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?

[The Nice Centurion]

Can you show the in the bible that Jesus actually said what he said?

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean with that?

The bible has quotes from are alleged to have come from Jesus. However, those quotes were written down decades after Jesus was supposed to be killed. How do you know that someone wasn't merely putting words into the mouth of Jesus, and he never said that

I think that is not correct idea. They come from Jesus, because that is what the book says. There is no real question about that. Different issue is, is Jesus fictional or not. You could ask, did the Bible Jesus ever exist. And unfortunately I don't think anything from the past can be proven, therefore this remains a matter of belief, sorry.

But, if Jesus is fictional and didn't speak what the Bible tells he said, why would someone else give credit for Jesus, instead of taking it himself?

The obvious reason is that preaching their own opinions won't be so effective as claiming that Jesus said them.

That is even more true in light of the fact that whomever people wrote the gospels and hided behind apostle names, die not eben give us their real names.

Meaning, they were nobodys and knew that. Who would join a sect because of the (differing) worldview of nobodys?

Though the differing of gospels might be another reason they all tried to point at Last to one Single same Person as source. Than they had a chance the differences would be forgiven.

I know that Cerinthus is suspect to have written the Gospel of John.
I even read somewhere rthat Plutarch might have written as St Paul the same way as Stephen King for a while wrote as Richard Bachman. But this is rather a Laugh !!!

[TRANSPONDER]

I am quite certain that none of the gospels were written by the persons named as writers. It's quite interesting to get a feel for the persons behind the book as it were. Mark is closer the the original of the synoptic gospel but he is always trying to add extra explanation. Like hired servants in the boat, extra details about the end of the Baptist and the centurion reporting to Pilate. Matthew (not a Hebrew but probably Greek) is fantastical and much interested in the OT as a source of prophecy and an underpinning of the Gospel. Luke (as is recognised) likes historical foundation and his use of Josephus can be seen in Luke and Acts. I'm sure that Acts is a sort of biography of Paul, based on Paul's letters. Luke came to know that the Disciples did not do a mission to the gentiles, and that it was entirely Paul's idea. John, I originally thought, really had an eyewitness account to which he added reams of theological waffle and rant. But I have now come to think that he was actually pretty good at inventing his own screenplay. It is probably coincidence that the roughing up of Jesus in Anna's house is more in character (after reading the priestly power- struggles for control of the Temple) than I would have thought. Or that the 4 'signs' look like 4 scams. I could be wrong though. I could be wrong that there was no plot to save Jesus from the cross either, even though that is what it looks like.

But I don't think I could be wrong in thinking that the resurrection accounts are not credible. In fact so much are they contradictory that I'd bet it never happened, never mind resolved that it did.

[1213]

...
The obvious reason is that preaching their own opinions won't be so effective as claiming that Jesus said them.

Why do you think it would be more effective by claiming Jesus said them?

[1213]

...people give Jesus credit for it to promote the validity of the idea...

Why would "fictional character" give any validity to anything?

[TRANSPONDER]

...
The obvious reason is that preaching their own opinions won't be so effective as claiming that Jesus said them.

Why do you think it would be more effective by claiming Jesus said them?

Because Jesus was representing the ultimate authority for the claims of Christianity, even direct revelation from God. What better (or even credible) Authority could you have for the exhortations and doctrinal expositions?

...people give Jesus credit for it to promote the validity of the idea...

Why would "fictional character" give any validity to anything?

Because Jesus was represented as being a real character and the records of what he supposedly did and said were to be regarded as believable. That mindset was the case in the time the Gospels were written and is the doctrinal mindset today.

[We_Are_VENOM]

No. I am convinced from the internal contradictions of the Gospel accounts that they cannot be eyewitness. They have to individually fabricated. I am also convinced that Mark not having any appearances of Jesus indicates that theme was originally no resurrection -story.

See, that is where you are WRONG, TRANSPONDER (and will continue to be).

You are wrong for at least 3 reasons, and I will give the break down in true Venom fashion...

1. As I keep pointing out to you, Paul mentions the resurrection...and Paul's personal testimony of the information he received pertaining to Jesus' resurrection (1 Corin 15:3-7) was written before the Gospel of Mark.

So obviously, there was an original resurrection story, otherwise we wouldn't have an earlier account than Mark that MENTIONS THE RESURRECTION.

This is just common sense, logical thinking.

2. And speaking of Mark...what does he have Jesus saying in Mark 9:30-32...

"He (Jesus) said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.”

Now, I certainly understand that Mark doesn't have the ending finale of Jesus' resurrection and post mortem appearances, but you make it seem as if nothing about the resurrection was mentioned prior in Mark's account, and Jesus' crucifixion and burial was just supposed to be the end of the story...obviously, that isn't the case...otherwise we wouldn't have Mark 9:30-32 saying what it says.

That being said, I cannot provide and answer as to why the the resurrection doesn't appear in Mark, but it is OBVIOUS the fact that the angels told the women that "he has risen" would IMPLY a resurrection.

