The Resurrection as a Historical Problem

[Achronos]

As the firstfruits in the OT were consecrated to God representative of the promise of later fruits, so the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the first offering of the resurrecion of all who are His. All people share the same human nature, but Christians have two fathers: first Adam, who became the father of mortality and earthly life, and now Christ, the father of immortality and spritiual life.

 

[Rahm]

The resurrection has pretty much been proven to be 100% true. The writings of Paul confirm the resurrection. Keep in mind he meet and know some of the actual apostles themselves. Then we have Mark's gospel which was written while some of the apostles were still alive. A lot of people forget that or don't really give it much thought.

Valid points for sure. However, Paul did not meet the ressurected Christ--he only 'saw him in visions and dreams'. That's probably because Christ was in heaven sitting at the right hand of God.

As for Mark's gospel---well, it it is the earliest of the four canonical gospels--but it doesn't prove Christ rose from the dead. Chapter 16 actually ends with the women fleeing from the tomb. However--an additional longer ending was added to the gospel which have several women go to his tomb and find it empty. However--in Luke's gospel, two Mary's see Jesus. And in John's gospel--Mary magdalene sees what she at first thinks is a gardener--who actually happens to be Jesus. In other words--all th of these accounts contradict each other. If evidence does not corrborate then it is inadmissible.

 

[OzSpen]

Valid points for sure. However, Paul did not meet the ressurected Christ--he only 'saw him in visions and dreams'. That's probably because Christ was in heaven sitting at the right hand of God.

As for Mark's gospel---well, it it is the earliest of the four canonical gospels--but it doesn't prove Christ rose from the dead. Chapter 16 actually ends with the women fleeing from the tomb. However--an additional longer ending was added to the gospel which have several women go to his tomb and find it empty. However--in Luke's gospel, two Mary's see Jesus. And in John's gospel--Mary magdalene sees what she at first thinks is a gardener--who actually happens to be Jesus. In other words--all th of these accounts contradict each other. If evidence does not corrborate then it is inadmissible.

Kirk,

I wouldn't be so quick to wipe aside the evidence for Christ's resurrection as "these accounts contradict each other". Yes, they have some different details but I haven't found the kinds of contradictions that you are indicating.

One of the most detailed examinations of Christ's resurrection has been done in the recent research published as 817 pages by N. T. Wright. I have the book and have read large chunks of my own personal copy. Part of his conclusion towards the end of the book is:

The equivalent of the 'mad scientist' hypothesis in the resurrection debate would be the intricately designed hypotheses according to which anything and everything that pointed towards the resurrection (the gospel accounts, of course, in particular) is to be explained as the work of the early church expounding, legitimating and defending theological, exegetical and church-governmental conclusions reached on quite other grounds. The question which must be faced is whether the explanation of the data which the early Christians themselves gave, that Jesus really was risen from the dead, ‘explains the aggregate’ of the evidence better than these sophisticated scepticisms. My claim is that it does.

The claim can be stated once more in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. The actual bodily resurrection of Jesus (not a mere resuscitation, but a transforming revivification) clearly provides sufficient condition of the tomb being empty and the ‘meetings’ taking place. Nobody is likely to doubt that. Once grant that Jesus really was raised, and all the pieces of the historical jigsaw puzzle of early Christianity fall into place. My claim is stronger: that the bodily resurrection of Jesus provides a necessary condition for these things; in other words, that no other explanation could or would do. All the efforts to find alternative explanations fail, and they were bound to do so (N. T. Wright 2003. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, pp. 716-717, emphasis in original).

Oz

 

[Rahm]

Kirk,

I wouldn't be so quick to wipe aside the evidence for Christ's resurrection as "these accounts contradict each other". Yes, they have some different details but I haven't found the kinds of contradictions that you are indicating.

