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?

[Goat]

...
So, since none of the gospels or writings about Jesus were written by people who knew Jesus, how do you know he said that?

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I don't think we know anything about history, we can only believe. And I believe Bible has accurately what Jesus told to people.

And claims like "The Gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, by people who did not know him 'in the flesh' so to speak" are to me also just matters of belief, I don't think that can be proven correct.

The vast preponderance of evidence shows that. The language shows that, the knowledge of events show that. THere might be ranges, but the blocks of when it was written can be fairly accurately determined.

[1213]

...So you can't automatically reject Islamic teaching as being wrong because it could be the Gospels that are wrong. Maybe God (Allah) does know better.

I don't automatically reject them. I think you have just shown that the Muslim God doesn't know what is said in the Bible. Even if Bible would be wrong, I think he should know accurately what is wrong in the Bible, otherwise he just embarrasses himself. But, obviously this is just my opinion. If you don't have a problem with such issue, you are free to go on your own way. However, I think we have not seen good evidence for that Muslim God would actually revoke the Bible. It may be just that those who preach have made mistakes and wrong interpretations.

[1213]

...Matthew for instance, didn't know that the disciples didn't go to Galilee but stayed in Jerusalem to found the Church. Luke knew that from Paul's letters and adapted the Gospel story accordingly. ...

It is interesting how you can make such claims. I don't believe that, because I don't think we have any good reason for to believe so.

[Clownboat]

...Matthew for instance, didn't know that the disciples didn't go to Galilee but stayed in Jerusalem to found the Church. Luke knew that from Paul's letters and adapted the Gospel story accordingly. ...

It is interesting how you can make such claims. I don't believe that, because I don't think we have any good reason for to believe so.

Your post are devoid of any reasoning it seems. What we get is just what you think which doesn't matter much in a debate setting.
From the previous post:
I think you have just shown...
I think he should know accurately...
I think we have not seen good evidence...
It may be just that those....

And from the quoted post:
because I don't think...

Are we to assume you are some authority here and that your thoughts are more meaningful than ours or a Muslims for example? Do your thoughts hold more weight? If not, perhaps reflect on why your thoughts are the best arguments you can make.

[TRANSPONDER]

...So you can't automatically reject Islamic teaching as being wrong because it could be the Gospels that are wrong. Maybe God (Allah) does know better.

I don't automatically reject them. I think you have just shown that the Muslim God doesn't know what is said in the Bible. Even if Bible would be wrong, I think he should know accurately what is wrong in the Bible, otherwise he just embarrasses himself. But, obviously this is just my opinion. If you don't have a problem with such issue, you are free to go on your own way. However, I think we have not seen good evidence for that Muslim God would actually revoke the Bible. It may be just that those who preach have made mistakes and wrong interpretations.

Well, I don't think the Muslim explanation of the crucifixion is a very clever one, I'll give you that.

...Matthew for instance, didn't know that the disciples didn't go to Galilee but stayed in Jerusalem to found the Church. Luke knew that from Paul's letters and adapted the Gospel story accordingly. ...

It is interesting how you can make such claims. I don't believe that, because I don't think we have any good reason for to believe so.

There again, yes. This is just my explanation for why Matthew has the disciples traipse off to Galilee when they would have seen him the same evening, according to Luke and John. And that after the women had run into Jesus and he could have gone to tell the disciples whatever he had to say. Come on, it makes no sense, does it, to run them together. But that Matthew ran out the angelic message implies that he didn't know that the disciples set up the Church in Jerusalem and passed on the mission to Paul. Which, since Luke bases Acts on some events derived from mention in Paul's letters, explains why he changed the story and for that matter the angelic message to fit the new story.

I also know that Luke adapted the death of Herod Agrippa from Josephus, though he changes the omen of an Owl to an angel. But if he knew Josephus, that would explain the census of Quirinus and the speech of Gamaliel.

So there are reasons why I propose this explanation, even if you disagree. I just mention these points rather than give chapter verse and text but I can if you want.

[1213]

...I just mention these points rather than give chapter verse and text but I can if you want.

Actually it would be nice to see, because I think you have misunderstood the scriptures.

[TRANSPONDER]

...I just mention these points rather than give chapter verse and text but I can if you want.

Actually it would be nice to see, because I think you have misunderstood the scriptures.

Oh..kay... Matthew 28.16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

This follows smack after the women running into Jesus on the Sunday morning while the tomb guard flee into Jerusalem to report to the High Priest that an angel came down and perched on the tomb door. which itself follows the angel telling the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee

See also Matthew 26. 32 where Jesus tells the disciples (after the last supper) that he will see them in Galilee. Contrast with Luke 22.35 -on which has no such instruction, and Luke 24.6 where the angelic message is changed from going to Galilee to what Jesus told them in Galilee. because, as I say, Luke knows (from Paul's letters, I suggest) that they do not go to Galilee, but they stay in Jerusalem, just as Luke's amended gospel + Acts says. Contrast also with John 20.1 which has no angelic message first thing.

Luke is also aware that the disciples did not go to make disciples of all nations, but they stayed put in Judea and Galilee and it was Paul alone who took Messianic Judaism to the gentiles, again because of reading it in Paul's letters.

Over to you to explain what I have misunderstood.

