Experts' Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection

[TPLR2]

Wouldn't you think someone else other than the gospel writers (with an agenda) would have recorded it!!!!?

Proving scripture with scripture does not count!

[unifey]

@TPLR2 The gospels (almost by definition) are the collection of such records.

[TPLR2]

@unifey Yes! With an agenda. The first written 30 yrs after, then the other gospels make JC out to be more of the amazing character we know as Jesus Christ. It's a shame no-one else logged it, as I said before. You'd think they would have done. What about the accounts such as the gospel of Thomas, Peter and James etc...they didn't completely fit the official story so were shelved or dumped..

Can you account for the fact that King Herod died in 4BC and Quirinius was only governor in 6AD Hmmm?

[unifey]

@TPLR2 "With an agenda." --> That's your opinion, which is contrary to the evidences. Here's an excellent lecture on the evidences that the canonical gospels were based on eye witness accounts: search the video titled "New Evidences the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts" The accuracy of the canonical gospels is amazing. The apocrypha don't measure up. (Regarding Herod and Quirinius, a simple Google search will give you various possible explanations that fits with other historical facts.)

[TPLR2]

@unifey Various possible? I expect a book "Inspired by God" to be a bit more conclusive than that. I'll have a look at the "New evidence.....vid you suggest.

[csdr0]

The disciples did not go to the 5 stages of grief (for the death of their beloved Lord). Denial, Depression, Anger, Bargaining and Acceptance of his death. Seeing their Lord defeated by death they hid from and were afraid of the Jews who condemned Christ. But suddenly they were transformed from cowards to brave preacher & witnesses of his resurrection. If the resurrection did not happen then the disciples would have eventually accepted his final death or suffered psychological dysfunction.

[philWynk]

There is a reasonable amount of evidence for the resurrection. The evidence for the parting of the Red Sea (or Sea of Reeds) is far weaker, but it's also a much more ancient event. I have not examined the evidence for the flood, but the from proliferation of flood tales in every known ancient civilization, I'd say that the likelihood of an historic basis is very high. To call them all "magical" is to declare oneself incapable of assessing historical data.

[randomslice]

Is there evidence for the resurrection?

"Sure! The bible says so!"

groan...

[philWynk]

@randomslice If you understand that "the bible" is actually 27 separate, historical documents with scads of independent attestation, then you understand that what Dr. Williams is reciting here is actually a great variety of sound evidence for the veracity of the events. If you want to dispute the historicity of the gospel accounts, feel free to try, but don't pretend that you've actually said something useful by groaning about "the bible."

[randomslice]

@philWynk the parting of the red sea. the great flood. the resurrection. Let's not pretend that there is reasonable evidence for any of these magical events.

[csdr0]

@randomslice, the Epistle (letter) of Paul to the Corinthian Church (1 Cor. 15) at about 55 AD is a historical document. He confirmed he saw the risen Christ & verified it with Peter, John & James, the pillars of the early Church. It's up to the readers of Paul to either dismiss his accounts or accept it as the testimony of a credible withness. Is he credible? No doubt about it. Paul persisted, lived, suffered, preached, established churches and died for his belief.

[randomslice]

@csdr0 groan.

[TestAmenT12341]

Dr. Peter Williams is great btw!!

[psychosocialmarc]

Jesus didn't beat humanity's 100% mortality rate. Sorry, but there is no supernatural (god, soul, heaven, hell, sin, miracles etc).

[GingerJoberton]

Let's turn these arguments into discussions.

Or not.

[clarenceitaly]

Get real you atheist. You cannot provide solid refutations of these arguments.

Khrishna isn't a historically documented human being. Jesus of Nazareth is found in secular sources not only in the Bible.

Andrew Diprose

(Multi cultural consultant in Italy)

[atheistprophet5760]

@clarenceitaly Actually YES, I have provided SOLID refutations to these arguments. Please see my blog for further details, as I will posting even more in the future. You obviously know little to nothing about other religions, or you would be aware that Krishna has more historicity than Jesus.

[atheistprophet5760]

@clarenceitaly For example:

Dr. Thomas J. Hopkins, 1978: “From a strictly scholarly, historical standpoint, the KRISNA WHO APPEARS in the Bhagavad-Gita is the princely Krishna of the Mahabharata... Krishna, the historical prince and charioteer of Arjuna.”

Horace H. Wilson, 1870: “Rama and Krishna, who appear to have been originally real and historical characters,…”

Rudolf Otto, 1933: “That Krishna himself was a historical figure is indeed quite indubitable.”