One of the most detailed examinations of Christ's resurrection has been done in the recent research published as 817 pages by N. T. Wright. I have the book and have read large chunks of my own personal copy. Part of his conclusion towards the end of the book is:
Oz

Thank you Oz for your reply. I agree with you that I or anyone else for that matter should not dismiss the the ressurrection accounts based on these differences mentioned in the gospels. However, it still bothers me though. For instance, I just read 1 Corinthians 15, and none of those accounts are mentioned in Paul's statement regarding ressurrection appearances. In either case, it just bothers me is all.

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you Oz for your reply. I agree with you that I or anyone else for that matter should not dismiss the the ressurrection accounts based on these differences mentioned in the gospels. However, it still bothers me though. For instance, I just read 1 Corinthians 15, and none of those accounts are mentioned in Paul's statement regarding ressurrection appearances. In either case, it just bothers me is all.

You seem to be making an assumption that the gospel records were freely available when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians so the resurrection details could be included in 1 Cor.

When was 1 Corinthians written? Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians (Eerdmans 1987) states that 1 Cor. may be safely dated in the Spring of ca. AD 53-55 (p. 15). In F. L. Godet's 1889 commentary on 1 Cor (Kregel 1977), he dates 1 Cor. to 'the spring of the year 57' (p. 16). Simon Kistemaker's commentary on 1 Cor (Baker 1993) states that Paul's first visit to Corinth was from AD 50-52 and that it can be inferred "that he wrote 1 Corinthians within three years after his departure from Corinth" (p. 10).

If this information is accurate, there is a definite possibility that 1 Cor. was written in the AD 50s.

It is believed that Mark was the first gospel written. When was its writing dated? William Lane's commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Eerdmans 1974) states that it "is generally dated within the decade A.D. 60-70)" [p. 17].

Therefore, we cannot expect details on the resurrection from Mark's gospel to be in 1 Cor. 15 because Mark was not yet written.

What about Matt., Luke and John?

Irenaeus wrote in Against Heresies (III.i.I) that Matthew issued his written gospel among the Hebrews in their own language while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and establishing the church. A commentator such as William Hendriksen on Matthew (Baker 1973) dated the writing of Matthew to about AD 63-66 (p. 97).

As for Luke, I Howard Marshall's Greek commentary on Luke estimates a date of writing of Luke 'not far off AD 70' (Eerdmans 1973, p. 35).

What about John? In Leon Morris's commentary on the Gospel of John (Eerdmans 1971), he states that

it is usually held by conservatives and radicals alike, that the Fourth Gospel is of comparatively late date.... Most writers these days put it in the last decade of the first century, though some prefer a date in the early second century (p. 30).

So, there is a possibility that all of the 4 gospels were not written until after 1 Corinthians, thus making it very difficult (impossible?) for Paul to include the resurrection details in any of the gospels.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[Rahm]

You seem to be making an assumption that the gospel records were freely available when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians so the resurrection details could be included in 1 Cor.

When was 1 Corinthians written? Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians (Eerdmans 1987) states that 1 Cor. may be safely dated in the Spring of ca. AD 53-55 (p. 15). In F. L. Godet's 1889 commentary on 1 Cor (Kregel 1977), he dates 1 Cor. to 'the spring of the year 57' (p. 16). Simon Kistemaker's commentary on 1 Cor (Baker 1993) states that Paul's first visit to Corinth was from AD 50-52 and that it can be inferred "that he wrote 1 Corinthians within three years after his departure from Corinth" (p. 10).

If this information is accurate, there is a definite possibility that 1 Cor. was written in the AD 50s.

It is believed that Mark was the first gospel written. When was its writing dated? William Lane's commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Eerdmans 1974) states that it "is generally dated within the decade A.D. 60-70)" [p. 17].

Therefore, we cannot expect details on the resurrection from Mark's gospel to be in 1 Cor. 15 because Mark was not yet written.

What about Matt., Luke and John?

Irenaeus wrote in Against Heresies (III.i.I) that Matthew issued his written gospel among the Hebrews in their own language while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and establishing the church. A commentator such as William Hendriksen on Matthew (Baker 1973) dated the writing of Matthew to about AD 63-66 (p. 97).

