Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[doubtingmerle]

I thought I appealed to the witness of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is not a thought, He is a person.

Right, but you claimed that the Holy Spirit put a thought in your mind that Jesus was risen, therefore you know Jesus has risen.

Again, my question is how you know it was the Holy Spirit who put that thought in your mind.

 

[miknik5]

That's it? A thought comes into your mind that he is risen. You know immediately that it is not you that thought that thought, but that the Holy Spirit within you created that thought. Therefore, he is risen?

Can you understand how some might say your evidence is shaky?

Why?

It affirms that there is a spiritual realm sir

 

[miknik5]

OK, so you know God is alive because sometimes certain thoughts occur in your mind, and you think God is the one that caused those thoughts to occur. Therefore, God.

Can I ask how you know it is God who caused those thoughts to occur?

Traditionally, it was considered so obvious that we are the ones who are making our own thoughts, that the mere act of thinking was thought to prove our existence: "I think, therefore I am." You seem to change this to, "I think, but that does not prove I am, it might mean that some spirit is making these thoughts."

I would tend to go along with the idea of, "I think, therefore I am".

I, however, didn't think and had no concern to prove or disprove the TRUTH of GOD

But when GOD chose to reveal the TRUTH of HIS SON to me, it wasn't a thought in my mind at all

When the revelation of THE TRUTH was given in that moment that the revelation was given, I knew. And I knew from whom I had received it

And it wasn't from men

(the "wind" just blew in)

 

[miknik5]

Right, but you claimed that the Holy Spirit put a thought in your mind that Jesus was risen, therefore you know Jesus has risen.

Again, my question is how you know it was the Holy Spirit who put that thought in your mind.

Because other spirits will whisper and mutter anything and everything but THE TRUTH

And there's only ONE TRUTH and only ONE SPIRIT of TRUTH

 

[anonymous person]

Right, but you claimed that the Holy Spirit put a thought in your mind that Jesus was risen, therefore you know Jesus has risen.

Again, my question is how you know it was the Holy Spirit who put that thought in your mind.

Where did I claim that?

 

[miknik5]

Where did I claim that?

I claim it.
And will claim it again and again

It's why no man can convince the man who has received THIS ANOINTING

For they know what they learned of and they know from whom they learned it

(1john2)


The "wind" does go where it listeth (John 3:8)

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Paul was not the earliest witness, see the ancient hymn.

dm: Paul is the earliest written witness. "The hymn" is found only in Paul.

But the hymn is the earliest oral testimony that has been dated by scholars to less than five years after the resurrection, some even date it within months of the resurrection.

dm: Where does "the hymn" says anything about an empty grave, missing body, or people interacting with a bodily risen Jesus?

As I explained earlier, the reference to the third day plainly REQUIRES the empty tomb also it references the burial which is evidence for the tomb being empty. And it reports 500 people interacting with the risen Jesus. We also have non-Christian evidence for an empty tomb. Justin Martyr reports in 150 AD that jews were still claiming that the disciples had stolen the body. Again, this plainly points to an empty tomb.

ed: None of the stories contradict each other.

dm: Luke/Acts says the disciples did not depart Jerusalem from the resurrection until after Pentecost. Matthew says they went to Galilee and saw Jesus there. That is a contradiction.

No, actually there is evidence that Luke is referring to the appearance in Galilee in Chapt. 24:36-49 because he mentions that Jesus was offered fish, the disciples generally did all their fishing from the Sea of Galilee. Then he says they headed to Bethany which is near Jerusalem in verse 50 so from there they went into Jerusalem where the events in Acts 1 take place. No contradiction there.

ed; There was not enough time for legendary development.

dm; Legends can easily develop in 20 years.

Not according to ancient legend experts Dr. A.N. Sherwin-White and Julius Muller. They state that two full generations are not a long enough span of time for myth and legend to accrue and distort historical fact.

dm: And you have not proven the gospels were written before 70 AD.

I didn't say I could prove it, but I did provide strong evidences that point in that direction.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Where did I claim that?

Ah, we are at that stage in the argument where people start denying they said what they said. To refresh your memory, you said this:

I don't claim to know Jesus is alive because Paul said He is or because His biographers said He is or because the early church fathers said He is.

Sure I may appeal to what they say in an attempt to demonstrate to YOU that YOU have good reason to believe He is, but my knowing Jesus is alive is not based on those things. My knowledge that Jesus is alive comes from the immediate and personal ever present witness of the Holy Spirit. There are people out there that have never even read Paul's letters who know Christ is alive, for example.

