The Resurrection

[Sleepy]

I'm slowly working on this topic and have summarised some key aspects of this debate which are nicely truncated by the likes of Gary Habermas (the name should be familiar to all those who know of Anthony Flew) and some other authors. Let me first set the biblical and historical scene.

The eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

- All the Gospels in the bible refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus. This miraculous event is the pivot on which all Christianity turns

- Paul a previous critic and opponent of Christians became a contemporary eye witness claiming that the risen Jesus appeared personally to him. This was corroborated by another NT author in Acts.

- Paul refers to an oral tradition in 1 Cor 15:3-8 which claims Jesus appeared to numerous others of his followers, this tradition is estimated to date back to the first two years after the crucifixion (pre-Paul). Paul made trips to Jerusalem to check out the consistency of his gospel teaching with those who knew Jesus (Gal 2:1-10). Paul confirms the consistency (1 Cor:15:11-15). Many other similar creedal messages are found in many of the sermons in Acts

- James the brother of Jesus had previously been a skeptic of his brother. Suddenly after the resurrection appearances (one of which was to him according to the creedal message), James becomes the pastor of the Church of Jerusalem.

- The empty tomb has not been successfully doubted, this adds some support to the claim that the disciples saw the risen Jesus being that those around them could not just point to the tomb where Jesus body was. Interestingly, the bible sites women as witnesses (something remarkable to do in a culture that would not have allowed female testimony in a court of law), if it was a made up story men would have been used to add credibility. Jerusalem would be the least likely of places to claim Jesus tomb was empty unless it actually was being that people there would know where the tomb was. Jewish leaders at the time did not dispute the empty tomb.

- The disciples lives all radically transformed after the supposed the resurrection of Christ even to the point of the majority being killed for their faith, some brutally so. This is often put down to them trying to start up their own lie, compared to suicide bombers. However suicide bombers actually believe the lies fed to them by others. In the case of the disciples, these men would have had to make up the lie and make it plausible enough to start up a faith in an area where the evidence would have otherwise said to the contrary. These men who then would have known they were preaching a lie are not likely to have died by numerous methods having never recanted their faith.

- We know medically that groups of people do not experience the same hallucination, likewise the same hallucination appearing to different people at different times is even more implausible. Isolated hallucinations do not change lives. Paul and Jesus brother James would not have had any reason to have made up this hallucination. Putting this down to some sort of mass delusion would be ignorant.

All these reasons suggest that the disciples truly thought they had seen the risen Christ.
This is accepted among most scholars including many skeptical scholars, Ehrman, Koester, Ludemann etc...

Either the most likely explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead or the disciples were all wrong.

To do this successfully a more plausible explanation should be found...

My Question for debate - What plausible explanation for what happened to the disciples and Jesus body is there?

Jesus didn't really rise from the dead. What really happened was _____.

[AB]

[quote]'Paul' wrote the LIE "that Christ (first)appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:5).


Hold on. in 1 Cor 15:5 it doesn't state "first" as you have inserted. Just because Paul wrote about Christ appearing to Peter, doesn't mean Paul didn't realize the women saw him before. Nice try. There is no lie.

[Goat]

Yes, it says 'when quintariss first became govenor of syria'
The first CENSUS.

And do you have any historical source that shows this was not 6 ce?

No speculation, but an actual source? JOshepus and Cassious Dio say that was 6 c.e.

Not at this time(I'm still researching this very interesting logical thing). But, at the same time. there is no actual source that 100% shows this first census was in 6. One thing we can draw from Luke is, there is more than one Census(If you specify a first census, logic dictates there is a 2nd)... And quintariss was prominant during the time of Herod.

Sigh.

Let see your evidence that Quintariss was govenor of Syria at the time of Herod the king.

Let's see your evidence that Quintariss had more than once census.

I think you are totally misreading the sentence. It didn't say 'The first cencus' it said 'When Quintariss first was govenor of syria', which is a time frame saying 6 c.e.

[AB]

Yes, it says 'when quintariss first became govenor of syria'
The first CENSUS.