As for Luke, I Howard Marshall's Greek commentary on Luke estimates a date of writing of Luke 'not far off AD 70' (Eerdmans 1973, p. 35).

What about John? In Leon Morris's commentary on the Gospel of John (Eerdmans 1971), he states that

So, there is a possibility that all of the 4 gospels were not written until after 1 Corinthians, thus making it very difficult (impossible?) for Paul to include the resurrection details in any of the gospels.

Sincerely, Oz

Thank you Oz for your wonderful post--and just to let you know; you make valid points--all of which I agree with. From what I have read, and have been taught, Paul's epistles are the earliest writings in the New Testament. However--the stories written about in the gospels were in circulation at the time that Paul was writing. My question revolves around this: did Paul knowingly ignore, deny, or simply did not verify that Mary Magdalene and the other women were the first to expereince the risen Christ? Either his facts are wrong--the gospels are wrong--or Paul merely decided to exclude what the Gospels, and therefore the stories in circulation stated regarding the women at the tomb.

Although quite familiar with the New Testament--I have, over the past several months been compairing texts vertically, and have found some startiling differences between the texts. For instance--according to Paul in Galatians 1:16-20, he claims that after his conversion he did not confer with any one --including the Apostles in Jerusalem until he went away to Arabia and after 3 years there he returned and finally spent 15 days with Cephas (Peter). And yet, when I read Acts (apparently written by a companion of Paul in Acts 9--Paul did spend time with some disciples and when he left Damascus he went directly to Jersulaem to speak with the Apostles. Both contradict each other (both Luke and Pauls accounts, just as Pauls account of the ressurrection appearances contradict those mentioned in the gospels--which also contradict each other as well).

These differences(and there are many others) seriously affect what I and trhe majority of Christianity consider the inspired texts. All I'm saying is that these differences bother me.

 

[OzSpen]

Kirk,

I don't have the time to respond to your various issues in depth this week. Christmas time issues are pressing in on me. However, you state:

However--the stories written about in the gospels were in circulation at the time that Paul was writing.

What evidence do you have that: (1) This was so? (2) What form did these "written stories" take? (3) If it was oral tradition, what was its content regarding the resurrection?

Also, what research have you done to deal with these issues? Have you used Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties? Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe's When Critics Ask; Walter Kaiser Jr, et al, Hard Sayings of the Bible?

Sincerely, Oz

 

[Rahm]

Kirk,

I don't have the time to respond to your various issues in depth this week. Christmas time issues are pressing in on me. However, you state:
What evidence do you have that: (1) This was so? (2) What form did these "written stories" take? (3) If it was oral tradition, what was its content regarding the resurrection?

Also, what research have you done to deal with these issues? Have you used Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties? Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe's When Critics Ask; Walter Kaiser Jr, et al, Hard Sayings of the Bible?

Sincerely, Oz

Biblical scholars--both evangelical, and those that would be considered of a liberal persuasion (i.e. the Jesus Seminar et.al.), attest that the stories recorded in the gospels were transmitted via oral tradition prior to them actually being written in a gospel context. Hence, this is why several stories mentioned in the synoptic gospels are out of sequence with each other.

Paul stands with the generation when they were still being transmitted orally before before being written down. How else did the Apostles preach, teach, and essentially evangelize people except by oral transmission (Acts 2)?

The reason why I even mentioned this to begin with deals with the apparent inconsistencies that appear in the gospels. Paul doesn't even mention the women at the tomb. It could mean that these stories were not being circulated when Paul recorded his ressurrection witness list in 1st Corinithians--because he did not hear about them. Or he simply did not wish to include them in his list. Hence--this is a mystery, and causes one to question the veracity of all the accounts.

 

[OzSpen]

Biblical scholars--both evangelical, and those that would be considered of a liberal persuasion (i.e. the Jesus Seminar et.al.), attest that the stories recorded in the gospels were transmitted via oral tradition prior to them actually being written in a gospel context. Hence, this is why several stories mentioned in the synoptic gospels are out of sequence with each other.

