Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[doubtingmerle]

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.
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.

Answered here.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
We have much more evidence than that.

dm: Oh good. And it is better than what we have seen so far?

I don't know about better, but all of it combined accumulates into a pretty powerful case.

ed: We have another skeptic besides Paul that became convinced of His resurrection. His brother James plus even more evidence in the gospels.

dm: Can you tell me please what book James wrote in which he makes this claim?

It is in the ancient hymn, plus two independent sources. The gospels and Josephus.

ed: No writer of myth about a great resurrected hero would mention that one of his followers would not accept his resurrection until he could see and touch his body with his own eyes, ie Doubting Thomas. And yet the gospel writer did mention it, that is strong evidence that it was an event that actually occurred.

dm: I see. Last night Abraham Lincoln rose from the dead and one guy doubted and wanted evidence. There, have I proven that Abraham Lincoln is alive?

No, you were not alive at the time. The gospel writer was. Also, I am referring to ancient accounts, not relative modern ones. Ancient peoples generally thought more simply.

ed: Muhammad's oldest biography was written 200 years after he lived and yet many historians believe there is much actual history in it

dm: Many doubt if Muhammad even existed. Writings 200 years after an event are treated with skepticism unless confirmed by other evidence.

Yes, but the overwhelming majority believe he did exist and his bio contains some actual history.

ed: but the gospels were written within 20-40 years of His life

dm: Then why does Mark so accurately "predict" the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but totally miss on his predictions about what would happen following it? Could it be that his "prediction" of the fall of Jerusalem was just telling what he knew happened, and his predictions of things after 70 AD proved Mark did not have an accurate source of information about the future?

Mark did not know about the Fall, otherwise he would have confirmed that Jesus had prophesied it in order to prove His status as a great prophet.

ed: and we have an ancient hymn composed within 3 years of His life stating He was seen alive after He was killed by 500 people at one time.

dm: You have not proven this "hymn" comes from within 3 years of his life. You have not proven the hymn includes the list of people who saw. You have not proven that the seeing they did was qualitatively better than Paul's "heavenly vision" which is included in this list. And you have not proven that whoever wrote this "hymn" (if it was indeed a hymn) was telling the truth.

I never said I could PROVE it, but many scholars including non-Christian ones, agree that it was probably composed within that time or even earlier due to its ancient semitic characteristics. And 500 people cannot all have the same hallucination at the same time, this has been proven by science. Since it was composed so early, most people that had seen the crucifixion were still alive, so they could have easily disproven it, but there is no record that they did. And we know as I explained earlier from Justin Martyr that the jews were still claiming that the tomb was empty because the disciples stole the body.

dm: Suppose I walk around singing that 500 people saw Elvis risen from the dead. Is that pretty credible historical evidence for Elvis?

No, because there actually have been people that claimed to have seen Elvis alive, but the key difference is that none of those people actually knew him. But with Jesus the people that claimed to have seen Him alive were family members and friends that actually knew Him. In that case it DOES become pretty credible evidence.

ed: I would say that is pretty credible historical evidence.

dm; For Elvis also?

No, see above why.

ed: But God does want us to believe some things on faith, so He is not going to make it absolutely certain because then it would impact our free will to accept or reject Him.

dm: If I must accept a religion on faith despite the evidence, how do I know which one to pick?

No, Jesus and the disciples taught that you should only accept things that HAVE evidence.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
As I stated Matthew and Mark both have the other reading and they are older than Luke, so the versions of Luke that have the other reading are more likely to be the correct one.

dm: You are assuming the very point in question. I have been arguing that the early gospel writers disagreed with each other. When I show you an example of where they disagreed, you say Luke cannot mean what he says, because the others would then disagree.

Huh? That is my point in question. You cannot prove they agreed by assuming they agreed.

Since almost all the evidence points to the Christian God existing then it is very likely that those inspired to write His Word would agree on His message. Also as I explained earlier, the phrase "today I have begotten you" in the context of His baptism does not contradict anything in the rest of the gospels.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Since almost all the evidence points to the Christian God existing then it is very likely that those inspired to write His Word would agree on His message.

