Resurrection Evidence

cloudyday2 · Dec 21, 2019

Silmarien said:
My major concern with calling it a legend would be that I'm not sure to what degree the ancient Jews used numbers in the same way we do. Or just how they perceived time at all, given that biblical Hebrew has aspect but not tense. Forty is just such an important number, though, it could have been a week and they might still have used the number forty to describe it.

I have wondered if the authentic early Christians were the Gnostic Christians. Jesus spends 40 days (or any length of time) explaining his teachings and mission to his disciples, but no explanation is recorded in the gospels. Instead the gospels speak of Jesus teaching in parables that he later explains to his disciples, but only one of the recorded parables included the explanation. And the Gospel of John is pretty Gnostic.

If you claimed to know secret teachings of Jesus then you would need to explain where they originated, and this murky surreal 40 day period between the Resurrection and the Ascension is the perfect narrative element for that purpose.

I agree that 40 days is a recurring time period in the Bible. Moses was on Mt. Sinai 40 days fasting. Jesus was in the desert 40 days fasting. The rain fell for 40 days in the Great Flood. Those are only a few instances.

Silmarien · Dec 21, 2019

BigV said:
Argument is that you can't tell between beliefs of Rabbinic Jews and Christian Jews. Both seem to want to kill Paul and Christians like him. But if you want to follow Jesus, assuming he is historical, wouldn't he be more like James/Jewish Christians?

The conflict between Paul and James was specifically over circumcision. Insofar as Christian Jews thought that Gentile converts needed to be circumcised, they were in agreement with the larger Jewish teachings concerning the Law. That doesn't mean that Christian Jews were identical in their beliefs to other Jews.

BigV said:
What are you basing this claim on?
Septuagint | biblical literature

Septuagint, abbreviation LXX, the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew. The Septuagint was presumably made for the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the common language throughout the region. Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century BCE and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century BCE.

The name Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, “70”) was derived later from the legend that there were 72 translators, 6 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, who worked independently to translate the whole and ultimately produced identical versions.

It's obvious that the translators who translated the Torah 3rd Century BCE were not the same guys who translated the rest of the OT in the 2nd Century CE, around 500 years later.

What you are quoting specifically states that the entire Greek Old Testament is the Septuagint. Analysis of the text reveals that different parts of it were translated at different times, but the entire thing is referred to as the Septuagint. Your source also states that that much of it was translated in the 2nd century BC, not AD. That would be 100 years later, not 500 years later.

BigV said:
What is you source for the claim that Rabbinic Jews in Judea and Galilee read Greek Tanakh?

My source would be Paul. For a specific example, he was clearly drawing from the Septuagint when quoting Isaiah 29:14 in 1 Corinthians 1:19. (See here for a comparison of the different versions.)

As Paul was a Pharisee, it's pretty obvious that Jews in the region were familiar enough with the Septuagint to use it when writing in Greek. This is in fact what we would expect, given that Greek was the international language at the time.

Halbhh · Dec 21, 2019

cvanwey said:
It's quite 'ironical'....

Before you started responding, you accused me of 'repeating myself.'

I've asked you several times to provide your best piece of evidence for a resurrection claim.

You instead keep repeating Matthew 7:12

For the LAST time.... Just because a human preached a message of situational ethics, which looks to work well for [you], has absolutely NO bearing on whether or not He rose from the dead. Many people in history have contributed many 'well received lessons'; which you may also find which test 'correct' consistently.

Again, what is the most compelling piece of evidence to support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead?

By testing what He said.

What have you got to lose?

BigV · Dec 21, 2019

Silmarien said:
Your source also states that that much of it was translated in the 2nd century BC, not AD. That would be 100 years later, not 500 years later

My bad, I stand corrected on the misreading of the BCE. Thanks for that. I’ll also need to do more digging. I remember hearing Rabbi Tovia Singer saying Septuagint was only Torah and no other books. And then other unknown translators for the rest of the other books.

Seems like Britanica doesn’t dispute Tovias claim explicitly and does state Torah was first and then other books.

Resha Caner · Dec 21, 2019

I wish the best for everyone.

Silmarien · Dec 21, 2019

BigV said:
My bad, I stand corrected on the misreading of the BCE. Thanks for that. I’ll also need to do more digging. I remember hearing Rabbi Tovia Singer saying Septuagint was only Torah and no other books. And then other unknown translators for the rest of the other books.

Seems like Britanica doesn’t dispute Tovias claim explicitly and does state Torah was first and then other books.

There are any number of resources on the Septuagint. I'm planning on reading through this one at some point: Invitation to the Septuagint.

