Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Aetixintro
Site Supporter
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Has thanked: 431 times
Been thanked: 27 times
Contact:

Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #1

Post by Aetixintro »

Mattman wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 8:26 am 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?
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #111

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:20 pm You are ether deep in blinkered denial or just messing me about.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:11 pm 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.

Again, reading comprehension.
Moderator Comment

Both of you, please debate without making comments about another.

Please review the Rules.



______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #112

Post by TRANSPONDER »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:11 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:20 pm 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.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:20 pm 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.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:20 pm , 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.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:20 pm 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???
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:20 pm 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 O:) . 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.

:approve:
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:20 pm 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.
:|
You addressed it and I refuted it. I do so again. The angels turning up later at the tomb and giving no message does not reconcile John with the synoptics where the angel or angels are at the tomb first thing and give a message. Moreover Matthew says the two Marys (Luke says there were other women) ran into Jesus but John says that Mary saying 'We' (familiarity with Bible would tell you what I means by 'We') . The contradictions are clear, obvious and connot be explained away, especially by posting 'What?'

And that I'm rather surprised to see is all that your argument is. Done, dumped and dusted, I'd say. You don't appear to have an argument at all. Just repeating already refuted points and posting queries.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #113

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Goat wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:43 pm I already showed you that the high priest was a 'christ'.
Actually, you didn't show me anything...as what you said is false.

Show me where a high priest was referred to as a "christ".

Show me.

As everyone knows, "Christ" is a title used synonymously with Jesus of Nazareth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_(title)#Etymology

In fact, the only high priest we have and NEED in Christianity is Jesus Christ..as Hebrews chapter 7 and 8 illustrates.
Goat wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:43 pm If you noticed, in that paragraph, Jesus is not called 'lord', but only 'Christ'
Lord, Christ, Savior, Master, Teacher, Shepard, Bread of Life, Redeemer, High Priest, King of Kings, Lord of Lords..

Would you like the list to go on and on and on with all the names Jesus was "called"?
Goat wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:43 pm 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.
Nonsense.

Jesus, son of Damneus...do you know what "son of Damneus" means?

That is an identifier, to distinguish him from all of the other Jesus' walking around..which would be similar to two men named Michael, with one named Michael Jackson to distinguish him from..lets say..a MICHAEL JORDAN.

The Jesus, son of Damneus wasn't called Christ...not in Josephus' histories, or in ANY histories...but the Jesus, brother of James, was called Christ.

So please, stop it.
Last edited by We_Are_VENOM on Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #114

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:38 pm You addressed it and I refuted it. I do so again. The angels turning up later at the tomb and giving no message does not reconcile John with the synoptics where the angel or angels are at the tomb first thing and give a message.
Well again, I already answered this...and until I get a direct response to what I said, then as far as I'm concerned, what I said stands and I am concluding that you don't have anything for it.

Like I said, failing to address what I said won't make it go away.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:38 pm Moreover Matthew says the two Marys (Luke says there were other women) ran into Jesus but John says that Mary saying 'We' (familiarity with Bible would tell you what I means by 'We') . The contradictions are clear, obvious and connot be explained away, especially by posting 'What?'
I already addressed this as well. Like I said, I need direct responses to what I said.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:38 pm And that I'm rather surprised to see is all that your argument is. Done, dumped and dusted, I'd say. You don't appear to have an argument at all. Just repeating already refuted points and posting queries.
Actually, your responses have gotten less and less lengthy.

Why?

Because the truth cannot be rebutted.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #115

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

The Nice Centurion wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 12:50 am Enlighten us. Proof, please!?
Matt 13:55

"Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas"
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #116

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:20 am
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.
Reading comprehension.

Like, seriously. Just sad.

If Jesus (called Christ) was the same Jesus as the one identified as son of Damneus, why wouldn't the identifier "son of Damneus" be used during the initial introduction of Jesus (called the Christ)?

Makes no sense, unless we have two men named Jesus, each with a different identifier...one called the Christ, and one son of Damneus.

No wonder it is so difficult to accept Jesus as the risen Savior, when you don't even want accept the fact that the man had a brother named James.

SMH.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #117

Post by Goat »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:19 pm
Goat wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:43 pm I already showed you that the high priest was a 'christ'.
Actually, you didn't show me anything...as what you said is false.

