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]

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

Um, no. When you read the narratives with an open mind, you will see that angels were appearing on various occasions.

Just because one accounts states that an angel sat at the right side, but mentions nothing about the angel that sat on the stone...does NOT mean that therefore, no angel sat on the stone.

It just means that the angel who sat on the stone wasn't mentioned.

Again, this is a non sequitur that you continue to make...so my response will simply be "non sequitur" from now on.

, but it's even more of one that no explanation is given to Mary that Jesus is risen.

The fact that Jesus appeared to Mary (John 20:16), was the only explanation that was needed.

Let alone another contradiction with Matthew's account of the women running into Jesus on the way to report to the disciples.

Nonsense.

Matthew 28:9 occurred after the events of John 20:16.

When Jesus appeared to Mary and told her to tell the brothers, the other women were already in route to tell the disciples that Jesus had risen (after their earlier encounter with the angels at the tomb).

Jesus had apparently appeared to Mary FIRST and after she left he then appeared to the women while they were in route 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

Yeah, that's funny...considering that mainstream scholarship are under the impression that the writers DID know what the others had written...thus; the synoptic problem.

But that aside, any police detective will tell you that when they are conducting interviews with witnesses pertaining to the same event, it is a matter of piecing together all of the accounts to form one cohesive account...which can be challenging, yet obtainable goal.

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.

If I ever lose my son, I could care less what people thought about my rationale or actions, especially not ones who are giving their opinions some 2,000 years later on religious debating forums.

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

Gospel of Peter? What is that? Ohhh, you mean the fake gospel of Peter that was written so long after the fact that it wasn't included in the canon?

Oh yeah, that.

".. 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)

We don't appeal to false gospels over here. What about you?

No. And I cannot believe you are being obtuse. You are ether deep in blinkered denial or just messing me about. The point is that no angels in John gave any message to Mary, whichever it was (John says 'we do not know') and that means that John contradicts the synoptics even if you claim that angels were around somewhere.

It makes no difference or even worse that (according to Matthew) they run into Jesus who (rather pointlessly) reiterates the angelic message, as they still do not know (according to John) what has become of Jesus.

Your statement that John's angel (in fact two) in the tomb is all that is needed, is worse than blinkered denial. It is impudence. It in no way addresses the contradiction between an angelic message at the tomb (first thing) and No message.

Yes. I know that many scholars (and laypersons) do argue that Matthew knew Mark or even that Luke knew Matthew. And even that Luke and John knew each others' work. I argue that the discrepancies are so grave that it is a legitimate argument that they couldn't have known what the others had written, but they could have used common material. If you want to laugh it away and point to Authority, feel free . I doubt that you will be the only one. For quite some time I've been struggling with closed minds..."but, but...that's not what everyone says..." Even from the Bible skeptics. Especially Q document or questioning Markan priority, which is like talking heresy.

What you care or care less about is irrelevant. Especially what you consider true or false gospels. Admittedly, Peter is (some Authorities disagree) a late mixture of Matthew and Luke and should not really get the critical consideration of the Biblical 4. But it is a bit of a hoot, which is why I quoted it here.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

Red Herring.

Josephus said..20:9.1

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others.."
---------

Matthew said...13:55

55 "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
----------

Paul said...Gal 1:19

19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.."

---------

We have three, independent accounts that this person who was known by others as either "the Christ", or the "Lord", had a brother named James.

No more red herrings.

And, how does that change a thing about what I said? From the text of James, point to where the James who wrote that had other brothers. James was a very common name. Let's see you show that it is actually the same James, rather than James, brother of the high priest.

I gave a thumbs - up to one of Venom's posts because it made some good arguments. It's the only such one I have seen. The rest fall somewhere between denialist spamming and time -wasting impudence. I fully expect that someone will see that as Personal but it isn't; It is about the debating method - like the 'Gish Gallop'. it isn't quite like that but fillibustering, I think.

