Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky?

[Zzyzx]

A KEY question is "Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky?"
Unless those claims are true, Christianity is based on fraud.

No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else mentioned Jesus during his lifetime or told about anything he may have said or done.

Half a century later (40 to 60 years or more), four religion promoters wrote stories about him. The true identity of those 'gospel' writers is unknown to theologians and scholars, AND none of them can be shown to have personally witnessed anything Jesus may have said or done.

AND only ONE of the gospel writers (whoever wrote 'Luke' and 'Acts') described the 'ascension,' AND he admits in his introduction that he is recording what he heard from others.

Of course, Paul/Saul claimed to have met the dead man in a 'vision' (or hallucination or imagination) while blind and delusional for days (and also claiming to have taken a trip to 'the third heaven')

WHY accept such stories as truthful and accurate?

[1213]

...No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else mentioned Jesus during his lifetime or told about anything he may have said or done.

So, did Luke make up his story, or did he record what others had witnessed? Please be consistent.

If you have no information about what people then did, it does not mean no one ever mentioned Jesus. It is possible that many words have been lost and never recorded. And if Bible is true, many were persecuted and writings destroyed, or too well hidden.

If it would be true that no one mentioned Jesus during his life time, I don't think we would have the Bible. Why would we have it, if there was no Jesus?

...Half a century later (40 to 60 years or more), four religion promoters wrote stories about him....

It is possible that the stories existed long before that. We just may not have records of the earliest words, or the ones we have are wrongly dated.

WHY accept such stories as truthful and accurate?

Some of my reasons:
1) If it would not be true, atheists would not need to lie about the matters so much.
2) I think the teachings of Jesus are good. If they would come originally from someone else, the someone else would have taken credit of it.
3) I see things going as told in the Bible, and therefore I trust it.

[Zzyzx]

You say: “So, did Luke make up his story, or did he record what others had witnessed?
---------------
I do not pretend to know whether the writer of “Luke” (whoever he may have been) made up the story of 'resurrection', ‘ascension’ and other tales or if he was repeating what others told him. He claimed that he was recording what he heard from others.

You say: “If you have no information about what people then did, it does not mean no one ever mentioned Jesus. It is possible that many words have been lost and never recorded. And if Bible is true, many were persecuted and writings destroyed, or too well hidden.
--------------
Feel free to cite records of Jesus made during his lifetime.

IF ‘the bible is true’ – the key word is “IF”

You say: “If it would be true that no one mentioned Jesus during his life time, I don't think we would have the Bible. Why would we have it, if there was no Jesus?
-------------
The bible ‘we have’ was produced during the fourth century. Original documents of ‘gospels’ etc. are not available. The bible is currently available in 450 different versions in English alone (variously translated, edited, revised, copied (often by hand), subtracted from, added to, re-edited, re-revised, etc.

You say: “It is possible that the stories existed long before that. We just may not have records of the earliest words, or the ones we have are wrongly dated.
-------------
It is POSSIBLE. It is also POSSIBLE that a great deal of fabrication and imagination were involved.

You say: “1) If it would not be true, atheists would not need to lie about the matters so much.
---------
WHAT, exactly, are Atheists “Lying about”?

You say: “2) I think the teachings of Jesus are good. If they would come originally from someone else, the someone else would have taken credit of it.
Many of the ‘teachings of Jesus’ can be found in texts that LONG predate the time of Jesus.
--------

You say: “3) I see things going as told in the Bible, and therefore I trust it.
-------------
People have been believing that Jesus would return for thousands of years.

[SiNcE_1985]

You say: “So, did Luke make up his story, or did he record what others had witnessed?
---------------
I do not pretend to know whether the writer of “Luke” (whoever he may have been) made up the story of 'resurrection', ‘ascension’ and other tales or if he was repeating what others told him. He claimed that he was recording what he heard from others.

He claimed that he was writing what he heard from others...and that others also had orderly accounts and some were eyewitnesses.

