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?

[We_Are_VENOM]

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 catch on quick.

You then described the first action of the narrative using the present tense to draw me into the story ("I fly...").

Or...I "walked". I "rode". I "teleported".

Either way, the picture is being painted.

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."

Okkk.

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.

I get the impression that most people who writes stuff down wants to be understood, unless the purpose is to mislead someone.

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.

And?

"Behold! A great earthquake happened!"

It did.

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.

The airport is arbitrary.

The same conversation could have taken place inside of a taxi cab in route to the arena.

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

Obviously, more context is added once the story continues.

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?

With all due respect, I fail to see the point or relevance.

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.

Um, no.

The mistake 90% of the people make when analyzing the accounts are; assuming that the women were present at the same time, together, throughout the entire account(s).

John is essentially saying "No, no. That isn't quite what happened...you see, Mary broke off from the group early".

And this isn't me reaching, or grasping at stuff that isn't there.

That is, in fact, what John is saying...and once you take that into consideration, the contradiction fades away.

Admittedly, I also fell into the 90%...something was definitely wrong...but after you guys pushed me in to providing an answer, I did my due diligence with a very strong and CAREFUL analysis...and all things considered, I had one of the best revelations I've ever had when researching Biblical texts.

So, what it is worth...thank you guys

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

He gave his account according to what was reported to him. It is apparent that his account is from a different perspective than Mary Magdalene.

Matthew may have gotten his account from one of the other women who were present at the tomb.

Different perspectives of the same event. It happens all the time, and you can ask anyone who has ever interviewed eyewitnesses and they will tell you the same thing.

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

Opinions.

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.

Point conceded.

[Difflugia]

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.

?

Do you not understand why the prepositional phrase is important?

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

And?

And you established the setting using the same literary means that Matthew did, you expect to be understood (and you were), but you also claim that it didn't mean the same thing when Matthew did it.

The airport is arbitrary.

The same conversation could have taken place inside of a taxi cab in route to the arena.

Yes. You could have said that it took place anywhere, but you said that it took place in the airport. Matthew said that his events took place at the tomb.

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?

With all due respect, I fail to see the point or relevance.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. If you did (or were willing to admit that you do, anyway), we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. There's no reasonable way to interpret the above story with We_Are_VENOM missing for part of it. If that's what I meant as an author, then it's not the readers that have the problem, but my poor writing skills. Matthew 28:1-5 is written exactly the same way.

The mistake 90% of the people make when analyzing the accounts are; assuming that the women were present at the same time, together, throughout the entire account(s).

It's not an assumption if Matthew tells us that the women came to the tomb in the first place. The only mistake here is by those unwilling to take Matthew at his word to understand what he meant.

John is essentially saying "No, no. That isn't quite what happened...you see, Mary broke off from the group early".

No, you are essentially saying that. In John, Mary Magdalene wasn't part of a group. No other women are mentioned in John's tomb story.

And this isn't me reaching, or grasping at stuff that isn't there.

No other women are mentioned in John's tomb story.

That is, in fact, what John is saying...and once you take that into consideration, the contradiction fades away.

Was Mary Magdalene "in fact" a lizard alien? John doesn't say that she wasn't and that seems to be your criterion. If John is responding to the Synoptics (rather than simply based on a different tradition), then he's saying "No, no. That isn't quite what happened... you see, Mary Magdalene was the only woman at the tomb that morning." That's what John's story actually says without "reaching, or grasping at stuff that isn't there."

Admittedly, I also fell into the 90%...something was definitely wrong...but after you guys pushed me in to providing an answer, I did my due diligence with a very strong and CAREFUL analysis...and all things considered, I had one of the best revelations I've ever had when researching Biblical texts.

So, what it is worth...thank you guys

Glad to help.

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

He gave his account according to what was reported to him. It is apparent that his account is from a different perspective than Mary Magdalene.

Matthew may have gotten his account from one of the other women who were present at the tomb.

So, did Matthew not actually know that Mary Magdalene scampered off and came back between verses 4 and 5? Did the Holy Spirit make sure that even though he was mistaken, he still managed to keep what he wrote inerrant by some set of puzzle rules?

I mean, if we can add anything we want and we can posit that the original author didn't have to know about it, we can turn any Bible story into nearly anything we want, lizard aliens and all. It's kind of like the fortune cookie trick where you add "in bed" and see what you get. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife UNLESS SHE'S INTO IT!"

Different perspectives of the same event. It happens all the time, and you can ask anyone who has ever interviewed eyewitnesses and they will tell you the same thing.

They don't usually claim that the stories are inerrant, though.

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

Opinions.

UNLESS SHE'S INTO IT!

[We_Are_VENOM]

Do you not understand why the prepositional phrase is important?

