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?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Because Jesus was represented as being a real character and the records of what he supposedly did and said were to be regarded as believable. That mindset was the case in the time the Gospels were written and is the doctrinal mindset today.

I don't believe people would accept fictional character in that way.

That actually made me stop and think. How many Fictional characters are taken as real? Aside religious authority. Robin Hood, possibly. King Arthur. But people seriously doubt Robin Hood, and Arthur is considered real, though the stories are doubted.

Of course it's a different matter so far as religions are concerned. Buddha and Muhammad are absolutely Authority -figures. Societies and customs are built on their say so. But there is no serious doubt that they were real people. But quite likely, Jesus was real too. As real as Arthur, but the doubts about the stories are fair doubts.

This isn't to get onto gods, which are mythology, authority -figures or not. But the point here is about their human go -betweens like Muhammad, Zoroaster, Joseph Smith, Buddha, Moses and Jesus. Authority figures absolutely. To be believed without doubt and question, absolutely not. Not any more. Not so long as the religious authorities don't have a theocracy.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Well done. That is Not a characteristic Venom response but is much better than usual.

Thanks...I think.

Now, the Bible -apologist case is obviously that the accounts of the resurrection are reliable and, if there is no account in Mark there is probably some unknown good reason (the bad reasons are given as the usual apologetics) and the empty tomb at least is credible, and what other explanation is there?

As long as the empty tomb and resurrection is at lease implied throughout Mark, that is good enough for me.

Add to that the list of appearances in Paul and that seems to corroborate the gospel appearances to the disciples and a few hundred followers after that.

And?

So that would underpin the resurrection -claim, and never mind any bothersome contradictions. Add to that the claim that the disciples died because they would not deny the resurrection and that is surely good enough. If you can add anything to that, feel free.

More specifics, less generalizations.

Now i won't reprise the evidence of the crucifixion that hints at a plot to get Jesus off the cross alive nor the corroboration of Matthew's mention that the Jews said in his day that 'the disciples stole the body' suggests that is what happened.

?

But I'll just argue the basic case - the accounts are totally contradictory. So much so that it is evidence that there was no common resurrection account to begin with.

Again, Paul testified as to what he received...and based on the information that he provided, that WAS the common resurrection account.

So, what you are talking about; I don't know.

Which explains why Mark doesn't have one (1). He has the empty tomb claim, but that really isn't enough.

Mark doesn't need one, per se.

"He has risen" is another way of saying "He has raised from the dead".

So we have the resurrection account, we just don't have the post-mortem appearances.

Its all good though.

Which is why the synoptic original story has a handy angel to explain everything.

Yeah, to explain in more detail.

I guess we are going to pretend that there was no handy angel in Mark.

Because after all, it ain't as if that isn't where the "he has risen" notification came from in the first place, right?

But John refutes that as he had no angel.

Right, John had no angel ..he had angel(s).

John 20:11-12

"Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been."


And the last I checked; if you have two, you have at least one.

The women run away with no clue where Jesus' body is. Which (as well as Luke denying i) refutes Matthew's claim that the women ran smack into Jesus.

Me: I saw you jump into the bushes, and come out disguised as a monster.

You: No, no, no. Someone disguised as the monster jumped out of the bushes, after I jumped in.

All depends on how you look at it

But seriously..all Gospels confirm that Jesus appeared to Mary (and the women who were present) FIRST.

That much, is certain.

Do we really need any further proof that there was no resurrection story of solid body sightings?

Yes, we do.

True the empty tomb claim is common to all 4, but then...it's just a claim.

All claims are...claims.

And I did argue that it's a bit clumsy with the women going to the tomb for no reason than to look at it

Do you call the thousands of people who've visited the graves of their loved ones, clumsy?

Wow.

or to finish the anointing (even though Jesus said it had been done)

Sue them.

and it only occurs to them at the last minute that they would need someone to open it.

Please, stop it.

The women were in the process of MOURNING...they were in a state of grief, so please forgive them for not thinking as logically and not being as levelheaded as you would be if you lost a dear friend, and in Mary's case, a son.

Your approach here is very cavalier...very insensitive...and it is quite disgusting, actually.

I reckon it has all the hallmarks of a clumsy 'body gone' claim to add some substance to the risen Jesus claim. And that it is common to all 4 just shows that it is early, as gospel revisions go.

?

So if that is so, we are left with a risen Jesus- claim with no credible sightings and no explanation and an empty tomb concocted to try to give substance to a mere belief. Jesus rose.

?

Corinthians which we see right away differs from the gospels because Jesus appears first to Simon. Which isn't in any of the gospels other than Luke (though he cannot give an account of it).

Hmm. Lets conduct a syllogism test, shall we?

1. No Gospel besides Luke records Jesus' chronological first appearance to Peter.

2. Therefore, Jesus did appear chronologically first to Peter.

Text book example of a non sequitur.

I have already noted that Luke shows that he knows Paul's letters and he altered the angelic message to fit.

Your opinion, of which I disagree.

He wangles in the appearance to Simon, too.

Indeed strange.

The appearance is then to the '12' and then 500 at once which only makes sense long after the events of the gospels and really even Luke who adds on a Jerusalem postscript remote from the events of the other writers.

?

