If God manifested himself, how would you know that it was God?

[Roonwit]

Basically you are asserting that it isn't plausible that Bible is incorrect about the resurrection, and you wish to have a discussion with an Atheist.

I didn't say there wasn't any possible plausible explanation, just that I have never seen one put forward, and that if you want to claim to be rational in your rejection of it you really need to have one. Your claiming that it was made up after the fact doesn't even begin to explain the available evidence.

Roonwit

 

[variant]

I didn't say there wasn't any possible plausible explanation, just that I have never seen one put forward, and that if you want to claim to be rational in your rejection of it you really need to have one. Your claiming that it was made up after the fact doesn't even begin to explain the available evidence.

Roonwit

You're basically saying that it is not plausible that the gospels give us grossly inaccurate information?

Think about this claim for a second.

I don't really WANT to get into a lengthy discussion of the historicity of the gospels with you because I find them remarkably tedious.

I am saying that the con position on their reliability is not clearly implausible and I find it to be the correct explanation for the documents.

 

[bhsmte]

I didn't say there wasn't any possible plausible explanation, just that I have never seen one put forward, and that if you want to claim to be rational in your rejection of it you really need to have one. Your claiming that it was made up after the fact doesn't even begin to explain the available evidence.

Roonwit

What available evidence and how credible is that evidence?

 

[WoundedDeep]

I didn't say there wasn't any possible plausible explanation, just that I have never seen one put forward, and that if you want to claim to be rational in your rejection of it you really need to have one. Your claiming that it was made up after the fact doesn't even begin to explain the available evidence.

Roonwit

It has been evident that from the very beginning, these people already have decided in their minds that there is no evidence that can be conclusive or convincing as long as it seeks to validate Christianity. Therefore, the natural response to any evidence for Christianity, however sophisticated or antiquated, is always one of further doubt and questioning. In their minds, there can be no "evidence" for Christianity anyhow, and therefore there is not a need or effort to present them with evidences. A closed mind will not accept anything that contradicts what their mind tells them. Truly:

"Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."

We can only pray for them.

 

[Roonwit]

What available evidence and how credible is that evidence?

Without even needing to go into the details of the reliability of the NT documents, we have the very existence of Christianity, and the fact that we know that within 30 years of Jesus' death it had spread across the Empire, and people who claimed to have seen him after he had risen from the dead and who were prepared to die for their faith were sufficiently convincing to make Jews willing to mix with Gentiles and Gentiles (as well as Jews) willing to die in Roman arenas for their faith in a Jewish Messiah.

What Paul writes in 1 Cor 15 demonstrates that the resurrection traditions were very early, not made up later. Moreover, the very fact that Paul was a Christian at all is evidence that demands an explanation.

If the Christians were just spreading some new philosophy that could neither be proved nor disproved then there is little to explain, but these early Christians consistently rested the veracity of their claims on the fact that they had seen Jesus after he had risen from the dead. Every reworking I have ever seen that seeks to say either that they made the story up or that they did not in fact claim this but it was invented later has all the plausibility of conspiracy theories like that man never landed on the moon or that George Bush orchestrated 9/11.

Roonwit

 

[variant]

Without even needing to go into the details of the reliability of the NT documents, we have the very existence of Christianity, and the fact that we know that within 30 years of Jesus' death it had spread across the Empire, and people who claimed to have seen him after he had risen from the dead and who were prepared to die for their faith were sufficiently convincing to make Jews willing to mix with Gentiles and Gentiles (as well as Jews) willing to die in Roman arenas for their faith in a Jewish Messiah.

What Paul writes in 1 Cor 15 demonstrates that the resurrection traditions were very early, not made up later. Moreover, the very fact that Paul was a Christian at all is evidence that demands an explanation.

If the Christians were just spreading some new philosophy that could neither be proved nor disproved then there is little to explain, but these early Christians consistently rested the veracity of their claims on the fact that they had seen Jesus after he had risen from the dead. Every reworking I have ever seen that seeks to say either that they made the story up or that they did not in fact claim this but it was invented later has all the plausibility of conspiracy theories like that man never landed on the moon or that George Bush orchestrated 9/11.

