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]

Why do people say 'God did it'? To give it authority...

I have not seen any good evidence for that people would do so in attempt to give it authority.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Syllogism test (the same one you keep failing).

1. John did not mention angel(s) at the tomb.

2. Therefore, there were no angels at the tomb.

Wow. The third non sequitur on the same talking point.

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.

?

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.

The party continues.

1. John did not mention an angel or two at the tomb when the women arrived, nor explained where Jesus was.

2. Therefore, there were no angels present at the tomb when the women arrived to explain to them where Jesus was.

Non sequitur.

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.

Vague stage of grief? I want you to lose a son, and tell me how vague your grief is.

Second, if I tell you..

"I am going to the car dealership to look at a few cars.

I guess I am prohibited from test driving any of the cars at the dealership...because after all, I only went there to "look" at a few cars.

Laughable. Laughable, I say.

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.

Syllogism test..

1. Luke says Jesus first appeared to Simon, but no other Gospels even hint at it, at all.

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

Non sequitur.

*Aristotle has left the chat*

Not in the least. As I recall I was the one to clarify that James (brother of Jesus) was NOT James son of Zebedee.

Oh, is that right? Might have to check the archives on that one.

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

I am enjoying myself too.

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.

Hey, if that is the way you feel.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

It didn't exist (apparently) according to archaeological evidence, as well as some textual negative evidence. And you are missing the point about the gloss (if that is what it is). Without that, there wouldn't be much doubt that the passage does not relate to Gospel Jesus or his brother, but Jesus and james, sons of Damnaeus. The gloss (if it is a gloss) would mean the text has been altered to lie about what it says.

I know this is disputed, but the point is that because it may not relate to Gospels James and jesus at all it cannot be used as some extra Biblical support for the NT Jesus by way of the Flavian testament, which is also no support.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Syllogism test (the same one you keep failing).

1. John did not mention angel(s) at the tomb.

2. Therefore, there were no angels at the tomb.

Wow. The third non sequitur on the same talking point.

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.

?

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.

The party continues.

1. John did not mention an angel or two at the tomb when the women arrived, nor explained where Jesus was.

2. Therefore, there were no angels present at the tomb when the women arrived to explain to them where Jesus was.

Non sequitur.

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.

Vague stage of grief? I want you to lose a son, and tell me how vague your grief is.

Second, if I tell you..

"I am going to the car dealership to look at a few cars.

I guess I am prohibited from test driving any of the cars at the dealership...because after all, I only went there to "look" at a few cars.

Laughable. Laughable, I say.

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.

Syllogism test..

1. Luke says Jesus first appeared to Simon, but no other Gospels even hint at it, at all.

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

Non sequitur.

*Aristotle has left the chat*

Not in the least. As I recall I was the one to clarify that James (brother of Jesus) was NOT James son of Zebedee.

Oh, is that right? Might have to check the archives on that one.

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

I am enjoying myself too.

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.

Hey, if that is the way you feel.

Well, yes, that is what the contradictions do - call into question what the others wrote. This is why the contradictions have to be striking - not just how many angels but whether there were any. Yes, If John says nothing about angels when the women first arrive ()the mention of angels later on is nothing to do with it and it does your case no good to pretend that they are) no message is given and when the report back to discipl;es and have no idea what Jesus is. All that is a strong contradiction to the synoptics story.

It's the same thing with the supposed appearance to Simon 'first'. That's an important occurrence and nobody desribes it - not even Luke.

These are significant cracks in the story, despite your attempt to laugh them off, by misrepresenting them.

Even your argument about the women going to the tomb is strawman (I won't strawman your absurd malanalogy by saying that any lawyer would ruin the credibility of a witness who claimed they went to look at a car -dealers when they had just lost a son) because the various differing explanations about the tomb being open suggests that (as with the whole story) that the circumstances around the the claim (an empty tomb) may not have been so reliably agreed as the Bible apologists would like us to believe.

[Difflugia]

Wow. The third non sequitur on the same talking point.

The non sequitur is a straw man of your own creation because the angel's mere presence or absence alone isn't the most important detail of TRANSPONDER's argument. Even if we posit the absurdity that Matthew's angel story fits between John 20:1 and 2, that doesn't rescue the actual contradiction that TRANSPONDER is explaining to you. Matthew 28:5-7 and John 20:2 contradict whether the angel was there or not. In John, Mary runs to Peter and tells him that "they" took the body of Jesus and she has no idea where it is now. In Matthew, Mary does know where Jesus' body went. First, the angel told her that "he is risen" and second, she talked to Jesus on the way home. No matter what word games you want to play, the character of Mary at John 20:2 would know that "they" didn't take the body and she would know where it was, because she was told that Jesus rose from the dead and then interacted with him in the flesh on the way home.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you. Yes, it is a strawman misrepresentation of this single point about John contradicting the Synoptics about an angel at the tomb first thing (the two showing up in John later on are irrelevant) which in fact is a valid contradiction, but it's even more of one that no explanation is given to Mary that Jesus is risen. Let alone another contradiction with Matthew's account of the women running into Jesus on the way to report to the disciples.

These are valid and legitimate reasons to think that the writers did not know what the others had written and the contradictions call their accounts into question

There's also a side point about the contradictions about the women going to the tomb. As I worked out on the 'Easter traditions' thread, they could have prepared pots of gunk on the Sunday evening and night (they shouldn't on the sabbath and maybe that's why Matthew dropped that and just says they went to gawp at the rock door) but that they'd stay all through the Saturday sabbath, pounded myrrh and aloes and potted them during the night and set out at dawn hardly makes it likely that Venom's grief -stricken excuse for them not realising they would be not able to get in is going to wash.