Wait, now these guys are inspired by God to write the gospels? We are 663 posts into this, and you never mentioned this. If you could prove that these guys were writing what God said, and God was a credible witness, then you would have your credible witness. But alas, the gospels and Paul never claim that their writings are inspired by God, and I see no evidence that they were. If the accounts were inspired, why do they contradict? Why for instance, does Matthew say we need to follow all the teachings of the Pharisees, but Paul say the teachings of the Pharisees are rubbish? How can both be inspired?

Also as I explained earlier, the phrase "today I have begotten you" in the context of His baptism does not contradict anything in the rest of the gospels.

Depending on your interpretation. As I have explained before, I am well aware that you often interpret anything to say what you want it to say. The fact that you interpret something one way does not prove that the original authors wanted it to be interpreted that way.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is in the ancient hymn, plus two independent sources. The gospels and Josephus.

Can I remind you that you have never attempted to show a bit evidence that I Cor 15:6-8 was an ancient hymn. You just assume it. 663 posts into this you repeat the same assumption, and make zero attempts to actually prove it.

Unbelievable.

Back to James. I asked you where James wrote that he thought Jesus rose from the dead. You respond with the garbage above. No, you have no evidence that James wrote "the hymn". You have no evidence that James wrote the gospels or Josephus.

Once again, sigh, what book did James write to say that he believes that Jesus rose from the dead?

Yes, but the overwhelming majority believe he [Muhammed] did exist and his bio contains some actual history.

Oh crud, now you are arguing for the historicity of Muhammed? There are a wide range of opinions there. I don't see how any of that is going to help your case.

Mark did not know about the Fall, otherwise he would have confirmed that Jesus had prophesied it in order to prove His status as a great prophet.

Huh?

Let me illustrate. Daniel is commonly believed to have written long after the events he "prophesies". Daniel 11 is a fairly accurate history disguised as prophecy. But Daniel never does a victory lap and proclaims how all these things actually happened. That would ruin the whole point of the story, to make it look like it was written before the events.

Likewise Mark is emphasizing the "prophecy" as though it was written before the event. He had no need for a victory lap. That would ruin the whole tone of this being a prophecy.

And as all his audience was well aware of the fall, Mark had no need to remind them.

And you ignore the point, that thought Mark was so accurate in describing the fall of Jerusalem in Mark 13, he fails in predicting events that he said would happen soon after the fall. That is strong evidence, that Mark wrote after 70 AD. And you ignore it.

I never said I could PROVE it, but many scholars including non-Christian ones, agree that it was probably composed within that time or even earlier due to its ancient semitic characteristics.

What Semitic characteristics?
What Semitic characteristics?
What Semitic characteristics?

I have asked you this over and over. You refuse to answer. That is because you have no evidence for Semitic characteristics of "the creed". You just repeat it over and over, and hope nobody catches that you never attempted to answer this.

And 500 people cannot all have the same hallucination at the same time, this has been proven by science.

Sigh. You have not proven that an ancient hymn mentions 500 seeing at the same time. Even if you prove this, not every thing in a hymn is true.

Many sing a song about grandma being run over by a reindeer. Since you insist that every thing people were singing in a hymn has to be true, does that mean that grandma got run over by a reindeer?

Since it was composed so early, most people that had seen the crucifixion were still alive, so they could have easily disproven it, but there is no record that they did.

How do you know the gospels were widely known in the first century? How do you know that people did not shrug it off as silly talk without taking the time to disprove it? How do you know that somebody did not disprove it and his work was not saved?

And we know as I explained earlier from Justin Martyr that the jews were still claiming that the tomb was empty because the disciples stole the body.

Justin does not say they were still saying that the disciple stole the body. He uses it as a literary device in a dialog to state an opposing view. He does not say that view was prevalent in early times. He needs an opposing view in his Dialog with Trypho, and he comes up with this one, probably from something he read in a book.