And finally, Paul says, Jesus appears to James, whom we must assume is James the brother of Jesus and not the son of Zebedee and who became leader of the Jesus group from what Paul writes (Though I always assumed that James brother of Jesus was the Other James in the twelve - James the Less), then to all the apostles (whatever that means to Paul) and finally to Paul, and the only thing we see relating to that is a meeting with Jesus in heaven.

"James, John, Joseph"...all were popular names in first century Palestine.

Indeed, the James in question is James, brother of Jesus.

Historian Josephus also spoke of this James...and confirmed that Jesus had a brother names James.

So I at least argue that visions of Jesus in the head is what Paul is talking about and that is no support for the Gospel stories at all.

?

Assuming Paul and the apostles were real, I don't doubt that they believed that Jesus had ascended, but the visions being ...visionary...suggests a spirit resurrection, not a solid body.

Funny, you claimed above that Luke knows Paul's letters...so why would Luke have (in the book of Acts) the apostles (Peter/John) speaking a physical resurrection, as opposed to a spiritual resurrection?

Makes no sense.

And of course a Jesus still with the crucifixion marks doesn't fit with the new incorruptible body of Paul's preaching.

But it wouldn't do to have a Jesus with no crucifixion marks on, would it?

Well of course Jesus could have resurrected and appeared with a fresh, incorruptible body with no physical defects.

So why would he return with crucifixion marks?

Well, if you actually READ the narrative, it is clear why.

The answer is because the apostle Thomas wasn't present when Jesus appeared to the 12...and when they told him that they had seen Jesus, Thomas said..

John 20:25

“Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

So Jesus appeared with the defects to appease doubting Thomas.

See how that works?

Its all coming together now, isn't it?

That is why, despite a few logical or evidential speedbumps, I don't think your apologetic washes, old chum. Nice try, though.

School remains in session for you. No charges for the lesson, pal

[TRANSPONDER]

Well done. That is Not a characteristic Venom response but is much better than usual.

Thanks...I think.

Now, the Bible -apologist case is obviously that the accounts of the resurrection are reliable and, if there is no account in Mark there is probably some unknown good reason (the bad reasons are given as the usual apologetics) and the empty tomb at least is credible, and what other explanation is there?

As long as the empty tomb and resurrection is at lease implied throughout Mark, that is good enough for me.

Add to that the list of appearances in Paul and that seems to corroborate the gospel appearances to the disciples and a few hundred followers after that.

And?

So that would underpin the resurrection -claim, and never mind any bothersome contradictions. Add to that the claim that the disciples died because they would not deny the resurrection and that is surely good enough. If you can add anything to that, feel free.

More specifics, less generalizations.

Now i won't reprise the evidence of the crucifixion that hints at a plot to get Jesus off the cross alive nor the corroboration of Matthew's mention that the Jews said in his day that 'the disciples stole the body' suggests that is what happened.

?

But I'll just argue the basic case - the accounts are totally contradictory. So much so that it is evidence that there was no common resurrection account to begin with.

Again, Paul testified as to what he received...and based on the information that he provided, that WAS the common resurrection account.

So, what you are talking about; I don't know.

Which explains why Mark doesn't have one (1). He has the empty tomb claim, but that really isn't enough.

Mark doesn't need one, per se.

"He has risen" is another way of saying "He has raised from the dead".

So we have the resurrection account, we just don't have the post-mortem appearances.

Its all good though.

Which is why the synoptic original story has a handy angel to explain everything.

Yeah, to explain in more detail.

I guess we are going to pretend that there was no handy angel in Mark.

Because after all, it ain't as if that isn't where the "he has risen" notification came from in the first place, right?

But John refutes that as he had no angel.

Right, John had no angel ..he had angel(s).

John 20:11-12

"Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been."


And the last I checked; if you have two, you have at least one.

The women run away with no clue where Jesus' body is. Which (as well as Luke denying i) refutes Matthew's claim that the women ran smack into Jesus.

Me: I saw you jump into the bushes, and come out disguised as a monster.

You: No, no, no. Someone disguised as the monster jumped out of the bushes, after I jumped in.

All depends on how you look at it

But seriously..all Gospels confirm that Jesus appeared to Mary (and the women who were present) FIRST.

That much, is certain.

Do we really need any further proof that there was no resurrection story of solid body sightings?

Yes, we do.

True the empty tomb claim is common to all 4, but then...it's just a claim.

All claims are...claims.

And I did argue that it's a bit clumsy with the women going to the tomb for no reason than to look at it

Do you call the thousands of people who've visited the graves of their loved ones, clumsy?

Wow.

or to finish the anointing (even though Jesus said it had been done)

Sue them.

and it only occurs to them at the last minute that they would need someone to open it.

Please, stop it.

The women were in the process of MOURNING...they were in a state of grief, so please forgive them for not thinking as logically and not being as levelheaded as you would be if you lost a dear friend, and in Mary's case, a son.

Your approach here is very cavalier...very insensitive...and it is quite disgusting, actually.

I reckon it has all the hallmarks of a clumsy 'body gone' claim to add some substance to the risen Jesus claim. And that it is common to all 4 just shows that it is early, as gospel revisions go.

?

So if that is so, we are left with a risen Jesus- claim with no credible sightings and no explanation and an empty tomb concocted to try to give substance to a mere belief. Jesus rose.

?

Corinthians which we see right away differs from the gospels because Jesus appears first to Simon. Which isn't in any of the gospels other than Luke (though he cannot give an account of it).