Roonwit

Paul was after the fact, he didn't witness any of these things, he says he had a "vision"/miracle that convinced him. He may have worked with people who said they saw the events but the gospels were then compiled even later.

He and many others like him are the main trust of Christianity throughout the empire.

The tomb isn't mentioned by Paul for instance, so it is likely, that if such a tomb existed, it was already lost by the time it started to be made as a serious claim.

This gives us the counterintuitive idea that the fruther from the event we get, and the less evidence we have to go on, the more certain devout people are that it happened.

 

[Kylie]

To answer that question, I will need time to study the subject of fairies. I will not give abrupt conclusions like the atheists do about the existence of God.

And where did you learn that all atheists just come to abrupt conclusions? I've known many atheists who put a great deal of thought into their position, and I've got a few atheist friends who were once believers and it took them a great deal of time and much personal pain to reach the conclusion that there was no God.

So don't make blanket statements, okay? Because honestly, you don't know what you are talking about.

The fact that Jesus' tomb was empty and His body was never found, not even by the then Roman authorities responsible for His crucifixion. Some non-Christian sources testify to the empty tomb are quoted here: Is the empty tomb of Jesus historical?|Scholars accept the historicity of the empty tomb. | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Of the two links to actual sources on that page, one is not a contemporary source to the events and the other is a dead link.

 

[WoundedDeep]

And where did you learn that all atheists just come to abrupt conclusions? I've known many atheists who put a great deal of thought into their position, and I've got a few atheist friends who were once believers and it took them a great deal of time and much personal pain to reach the conclusion that there was no God.

So don't make blanket statements, okay? Because honestly, you don't know what you are talking about.

I did not say "all atheists", I said "the atheists". Clearly, "the" refers to a certain group of atheists and not all.

Likewise, there are a group of atheists who are of a learning mind, and through their fields of study, they acknowledge that there is a God. So, who is right? I believe it is those who are ready to explore the truth on their own, rather than listening to what others tell them.

Of the two links to actual sources on that page, one is not a contemporary source to the events and the other is a dead link.

I admit the source I give is not sufficient, yet even if I did give a contemporary source to the events, there will be people with preconceived ideas who will conveniently discredit it however they could. Is it more profitable for me to convince them, or more profitable for them to investigate the sources themselves?

 

[Roonwit]

Paul was after the fact, he didn't witness any of these things, he says he had a "vision"/miracle that convinced him. He may have worked with people who said they saw the events but the gospels were then compiled even later.

He and many others like him are the main trust of Christianity throughout the empire.

The tomb isn't mentioned by Paul for instance, so it is likely, that if such a tomb existed, it was already lost by the time it started to be made as a serious claim.

This gives us the counterintuitive idea that the fruther from the event we get, and the less evidence we have to go on, the more certain devout people are that it happened.

Paul doesn't need to mention the tomb because he is not recounting a history of the events. He is nevertheless very clear that over 500 people, most of whom were still alive at the time of writing, had seen Jesus alive after he had risen from the dead. Luke, a contemporary and companion of Paul, did the work of carefully investigating the accounts about Jesus that were already in existence at the time of writing, as well as very probably consulting with eyewitnesses, and he records the empty tomb very clearly.

When Paul talked about resurrection he knew that he was saying that the body was no longer in the grave. That's the whole purpose of his writing to the Corinthians. And it is central to his faith. He doesn't say, "Here's some additional proof for what we already believe." He says, "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."

Roonwit

 

[variant]

Paul doesn't need to mention the tomb because he is not recounting a history of the events. He is nevertheless very clear that over 500 people, most of whom were still alive at the time of writing, had seen Jesus alive after he had risen from the dead.

He doesn't entail what that means. They might have "seen" him like he did.