No, because there actually have been people that claimed to have seen Elvis alive, but the key difference is that none of those people actually knew him. But with Jesus the people that claimed to have seen Him alive were family members and friends that actually knew Him. In that case it DOES become pretty credible evidence.

I had a friend who claimed that he saw his grandfather standing at the top of the stairs in full military uniform one week after his grandfather died. I questioned him, and he insists it was actually his grandfather that he saw, and it was not just his imagination. Since he knew his grandfather well, does this prove his grandfather rose from the dead? Should I worship his grandfather?

No, Jesus and the disciples taught that you should only accept things that HAVE evidence.

And that my friend, is why I doubt the resurrection.

 

[miknik5]

It's okay to doubt

HE said HE didn't come to bring peace

 

[miknik5]

And I believe that is the verdict and the judgement

That THE LIGHT came into the world
"For judgement I have come"

Unless of course you also doubt that HE came into the world?

 

[miknik5]

Nobody can make you believe

Only GOD can

"Blessed are those who have not seen and believe"

Because it isn't with the ohysicalneyes snd physical ears that the revelation of THE TRUTH is given

It's with the (eyes and ears of) heart

And that only GOD can open up the eyes and ears of a man's spirit to the TRUTH of HIS WORD

There are those who have received GOD's TESTIMONY

And there are those who haven't

In them is the prophecy of Isaiah fulfilled:

Make the hearts of these people fat and give them eyes that see not and ears that hear not lest they should understand with the heart...turn....and HE should heal them

 

[miknik5]

What I don't understand Doubtingmerle, is this feeling within me that you are hostile?

Why?

Can anyone do anything to you?
Can those who believe force you to believe
And can those who don't believe force us not to believe?

Neither can do either

It is CHRIST who both closes or opens the DOOR

 

[doubtingmerle]

What I don't understand Doubtingmerle, is this feeling within me that you are hostile?

I don't understand why you would get that feeling either. Odd. Because I certainly am not hostile.

 

[anonymous person]

I don't understand why you would get that feeling either. Odd. Because I certainly am not hostile.

Assume for a moment there were credible eyewitnesses to the resurrection. What, if anything, would change for you?

 

[Ed1wolf]

dm: No sir, you are lying. You have not provided an example of where the gospels were clearly quoted before 140 AD. If you think you have, please post the quote here where you quoted a specific quotes of the gospels before 140 AD.
Luke 1:1. He does not tell us where he got this from.

No, I provided a quote from Polycarp that obviously quotes from Luke. Now you are the one that is lying. I also demonstrated that Clement most likely knew the gospel accounts of the crucifixion by his quotes and commentary from Isaiah 53.

dm: But after 180 AD, many quote the gospels.

If none of the many early document quote the gospels, and many later documents do, that is strong indication that the gospels were largely unknown early in the church.

You just demonstrated that the number of extant early documents prior to 180 is very small. It is certain that there were many many more than just those but due to the church being very poor during that time most of them have not survived. In addition, many of the early Christians at that time thought that Christ was coming very soon so they probably did not save them. Those many documents logically probably did reference the gospels much more than the present extant documents.

ed: Again, History 101. Ancient documents written closer to the events that they record are generally more likely to be accurate than those written many years later.

dm: I said this to you several times. Why do you act like I don't understand this?

Because you keep referencing much later "gospels" and act as if they are just as accurate as the much earlier canonical gospels. I am just trying to keep you straight in your historical understanding.

dm: Deception is a bad debating tactic.

What deception?

ed: Again, all of the edits of Matthew are minor and have no effect on any of its teaching.

dm: How can you possibly know what edits were done to Matthew before 150 AD? We don't know what Matthew looked like before then. And yet somehow you make the definitive statement that you know with absolute certainty that no major changes were made!

I am not claiming absolute certainty, I am just referring to all the edits that we know about. And among those there is no evidence of any other edits. You are only assuming that there were other edits, due to your anti-supernaturalist presuppositions. Just like the theory of evolution, most evolutionists believe that there were transition forms that are missing in the fossil record even though there is no evidence of such transition forms. So it is we believe that there are no other edits because there is no evidence of such edits.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Assume for a moment there were credible eyewitnesses to the resurrection. What, if anything, would change for you?