Hmm. Lets conduct a syllogism test, shall we?

1. No Gospel besides Luke records Jesus' chronological first appearance to Peter.

2. Therefore, Jesus did appear chronologically first to Peter.

Text book example of a non sequitur.

I have already noted that Luke shows that he knows Paul's letters and he altered the angelic message to fit.

Your opinion, of which I disagree.

He wangles in the appearance to Simon, too.

Indeed strange.

The appearance is then to the '12' and then 500 at once which only makes sense long after the events of the gospels and really even Luke who adds on a Jerusalem postscript remote from the events of the other writers.

?

And finally, Paul says, Jesus appears to James, whom we must assume is James the brother of Jesus and not the son of Zebedee and who became leader of the Jesus group from what Paul writes (Though I always assumed that James brother of Jesus was the Other James in the twelve - James the Less), then to all the apostles (whatever that means to Paul) and finally to Paul, and the only thing we see relating to that is a meeting with Jesus in heaven.

"James, John, Joseph"...all were popular names in first century Palestine.

Indeed, the James in question is James, brother of Jesus.

Historian Josephus also spoke of this James...and confirmed that Jesus had a brother names James.

So I at least argue that visions of Jesus in the head is what Paul is talking about and that is no support for the Gospel stories at all.

?

Assuming Paul and the apostles were real, I don't doubt that they believed that Jesus had ascended, but the visions being ...visionary...suggests a spirit resurrection, not a solid body.

Funny, you claimed above that Luke knows Paul's letters...so why would Luke have (in the book of Acts) the apostles (Peter/John) speaking a physical resurrection, as opposed to a spiritual resurrection?

Makes no sense.

And of course a Jesus still with the crucifixion marks doesn't fit with the new incorruptible body of Paul's preaching.

But it wouldn't do to have a Jesus with no crucifixion marks on, would it?

Well of course Jesus could have resurrected and appeared with a fresh, incorruptible body with no physical defects.

So why would he return with crucifixion marks?

Well, if you actually READ the narrative, it is clear why.

The answer is because the apostle Thomas wasn't present when Jesus appeared to the 12...and when they told him that they had seen Jesus, Thomas said..

John 20:25

“Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

So Jesus appeared with the defects to appease doubting Thomas.

See how that works?

Its all coming together now, isn't it?

That is why, despite a few logical or evidential speedbumps, I don't think your apologetic washes, old chum. Nice try, though.

School remains in session for you. No charges for the lesson, pal

That's more like the venom we all know and love. very poor work. I think I need only address a few points as the rest are either no points or denial.

John tacitly denies the angel explaining everything at the tomb. It it clear to anyone who reads the account and cares what it says would know that the women come back with no idea where Jesus is. Thus incidentally contradicting Matthew by so doing.

John's angels only appear after Mary and the disciples go to look at the tomb, and they deliver no message about where Jesus is. Plainly they are NO support for the angelic explanation which - I repeat - is contradicted by John.

Now, you have a point about the women maybe just wanting to look at the tomb, but others say different - they go to do the anointing. But of course that's a problem as they wouldn't expect to be able to get in. And your excuse that they were too distraught to think of it won't wash at all. f they thought enough to prepare ointments they could think enough to wonder about how to open the tomb before they go there. It makes more sense that Matthew, I think sees the problem with the intention to anoint and just had them go to look at the tomb which, as I say, is half way credible. But it is also half way credible that the story just needs the women to turn up or the angel is wasting his time there waiting for visitors. if you don't see a clumsy plot there, it's because you don't want to.

This is rubbish:

"1. No Gospel besides Luke records Jesus' chronological first appearance to Peter.

2. Therefore, Jesus did appear chronologically first to Peter.

Text book example of a non sequitur."

It is (of course) a typical Christian apologetics strawman. The actual argument is that nobody other than Luke records the first appearance to Simon, and Luke does not even describe this appearance. Add to that indications that he had read Paul's letters (including the one saying that Jesus appeared first to Simon) and we can suggest what is going on there. You are the one who needs some schooling - or new logic -circuits.

What more have you?.... Ah yes, James brother of Jesus. I don't know what the point is here as I said I accept James as the brother of Jesus, so you are kicking up dust for no reason. Even though I now suspect that Josephus is referring to Jesus son of Damnaeus, and therefore so is that James, and a helpful Christian glossed it as 'Jesus called the Christ'. Which is hardly what Josephus the Jew would have written.

And you quite miss the point about the crucifixion marks. Of course we know why he had them (though Luke and John don't seem to agree on how many) but the question is why he would still have them if he had risen in a new incorruptible body as Paul says the resurrected would have. IF we took the appearances as reliable (and we should not, once we know the contradictory nature of the accounts) we might surmise that Jesus with the crucifixion marks had not magically risen, but recovered, as he wasn't really dead.

I think that'll do, as the rest is irrelevant rubbish. 'Sue them?' What sort of apologetic is that? Well....as I said, it's more your usual style.

[Goat]

...people give Jesus credit for it to promote the validity of the idea...

Why would "fictional character" give any validity to anything?

To give it the illusion of authority.

Why would people think fictional character has authority? Would you think fictional character has authority?

Why do people say 'God did it'? To give it authority, despite it being their own personal opinion. If people believe the fictional character is real, it give the illusion of authority.