I Corinthians 15:3-8
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

We know what Paul means by "he appeared to me" but not the rest.

As the earliest source not using the tomb is a bit odd really, he is trying to convince people that the resurrection happened here, but it is quite free to be an entirely different idea of what the resurrection entailed.

Luke, a contemporary and companion of Paul, did the work of carefully investigating the accounts about Jesus that were already in existence at the time of writing, as well as very probably consulting with eyewitnesses, and he records the empty tomb very clearly.

This is unlikely as "Mark" is the first gospel likely to have been written, sourced heavily by the writer of "Luke".

The quality of the witness accounts is quite unknown.

That Paul ever had any idea of the empty Tomb narrative is clearly not evident, which is a good reason to think the narrative comes from after his letters.

When Paul talked about resurrection he knew that he was saying that the body was no longer in the grave. That's the whole purpose of his writing to the Corinthians. And it is central to his faith. He doesn't say, "Here's some additional proof for what we already believe." He says, "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."

Roonwit

That's the problem, he is trying to convince them, and stress the importance of a specific belief and doesn't use his best stuff???

The tomb was probably already quite lost at the time of Paul if it existed at all, there is quite a bit reason to think that it exists as a later addition of the Pauline sect of early Christianity.

 

[Roonwit]

You miss a key part from your quotation of 1 Cor: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve."

Paul knows exactly what 'resurrection' means. It means a person went into the grave dead, and came bodily out of it, alive. He is probably quoting a traditional form of words here, which is not a narrative of the story but is a summary of the key points, like the creed. If you argue that Paul didn't believe in the empty tomb because he didn't mention it here, you may as well argue the same of the Council of Nicaea, which also didn't mention it in their creed.

There is every reason to suppose Luke was who he said he was, Paul's companion, and that he borrows substantially from Mark's gospel simply adds more credence to the claim that Mark is relatively early. Since Luke went with Paul to Jerusalem, I think there is every reason to suppose that he would have met eyewitnesses in person at that time.

Moreover, to suggest that Pauline Christianity would have invented the empty tomb story is pretty implausible. In the next couple of generations, it was those who most strongly stressed Pauline Christianity to the exclusion of anything else that drove the Gnostic movement within Christianity, which did everything it could to deny that Jesus was human at all but claimed instead that he was just a spirit in human form. To them, the idea that he had a body that died was anathema, still less the idea that his body might come to life again after death and live forever. The dogged persistence of the empty tomb story even in Pauline Christianity is a testament to the strength of the tradition.

Also, the later you push back the 'invention' of the empty tomb story, the less plausible it becomes that you have four distinct but easily compatible accounts of the event that become generally accepted across the Christian world by the middle of the second century.

Roonwit

 

[Kylie]

I did not say "all atheists", I said "the atheists". Clearly, "the" refers to a certain group of atheists and not all.

Please don't try wordplay like that. If that's what you really meant, why didn't you say, "some atheists"? I I speak of "The Christians believe such-and-such", then doesn't it indicate I am talking about ALL Christians? Likewise here. If you say, "The atheists" then it suggests ALL atheists, not a subgroup of them.

Likewise, there are a group of atheists who are of a learning mind, and through their fields of study, they acknowledge that there is a God. So, who is right? I believe it is those who are ready to explore the truth on their own, rather than listening to what others tell them.

There are atheists who acknowledge there is a god? Um, you do know what an atheist is, yes? Can you show me a single person who identifies as an atheist and also claims there is a god of some description (that is NOT using the term God as a metaphor)?

I admit the source I give is not sufficient, yet even if I did give a contemporary source to the events, there will be people with preconceived ideas who will conveniently discredit it however they could. Is it more profitable for me to convince them, or more profitable for them to investigate the sources themselves?

Let's start with just providing a contemporary source, okay?

 

[Kylie]

Luke, a contemporary and companion of Paul, did the work of carefully investigating the accounts about Jesus that were already in existence at the time of writing, as well as very probably consulting with eyewitnesses, and he records the empty tomb very clearly.