'Nonsense' or 'opinion' or irrelevant mentions of an angel or a James which doesn't even address the point. It's familiar. I have seen theist apologists (nearly all of them) who go through the three stages:

1. Apologetics
2. Denial
3. Sauce.

Some run away after 1 (deep dive). some stick with persistent 2 (irrelevancies, misdirection and spamming), and some seem to relish what i call 'Wind up an atheist for Jesus'.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Yes he does. We (as readers) and the women are "beholding" the events occurring. The angel arriving causes the earthquake after the women arrive, then moves the stone out of the way, then sits on the stone. Translations variously represent this sequence of events and often try to present them as more ambiguous in the interest of easier harmonization, but that the events are sequential and the women are experiencing them are explicit in Matthew.

This keeps coming up in conversations quibbling about verb tenses, but Matthew 28:1-8 is a single narrative sequence of aorist verbs. The specific apologetic argument that you're making relies on ambiguity in English translation that isn't in the Greek. In Greek narration, a series of aorist indicative verbs is used to represent a sequence of events in story order. Other tenses and aspects are used for items outside of the sequence, but a list of aorist verbs is understood to be sequenntial. Verse 1 establishes the setting and the first of the events:

• Now after the Sabbath, being the dawn of the first day of the week,
• Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.

Verse 2 continues the narrative:

• Behold! (Literally "look." The readers and characters are experiencing the events together.) A huge earthquake happened!
• For a descending angel of the Lord, arriving, rolled away the stone...

"Descending" and "arriving" (or "coming") are both aorist and participles. Aorist means that it's happening at this point in the story and participle means that the verbs are used as adjectives. The cause of the earthquake is a descending-and-arriving angel rolling away the stone at this point in the progression of the story.

Both aorist and imperfect are used in narrative storytelling and a switch indicates a shift, sometimes subtle, in the action. Here, we switch from aorist indicative to a couple of imperfect verbs to update the setting slightly.

• ...and sat upon it.
• His countenance was like lightning and clothes white as snow.

The setting has now changed from the angel descending to the angel sitting on the stone in his glory, before a freshly opened tomb. The action now switches back to an aorist sequence.

• Now those guarding trembled from fear of him and they became as dead.
• Now answering, the angel said to the women...

The guards trembled and then fainted in that order. Switching his attention to the women, the angel then began to talk.

That is cute and all of that, but you got problems.

Let me just use a real life example.

Lets say Floyd Mayweather has a fight in Las Vegas at the MGM, and I fly in to Vegas to see the fight.

When I arrive at the airport, I see you there.

You: Heyyy, man. What brings you to Las Vegas today?

Me: Mannn, I flew here from Michigan. I came to see the fight.

Not only is the statement "I came to see the fight" made well before the time of the fight...but I am not even at the arena yet...and the statement is just as valid at the airport as it would be if I was at the arena entrance...or even front row/ringside.

So when Matthew states that the women came to see the tomb, it doesn't necessarily mean that they were there when the angel appeared and removed the stone. (keyword; necessarily)

I can see your point, but I can't rock with you there...in light of what John had to say about the matter.

To the contrary, naturally-reading English is just more ambiguous than the Greek. English that captured the full amount of information present in the Greek would be stilted ("then ... then ...") and more difficult to read, but the assumption that the Greek allows the same level of ambiguity is false, at least here.

Yeah, and naturally-reading English also states that when someone answers you, it presupposes that you spoke to them prior.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/answer

What do I mean?

Matthew 28:5

But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.

This wouldn't be anything worthy of notice, except for the fact that we don't have any preceding verses of the women speaking to the angel outside of the tomb.

But obviously, since the angel "answered" them, it is apparent that words were exchanged before the angel "answered" them.

What is the point?

The point is, we do not have a full play-by-play account of the event...and if Matthew left out something so minute...who knows what else he could have left out, i.e. Mary leaving early and separating from the group..

The bottom line is; we get a fuller, better account of what happen once we take all of the accounts together as a whole instead of nit picking one account...which is why I appeal to John, because those questions are answered.

Behold!

Yeah, behold the angel moving the stone before the arrival of the women.

See, that's where you are WRONG.

You can't prove it by me.

That's what I've been doing, one at a time. See, it takes much less time, effort and comment space for you to insult me and spout a bunch of unsupported claims than it does to adequately explain why you're so very, very wrong. In the space above, you could have impugned my reading comprehension and implied that I'm delusional dozens of times and still had space for six or eight ill-informed arguments. If the conversation isn't going fast enough for you, maybe you could help things along by limiting your arguments to just the good ones.