[We_Are_VENOM]

That's more like the venom we all know and love. very poor work.

I think I need only address a few points as the rest are either no points or denial.

However it comes.

John tacitly denies the angel explaining everything at the tomb.

See, that is where you are WRONG.

Syllogism test...

1. John doesn't have the angel explaining everything at the tomb to TRANSPONDER's satisfaction.

2. Therefore, John tacitly denies that the angel explained everything at the tomb.

Non sequitur.

You are continually allowing fallacious reasoning to guide your arguments.

Not only that, but if you keep it up, you will surpass Alex's record for the most non sequiturs made on one thread.

And that is saying a ALOT.

It it clear to anyone who reads the account and cares what it says would know that the women come back with no idea where Jesus is. Thus incidentally contradicting Matthew by so doing.

?

John's angels only appear after Mary and the disciples go to look at the tomb

Matthew: "Mary and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven..."

Mark: "Mary and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. When they arrived, they saw the stone had been rolled away. They entered and saw a young man dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side".

Luke: "The women went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away and did not see the Lord's body when they entered. Suddenly, two men in gleaming clothes stood beside them."

John: "Mary stood outside the tomb crying. She saw two angels in white, as she looked into the tomb".

All seems consistent to me.

Now of course, you can sit there and nit pick every single little detail, in true skepticistic (new word) fashion, but that is more of a reflection of you, not the Bible.

, and they deliver no message about where Jesus is. Plainly they are NO support for the angelic explanation which - I repeat - is contradicted by John.

Syllogism test..

1. John didn't mention X.

2. Therefore, X did not happen.

Non sequitur.

I think you've just passed Alex when it come to most non sequiturs on one thread, which is not exactly a good thing.

Now, you have a point about the women maybe just wanting to look at the tomb, but others say different - they go to do the anointing.

Nonsense.

It doesn't matter what they went for, the point is; people visit the graves/tombs of their loved ones.

Don't see why that is such a big deal for you...unless, of course...we put on our "super skeptic" capes only when it comes to Biblical matters and nothing else.

But of course that's a problem as they wouldn't expect to be able to get in. And your excuse that they were too distraught to think of it won't wash at all.

if they thought enough to prepare ointments they could think enough to wonder about how to open the tomb before they go there.

Welcome to the real world where sometimes, people don't think rationally when they are in a stage of grief...especially the "mother-loses-son" type of grief.

And that shouldn't even be a concern, in my opinion.

Sounds more like a skeptic who is 2,000 years removed from time of the events, who is on an internet religious debating forum...who is looking for any old excuse to justify his unbelief with a holy spirit that convicts and picks at him every day.

It makes more sense that Matthew, I think sees the problem with the intention to anoint and just had them go to look at the tomb which, as I say, is half way credible. But it is also half way credible that the story just needs the women to turn up or the angel is wasting his time there waiting for visitors. if you don't see a clumsy plot there, it's because you don't want to.

Nonsense. You are reaching, sir.

Reaching for something that just isn't there.

This is rubbish:

"1. No Gospel besides Luke records Jesus' chronological first appearance to Peter.

2. Therefore, Jesus did appear chronologically first to Peter.

Text book example of a non sequitur."

It is (of course) a typical Christian apologetics strawman. The actual argument is that nobody other than Luke records the first appearance to Simon, and Luke does not even describe this appearance. Add to that indications that he had read Paul's letters (including the one saying that Jesus appeared first to Simon) and we can suggest what is going on there. You are the one who needs some schooling - or new logic -circuits.

Yeah, the "actual argument is that nobody other that Luke records the first appearance to Simon, and Luke does not even describe this appearance".

Again, syllogism test..

1. Nobody besides Luke records the first appearance to Simon, and Luke does not describe this appearance.

2. Therefore, Jesus did not first appear to Simon.

Non sequitur.

Shattered the record.

What more have you?.... Ah yes, James brother of Jesus. I don't know what the point is here as I said I accept James as the brother of Jesus, so you are kicking up dust for no reason.

Calm down. I was only expanding on a point of which we were both in agreement.

Because if I recall, I am the one who put you up on game; that the James Paul spoke of in 1 Corinth 15:3-7 was in fact James, brother of Jesus...when you thought the James was John's brother.

So kill the noise.

Even though I now suspect that Josephus is referring to Jesus son of Damnaeus, and therefore so is that James, and a helpful Christian glossed it as 'Jesus called the Christ'. Which is hardly what Josephus the Jew would have written.

Um, no.

A Christian when speaking of Jesus of Nazareth, wouldn't speak of him as "Jesus called the Christ"...because of how important Jesus is to the entire religion of Christianity, he is more than just "called the Christ", rather, Jesus IS the Christ.

It is more than just "that is what he was called"....but more of, it is what he IS.

"Jesus called the Christ" is something an unbeliever in Christianity would say, which is what Josephus was, and what he did.

And you quite miss the point about the crucifixion marks. Of course we know why he had them (though Luke and John don't seem to agree on how many) but the question is why he would still have them if he had risen in a new incorruptible body as Paul says the resurrected would have.

You say we know why he had them, yet you are still calling into question as to "why he would still have them if he had risen".

Well, I just told you (actually, the Bible enlightens us) as to why this was the case. He had them because he was granting a doubting Thomas request.

