch.

 

[anonymous person]

No, actually he did quote from the gospels from your own link: "He quotes from the New Testament gospels twice (4:14, 5:9),[4] and is in general agreement with the New Testament presentation of salvation-history." So that disproves your thesis. But the writer of this epistle is not known, he plainly cannot be the biblical Barnabas that traveled with Paul due to the late date.



Huh? If that is not a quote from Luke then I don't know what is. It reflects a quote from a gospel far more than your examples of Ignatius and Matthew below.


As an educated leader of the early church, it is very rational to assume that he knew one or more of the gospels and most likely had access to at least one or more copies of the gospels. And your link may confirm that though some of them are a stretch.

Ed, the person you're talking with, no matter what you say, is not going to agree with you. His presuppositions he brings to the discussion prohibit him from doing so.

G.K. Chesterton once remarked that, "You cannot catch up with Jones if he is walking in the opposite direction." We've been chasing after doubtingmerle but he has been walking in the other direction from us the whole time.

Doubtingmerle has a naturalist's bias against the miraculous that he brings to these discussions and therefore he has to deny at all costs that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I know you can. We all can approach these issues without bias if we have no axe to grind and no presuppositions to confirm. You have a presupposition of naturalism which means for you that miracles like a man rising from the dead are impossible. This prohibits you from taking these accounts at face value and leaves you appealing to things like the swoon theory.

Huh? I already answered this. I said, "I do not rule out a resurrection caused by forces we do not currently understand."

So you need a lot of repetition, huh? Sigh, once again:

I do not rule out a resurrection caused by forces we do not currently understand.​

Please let me know how many more times you need me to repeat that.

You rule out the resurrection because your prejudice against the miraculous is necessitated by your naturalistic precommitments. To demonstrate this, all I have to do is ask you a simple question and your answer to it will confirm what I am saying.

Are miracles possible? Yes or no?

So you need a lot of repetition, huh? Sigh, once again:

I do not rule out a resurrection caused by forces we do not currently understand.​

If you define a miracle as an event caused by supernatural forces that do things, then, no, I do not rule that out. But I would require good evidence.

Do you know of a miracle that has strong, convincing evidence?

I can't start believing the resurrection never happened anymore than I can start beleiving that the external world is not real or that I do not exist.

But what if you had new evidence? Would you not change your mind about the resurrection if you had no evidence?

Are you saying you are closed minded on this issue?

 

[doubtingmerle]

that it is unscientific as it is unphilosophical to be surprised that in an unsympathetic atmosphere certain extraordinary sympathies do not arise.

This thread is not about emotions. This thread is about facts. Do you have credible evidence that the resurrection occurred?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Doubtingmerle has a naturalist's bias against the miraculous that he brings to these discussions and therefore he has to deny at all costs that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.

So you need a lot of repetition, huh? Sigh, once again:

I do not rule out a resurrection caused by forces we do not currently understand.​

Please let me know how many times you want me to repeat that for your benefit.

 

[anonymous person]

Huh? I already answered this. I said, "I do not rule out a resurrection caused by forces we do not currently understand."

So you need a lot of repetition, huh? Sigh, once again:

I do not rule out a resurrection caused by forces we do not currently understand.​

Please let me know how many more times you need me to repeat that.


So you need a lot of repetition, huh? Sigh, once again:

I do not rule out a resurrection caused by forces we do not currently understand.​

If you define a miracle as an event caused by supernatural forces that do things, then, no, I do not rule that out. But I would require good evidence.

Do you know of a miracle that has strong, convincing evidence?

But what if you had new evidence? Would you not change your mind about the resurrection if you had no evidence?

Are you saying you are closed minded on this issue?

My relationship with Christ is not dependent upon the adding up of and the examination of data and lines of evidence, but upon the presence of the living God in the person of the Holy Spirit within me.

Your question therefore does not apply to me.

 

[anonymous person]

So you need a lot of repetition, huh? Sigh, once again:

I do not rule out a resurrection caused by forces we do not currently understand.​

Please let me know how many times you want me to repeat that for your benefit.

I notice you did not answer my question.

Are miracles impossible?

 

[anonymous person]

This thread is not about emotions. This thread is about facts. Do you have credible evidence that the resurrection occurred?

To you, credible means, "evidence that I have decided does not exist".

Which is what G.K. Chesteron was alluding to. To say he is speaking of emotions is to misunderstand him.

 

[anonymous person]

I notice you did not answer my question.

Are miracles impossible?

Could God have raised Jesus from the dead as all the New Testament documents which speak on the issue declare, or is that notion impossible?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I notice you did not answer my question.

Are miracles impossible?

I do not think it is impossible for something supernatural to do things like resurrections. I have never seen convincing evidence of a resurrection, so if they happen they are very rare.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Could God have raised Jesus from the dead as all the New Testament documents which speak on the issue declare, or is that notion impossible?

The God of the Old Testament? I don't know. According to Judges 1:19 he was not able to drive out enemies that had chariots of iron, and that seems to me to be easier than resurrections.

 

[doubtingmerle]

To you, credible means, "evidence that I have decided does not exist".

Which is what G.K. Chesteron was alluding to. To say he is speaking of emotions is to misunderstand him.

Ah, we have gotten to the point where we just make up things that people are saying?

To you, person means an elephant. See two can play that game. Isn't it fun just making things up?

Please don't make things up and pretend other people have said that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

My relationship with Christ is not dependent upon the adding up of and the examination of data and lines of evidence, but upon the presence of the living God in the person of the Holy Spirit within me.

Your question therefore does not apply to me.

You say this in direct response to my question, "Are you saying you are closed minded on this issue?"

Can I take it from this that you claim to be closed minded on the resurrection?

 

[anonymous person]

You say this in direct response to my question, "Are you saying you are closed minded on this issue?"

Can I take it from this that you claim to be closed minded on the resurrection?

I'm as closed minded about the resurrection as you are it would seem. The only difference is that I am right and you are wrong, which is all the difference in the world.

Nor have I ever claimed that being closed minded is necessarily a bad thing. In your case however, it is a very bad thing, for your mind is closed upon a false notion.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm as closed minded about the resurrection as you are it would seem.

OK, so you admit that you are closed minded. Sad, that.

For the record, I am open to what you have to say.

The only difference is that I am right and you are wrong, which is all the difference in the world.

Well, since I am open minded, I would not like to go through the rest of my life wrong. Can you tell me how you know that you are right and I am wrong?

Nor have I ever claimed that being closed minded is necessarily a bad thing.

Sad that.

In your case however, it is a very bad thing, for your mind is closed upon a false notion.

Are you not ever wrong? When someone is closed minded and wrong, then he stays wrong forever. Wouldn't it be better for you to be open minded?