Rabbi Tovia Singer might be referring to Jewish legends about the translation of the Torah into Greek, but I don't know if there's any foundation to them. I would assume that the entire Septuagint is the result of anonymous translation, so I wouldn't hold the translation of the Torah in special esteem as being some sort of magical translation and then denigrate the rest. To the best of my knowledge, the whole thing is terrible Greek, but it was all definitely in use in the 1st century.

muichimotsu · Dec 22, 2019

Silmarien said:
What other claims? I'm unfamiliar with any similar claims from other religions. The closest you can get is Mohammed, and he never claimed to be the Messiah.

Mohammed himself doesn't necessarily have the only claims of miracles related to Islam, though I'll admit I'm having difficulty finding the sources for the ones alleged in Richard Rich's animated films covering those miracles, particularly Before the Light (which has 3) and Mohammed the Last Prophet, which has at least 1 I recall (the boycott against Muslims eaten by termites and all that)

muichimotsu · Dec 22, 2019

Halbhh said:
I was an atheist, from such influences as Ayn Rand at age 12 (about the right age for her in a way).

So, I never bothered to wonder if Hebrews was made up -- I just believed it had to be more religious false ideas.

So, when I read the Bible older than that, it was instead from a genuine curiosity later on in my early 30s, when I was intrigued that someone had given a special place of unusual emphasis, centrality to the rule:

"Love your neighbor as yourself"

as 1 of only 2 central rules of life, as 1 of 2 "greatest" of the rules for life.

This was intriguing because I was reading ideas from all the great thinkers from around the world, and this one is obviously a candidate for how to create lasting peace.

A rule that is far more powerful to create lasting peace than other kinds of ideas people use like deterrence or reasoning, rhetoric, diplomacy, behind the scenes horse trading (as Russia did with Germany before Germany went ahead and invaded), etc.

Everything else fails, except the things Christ emphasized, I gradually realized, to my increasing interest.

That was pretty intriguing, to an objective atheist studying history and wisdom ideas from around the world.

So, no, I never even took Hebrews or such seriously even for a moment.

In those days.

But does that really solve problems nearly as easily you claim it does? Making a black swan fallacy of saying you've never seen peace in the Christ-like angle fail seems to be the line of thought here, which is naive, since passive pacifism inspired by Christianity more often than not probably resulted in people dying, even if their martyring inspired change, that's not the same thing as this unique "love"

muichimotsu · Dec 22, 2019

Halbhh said:
God intentionally does not allow easy evidence to be available, because the repeated requirement in scripture is said to us to be faith first.

So I expect never any obvious evidence.

Zero verifiable evidence to my knowledge that a disinterested person could examine, as if God were inert or only an object in nature.

And that fits scripture. Because He wants those with that are willing to humbly repent and trust Him -- "faith", a leap of faith -- to seek Him.

God isn't inert, nor is He willing to let just anyone connect with Him, regardless of their attitude and choices.

But when a person does that sincere humble seeking, to humbly seek God in a leap of faith, then what I found out, as have others, is that then He lets us connect.

That's what fits the scriptures.

So, there will never be proof first. You have to humbly have faith first.

There's no way to manage or control God and force it to be a way you prefer.

That just seems to be an argument from divine hiddenness, like God has to be intentionally vague or you don't get "true" believers, which seems more like code for credulous people willing to believe and obey without real questioning or even "might makes right" because God is the supreme versus all those "lesser" gods, bordering on henotheism, which is pretty lame, like a comic book or such

If God is so nebulous you can make it have qualities that basically render it unfalsifiable and unable to genuinely be investigated apart from believing in the reliability of religious zealots, many of whom died for their beliefs, then how is it anything more than philosophical goalpost shifting to avoid considering that the entity is possibly just made up, ignotum per ignotius?

cvanwey · Dec 22, 2019

Tone said:
He is Personally involved with each individual throughout the entire process of believing and we have, at its climax, the reception of the Holy Spirit!

2 Corinthians 1
"21Now it is God who establishes both us and you in Christ. He anointed us, 22placed His seal on us, and put His Spirit in our hearts as a pledge of what is to come."

So are you saying , as I prayed for His contact for decades, never noticing His presence, He is actually there?

If I don't think He is, and even if I am confused, then God is still responsible for inadequate revelation.

And getting back to the statement of mine, for which you decided to quote?

