Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The reason people reject the resurrection

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    What is written and attributed to Mark's account, Mark 14:12 has an actual date on the Jewish calendar, Exodus 12:18. https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

    Now Luke reports a year in Luke 3:1. 28AD. John reports three Passovers.
    ,So we can get 30AD for that third Passover for the crucifixion.
    Last edited by 37818; 05-26-2020, 04:11 PM.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      if you don't believe that it is eye witness testimony (or gathered by someone who interviewed eye witnesses in the case of Luke) then that is your prerogative, but if you want to claim that, you would need actual evidence to the contrary. Not just dismissing it.
      There's nothing to "dismiss" Sparko. I know of no evidence that shows that the NT writers were themselves eyewitnesses. At best, they appear to have been documenting what others saw. A couple of the epistles might be exceptions, but I emphasize the "might." Ultimately, we don't know who wrote them.

      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      The "you" in my comment was a generic "you" applicable to those who have done so in this thread.
      Fair enough - but the point stands.

      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      The people who wrote the gospels can indeed claim to "know what happened" - they were there.
      You don't know, and cannot show, that to be true - you have to assume it.

      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Again, you can personally dismiss their writings, but if you are just replacing it with mere conjecture like "maybe they were on drugs" or "maybe they couldn't find the right grave" or similar, then you are just using conjecture without evidence to dismiss eye-witness testimony. Your conjecture holds less water than the writing do. Again "generic you"
      Again, I have not proposed an alternate explanation. I have merely noted that the explanation "it happened as it is described in the NT documents" cannot be adequately, historically supported with respect to the miracles, quoted statements, and daily details. You (and others who believe as you do) lack the means - for exactly the same reason that I cannot prove any of those alternate explanations to be "historically accurate." At best, "we don't know," is what we can say historically about the life of Jesus - with fairly few exceptions. We DO know a great deal about what the mid-late first century Christian community believed, however. That much the NT documents ARE good for.

      ETA: Anyway, this line of discussion was explored pretty thoroughly with Seer in another thread (yet another derail). So I'll let my posts there stand.
      Last edited by carpedm9587; 05-26-2020, 05:15 PM.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        What you have in the NT is a report ABOUT people witnessing the events, which is not evidence from the actual witnesses.
        If the events and those affected by them were all that convincing, we would expect to see everyone in geographical proximity to them to be convinced.

        We see the exact opposite - the churches in Jerusalem and among the Jews don't seem to have attracted many followers or become any kind of significant factor in Jewish politics. Instead it was among the gentiles, a thousand miles and a century or three distant, from events and any witnesses to them, that Christianity really took off.

        It's a bizarre argument to make that these accounts are sooo convincing that we, 2000 years later, should accept them, when the people of the time and place didn't.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          What is written and attributed to Mark's account, Mark 14:12 has an actual date on the Jewish calendar, Exodus 12:18. https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

          Now Luke reports a year in Luke 3:1. 28AD. John reports three Passovers.
          ,So we can get 30AD for that third Passover for the crucifixion.
          Sir Isaac Newton's understanding of Luke 3:1 to be understood to be 29AD, April 7th 30AD could not work. He calculated two other Friday Passover dates. The one commonly accepted today is Friday April 3rd 33AD.

          https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            I notice all of the posts complaining about the facts, are nothing but conjecture with no evidence at all. strange.
            I explicitly referenced a prominent and highly respected Evangelical Christian scholar in my complaints about Wallace's claimed "facts." How is that "no evidence at all?"
            "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
            --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
              I explicitly referenced a prominent and highly respected Evangelical Christian scholar in my complaints about Wallace's claimed "facts." How is that "no evidence at all?"
              I went back through this thread, I still missed it.


              The New Testament documents are the evidence we have today.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                I went back through this thread, I still missed it.
                It was my first post in this thread. The first reply to the original post. Gary Habermas, an extremely well respected scholar who is also an Evangelical Christian, would not agree that Wallace's list of facts (with the sole exception of the death by resurrection) are as well established and indisputable as Wallace wants them to seem.

                The New Testament documents are the evidence we have today.
                I agree!
                "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                  It was my first post in this thread. The first reply to the original post. Gary Habermas, an extremely well respected scholar who is also an Evangelical Christian, would not agree that Wallace's list of facts (with the sole exception of the death by resurrection) are as well established and indisputable as Wallace wants them to seem.
                  Yep I sure did miss it.

                  The empty tomb narratives, however, are quite a bit more dubious; to the point that Habermas doesn't include them among his own list of minimal facts. That said, I personally don't mind granting the empty tomb for the sake of minimal facts arguments.
                  I also do not have any Gary Habermas' books in my personal library as yet. It is my understanding Gary Habermas is to be regarded as the best scholar on the resurrection of Christ.

