Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

[Aetixintro]

I love discussing/debating arguments related to God's existence and Christianity, and I have a voice chat group I'm putting together to do that. Send me a PM if you're interested in participating or listening in.

Below is a brief summarized version of an argument. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
____
Resolved: The available evidence justifies our belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

I'll present three lines of evidence supporting this claim:

The NT documents were based on eyewitness testimony.
We have reliable copies of that testimony.
We can establish facts from that testimony that support the resurrection.

In support of the first point, that the NT documents were based on eyewitness testimony, I present the testimony of three extra-biblical authors who were contemporaries of the eyewitnesses and of the writing of the NT documents. These writers were Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Rome. These three men were well acquainted with the eyewitnesses (Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of John, and Clement was appointed to his position in Rome by Peter). They all also endorsed the NT documents through their many citations, quoting from every NT book except for 2 John and Jude. Finally, these men gave their lives for their faith (which speaks to their sincerity). The significance of this testimony cannot be understated. Three different men, well acquainted with the eyewitnesses, endorsed the NT documents through their many citations and died for their faith. Their writings justify our belief that eyewitness testimony provided the basis for the original NT documents.

Second, we want to know that we have accurate copies of those original NT documents. The NT stands head and shoulders above every other ancient work in this respect with over 5300 early copies and fragments in existence today. The next runner-up (Homer's Iliad) has just 643 copies and fragments. The New Testament manuscripts are also close to the originals, with many copies and fragments from the first few hundred years after the sources. Compare that to the next runner-up (again the Iliad), whose manuscripts are 500 years after the originals. There is also something to be said for the wide distribution of the documents. They were spread out over three continents and translated into multiple languages (with the earliest Latin translation going back to the 200s). The wealth of documents and their nearness to the originals give us good reason to believe we have accurate transmissions of the original documents.

Finally, we want to know what facts we can establish from the testimony. There are four facts critical to our consideration of the resurrection that we can consider:

Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.
The tomb was empty on the third day.
People, individually and in groups, reported post-mortem appearances of Jesus.
The disciples came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Multiple NT witnesses corroborate each fact. We can find individual support for these points as well. For example, Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin (the same group that condemned Jesus) and is therefore unlikely to be an early Christian invention. James (Jesus' brother and one of the people reporting a post-mortem appearance) met Paul in Jerusalem before Paul reported James's claim to a post-mortem appearance, indicating that Paul’s report of James’s claim to an appearance is firsthand.

I've supported the claim that eyewitness testimony provides the basis for the original NT documents and that our copies are accurate. I identified four facts that we can establish from that testimony, and those facts support the conviction that Jesus rose from the dead. We are, therefore, justified based on that evidence in the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

____
Sources:

Craig, William Lane. On Guard. David C Cook, 2010.

Holden, Joseph M. The Popular Handbook of Archeology and the Bible. Harvest House Publishers, 2013.

McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. 1999.

So, QFD: Does this argument above convince you that Jesus rose from the dead? Why? Why not?

[1213]

...
I do understand where you are coming from and sympathize for you for being told you have a soul on the line and that you will suffer for eternity if you fail to maintain your beliefs. ...

No one has ever said that to me, except atheists.

I want to be loyal for the truth because I think it is good. And I think there is really no error in the Bible, in what it tells about the event near the death of Jesus.

[TRANSPONDER]

...I just mention these points rather than give chapter verse and text but I can if you want.

Actually it would be nice to see, because I think you have misunderstood the scriptures.

Oh..kay... Matthew 28.16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

This follows smack after the women running into Jesus on the Sunday morning while the tomb guard flee into Jerusalem to report to the High Priest that an angel came down and perched on the tomb door. which itself follows the angel telling the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee

See also Matthew 26. 32 where Jesus tells the disciples (after the last supper) that he will see them in Galilee. Contrast with Luke 22.35 -on which has no such instruction, and Luke 24.6 where the angelic message is changed from going to Galilee to what Jesus told them in Galilee. because, as I say, Luke knows (from Paul's letters, I suggest) that they do not go to Galilee, but they stay in Jerusalem, just as Luke's amended gospel + Acts says. Contrast also with John 20.1 which has no angelic message first thing.

Luke is also aware that the disciples did not go to make disciples of all nations, but they stayed put in Judea and Galilee and it was Paul alone who took Messianic Judaism to the gentiles, again because of reading it in Paul's letters.

