Historical Circumstances Not Proof the Resurrection Occurred (Proof of God's Existence)

[Gorgias]

Randy did, multiple times. … (Did you not read every post in this thread so far?)

I thought you were referring to something I’d written.

He is confused regarding two points. First, that the Resurrection is defined to include the appearances, rather than only refer to Jesus’ coming back to life in a glorious body replacing the corpse.

The appearances are part of the narrative that eyewitnesses and later believers utilized in order to establish the truth of the resurrection event. Thus, they’re relevant.

Second, that Ockham’s razor can be used to eliminate possible past realities that contain more events than others. Thus he thinks that the one event of the Resurrection explains the five facts he’s asserted, and that another explanation of the past must likewise be at least as simple.

Now we’ve got something I stated, too! Do you recognize that this is precisely the definition of Occam’s Razor that you, yourself, cited! To wit: “when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.” (You might claim that a Rube Goldbergesque chain of events is a ‘simpler’ explanation, but that’s a difficult one to swallow. Yes, the resurrection claim is singular, but it’s also simpler. )

Do you suppose that only men can do what I described? I described what I understand fathers do by nature. It seems to me that if a man does it, then he’s being a human father; if God does it, then He’s being a divine Father. Perhaps you can give me a better definition of fatherhood, one that makes clear what it means for God to be Father.

Now we’re diving down into Thomistic philosophy. Are you familiar with his discussion on analogy? A number of Google hits on “Aquinas univocal” will give you plenty of reading; my answer proceeds from them: we speak of “God as Father” and “human being as father” not univocally, but at best equivocally or analogically. Therefore, what you expect of a human father (who, by way of simplest distinction, stands before you physically) is not what you should expect of a divine Father.

It’s more the fact that I’m stranded in Japan and this forum is essentially my only means of getting spiritual direction.

That would be a real problem, then, I’d say. This forum is valuable for many things… but it’s not at all valuable as a source of spiritual direction. At the very best, we could claim merely that the signal-to-noise ratio is really, really bad.

Jesus is supposed to be the Good Shepherd; I’m supposed to have the Holy Spirit with me, etc. It doesn’t make sense for me to be doing all I can to grow in holiness and wisdom and understanding and be left utterly in the dark, adrift without help or comfort – it would suggest the Holy Spirit isn’t doing what the Holy Spirit is named for.

Or, perhaps, that you’re in a situation that’s not conducive to hearing the Holy Spirit. (The same claim is made vis-a-vis the ‘vocations crisis’ in the West: it’s not that the Holy Spirit isn’t calling men to be priests – it’s that they can’t hear the call or are unable to respond to it, in the current cultural conditions. The Holy Spirit still calls – and men still answer – but we have to change our situation (as a society of Catholics in a wider secular society) in order to hear that call more distinctly and with greater volume…)

However, I will say that I’m very unhappy and want more interaction and help than I’m getting.

Do you have any contacts with priests or consecrated religious outside your area? (I’m assuming, based on my (admittedly incomplete) knowledge of things Catholic in Japan, that there aren’t very many Catholic resources there.) Is there any potential spiritual director back in the West with whom you already have a relationship, to whom you might reach out, rather than trying the anonymous internet forum approach? At the heart of it, spiritual direction is based on relationship and trust, neither of which can be adequately approximated by an internet forum…

No, rather, I’m agnostic to whether many past events transpired as people say. As I tried to say earlier, I hold beliefs with conviction relative to my certainty. If I read about this P. war in a book, I’d say, “Okay, sure,” and if corrections were later printed, I’d shrug it off and believe them, too, because it makes no difference to my life.

Right – and as I mentioned earlier, this isn’t an assertion about objective truth, but about subjective prioritization. You seem to be conflating the two.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily good evidence; trivial claims require trivial evidence.