                  Personally I have done a verse by verse study in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John from the day of the Passover, Mark 14:12, to the resurrrection events. The issue came up in my study, were those events real history or just a concocted story. That came out of the question was Jesus crucified on a Friday or a Wednesday? In other words was it real history? I was not disappointed, it deepened my faith.
                  Last edited by 37818; 05-29-2020, 12:18 PM.
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    I also do not have any Gary Habermas' books in my personal library as yet. It is my understanding Gary Habermas is to be regarded as the best scholar on the resurrection of Christ.
                    I don't know if I would call him the best but he most certainly is exceptionally knowledgeable on the subject. Even when I disagree with him, I highly respect Dr. Habermas' scholarship.
                    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      There's nothing to "dismiss" Sparko. I know of no evidence that shows that the NT writers were themselves eyewitnesses. At best, they appear to have been documenting what others saw. A couple of the epistles might be exceptions, but I emphasize the "might." Ultimately, we don't know who wrote them.
                      No, the authors don't identify themselves by name, but they are writing as eye-witnesses to the events. They are eye-witness testimonies. Again, you can ignore them, not believe them, but if you want to CLAIM that they are not eye-witness documents and expect anyone to believe you, then it is up to you to provide evidence for your claims. The burden is on you.


                      Fair enough - but the point stands.
                      nope.



                      You don't know, and cannot show, that to be true - you have to assume it.
                      No, I can read the documents. The gospels are writing as eye-witnesses to the events, and Luke is writing as an interviewer of eye-witnesses. And Paul's letters even identify himself.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                        I explicitly referenced a prominent and highly respected Evangelical Christian scholar in my complaints about Wallace's claimed "facts." How is that "no evidence at all?"
                        You weren't proposing "alternate facts" of what "really happened" either, like Starlight in post #5, postulating that they just couldn't find the right tomb. That is pure conjecture with no evidence.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          No, the authors don't identify themselves by name, but they are writing as eye-witnesses to the events. They are eye-witness testimonies. Again, you can ignore them, not believe them, but if you want to CLAIM that they are not eye-witness documents and expect anyone to believe you, then it is up to you to provide evidence for your claims. The burden is on you.


                          nope.


                          No, I can read the documents. The gospels are writing as eye-witnesses to the events, and Luke is writing as an interviewer of eye-witnesses. And Paul's letters even identify himself.
                          Not to mention that for most if not all of their names wouldn't need to be mentioned as they were relatively common knowledge at the time. At least in the communities that they were originally addressed to. The traditions about who wrote what go way back.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                            I don't know if I would call him the best but he most certainly is exceptionally knowledgeable on the subject. Even when I disagree with him, I highly respect Dr. Habermas' scholarship.
                            https://www.christianpost.com/news/6...ars-agree.html
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              No, the authors don't identify themselves by name, but they are writing as eye-witnesses to the events. They are eye-witness testimonies.
                              They really aren't. The authors are writing in the third person and at no point do they make it seem like they were eyewitnesses to the events. Even if one were to accept the traditional ascriptions of authorship, two of the gospel authors were most certainly not eyewitnesses.

                              Again, you can ignore them, not believe them, but if you want to CLAIM that they are not eye-witness documents and expect anyone to believe you, then it is up to you to provide evidence for your claims. The burden is on you.
                              That's not really the way it works. We both have access to these documents which do not, themselves, claim to be eyewitness accounts. If you want to claim that they are eyewitness accounts, then the onus of proving that claim is on you. Personally, I think there are quite good reasons to think that they are not the accounts of any of Jesus' followers, but if you would like to claim that they are then I am certainly interested in hearing why.

                              No, I can read the documents. The gospels are writing as eye-witnesses to the events, and Luke is writing as an interviewer of eye-witnesses. And Paul's letters even identify himself.
                              Why would you think that "the gospels are writing as eye-witnesses to the events?" I see no indication of that in the books, themselves.

                              Paul, I will certainly grant, is an eyewitness who explicitly claims to have seen the risen Christ. That does not seem to be the case for any of the gospel authors, though.

                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              Not to mention that for most if not all of their names wouldn't need to be mentioned as they were relatively common knowledge at the time. At least in the communities that they were originally addressed to. The traditions about who wrote what go way back.
                              The earliest extant traditions about who wrote what date to around 100 years after the last of the gospels was already in circulation. I don't see any compelling reason to think that these much later traditions were likely to reflect early beliefs about the gospels' authorship; and, indeed, there are quite good reasons to doubt these ascriptions.
                              "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                              --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                                They really aren't. The authors are writing in the third person and at no point do they make it seem like they were eyewitnesses to the events.
                                "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard..." (1 John 1:1-3)

                                For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.' We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain." (2 Peter 1:16–18)

                                Even if one were to accept the traditional ascriptions of authorship, two of the gospel authors were most certainly not eyewitnesses.
                                How do you know that Mark was not an eyewitness? Some say Mark 14:51-52 refers to him. And as far as Luke is concerned, we read:

                                "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1–4)

                                Why would you think that "the gospels are writing as eye-witnesses to the events?" I see no indication of that in the books, themselves.
                                Luke says he consulted eyewitnesses, and there are many eyewitness-type details in the gospels:

                                "Then Jesus directed them to have all the people sit down in groups on the green grass." (Mark 6:39)

                                "The next day as they were leaving Bethany..." (Mark 11:12)

                                The earliest extant traditions about who wrote what date to around 100 years after the last of the gospels was already in circulation.
                                Well, the extant traditions were based on something, most likely.

                                Blessings,
                                Lee
                                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X