If there were credible witnesses that made a credible case, then I would weigh the evidence for it, against the evidence against it, and make my decision.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1Wolf,

Why do you ignore what people write and demand that they repeat it over and over again?

No, I provided a quote from Polycarp that obviously quotes from Luke.

Answered before.

Polycarp and early writers repeat only a few one-line quotes that could have come from Q, word of mouth, other gospels, etc. They do not give enough to know the phrases come from our gospels.

Why do you ignore what people write and demand that they repeat it over and over again?

I also demonstrated that Clement most likely knew the gospel accounts of the crucifixion by his quotes and commentary from Isaiah 53.

Answered before.

Clement uses Isaiah 53 as his source on the crucifixion. He never said he had another source. He never references the gospels as his source on the crucifixion. And he could have heard of the story from many sources, including Q, word of mouth, other gospels, etc.

Why do you ignore what people write and demand that they repeat it over and over again?

You just demonstrated that the number of extant early documents prior to 180 is very small.

Answered before.

We have the epistles, Clement, the Shepherd, the epistle of Barnabas, Thomas, and other writings from early Christianity before 180 AD. Before the middle of the second century, the gospels are on the margins, except for a few one line teachings that are similar to the gospels.

Why do you ignore what people write and demand that they repeat it over and over again?

It is certain that there were many many more than just those but due to the church being very poor during that time most of them have not survived.

Absolutely! That was my very point early in this thread. Papias, who wrote in the early first century, and said Mark had written a book, might have been referring to any number of books. He does not give us enough information to know what book he was talking about.

Because you keep referencing much later "gospels" and act as if they are just as accurate as the much earlier canonical gospels. I am just trying to keep you straight in your historical understanding.

I never, ever referenced a later gospel and acted as if it was just as accurate as contemporary writings.

I repeat. I never, ever referenced a later gospel and acted as if it was just as accurate as contemporary writings.

Please read what I actually write.

Please.

I am not claiming absolute certainty, I am just referring to all the edits that we know about.

There are a lot of edits we know about. There are over 200,000 different variations in the New Testament manuscripts. There are more distinct variant readings in the New Testament then there are words in the New Testament. Some are significant. The ending of Mark after 16:8 was added. The story of the woman in adultery was added. And Matthew is a complete edit of the book of Mark.

And among those there is no evidence of any other edits.

How do you know there were no (or few) edits before 150 AD?
How do you know there were no (or few) edits before 150 AD?

I must have asked you that a dozen times. You refuse to answer.

We have no clear knowledge of the custody of those books before the middle of the second century. We don't know what care was used in copying them.

You are only assuming that there were other edits, due to your anti-supernaturalist presuppositions.

Answered before.

Please repeat after me:

I am saying we do not know what edits were done before the middle of the second century.​

Please. Repeat. Those. Words.

I have said this over and over. You refuse to acknowledge what I am saying.

Why do you ignore what people write and demand that they repeat it over and over again?

Just like the theory of evolution, most evolutionists believe that there were transition forms that are missing in the fossil record even though there is no evidence of such transition forms. So it is we believe that there are no other edits because there is no evidence of such edits.

Huh? We believe there are transitional fossils, because many thousands of transitional fossils have been found. See (A few) transitional fossils .

And we believe there were variations in the New Testament because over 200,000 variations have been found.

 

[anonymous person]

If there were credible witnesses that made a credible case, then I would weigh the evidence for it, against the evidence against it, and make my decision.

And if the weight fell to the witnesses, what, if anything would change for you?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Evidence it is a veneer?

dm: Reputable ancient historians gave their name and credentials. They listed their sources and discussed their methods. Where there were differing views they mentioned them. None of that appears in Luke. Instead we have a short introduction which obviously was meant to look scholarly, but includes none of these features.
Luke and Josephus

None of the gospels were written by people educated as historians. The most educated was Luke and he was not a trained historian but rather a doctor. So it is expected they would not be written in the standard history formula. So that is a non sequitur.

dm: We have no idea how this person after Josephus who wrote the final Luke Acts was.