That seems clear to me. You say your witness is the Holy Spirit. You say the witness of Paul or the gospels is not your primary source. You say your primary witness is the Holy Spirit.

But when I question how you know that what you hear from the Holy Spirit is the truth, you say you know the truth from the scriptures. That contradicts what you said above, that the Holy Spirit is your primary source, not the scriptures. And when I ask you again, you ask me where you said this.

Are you just winging it, throwing out answers that you yourself don't even agree with?

 

[anonymous person]

Ah, we are at that stage in the argument where people start denying they said what they said. To refresh your memory, you said this:


That seems clear to me. You say your witness is the Holy Spirit. You say the witness of Paul or the gospels is not your primary source. You say your primary witness is the Holy Spirit.

But when I question how you know that what you hear from the Holy Spirit is the truth, you say you know the truth from the scriptures. That contradicts what you said above, that the Holy Spirit is your primary source, not the scriptures. And when I ask you again, you ask me where you said this.

Are you just winging it, throwing out answers that you yourself don't even agree with?

When I appeal to the inner witness of the Third Person of the Trinity, I am appealing to the presence of a person that exists, not some thoughts that come and go in and out of my mind from this person.

Dr. Craig expounds upon this nicely in a response to two questions put to him over on his website. He says in reference to his use of the phrase "self-authenticating inner witness",

"I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for him who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God; that such experience does not function in this case as a premiss in any argument from religious experience to God, but rather is the immediate experiencing of God himself; that in certain contexts the experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion, such as "God exists," "I am condemned by God," "I am reconciled to God," "Christ lives in me," and so forth; that such an experience provides one not only with a subjective assurance of Christianity's truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth; and that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit for him who attends fully to it."

So you see, I know you are wrong when you say things like, "The third person of the Trinity does not really live inside of you, it is just your imagination."

I know you are wrong, not because I can prove to you that I am right, but because the Holy Spirit actually lives in me.

Dr. Craig goes on to say,

"A person who knows that Christianity is true on the basis of the witness of the Spirit may also have a sound apologetic which reinforces or confirms for him the Spirit's witness, but it does not serve as the fundamental way in which he knows Christianity to be true. If the arguments of natural theology and Christian evidences are successful, as I claim they are, then Christian belief is also warranted by such arguments and evidences for the person who grasps them, even if that person would still be warranted in their absence. Such a person is doubly warranted in his Christian belief, in the sense that he enjoys two sources of warrant. So evidential arguments on behalf of Christianity are, in my view, sufficient for knowledge of Christianity's truth but they are not necessary for knowledge of Christianity's truth."

Please read:

The Witness of the Holy Spirit | Reasonable Faith

 

[miknik5]

What he is affirming is that those who receive GOD's TESTIMONY set to their own seal ( their own spirit) that GOD's WORD is TRUTH for it is THAT WITNESS (THE HOLY SPIRIT in them) who testifies (with their spirit) to THE TRUTH

 

[miknik5]

And what he "claimed" was that there are those who haven't read the BIBLE who affirm by their testimony of JESUS that THE VOICE/SPIRIT of GOD affirms that GOD's (written) WORD is TRUTH

For THE SPIRIT/VOICE of GOD does not contradict THE (written) WORD of GOD and THE (written)WORD of GOD does not contradict HIS VOICE/SPIRIT

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why?

It affirms that there is a spiritual realm sir

Really? You have a thought that you think comes from the Holy Spirit, so therefore this proves it is from the spiritual realm?

That's odd. For many think they are hearing from the Holy Spirit, and even Christians think they are mistaken. If it is so easy to be mistaken, and to think a thought comes from the Holy Spirit when it doesn't, how can you be so sure that you are really hearing the Spirit?

 

[doubtingmerle]

(the "wind" just blew in)

...and therefore Jesus rose from the dead?

Oh dear, I was looking for something a little more convincing than this.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because other spirits will whisper and mutter anything and everything but THE TRUTH

And there's only ONE TRUTH and only ONE SPIRIT of TRUTH

You know it was the Holy Spirit because it said the truth? And you know it is the truth because the Holy Spirit said it? Aren't you reasoning in a circle?