Do you mean Luke as in the Gospel of Luke?

If so, how do we know that he was the author of that book?

 

[Roonwit]

Do you mean Luke as in the Gospel of Luke?

If so, how do we know that he was the author of that book?

He also authors Acts, in which he gives some parts of the accounts in the first person. By comparing the accounts with Paul's letters, Luke seems far and away the most likely candidate for being the author. Strong tradition also attaches Luke's name to these books; I've never heard of an alternative author being suggested.

Roonwit

 

[WoundedDeep]

Please don't try wordplay like that. If that's what you really meant, why didn't you say, "some atheists"? I I speak of "The Christians believe such-and-such", then doesn't it indicate I am talking about ALL Christians? Likewise here. If you say, "The atheists" then it suggests ALL atheists, not a subgroup of them.

I am not word-playing. Why would I mean "all atheists" if I know there are atheists who later converted to Christianity? I myself was an atheist until God converted me. I might have been unclear, but please don't impose meanings onto what I say because you have a different interpretation from what I actually mean.

There are atheists who acknowledge there is a god? Um, you do know what an atheist is, yes? Can you show me a single person who identifies as an atheist and also claims there is a god of some description (that is NOT using the term God as a metaphor)?

Yes, or rather ex-atheists. I am among ex-atheists. Yet that doesn't discount the fact I was once an atheist. Lots of accounts of educated atheists-turned-Christians around if you just google it.

Let's start with just providing a contemporary source, okay?

The Dead Sea Scrolls. You can very well obtain a reliable source of it yourself.

 

[variant]

You miss a key part from your quotation of 1 Cor: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve."

The key part is that Jesus appears to him as a vision, and he counts this as equal to the other appearances.

This may just be Paul aggrandizing his position, but, to simply never mention the tomb gives us the idea that it was probably became a central theme only later.

Paul knows exactly what 'resurrection' means. It means a person went into the grave dead, and came bodily out of it, alive. He is probably quoting a traditional form of words here, which is not a narrative of the story but is a summary of the key points, like the creed. If you argue that Paul didn't believe in the empty tomb because he didn't mention it here, you may as well argue the same of the Council of Nicaea, which also didn't mention it in their creed.

I don't even know that Paul was aware of a narrative of an empty tomb, as he doesn't mention it.

If the first mention of it came after the Council of Nicaea I might doubt that they were aware the narrative too.

The Council of Nicaea clearly had access to the synoptic gospels.

There is every reason to suppose Luke was who he said he was, Paul's companion, and that he borrows substantially from Mark's gospel simply adds more credence to the claim that Mark is relatively early. Since Luke went with Paul to Jerusalem, I think there is every reason to suppose that he would have met eyewitnesses in person at that time.

We don't know that any "eyewitnesses" were met. Mark actually said the "eyewitnesses" to the tomb story didn't tell anyone.

Moreover, to suggest that Pauline Christianity would have invented the empty tomb story is pretty implausible. In the next couple of generations, it was those who most strongly stressed Pauline Christianity to the exclusion of anything else that drove the Gnostic movement within Christianity, which did everything it could to deny that Jesus was human at all but claimed instead that he was just a spirit in human form. To them, the idea that he had a body that died was anathema, still less the idea that his body might come to life again after death and live forever. The dogged persistence of the empty tomb story even in Pauline Christianity is a testament to the strength of the tradition.

To suggest that no one in the Paul camp wrote the Gospels is a bit odd if you are also assuming Mark and Luke are close associates of his.

So this is a very odd claim from you.

Besides, I am suggesting that the people Mark and Luke were using as sources were probably the ones inventing or distorting this story not Paul himself or his associates.

Also, the later you push back the 'invention' of the empty tomb story, the less plausible it becomes that you have four distinct but easily compatible accounts of the event that become generally accepted across the Christian world by the middle of the second century.