That’s a misquote of that assertion. But, that’s a discussion for another day…

 

[sudy]

It’s more the fact that I’m stranded in Japan and this forum is essentially my only means of getting spiritual direction. Jesus is supposed to be the Good Shepherd; I’m supposed to have the Holy Spirit with me, etc. It doesn’t make sense for me to be doing all I can to grow in holiness and wisdom and understanding and be left utterly in the dark, adrift without help or comfort – it would suggest the Holy Spirit isn’t doing what the Holy Spirit is named for. … and I do receive comfort and consolation, at times (or I suppose I would not be here right now). I certainly cannot declare that the Holy Spirit or a guardian angel isn’t helping me. However, I will say that I’m very unhappy and want more interaction and help than I’m getting.

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread, or a snake when he asks for a fish? If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy and Gorgias, I have not found your responses helpful, and you have apparently overlooked or ignored several points I made. I cannot afford to spend time repeating myself. But, since I’m desperate for help …

I’m sorry you have not found my responses helpful. I would recommend two books to you:

Cold-Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
The Case for the Resurrection by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona

Now, you don’t have to buy the books…you can find tons of articles and YouTube videos online for free. For example:

coldcasechristianity.com/

My point is about what we can actually know from history. Because I do not have access to the full picture, what his opponents were saying – Acts says the Jews convinced the crowd that he was wrong on multiple occasions, but I have no knowledge of what they actually said – I cannot know that what he was saying was correct. It’s like listening to what our politicians are saying, but without hearing “the other side”, we cannot determine how accurate they are presenting the situation.

You seem fearful of making a mistake. The books listed above explain what we know with absolute certainty as well as what we can accept with a high degree of confidence and why.

Seriously, you are going to HAVE to educate yourself on the question of the historical reliability of the gospels before you can move beyond this intellectual hurdle.

That we cannot directly observe or experience historical truth claims does limit our certainty of the past, yes. We can only hold claims of knowledge with varying probabilities. Usually we cannot know the past like we know our own experience.

Yep. However, the gospels have much support. You just have to learn what that support is.

For example, light was failing when they buried Jesus in the tomb, and the women, exhausted, mistook the location of the tomb. They then went to the wrong place on Sunday and found the tomb empty. It’s even possible the burial cloths lying there were clean, and placed there in storage from a different family who owned the tomb.

Oh. Well, then…why not just go to the correct tomb on Monday and pull out the body? After all, while the women may have been confused about the location of the tomb, there is no reason to think that Joseph of Arimathea was; after all, he led them to his family tomb easily enough on Friday evening.

You’re wrong to think that Occam’s Razor suggests that one event is necessarily a better explanation than multiple events. That’s a misapplication of it.

I think Occam’s Razor is invoked to easily by just about everyone.

Matthew may have had political reasons for not returning to his job as tax collector (perhaps he couldn’t get the job back after he’d left it; perhaps he had his fill of death threats); we don’t know how successful they were as fisherman – and perhaps being a false prophet made for a more comfortable living than the sun-scorching manual labor of fishing. I’ve seen cult leaders (Protestant pastors) in Pennsylvania who seemed to make a fair living by misleading others.

Oh, yes. And enduring the beatings, the arrests, the persecutions and the constant threats of being stoned have their own appeal, don’t they?

You’re overstating the case for Paul in two ways: We don’t know “in every city”; indeed, sometimes he is welcomed warmly. Again, we don’t know how often he was actually beaten. Finally, this “rising star of the Sanhedrin” appears entirely based off Biblical commentary you’ve read. It’s possible for someone to have a great teacher but still be a lousy student. It’s even possible to graduate from a great school and be unable to get a job in your chosen career – at least today, and I don’t know how different then was.

Galatians 1:13-15
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

And he traded that in for this:

2 Corinthians 11:24-26
24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers.

I suppose you have conceded that God can reveal Himself to us without removing our free will. That is my point: I want God to actually be my Father, not some silent absent figure I pray to in vain. That means interacting with me, talking with me, comforting me, not being so far removed that it appears He’s not even there.