There is no hard evidence that Luke copied from Josephus and it makes no sense anyway since most of the evidence points to Luke being written before Josephus. A fringe biblical scholar like Carrier just noticing that they both report similar historical facts proves nothing about Luke copying from Josephus. It would be expected that they would have those similarities since they are both writing about the same time period and many of the same events. That would be like World Book Encyclopedia being accused of copying from Britannica when they are both encyclopedias writing about the same things.

ed: Many events in Herodotus are like that. And it was written in the 5th century BC but the earliest copy we have is from 900 AD. That is 1350 years after the events, while NT is much closer to the events of the resurrection.

dm: The date of the copy is not the issue. The issue is the date of the original.

No, the copy is relevant as you yourself have constantly stated. You claim that the more time that has gone by between the original and the copies we have the more editing has occurred. So consider how much editing has occurred between 150 years and 1350 years! Much less editing would have occurred in 150 years than in 1350 years and yet Herodotus is considered unedited enough to still be considered a fairly good history.

dm: If the original is thought to be by a contemporary credible witness, and the copy is thought to accurately reflect the original, than the copy is thought to be valuable evidence. It does not matter when the copy was written.

My copy of Paul was written in the the 20th century. That is OK. The original of Paul is thought to be contemporary to the start of Christianity, and my copy is thought to be close to the original. Therefore my copy is valid evidence.

So the copy you reference from 900 AD can be valid evidence.

No, we have copies of the gospels from 150 years from the original, which is much less time for editing to occur than 1350 years.

ed: I already provided strong evidence for the accuracy of Acts earlier in this thread.

dm: No sir, you have not. You posted that Acts includes some facts from history. So does Forest Gump. Having some background facts of history does not make the story true. When I asked you about the actual claims of Acts, such as the stories of Paul and the disciples, you had zero evidence for that.

Zero.

Zero evidence is not the same as "strong evidence."

No, I explained how FG is popular intentional fiction (ie a novel) which did not exist until the middle ages and second, Acts was written shortly after the events, FG was not. Also, thirdly educated scholars that lived less than 100 years after the events such as Marcion, Ireneus, and Tertullian believed that Luke wrote those books and believed that Luke was a real person, but no educated people living today or in the future believe that Forrest Gump records a real person because there is no evidence that he ever existed.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The ancient Greeks knew about atoms. Paul might have also.

But that is immaterial to my point. The point is that the resurrected Jesus described by Paul seems to be made of some sort of spirit stuff, and not of atoms.

He may very well have known about atoms, he was very well educated and highly intelligent. As I explained earlier, your ad hoc fabricated concept of spirit body was not part of the Judeo-Christian worldview. The ancient jews and Christians believed when you died that you either were gone forever, changed into a spirit, or resurrected bodily.

dm What is the difference between your body made of "transformed atoms" and one made of spirit stuff?

Transformed atoms are stil atoms and therefore physical entities. I don't know what spirit stuff is, that is your ad hoc invention. Spirit is non-physical.

dm: Is your body made of transformed atoms limited to one point in space at a time?

Yes, that is one of the reasons the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is wrong. Jesus' body cannot be in two places at one time.

dm: The point is that Paul's body decayed and disappeared, and you say he will get a different body (that looks just like the old body) in the future. Why can it not be that Paul thought the body of Jesus died and decayed, and he also got a different body?

Because there is strong evidence that he believed in the empty tomb. Besides his quoting of the ancient hymn which plainly implies that fact, we know from the gospels and Justin Martyr that the Jews that were persecuting the early Christians believed that the disciples stole the body. And Paul was one of those Jews that was persecuting the early Christians.

dm: If Paul wanted to say the Holy Spirit was in him, why didn't he say what he meant? He says that Christ lived in him. You simply changed if from Christ to Spirit. I see nothing in the context of Gal 2:20 that says "Christ" in that verse does not mean Christ.

I am referring to the context of all of his letters that plainly teach that the resurrected Jesus had a physical body as I have demonstrated throughout this thread. Also, the historical context that I referenced above about the persecuting jews.

 

[doubtingmerle]

And if the weight fell to the witnesses, what, if anything would change for you?

My entire world view.

 

[Ed1wolf]

See my answers to all of this in this link .

Ha ha, very funny. Your link just takes me to this thread. I understand it was very embarrassing for you that your own link to the greek definitions of "vision" proved that it can also just mean "sight", thereby proving that in context my interpretation of Acts 9 is correct and you were incorrect. Sorry buddy. Try again.

 

[doubtingmerle]

None of the gospels were written by people educated as historians. The most educated was Luke and he was not a trained historian but rather a doctor. So it is expected they would not be written in the standard history formula. So that is a non sequitur.

Huh? Are you even trying?

Sigh. Here we go again. I explained to you that Luke put on a veneer of history. You disputed this, and I explained that Luke has a psudo-introduction that looks like it might be a preface to a history book, but has nothing in common with real historians. Now you admit that Luke wasn't really a historian. So after all that circling we are back to my original point? Luke adds on a veneer of history, but he does not use real historical methods like real historians.

There is no hard evidence that Luke copied from Josephus and it makes no sense anyway since most of the evidence points to Luke being written before Josephus. A fringe biblical scholar like Carrier just noticing that they both report similar historical facts proves nothing about Luke copying from Josephus. It would be expected that they would have those similarities since they are both writing about the same time period and many of the same events. That would be like World Book Encyclopedia being accused of copying from Britannica when they are both encyclopedias writing about the same things.

You simply ignored everything in that article, and made up an argument that Carrier wasn't making. Would it be too much to ask for you to actually read the article before you pontificate about what it says? Once more, Luke and Josephus .

No, the copy is relevant as you yourself have constantly stated. You claim that the more time that has gone by between the original and the copies we have the more editing has occurred. So consider how much editing has occurred between 150 years and 1350 years! Much less editing would have occurred in 150 years than in 1350 years and yet Herodotus is considered unedited enough to still be considered a fairly good history.

Huh, you simply broke my paragraph in half, ignored my explanation, and then complain that my explanation is missing! Of course. You cut it out.

Sigh. I am going to post a paragraph. Please don't break the paragraph in two, and complain that the individual parts you cut up do not contain all the content of the paragraph.

Once more: The date the copy was made does not matter if we have reason to believe the copy is an accurate copy of the original. If the original is kept in some kind of archive, or if a chain of custody of the document gives us good reason to believe the copy was based on an accurate copy of the original, then that copy is good evidence, even though it was copied long after the original.

Now please, please, don't chop that into bits and complain that the bits you chop it into do not contain the whole paragraph.

No, we have copies of the gospels from 150 years from the original, which is much less time for editing to occur than 1350 years.

The number of copies is not necessarily proportional to the number of years. A copy made 1300 years after the original could actually be made while the original still exists, and thus be a reliable copy.

No, I explained how FG is popular intentional fiction (ie a novel) which did not exist until the middle ages and second, Acts was written shortly after the events, FG was not.

Oh. My. Word.

Nobody is claiming Forest Gump is history.

Again, back to the point. The fact that a story includes historical facts does not prove everything in the story is true. Ancient documents are fully of false histories, intertwined with historical facts. This in no way proves that everything in the books are history.

I used Forest Gump only to illustrate that though a story includes history, that does not mean everything in the story is true. If the illustration doesn't help you, then ignore the illustration, but remember the point I am making (for crying out loud).

Let me guess. You will once again inform us that Forest Gump is fiction.

Also, thirdly educated scholars that lived less than 100 years after the events such as Marcion, Ireneus, and Tertullian believed that Luke wrote those books and believed that Luke was a real person, but no educated people living today or in the future believe that Forrest Gump records a real person because there is no evidence that he ever existed.

Oh. My. Word.

How many times have we been over this? Irenaeus and Tertullian were after 180 AD. I don't think we have any record of Luke credited as the author before them.

Does Marcion mention Luke by name? I don't think he does.