Paul stands with the generation when they were still being transmitted orally before before being written down. How else did the Apostles preach, teach, and essentially evangelize people except by oral transmission (Acts 2)?

The reason why I even mentioned this to begin with deals with the apparent inconsistencies that appear in the gospels. Paul doesn't even mention the women at the tomb. It could mean that these stories were not being circulated when Paul recorded his ressurrection witness list in 1st Corinithians--because he did not hear about them. Or he simply did not wish to include them in his list. Hence--this is a mystery, and causes one to question the veracity of all the accounts.

Because you can't get the answers you want shouldn't be a reason "to question the veracity of all the accounts". That's an unreasonable ask.

Yesterday, I wanted to eat a peach that was in my refrigerator. I found it had a bad spot on it. Yes, it was very rotten. That does not cause me to throw out all peaches because I find one that is not so good.

When you are wanting 1 Corinthians to give you information that it does not give, this is not necessarily an error or omission in what Paul wrote. I suggest that it relates more directly to your unreasonable request.

You and I are not the ones who determine what goes in Scripture. That's God's business as he directs the people who write the Scripture.

Could this be saying more about your view of the authority of Scripture and your worldview, than it is about the omissions in 1 Corinthians?

Oz

 

[Rahm]

Because you can't get the answers you want shouldn't be a reason "to question the veracity of all the accounts". That's an unreasonable ask.

Yesterday, I wanted to eat a peach that was in my refrigerator. I found it had a bad spot on it. Yes, it was very rotten. That does not cause me to throw out all peaches because I find one that is not so good.

When you are wanting 1 Corinthians to give you information that it does not give, this is not necessarily an error or omission in what Paul wrote. I suggest that it relates more directly to your unreasonable request.

You and I are not the ones who determine what goes in Scripture. That's God's business as he directs the people who write the Scripture.

Could this be saying more about your view of the authority of Scripture and your worldview, than it is about the omissions in 1 Corinthians?

Oz

You're right Oz--it is God's business when he directs people to write the scriptures. But we don't have the originals anymore. They have 2 millenia worth of additions, deletions, and revisions...and in our own lifetime; translations.

Years ago--it seemed to me that I was the only one in my church who was either brave enough, or patient enough to speak with the Jehovah's Winesses that were very active in our city. Of course our discussions--or rather debates revolved around the deity of Christ and the Trinity.

And I must admit--I was good at foiling their points. When I discussed this with other Christians I began to notice some of the glaring differences in our bible translations that either enhanced the doctrine of Christ's Deity--or actually dissuaded it. Two quick examples: 1 John 5:7 (clearly an addition to the scriptures that reinforces the doctrine of the Trinity), and 1 Timothy 3:16.

It doesn't end there, these kind of text differences are all over the place--and they do make a difference in what one believes. Hence why cults are created around a specific scriptural reading.

Knowing these differences can certainly help our faith, and our relationship with God. Who wouldn't want that? I know I do.

 

[OzSpen]

You're right Oz--it is God's business when he directs people to write the scriptures. But we don't have the originals anymore. They have 2 millenia worth of additions, deletions, and revisions...and in our own lifetime; translations.

Years ago--it seemed to me that I was the only one in my church who was either brave enough, or patient enough to speak with the Jehovah's Winesses that were very active in our city. Of course our discussions--or rather debates revolved around the deity of Christ and the Trinity.

You can go off at your tangents, but I'm not interested in pursuing them with you.

