Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

[Mattman]

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.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Mattman in post #1]

1) The NT documents were based on eyewitness testimony.
2) We have reliable copies of that testimony.
3) We can establish facts from that testimony that support the resurrection.

Curious
1) If this is the case, how come the gospels don't match? Are we to think Billy Bob#1 wrote down what he saw and Billy Bob #2 wrote down something else?
What about the claims some made that, at least the gospels (which are part of the NT) weren't written until years after the fact?
2) How do we test this 'reliability'?
3) Being that the resurrection isn't reported exactly the same in the NT, is this true? Why did Billy Bob #1 and Billy Bob #2 not have 100% corresponding texts?

Are there any other pieces of evidence of this particular resurrection that's not biblically based? I would expect the typical Billy Bob christian to believe what the bible says. And being it was edited many times to stay in line with its teachings, one would also expect the typical Billy Bob christian to believe the bible. And for some, that's fine. But others require more than a book written by men and edited by other men as proof.
As they say, it never hurts to have another set of eyes.

[Difflugia]

I've supported the claim that eyewitness testimony provides the basis for the original NT documents and that our copies are accurate.

No, you've simply provided more unsupported claims. Claiming that the reindeer know Santa Claus doesn't support the claim that Santa Claus exists. The only claim that you made that is uncontested is the number of New Testament manuscripts compared to the Iliad.

If you want your claims taken seriously, you should provide the sources for the traditions that Irenaeus and Polycarp were disciples of John and support that the John in those traditions was John of Zebedee rather than just some other John, like John the Elder or John the Presbyter.

You should also probably support the claim that Clement actually knew any of the Apostles. You should probably identify the source of that tradition, like whether Clement wrote that himself or if it was a claim made by an apologist in the fourth century.

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.

Of your "four facts," only the last two may be consensus views of scholars, depending on exactly what one means by "appearances" and "rose from the dead." Most scholars think those appearances were something like visions rather than the bodily resurrection of the Gospels. I assume that you are yourself referring to a bodily resurrection, but you should probably qualify that. If you have more support that either of the first two even might be true, you should probably add that to your claim as well.

As it stands, you argument is rather more like a Gish gallop than a supported demonstration.

[Tcg]

Moderator Clarification

Topics created in any of our debate subforums need to include a question for debate. Please add one to clarify what you intend to debate.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.
[Replying to Mattman in post #1]

[Mattman]

[Replying to Tcg in post #4]

I'm not sure what you mean. I intended to make the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. I added "Resolved" before it in the title and message, does that help?

[Mattman]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #2]

1) If this is the case, how come the gospels don't match? Are we to think Billy Bob#1 wrote down what he saw and Billy Bob #2 wrote down something else?
What about the claims some made that, at least the gospels (which are part of the NT) weren't written until years after the fact?

Eyewitness testimony rarely matches. In fact, matching testimony is typically a sign of collusion. The testimony doesn't contradict, which is the important part. The fact that they include different details is to be expected.

2) How do we test this 'reliability'?

I'm not sure what you mean by "test." This is a historical claim, we couldn't re-run history.

3) Being that the resurrection isn't reported exactly the same in the NT, is this true? Why did Billy Bob #1 and Billy Bob #2 not have 100% corresponding texts?

See above.

"Are there any other pieces of evidence of this particular resurrection that's not biblically based?"

Yes, but the best evidence is from the Bible. Extra-biblical evidence is certainly interesting, but it is outside of the scope of my post. For more on that topic I recommend the Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible by Holden and Geisler.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #4]

I'm not sure what you mean. I intended to make the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. I added "Resolved" before it in the title and message, does that help?

That is still not a question for debate. That need is described here viewtopic.php?p=64311#p64311 and states in part.

7. Have a clear question for debate in the opening post.

If there is no question for debate, it will be moved to RR. If the thread title contains the question, reiterate the question in the post.

Would "Does the available evidence justify belief that Jesus rose from the dead?" capture what you hope to debate?


Tcg

[Tcg]

Moderator Action



Moved to RR.
______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.
[Replying to Tcg in post #7]

[nobspeople]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #2]

1) If this is the case, how come the gospels don't match? Are we to think Billy Bob#1 wrote down what he saw and Billy Bob #2 wrote down something else?
What about the claims some made that, at least the gospels (which are part of the NT) weren't written until years after the fact?

Eyewitness testimony rarely matches. In fact, matching testimony is typically a sign of collusion. The testimony doesn't contradict, which is the important part. The fact that they include different details is to be expected.

2) How do we test this 'reliability'?

I'm not sure what you mean by "test." This is a historical claim, we couldn't re-run history.

3) Being that the resurrection isn't reported exactly the same in the NT, is this true? Why did Billy Bob #1 and Billy Bob #2 not have 100% corresponding texts?

See above.

"Are there any other pieces of evidence of this particular resurrection that's not biblically based?"

Yes, but the best evidence is from the Bible. Extra-biblical evidence is certainly interesting, but it is outside of the scope of my post. For more on that topic I recommend the Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible by Holden and Geisler.

There are more than one example on here how the gospels don't match (meaning, there are inconsistencies among them, not that one book is entirely different from another).
By 'test', I mean verifying if something is true or not.
Simply because someone wrote it down doesn't mean it happened exactly as described, or even at all. This is even more necessary with 'abnormal' things (like the resurrection, the talking and burning, yet not consumed bush, for examples). It also includes the 'why' these things happened. If we can agree that YES, a global flood happened, then we have to then ask 'why' and 'how'. Just because a dead guy wrote 'god did it' doesn't make it true.
I would agree that the best evidence for things in the bible IS the bible, but that should be expected. Why would one write things that prove it's not true, especially when said writers are flawed humans with their own personal, economical and political bias. For some, this 'biblical proof' is enough. But it's not enough for others, and certainly not enough to make it a certainty that I can see.

[Miles]

I'll present three lines of evidence supporting this claim:

The NT documents were based on eyewitness testimony.

Is that why we have four (4) different accounts of the resurrection?


.....................

We have reliable copies of that testimony.

So, which of the four (4) do you deem reliable, and why? Certainly only one of them can be correct, if any at all.


Take your pick

We can establish facts from that testimony that support the resurrection.

What facts are those? That those who went to the tomb were:


.......... 1. Mary Magdalene and the other woman named Mary (Matthew)

OR maybe it was

.......... 2. Mary Magdalene, Salome, and Mary mother of James (Mark)

OR maybe it was

.......... 3. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James (Luke)

OR maybe it was just

.......... 4. Mary Magdalene (John)




And which of the gospels said the women went into the tomb?

Did Matthew?.............NOPE
Did Mark?..................YUP
Did Luke?..................YUP
Did John?..................NOPE

You know, it would have been a lot easier to figure out if, in inspiring the authors of the gospels, god would told them all the same story. But that's god for ya. Always keep the audience guessing.


.