Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

[polonius]

[Replying to post 68 by JLB32168]

>> We have people who have had performed miracles – at least that’s the case with the Eastern Orthodox. <<

QUESTION: Do you have any hard evidence to prove this claim? Or are they just stories?

[JLB32168]

[JLB32168]

The Resurrection was supposed to have occurred three days after the crucifixion. And th Ascension on the same day or 40 days later. That would have been c33 AD. But nobody recorded it.

The writers of the NT recorded it. Other than that, what written records of anything exist from the first century AD/CE besides texts from the Christian Bible that you can determine that no one wrote about it?

Actually it was believed that Jesus was the Messiah, but not himself divine until about 85 AD.

What is your source? Does Luke antedate John? Luke uses a motif common in the empire of the time – that of deities being born of virgins. Are you going to suggest that belief in a divine Jesus wasn’t around in Luke’s time and that his use of a deity-born-of-a-human-maiden theme was merely coincidence?

Since the Jews never taught this, the Christian invention theory is tenable.

The books of Enoch are Jewish works. They describe the messiah/Son of Man as being an eternal being that would be worshipped and who would judge the Gentiles – all aspects that Judaism attributes to the deity alone. You’re suggesting a monolithic Judaism of first century Roman Judea that simply didn’t exist.

On the contrary. the world's present largest religion is based on this story.

I maintain that asking for proof of a supernatural event that occurred two thousand years ago is a stupid request and that equally stupid is the attempt to prove such an event occurred. There’s a reason that religious faith is called faith.

[Zzyzx]

.

The books of Enoch are Jewish works. They describe the messiah/Son of Man as being an eternal being that would be worshipped and who would judge the Gentiles – all aspects that Judaism attributes to the deity alone. You’re suggesting a monolithic Judaism of first century Roman Judea that simply didn’t exist.

Does Judaism, ancient or modern, accept Jesus as the messiah of the scriptures they wrote?

I maintain that asking for proof of a supernatural event that occurred two thousand years ago is a stupid request and that equally stupid is the attempt to prove such an event occurred. There’s a reason that religious faith is called faith.

Let's say "invalid request" rather than "stupid" – at least in debate that emphasizes civility.

I agree that it is invalid to ask for proof of the supernatural unless someone claims knowledge of such things. It is equally invalid to claim knowledge for what is only belief.

What a person believes is their business and not a matter for debate. What they claim as truth is a matter for debate.

Thus, if someone says "I believe God exists" I, for one, have no objection. However, if they claim "God exists" I ask for evidence to support the claim (as per Forum Rules and Guidelines).

[JLB32168]

Does Judaism, ancient or modern, accept Jesus as the messiah of the scriptures they wrote?

A theoretical council of Jamnia occurred and at that council all Jews who accepted Christ as messiah were excluded from synagogue fellowship. Apparently not a few Jews felt that Judaism had no problems with Christ being Messiah. Of course, the assertion was made that Judaism didn’t teach a divine messiah and clearly not all of Judaism taught this as evidenced by the Books of Enoch, which were Jewish works. That they aren’t in the canonical Tanakh is irrelevant since the Hebrew Scriptures weren’t canonized during or before Christ’s time.

Let's say "invalid request" rather than "stupid" – at least in debate that emphasizes civility.

I’m cool with that.

[Goose]

Your argument is rebutted already.

I fail to see how your assertion that the supernatural is beyond the scope of the historical method rebuts my arguments. Care to explain?

Do you deny miracles are outside the scope of the historical method?

I don't see why they should be. Can you make a logical argument as to why they are?

If you're going to argue historical methodology will grant you a resurrection, set up a head to head.

Let's do it here so others can participate. I have no problem whatsoever running the resurrection through a historical method. I'll even let you pick the method. I've already provided my evidence. You may begin whenever you are ready...

[polonius]

[polonius]

[Replying to post 75 by JLB32168]

The Books of Enoch are not part of scripture. Still, please cite any part that claims that Jesus was divine and the approximate year in which it was written.

[Zzyzx]

.

Since you haven't provided evidence of any of these events that can be examined, nor would they necessarily be miraculous if they had occurred, please forgive this readers reluctance to consider them proof of any miracle.

Just stories to reassure believers?

This is typical of the "evidence" presented to "support" miracle claims (ancient or modern). Unverifiable stories that depict events that some regard as beyond understanding (since they do not know cause-and-effect or what really happened).

[JLB32168]