Now, either you believe him, or you don't.

The bible ‘we have’ was produced during the fourth century.

Yeah, and before the canon books were compiled together, the individual books of the canon were already seen as sacred and authoritative in Christian congregations.

Original documents of ‘gospels’ etc. are not available.

And?

We don't have any original document/manuscript of any ancient book.

So what?

The bible is currently available in 450 different versions in English alone (variously translated, edited, revised, copied (often by hand), subtracted from, added to, re-edited, re-revised, etc.

You're failing to mention that most (if not all) modern Bibles are heavily footnoted, so that the reader is informed of what is going on within the text if a modification is rendered.

And the fact that the Bible is the most copied book of all time, no one can add anything to it without being called out, because we know what the earliest manuscripts say.

It is POSSIBLE. It is also POSSIBLE that a great deal of fabrication and imagination were involved.

Well, then tell us the fabrication, and we'll discuss it.

As for imagination...it has just as much imagination than modern day science text books...that most of you guys are silence on.

People have been believing that Jesus would return for thousands of years.

Jesus will return before a reptile evolves into a bird.

[1213]

...He claimed that he was recording what he heard from others.

Which would mean there were others who spoke about the matters and it was not just the Gospel writers that made up the story. And this obviously would mean "No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else mentioned Jesus during his lifetime or told about anything he may have said or done" is not correct.

The bible ‘we have’ was produced during the fourth century. Original documents of ‘gospels’ etc. are not available. The bible is currently available in 450 different versions in English alone (variously translated, edited, revised, copied (often by hand), subtracted from, added to, re-edited, re-revised, etc.

The Bible is only the collection of books that were written earlier. It is like a best of record of some musician. The things have been written earlier, but now they are in one collection. Doesn't mean the content was done when the collection was done.

And by what I see, the current versions are close enough to the versions that are oldest scriptures. And the good thing is that we can compare new translations to the oldest to check that the translations are

WHAT, exactly, are Atheists “Lying about”?

For example: "anyone else mentioned Jesus during his lifetime or told about anything he may have said or done". If that would be true, why would Josephus and Tacitus speak about Jesus and his execution?

People have been believing that Jesus would return for thousands of years.

Quite impressive, for "imaginary fairy tale".

But, there are many things that must happen before the return of the king. For example:

This Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in the whole world for a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come....
Matt. 24:14-15

[JehovahsWitness]

No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else mentioned Jesus during his lifetime or told about anything he may have said or done.

"ANYOND ELSE "

How can this be anything but a statement of faith? How can anyone prove that nobody {quote} " mentioned Jesus during his lifetime {end quote}? His mother never said "Jesus go fetch some water" ? Brothers sisters never said "Jesus went fishing" ? Not one person refered (mentioned) Jesus? Nobody mentioned Jesus as having made their table for them?

How can one possibly prove nobody in his village ever mention him while he lived and grew up in that same village?

Surely a claim that nobody ever mentioned Jesus during his lifetime is unprovable

If its unprovoked but stated as a fact (as Zzyzx seems to have done), is it not a statement of faith?

[Difflugia]

No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else mentioned Jesus during his lifetime or told about anything he may have said or done.

How can one possibly prove nobody in his village ever mention him while he lived and grew up in that same village?

Do you actively look for arguments about which you can equivocate? Is there a chapter about that in Reasoning From the Scriptures that I missed or something?

