Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky?

[Zzyzx]

The KEY question is "Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky?" because unless those claims are true, Christianity is based on fraud.

No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else mentioned Jesus during his lifetime or anything he may have said or done.

Half a century later (40 to 60 years or more) four religion promoters wrote stories about him. The true identity of those 'gospel' writers is unknown to theologians and scholars, and none of them can be shown to have personally witnessed anything Jesus may have said or done.

"In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!" Dr. Bart Ehrman Professor of Religious Studies

AND only ONE of the gospel writers (whoever wrote 'Luke' and 'Acts') described the 'ascension', and he admits in his introduction that he is recording what he heard from others.

I, for one, would NOT believe tales told by four people claiming that someone came back to life (because a tomb was supposedly found empty). I certainly would not believe a tale told by one person about what he had heard from others that, half a century earlier, someone 'rose up into the sky'.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #23]

"What is an eyewitness report?
An eyewitness report is a report that is written from the first-person point of view. This allows the writer to provide an account of the events that occurred from his/her perspective. It, therefore, means that the writer of this type of report is a witness to the events being reported."
From: cseme@csecenglishmadeeasy (dot) com

I do not know what else to tell you. First, if we agree that we cannot know who the authors were, then this would necessitate that we cannot rule out the authors being eyewitnesses. However, the more important thing here is, even if the authors were not eyewitnesses, we still have enough facts and evidence from these same writings to convince most all scholars that the reports of the resurrection could not have been made up. In other words, most scholars are convinced by the material in the NT that the early followers of Jesus (including the Apostles) had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after death.

I mean, let us look at just a few things we can know from this. We can know that Jesus existed, we can know Jesus was crucified, we can know Jesus died, we can know that the early followers had some sort of experiences of Jesus alive after the crucifixion, and we can know these followers began to proclaim that Jesus had been raised from the dead in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to the claims, and the life of Paul demonstrates the fact that the early Christians were indeed experiencing persecution for continuing to proclaim the resurrection. We can know all of this, and even more by reading the material in the NT whether the authors were eyewitnesses or not. Again, I want to stress the fact that if we agree that we cannot know who the authors were, then we would have to go on to agree that we cannot insist the authors were not eyewitnesses. However, even if they were not eyewitnesses, there is a tremendous amount we can be certain of by reading the material contained in the NT, whether the authors were eyewitnesses or not, nor whether the material is trustworthy or not, as the scholars demonstrate.

Saying "there were eyewitnesses" is not an eyewitness report.

Here you seem to be insisting that these folks were simply claiming "there were eyewitnesses" when you cannot demonstrate this to be the case. Next, we know for a fact that Paul was alive at the time of the events, and we know that Paul knew the original Apostles, and we know that Paul would have heard the claims they were making from their very lips. I just do not see how you are going to win here. You cannot insist that the reports we have in what we call the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts, and even if they were not, we have the life of Paul, on top of the fact that even the critical scholars who are not Christian are forced to admit certain things we can know.

The witnesses are not identified and they left no documents.

Zzyzx, Paul identified a good number of the witnesses, and we know that Paul would have personally known the folks he identified as witnesses. Next, you are making the statement that the witnesses "left no documents" as if we can know this to be a fact, when you are even admitting yourself that we cannot know who the authors were. Again, if we agree that we cannot know who the authors were, then we cannot insist they were not "witnesses."

The writer of "Luke" (whoever that may have been) acknowledged that he was reporting what he heard from others.

Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

As I have already stated, we have extremely strong evidence the author of Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, and I will be more than happy to demonstrate this to be the case. Next, do you see where the author tells Theophilus, "the things accomplished among us?" This certainly seems to indicate that both the author and Theophilus was alive at the time of the events.

There are no original gospel documents. The earliest available copies were produced three centuries later.

Again, you are going to continue to get the same response. Even with this being the case, we have enough facts and evidence from this material to convince even the critical scholars that the reports of the resurrection could not have been made up.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to 1213 in post #26]

Ok, so it is Dr. Bart Ehrman's tales about history that we should believe without any verification. Thanks for the clarification.

What Ehrman says is a fact which can be verified. I am certain that Ehrman would not risk his reputation as a scholar saying something which could not be verified as a fact. In other words, I am certain that Ehrman is not going to make such a statement while knowing that those opposed can simply point out his error. Ergo, if Ehrman's facts are incorrect, then you need to demonstrate where Jesus was mentioned where Ehrman says he is not. I highly doubt you will ever supply such a thing.