I have found R. Laird Harris's explanation helpful in explaining the need to have authoritative original documents behind the copies. He wrote:

"Reflection will show that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is worthwhile even though the originals have perished. An illustration may be helpful. Suppose we wish to measure the length of a certain pencil. With a tape measure we measure it as 6 1/2 inches. A more carefully made office ruler indicates 6 9/16 inches. Checking with an engineer's scale, we find it to be slightly more than 6.58 inches. Careful measurement with a steel scale under laboratory conditions reveals it to be 6.577 inches. Not satisfied still, we send the pencil to Washington, where master gauges indicate a length of 6.5774 inches. The master gauges themselves are checked against the standard United States yard marked on platinum bar preserved in Washington. Now, suppose that we should read in the newspapers that a clever criminal had run off with the platinum bar and melted it down for the precious metal. As a matter of fact, this once happened to Britain's standard yard! What difference would this make to us? Very little. None of us has ever seen the platinum bar. Many of us perhaps never realized it existed. Yet we blithely use tape measures, rulers, scales, and similar measuring devices. These approximate measures derive their value from their being dependent on more accurate gauges. But even the approximate has tremendous value—if it has had a true standard behind it" (Harris 1969:88-89).

Harris, R. L. 1957, 1969. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.



Oz

 

[Rahm]

You can go off at your tangents, but I'm not interested in pursuing them with you.

I have found R. Laird Harris's explanation helpful in explaining the need to have authoritative original documents behind the copies. He wrote:
Harris, R. L. 1957, 1969. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.



Oz

You mean the plenary inspiration of the Bible? To suggest that the bible was verbally inspired is just fantasy. The epistles especially reveal that many of the ideas we cherish are man-made ideas. Perhaps the men who wrote it were 'inspired'--that is, God's Spirit abides within them. But too many of the epistles they wrote were formed from their own opinions that contradict what the other epistle writers were saying.

As for the gosepls--Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write them--but some other person did, who lived after the apostles time, written in a different language that Jesus and the original apostles spoke (who were illiterate), and in a different country and culture as well. This is precisely why it is important to figure out what the original text actually said--to get to the original and only true documents as they were first written by inspiration.

 

[OzSpen]

You mean the plenary inspiration of the Bible? To suggest that the bible was verbally inspired is just fantasy. The epistles especially reveal that many of the ideas we cherish are man-made ideas. Perhaps the men who wrote it were 'inspired'--that is, God's Spirit abides within them. But too many of the epistles they wrote were formed from their own opinions that contradict what the other epistle writers were saying.

As for the gosepls--Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write them--but some other person did, who lived after the apostles time, written in a different language that Jesus and the original apostles spoke (who were illiterate), and in a different country and culture as well. This is precisely why it is important to figure out what the original text actually said--to get to the original and only true documents as they were first written by inspiration.

Thanks for confirming my estimate of where you were going -- your sceptical worldview against the authority and integrity of the Scripture.

Bye, Oz

 

[Rahm]

What makes the resurrection difficult to prove from history is the idea of ‘least probable occurrence’. Besides Jesus—has anyone else walked on water? Can anyone in the 6 billion inhabitants on our planet walk on water (that is not frozen). What makes it a miracle? Because Jesus can defy gravity—but doesn’t that mean God is breaking his own laws of physics which govern and moderate our universe? No one else has ever been recorded to have walked on water. But being raised from the dead, there have been. In fact there have been many accounts. Here is one that happened in the time of Jesus:

Apollonius of Tyana was a contemporary of Jesus. He is attested to in historical documents, and his followers wrote books about him. The stories reveal some striking similarities:

1. His mother was visited by an angelic visitor, and was told that she would bare a son supernaturally who would be called son of god.
2. He impressed his teachers with his wisdom when he was still a boy
3. He became an itinerant preacher who healed the sick, cast out demons, and raised the dead
4. He preached to people that they shouldn’t concern themselves with material matters, but with spiritual ones instead.
5. He gathered a group of disciples (who eventually wrote about him).
6. The Romans put him on trial. Afterwards he had apparently ascended to heaven—and visited his followers having been raised from the dead.

Apollonius was a historical figure and a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth. Their stories are amazingly similar. But for the more miraculous elements of his story we find in a book written by one of his followers. Could it have been biased---well then perhaps the gospels are also then, especially since they contradict one another?