Now, the next time you ask that question, I will simply paste the scripture and leave it at that.

Your question was answered, and I know you thought that you raised a fire-proof objection that was supposed to be difficult to answer...but I am here to demonstrate that it actually isn't.

IF we took the appearances as reliable (and we should not, once we know the contradictory nature of the accounts) we might surmise that Jesus with the crucifixion marks had not magically risen, but recovered, as he wasn't really dead.

Yeah, sure...go with that.

I think that'll do, as the rest is irrelevant rubbish. 'Sue them?' What sort of apologetic is that?

Yeah, and what sort of objection is "The grieving women, in my opinion, exhibited irrational behavior during their time of grief".

What sort of objection is that?

That, is the rubbish.

Well....as I said, it's more your usual style.

You call it style...I call it swagger

[Goat]

That's more like the venom we all know and love. very poor work.

I think I need only address a few points as the rest are either no points or denial.

However it comes.

John tacitly denies the angel explaining everything at the tomb.

See, that is where you are WRONG.

Syllogism test...

1. John doesn't have the angel explaining everything at the tomb to TRANSPONDER's satisfaction.

2. Therefore, John tacitly denies that the angel explained everything at the tomb.

Non sequitur.

You are continually allowing fallacious reasoning to guide your arguments.

Not only that, but if you keep it up, you will surpass Alex's record for the most non sequiturs made on one thread.

And that is saying a ALOT.

It it clear to anyone who reads the account and cares what it says would know that the women come back with no idea where Jesus is. Thus incidentally contradicting Matthew by so doing.

?

John's angels only appear after Mary and the disciples go to look at the tomb

Matthew: "Mary and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven..."

Mark: "Mary and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. When they arrived, they saw the stone had been rolled away. They entered and saw a young man dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side".

Luke: "The women went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away and did not see the Lord's body when they entered. Suddenly, two men in gleaming clothes stood beside them."

John: "Mary stood outside the tomb crying. She saw two angels in white, as she looked into the tomb".

All seems consistent to me.

Now of course, you can sit there and nit pick every single little detail, in true skepticistic (new word) fashion, but that is more of a reflection of you, not the Bible.

, and they deliver no message about where Jesus is. Plainly they are NO support for the angelic explanation which - I repeat - is contradicted by John.

Syllogism test..

1. John didn't mention X.

2. Therefore, X did not happen.

Non sequitur.

I think you've just passed Alex when it come to most non sequiturs on one thread, which is not exactly a good thing.

Now, you have a point about the women maybe just wanting to look at the tomb, but others say different - they go to do the anointing.

Nonsense.

It doesn't matter what they went for, the point is; people visit the graves/tombs of their loved ones.

Don't see why that is such a big deal for you...unless, of course...we put on our "super skeptic" capes only when it comes to Biblical matters and nothing else.

But of course that's a problem as they wouldn't expect to be able to get in. And your excuse that they were too distraught to think of it won't wash at all.

if they thought enough to prepare ointments they could think enough to wonder about how to open the tomb before they go there.

Welcome to the real world where sometimes, people don't think rationally when they are in a stage of grief...especially the "mother-loses-son" type of grief.

And that shouldn't even be a concern, in my opinion.

Sounds more like a skeptic who is 2,000 years removed from time of the events, who is on an internet religious debating forum...who is looking for any old excuse to justify his unbelief with a holy spirit that convicts and picks at him every day.

It makes more sense that Matthew, I think sees the problem with the intention to anoint and just had them go to look at the tomb which, as I say, is half way credible. But it is also half way credible that the story just needs the women to turn up or the angel is wasting his time there waiting for visitors. if you don't see a clumsy plot there, it's because you don't want to.

Nonsense. You are reaching, sir.

Reaching for something that just isn't there.

This is rubbish:

"1. No Gospel besides Luke records Jesus' chronological first appearance to Peter.

2. Therefore, Jesus did appear chronologically first to Peter.

Text book example of a non sequitur."

It is (of course) a typical Christian apologetics strawman. The actual argument is that nobody other than Luke records the first appearance to Simon, and Luke does not even describe this appearance. Add to that indications that he had read Paul's letters (including the one saying that Jesus appeared first to Simon) and we can suggest what is going on there. You are the one who needs some schooling - or new logic -circuits.

Yeah, the "actual argument is that nobody other that Luke records the first appearance to Simon, and Luke does not even describe this appearance".

Again, syllogism test..

1. Nobody besides Luke records the first appearance to Simon, and Luke does not describe this appearance.

2. Therefore, Jesus did not first appear to Simon.

Non sequitur.

Shattered the record.

What more have you?.... Ah yes, James brother of Jesus. I don't know what the point is here as I said I accept James as the brother of Jesus, so you are kicking up dust for no reason.

Calm down. I was only expanding on a point of which we were both in agreement.

Because if I recall, I am the one who put you up on game; that the James Paul spoke of in 1 Corinth 15:3-7 was in fact James, brother of Jesus...when you thought the James was John's brother.

So kill the noise.

Even though I now suspect that Josephus is referring to Jesus son of Damnaeus, and therefore so is that James, and a helpful Christian glossed it as 'Jesus called the Christ'. Which is hardly what Josephus the Jew would have written.

Um, no.