[atheistprophet5760]

@atheistprophet5760 And finally:

Dr. Bimanbihari Majumdar, 1968: “The western scholars at first treated Krishna as a myth... But many of the Orientalists in the present century have arrived at the conclusion that Krishna was a ksatriya warrior who fought at Kuruksetra,...”

[atheistprophet5760]

Yes, they could ALL have been made up, as there are NO eyewitness accounts, as they were written a GENERATION after his supposed resurrection.The gospels also do not even agree with each other as to who he appeared to etc. etc. and therefore have NO historicity, & r not reliable

Krishna has more historicity for that matter, as the Bhagavad Gita was actually dictated by him to Prince Arjuna.Many other gods are also claimed to have been resurrected, such as Quetzalcoatl, Hercules, Bacchus, etc.

[caveatemp]

@atheistprophet5760 You're wrong, mate. This was a oral tradition first, which is actually more credible and accurate than our modern historic record because there were eyewitnesses everywhere to testify to the veracity of the claims. If you read the gospel accounts you will find them everywhere. Also, how else do you account for the rise of Christianity and the success of it, especially with the intense persecution during the first two centuries?

[atheistprophet5760]

@caveatemp Have you ever played the "Telephone Game"? This is when a story is passed orally around the room, and it comes back nothing like it started out as. This is how stories change and develop over time. Why, even your own holy book has been changed and altered over time, and that is the written word!!

There are no "eyewitness accounts"--that is hearsay written a generation past those so-called accounts. Anyone could write anything they wanted, as none of them were there to see it.

[caveatemp]

@atheistprophet5760 Well, it comes down to two people making assertions on Youtube comment sections. Choose your historians to suit your argument. I submit NT Wright's big book on the resurrection and Richard Baukham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. If I saw something to counter the majority of their arguments I might believe you. Otherwise it's two kids on the schoolyard arguing naked assertions.

[atheistprophet5760]

@caveatemp No, actually, your "eyewitness accounts" are not credible, as they give inconsistent accounts. As the biblical historian Bart Ehrman says, "It depends on what gospel you read"--as they all tell a different story.

Note, I am not just taking the word of a historian. Anyone can read the bible and see that their accounts differ. Furthermore, using the method used to determine historicity of Jesus would also work for Krishna, and others.

[caveatemp]

@atheistprophet5760 It would be more conspicuous if four accounts had the exact same details. When multiple eyewitnesses give identical accounts of the same event it becomes highly suspect of conspiracy. The fact that the accounts are not identical is not a strike against their veracity. It's actually good evidence for their truth.

[atheistprophet5760]

@caveatemp In a court of law, what is written in the bible would not be considered "evidence" Not only does it not agree as to what day he died, it cannot even agree as to who went to the tomb (Mary alone, Mary with Mary, or some unidentified women?) or what they even saw! (one man, two men, or angels!)

If you went to court saying you heard something from someone else--it is called hearsay. That is what the bible is. You can make suppositions--but that does not make it true.

[caveatemp]

@atheistprophet5760 Yes, I agree with you that you can make supposition but that does not make it true. That knife cuts you too, my friend. We all, atheist and Christian alike, go by faith in our decision based on the evidence. To claim all historic evidence outside of living witnesses as hearsay and therefore not valid as evidence to reckon in one's worldview is to essentially stop the historic progression of everything, including science and theology.

[atheistprophet5760]

@caveatemp Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence. I am a pragmatist, and I go by the H-D method. As for things I have no knowledge of, I freely admit I do not know. For instance, I do not know how the universe began, as I do not accept creationism or evolutionism. Likewise, I do not claim to know whether gods or goddesses exist or not. But, as an atheist, or Ignostic, I think we have better explanations for phenomenon than religious phenomenon.

[caveatemp]

@atheistprophet5760 I believe because I have weighed the evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ, among many other factors. If you are agnostic (not knowing) how you can come up with better explanations for the historical evidence? Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing. I suppose this can be done without evidence but I wouldn't advise it.

[KincumberBoy]

@atheistprophet5760 Actually this exercise has been carried out many times by prominent legal minds and the findings doesn't correlate with what your saying at all. You cannot rule out witnesses just because they are friendly. In a court of law they will look hostile and in-hostile witnesses they look for collaboration and inconsistency. In these studies the findings have found the evidence consistent with enough variation to show as normal witnesses.