Finally—I just want to say that I am not here to fight with anyone. I just want to know the truth. But if the documents themselves cannot be verified—then perhaps you should take a closer look at the evidence. Surely, you must want to the truth as well?
Peace

 

[Rahm]

Thanks for confirming my estimate of where you were going -- your sceptical worldview against the authority and integrity of the Scripture.

Bye, Oz

Skeptical? Me--no way. I consider myself a realist now when it comes to basing assumptions on past councils, creeds, and biblical articles they are based on.

If being a skeptical means that I am not a bible fundamentalist believer—then so be it.

Getting back to what this post is all about, that the resurrection has problems because of the lack of historical evidence. The post is about tangible and ‘reliable’ evidence—not theological positions, assumptions and dogma. Historians must rely on documents to verify the accounts that they are validating. When it comes to the resurrection, there are too many discrepancies in the scriptures to validate the resurrection. As I stated in a previous post—the scriptures contradict each other, leading to notion that the gospel accounts would be considered inadmissible in court.

Consider the following:

1. What day did Jesus die on? Was it the day before the Passover meal (John), or the day after (Mark)?
2. What hour was Jesus crucified at? Was it 9:00 a.m.(Mark), or 12:00 noon (John)?
3. What were the women told to tell the disciples? To wait for Jesus in Jerusalem, or in Galilee?
4. How many angels/men were at the tomb—and angels for that matter?
5. Did Jesus carry his cross to Golgotha—or did someone else carry it for him?
6. Was the temple curtain torn asunder before he died, or after?
7. How many women went to the tomb—are they same, or do they differ in each gospel?

These questions cannot be answered directly because the gospel accounts contradict each other. This is why I say that the oral accounts of Jesus in circulation must have changed some of the details and why none of the gospel writers agree in their subject matter.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Paul was an eyewitness of the Resurrected Christ otherwise he could not be an Apostle.

Acts 1:21-22
Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."
NIV

1 Cor 15:3-8
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
NIV

1 Cor 9:1
Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?
NIV

Valid points for sure. However, Paul did not meet the ressurected Christ--he only 'saw him in visions and dreams'. That's probably because Christ was in heaven sitting at the right hand of God.

As for Mark's gospel---well, it it is the earliest of the four canonical gospels--but it doesn't prove Christ rose from the dead. Chapter 16 actually ends with the women fleeing from the tomb. However--an additional longer ending was added to the gospel which have several women go to his tomb and find it empty. However--in Luke's gospel, two Mary's see Jesus. And in John's gospel--Mary magdalene sees what she at first thinks is a gardener--who actually happens to be Jesus. In other words--all th of these accounts contradict each other. If evidence does not corrborate then it is inadmissible.

 

[OzSpen]

Skeptical? Me--no way. I consider myself a realist now when it comes to basing assumptions on past councils, creeds, and biblical articles they are based on.

If being a skeptical means that I am not a bible fundamentalist believer—then so be it.

Getting back to what this post is all about, that the resurrection has problems because of the lack of historical evidence. The post is about tangible and ‘reliable’ evidence—not theological positions, assumptions and dogma. Historians must rely on documents to verify the accounts that they are validating. When it comes to the resurrection, there are too many discrepancies in the scriptures to validate the resurrection. As I stated in a previous post—the scriptures contradict each other, leading to notion that the gospel accounts would be considered inadmissible in court.

Consider the following:

1. What day did Jesus die on? Was it the day before the Passover meal (John), or the day after (Mark)?
2. What hour was Jesus crucified at? Was it 9:00 a.m.(Mark), or 12:00 noon (John)?
3. What were the women told to tell the disciples? To wait for Jesus in Jerusalem, or in Galilee?
4. How many angels/men were at the tomb—and angels for that matter?
5. Did Jesus carry his cross to Golgotha—or did someone else carry it for him?
6. Was the temple curtain torn asunder before he died, or after?
7. How many women went to the tomb—are they same, or do they differ in each gospel?

These questions cannot be answered directly because the gospel accounts contradict each other. This is why I say that the oral accounts of Jesus in circulation must have changed some of the details and why none of the gospel writers agree in their subject matter.

