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]

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. 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.

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.

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

[1213]

...
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.

[Difflugia]

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.

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

Are you actually going to defend these arguments? The flaws in the presented claims and evidence were called out in the original thread and I don't think the lack of traction was because it ended up in Random Ramblings.

If you want this to go anywhere, respond to the criticisms in the original thread that the OP didn't see fit to deal with.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
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.

Jefferson, who did NOT believe the miraculous stuff in the Gospels, nevertheless followed Jesus as a moral lawgiver. And if he could do that, so could anyone, atheist or not.

But I have to disagree with Jefferson, and a lot of others; we can in fact do better than the nexhortations of the Gospels, and I'm sure it isn't eyewitness accounts of what happened anyway.

Essentially I think you are pulling a strawman or some kind of one shot win with an atheist -stumper: It seems to suggest that atheists would not follow what Jesus said, even if it was true, so there's no point in talking to them, or there's no point in asking whether the gospels are true.

As above, I'd refer to that other atheist -stumper 'If you can't trust the Bible, how can you trust any other book?'

To flip that coin: 'The Bible should be judged and evaluated as we would any other book' (it should not be given a free pass just because it is the Bible).

Which puts the whole Bible - debate back on the table: can we trust what it says? If we can't trust it on factual matters, how can we trust it on moral and ethical matters, let alone religious claims?'.

[1213]

...It seems to suggest that atheists would not follow what Jesus said, even if it was true, so there's no point in talking to them, or there's no point in asking whether the gospels are true...

We can talk and ask, but if it would not cause any meaningful difference, why would it matter? If you don't now follow Jesus, why would you do so, if you would be convinced that the Bible is true?

[TRANSPONDER]

I thought I'd already answered that. If I was convinced, after all the questions and discussion, that the Bible was true, God and his plan was Good, Jesus was offering sound advice about how to live and the promises of salvation were true, why would I not 'follow' them? It is because, after all the debates, I am more convinced than ever that the Bible is not true that I don't follow anything preached therein.

I might ask, have you considered the Quran and whether that is reliable enough that you should consider 'following; the teachings of Muhhamad? If you have, why have you opted not to?

[1213]

I thought I'd already answered that. If I was convinced, after all the questions and discussion, that the Bible was true, God and his plan was Good, Jesus was offering sound advice about how to live and the promises of salvation were true, why would I not 'follow' them? It is because, after all the debates, I am more convinced than ever that the Bible is not true that I don't follow anything preached therein.

Sorry, I think this is not yet clear enough. The advises of Jesus are in the Bible. Do you think they are not sound? For example all of it comes basically to "love your neighbor as yourself", is that sound? You don't do it now because you think God is not real? Do you think you would start to love when you know God is real? I don't think it happens so, you could pretend a lot, but I think it would not be useful.

I might ask, have you considered the Quran and whether that is reliable enough that you should consider 'following; the teachings of Muhhamad? If you have, why have you opted not to?

Quran says people should believe Jesus. I obey Quran by believing Jesus.

[TRANSPONDER]

I thought I'd already answered that. If I was convinced, after all the questions and discussion, that the Bible was true, God and his plan was Good, Jesus was offering sound advice about how to live and the promises of salvation were true, why would I not 'follow' them? It is because, after all the debates, I am more convinced than ever that the Bible is not true that I don't follow anything preached therein.

Sorry, I think this is not yet clear enough. The advises of Jesus are in the Bible. Do you think they are not sound? For example all of it comes basically to "love your neighbor as yourself", is that sound? You don't do it now because you think God is not real? Do you think you would start to love when you know God is real? I don't think it happens so, you could pretend a lot, but I think it would not be useful.

I might ask, have you considered the Quran and whether that is reliable enough that you should consider 'following; the teachings of Muhhamad? If you have, why have you opted not to?

Quran says people should believe Jesus. I obey Quran by believing Jesus.

Love it. The advice in the Bible (Jesus or anyone else) is open to question. Some are not sound. Do you lift your chin and say 'Hit me again, pal'? Do you give the mugger you car keys as well as your wallet? Do you give your dosh to the poor and Follow Jesus? Do you mow your neighbours lawn or walk his dog rather than go to the megachurch? I think Bible believers seriously cherry pick Jesus' exhortations as much as any humanist.

And humanist morals had reciprocatory well being as an objective basis and that is also better than 'Love your neighbour as yourself', which I have rarely seen a Christian do. Unless it has a hidden meaning like the inverted Golden Rule which really is a doorstep evangelists' permit. Christianity, Jesus or the Bible does not have the monopoly on the Golden rule, compassion or charity. Claiming that without God nobody does it is just a symptom of how poor Christians' views of their fellow is.

You have something to learn about Islam. They believe that Jesus was a prophet...like Muhammad, but was not son of God and did not rise from the dead. If you followed the Quran, you would follow those teachings and a number of others. Why don't you?

Spoiler, for the same reasons I don't follow the teachings of the Bible just on the validation of their being in the Bible. I cherry pick; Christians cherry pick. I have a good excuse; they don't.

[brunumb]

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.