What I understand is; your theory fails in light of John's account.

And you established the setting using the same literary means that Matthew did, you expect to be understood (and you were), but you also claim that it didn't mean the same thing when Matthew did it.

See, that is where you are WRONG, Diff.

The whole point behind the analogy was to prove that it IS the same thing...otherwise, there would have been no point of giving the analogy.

Yes. You could have said that it took place anywhere, but you said that it took place in the airport. Matthew said that his events took place at the tomb.

Obviously, the removal of the stone took place at the tomb.

The point of contention is; whether or not the women were present as the stone was being removed.

You say they weren't, I say they were.

I would be inclined to agree with you, if it weren't for John's account.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. If you did (or were willing to admit that you do, anyway), we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. There's no reasonable way to interpret the above story with We_Are_VENOM missing for part of it. If that's what I meant as an author, then it's not the readers that have the problem, but my poor writing skills. Matthew 28:1-5 is written exactly the same way.

?

It's not an assumption if Matthew tells us that the women came to the tomb in the first place. The only mistake here is by those unwilling to take Matthew at his word to understand what he meant.

The women coming to see the tomb, and the women being present once the stone was removed are the points of contention.

No, you are essentially saying that. In John, Mary Magdalene wasn't part of a group. No other women are mentioned in John's tomb story.

Syllogism test.

1. No other women are mentioned in John's tomb story.

2. Therefore, no other women were present at the tomb.

Non sequitur.

Your logical reasoning is fallacious, is what I am trying to say.

No other women are mentioned in John's tomb story.

1. No other women are mentioned in John's tomb story.

2. Therefore, no other women were present at the tomb.

It does not follow.

You repeated the same non sequitur, so I repeated the same failed syllogism.

Was Mary Magdalene "in fact" a lizard alien? John doesn't say that she wasn't and that seems to be your criterion.

Yeah, John doesn't say that she wasn't but guess what, John doesn't say that she was, either.

I am not basing the idea that other women were present on John's account...I am basing it on the account of the other three.

We have four Gospels for a reason and if you can use them to suit your fancy for raised objections...then I can use them to suit mines for elegant harmonizations.

If John is responding to the Synoptics (rather than simply based on a different tradition), then he's saying "No, no. That isn't quite what happened... you see, Mary Magdalene was the only woman at the tomb that morning." That's what John's story actually says without "reaching, or grasping at stuff that isn't there."

Yeah that's cute but the problem you have with that theory is gleaming..

John doesn't say that Mary Magdalene was the only woman present at the tomb, does he?

That is what you are implying because it helps your "this book contradicts that book" case.

But that is not what John says, or even implies.

Unless you can draw such conclusion based on some kind of inference..your theory holds no weight in light of the other three.

Unlike your example of what John said, mines actually was geared towards his actual narrative.

Take note of things like that for future reference.

Glad to help.

So, did Matthew not actually know that Mary Magdalene scampered off and came back between verses 4 and 5? Did the Holy Spirit make sure that even though he was mistaken, he still managed to keep what he wrote inerrant by some set of puzzle rules?

False premise.

Mary did not come back between verses 4 and 5.

Mary left (according to John) leaving the other women at the tomb.

According to Luke, their may have been multiple women present at the tomb.

I mean, if we can add anything we want and we can posit that the original author didn't have to know about it, we can turn any Bible story into nearly anything we want, lizard aliens and all. It's kind of like the fortune cookie trick where you add "in bed" and see what you get. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife UNLESS SHE'S INTO IT!"

First off, no one is adding anything.

John said Mary left, so I am concluding that she left.

No other Gospel contradicts Mary's early departure...so you cant appeal to any "John says she left, but X Gospel says she was there the entire time" business.

Nope, you cant, because it isn't there.

They don't usually claim that the stories are inerrant, though.

With good reasons..because their stories ain't the GOSPEL truth.

UNLESS SHE'S INTO IT!

Well, in that case..

[Goat]

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.

......

Yet, what you can't do is show that the person references in Antiquities is the same person mentioned in the gospels.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Yet, what you can't do is show that the person references in Antiquities is the same person mentioned in the gospels.

Well if what I already showed you aint good enough then I don't know what to tell ya.

"Fetus 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;"

We learn in the Gospels and at least one book of the New Testament, that James was Jesus' brother.

Unless you can prove these things...

1 There was another Jesus (besides Jesus of Nazareth)...

2. Of whom was called "Christ" or "Lord"...

3. Of whom also had a brother named James.

You have to check all three OFF...which you can't.

Here, hold this L.