 

[doubtingmerle]

"I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for him who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God; that such experience does not function in this case as a premiss in any argument from religious experience to God, but rather is the immediate experiencing of God himself;

I am sorry, but because thinking Jesus died and rose again gives you euphoria does not prove he died and rose again. I have found many things that give me greater euphoria than my Christian life gave me.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, actually there is evidence that Luke is referring to the appearance in Galilee in Chapt. 24:36-49 because he mentions that Jesus was offered fish, the disciples generally did all their fishing from the Sea of Galilee. Then he says they headed to Bethany which is near Jerusalem in verse 50 so from there they went into Jerusalem where the events in Acts 1 take place. No contradiction there.

Uh, no the experience in Luke 24:36-49 clearly takes place in Jerusalem. Read starting at v 33:

And they [the disciples that had met Jesus going to Emmaus] rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!" Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them. Luke 24:33-36
​

And there he says they are not to depart from Jerusalem. Acts, by the same author, confirms that they did not depart Jerusalem before Pentecost. But Matthew contradicts, and says they went to Galilee for the ascension. See Pages 11-13: winter 1992 DID THEY TARRY IN THE CITY? Farrell Till So much depends on the r .

 

[miknik5]

Really? You have a thought that you think comes from the Holy Spirit, so therefore this proves it is from the spiritual realm?

That's odd. For many think they are hearing from the Holy Spirit, and even Christians think they are mistaken. If it is so easy to be mistaken, and to think a thought comes from the Holy Spirit when it doesn't, how can you be so sure that you are really hearing the Spirit?

Yes really

I had no thought
I wasn't thinking
it wasn't as if my mind was on anything for that matter

But all of a sudden

Wham
Just like that

The revelation of the Truth of The Gospel

Something I never thought of
And something I never understood

But when GOD opens the heart to the TRUTH of HIS WORD, the moment that HE does.. ohh...it's understood

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, as I explained jews do not believe in spirit bodies, when you die you are either a spirit or a resurrected body.

dm: Not all Christians were Jews.

True, but all the writers of the NT were except Luke. And almost all of the writers of the OT were.

dm: Not all Jews believed the same thing.

True, but the evidence points to all the ones that wrote the Bible did at least on this particular subject.

dm: Right now, Peter and Paul are spirits but that is only temporary until Christ comes again when they will gain their glorified physical bodies.

dm: The Jesus Paul describes is very spirit-like. Else how can Paul say Jesus is living in him? A spirit might live in Paul, but not another human being.

No, Paul plainly teaches that He was embodied. Again you are ignoring Colossians 2:9. The verse you are referring to was when he was referring to the Holy Spirit, the third person of the trinity. We know this from the context.

ed: God is omnipotent so He can plainly reconstruct our bodies with or without our actual atoms.

dm: That wasn't even the point. The point is that you say Paul lived in one body and then his spirit moved out and will go into a different body. Why can it not be that Paul thought the spirit of Jesus moved out and moved into a different body?

No, I said Paul will live in the same body but transformed. It is similar to a paper back book being created into a hardback book. It is the same book but just transformed.

ed: We don't know exactly how that will work but there will be some continuity between our present bodies and our resurrected bodies, this is plainly taught by the bible as I demonstrated earlier.

dm: Some continuity? Paul's earthly body is gone, and we are told he will get a new one. That is continuity?

See above about the book analogy.

ed:Because there is strong evidence that they were written around the same time Paul wrote his letter except maybe John

dm: Because the gospel writers didn't mention the fall of Jerusalem? Neither does your post. Does that mean your post was before 70 AD?
Got any meaningful evidence?

Read Bishop John A. T. Robinson's book, he presents most of the evidence for John. As far as the other three gospels the overwhelming majority of scholars believe they were written before 70 AD.

ed: He plainly did know about the gospels, that is why he didn't rehash what was in them, he already knew that they and their oral versions were being widely distributed.

dm; We were not asking Paul to rehash the gospels. If the gospels had existed, we would expect him to talk about them. After 180 AD, lots of people were talking about them. Paul does not.

That is an assumption based on your own presuppositions and theories not on hard facts.

ed: His whole point is about the resurrection being physical, he was not writing about the laws of physics or intelligence.

dm: Never does Paul say the body will be physical.

In the context of these particular writings the term body means physical body by definition for early jewish Christians as I stated above. They did not believe in spirit bodies.

dm: What does it even mean to be physical if not made of atoms? What are you talking about?