[OneJack]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #31]

However, the more important thing here is, even if the authors were not eyewitnesses, we still have enough facts and evidence from these same writings to convince most all scholars that the reports of the resurrection could not have been made up.

Don’t you see yourself here creating a barrier that will surely block your way to the truth? The scriptures that you look up to as if they were the only source where you can extract the truth [you’re looking for] are the very scriptures that testify to you Jesus is beside you all the time because He is Immanuel. Why don’t you come to Him and call on Him for the truth and your salvation, instead of exhausting yourself searching the same in the pages of the bible, which cannot, in any manner, bring you to arrive at the truth?

[Zzyzx]

Thank you for the very civil, respectful, and well-reasoned reply

First, if we agree that we cannot know who the authors were, then this would necessitate that we cannot rule out the authors being eyewitnesses.

AND, we cannot claim that the authors WERE eyewitnesses.

In other words, most scholars are convinced by the material in the NT that the early followers of Jesus (including the Apostles) had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after death.

I am NOT aware that ‘most scholars’ are convinced that followers had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after death. Can you substantiate that claim?

I am aware that gospel writers, half a century later, told stories about followers seeing the ‘resurrected’ Jesus.

I mean, let us look at just a few things we can know from this. We can know that Jesus existed, we can know Jesus was crucified, we can know Jesus died,

I do not doubt the possibility that a wandering Jewish preacher with a name now translated as Jesus lived and died a couple thousand years ago.

we can know that the early followers had some sort of experiences of Jesus alive after the crucifixion, and we can know these followers began to proclaim that Jesus had been raised from the dead in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to the claims,

People believing something, even in the face of suffering or death, is NOT assurance that what they believed was true.

Here you seem to be insisting that these folks were simply claiming "there were eyewitnesses" when you cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

Okay. WHO were the witnesses and where are their accounts? Anyone can claim that there were witnesses (whether true or not)

Next, we know for a fact that Paul was alive at the time of the events, and we know that Paul knew the original Apostles, and we know that Paul would have heard the claims they were making from their very lips.

Paul/Saul claimed to have met Jesus in a ‘vision’ (or hallucination) while sick, blind, and delusional for days – and also claiming to have taken a trip to ‘the third heaven’

Do we believe everyone who claims to have met a ‘god’ or to have gone to ‘heaven’?

Paul identified a good number of the witnesses, and we know that Paul would have personally known the folks he identified as witnesses. Next, you are making the statement that the witnesses "left no documents" as if we can know this to be a fact, when you are even admitting yourself that we cannot know who the authors were. Again, if we agree that we cannot know who the authors were, then we cannot insist they were not "witnesses."

If a person claims to know about witnesses, they ARE responsible for presenting verifiable evidence to support their claim.

As I have already stated, we have extremely strong evidence the author of Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, and I will be more than happy to demonstrate this to be the case. Next, do you see where the author tells Theophilus, "the things accomplished among us?" This certainly seems to indicate that both the author and Theophilus was alive at the time of the events.

If a person acknowledges they are reporting what they have been told by others, that IS hearsay, it is NOT eyewitness testimony.

Again, you are going to continue to get the same response. Even with this being the case, we have enough facts and evidence from this material to convince even the critical scholars that the reports of the resurrection could not have been made up.

Half a century after Jesus is said to have died four religion promoters evidently wrote stories – their documents are not available – three centuries later Roman churchmen produced a bible claiming to contain the gospels.

[OneJack]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #34]

Do we believe everyone who claims to have met a ‘god’ or to have gone to ‘heaven’?

Believe not those who claim to have met God if they testify to themselves; if they testify to the one who sent them, the Lord Jesus in this context, then believe in Him, the true and forever living God.

[1213]

What Ehrman says is a fact which can be verified....

Ok, so I wait till his claims are verified, before I believe them?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #34]

AND, we cannot claim that the authors WERE eyewitnesses.

I have never claimed they were. I have rather insisted that since we agree that we can know nothing about the authors, then we can neither insist they were, nor were not eyewitnesses.

I am NOT aware that ‘most scholars’ are convinced that followers had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after death. Can you substantiate that claim?