Roonwit

Not really, I'm suggesting the story became well distributed somewhere between the letters of Paul and the gospel of Mark. At this time the tomb seems to already have been lost if it ever existed in the first place. We would not expect such a site to be lost to the early Christians if they were indeed capable of just going and talking to the principles in the story and could easily find it.

The fact that they inexorably lost track of it means that the principles and the consumers of this story lost touch with one another.

They could always, I guess, ask Joseph of Arimathea where the tomb he bought was, but Arimathea is never recorded by or lost to history too so maybe there isn't even such a place.

The methodology suggested for the synoptic gospels is that they are using mostly the same source material and copying Mark, which means them agreeing at any date is by no means interesting.

 

[Roonwit]

The key part is that Jesus appears to him as a vision, and he counts this as equal to the other appearances.

This may just be Paul aggrandizing his position, but, to simply never mention the tomb gives us the idea that it was probably became a central theme only later.

Yes, I think it is equal. He seems to have had a vision of Jesus in bodily form. But he indicates it is different in kind to the others by the phrase "as to one abnormally born", and the Acts account also shows it is different from the others, but no less valid. But there is no reason to suppose that all the resurrection appearances were of that form, otherwise the differences would not be identified.

I think your claim that this shows the accounts were invented later is speculating far beyond the available evidence, and the suggestion that the tomb accounts are early makes more sense.

If the first mention of it came after the Council of Nicaea I might doubt that they were aware the narrative too.

You might. But you are assuming that the first mention comes later than Paul. First off, we don't know when Mark was written; it could have been early. Second, whenever it was written, it was almost certainly drawing from long-standing oral tradition, as Paul himself was.

We don't know that any "eyewitnesses" were met. Mark actually said the "eyewitnesses" to the tomb story didn't tell anyone.

The fact that he is writing the account shows that he does not mean that they never told anyone ever.

Richard Bauckham has done some good work showing that the accounts of Jesus in the gospels were probably related by the people who are the main characters in each story. Moreover, if Luke was in Jerusalem, and he was the kind of person who would gather together different evidence in order to put together an orderly account, I think it very likely he would have spoken with the eyewitnesses in Jerusalem about what they saw.

To suggest that no one in the Paul camp wrote the Gospels is a bit odd if you are also assuming Mark and Luke are close associates of his.

No, I was rebutting your claim that the empty tomb accounts originated in Pauline Christianity. If they had not been true, there is little reason to suppose that Pauline Christianity would have invented them.

Besides, I am suggesting that the people Mark and Luke were using as sources were probably the ones inventing or distorting this story not Paul himself or his associates.

Why should you suppose that? You need some evidence before you accuse people of lying.

The methodology suggested for the synoptic gospels is that they are using mostly the same source material and copying Mark, which means them agreeing at any date is by no means interesting.

Yes, but the interesting thing about the resurrection accounts is that they are different from each other, yet still agree. There are plenty of things in Matthew and Luke that are copied from Mark pretty much verbatim, but the resurrection accounts are not. Moreover, John too, which has very little overlapping material from the synoptics, also has a resurrection account which bears out the other three.

If they were made up, you would either expect them to be identical in their details, or to have substantial disagreements. That they are different yet still in agreement makes them look much more like eyewitness testimony.

Roonwit

 

[bhsmte]

I did not say "all atheists", I said "the atheists". Clearly, "the" refers to a certain group of atheists and not all.

Likewise, there are a group of atheists who are of a learning mind, and through their fields of study, they acknowledge that there is a God. So, who is right? I believe it is those who are ready to explore the truth on their own, rather than listening to what others tell them.

How can an atheist acknowledge there is a God and still be an atheist?

 

[variant]

Yes, I think it is equal. He seems to have had a vision of Jesus in bodily form. But he indicates it is different in kind to the others by the phrase "as to one abnormally born", and the Acts account also shows it is different from the others, but no less valid. But there is no reason to suppose that all the resurrection appearances were of that form, otherwise the differences would not be identified.