And do you have any historical source that shows this was not 6 ce?

No speculation, but an actual source? JOshepus and Cassious Dio say that was 6 c.e.

Not at this time(I'm still researching this very interesting logical thing). But, at the same time. there is no actual source that 100% shows this first census was in 6. One thing we can draw from Luke is, there is more than one Census(If you specify a first census, logic dictates there is a 2nd)... And quintariss was prominant during the time of Herod.

Sigh.

Let see your evidence that Quintariss was govenor of Syria at the time of Herod the king.

Let's see your evidence that Quintariss had more than once census.

I think you are totally misreading the sentence. It didn't say 'The first cencus' it said 'When Quintariss first was govenor of syria', which is a time frame saying 6 c.e.

I am reading from a NIV bible and it states: (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria). But let's say it did refer to when Quintariss first was govenor of Syria. Sounds like there is a first and second time for Quintariss being governor... 4 BC and 6??? Still, my bible reads "first census".

I read Quintariss was quite prominant during the time of Herod. Agreed?

[Goat]

Yes, it says 'when quintariss first became govenor of syria'
The first CENSUS.

And do you have any historical source that shows this was not 6 ce?

No speculation, but an actual source? JOshepus and Cassious Dio say that was 6 c.e.

Not at this time(I'm still researching this very interesting logical thing). But, at the same time. there is no actual source that 100% shows this first census was in 6. One thing we can draw from Luke is, there is more than one Census(If you specify a first census, logic dictates there is a 2nd)... And quintariss was prominant during the time of Herod.

Sigh.

Let see your evidence that Quintariss was govenor of Syria at the time of Herod the king.

Let's see your evidence that Quintariss had more than once census.

I think you are totally misreading the sentence. It didn't say 'The first cencus' it said 'When Quintariss first was govenor of syria', which is a time frame saying 6 c.e.

I am reading from a NIV bible and it states: (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria). But let's say it did refer to when Quintariss first was govenor of Syria. Sounds like there is a first and second time for Quintariss being governor... 4 BC and 6??? Still, my bible reads "first census".

I read Quintariss was quite prominant during the time of Herod. Agreed?

Like I said, where is your evidence? I know that there is some speculation that Quintariss was govenor twice, but it doesnt' fit the Greek.
However, there isn't any evidence of it, and it doesn't fit what is written in greek.

Now, can you provide some actual evidence for this, or are you going to go with mere speculation to try to reconcile something (of course, you will have to be ignoring Josehphus and Cassius about this)

[AB]

Yes, it says 'when quintariss first became govenor of syria'
The first CENSUS.

And do you have any historical source that shows this was not 6 ce?

No speculation, but an actual source? JOshepus and Cassious Dio say that was 6 c.e.

Not at this time(I'm still researching this very interesting logical thing). But, at the same time. there is no actual source that 100% shows this first census was in 6. One thing we can draw from Luke is, there is more than one Census(If you specify a first census, logic dictates there is a 2nd)... And quintariss was prominant during the time of Herod.

Sigh.

Let see your evidence that Quintariss was govenor of Syria at the time of Herod the king.

Let's see your evidence that Quintariss had more than once census.

I think you are totally misreading the sentence. It didn't say 'The first cencus' it said 'When Quintariss first was govenor of syria', which is a time frame saying 6 c.e.

I am reading from a NIV bible and it states: (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria). But let's say it did refer to when Quintariss first was govenor of Syria. Sounds like there is a first and second time for Quintariss being governor... 4 BC and 6??? Still, my bible reads "first census".

I read Quintariss was quite prominant during the time of Herod. Agreed?

Like I said, where is your evidence? I know that there is some speculation that Quintariss was govenor twice, but it doesnt' fit the Greek.
However, there isn't any evidence of it, and it doesn't fit what is written in greek.

Now, can you provide some actual evidence for this, or are you going to go with mere speculation to try to reconcile something (of course, you will have to be ignoring Josehphus and Cassius about this)

No, I can not. But, I see holes in the theory of a contradiciotn within Luke as it relates to Herod and Q... for example there were 2 census and Q military governed syria during the time of Herod...

But lets say Luke did mis-write about when and who was around during the birth of Jesus. Still, that has no bearing on the Gospel at all.

[Goat]

Yes, it says 'when quintariss first became govenor of syria'
The first CENSUS.

And do you have any historical source that shows this was not 6 ce?

No speculation, but an actual source? JOshepus and Cassious Dio say that was 6 c.e.

Not at this time(I'm still researching this very interesting logical thing). But, at the same time. there is no actual source that 100% shows this first census was in 6. One thing we can draw from Luke is, there is more than one Census(If you specify a first census, logic dictates there is a 2nd)... And quintariss was prominant during the time of Herod.

Sigh.

Let see your evidence that Quintariss was govenor of Syria at the time of Herod the king.

Let's see your evidence that Quintariss had more than once census.

I think you are totally misreading the sentence. It didn't say 'The first cencus' it said 'When Quintariss first was govenor of syria', which is a time frame saying 6 c.e.

I am reading from a NIV bible and it states: (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria). But let's say it did refer to when Quintariss first was govenor of Syria. Sounds like there is a first and second time for Quintariss being governor... 4 BC and 6??? Still, my bible reads "first census".

I read Quintariss was quite prominant during the time of Herod. Agreed?

Like I said, where is your evidence? I know that there is some speculation that Quintariss was govenor twice, but it doesnt' fit the Greek.
However, there isn't any evidence of it, and it doesn't fit what is written in greek.

Now, can you provide some actual evidence for this, or are you going to go with mere speculation to try to reconcile something (of course, you will have to be ignoring Josehphus and Cassius about this)

No, I can not. But, I see holes in the theory of a contradiciotn within Luke as it relates to Herod and Q... for example there were 2 census and Q military governed syria during the time of Herod...

But lets say Luke did mis-write about when and who was around during the birth of Jesus. Still, that has no bearing on the Gospel at all.

What is your evidence that there where 2 cencuses in Judah. and what evidence do you ahve that Q military govenerned syria during the time of herod.

You make the claim. Show the evidence.

[AB]

What is your evidence that there where 2 cencuses in Judah. and what evidence do you ahve that Q military govenerned syria during the time of herod.

You make the claim. Show the evidence.[/quote]

Regarding the 2 census; Well the attack is on the writings of Luke. So, that is the core source in this thing. Luke writes there was a first census. Logically you can derived there was an eventual second census. Otherwise, why would he specify a first census?

Regarding Q's military governorship: I read that through the week from varying sources. I will follow up later and provide the source.

[Goat]

What is your evidence that there where 2 cencuses in Judah. and what evidence do you ahve that Q military govenerned syria during the time of herod.

You make the claim. Show the evidence.

Regarding the 2 census; Well the attack is on the writings of Luke. So, that is the core source in this thing. Luke writes there was a first census. Logically you can derived there was an eventual second census. Otherwise, why would he specify a first census?

Regarding Q's military governorship: I read that through the week from varying sources. I will follow up later and provide the source.[/quote]

What I would like you do to (I know what the evidence is), is that I would like you to look at the primary evidence, not just an 'if then maybe' view of what is there.

[AB]

What I would like you do to (I know what the evidence is), is that I would like you to look at the primary evidence, not just an 'if then maybe' view of what is there.[/quote]

OK, take out the writings of Luke. What do we got?... I would bet a lot that the story of the Messiah is intact.

[Goat]

What I would like you do to (I know what the evidence is), is that I would like you to look at the primary evidence, not just an 'if then maybe' view of what is there.

OK, take out the writings of Luke. What do we got?... I would bet a lot that the story of the Messiah is intact.[/quote]

If we take out the story of Luke, what we do is take out the several of the contradictions between luke and matthew.

We take out the birth story, we take out the genelogy that has to be explained away,. We take out the some contradictions with the cruxifiction, and the resurrection.


I am sure that luke, mark and matthew were working off the same oral tradition.. they might have even used the hypothetical 'q'. It does appear that Paul's idea of the Messiah is different than Matthew/Mark/Luke.