In regards to the claims of a resurrection, is this the best God can do? Meaning, claiming He rose from the dead, relying on eyewitness attestation to spread truth, and also relying upon humans to spread the message. And in doing so, having the foreknowledge to realize that most, whom have claimed to see Him, could not write of it? And instead relying upon arguably anonymous much later Gospel writers, whom make references, sometimes by way of hearsay. Further, not presenting Himself to many differing populations, whom are unrelated, with the ability to write, whom could speak about seeing a 'man claiming to be named Jesus, and is the Messiah.'

Once again, multiple contemporaneous corroborated eyewitness attestations seems to be one of the best sources to determine if something happened, in this particular case. The fact we really don't seem to have any, appears quite suspect.

cvanwey · Dec 22, 2019

Halbhh said:
Yes generally to the first, according to authenticity of course (I can say no to scams I think).

Then please acknowledge post #63. Again, verifying a 'moral philosophy', for which seems to work for [you], has absolutely no relevancy to the claims of this same person later rising from the dead.

Halbhh said:
2nd, if you want to discuss what it means to give all for Christ, I'd suggest first just seek God. First things first. You aren't in a position to understand such things well. The gospel seems foolish to those who are lost, unless they have the breakthrough, the ability to hear.So, ask advanced questions later (if you get that chance), after you truly believe He rose and will come again.

I did that for decades. No luck. And please also re-address/re-acknowledge posts #19 and #23.

Many things I acknowledge, as I am forced to recognize as fact, regardless of getting mentally prepared.

In the case for a resurrection, what is the evidence for such a claim?

Resha Caner · Dec 22, 2019

cvanwey said:
Example: A 9-month-old taking their first steps on their own (mundane, though rare) vs a 9-month-old running the 100 meter dash in 14 seconds (extra-ordinary, and requires more evidence).

I don't think you (or @BigV ) know what "extraordinary evidence" means. I don't know what it means. I think the requirement is the same for both cases: show me.

Someone claims a 9-month-old can walk. OK. I watch him walk. Yep, he can do it.
Someone claims a 9-month-old can run 100 m in 14 s. OK. I watch him do it.. Nope. I need extraordinary evidence. Have him do it 5 more times and then I'll believe. Would 5 be extraordinary enough? Maybe he should do it 100 times. Or maybe he has to run on ice, or run backwards, or … what would make the evidence extraordinary?

Maybe it should just be evidence.

The appeal to "common sense" is nonsense. It's avoidance. Did you really expect me to say, "Oh! You're using common sense! I didn't realize that. Yep, now I agree with everything you say." What's common sense is that we need an arbitrator because we're not agreeing. I was going to propose something I've used at work called AHP (Analytical Hierarchical Process), which is a way to force consensus and at the same time put numbers on qualitative issues. I thought we could use AHP regarding a discussion on different types of evidence.

But you've shown no sign you would allow yourself to be held to a standard. As such, I see no point in further discussion. I hope the best for you.

cvanwey · Dec 22, 2019

Resha Caner said:
I don't think you (or @BigV ) know what "extraordinary evidence" means. I don't know what it means. I think the requirement is the same for both cases: show me.

Someone claims a 9-month-old can walk. OK. I watch him walk. Yep, he can do it.
Someone claims a 9-month-old can run 100 m in 14 s. OK. I watch him do it.. Nope. I need extraordinary evidence. Have him do it 5 more times and then I'll believe. Would 5 be extraordinary enough? Maybe he should do it 100 times. Or maybe he has to run on ice, or run backwards, or … what would make the evidence extraordinary?

Maybe it should just be evidence.

The appeal to "common sense" is nonsense. It's avoidance. Did you really expect me to say, "Oh! You're using common sense! I didn't realize that. Yep, now I agree with everything you say." What's common sense is that we need an arbitrator because we're not agreeing. I was going to propose something I've used at work called AHP (Analytical Hierarchical Process), which is a way to force consensus and at the same time put numbers on qualitative issues. I thought we could use AHP regarding a discussion on different types of evidence.

But you've shown no sign you would allow yourself to be held to a standard. As such, I see no point in further discussion. I hope the best for you.

I'm sorry that I disagree, which possibly makes you upset. At the end of the day, you can use whatever 'standard' you wish. A man claiming to rise from the dead, after 3 days of being dead, is an extraordinary claim.

If you disagree, then yes, maybe I should just as well, hope the best for you.

cvanwey · Dec 22, 2019

Halbhh said:
By testing what He said.

What have you got to lose?

Already addressed in post #151

BigV · Dec 22, 2019

Resha Caner said:
I don't think you (or @BigV ) know what "extraordinary evidence" means. I don't know what it means. I think the requirement is the same for both cases: show me.

Personally I have no idea what you are trying to prove. I’ve already said that history can very seldom (if ever) be proven with 100pct Certainty! And that’s when we are talking observable things. When you start claiming things definitely happened In the past that are never observed today your position is even weaker!

If you want to believe prince Alladin flew on a carpet, then more power to you.

Nobody can prove otherwise to you.

Resha Caner · Dec 22, 2019

BigV said:
Personally I have no idea what you are trying to prove. I’ve already said that history can very seldom (if ever) be proven with 100pct Certainty! And that’s when we are talking observable things. When you start claiming things definitely happened In the past that are never observed today your position is even weaker!

If you want to believe prince Alladin flew on a carpet, then more power to you.

Nobody can prove otherwise to you.

That isn't what I was talking about. I was referring to the part that I don't believe you've ever accepted, rejected, or said anything about:

Resha Caner said:
The point was: It's not that you believe the Resurrection is possible, but just don't believe the historical claim that Jesus did it. Rather, you simply don't believe Resurrection is possible.

I'm further stating I don't think there is any such a thing as "extraordinary" evidence. There's just evidence. But if you want to give me a working definition of extraordinary evidence that we can both use, I'm open to hearing about it.

I will not, however, accept some vague idea that allows people to accept what they want to accept and reject what they want to reject. Suppose I produce @cvanwey 's 9 month sprinting baby, we time him, and he completes the 100 m in 14.1 sec? Oops, someone says, you claimed 14 sec. Your claim is false. He runs again, this time at 13.9 sec. Oops again. You claimed 14 sec. You fail.

BigV · Dec 22, 2019

Resha Caner said:
I'm further stating I don't think there is any such thing as "extraordinary" evidence. There's just evidence. But if you want to give me a working definition of extraordinary evidence that we can both use, I'm open to hearing about it.

I think extraordinarily evidence in the context of resurrection refers to actual resurrection. Absolutely everything in our experience testifies to the fact that death is final. Just read up on what death actually does to the body.

How would a resurrection actually work? Religious have no answer other than “Godditit” or it was magic.

As I said, nobody can stop you from believing absolutely anything you want about the world or about yourself. But there is absolutely no reason to accept a claim that something happened in the past that we do not observe happening today.

Please understand the burden of proof that too. Even if resurrections were possible today, you would not be able to prove Jesus rose from the dead. It would just open us to the possibility that he rose (if resurrections were even possible).

Tone · Dec 22, 2019

cvanwey said:
If I don't think He is, and even if I am confused, then God is still responsible for inadequate revelation.

Satan, the world, and your own flesh are responsible for confusion.

John 1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [a]comprehend it.

6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.9Thathttps://biblehub.com/nkjv/john/1.htm#footnotes was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.11He came to His [c]own, and His [d]own did not receive Him. 12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the [e]right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Hear and believe.

cvanwey · Dec 22, 2019

Resha Caner said:
I will not, however, accept some vague idea that allows people to accept what they want to accept and reject what they want to reject. Suppose I produce @cvanwey 's 9 month sprinting baby, we time him, and he completes the 100 m in 14.1 sec? Oops, someone says, you claimed 14 sec. Your claim is false. He runs again, this time at 13.9 sec. Oops again. You claimed 14 sec. You fail.

You seem to be wasting time here. Let me again ask you.

Can we both agree that a man, whom is deemed dead for 3 days, rising from the dead, IS an extraordinary claim? A simple yes or no will suffice.

If we agree, then we can proceed. If you don't, then arguing what is extraordinary could go on for many exchanges, as I already addressed.

Tone · Dec 22, 2019

cvanwey said:
You seem to be wasting time here. Let me again ask you.

Can we both agree that a man, whom is deemed dead for 3 days, rising from the dead, IS an extraordinary claim? A simple yes or no will suffice.

If we agree, then we can proceed. If you don't, then arguing what is extraordinary could go on for many exchanges, as I already addressed.

In such a dark world, the victory over death may appear to be extra-ordinary, but it is actually death that is extra-ordinary to the life that the Creator designed in the beginning. What the Messiah did in healing others, causing the blind to see, and raising Lazarus (and Himself) from the dead, is simply reverse the effects (death) of "the fall"--restoring life and bringing the ordinary back.

*Isn't this what science and technology strive to do as well?

Resurrection Evidence

Generic Theist

Existentialist

Everything You say is Life to me

Junior Member

Expert Fool

Existentialist

I Spit On Perfection

I Spit On Perfection

I Spit On Perfection

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Expert Fool

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Expert Fool

Junior Member

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

Well-Known Member

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

Similar threads