All of my arguments are good ones.

[We_Are_VENOM]

No. And I cannot believe you are being obtuse. You are ether deep in blinkered denial or just messing me about. The point is that no angels in John gave any message to Mary, whichever it was (John says 'we do not know') and that means that John contradicts the synoptics even if you claim that angels were around somewhere.

First off, I already addressed this; head on.

You ignoring my response won't make it go away..and for you to sit there and ignore my response while maintaining your inaccurate position is...disgusting.

It makes no difference or even worse that (according to Matthew) they run into Jesus who (rather pointlessly) reiterates the angelic message

See, that is where you are WRONG.

Again, reading comprehension.

Jesus did not pointlessly reiterates the angelic message.

Matthew states that the women left the tomb with fear and great joy, and then ran to tell the disciples (v.8).

However, when we read in Mark 16:8, we see that he confirms that the women left the tomb with trembling fear and amazement...however, still, they were AFRAID...so afraid that they didn't tell anything to ANYONE.

So apparently, after the women left the tomb they were experiencing mixed emotions, but more on the side of FEAR.

And that is when Jesus' appeared to them, apparently to dispel their fears and reassure them that everything was cool...and then he reiterated the angelic message for them to carry on with their report to the disciples.

See how that works?

Here, hold this L.

, as they still do not know (according to John) what has become of Jesus.

They? They who? You can't be talking about the other women besides Mary Magdelene, considering the fact that they aren't mentioned in John.

So what you are talking about here, I do not know. Sounds like a borderline strawman.

Your statement that John's angel (in fact two) in the tomb is all that is needed, is worse than blinkered denial. It is impudence. It in no way addresses the contradiction between an angelic message at the tomb (first thing) and No message.

What???

Yes. I know that many scholars (and laypersons) do argue that Matthew knew Mark or even that Luke knew Matthew. And even that Luke and John knew each others' work. I argue that the discrepancies are so grave that it is a legitimate argument that they couldn't have known what the others had written, but they could have used common material. If you want to laugh it away and point to Authority, feel free . I doubt that you will be the only one.

No, I commend you for going against the grain...something of which I am very familiar with.

For quite some time I've been struggling with closed minds..."but, but...that's not what everyone says..." Even from the Bible skeptics. Especially Q document or questioning Markan priority, which is like talking heresy.

What you care or care less about is irrelevant. Especially what you consider true or false gospels. Admittedly, Peter is (some Authorities disagree) a late mixture of Matthew and Luke and should not really get the critical consideration of the Biblical 4. But it is a bit of a hoot, which is why I quoted it here.

[We_Are_VENOM]

And, how does that change a thing about what I said? From the text of James, point to where the James who wrote that had other brothers. James was a very common name.

Syllogism test...

1. There are no known writings of James testifying to having other brothers.

2. Therefore, James had no other brothers.

Non sequitur. Test failed.

Let's see you show that it is actually the same James, rather than James, brother of the high priest.

My only point was; Jesus Christ had a brother named James. If there is any evidence against that, then I haven't seen it yet.

[The Nice Centurion]

The OPs "would be evidence" is heavily argued for in Richard Bauckham : Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
and in a Variation in Lee Strobel : The Case for Christ.

No argumentation that is any more serious than arguing that Sandokan really must have triumphed over Lord Brook 'cause Tremal Naik and Yanez de Gomera were eyewitnesses when he did.

Sorry, no bouquet for the OP here.

My only point was; Jesus Christ had a brother named James. If there is any evidence against that, then I haven't seen it yet.

No bouquet for your point either, 'cause it is heavily argued what "brother" in this context means.
Last scientifc consens as far as I know is, that every abrahamitic sect member was metapherically called "Brother of the Lord".

[We_Are_VENOM]

No bouquet for your point either, 'cause it is heavily argued what "brother" in this context means.
Last scientifc consens as far as I know is, that every abrahamitic sect member was metapherically called "Brother of the Lord".

Jesus had one actual brother named James...

[Goat]

And, how does that change a thing about what I said? From the text of James, point to where the James who wrote that had other brothers. James was a very common name.

Syllogism test...