[POI]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #6]

As I see it, one of the main reasons believers can continue debating the topic of a "risen Jesus' is because investigating virtually any claim(s) from antiquity is fraught with pitfalls. These 'pitfalls' include a) the scarcity and fragmented nature of evidence, b) the pervasive issue of possible bias and forgery, and c) the difficulty of interpreting information across vast cultural and linguistic divides....

a) The claims to a "risen Jesus" fall into this paradigm, as decades of claimed 'oral tradition' (alone) transpired prior to anyone writing anything to paper. And since these written claims were not written until much later, and were not made 'authoritative' for question or challenge until such said 'witnesses' were long dead to validate or challenge the claim(s), here we are...

b) Since we do not know who wrote the Gospels, and also what their true source(s) and/or motivation(s) really were, again, the deep void of 'ancient antiquity' raises more questions than can produce real answers forever.

c) The 'Gospels' were written in Greek. If a truly all loving and caring god wish(es) to convey universal truth, I doubt such a god would leave such claims to the hands of fallible humans to write it down later, in one specific language, for later generations to muck it up.

[POI]

AND only ONE of the gospel writers (whoever wrote 'Luke' and 'Acts') described the 'ascension,' AND he admits in his introduction that he is recording what he heard from others.

And to add further insult to injury, 'Luke' copies some of 'Mark' almost word-for-word in some spots, while drastically changing the narrative in other spots.

WHY accept such stories as truthful and accurate?

Faith, while holding to more than one standard for this faith, as the believer in a risen Jesus must reject other claim(s) of 'divinity' which produce just as much, or even more verified 'eyewitness' attestation, to the claim(s).

[POI]

He claimed that he was writing what he heard from others...and that others also had orderly accounts and some were eyewitnesses.

If your standard for an 'eyewitness' is really THIS low, then you should accept/believe virtually any claim(ed) miracle(s) from antiquity.

Here, hold this "L".

Yeah, and before the canon books were compiled together, the individual books of the canon were already seen as sacred and authoritative in Christian congregations.

Did any of the said 'eyewitnesses' see/read the Greek-written document, as written by "Mark" and then also (corroborate/validate) it? Nope.

Here, hold this "L".

And? We don't have any original document/manuscript of any ancient book. So what?

Being we are dealing with a claim from ancient antiquity, we have nothing else to go upon with the Gospels.

1) Are the claims consistent and/or trustworthy? No.
2) Are the given source(s) reliable, as they also express other details? Meaning, do the other claims within these documents comport with (or) can they also be corroborated using external source(s)? No.
3) Is the given source(s) unbiased, via both religiously (and/or) politically? No.
4) Do the claim(s) exclude breaking immutable (and/or) "natural" law(s)? No.
5) Are the claim(s) backed by any substantiated relic(s)? No.

The more (no's) above, the worse off the odds are... The Bible looks to then be quite low on the probable 'truth-barometer.' Sorry.

Historians verify ancient claims by cross-referencing information across multiple types of evidence, including written sources, archaeological finds, and material artifacts, then critically evaluating each source's origin, purpose, and reliability. They look for corroboration, or multiple independent sources that agree, and use contextual analysis to determine if a claim is typical or unique. They also use techniques like comparing handwriting or linguistic style to authenticate documents and check for consistency with known historical or archaeological data.

Here, hold this "L".

You're failing to mention that most (if not all) modern Bibles are heavily footnoted, so that the reader is informed of what is going on within the text if a modification is rendered.

This is because they HAVE to. It's quite odd that a "god inspired" book needs so much heavy footnoting. This is one of the reasons Christian apologetics is also so dang necessary. They cannot let the text speak for themselves. No, perpetual spin must be implemented by Christian apologist(s).

Here, hold this "L".

And the fact that the Bible is the most copied book of all time, no one can add anything to it without being called out, because we know what the earliest manuscripts say.

Yes. And when skeptics call things out, the spinner will spin it. Like when the reader compares "Mark" to Luke', and reads the given (alternative facts), as issued in "Luke", when compared to "Mark".

Here, hold this "L".

it has just as much imagination than modern day science text books...that most of you guys are silence on.

One post in, and you cannot help yourself, with the (science denial). I've already exposed your bankrupt epistemology in another thread. Do I need to do it again here?

Here, hold this "L".

Jesus will return before a reptile evolves into a bird.

See above.