Over to you to explain what I have misunderstood.

I think you connect the scriptures wrongly. If Luke 22:35 doesn't tell the same as Matt. 26:32 and Matt. 28:16 it does no mean that Matthew or Luke is wrong, it is just missing from that part. I think you are adding too much of your own to the story, sorry.

To follow your lead here...
I think you are making excuses for the discrepancies wrongly. Imagining missing parts does nothing for the discrepancies that do exist. I think the story is too important for you to acknowledge the discrepancies.

I do understand where you are coming from and sympathize for you for being told you have a soul on the line and that you will suffer for eternity if you fail to maintain your beliefs. I was once there myself. The Bible becomes much clearer when you are able to view it honestly and not with the suffering for eternity lenz IMO.
Be well.

Indeed. We do understand that these people are fighting against an undermining of their Faith. True, there is Hellthreat, but it's more that; they see this as personal. But we cannot just allow them to get away with rubbish arguments, frankly just because they will be terribly upset if we don't.

...
I do understand where you are coming from and sympathize for you for being told you have a soul on the line and that you will suffer for eternity if you fail to maintain your beliefs. ...

No one has ever said that to me, except atheists.

I want to be loyal for the truth because I think it is good. And I think there is really no error in the Bible, in what it tells about the event near the death of Jesus.

No one has said that to other than atheists. but it's clear from what you posted above that we are right. Any bad arguments will do just so you can push away any doubts and questions.

The events near the death of Jesus (as related in the Gospels) are demonstrably contradictory. Terminally so. And I need hardly point up the denial and evasion and anything rather than look at the undeniable facts. Luke changed the message at the tomb. Luke denies that the women saw Jesus. John denies an angelic message. That's just the start. And these contradictions are all the way through from the nativities to the resurrection -accounts, for all that you deny that there are any errors in the Bible. Your denial merely shows your blinkered denialism (and this is not personal - this is pointing up the flaws in the religious apologetics). And your loyalty to your Faith (which you call "Truth" (1) is maintained not for reasons of evidence but because it is 'Good'. This is the Family Values brainwash that perpetuates theme lies and denial, because anything is considered permissible to hang onto what is considered the Good. But it really isn't. Anything that relies on denial, denigration of empirical validation, and group indoctrination, has to be bad.

(1) Understanding John 18.38 explains everything. "What is Truth?" "It is Faith." That's why Jesus (or John, rather) gives no answer - it gives the game away. .

[Clownboat]

...
I do understand where you are coming from and sympathize for you for being told you have a soul on the line and that you will suffer for eternity if you fail to maintain your beliefs. ...

No one has ever said that to me, except atheists.

I'm going to assume you are not lying.
I find it odd that Christians worship a book that they don't even seem to know.

Matthew 25:46 ESV /
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Matthew 10:28 ESV /
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Revelation 20:10 ESV /
And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Revelation 21:8 ESV /
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

There are more of course.
I maintain sympathy for you for being told you have a soul on the line and that you will suffer for eternity if you fail to maintain your beliefs. I was once there myself.

I want to be loyal for the truth

You were not loyal for the truth when you claimed only atheists tell you that you have a soul on the line. Will we know them by their fruits?

And I think there is really no error in the Bible, in what it tells about the event near the death of Jesus.

You have shown here that you cannot be trusted as to what you think is in the Bible.

[1213]

...Luke denies that the women saw Jesus.... ... John denies an angelic message. ...

I think there is nothing to support those claims. Those seem to be your interpretations only. And it is interesting why you make up stuff like that.

[Willum]

I don’t think you understand what a big deal being raised from the dead, after three days of rot, is.

It may seem like a simple thing, even for something omnipotent, but it is actually harder than so many other things you could conceive of.

It would be easier to blacken 1000 stars, then it would be to resurrect one person. It would be easier to make Noah’s ark work, or have snakes transform and talk.

In fact, I’ve posted topics where even allowing for something to be omnipotent, there was no conceivable way for something even with all-power to resurrect something. At least not without perfunctorily and quoting a definition of saying “God can do anything,” with no further explanation. There is no hypothetical mechanism for Resurrection that would work.

This being so difficult, and there being much better ways to persuade people, a reasonable person would discount even reliable witnesses testimony of a resurrection out of hand. It is much easier to believe that some deception was perpetrated. And infinitely more likely.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Luke denies that the women saw Jesus.... ... John denies an angelic message. ...