[atheistprophet5760]

@KincumberBoy What you fail to realize, is that no one interviewed the witnesses! Therefore, there are no "eyewitnesses"--just hearsay. And yes, the courts do weight eyewitness accounts. For example, if a loved one of an accused murderer says he was at home, and there is other evidence that suggests that this is not the case, they may weigh a stranger's eyewitness account of his being at home as being weightier than that of a loved one.

[KincumberBoy]

@atheistprophet5760 You are obviously not reading the same bible as everyone else. Read Luke 1:1-2. He's just stating the obvious.Matt (Levi) and John were eyewitnesses and it seems that John Mark was as well though more from a compositors role.

[atheistprophet5760]

@KincumberBoy The bible does not meet the conditions for historicity. The four gospels are not eyewitness accounts themselves. They are not written by disciples; their authors are unknown. If the accounts are inconsistent, then they are unreliable sources. The accounts of the so-called eyewitnesses in the gospels are inconsistent. Therefore, they are unreliable sources. There are no outside sources other than the gospels (Jospephus is a forger, Eusebius said lying for Jesus was ok.)

[KincumberBoy]

@atheistprophet5760 The evidence and context of the Gospels make the authors pretty obvious. The most debated Author is John Mark for Mark right? Even there there are clues to his Authorship they lead right up to Rome. Most scholars are happy to accept the popular view of accepted authorships. The accounts aren't inconsistent at all. There are differences which prove there wasn't collusion.

[atheistprophet5760]

@KincumberBoy If we accept the apologetic reasoning for historicity, then we can apply that to Krishna, Achilles, Hercules, and many many others.

[atheistprophet5760]

@KincumberBoy In reference to historicity, independent sources are one of the major requirements.

For example, as a runner and race, my aunt once told people I won the gold medal at the Olympics, when in fact I won a local race. Someone came up to me at the mall, and said congratulations on winning the gold medal, and I had to inform them my aunt had been mistaken. We can see that the claim that I had won the gold medal would not meet the conditions of historicity, due to eyewitness accounts.

[KincumberBoy]

@atheistprophet5760 As much as that is a nice story, that doesn't negate the true eyewitness accounts on the gospels as stated above. Courts don't reject a witness's testimony because he agrees with the defendant as you are doing. And why would they make these things up. From Acts 2 onwards these same men and other witnesses went to their deaths proclaiming these same things. Tell me: why would they do that? Because they had seen a risen Christ and an empty tomb

[KincumberBoy]

@atheistprophet5760 and even with Peter's challange in Acts 2 of that empty tomb, no one stood against them. Fact: Even the enemies of Christ new the grave where he was buried and that it was empty. If he was still dead they would gone to this grave of the well known Joseph of Arimethea opened it and dragged his dead body out. Only God can bring someone back.

[atheistprophet5760]

@KincumberBoy This account that you are talking about is from the gospel which is an unreliable source. If there are no records of anyone else standing against them, it is probably because it did not happen, and that is why it does not meet the conditions for historicity. Mohammad said Jesus was a prophet, but not a god. This was witnessed by other people. If we use your logic, then Jesus is not god, because Mohammad said so. Likewise, Krishna must have been resurrected as recorded.

[KincumberBoy]

@atheistprophet5760 "the gospel which is an unreliable source" Only in your mind. We have discussed this. The New Testament is the most copied and reliably copied ancient historical document in existence. What's more its fulfilment of OT law and prophets is uncanny. The same cannot be said of the one off Mohamed whose earliest documents come centuries after his death. There's no history or other writers to collaborate him. There is no other religion that even compares from a literary standpoint

[fubaraoul]

@KincumberBoy wrote: "The New Testament is the most copied and reliably copied ancient historical document in existence."

The New Testament is not a historical document.

lulz...

[KincumberBoy]

@fubaraoul FURBALL!. How are ya? That has to be the most ridiculous thing you've said to me. Think about it mate. Its not too hard to figure out

[atheistprophet5760]

@caveatemp Here is one reference for you:

Dr. Bimanbihari Majumdar, 1968: “The western scholars at first treated Krishna as a myth... But many of the Orientalists in the present century have arrived at the conclusion that Krishna was a ksatriya warrior who fought at Kuruksetra,...”

See this, and others references in my post to clarenceitaly

[caveatemp]

@atheistprophet5760 I am not arguing that Krishna was an historic person.

[MADdwarfWorkshop]

Awesome. Thanks for making these. Keep them coming!