1. There are no known writings of James testifying to having other brothers.

2. Therefore, James had no other brothers.

Non sequitur. Test failed.

Let's see you show that it is actually the same James, rather than James, brother of the high priest.

My only point was; Jesus Christ had a brother named James. If there is any evidence against that, then I haven't seen it yet.

Shrug. That does not counter the point made, because it is making unproven assumptions. The unproven assumption is that the James in the Letter of James is the same James that is mentioned in the gospels.

You have not established that.

For that matter, the cultured Greek that the letter was written in points to a native Greek speaker, not someone who would have grown up an even well to do family in Judah at the time.

[Difflugia]

That is cute and all of that, but you got problems.

Quixotic idealism?

Let me just use a real life example.

Lets say Floyd Mayweather has a fight in Las Vegas at the MGM, and I fly in to Vegas to see the fight.

So, in your real-life example, you've just used a standard literary convention of modern English to establish that your story is fictional or hypothetical ("Let's say..."). You then described the first action of the narrative using the present tense to draw me into the story ("I fly..."). You used the infinitive ("to see") to explain your motivation. Matthew did the same when he said that the women "came to see the tomb."

As your narrative unfolds and I use my reading comprehension to interpret it, the most important assumption that I am making is that you want to be understood. That's also the assumption that I make each time I read Matthew.

When I arrive at the airport,

This is a prepositional phrase to signal that the previous narrative sequence (though involving only one action) is complete by establishing a new setting for the next narrative sequence.

In your story, the setting is now the airport. Matthew 28:1 uses uncannily similar phrasing to place the setting at Jesus' tomb.

I see you there.

"Behold! A great earthquake happened!"

You: Heyyy, man. What brings you to Las Vegas today?

Me: Mannn, I flew here from Michigan. I came to see the fight.

You used English literary conventions that we both understand to create a narrative within a narrative. The characters are having a conversation in the setting that you already established, the airport.

Not only is the statement "I came to see the fight" made well before the time of the fight...but I am not even at the arena yet...and the statement is just as valid at the airport as it would be if I was at the arena entrance...or even front row/ringside.

That's what the prepositional phrases are for. Because the setting for your story wasn't "the fight," such a sentence as "I came to see the fight" could have been misunderstood without clarifying context. You added that context.

Here's a slightly different story that's more analogous to Matthew 28:1-5:

On the Sunday of the big Mayweather bout, We_Are_VENOM flies in to see the fight. Difflugia stands on his ringside seat and shouts, "Mayweather's a bum!" This earns him many boos and calls to "shut up" from nearby spectators. He turns to We_Are_VENOM and says, "you agree with me, right?"

For which events was We_Are_VENOM present? Are you going to argue that maybe We_Are_VENOM was still flying in when Difflugia stood on his seat? Did he arrive just in time to hear the question? If that were my intent as author, would you think the story was well-written?

Do you think Matthew 28 is well-written?

I seem to keep having the same conversation with apologists. You've written a story that you expect to be understood in order to justify intentionally misunderstanding one of the Evangelists.

So when Matthew states that the women came to see the tomb, it doesn't necessarily mean that they were there when the angel appeared and removed the stone. (keyword; necessarily)

It does if we assume that Matthew wasn't trying to be misunderstood. Do you think he was?

I can see your point, but I can't rock with you there...in light of what John had to say about the matter.

That's because if you read both exactly as the authors wrote them, they contradict.

But obviously, since the angel "answered" them, it is apparent that words were exchanged before the angel "answered" them.

The word more broadly means "responded" in the sense of responding to a situation. As he does here, Matthew also used it in that sense in 11:25 and 17:4.

All of my arguments are good ones.

Of course.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Shrug. That does not counter the point made, because it is making unproven assumptions. The unproven assumption is that the James in the Letter of James is the same James that is mentioned in the gospels.

You have not established that.

First off, you are attacking scarecrows (strawman) here, because I never argued for or against the authorship of James' epistle.

My only point was simple; the aforementioned accounts, mentions Jesus Christ in the context of having a brother named James...making all accounts supplementary.

Who wrote the epistle of James is irrelevant at this point.

For that matter, the cultured Greek that the letter was written in points to a native Greek speaker, not someone who would have grown up an even well to do family in Judah at the time.

......