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]

For example all of it comes basically to "love your neighbor as yourself", is that sound?

No, I don't think that it is sound. Love is not something you can turn on and off like a tap. Feeling of love are engendered and the actions of enemies are hardly likely to achieve that. You might be able to show tolerance or forgiveness for their actions towards you as an enemy, but not true love. People might tout that sort of rhetoric but I am sure that deep in their heart there would be no love.

Thank you. Interesting how we got off the evidence for the resurrection to the argument from morality...let's see... first trying to portray atheists as closed -minded and then appealing to us to be impressed by NT morality which even Christians see is impractical-even jesus didn't do it according to the story.

Those ploys aren't going to work, so perhaps back to topic? Not that we didn't already have a long thread on the resurrection. But then Christian apologists will present the same apologetics over and over.

[1213]

...If you followed the Quran, you would follow those teachings and a number of others. Why don't you?...

What rule for example?

[1213]

For example all of it comes basically to "love your neighbor as yourself", is that sound?

No, I don't think that it is sound. Love is not something you can turn on and off like a tap. Feeling of love are engendered and the actions of enemies are hardly likely to achieve that. You might be able to show tolerance or forgiveness for their actions towards you as an enemy, but not true love. People might tout that sort of rhetoric but I am sure that deep in their heart there would be no love.

Yes, and in that case I think you would not think it to be sound, even if you would be convinced that the Bible and God are true.

However, I think in Bible love is not a feeling, but more like caring attitude, means that one cares without conditions, which causes person to not do anything evil to others.

[TRANSPONDER]

...If you followed the Quran, you would follow those teachings and a number of others. Why don't you?...

What rule for example?

Dogmas rather: that Jesus was not son of God, nor divine, did not resurrect, the dietary Laws, praying as the Quran directs...all the stuff that God says you should do. You know, you've read it, or so you say.

For example all of it comes basically to "love your neighbor as yourself", is that sound?

No, I don't think that it is sound. Love is not something you can turn on and off like a tap. Feeling of love are engendered and the actions of enemies are hardly likely to achieve that. You might be able to show tolerance or forgiveness for their actions towards you as an enemy, but not true love. People might tout that sort of rhetoric but I am sure that deep in their heart there would be no love.

Yes, and in that case I think you would not think it to be sound, even if you would be convinced that the Bible and God are true.

However, I think in Bible love is not a feeling, but more like caring attitude, means that one cares without conditions, which causes person to not do anything evil to others.

That's the problem. 'Love' (caring) without conditions is a recipe for disaster. Christians know this and they never do it. It is simply a bait and switch swindle which dangles unattainable perfection in front of us and tries to out virtue-signal any practical morality we use. So why should we be persuaded by these impractical exhortations even when we don't believe the Bible, when not even Christians live that way, even though they believe it? Or at least the bits that suit them. Not even Jesus acted that way, though of course his immoderate outbursts and the mayhem in the Temple are excused as Love in a practical manifestation. No, the Bible apologists may fool themselves, but they can't fool me.

[1213]

Dogmas rather: that Jesus was not son of God, nor divine, did not resurrect, the dietary Laws, praying as the Quran directs...all the stuff that God says you should do. You know, you've read it, or so you say.

Where in the Quran it is said "Jesus was not son of God"? And why Quran then says we should believe Jesus? If Quran is really contradictory, as you suggest, why should I take it as you want and not as I want?

That's the problem. 'Love' (caring) without conditions is a recipe for disaster. Christians know this and they never do it. ..

Sorry, I disagree with that unsupported claim.

But, how it is a recipe for disaster?

[TRANSPONDER]

Dogmas rather: that Jesus was not son of God, nor divine, did not resurrect, the dietary Laws, praying as the Quran directs...all the stuff that God says you should do. You know, you've read it, or so you say.

Where in the Quran it is said "Jesus was not son of God"? And why Quran then says we should believe Jesus? If Quran is really contradictory, as you suggest, why should I take it as you want and not as I want?

That's the problem. 'Love' (caring) without conditions is a recipe for disaster. Christians know this and they never do it. ..

Sorry, I disagree with that unsupported claim.

But, how it is a recipe for disaster?

For the reasons I already said - if you do not set boundaries, you will be walked over. Christians know this and never do it. The Gospels is not good advice just for being in the Bible. Cafeteria Christians argue that this is a good thing to do - and it is, but it is not following the Bible, it is following following humanism but giving the Bible the credit.

And take this from the Quran
[4:157] And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

[4:171] O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.

For what valid reason do you reject the later revelation of God that corrects the mistakes of the older NT? I at least can give reasons why I don't believe either, what's your reason to believe one and not the other?

[1213]

...
For what valid reason do you reject the later revelation of God that corrects the mistakes of the older NT?...

It says Believe what Jesus said. If it contradicts then what Jesus says, I think it fails and I reject it, because of that error.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
For what valid reason do you reject the later revelation of God that corrects the mistakes of the older NT?...

It says Believe what Jesus said. If it contradicts then what Jesus says, I think it fails and I reject it, because of that error.

But the Muslims say that the Gospels are wrong because it contradicts what the Quran says. I haven't dug into their apologetics, but I would imagine they would agree that the facts have been fiddled by Pauline Christians not only to turn Jesus into God (blasphemy to both Jews and Muslims) but to have him resurrected. Though they differ from me in not rejecting the resurrection accounts as fabrication. Rather they opt for a body -double explanation. But then, God did send his Archangel to Muhhammad to tell him how it happened and that has to beat Pauline Christians fabricating their stories for credibility.

So, on what basis do you reject this direct dictation to Muhhammad in favour of the demonstrably fabricated resurrection -story concocted by Greek Pauline Christians who had to read the OT in Greek? Other than Faith- which is not evidence?

[Goat]

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

I think it is a good argument. But, I understand that it is not much for a person who doesn't want to believe. I think the essential question is, if it would be certain that Bible is true, would you live by what Jesus said? If not, there is no point in convincing you. If yes, the question is, why would you then live by his words? I think the teachings of Jesus are good and I would want to live by them anyway. This is why I think it is irrelevant to know surely that they are true.

Can you show the in the bible that Jesus actually said what he said? Also, can you show you are not picking and choosing those values that you think most align with your philosophy/personality?

[TRANSPONDER]

He (or she) cannot even make a case for GospelJesus through the Gospel exhortations being good. They are very much open to question, just the same as human morals and ethics, which is what we actually use. A notable example being the slavery discussion going on elsewhere. If it was only Bible morals, the question wouldn't arise; it is because human morals have moved on that the debate is going on at all.

So the secularist argument is that it is a constantly developing human moral code that is being used to judge every book, including the Bible. That we may find good things in it does not mean we should follow the Bible, but we should follow the good things, whether the Bible agrees or not.

Cue: 'but how do we know what's good if we don't have a Bible to tell us?' That's the ongoing morals and ethics debate based on empathy and reciprocity; wanting the best for everyone because that is the best for our suvival and well being as a species, which is what evolution has as the objective basis for our existence, through sheer circumstances. We do not need a god nor want a Holy Book telling us what morals should be. Rather, we should be telling the Holy Books.