Sure. Allow me to give you quotes from 3 different scholars, one who is not Christian, and 2 who are atheists,

It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.

it is undisputable that some of the followers of Jesus came to think that he had been raised from the dead, and that something had to have happened to make them think so

I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something

My friend, it is the consensus of the scholars, whether Christian or not, that the early followers of Jesus had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after death. We know that these critical scholars would not like to admit this to be the case, but the facts and evidence demand this to be the case. Gerd Lüdemann tells us that it is "historically certain" while Ehrman tells us that "it is undisputable" and Fredriksen tells us that "all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw" and goes on to tell us, "as a historian I know." I could continue on, but the fact of the matter is, the evidence is overwhelming that the early followers of Jesus had some sort of experience which convinced them that Jesus had risen from the tomb. One of the things this tells us is, the early followers were not involved in some sort of deception. In other words, we can know they were not reporting what they knew to be false. I'm just telling you that such a scenario would be impossible, and so we are off in determining whatever else may have occurred which would cause such events.

Again, with this being the case, Ehrman goes to great lengths explaining to us a scenario which he insists he does not believe to be likely in the least, and goes on to explain that he does not believe that this scenario is what could have occurred, but then goes on to explain to us that no matter how unlikely such a scenario would be, it would be more likely than a resurrection. Well, GOOD GRIEF! I cannot imagine anyone arguing that a resurrection would be the most likely explanation. However, the question is, why would Ehrman not give us an explanation which he knows to be likely, and then go on to explain how unlikely the resurrection would be? Again, it is because, you know, and I know, there is no alternative explanation which would be likely in the least, otherwise Ehrman would have supplied such an explanation.

I am aware that gospel writers, half a century later, told stories about followers seeing the ‘resurrected’ Jesus.

You continue to insist on the one hand that we can know nothing of the authors including who they were, where they lived, nor the time in which they wrote, and then on the other hand you want to insist that the "gospel writers" authored the material "half a century later." You have to see the contradiction there. You need to pick a lane. But again, no matter when the material was authored, it is this same material which have convinced the scholars that the reports of the resurrection could not have been made up.

I do not doubt the possibility that a wandering Jewish preacher with a name now translated as Jesus lived and died a couple thousand years ago.

But the thing is, we are demonstrating that we can know far more than what you say above, and we can know far more than the above by reading the material contained in the NT no matter who the authors were, no matter how long after the events they wrote, no matter where in the world they were when they wrote. According to the scholars I have cited, who are not Christian, "it is historically certain", "it is undisputable", along with "all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction" that these early followers had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after death. We can know all of this by reading the material contained in the NT no matter who the authors may have been, no matter when or where they wrote, and no matter if the material is trustworthy or not. What all of this tells us is, the reports of the resurrection were not made up, because we can know that something occurred which caused these folks to be convinced that Jesus had been raised.

People believing something, even in the face of suffering or death, is NOT assurance that what they believed was true.

You continue to refer to these folks as simply "believing something" to be true, when we know there is far more to it than these folks just believing something. Rather, we know from the facts and evidence we have that these folks had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after death, and they were reporting what they experienced, not what they claimed to believe. You seem to be attempting to convince us that these folks were simply believing what had been passed down to them through the decades, while the scholars I have cited tell us that it is "historically certain", "undisputable", along with us being able to "know" these early followers were not simply believing something to be true, but rather it is a fact we can know that they had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after His death.

Okay. WHO were the witnesses and where are their accounts? Anyone can claim that there were witnesses (whether true or not)

I am not the one who is insisting there were eyewitnesses. You on the other hand are certainly insisting these folks were simply claiming "there were witnesses" when you cannot demonstrate that the authors were not witnesses. Again, you cannot on the one hand agree that we can know nothing of the authors, and then on the other insist the authors were not eyewitnesses.

Paul/Saul claimed to have met Jesus in a ‘vision’ (or hallucination) while sick, blind, and delusional for days – and also claiming to have taken a trip to ‘the third heaven’

Do we believe everyone who claims to have met a ‘god’ or to have gone to ‘heaven’?

I did not say a thing in the world concerning how Paul may have been converted, and it has nothing to do with the point I was making. The point I am making is, we know for a fact that Paul was alive at the time of the events recorded, and we can also know that Paul would have known the original Apostles very well, and Paul would have heard the claims these witnesses were making coming from the very lips of these witnesses. None of this would have a thing in the world to do with what you say above.

If a person claims to know about witnesses, they ARE responsible for presenting verifiable evidence to support their claim.

That is not the way this works. Because you see, Paul was not writing to us some 2000 years later, but was rather addressing an audience at the time, and it is the passage in which Paul identifies those who Christ had appeared to which has a lot to do with the scholars being convinced that the reports could not have been made up. It is what is called the historical method.

If a person acknowledges they are reporting what they have been told by others, that IS hearsay, it is NOT eyewitness testimony.

You can call it whatever you like but it is not going to change the fact that we have very strong evidence the author was alive at the time of the events recorded, and it is not going to change the fact that it is this same material which has convinced most all scholars that it is impossible for the reports of the resurrection to have been made up.

Half a century after Jesus is said to have died four religion promoters evidently wrote stories

You continue to say the same things over, and over. You cannot on the one hand insist that we cannot know who the authors were, nor when they may have authored the material, and then on the other insist the material was authored "half a century after Jesus is said to have died." Another thing I will point out again is the fact that even if it was "half a century out" this would by no means eliminate the material from being authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. I mean, you act as if the material was authored decades out, that this somehow eliminates the eyewitnesses from being the authors and it does not in the least. The fact of the matter is, we would expect the material to be authored decades out. I mean think about what all would have been involved in writing at the time. Writing was a very painstaking task. I have enough trouble with typing here on this computer. Can you imagine what all it would have taken to take on the task of writing out such material 2000 years ago? How could it not have been decades out?

Next, you continue to want to insist the authors were "religion promoters" and I do not know what you think you are gaining here? First, I do not know how we could demonstrate this to be the case. Next, we can demonstrate beyond any doubt that the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT was not an attempt to promote Christianity to the unbelieving world. We know this because the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT was addressed to those who were already believers. The little which is left, which does not identify an audience, cannot be insisted to be an attempt to promote Christianity to the unbeliever, since we do not know the intended audience. So then, whether the authors would have been "religion promoters" would not have a thing in the world to do with us today, because they are no longer alive to promote the religion, and most of what was written can be demonstrated not to have been an attempt to promote the religion, and the little which is left cannot be demonstrated to be an attempt to promote Christianity to the unbeliever, and yet you insist on referring to the authors as "religion promotors."

their documents are not available – three centuries later Roman churchmen produced a bible claiming to contain the gospels.

Can you imagine what my response here is going to be? It is this same material you are referring too, which has convinced most all scholars that the reports of the resurrection could not have possibly been made up.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to 1213 in post #36]

Unless you can demonstrate where Jesus was mentioned where Ehrman says Jesus was not mentioned, then we are left with the fact that what Ehrman says is a fact, and it is a fact that Jesus is not mentioned where Ehrman insists he is not mentioned. The ball is now in your court to demonstrate where Ehrman is in error, and again this is not going to happen because Ehrman is correct in insisting that Jesus is not mentioned where Ehrman is insisting that Jesus is not mentioned.

[Zzyzx]

Please pardon my formatting difficulties

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #34]

AND, we cannot claim that the authors WERE eyewitnesses.

I have never claimed they were. I have rather insisted that since we agree that we can know nothing about the authors, then we can neither insist they were, nor were not eyewitnesses.

Okay, we have reports but do not know if the writers were witnesses or not.

Would we place great credibility on such reports concerning a different matter?

I am NOT aware that ‘most scholars’ are convinced that followers had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after death. Can you substantiate that claim?

Sure. Allow me to give you quotes from 3 different scholars, one who is not Christian, and 2 who are atheists,

It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.

it is undisputable that some of the followers of Jesus came to think that he had been raised from the dead, and that something had to have happened to make them think so

I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something

Notice: “some of the followers of Jesus came to think that he had been raised from the dead, and that something had to have happened to make them think so” (with no assurance of what might have happened)

“I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something” (again no mention of what they may have seen).

My friend, it is the consensus of the scholars, whether Christian or not, that the early followers of Jesus had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after death.

I would say that several people THOUGHT and/or believed they saw something. Does people thinking and/or believing they saw something assure that what they think/believe is true and accurate?

"Scholars generally agree that Jesus' early followers experienced what they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus, but they differ on how to explain these experiences. Some propose naturalistic explanations, while others affirm a supernatural understanding of the resurrection as a foundational truth of Christianity.
From: vridar (dot) org – and – peacefulscience (dot) org

I am aware that gospel writers, half a century later, told stories about followers seeing the ‘resurrected’ Jesus.

You continue to insist on the one hand that we can know nothing of the authors including who they were, where they lived, nor the time in which they wrote, and then on the other hand you want to insist that the "gospel writers" authored the material "half a century later."

To borrow a phrase, “The consensus of scholars” and theologians indicates that gospels were written 40 to 60 or more years after Jesus is said to have died. Pardon me for simplifying to ‘half a century’

I do not doubt the possibility that a wandering Jewish preacher with a name now translated as Jesus lived and died a couple thousand years ago.

But the thing is, we are demonstrating that we can know far more than what you say above, and we can know far more than the above by reading the material contained in the NT no matter who the authors were, no matter how long after the events they wrote, no matter where in the world they were when they wrote,

The key questions are did the ‘resurrection’ and ‘ascension’ actually occur.

People believing something is NO assurance that what they believe is true (including ‘seeing things’)

Stories claiming ‘resurrection’ are common themes in ancient folklore, mythology, and religions. Are they all true? Some true? All false except one?

If people thought and acted as though they had seen one of the many other ‘resurrected gods’, is that assurance the ‘god’ came back to life?

Notice that the ‘ascension’ was described by only ONE gospel writer (whoever wrote “Luke” and “Acts” – and in his introduction he admits he is recording what he was told by others.

People believing something, even in the face of suffering or death, is NOT assurance that what they believed was true.

You continue to refer to these folks as simply "believing something" to be true, when we know there is far more to it than these folks just believing something. Rather, we know from the facts and evidence we have that these folks had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after death, and they were reporting what they experienced, not what they claimed to believe. [\quote]
We have stories written long after the ‘event’ telling what people thought, said, and did 40 to 60 or more years earlier.

None of the often cited non-biblical sources (Josephus, etc.) tell of the ‘resurrection’ or ‘ascension’.

Okay. WHO were the witnesses and where are their accounts? Anyone can claim that there were witnesses (whether true or not)

I am not the one who is insisting there were eyewitnesses. You on the other hand are certainly insisting these folks were simply claiming "there were witnesses" when you cannot demonstrate that the authors were not witnesses. Again, you cannot on the one hand agree that we can know nothing of the authors, and then on the other insist the authors were not eyewitnesses.

Notice very carefully that I do NOT say the gospel writers were not eyewitnesses. DO NOT. What I actually say is “The gospel writers cannot be shown to have personally witnessed anything Jesus may have said or done.”

If someone wishes to dispute what I actually say, they can present verifiable evidence to show that the writers were actual eyewitnesses.

Paul/Saul claimed to have met Jesus in a ‘vision’ (or hallucination) while sick, blind, and delusional for days – and also claiming to have taken a trip to ‘the third heaven’

Do we believe everyone who claims to have met a ‘god’ or to have gone to ‘heaven’?

I did not say a thing in the world concerning how Paul may have been converted, and it has nothing to do with the point I was making. The point I am making is, we know for a fact that Paul was alive at the time of the events recorded, and we can also know that Paul would have known the original Apostles very well, and Paul would have heard the claims these witnesses were making coming from the very lips of these witnesses. None of this would have a thing in the world to do with what you say above.

“Paul did not know Jesus during his lifetime and only met a few of the apostles after his conversion, specifically Peter and James, about three years later. His relationship with the apostles was limited, as he primarily received his teachings directly from Jesus. “
From: learn (dot) ligonier (dot) org

If a person claims to know about witnesses, they ARE responsible for presenting verifiable evidence to support their claim.

That is not the way this works. Because you see, Paul was not writing to us some 2000 years later, but was rather addressing an audience at the time, and it is the passage in which Paul identifies those who Christ had appeared to which has a lot to do with the scholars being convinced that the reports could not have been made up. It is what is called the historical method.

Is that to say if a book claims that many saw Odin alive after he died, that is to be taken without identification of the witnesses or actual witness accounts?

If a person acknowledges they are reporting what they have been told by others, that IS hearsay, it is NOT eyewitness testimony.

You can call it whatever you like but it is not going to change the fact that we have very strong evidence the author was alive at the time of the events recorded, and it is not going to change the fact that it is this same material which has convinced most all scholars that it is impossible for the reports of the resurrection to have been made up.[\quote]
The scholars quoted say that evidence suggests that people believe they saw SOMETHING. Many people believe they “saw things” – many of which are considered to be ‘visual hallucinations’

You continue to say the same things over, and over. You cannot on the one hand insist that we cannot know who the authors were, nor when they may have authored the material, and then on the other insist the material was authored "half a century after Jesus is said to have died." [\quote]
Again, To borrow a phrase, “The consensus of scholars” and theologians indicates that gospels were written 40 to 60 or more years after Jesus is said to have died.

[1213]

Unless you can demonstrate where Jesus was mentioned where Ehrman says Jesus was not mentioned, then we are left with the fact that what Ehrman says is a fact....

Sorry, it does not work that way. Unverified claims don't become facts if someone can't prove them wrong.