Our resurrected bodies will be created for the new universe which will be governed by new laws of physics, they may or may not be made of atoms. It could be something like the relationship of matter and anti matter. There may be mirror atoms for each atom in our bodies one natural and the other supernatural. At our death, the natural atom is destroyed but the supernatural atom remains for the afterlife.

dm: If you can prove from this analogy that resurrected people are physical, your same logic proves they are stupid.

ed: You are just reading your own views into Paul's writings.

dm: No, reading what Paul says. He says the body we bury is not the body that comes up.

ed: I would call the transformation of a seed into a tree is a pretty radical change.

dm: OK, but the seed does not transform into a tree. The plant comes out of the seed, and the body of the seed decays and disappears.

The plant comes FROM the seed. And its genetic material remains the same, so plainly it IS transformed by the same genetic code just being expressed differently.

dm: You were told that before. Why do you ignore it?

Ed: The human brain doesn't work that way. Also, remember He was beaten badly and all His scars were visible on His resurrected body, this would also make his appearance distorted, so that he may not look exactly the same.

dm: So when Mary thought Jesus was a gardener, she thought he was a badly beaten, distorted gardener? And the two men walked to Emmaus with a badly beaten man, and never thought it strange?

All His wounds had healed up but were visible. Back in ancient times they didn't have plastic surgery, many people looked "distorted" especially if they had been soldiers or slaves. So no, they would not have considered it that strange.

 

[doubtingmerle]

When I appeal to the inner witness of the Third Person of the Trinity, I am appealing to the presence of a person that exists, not some thoughts that come and go in and out of my mind from this person.

Dr. Craig expounds upon this nicely in a response to two questions put to him over on his website. He says in reference to his use of the phrase "self-authenticating inner witness",

"I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for him who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God; that such experience does not function in this case as a premiss in any argument from religious experience to God, but rather is the immediate experiencing of God himself; that in certain contexts the experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion, such as "God exists," "I am condemned by God," "I am reconciled to God," "Christ lives in me," and so forth; that such an experience provides one not only with a subjective assurance of Christianity's truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth; and that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit for him who attends fully to it."

So you see, I know you are wrong when you say things like, "The third person of the Trinity does not really live inside of you, it is just your imagination."

I know you are wrong, not because I can prove to you that I am right, but because the Holy Spirit actually lives in me.

Dr. Craig goes on to say,

"A person who knows that Christianity is true on the basis of the witness of the Spirit may also have a sound apologetic which reinforces or confirms for him the Spirit's witness, but it does not serve as the fundamental way in which he knows Christianity to be true. If the arguments of natural theology and Christian evidences are successful, as I claim they are, then Christian belief is also warranted by such arguments and evidences for the person who grasps them, even if that person would still be warranted in their absence. Such a person is doubly warranted in his Christian belief, in the sense that he enjoys two sources of warrant. So evidential arguments on behalf of Christianity are, in my view, sufficient for knowledge of Christianity's truth but they are not necessary for knowledge of Christianity's truth."

Please read:

The Witness of the Holy Spirit | Reasonable Faith

In other words, your argument is:

1. I get a huge high from my religion.
2. I believe Jesus rose from the dead.
3. Therefore, Jesus rose from the dead.​

Which is a complete non sequitor.

The odd thing is that I hear people with depression making this argument. They argue that there joy is so great that it proves they are right, and then they reach in their pockets for their anti-depressants. Somehow, that argument makes no sense to me.

I was once a Christian. I knew the thrill of the religious high on Sunday. And I knew the enormous letdown that always seemed to follow on Monday. For what it is worth, I have found something better, a thrill in life to explore and hope in a way that was never imaginable before.

 

[doubtingmerle]

True, but all the writers of the NT were except Luke. And almost all of the writers of the OT were.

Renegade Jews. Paul was a renegade Jews.

Paul sometimes differed with Judaism. Why refuse to acknowledge that? Paul spoke of drinking the blood of Christ in a communion ritual. The Jewish leadership would not have supported that. Paul spoke of Jesus being the Christ. The Jewish leadership would not support this. Paul spoke of circumcision being unnecessary. The Jewish leadership disagreed. And yet somehow you expect us to say Paul was so bound by the beliefs of Judaism, that he would never admitted he differed with the Jews on a single point. That is rubbish. Paul loudly proclaimed the Jews wrong on certain things.