He identifies himself not the revelation as interesting. He is an outsider who is born later as opposed to all the other "witnesses".

I think your claim that this shows the accounts were invented later is speculating far beyond the available evidence, and the suggestion that the tomb accounts are early makes more sense.

I'm saying the best stories pop up later after the claims can no longer be checked.

If the tomb is a well known narrative earlier than Paul, why doesn't Paul mention it?

You might. But you are assuming that the first mention comes later than Paul. First off, we don't know when Mark was written; it could have been early. Second, whenever it was written, it was almost certainly drawing from long-standing oral tradition, as Paul himself was.

We don't "know" exactly but it is basically agreed upon by biblical scholarship of all sorts.

We can safely assume yes that Paul was relying on oral tradition just not what that tradition was beyond what he wrote.

The fact that he is writing the account shows that he does not mean that they never told anyone ever.

It's not evidence that they didn't tell anyone at the time either as the other accounts contradict this point.

Mark mentioning that they didn't tell anyone at the time may very well account for why the narrative comes up only later.

Richard Bauckham has done some good work showing that the accounts of Jesus in the gospels were probably related by the people who are the main characters in each story. Moreover, if Luke was in Jerusalem, and he was the kind of person who would gather together different evidence in order to put together an orderly account, I think it very likely he would have spoken with the eyewitnesses in Jerusalem about what they saw.

The account itself says the witnesses were limited.

So, if we have "disagreement" it is because the witnesses were second hand.

No, I was rebutting your claim that the empty tomb accounts originated in Pauline Christianity. If they had not been true, there is little reason to suppose that Pauline Christianity would have invented them.

As you said they were simply collecting stories.

Why should you suppose that? You need some evidence before you accuse people of lying.

Well because it seems to appear after Paul for one.

People lie all the time. Even true stories get changed exaggerated ect.

People believe it because they want to believe it.

That we don't know the "eyewitnesses" in this case, what they said, or why they said it simply assuming we are getting the proper story is a bit naive.

Yes, but the interesting thing about the resurrection accounts is that they are different from each other, yet still agree. There are plenty of things in Matthew and Luke that are copied from Mark pretty much verbatim, but the resurrection accounts are not. Moreover, John too, which has very little overlapping material from the synoptics, also has a resurrection account which bears out the other three.

If they were made up, you would either expect them to be identical in their details, or to have substantial disagreements. That they are different yet still in agreement makes them look much more like eyewitness testimony.

Roonwit

It makes it look like they were taken from similar but not identical sources.

There aren't that many eye witnesses to the tomb event though, so, why would we have any disagreement if the account weren't based upon second hand sources?

That the tomb also becomes lost to Christianity (I had edited that into the previous post) when they have eyewitnesses to attest to where it was also points us in the direction that they are either getting the info second hand or the tomb comes into the story later.

 

[bhsmte]

He identifies himself not the revelation as interesting. He is an outsider who is born later as opposed to all the other "witnesses".



I'm saying the best stories pop up later after the claims can no longer be checked.

If the tomb is earlier than Paul, why doesn't Paul mention it?



We don't "know" exactly but it is basically agreed upon by biblical scholarship of all sorts.

We can safely assume yes that Paul was relying on oral tradition just not what that tradition was beyond what he wrote.



It's not evidence that they didn't tell anyone at the time either as the other accounts contradict this point.

Mark mentioning that they didn't tell anyone at the time may very well account for why the narrative comes up only later.



The point is that the only claimed eye witness here isn't necessarily the woman at the tomb, as the accounts vary.

The account itself says the witnesses were limited.



As you said they were simply collecting stories.



Well because it seems to appear after Paul for one.

People lie all the time. Even true stories get changed exaggerated ect.

People believe it because they want to believe it.

That we don't know the "eyewitnesses" in this case, what they said, or why they said it simply assuming we are getting the proper story is a bit naive.



It makes it look like they were taken from similar but not identical sources.

Well stated.