[1213]

...I just mention these points rather than give chapter verse and text but I can if you want.

Actually it would be nice to see, because I think you have misunderstood the scriptures.

Oh..kay... Matthew 28.16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

This follows smack after the women running into Jesus on the Sunday morning while the tomb guard flee into Jerusalem to report to the High Priest that an angel came down and perched on the tomb door. which itself follows the angel telling the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee

See also Matthew 26. 32 where Jesus tells the disciples (after the last supper) that he will see them in Galilee. Contrast with Luke 22.35 -on which has no such instruction, and Luke 24.6 where the angelic message is changed from going to Galilee to what Jesus told them in Galilee. because, as I say, Luke knows (from Paul's letters, I suggest) that they do not go to Galilee, but they stay in Jerusalem, just as Luke's amended gospel + Acts says. Contrast also with John 20.1 which has no angelic message first thing.

Luke is also aware that the disciples did not go to make disciples of all nations, but they stayed put in Judea and Galilee and it was Paul alone who took Messianic Judaism to the gentiles, again because of reading it in Paul's letters.

Over to you to explain what I have misunderstood.

I think you connect the scriptures wrongly. If Luke 22:35 doesn't tell the same as Matt. 26:32 and Matt. 28:16 it does no mean that Matthew or Luke is wrong, it is just missing from that part. I think you are adding too much of your own to the story, sorry.

[TRANSPONDER]

...I just mention these points rather than give chapter verse and text but I can if you want.

Actually it would be nice to see, because I think you have misunderstood the scriptures.

Oh..kay... Matthew 28.16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

This follows smack after the women running into Jesus on the Sunday morning while the tomb guard flee into Jerusalem to report to the High Priest that an angel came down and perched on the tomb door. which itself follows the angel telling the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee

See also Matthew 26. 32 where Jesus tells the disciples (after the last supper) that he will see them in Galilee. Contrast with Luke 22.35 -on which has no such instruction, and Luke 24.6 where the angelic message is changed from going to Galilee to what Jesus told them in Galilee. because, as I say, Luke knows (from Paul's letters, I suggest) that they do not go to Galilee, but they stay in Jerusalem, just as Luke's amended gospel + Acts says. Contrast also with John 20.1 which has no angelic message first thing.

Luke is also aware that the disciples did not go to make disciples of all nations, but they stayed put in Judea and Galilee and it was Paul alone who took Messianic Judaism to the gentiles, again because of reading it in Paul's letters.

Over to you to explain what I have misunderstood.

I think you connect the scriptures wrongly. If Luke 22:35 doesn't tell the same as Matt. 26:32 and Matt. 28:16 it does no mean that Matthew or Luke is wrong, it is just missing from that part. I think you are adding too much of your own to the story, sorry.

Yes, I've seen the denialist excuse before.

In Matthew, the Marys are give the angelic message at the tomb to remind the disciples to go to Galilee to see Jesus. They then run into Jesus immediately who says...hang on.....just what the angel had already told them (good grief, when i said Matthew wasn't the best honed scimitar in the rack I wasn't kidding) while Luke says plainly that they didn't see Jesus. Isn't it already coming apart even without John's contribution? What's worse is that Luke has changed the message to what Jesus said about his resurrection in Galilee. And at the end of Luke Jesus tells them to stay in Jerusalem, which they do. I'm afraid the kneejerk excuse of 'they left it out' just will not do here.

[Clownboat]

...I just mention these points rather than give chapter verse and text but I can if you want.

Actually it would be nice to see, because I think you have misunderstood the scriptures.

Oh..kay... Matthew 28.16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

This follows smack after the women running into Jesus on the Sunday morning while the tomb guard flee into Jerusalem to report to the High Priest that an angel came down and perched on the tomb door. which itself follows the angel telling the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee

See also Matthew 26. 32 where Jesus tells the disciples (after the last supper) that he will see them in Galilee. Contrast with Luke 22.35 -on which has no such instruction, and Luke 24.6 where the angelic message is changed from going to Galilee to what Jesus told them in Galilee. because, as I say, Luke knows (from Paul's letters, I suggest) that they do not go to Galilee, but they stay in Jerusalem, just as Luke's amended gospel + Acts says. Contrast also with John 20.1 which has no angelic message first thing.

Luke is also aware that the disciples did not go to make disciples of all nations, but they stayed put in Judea and Galilee and it was Paul alone who took Messianic Judaism to the gentiles, again because of reading it in Paul's letters.

Over to you to explain what I have misunderstood.

I think you connect the scriptures wrongly. If Luke 22:35 doesn't tell the same as Matt. 26:32 and Matt. 28:16 it does no mean that Matthew or Luke is wrong, it is just missing from that part. I think you are adding too much of your own to the story, sorry.

To follow your lead here...
I think you are making excuses for the discrepancies wrongly. Imagining missing parts does nothing for the discrepancies that do exist. I think the story is too important for you to acknowledge the discrepancies.

I do understand where you are coming from and sympathize for you for being told you have a soul on the line and that you will suffer for eternity if you fail to maintain your beliefs. I was once there myself. The Bible becomes much clearer when you are able to view it honestly and not with the suffering for eternity lenz IMO.
Be well.