A Christian when speaking of Jesus of Nazareth, wouldn't speak of him as "Jesus called the Christ"...because of how important Jesus is to the entire religion of Christianity, he is more than just "called the Christ", rather, Jesus IS the Christ.

It is more than just "that is what he was called"....but more of, it is what he IS.

"Jesus called the Christ" is something an unbeliever in Christianity would say, which is what Josephus was, and what he did.

And you quite miss the point about the crucifixion marks. Of course we know why he had them (though Luke and John don't seem to agree on how many) but the question is why he would still have them if he had risen in a new incorruptible body as Paul says the resurrected would have.

You say we know why he had them, yet you are still calling into question as to "why he would still have them if he had risen".

Well, I just told you (actually, the Bible enlightens us) as to why this was the case. He had them because he was granting a doubting Thomas request.

Now, the next time you ask that question, I will simply paste the scripture and leave it at that.

Your question was answered, and I know you thought that you raised a fire-proof objection that was supposed to be difficult to answer...but I am here to demonstrate that it actually isn't.

IF we took the appearances as reliable (and we should not, once we know the contradictory nature of the accounts) we might surmise that Jesus with the crucifixion marks had not magically risen, but recovered, as he wasn't really dead.

Yeah, sure...go with that.

I think that'll do, as the rest is irrelevant rubbish. 'Sue them?' What sort of apologetic is that?

Yeah, and what sort of objection is "The grieving women, in my opinion, exhibited irrational behavior during their time of grief".

What sort of objection is that?

That, is the rubbish.

Well....as I said, it's more your usual style.

You call it style...I call it swagger

There are certain things that have to be pointed out. 1) No one has shown that angels exist, so any use of angels to show that Jesus was resurrected that involves angels you first have to give objective and tangible evidence that angels exist.

2) The two passages in Josephus were modified, with antiquities 18 being a total insert, and antiquities 20 being a copiers gloss. Josephus would not have implied that anybody was a messiah, because he got out of being executed by claiming to Vespasian when he got captured at Jotapata. He got out of being executed by telling Vespasian that he was the messiah the Jews were looking for. Any indication otherwise would have put his life at risk. In fact, that caused Jospehus to be highly critical of all claims for someone being the Messiah . He knew where his safety came from.

[We_Are_VENOM]

There are certain things that have to be pointed out. 1) No one has shown that angels exist, so any use of angels to show that Jesus was resurrected that involves angels you first have to give objective and tangible evidence that angels exist.

The fact that TRANSPONDER have yet to offer such an objection should be enough for you to think to yourself "maybe I am missing something here".

2) The two passages in Josephus were modified, with antiquities 18 being a total insert, and antiquities 20 being a copiers gloss. Josephus would not have implied that anybody was a messiah, because he got out of being executed by claiming to Vespasian when he got captured at Jotapata. He got out of being executed by telling Vespasian that he was the messiah the Jews were looking for. Any indication otherwise would have put his life at risk. In fact, that caused Jospehus to be highly critical of all claims for someone being the Messiah . He knew where his safety came from.

No one is disputing that, so tell us something we don't know.

We have a clear understanding of which parts were interpolated and which weren't.

And guess what; even if you omit the interpolations, you still have a historical Jesus of Nazareth at the very least.

[TRANSPONDER]

That's more like the venom we all know and love. very poor work.

I think I need only address a few points as the rest are either no points or denial.

However it comes.

John tacitly denies the angel explaining everything at the tomb.

See, that is where you are WRONG.

Syllogism test...

1. John doesn't have the angel explaining everything at the tomb to TRANSPONDER's satisfaction.

2. Therefore, John tacitly denies that the angel explained everything at the tomb.

Non sequitur.

You are continually allowing fallacious reasoning to guide your arguments.

Not only that, but if you keep it up, you will surpass Alex's record for the most non sequiturs made on one thread.

And that is saying a ALOT.

It it clear to anyone who reads the account and cares what it says would know that the women come back with no idea where Jesus is. Thus incidentally contradicting Matthew by so doing.

?

John's angels only appear after Mary and the disciples go to look at the tomb

Matthew: "Mary and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven..."

Mark: "Mary and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. When they arrived, they saw the stone had been rolled away. They entered and saw a young man dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side".

Luke: "The women went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away and did not see the Lord's body when they entered. Suddenly, two men in gleaming clothes stood beside them."

John: "Mary stood outside the tomb crying. She saw two angels in white, as she looked into the tomb".

All seems consistent to me.

Now of course, you can sit there and nit pick every single little detail, in true skepticistic (new word) fashion, but that is more of a reflection of you, not the Bible.

, and they deliver no message about where Jesus is. Plainly they are NO support for the angelic explanation which - I repeat - is contradicted by John.

Syllogism test..

1. John didn't mention X.

2. Therefore, X did not happen.

Non sequitur.

I think you've just passed Alex when it come to most non sequiturs on one thread, which is not exactly a good thing.

Now, you have a point about the women maybe just wanting to look at the tomb, but others say different - they go to do the anointing.

Nonsense.

It doesn't matter what they went for, the point is; people visit the graves/tombs of their loved ones.

Don't see why that is such a big deal for you...unless, of course...we put on our "super skeptic" capes only when it comes to Biblical matters and nothing else.

But of course that's a problem as they wouldn't expect to be able to get in. And your excuse that they were too distraught to think of it won't wash at all.

if they thought enough to prepare ointments they could think enough to wonder about how to open the tomb before they go there.