The resurrection does not lack historical evidence. The Gospels and Paul in 1 Cor. 15 provide evidence that is more extensive than what you seem to want to accept.

Note your 7 points above. In not one of them have you provided biblical or other historical verification. They are statements by you. Sorry, but that is NOT good enough when you are demanding ....

the resurrection has problems because of the lack of historical evidence. The post is about tangible and ‘reliable’ evidence—not theological positions, assumptions and dogma.

This is the pot calling the kettle black.

The Gospel accounts do not contradict one another. Each gives additional information that may not be in the other.

Your theological liberal agenda is shining through your statements.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Tyberius,

Finally—I just want to say that I am not here to fight with anyone. I just want to know the truth. But if the documents themselves cannot be verified—then perhaps you should take a closer look at the evidence. Surely, you must want to the truth as well?

What criteria have you provided for verifying any documents from history? What proof do you have that the documents of the New Testament, especially the 4 Gospels and Acts, cannot be verified? How does anyone verify any documents from history relating to any historical person?

Oz

 

[Rahm]

The resurrection does not lack historical evidence. The Gospels and Paul in 1 Cor. 15 provide evidence that is more extensive than what you seem to want to accept.

Note your 7 points above. In not one of them have you provided biblical or other historical verification. They are statements by you. Sorry, but that is NOT good enough when you are demanding ....

This is the pot calling the kettle black.

The Gospel accounts do not contradict one another. Each gives additional information that may not be in the other.

Your theological liberal agenda is shining through your statements.

Oz

First off Oz--please don't point fingers and start calling me names--like a liberal for instance--that's not charitable at all, now is it?

Now, about those 7 points I mentioned before:I actually have pointed tp biblical evidence that contradicts itself. The gospels contradict each other plain and simple. So tell me--which day was Jesus crucified on? Was it Thursday, or Friday? You can't answer it, because your answer would be wrong according to one of the gosepls.

The same gospels don't even agree at what time Jesus was crucified at or even when the temple curtain was torn or do they? If you can't answer that, then the 'evidence' from the 'inspired' scriptures is inadmissible.

While we're on this same them of historical evidence--did Caesar Augustus order that 'all the world should be registered' (Luke 2:1). Guess what--there is not one document in both secular and public records that verify this statement that the roman emperor ever ordered such a thing. Also--this only appears in Lukes gospel, not in the other three. Conclusion--it it made up testimony and therefore is also inadmissible because it can not be substntiated.

All of these can be checked in your bible--any version will do. So the bottom line is this--the bible, and what it claims to be factual cannot be cross examined or verified against its own records.

Paul never saw Jesus in his pre-ressurrection days, so how does he know what he looks like? The guards that went with Paul when he fell to the ground after being blinded by the light didn't see Jesus. I do not doubt that Paul had a vision, but it too cannot be verified--his story changes regarding this incident through out the book of acts.

So please do this for me Oz and Jesus is YWHW, because I really do want to know this: Please look over those 7 points I mentioned before and answer each one of them. I'm looking for the truth here--not to deflate someones faith, persecute, or to enrage. I simply want to know. Please don't cast me out--but help me to understand why these differences exist.

 

[Rahm]

Tyberius,

What criteria have you provided for verifying any documents from history? What proof do you have that the documents of the New Testament, especially the 4 Gospels and Acts, cannot be verified? How does anyone verify any documents from history relating to any historical person?

Oz

Historians use other sources to verify accounts recorded by others. For instance, how do we know that crucifixtions ever took place. Because it was a common roman method of punishment. There are plenty of public and secular records which discuss this form of execution from the actual time of Jesus. However, what does one do with Luke 2:1? Apparetly, Caesar Augusutus ordered the entire world to have a census. Historians believe this statement is false because there is not one single record both public and private that mentiones that the emperor ordered such a census. Anything of that kind of magnitude would have been written as a public order---indeed, the Jewish economy would have been disrupted on account of that. Again--there is no written evidence that this ever took place--not even in the other 3 gospels.