You’re in luck, my friend, because God wants the same relationship with you. He’s been waiting for all eternity for your “Yes”.

I hope that we can continue our discussions. I am happy to answer any questions I can and to point to other resources when I cannot.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy did, multiple times. He is confused regarding two points. First, that the Resurrection is defined to include the appearances, rather than only refer to Jesus’ coming back to life in a glorious body replacing the corpse. Second, that Ockham’s razor can be used to eliminate possible past realities that contain more events than others. Thus he thinks that the one event of the Resurrection explains the five facts he’s asserted, and that another explanation of the past must likewise be at least as simple. (Did you not read every post in this thread so far?)

There are five facts that even skeptical scholars concede. The Minimal Facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus’ disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
5. Jesus tomb was found to be empty

My position is that the theory that Jesus actually rose from the dead (as claimed by the authors of the NT) accounts for these five facts better than any other explanation(s).

Since you disagree, I am happy to go through your list slowly and carefully taking them one at a time.

 

[steve_b]

Oh, yes. And enduring the beatings, the arrests, the persecutions and the constant threats of being stoned have their own appeal, don’t they? Galatians 1:13-15
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.And he traded that in for this:2 Corinthians 11:24-26
24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers.

paired with

St Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, ordained by the apostles, direct disciple of John the apostle, was arrested for his faith, and sentenced to be be thrown to the lions in the Roman coliseum.

On his way to be martyred, Ignatius wrote a letter to the Church of Rome, he writes

Chapter 4. Allow me to fall a prey to the wild beasts

“I write to the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless you hinder me. I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body. Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice [to God]. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant. But when I suffer, I shall be the freed-man of Jesus, and shall rise again emancipated in Him. And now, being a prisoner, I learn not to desire anything worldly or vain.”
Epistle to the Romans

People throughout history have died and do all kinds of crazed things for a lie. But people don’t do what you and I retell above, for what they know is a lie. Paul and Ignatius knew truth. That’s why they endured what they did. They knew exactly who Jesus is and what THEY allowed done to them, and WHY they allowed it.

I say allow, because both Paul and Ignatius chose to suffer and die for the truth here in this life. They could have denied truth and saved their life here. They chose martyrdom rather than deny truth. Matthew 16:25

 

[eddie_too]

since it seems that we are not talking about legal or mathematical or scientific proof, but rather what is most supported by a preponderance of the evidence, why not just put on one list reasons, historical or otherwise, why to believe the Resurrection of the Lord occurred and on the other list reasons, historical or otherwise, not to believe the Resurrection of Jesus occurred?

if a person wants to restrict the two lists to only historical reasons, that is also easily done.

with that method, everyone could reach their own conclusion based on all available evidence.

i myself am unaware of what if any evidence, historical or otherwise, exists to support the belief that the Resurrection of the Lord did NOT occur. i should clarify that comment. i guess a person could say that the Resurrection of Jesus is the only case where a human being raised themselves from the dead is a reason not to believe it happened and that is a reason based on our knowledge of history.

but ethereality must have some very significant evidence that the Resurrection did not occur since he/she seems determined to dismiss the evidence others have provided.

put the evidence for either conclusion side by side and evaluate. it is actually quite a simple process.

 

[PRmerger]

i myself am unaware of what if any evidence, historical or otherwise, exists to support the belief that the Resurrection of the Lord did NOT occur.

Christianity is the only religion that can be proven false (as opposed to, say, Buddhism or Islam).

All that would be necessary would be to produce the bones of Christ. Or some other evidence that Jesus died and stayed dead.

 

[ethereality]

Christianity is the only religion that can be proven false (as opposed to, say, Buddhism or Islam).

All that would be necessary would be to produce the bones of Christ. Or some other evidence that Jesus died and stayed dead.