I think there is nothing to support those claims. Those seem to be your interpretations only. And it is interesting why you make up stuff like that.

It's an easy interpretation to make. And I've explained it several times before.

After the angel delivers his message to Mary and Mary at the Tomb, they run off to the disciples and meet Jesus, according to Matthew.

According to Luke, they report what they'd seen to the disciples which according to Cleophas (Luke 24.23) was the angel who said that Jesus was alive. But no mention of the claim that they had run into Jesus. You may call it 'interpretation', but it is inconceivable that they would not have said that they'd actually met Jesus alive or that Cleophas would have not repeated them seeing angels without mentioning their vision of Jesus, whether the disciples believed them or not. This is apart from Luke not actually having them meet Jesus or John mentioning that little event either. The conclusion: it was Matthew's invention, tacitly denied by Luke and John.

John also tacitly denies the angelic message at the tomb before the women run off. They don't appear until the disciples have gone to look at the tomb. This is just one of many contradictions in the resurrection accounts that are more glaring than any of the gospels, apart from the nativities which mutually destruct like matter and anti -matter.

There is plenty to support my claims and it is reasonable conclusions, not me making stuff up. Which I'll leave to the apologists inventing excuses.

[Goat]

Can you show the in the bible that Jesus actually said what he said?

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean with that?

The bible has quotes from are alleged to have come from Jesus. However, those quotes were written down decades after Jesus was supposed to be killed. How do you know that someone wasn't merely putting words into the mouth of Jesus, and he never said that

[1213]

Can you show the in the bible that Jesus actually said what he said?

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean with that?

The bible has quotes from are alleged to have come from Jesus. However, those quotes were written down decades after Jesus was supposed to be killed. How do you know that someone wasn't merely putting words into the mouth of Jesus, and he never said that

I think that is not correct idea. They come from Jesus, because that is what the book says. There is no real question about that. Different issue is, is Jesus fictional or not. You could ask, did the Bible Jesus ever exist. And unfortunately I don't think anything from the past can be proven, therefore this remains a matter of belief, sorry.

But, if Jesus is fictional and didn't speak what the Bible tells he said, why would someone else give credit for Jesus, instead of taking it himself?

[Goat]

Can you show the in the bible that Jesus actually said what he said?

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean with that?

The bible has quotes from are alleged to have come from Jesus. However, those quotes were written down decades after Jesus was supposed to be killed. How do you know that someone wasn't merely putting words into the mouth of Jesus, and he never said that

I think that is not correct idea. They come from Jesus, because that is what the book says. There is no real question about that. Different issue is, is Jesus fictional or not. You could ask, did the Bible Jesus ever exist. And unfortunately I don't think anything from the past can be proven, therefore this remains a matter of belief, sorry.

But, if Jesus is fictional and didn't speak what the Bible tells he said, why would someone else give credit for Jesus, instead of taking it himself?

You believe it. And, people give Jesus credit for it to promote the validity of the idea. That is similar to the reason for all these fake quote from people on the internet, where sayings are attributed to people to give them more signifigence than if a random person gave that opinion. There are plenty of falsely attributed quotes on the internet.

That's the same reason there are so many pseudo graphical books in the bible too. Look on how many letters that are attributed to Paul that most scholars think were written by someone else.

Not one of the books in the New Testament was written by Jesus, nor were any of those books written during his life time. The ones that might have been written written within 20 to 30 years after his execution were written by people who did not know him, therefore could not be a witness to what he actually said.

[TRANSPONDER]

Can you show the in the bible that Jesus actually said what he said?

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean with that?

The bible has quotes from are alleged to have come from Jesus. However, those quotes were written down decades after Jesus was supposed to be killed. How do you know that someone wasn't merely putting words into the mouth of Jesus, and he never said that

I think that is not correct idea. They come from Jesus, because that is what the book says. There is no real question about that. Different issue is, is Jesus fictional or not. You could ask, did the Bible Jesus ever exist. And unfortunately I don't think anything from the past can be proven, therefore this remains a matter of belief, sorry.

But, if Jesus is fictional and didn't speak what the Bible tells he said, why would someone else give credit for Jesus, instead of taking it himself?

The obvious reason is that preaching their own opinions won't be so effective as claiming that Jesus said them.