Show me where a high priest was referred to as a "christ".
it.
Why. lets' go through it again.

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.
[/quote]

aND https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_(title)
The concept of the Christ in Christianity originated from the concept of the messiah in Judaism

So, Josephus was Jewish. He would not be using the christian concept. He might use the Greek work for anointed, which is Christ (literally it means 'wetted).

So the term Christ in Greek is messiah is Hebrew, and in the Hebrew bible a messiah is a king or high priest.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #118

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Goat wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 12:15 am Why. lets' go through it again.

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.
Um, no.

You were challenged to show proof that high priests were called a "christ", because that was your original (false) claim.

So since you failed do so, I will conclude that the claim was false and jot it down as yet another false piece of information that I had to set straight.

Second, sure, the messiah was to be a high priest and no one is disputing that...I even shared Hebrews 7 and 8 which attest to the fact that Jesus is the High Priest..and you blatantly ignored it, yet maintaining this high priest stuff as if it is a point of contention, which it isn't.

The messiah was to be a high priest, but every high priest was not to be the messiah..which is why only one person was called Christ...Jesus.

There were PLENTY high priests that came and went, and neither one of them had the "Christ" title following them around wherever they went...except one.

JESUS :D
The concept of the Christ in Christianity originated from the concept of the messiah in Judaism
Sure, it was prophesied in Judaism and fulfilled in Christianity.

And?
So, Josephus was Jewish. He would not be using the christian concept. He might use the Greek work for anointed, which is Christ (literally it means 'wetted).
What do you mean might use? How about did use?

Because that is what he used.

And i already addressed Josephus' usage of "called Christ" and you've offered no response to it, so as far as im concerned it stands.
So the term Christ in Greek is messiah is Hebrew, and in the Hebrew bible a messiah is a king or high priest.
.....

Here, hold this L and lets keep it moving.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #119

Post by TRANSPONDER »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:25 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:38 pm You addressed it and I refuted it. I do so again. The angels turning up later at the tomb and giving no message does not reconcile John with the synoptics where the angel or angels are at the tomb first thing and give a message.
Well again, I already answered this...and until I get a direct response to what I said, then as far as I'm concerned, what I said stands and I am concluding that you don't have anything for it.

Like I said, failing to address what I said won't make it go away.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:38 pm Moreover Matthew says the two Marys (Luke says there were other women) ran into Jesus but John says that Mary saying 'We' (familiarity with Bible would tell you what I means by 'We') . The contradictions are clear, obvious and connot be explained away, especially by posting 'What?'
I already addressed this as well. Like I said, I need direct responses to what I said.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:38 pm And that I'm rather surprised to see is all that your argument is. Done, dumped and dusted, I'd say. You don't appear to have an argument at all. Just repeating already refuted points and posting queries.
Actually, your responses have gotten less and less lengthy.

Why?

Because the truth cannot be rebutted.
Can you tell me what point you made that isn't fully answered by my response, because i can't think of anything relevant. Angels turning up later do not address the problem. I have refuted attempts to argue that one or other of the Marys somehow didn't see the angel or hear the message. I really don't know what useful response you can make other that, 'sure there is a serious contradiction between John and the synoptics'.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #120

Post by TRANSPONDER »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:39 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:20 am
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.
Reading comprehension.

Like, seriously. Just sad.

If Jesus (called Christ) was the same Jesus as the one identified as son of Damneus, why wouldn't the identifier "son of Damneus" be used during the initial introduction of Jesus (called the Christ)?

Makes no sense, unless we have two men named Jesus, each with a different identifier...one called the Christ, and one son of Damneus.

No wonder it is so difficult to accept Jesus as the risen Savior, when you don't even want accept the fact that the man had a brother named James.

SMH.
#110 set out the passage. Jesus son of Damnaeus is identified as the person made the High priest. I know that some deny it, but argument is that the previous mention of Jesus also relates to Jesus son of Damnaus and the reference to Jesus known as the Christ is likely a gloss by a Christian editor since the story seems to have no relevance to Gospel Jesus.

Lucceius Albinus 62–64

this Roman governor, named in the account, is obviously governor of Judea long after Jesus' time.

Post Reply