I would say that proof everyone alive today – or at the time of Christ – wasn’t descended from one man refutes Christianity, because Pope Pius XI (?) said Christians are not free to disbelieve that we all are descended from one man whom we may call Adam. (See Humani Generis, as I recall.) And Mohammedanism can be refuted by talking about historical claims about Jesus’ crucifixion, as well as asking why Mohammed did not perform miracles, i.e. why God wouldn’t require him to but did for every other prophet.

eddie proposes a useful exercise. I may do it in the future.

Gorgias has made a few good points but overall misunderstood most of my arguments.

I’m grateful for Randy’s recommendations.

 

[Gorgias]

I would say that proof everyone alive today – or at the time of Christ – wasn’t descended from one man refutes Christianity, because Pope Pius XI (?) said Christians are not free to disbelieve that we all are descended from one man whom we may call Adam. (See Humani Generis, as I recall.)

I think I would respond that you misunderstand the distinction between theological monogenism/polygenism and scientific monogenism/polygenism. The former speaks of ensouled humans, while the latter speaks exclusively of physical beings, that is, of hominins. Science can never speak about the soul, since it’s immaterial, and cannot be measured empirically; likewise, theology does not make scientific claims. Therefore, when science tells us that there was never a population of hominins that numbered fewer than 10K individuals, that does not mean that Pius’ discussion of ensouled humans necessarily is talking about that same population of hominins. Therefore, the two sets of assertions are not in direct conflict, nor does one disprove the other.

Gorgias has made a few good points but overall misunderstood most of my arguments.

I think that I’d say that I reject most of your arguments, having found their weak points. It’s a difference of opinion, though; thanks for the discussion!

(And, I hope you find the spiritual direction you’re looking for!!!)

 

[tws]

Randy and Gorgias, I have not found your responses helpful, and you have apparently overlooked or ignored several points I made. I cannot afford to spend time repeating myself. But, since I’m desperate for help …

My point is about what we can actually know from history.

I’ve been scanning this thread and wondered whether you have looked into more modern miracles and the evidence for them that may meet your criteria.

I could tell you about a miracle I received which was very compelling to me. It is only based on my testimony, though. But I will give you my name, address, phone number, and swear whatever oath is convincing that it happened, and it caught me totally by surprise.

 

[PRmerger]

I would say that proof everyone alive today – or at the time of Christ – wasn’t descended from one man refutes Christianity, because Pope Pius XI (?) said Christians are not free to disbelieve that we all are descended from one man whom we may call Adam.

Can you offer this proof?

My understanding is that polygenism is as much unproven as monogenism.

 

[ethereality]

I’ve been scanning this thread and wondered whether you have looked into more modern miracles and the evidence for them that may meet your criteria.

I could tell you about a miracle I received which was very compelling to me. It is only based on my testimony, though. But I will give you my name, address, phone number, and swear whatever oath is convincing that it happened, and it caught me totally by surprise.

This is off-topic, but giving a brief answer here:

I have, and every one of them is remote in time or location with insufficient documentation. For example, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta healing a man who had fluid accumulation in his brain (which was sometimes reported as ‘brain tumors’), I tried researching it and hit a dead-end at the Archdiocese of Calcutta website press release: It was an instance of “take our word for it” – they didn’t publish the medical examination or tests for public consideration; there was no doctor, hospital, or scientific publication cited – it was literally “This is our report of what happened and what we did: You must simply believe us.” Again, miracles are made to be a matter of faith. I don’t understand why they don’t publish everything (anonymizing patient data) for the scrutiny of the scientific community, especially if they want people to come to knowledge of God.

Then again, there is a Miracles book by Craig Keener with drastic recoveries reported with medical images included, but looking at reviews on Amazon, it appears here too there’s insufficient analysis to exclude the possibility of a natural mechanism.

Can you offer this proof?

My understanding is that polygenism is as much unproven as monogenism.