Welcome to the real world where sometimes, people don't think rationally when they are in a stage of grief...especially the "mother-loses-son" type of grief.

And that shouldn't even be a concern, in my opinion.

Sounds more like a skeptic who is 2,000 years removed from time of the events, who is on an internet religious debating forum...who is looking for any old excuse to justify his unbelief with a holy spirit that convicts and picks at him every day.

It makes more sense that Matthew, I think sees the problem with the intention to anoint and just had them go to look at the tomb which, as I say, is half way credible. But it is also half way credible that the story just needs the women to turn up or the angel is wasting his time there waiting for visitors. if you don't see a clumsy plot there, it's because you don't want to.

Nonsense. You are reaching, sir.

Reaching for something that just isn't there.

This is rubbish:

"1. No Gospel besides Luke records Jesus' chronological first appearance to Peter.

2. Therefore, Jesus did appear chronologically first to Peter.

Text book example of a non sequitur."

It is (of course) a typical Christian apologetics strawman. The actual argument is that nobody other than Luke records the first appearance to Simon, and Luke does not even describe this appearance. Add to that indications that he had read Paul's letters (including the one saying that Jesus appeared first to Simon) and we can suggest what is going on there. You are the one who needs some schooling - or new logic -circuits.

Yeah, the "actual argument is that nobody other that Luke records the first appearance to Simon, and Luke does not even describe this appearance".

Again, syllogism test..

1. Nobody besides Luke records the first appearance to Simon, and Luke does not describe this appearance.

2. Therefore, Jesus did not first appear to Simon.

Non sequitur.

Shattered the record.

What more have you?.... Ah yes, James brother of Jesus. I don't know what the point is here as I said I accept James as the brother of Jesus, so you are kicking up dust for no reason.

Calm down. I was only expanding on a point of which we were both in agreement.

Because if I recall, I am the one who put you up on game; that the James Paul spoke of in 1 Corinth 15:3-7 was in fact James, brother of Jesus...when you thought the James was John's brother.

So kill the noise.

Even though I now suspect that Josephus is referring to Jesus son of Damnaeus, and therefore so is that James, and a helpful Christian glossed it as 'Jesus called the Christ'. Which is hardly what Josephus the Jew would have written.

Um, no.

A Christian when speaking of Jesus of Nazareth, wouldn't speak of him as "Jesus called the Christ"...because of how important Jesus is to the entire religion of Christianity, he is more than just "called the Christ", rather, Jesus IS the Christ.

It is more than just "that is what he was called"....but more of, it is what he IS.

"Jesus called the Christ" is something an unbeliever in Christianity would say, which is what Josephus was, and what he did.

And you quite miss the point about the crucifixion marks. Of course we know why he had them (though Luke and John don't seem to agree on how many) but the question is why he would still have them if he had risen in a new incorruptible body as Paul says the resurrected would have.

You say we know why he had them, yet you are still calling into question as to "why he would still have them if he had risen".

Well, I just told you (actually, the Bible enlightens us) as to why this was the case. He had them because he was granting a doubting Thomas request.

Now, the next time you ask that question, I will simply paste the scripture and leave it at that.

Your question was answered, and I know you thought that you raised a fire-proof objection that was supposed to be difficult to answer...but I am here to demonstrate that it actually isn't.

IF we took the appearances as reliable (and we should not, once we know the contradictory nature of the accounts) we might surmise that Jesus with the crucifixion marks had not magically risen, but recovered, as he wasn't really dead.

Yeah, sure...go with that.

I think that'll do, as the rest is irrelevant rubbish. 'Sue them?' What sort of apologetic is that?

Yeah, and what sort of objection is "The grieving women, in my opinion, exhibited irrational behavior during their time of grief".

What sort of objection is that?

That, is the rubbish.

Well....as I said, it's more your usual style.

You call it style...I call it swagger

There are a few points here...not many.

John tacitly denies the angel explaining everything at the tomb.

Venom wrote

See, that is where you are WRONG.

Syllogism test...

1. John doesn't have the angel explaining everything at the tomb to TRANSPONDER's satisfaction.

2. Therefore, John tacitly denies that the angel explained everything at the tomb.

Non sequitur.

You are continually allowing fallacious reasoning to guide your arguments.

Not only that, but if you keep it up, you will surpass Alex's record for the most non sequiturs made on one thread.

And that is saying a ALOT.

no. Thisn is where you crash and burn. John has No angel at the tomb when the women arive and nothing is explained to them and they do not know where Jesus is. So John's version contradict the Synoptic version. You were wrong enough trying to make the 2 angels at the tomb later on when the disciples run tere and they explain nothing, anyway. Now you are trying to claim not only that John has no angel according to me when it's no angel according to John, but denying that this means that John having no angel at the tomb explaining where jesus is means that John has no angel at the tomb explaining where Jesus is. That isn't a false syllogism but you rejecting what the Bible actual;y says.

You posted

John's angels only appear after Mary and the disciples go to look at the tomb

Venom

Matthew: "Mary and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven..."

Mark: "Mary and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. When they arrived, they saw the stone had been rolled away. They entered and saw a young man dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side".

Luke: "The women went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away and did not see the Lord's body when they entered. Suddenly, two men in gleaming clothes stood beside them."