And Paul's audience was primarily not Jewish. If Paul told them something different from Judaism, his Greek audience would have been open to it. It is foolish to suggest that his Greek audience were so captivated by Judaism that they would not consider for one second a Greek idea.

No, Paul plainly teaches that He was embodied. Again you are ignoring Colossians 2:9.

The body of Christ in Paul clearly refers to the church. You just ignore that.

The image of the grain, which you love, love, love to tell, is about one grain dying, and producing a body which consists of a stalk and many grains. Well guess what? The body of Christ that Paul describes is the church, a life giving supply to all the network of bodies attached to it. One body dies, a conglomerate of bodies comes up.

The verse you are referring to was when he was referring to the Holy Spirit, the third person of the trinity. We know this from the context.

Oh, puhleeze. In Gal 2:20 Paul says Christ lives in him. Please show us how you know, from the context of this verse, that this does not mean Christ.

Are all those who ask Jesus to come into their heart sadly mistaken? Does Jesus consist of a physical body that could never come into somebody's heart?

No, I said Paul will live in the same body but transformed.

How can Paul possibly live in the same body? His body is gone. If God makes a new body for him, it will not be the same body. It would be a replica. Even if it looks just like Paul, it would be a replica.

It is similar to a paper back book being created into a hardback book. It is the same book but just transformed.

You can do that if the book still exists.

But if the book is thrown into a blast furnace, and completely destroyed, then you cannot bind that book with a hard cover. You can make a copy of the book, but it will not be the same thing.

As far as the other three gospels the overwhelming majority of scholars believe they were written before 70 AD.

No, critical scholars overwhelmingly say the gospels were written after 70 AD. Your list of scholars probably includes a lot that I do not consider scholars.

And my scholars can beat up your scholars.

Mark was able to accurately "predict" the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but totally messes up after 70 AD, predicting the Son of Man would come in the disciples' life time. How was Mark so accurate before 70 AD, and so wrong after 70 AD? Simple, he wrote after 70 AD.

That is an assumption based on your own presuppositions and theories not on hard facts.

No, the thought that Christians would have likely talked about the gospels in the first century if they were commonly accepted is basic common sense. In the 3rd century everybody was talking about the four gospels. In the first century nobody was, and the story found of the gospels is only a bare echo int he first century record. That is a strong indication the gospels were not widely accepted in the first century.

In the context of these particular writings the term body means physical body by definition for early jewish Christians as I stated above. They did not believe in spirit bodies.

Our resurrected bodies will be created for the new universe which will be governed by new laws of physics, they may or may not be made of atoms. It could be something like the relationship of matter and anti matter.

Huh? You say they could not have believed in a spirit body, then say they could have believed in a body that was just like a spirit body! Whatever. You think they believed in bodies that were not made of the stuff of physical bodies. That is my point. Paul could have believed that the resurrected body was made up of stuff that was not the same as the physical atoms of the body on earth. From now on, instead of saying "spirit body", I will say "body that is made up of stuff that is not the same as the physical atoms of the body on earth". Same thing but you seem to prefer this terminology.

Paul could have thought Jesus arose in a body that was made up of stuff that was not the same as the physical atoms of the body on earth.

There may be mirror atoms for each atom in our bodies one natural and the other supernatural. At our death, the natural atom is destroyed but the supernatural atom remains for the afterlife.

Yes, Paul's body of atoms was destroyed, and is no more.

Whether some body made of anti-matter or spirit or whatever comes out of Paul and lives, I doubt it. But regardless, that body of matter that Paul had is no more.

And for Jesus, if a body made of stuff other than his atoms came out of his corpse, then that, by definition, seems to say that his corpse was left in the ground to decay.

The plant comes FROM the seed. And its genetic material remains the same, so plainly it IS transformed by the same genetic code just being expressed differently.

No, the plant is not the same genetic code as the outside of the seed. The outside of the seed has the genes of the mother. Inside is an embryo with different genetic code. The seed dies, and the plant comes out. Likewise, Paul seems to think the outside body dies and decays, and a new life comes out.

Clones have the same genetic code. If you are indeed describing a body made of something else but with the same genetic code, then you are basically describing a clone. And if one can make one clone, then he should be able to make dozens. Would it be possible for dozens of Pauls to exist, each a clone of the first Paul, and each, in your mind, being the real Paul?

Having the same code does not make a person the same person. Else, identical twins are the same person.