Again off-topic, but no, because I am not a biologist and have not studied the issue. Chatting online with a biologist, I was told that the idea that everyone today being related was trivially true for some reason – I think the explanation was that after each generation DNA becomes more similar, i.e. that it’d be less similar the further backwards in time we go. I guess this makes sense when we consider the phenomenon of marriage: Different families intermingle over time.

 

[ethereality]

since it seems that we are not talking about legal or mathematical or scientific proof, but rather what is most supported by a preponderance of the evidence, why not just put on one list reasons, historical or otherwise, why to believe the Resurrection of the Lord occurred and on the other list reasons, historical or otherwise, not to believe the Resurrection of Jesus occurred?

if a person wants to restrict the two lists to only historical reasons, that is also easily done.

with that method, everyone could reach their own conclusion based on all available evidence.

i myself am unaware of what if any evidence, historical or otherwise, exists to support the belief that the Resurrection of the Lord did NOT occur. i should clarify that comment. i guess a person could say that the Resurrection of Jesus is the only case where a human being raised themselves from the dead is a reason not to believe it happened and that is a reason based on our knowledge of history.

but ethereality must have some very significant evidence that the Resurrection did not occur since he/she seems determined to dismiss the evidence others have provided.

put the evidence for either conclusion side by side and evaluate. it is actually quite a simple process.

You have raised two distinct issues here.

The first is to start with total ignorance and use the data to eliminate possibilities to get down to a handful of possibilities, hopefully only one or two.

The second is to say specifically whether the Resurrection was likely.

I have realized, writing out an alternative scenario (which I won’t share to avoid scandal), that I cannot answer the first question, to say which scenario is more likely, for the reason I have been saying this whole time: I don’t have a complete picture of what was going on then. What are the Jewish documents to read to see what their arguments were? What are the extra-biblical sources to read to show what happened in Acts from the perspective of the Jews and Romans? Without this knowledge, I do not know whether an alternative explanation or the Christian explanation is more likely, as I have already said.

Perhaps this information is given in the resources recommended by Randy.

As for the second question, eddie is forcing me to merely give an opinion, because I am not a historian. These reasons may not be good ones, and are persuasive based on the individual’s predisposition and knowledge rather than intrinsic merit per se – and I hate writing this post, because it’s Sunday and I don’t want to blaspheme or offend God (to the contrary, I want God to commune with me):

Reasons to believe the Resurrection:

1. 
   *]The Church says so via the Bible.
   *]The Church says people were miraculously healed by Jesus’ authority via the Bible.
   *]The Church has survived persecution and has continued for 2,000 years, and declares her founder to be Jesus who Resurrected.
   *]Because you want to, because you want it to be true, you want to live a better life after this bad one ends, you want to be loved, etc.
   
   Reasons not to believe the Resurrection:
   1. 
      *]Secular writers didn’t take notice of the Resurrection. If there were 500 witnesses, people being miraculously healed, others being raised from the dead, surely enough of a commotion would have been made that they would have recorded it.
      *]The Babylonian Talmud says the Apostles were doing works by the power of demons, according to Roy Schoeman. I have no knowledge of what demons can do, or why we shouldn’t believe the Jews’ testimony.
      *]God apparently doesn’t intervene in anyone’s life now, so He probably didn’t then, either. Looking at the world and examining my own experience, I see evidence for atheism and deism, possibly even pantheism, but not theism.
      *]The New Testament is admittedly propaganda to get people to believe, so it’s not clear that it’s impartially reporting facts.
      *]The Bible is an ancient document, and apparently they were not writing with the same literal intent we do today, so it’s not clear how we should understand the text.
      *]Mormonism survived persecution and started through non-miraculous means; it may well grow into the same sort of institution, especially if other religions fall away and the lead religious figure converts and encourages it, with social conditions similar to Constantine. Moreover, it’s not clear that for 2000 years the faith or institution has always been the same.
      *]Because you derive strength through critical thinking, of not believing something without empirical, experiential, or rational grounds for doing so.
      
      eddie, it is not clear to me how one would quantify this list of qualitative reasons to arrive at an objective conclusion about the Resurrection’s likelihood.
      