[Diogenes]

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

Not in the least. We can start with Josh McDowell, a journalist who knows nothing about what he reports and tries to act as if he is a lawyer/historian. He is neither and is not worth responding to.
Craig is highly biased and employs a debating style similar to convicted felon (for lying) Kent Hovind, who throws out his machine gun scattering of nonsense so fast it is mistaken for evidence as he laughingly tries to support the silliness of a 6000 year old Earth and dinosaurs living at the same time as men.

As for "Biblical archeology," time after time it has been shown by real scholars to prove many of the Biblical accounts of history are false.

Among the problems: No direct archaeological evidence has been found to prove that the Children of Israel were in Egypt. Similarly, no direct evidence has been found to prove that they wandered in the wilderness for 40 years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 59d57cbb7/

The copies of the NT are copies of copies. No one has found originals. Much of the NT is based on forgeries that claim X wrote something he did not. The so called 'eye witnesses' offer conflicting and contradictory accounts, and are generally anonymous.
No 'facts' support the 'testimony' of the 'resurrection.' One should keep in mind that extraordinary claims about supernatural events require extraordinarily reliable evidence. None has been provided. The reader should also keep in mind the pre-rational and pre-scientific mindset of the biased authors of an era 2000 years ago when people believed in Zeus, demons, Baal, angels, ghosts, unicorns, fairies and other mythological creatures.

It's always fascinated me how orthodox Christians believe such nonsense, but not the gibberish of Joseph Smith's non existent 'golden tablets' and his odd angel Moroni. One is as good as the other.

[JoeyKnothead]

Here, hold this L.

Of course it'd be you in possession of it.

[Goat]

3. Of whom also had a brother named James.

You have to check all three OFF...which you can't.

Here, hold this L.

Why .. let's look at the entire paragraph, so we can do what is known as 'Look at things in context'. That way we can get the entire statement form Josephus (it it wasn't modified that is.)

It is

1. [A.D. 61.] And now Cesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the King deprived Joseph of the High Priesthood; and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes, that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man. For he had five sons, who had all performed the office of an High Priest to God; and who had himself injoyed that dignity a long time formerly: which had never happened to any other of our High Priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the High Priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent. He was also of the sect of the Sadducees: (26) who are very rigid in judging offenders above all the rest of the Jews: as we have already observed.9 When therefore Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead; and Albinus was but upon the road. So he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James: and some others; [or, some of his companions.] And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. (27) But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done. They also sent to the King [Agrippa,] desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more: for that what he had already done was not to be justified. Nay some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria; and informed him, that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complyed with what they said; and wrote in anger to Ananus; and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done. On which account King Agrippa took the High Priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months; and made Jesus, the son of Damneus High Priest.

I already showed you that the high priest was a 'christ'. If you noticed, in that paragraph, Jesus is not called 'lord', but only 'Christ'

A high priest is Christ, and the proper Jesus who was an anointed one is mentioned, directly in the paragraph. That is Jeuss, son of Damneus. No need to rely on any other writing or document, since is stated, right there.

[The Nice Centurion]

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...

Enlighten us. Proof, please!?

[TRANSPONDER]

3. Of whom also had a brother named James.

You have to check all three OFF...which you can't.

Here, hold this L.

Why .. let's look at the entire paragraph, so we can do what is known as 'Look at things in context'. That way we can get the entire statement form Josephus (it it wasn't modified that is.)

It is

1. [A.D. 61.] And now Cesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the King deprived Joseph of the High Priesthood; and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes, that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man. For he had five sons, who had all performed the office of an High Priest to God; and who had himself injoyed that dignity a long time formerly: which had never happened to any other of our High Priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the High Priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent. He was also of the sect of the Sadducees: (26) who are very rigid in judging offenders above all the rest of the Jews: as we have already observed.9 When therefore Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead; and Albinus was but upon the road. So he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James: and some others; [or, some of his companions.] And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. (27) But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done. They also sent to the King [Agrippa,] desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more: for that what he had already done was not to be justified. Nay some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria; and informed him, that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complyed with what they said; and wrote in anger to Ananus; and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done. On which account King Agrippa took the High Priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months; and made Jesus, the son of Damneus High Priest.

I already showed you that the high priest was a 'christ'. If you noticed, in that paragraph, Jesus is not called 'lord', but only 'Christ'

A high priest is Christ, and the proper Jesus who was an anointed one is mentioned, directly in the paragraph. That is Jeuss, son of Damneus. No need to rely on any other writing or document, since is stated, right there.

Thanks for posting the relevant passage. It is only too probable thatb the whole thing relates to the sons of Damnaeuis, Jesus and James, and that Jesus, made High priest by the Roman governor, can hardly be the Jesus of the gospels. So however the 'Christ' got in there, this doesn't look as though it's about Gospel Jesus at all.