Incidentally, the author of the Gospel of Peter seems to have resolved this problem by saying that the women planned to go and just shy their pots of goop at the rock door

".. yet now at his tomb we may do these things. [53] But who will roll away for us even the stone placed against the door of the tomb in order that, having entered, we may sit beside him and do the expected things? [54] For the stone was large, and we were afraid lest anyone see us. And if we are unable, let is throw against the door what we bring in memory of him;" (gospel of Peter)

[Goat]

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".

Well, no, not at all. Transponder is his own person. I am mine. This is my point, not his.

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.
[/quote]

Nope. not at all. For one, Antiquties 20, you can also point out that a 'christ' in the Jewish tradition is also the high priest, who gets anointed in the temple every year.

So, you can point out that that James being the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. would fit just as well.

[We_Are_VENOM]

The non sequitur is a straw man of your own creation because the angel's mere presence or absence alone isn't the most important detail of TRANSPONDER's argument.

The fact that multiple non sequiturs were made by TRANSPONDER, is independent of the importance of the details.

Even if we posit the absurdity that Matthew's angel story fits between John 20:1 and 2, that doesn't rescue the actual contradiction that TRANSPONDER is explaining to you.

Such as?

Matthew 28:5-7 and John 20:2 contradict whether the angel was there or not.

Actually, it doesn't.

All it takes is a little reading comprehension.

The only contradictions that exists, are the ones in your brain.

John doesn't mention an angel in verses 1-2, because Mary had apparently (very quickly) ran apart from the group in a distressed panic to tell the disciples that the tomb was open.

Now, how did she know that the tomb was empty? I don't know.

Maybe she simply assumed that it was. Lucky guess. I don't know.

But obviously, since John's account doesn't mention the other women at ALL, should be enough to let us know that the narrative is from MARY MAGDELENE'S PERSPECTIVE.

And at that point in the story, she knew of no angels in or around the tomb, so none are mentioned.

But that DOESN'T exclude the women that were left behind at the tomb after Mary left, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. So the story continues...

After Mary LEAVES, the story continues at the tomb, and that is where Matthew 28:5-7 comes in to play, where the women who were left behind (after Mary's departure) speak to the angel who sat on the stone, and are prompted to go inside the tomb.

When they go inside the tomb, they see a young man sitting on sitting on the right side (Mark 16:5).

And as they are standing there trying to gather their thoughts on that, two other men suddenly appear to them (Luke 24:4).

Then the women are prompted to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee.

See how that works?

In John, Mary runs to Peter and tells him that "they" took the body of Jesus and she has no idea where it is now.

Again, she had left before she was told where Jesus' body was.

I don't know.

But admittedly, that is indeed the most difficult thing to explain in the entire account.

In Matthew, Mary does know where Jesus' body went.

Um, no. According to John, we can determine that Mary Magdalene had left the scene before they spoke to any angel...so no, she did not know where Jesus' body went.

First, the angel told her that "he is risen"

Not Mary Magdalene, but the other Mary (mother of James).

and second, she talked to Jesus on the way home. No matter what word games you want to play, the character of Mary at John 20:2 would know that "they" didn't take the body and she would know where it was, because she was told that Jesus rose from the dead and then interacted with him in the flesh on the way home.

Yeah, she talked to Jesus AFTER she visited the tomb for a second time.

She had apparently trailed Peter and John after they ran to the tomb to see what she was talking about...and the events of John 20:3-18 took place AFTER the other women had already left and had their encounters with the angels.

Like I said, reading comprehension.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Well, no, not at all. Transponder is his own person. I am mine. This is my point, not his.

Yet, you are still missing something.

The topic isn't about whether or not angels actually exists, per se.

But rather whether the stories jive, in general.

However, your opinions on the matter is noted.

Nope. not at all. For one, Antiquties 20, you can also point out that a 'christ' in the Jewish tradition is also the high priest, who gets anointed in the temple every year.

In Hebrew, "Christ" means Messiah.

But that aside, Jesus sure is the Great High Priest (Heb 4:14-16)

So, you can point out that that James being the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. would fit just as well.

?

[Goat]

Well, no, not at all. Transponder is his own person. I am mine. This is my point, not his.

Yet, you are still missing something.

The topic isn't about whether or not angels actually exists, per se.

But rather whether the stories jive, in general.

However, your opinions on the matter is noted.

Nope. not at all. For one, Antiquties 20, you can also point out that a 'christ' in the Jewish tradition is also the high priest, who gets anointed in the temple every year.

In Hebrew, "Christ" means Messiah.

But that aside, Jesus sure is the Great High Priest (Heb 4:14-16)

So, you can point out that that James being the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. would fit just as well.

?

you are missing a HUGE thing. In the Jewish religion, which James, and Josephus were, the term Moishe , which was translated to Christ in the greek, has a specific meaning. It's cultural and religious meaning from the temple period. It means 'anointed one' (translated as 'wetted one' into the greek. In the culture, a messiah was someone who was annointed by oil in the temple. There were two people in the Jewish culture that were anointed by oil in the temple. One was the high priest, once a year. The other was the king.

The means a 'high priest' was a Messiah. the king of the Jews was another messiah. The hope for a messiah from the Jews was someone who did certain deeds, and also became King over the Jewish people that was a homegrown king, not a convert, not a foreigner, but someone from descended from David via Solomon.

Since James was discussing a messiah, (assuming the authenticity of the passage), from a cultural point of view in the 1st century c.e. , that would include Jesus of Damascus, who was a high priest.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_in_Judaism

The concept of messianism originated in Judaism,[1][2] and in the Hebrew Bible a messiah is a king or High Priest traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil.[3] However, messiahs were not exclusively Jewish, as the Hebrew Bible refers to Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, as a messiah[4] for his decree to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple.