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 1213 in post #50]

Thank you.

I have no idea what you could possibly be thanking me for.

And when it is possible

It is not possible. We have no mention of Jesus in the entire first century by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. It is not possible that we have any of these mentions of Jesus, because we do not.

it is wrong to say there was not something, when one just don't know about it.

We do know about it, and it is not there.

I think it is wrong to claim something was not there, when one just doesn't know it.

We do know for a fact that we have no mention of Jesus in the entire first century by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. If any of these mentioned Jesus, we do not have it. PERIOD! There is no debate. Moreover, even if any of these folks did mention Jesus in the first century and we do not have it, it does us no good whatsoever to insist they may have and we just don't know it. You cannot make that make sense.

Ehrman is not in any way insisting that it is not possible that any of these folks mentioned Jesus and we do not have it, and it is a ridiculous argument to insist that these folks may have mentioned Jesus, and we do not have it. What in the world good does it do for you to know that they could have mentioned Jesus, but we are unaware of it? How can you possibly make this make sense?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #49]

Could you give us one specific fact or evidence that you know supports the claims appurtenant thereto?

We know the reports of the resurrection could not have possibly been made up. We know that any alternative explanation which has been given becomes extremely unlikely when compared to the facts and evidence we can know. The resurrection does not become unlikely when compared to the facts and evidence we know, but rather the resurrection is unlikely because we know that a resurrection is scientifically impossible. However, acknowledging that a resurrection is scientifically impossible, does not in any way demonstrate a resurrection has not occurred, but rather that if such an event occurred, science would not be able to explain it, since such an event would be outside the realm of science. Since we can know that it is not possible for the reports of the resurrection to have been made up, we need some sort of explanation of the facts and evidence we can know, which would be likely.

[Zzyzx]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #44]
Again, I do not doubt that a wandering Jewish preacher with a name now translated as “Jesus” lived and died a couple thousand years ago.

I do NOT accept tales about him performing ‘miracles’ or ‘resurrecting’ and ‘ascending’. People believing such things is NOT assurance that what they believed is true and accurate. There is no verifiable evidence to support the claims and stories.

There is evidence that he lived and that he had a following. There is NO verifiable evidence of miracles, resurrection, or ascension. Those are ONLY tales told in the bible.

Any claim that bible writers were independent, disconnected sources is invalid. Roman churchmen selected the writings to fit their agenda.

We cannot determine, by reading alone, whether a work is authentic, truthful, or accurate.

If a person well known to favor democracy writes a book about political ideology, can we rationally expect the book to be biased? Is it likely that they would be promoting democracy?

The crux of the matter is, unless the dead preacher actually came back to life, ascended into heaven, and controls a human ‘afterlife’, Christianity is based on false information.

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #49]

Could you give us one specific fact or evidence that you know supports the claims appurtenant thereto?

We know the reports of the resurrection could not have possibly been made up. We know that any alternative explanation which has been given becomes extremely unlikely when compared to the facts and evidence we can know. The resurrection does not become unlikely when compared to the facts and evidence we know, but rather the resurrection is unlikely because we know that a resurrection is scientifically impossible. However, acknowledging that a resurrection is scientifically impossible, does not in any way demonstrate a resurrection has not occurred, but rather that if such an event occurred, science would not be able to explain it, since such an event would be outside the realm of science. Since we can know that it is not possible for the reports of the resurrection to have been made up, we need some sort of explanation of the facts and evidence we can know, which would be likely.

Do you agree that the one that still holds, despite so many known facts presented by many who claim to know this issue of the resurrection of the man-named Jesus [the Son of God, per se] is only the positive ‘faith’ on those facts presented since no one [amongst us] is an eyewitness to this resurrection? The 100 % certainty on the crux of the matter is attainable only if the Lord Jesus, who is the Almighty God, reveals the truth to us.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #53]

You continue to say the same things over, and over, just in a different way.

Again, I do not doubt that a wandering Jewish preacher with a name now translated as “Jesus” lived and died a couple thousand years ago.

From what you say below, the only reason you do not doubt the above is because of the facts and evidence we have. It would be intellectual suicide to claim to doubt such a thing.

I do NOT accept tales about him performing ‘miracles’ or ‘resurrecting’ and ‘ascending’.

Nor should you. It is a fact that most Christian simply accept what it is they have been taught, but we should not simply accept that since this is the case then all Christians simply accept what has been taught. The question is, do you simply accept the tales must be false because we know that all such tales cannot be true, and how unlikely the tales may be? Or are you certain the tales are false? If you cannot say you are certain the tales are false, then it seems as if you and I are in the same boat, coming to different conclusions based upon the same facts and evidence. I have no problem with this being the case, and do not insist that those who come to a different conclusion than I have based on the facts and evidence could not have used reason. What say you?

People believing such things is NOT assurance that what they believed is true and accurate.

Really? Do I sound like a person who is arguing that "people believing such things" is "assurance that what they believed is true and accurate?" Is it also not true that simply because we know that most extraordinary claims are not true is NOT assurance that all extraordinary claims are false? However, your problem is the fact that we are not talking about folks who were simply believing something to be true because this is what they had been taught. Rather, we have enough facts and evidence to demonstrate these folks were reporting what they had experienced, and as Bart Ehrman has said, "something had to have occurred to cause them to believe this to be the case." You can attempt to supply us with an explanation, but I can assure you that any explanation you attempt to give will not be very likely at all when compared to the facts and evidence we know. The resurrection does not become unlikely when compared to the facts and evidence at hand. Rather, we know a resurrection is unlikely, because we all know a resurrection to be scientifically impossible. Now you tell me. Does knowing something to be scientifically impossible demonstrate an event could not have possibly occurred? Or does it tell us that if such an event has occurred, science would not be able to explain it?

There is no verifiable evidence to support the claims and stories.

Again, this is "fake news." You would be correct to say, "There is no evidence to demonstrate the claims to be true" but it is an overstatement, to the point that it is false to insist "there is no verifiable evidence to SUPPORT the claims and stories." My friend, the very fact that the majority of scholars agree that the reports of the resurrection could not have possibly been made up does not demonstrate the claims, but it certainly supports the claims. In other words, unless you have a likely explanation which would explain this (and you do not) then this fact certainly supports the reports.

There is evidence that he lived and that he had a following.

The only reason you admit this to be the case is because you know that in the face of the facts and evidence we have, it would be intellectual suicide to attempt to say anything different. In other words, if you could make the argument that we have no evidence of the above, you would certainly make it, but because of the facts and evidence, you are prevented from doing so.

There is NO verifiable evidence of miracles, resurrection, or ascension.

Again, "fake news." We do indeed have "verifiable evidence." However, this "verifiable evidence" does not verify a resurrection.

Those are ONLY tales told in the bible.

Again, "fake news." There are no "tales told in the Bible." The fact is, the Bible tells no tales. The Bible does not say anything at all. The author of Matthew does, the author of Mark does, the author of Luke does, the author of Acts does, Paul does, and all these folks reported long before any sort of Bible, and the authors would not have had any idea about any sort of Bible. In other words, these authors were not writing in order to be recorded in the Bible, since they could not have known about a Bible. This is exactly why I am on record as saying, "I wish the Bible had never been composed" so that folks like you could not say, "the Bible says." Your comment above really sort of demonstrates one who has no idea about what is contained in what has been called the Bible.

Any claim that bible writers were independent, disconnected sources is invalid. Roman churchmen selected the writings to fit their agenda.

How in the world can Roman churchmen selecting these writings hundreds of years later demonstrate the authors were connected? If the "Roman churchmen selected the writings to fit their agenda" this does not demonstrate the authors were connected in any way. It would simply mean the Roman churchmen agreed with what the authors had to say. It certainly does not demonstrate a connection of the authors.

The thing is, I am convinced the authors are connected, and I believe they are connected in the fact that they all knew each other, and they are also connected in that they were all alive at the time of the events. So then, I am happy if you want to insist, the authors were connected. However, since you insist, and I agree that we cannot really know who the authors were, nor the time in which they wrote, nor where they were when they wrote, how in the world can we insist they were connected?

We cannot determine, by reading alone, whether a work is authentic, truthful, or accurate.

Correct! Which is why we have the use of the historical method, which is what the scholars apply to the facts and evidence we have, and it is the use of the historical method which has convinced most all scholars (including those who are not Christian) that the reports of the resurrection could not have been made up. Moreover, these scholars have not come to the conclusion that what is contained in the Bible is "authentic, truthful, or accurate." The thing is, no matter if the material is "authentic, truthful, or accurate" there are still a whole lot we can know by reading the material and the scholars demonstrate this to be the case.

If a person well known to favor democracy writes a book about political ideology, can we rationally expect the book to be biased? Is it likely that they would be promoting democracy?

We have already been through this. Since we agree that we can know nothing of the authors, we cannot know if they were religion promoters. What we can know is, the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT can be demonstrated not to have been an effort to promote the religion to the unbelieving world, since the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT can be demonstrated to have been addressed to those who already believed. What little is left cannot be insisted to have been an effort to promote the religion to the unbelieving world, since the author did not identify an audience. You seem to "want your cake and eat it too" in that on the one hand you want to insist we can know nothing of the authors, and then on the other you seem to want to insist they were promoters of the religion for the sake of appealing to the masses.

The crux of the matter is, unless the dead preacher actually came back to life, ascended into heaven, and controls a human ‘afterlife’, Christianity is based on false information.

On this we agree. If you are being honest, I think you would have to admit that you are convinced the reports are false. I am being honest when I reveal that I am convinced the claims are true. I have no problem with this, and am fine with agreeing to disagree, while agreeing that one, or the both of us are in error. What we do know is, something extraordinary occurred which has caused all of these events, and I know of no other religion in the world which is based on historical evidence which assures us the religion could not have possibly been made up.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #54]

Do you agree that the one that still holds, despite so many known facts presented by many who claim to know this issue of the resurrection of the man-named Jesus [the Son of God, per se] is only the positive ‘faith’ on those facts presented since no one [amongst us] is an eyewitness to this resurrection? The 100 % certainty on the crux of the matter is attainable only if the Lord Jesus, who is the Almighty God, reveals the truth to us.

I do not agree. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real historical figure. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was crucified. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus died. And I do not need faith in order to believe that this same Jesus was resurrected. I do not need faith in order to believe any of these things, because we have facts and evidence to base such a belief upon, and I can look at, study, weigh, and analyze these facts and evidence to come to a conclusion. What I would need faith in order to believe, and a faith which has been revealed to me by another would be, that these events atoned for my sin. In other words, forgiveness. Because you see, I cannot look at, study, weigh, analyze, or feel forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have the facts and evidence for the rest.

This is the problem the way I see it. Christians are arguing that the resurrection must be accepted by faith, and the only way to come to the conclusion the resurrection is true is that it has been revealed to you, when the fact is, the only thing which we have to accept by faith, is forgiveness of sin.

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #54]

Do you agree that the one that still holds, despite so many known facts presented by many who claim to know this issue of the resurrection of the man-named Jesus [the Son of God, per se] is only the positive ‘faith’ on those facts presented since no one [amongst us] is an eyewitness to this resurrection? The 100 % certainty on the crux of the matter is attainable only if the Lord Jesus, who is the Almighty God, reveals the truth to us.

I do not agree. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real historical figure. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was crucified. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus died. And I do not need faith in order to believe that this same Jesus was resurrected. I do not need faith in order to believe any of these things, because we have facts and evidence to base such a belief upon, and I can look at, study, weigh, and analyze these facts and evidence to come to a conclusion. What I would need faith in order to believe, and a faith which has been revealed to me by another would be, that these events atoned for my sin. In other words, forgiveness. Because you see, I cannot look at, study, weigh, analyze, or feel forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have the facts and evidence for the rest.

This is the problem the way I see it. Christians are arguing that the resurrection must be accepted by faith, and the only way to come to the conclusion the resurrection is true is that it has been revealed to you, when the fact is, the only thing which we have to accept by faith, is forgiveness of sin.

Why do you have to have faith [in what]? What and where is that faith geared to?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #54]

Do you agree that the one that still holds, despite so many known facts presented by many who claim to know this issue of the resurrection of the man-named Jesus [the Son of God, per se] is only the positive ‘faith’ on those facts presented since no one [amongst us] is an eyewitness to this resurrection? The 100 % certainty on the crux of the matter is attainable only if the Lord Jesus, who is the Almighty God, reveals the truth to us.

I do not agree. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real historical figure. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was crucified. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus died. And I do not need faith in order to believe that this same Jesus was resurrected. I do not need faith in order to believe any of these things, because we have facts and evidence to base such a belief upon, and I can look at, study, weigh, and analyze these facts and evidence to come to a conclusion. What I would need faith in order to believe, and a faith which has been revealed to me by another would be, that these events atoned for my sin. In other words, forgiveness. Because you see, I cannot look at, study, weigh, analyze, or feel forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have the facts and evidence for the rest.

This is the problem the way I see it. Christians are arguing that the resurrection must be accepted by faith, and the only way to come to the conclusion the resurrection is true is that it has been revealed to you, when the fact is, the only thing which we have to accept by faith, is forgiveness of sin.

Why do you have to have faith [in what]? What and where is that faith geared to?

I believe I have explained this pretty well above.

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #54]

Do you agree that the one that still holds, despite so many known facts presented by many who claim to know this issue of the resurrection of the man-named Jesus [the Son of God, per se] is only the positive ‘faith’ on those facts presented since no one [amongst us] is an eyewitness to this resurrection? The 100 % certainty on the crux of the matter is attainable only if the Lord Jesus, who is the Almighty God, reveals the truth to us.

I do not agree. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real historical figure. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was crucified. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus died. And I do not need faith in order to believe that this same Jesus was resurrected. I do not need faith in order to believe any of these things, because we have facts and evidence to base such a belief upon, and I can look at, study, weigh, and analyze these facts and evidence to come to a conclusion. What I would need faith in order to believe, and a faith which has been revealed to me by another would be, that these events atoned for my sin. In other words, forgiveness. Because you see, I cannot look at, study, weigh, analyze, or feel forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have the facts and evidence for the rest.

This is the problem the way I see it. Christians are arguing that the resurrection must be accepted by faith, and the only way to come to the conclusion the resurrection is true is that it has been revealed to you, when the fact is, the only thing which we have to accept by faith, is forgiveness of sin.

Why do you have to have faith [in what]? What and where is that faith geared to?

I believe I have explained this pretty well above.

Who do you think forgives sins? And what do you do for the forgiveness of your sins?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #59]

Who do you think forgives sins? And what do you do for the forgiveness of your sins?

The only one who can forgive sin is the one who has been sinned against. As stated already, forgiveness can only be accepted by faith.