When judging the authenticity of Jesus resurrection, one must always consider the reliability of the best source of information: the Gospels. Written several decades after the resurrection had supposedly taken place, at a time when it was extremely unlikely that any potential eyewitness would still be alive to offer testimony.
When all you have to go on is second-hand hearsay based on 40-70 year old folk tales, how convinced are you prepared to be?
@garethac81 Dr Gary Habermas has done extensive research on the resurrection of Jesus and actually cites Pauls letters not the Gospels during his research. There are several videos on here detailing his process and his conclusion
As a historical source, Paul's letters are an absolute farce. Paul says he saw a resurrected Jesus along with 500 other witnesses...and how many of these witnesses produced testimonies to corroborate his claim? ZERO. Then Paul can't decide whether he saw Jesus as a person or a vision in the sky, or whether all the 500 "witnesses" heard Jesus speak or only Paul himself heard a voice in his head. What you're left with is a source that is as unsubstantiated as it is blatantly self-contradicting.
@garethac81 Well Dr Gary Habermas seems to disagree with you on that front. He doesn't just cite Pauls letters (though its interesting he says critical scholars allow at least some of Pauls letters as evidence) but he does use part of them to form a timeline. I'm putting this in a simplistic way and not getting into any of the details since I'm still trying to get hold of his book to look at his full claims, I've only seen a couple of videos on here so far
"I've only seen a couple of videos on here so far"
Don't bother watching the rest. As a Christian scholar attempting to prove Jesus' resurrection, Habermas is entirely typical - he is happy to overlook glaring contradictions and treat unsubstantiated claims as "gospel" (pun intended), purely because his faith dictates that he does so. Paul's letters are so easily disqualified as a reliable historical source, I was able to do it in a single post on YouTube...it's not even worth debating.
@garethac81 "Its not even worth debating" I don't take Habermas's statements as absolute truth anymore than I'm going to take yours as the same without checking the references myself so from that perspective, its entirely worth debating for me.
You're missing the point...Paul's letters are self-contradicting, and his sighting of the resurrected Jesus is unsubstantiated. This is not a matter for debate...these are facts. Read the text, and notice the absence of corroborating testimonies. SEE FOR YOURSELF. You don't need a charlatan like Habermas to play middle man...especially when his only purpose is to obscure and omit any pertinent information which makes his faith look foolish.
2nd point: Bock bases the authenticity of Jesus' resurrection on the unlikely possibility of the myth being invented from scratch. What Bock neglects to consider is the possibility that the resurrection myth grew out of an unsubstantiated rumour. Is it so hard to conceive that excitable hearsay about an empty tomb was quickly distorted into unconfirmed "sightings" of Jesus, by poorly educated people eager to believe their "messiah" had returned?
1st point: Regarding the descrepancies of Bible histories, it's important to note that Darrell Bock offers nothing but speculation and assumption on why dates and accounts in the New Testament contradict each other. His explanation of census descrepancies amounts to: "Maybe that's because censuses took a long time back then". Not exactly compelling, is it?
google Doe's Account.
seekfears 1 year ago
When judging the authenticity of Jesus resurrection, one must always consider the reliability of the best source of information: the Gospels. Written several decades after the resurrection had supposedly taken place, at a time when it was extremely unlikely that any potential eyewitness would still be alive to offer testimony.
When all you have to go on is second-hand hearsay based on 40-70 year old folk tales, how convinced are you prepared to be?
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81 Dr Gary Habermas has done extensive research on the resurrection of Jesus and actually cites Pauls letters not the Gospels during his research. There are several videos on here detailing his process and his conclusion
MrJenkster 1 year ago
As a historical source, Paul's letters are an absolute farce. Paul says he saw a resurrected Jesus along with 500 other witnesses...and how many of these witnesses produced testimonies to corroborate his claim? ZERO. Then Paul can't decide whether he saw Jesus as a person or a vision in the sky, or whether all the 500 "witnesses" heard Jesus speak or only Paul himself heard a voice in his head. What you're left with is a source that is as unsubstantiated as it is blatantly self-contradicting.
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81 Well Dr Gary Habermas seems to disagree with you on that front. He doesn't just cite Pauls letters (though its interesting he says critical scholars allow at least some of Pauls letters as evidence) but he does use part of them to form a timeline. I'm putting this in a simplistic way and not getting into any of the details since I'm still trying to get hold of his book to look at his full claims, I've only seen a couple of videos on here so far
MrJenkster 1 year ago
"I've only seen a couple of videos on here so far"
Don't bother watching the rest. As a Christian scholar attempting to prove Jesus' resurrection, Habermas is entirely typical - he is happy to overlook glaring contradictions and treat unsubstantiated claims as "gospel" (pun intended), purely because his faith dictates that he does so. Paul's letters are so easily disqualified as a reliable historical source, I was able to do it in a single post on YouTube...it's not even worth debating.
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81 "Its not even worth debating" I don't take Habermas's statements as absolute truth anymore than I'm going to take yours as the same without checking the references myself so from that perspective, its entirely worth debating for me.
MrJenkster 1 year ago
@MrJenkster
You're missing the point...Paul's letters are self-contradicting, and his sighting of the resurrected Jesus is unsubstantiated. This is not a matter for debate...these are facts. Read the text, and notice the absence of corroborating testimonies. SEE FOR YOURSELF. You don't need a charlatan like Habermas to play middle man...especially when his only purpose is to obscure and omit any pertinent information which makes his faith look foolish.
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81 "SEE FOR YOURSELF" That's exactly what I intend to do
MrJenkster 1 year ago
2nd point: Bock bases the authenticity of Jesus' resurrection on the unlikely possibility of the myth being invented from scratch. What Bock neglects to consider is the possibility that the resurrection myth grew out of an unsubstantiated rumour. Is it so hard to conceive that excitable hearsay about an empty tomb was quickly distorted into unconfirmed "sightings" of Jesus, by poorly educated people eager to believe their "messiah" had returned?
garethac81 1 year ago
1st point: Regarding the descrepancies of Bible histories, it's important to note that Darrell Bock offers nothing but speculation and assumption on why dates and accounts in the New Testament contradict each other. His explanation of census descrepancies amounts to: "Maybe that's because censuses took a long time back then". Not exactly compelling, is it?
garethac81 1 year ago
the immortality of the soul developed by the Greeks is now a Christian "addition" like the Trinity...
benadam74 2 years ago