Cmon now.

3. From prior conversation, you had stated that your position is that the Gospels borrowed from Paul's epistles...which is going against the grain of scholarship, but also flies in the face of why wouldn't Mark have a resurrection account if the material he borrowed from does?

Makes no sense.

So, you are simply wrong here...and will continue to be wrong.

Man, it is a good thing I am here so stuff like this doesn't fly.

Finally, the differences between Paul's mention of visions of the resurrected Jesus suggests (to me, at any rate) that these are nothing to do with the Gospel resurrection accounts.

Like what?

Now I am aware that some early church fathers are supposed to have talked to one or more of the disciples. I am no expert on this but I got the impression that the fellow who 'Knew John' rather talked to someone who had talked to someone who claimed to be John. Or so he said. I also have grave doubts about whether Peter could really have been first 'pope' or if he went to Rome as 'Bishop of Rome', it was to tell a very different tale from the one the Vatican tells.

Okkk.

As I say, I'm not an expert but those are the doubts I have.

I'm no expert either...but far from a novice.

[Goat]

...people give Jesus credit for it to promote the validity of the idea...

Why would "fictional character" give any validity to anything?

To give it the illusion of authority.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well done. That is Not a characteristic Venom response but is much better than usual.

Now, the Bible -apologist case is obviously that the accounts of the resurrection are reliable and, if there is no account in Mark there is probably some unknown good reason (the bad reasons are given as the usual apologetics) and the empty tomb at least is credible, and what other explanation is there?

Add to that the list of appearances in Paul and that seems to corroborate the gospel appearances to the disciples and a few hundred followers after that. So that would underpin the resurrection -claim, and never mind any bothersome contradictions. Add to that the claim that the disciples died because they would not deny the resurrection and that is surely good enough. If you can add anything to that, feel free.

Now i won't reprise the evidence of the crucifixion that hints at a plot to get Jesus off the cross alive nor the corroboration of Matthew's mention that the Jews said in his day that 'the disciples stole the body' suggests that is what happened. But I'll just argue the basic case - the accounts are totally contradictory. So much so that it is evidence that there was no common resurrection account to begin with. Which explains why Mark doesn't have one (1). He has the empty tomb claim, but that really isn't enough. Which is why the synoptic original story has a handy angel to explain everything. But John refutes that as he had no angel. The women run away with no clue where Jesus' body is. Which (as well as Luke denying i) refutes Matthew's claim that the women ran smack into Jesus.

Do we really need any further proof that there was no resurrection story of solid body sightings? True the empty tomb claim is common to all 4, but then...it's just a claim. And I did argue that it's a bit clumsy with the women going to the tomb for no reason than to look at it or to finish the anointing (even though Jesus said it had been done) and it only occurs to them at the last minute that they would need someone to open it. I reckon it has all the hallmarks of a clumsy 'body gone' claim to add some substance to the risen Jesus claim. And that it is common to all 4 just shows that it is early, as gospel revisions go.

So if that is so, we are left with a risen Jesus- claim with no credible sightings and no explanation and an empty tomb concocted to try to give substance to a mere belief. Jesus rose.

Which brings us neatly to the appearances in I Corinthians which we see right away differs from the gospels because Jesus appears first to Simon. Which isn't in any of the gospels other than Luke (though he cannot give an account of it). I have already noted that Luke shows that he knows Paul's letters and he altered the angelic message to fit. He wangles in the appearance to Simon, too. The appearance is then to the '12' and then 500 at once which only makes sense long after the events of the gospels and really even Luke who adds on a Jerusalem postscript remote from the events of the other writers.

And finally, Paul says, Jesus appears to James, whom we must assume is James the brother of Jesus and not the son of Zebedee and who became leader of the Jesus group from what Paul writes (Though I always assumed that James brother of Jesus was the Other James in the twelve - James the Less), then to all the apostles (whatever that means to Paul) and finally to Paul, and the only thing we see relating to that is a meeting with Jesus in heaven. So I at least argue that visions of Jesus in the head is what Paul is talking about and that is no support for the Gospel stories at all.

Assuming Paul and the apostles were real, I don't doubt that they believed that Jesus had ascended, but the visions being ...visionary...suggests a spirit resurrection, not a solid body.

And of course a Jesus still with the crucifixion marks doesn't fit with the new incorruptible body of Paul's preaching. But it wouldn't do to have a Jesus with no crucifixion marks on, would it?

That is why, despite a few logical or evidential speedbumps, I don't think your apologetic washes, old chum. Nice try, though.

(1) just as he has no nativity and the two we have are totally in contradiction.

[1213]

...people give Jesus credit for it to promote the validity of the idea...

Why would "fictional character" give any validity to anything?

To give it the illusion of authority.

Why would people think fictional character has authority? Would you think fictional character has authority?

[1213]

...Because Jesus was represented as being a real character and the records of what he supposedly did and said were to be regarded as believable. That mindset was the case in the time the Gospels were written and is the doctrinal mindset today.

I don't believe people would accept fictional character in that way.