John: "Mary stood outside the tomb crying. She saw two angels in white, as she looked into the tomb".

All seems consistent to me.

"

It is consistent when you rewrite it out of context. If John had an angel or two at the tomb when the women arrived, explained where jesus was and they ran to the disciples and said 'and angel (or two angels) told us that jesus had risen' then we wouldn't be having this discussion. And how many times do I find myself having to say that to Bible apologists who seem incapable of reading what the Bible actually says.

Now this:

But of course that's a problem as they wouldn't expect to be able to get in. And your excuse that they were too distraught to think of it won't wash at all.

Venom -

"if they thought enough to prepare ointments they could think enough to wonder about how to open the tomb before they go there.

Welcome to the real world where sometimes, people don't think rationally when they are in a stage of grief...especially the "mother-loses-son" type of grief.

And that shouldn't even be a concern, in my opinion.

Sounds more like a skeptic who is 2,000 years removed from time of the events, who is on an internet religious debating forum...who is looking for any old excuse to justify his unbelief with a holy spirit that convicts and picks at him every day.

"

This might wash if it was the only dodgy passage but it isn't. Therefore we can't give you an easy out of appealing to some vague 'stage of grief' while assiduously preparing ointments while again Matthew says they just went to look at the tomb, not have to get in. Therefore you sound like a believer of the kind that should have wized up after 2000 years to the fact that the gospel stories contradict so badly that they cannot be credited.

Venom again

Again, syllogism test..

1. Nobody besides Luke records the first appearance to Simon, and Luke does not describe this appearance.

2. Therefore, Jesus did not first appear to Simon.

Non sequitur.

Shattered the record.

You did - for faulty argument. Yes, it is a valid question about Gospel reliability when Luke says that Jesus appeared first to simon and they all knew it (according to Luke) but none of the others even hint at t it None. Not one. If that isn't a credibility problem for you it is because you do not want to see it.

Venom "Calm down. I was only expanding on a point of which we were both in agreement.

Because if I recall, I am the one who put you up on game; that the James Paul spoke of in 1 Corinth 15:3-7 was in fact James, brother of Jesus...when you thought the James was John's brother.

So kill the noise. "

Not in the least. As I recall I was the one to clarify that James (brother of Jesus) was NOT James son of Zebedee. So again I couldn't see what you were 'expanding on, And I am perfectly calm, and enjoying myself.

you never cease to surprise me

IF we took the appearances as reliable (and we should not, once we know the contradictory nature of the accounts) we might surmise that Jesus with the crucifixion marks had not magically risen, but recovered, as he wasn't really dead.

Venom

Yeah, sure...go with that.

All right, if the resurrection story was credible, (they did not contradict) then the conclusion is that Jesus had never really dies,. noty that he had been resurrected in the 'New incorruptible body' that Paul speaks of, so that would scupper the basis of Christianity anyway. But the accounts are contradictory, totally, despite your persistent denial, contradictory, so the question doesn't arise.

[TRANSPONDER]

There are certain things that have to be pointed out. 1) No one has shown that angels exist, so any use of angels to show that Jesus was resurrected that involves angels you first have to give objective and tangible evidence that angels exist.

The fact that TRANSPONDER have yet to offer such an objection should be enough for you to think to yourself "maybe I am missing something here".

Goat is going to be too canny to fall for your clumsy and not at all original attempt to sow discord amongst opponents.

I was in fact going to respond by saying 'sure the whole claim of 'angels' makes it all like a fairy tale - just as some might point out when contradictions in some healing episode is being debated, that illness is not caused by evil spirits.

but that isn't going to make an impression on those who believe in such things and it is hardly necessary to mention them to those who don't.

2) The two passages in Josephus were modified, with antiquities 18 being a total insert, and antiquities 20 being a copiers gloss. Josephus would not have implied that anybody was a messiah, because he got out of being executed by claiming to Vespasian when he got captured at Jotapata. He got out of being executed by telling Vespasian that he was the messiah the Jews were looking for. Any indication otherwise would have put his life at risk. In fact, that caused Jospehus to be highly critical of all claims for someone being the Messiah . He knew where his safety came from.

=We_Are_VENOM No one is disputing that, so tell us something we don't know.

We have a clear understanding of which parts were interpolated and which weren't.

And guess what; even if you omit the interpolations, you still have a historical Jesus of Nazareth at the very least.

But a Jesus (perhaps of Nazareth - the town which apparently didn't exist in his day) who was so different from the Christ of the gospels that interpolations have to be inserted and a gloss added to Josephus to get his history to endorse the contradictory narrative of the NT.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Goat is going to be too canny to fall for your clumsy and not at all original attempt to sow discord amongst opponents.

I was in fact going to respond by saying 'sure the whole claim of 'angels' makes it all like a fairy tale - just as some might point out when contradictions in some healing episode is being debated, that illness is not caused by evil spirits.

?

But a Jesus (perhaps of Nazareth - the town which apparently didn't exist in his day)

It didn't exist according to who? According to people living 2,000 years later? Or according to people who were modern to the times and geographical location?

who was so different from the Christ of the gospels that interpolations have to be inserted and a gloss added to Josephus to get his history to endorse the contradictory narrative of the NT.

Apparently, an overzealous Christian appeared to have modified the original text. I don't condone it, although the information placed into into the text was 100% accurate.