      The point of this thread is that belief in the Resurrection requires making an assumption. It seems to me the assumption one must make is that the Bible is reliably presenting literal history.

 

[PRmerger]

Again off-topic, but no, because I am not a biologist and have not studied the issue.

Then it’s otiose to bring it up.

It’s like being in a discussion with an anti-vaxxer and she says, “Well, proof that the polio vaccine causes your arm to fall off would refute the fact that vaccines are safe!”

Then you say: can you offer proof that the polio vaccine causes your arm to fall off?

And she responds: it’s off topic, but no. I can’t. But I was chatting online with a scientist and she said that this is so.

That would be a worthless tributary, no?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would say that proof everyone alive today – or at the time of Christ – wasn’t descended from one man refutes Christianity, because Pope Pius XI (?) said Christians are not free to disbelieve that we all are descended from one man whom we may call Adam. (See Humani Generis, as I recall.) And Mohammedanism can be refuted by talking about historical claims about Jesus’ crucifixion, as well as asking why Mohammed did not perform miracles, i.e. why God wouldn’t require him to but did for every other prophet.

eddie proposes a useful exercise. I may do it in the future.

Gorgias has made a few good points but overall misunderstood most of my arguments.

I’m grateful for Randy’s recommendations.

:tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Reasons to believe the Resurrection:

1. • The Church says so via the Bible.
   • The Church says people were miraculously healed by Jesus’ authority via the Bible.
   • The Church has survived persecution and has continued for 2,000 years, and declares her founder to be Jesus who Resurrected.
   • Because you want to, because you want it to be true, you want to live a better life after this bad one ends, you want to be loved, etc.

1. 
   We can do better than that. :yup:
   
   The Historical Reliability of the New Testament – Summation
   
   Catholic apologist Trent Horn wrote, “The balance of evidence in favor of God’s existence outweighs the evidence against God’s existence. No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.”
   
   Here is that evidence.
   
   The four gospels have been accurately delivered to us (meaning we know what they wrote).
   • Nearly 6,000 copies of the New Testament can be studied using textual criticism.
   • The Telephone Game analogy and all attempts to claim distortion via oral tradition are bogus.
   The authors wrote early (meaning it was possible that they were actual eyewitnesses).
   • Silence regarding the Destruction of the Temple (AD 70) and the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul) (AD 64-65) suggest an early date.
   The authors recorded eyewitness accounts (meaning they either were or had access to actual eyewitnesses).
   • All of the early sources attribute the gospels to the traditional authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS PROVIDE NO COMPETING OR ALTERNATIVE LIST OF AUTHORS.
     The synoptic gospels are not attributed to major figures such as Peter, James or Mary; instead, they are assigned to a tax-collector (Matthew), a lesser character who may not have been present (Mark), and a gentile (Luke). This is one example of how the gospels meet the Criterion of Embarrassment.
   • Matthew was an apostle, and may have been chosen specifically because of his record-keeping skills which were needed to make contemporaneous records of Jesus’ teaching and deeds.
   • Luke interviewed people who were present. This may have included Mary for the nativity account.
   • Mark was the companion of Peter, the leader of the apostles.
   • John was an apostle.
   The authors wanted to write accurate accounts (as opposed to pious fiction).
   • Luke and John specifically state that they are writing so that others may know the truth.
   • The disciples believed they were passing on the words of God – a responsibility they took seriously.
   The authors wrote accurate accounts which are verified and corroborated.
   • Jewish and Roman accounts corroborate the basic story. This meets the criterion of Enemy Attestation.
   • Verifiable external evidence suggests that the authors had intimate knowledge of the geography, architecture, religious and political leadership, religious customs, language of the day, etc. Even the names of the people appear in the correct percentages.
   • Unintentional internal corroboration provides additional evidence that the gospels are accurate.
   • Accuracy regarding these details adds to the impression that the authors are credible.
   The authors were accountable to other eyewitnesses – both supportive and hostile.
   • Many eyewitnesses were still alive at the time the gospels and epistles were written. Anyone disagreeing with a gospel could have easily refuted an erroneous account.
   • The Jews did not deny the tomb was empty; they offered alternative explanations for why it was.
   The authors had no ulterior motive.
   • What did the authors of the gospels gain from their work? The three classic motives are: power, money, and sex. Not only did Christianity reject these things in general, but the authors were persecuted and killed.
   Additional Points for Discussion:
   • The disciples suffered and died for their beliefs. None recanted their story at the last minute to save himself. People are willing to die for what they believe, but rarely are people willing to die for something they know to be a lie.
   • Skeptics such as James and Saul were converted.
   • Key social structures were changed in the wake of the resurrection of Jesus.
   • The emergence of the Church suggests that it was founded by someone, directed by someone and based upon the life and teachings of someone. Jesus is not a legend, and the New Testament is not a work of fiction.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Reasons not to believe the Resurrection:

Secular writers didn’t take notice of the Resurrection. If there were 500 witnesses, people being miraculously healed, others being raised from the dead, surely enough of a commotion would have been made that they would have recorded it.

Like these guys?

• Thallus
• Mara bar Serapion
• Josephus
• Pliny the Younger
• Tacitus
• Seutonius
• Lucian of Samosota
• Sextus Julius Africanus

The Babylonian Talmud says the Apostles were doing works by the power of demons, according to Roy Schoeman. I have no knowledge of what demons can do, or why we shouldn’t believe the Jews’ testimony.

So, by virtue of enemy attestation, we have the Talmud acknowledging that the Apostles were doing extraordinary things. Great! :clapping:

Now, all we have to do is to figure out HOW they were doing them.

God apparently doesn’t intervene in anyone’s life now, so He probably didn’t then, either. Looking at the world and examining my own experience, I see evidence for atheism and deism, possibly even pantheism, but not theism.

I’ve never seen a blackhole, either, so by examining my own experience, I have no reason to believe they exist.

But this argument won’t carry much weight until you have interviewed all 6 billion of us, and I’m pretty sure that before you get very far into your list of names to contact, you’re going to start to hear some very pro-God accounts.

The New Testament is admittedly propaganda to get people to believe, so it’s not clear that it’s impartially reporting facts.

This is admitted by whom? Even skeptics like Bart Ehrman concede that the gospels are historically reliable sources of information about Jesus. Were the authors biases? Well, sure, but that doesn’t disqualify them from telling the truth. J. Warner Wallace covers this in short video clips here:

coldcasechristianity.com/2014/were-the-gospel-writers-biased/
coldcasechristianity.com/2014/were-the-gospel-authors-biased/

The Bible is an ancient document, and apparently they were not writing with the same literal intent we do today, so it’s not clear how we should understand the text.

What did the authors tell us about their own intent?

Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

2 Peter 1:16-17
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

John 20:30-31
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John 21:24-25
This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

 

[ethereality]

Instead of the Gospel being literal history of all the Disciples coming to believe after Jesus appears to them after women find the tomb empty, the Gospel could be propaganda left by a minority of Disciples who reinterpreted the Old Testament after women mistook the tomb’s location – and both series of events leave the same artifacts. Additional information, namely, what the early Christians’ critics were saying, is needed to eliminate one of these two possible sets.

In case there are any skeptics reading who think this is a good argument, please read Catechism 644 and surrounding: I don’t think the four Gospel narratives would be what they are if this theory were true.

 

[steve_b]

In case there are any skeptics reading who think this is a good argument, please read Catechism 644 and surrounding: I don’t think the four Gospel narratives would be what they are if this theory were true.

That’s why 645 answers the charge of seeing a “ghost”

• 646 647 648 649 650 , …