Christians: What is your best evidence for the literal, historical resurrection of Jesus

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@New_Deal_Democrat

For someone who claims to be a Bible scholar, you postulate certainty where it does not exist. I am a Christian with religious doubts. You seem to be a dogmatic atheist.

I have never claimed to be a Bible scholar, and I don’t know what you’re claiming I say “doesn’t exist,” but the burden to prove that something exists rests with the one who wants to assert existence.

My theory of Q is that it was written by one of the twelve apostles, perhaps as the events recorded happened. Before the invention of printing documents were slowly copied by hand. However Q was written, it was written on papyrus rather than parchment. Papyrus is much more perishable than parchment. It is easy to imagine part of the original document, or perhaps part of one of the few copies of the original document being lost.

That’s a fine theory, unfortunately it’s hampered by the fact that it’s a Greek composition, not an Aramaic one, and it’s believed to be a stratified work (with material being layered on by multiple authors over time), but it’s possible that it’s rooted in an original sayings source compiled by someone from Jesus’ original retinue. That’s kind of immaterial, though, since Q says nothing about a resurrection.

Keep in mind that none of the early fathers of the Church mentioned anything about Q

Papias may have with his mention of a sayings gospel compiled by Matthew (though Papias says that Matthew wrote in Hebrew).

It was only postulated in the nineteenth century.

That Luke and Matthew share a common written source besides Mark has always been true. It’s just that critical scholarship of the Bible is a relatively recent endeavor.

The gospels can be explained without it.

Not very easily.

Matthew may have been written first. Mark may be an abridgment of Matthew.

No, Mark was written first. This is accepted virtually universally in Biblical scholarship.

Luke may have used Matthew as a source.

The Farrer hypothesis. This hypothesis is hampered by he vast differences in Luke and Matthew’s nativities and appearance narratives.

If the gospel according to St. Matthew was written first, it was probably written by St. Matthew.

Extremely unlikely it was written first, but even if it was, there would still be absolutely nothing to connect to an apostle named Matthew. That’s not a claim the book even makes for itself.

Secular scholars of the New Testament reject that, because it would indicate that the accounts of the miracles are accurate.

Heh…those “secular scholars.”

No, the traditional authorship of Matthew is regarded as spurious mainly because it has neither internal nor external evidence to support it, because it copies from Mark and Q, and because it’s a Greek composition.

It’s also ludicrous to say that, even if it were written by Matthew, “it would indicate that the accounts of the miracles are accurate.” What nonsense. How would it indicate any such thing?

[Calculon]

@ch4rl3s

Is this really the issue? That it can’t be a bodily resurrection because it’s a spiritual one? That you don’t realize that a spiritual body should encompass and far surpass the physical? Don’t you know that spiritual beings are often depicted as manifesting physically? It isn’t supposed to be some watered down version of existence, it’s far beyond and far superior to, as well as encompassing the existence we know.

Sure, I can’t “prove” that Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter, or Hebrews, or that he taught Mark, or that the book of Mark, (which you already mentioned ends with the empty tomb, which is the main point here. Did Jesus physically rise?) was written largely based on what Peter told Mark. But, you can’t prove any historical figure wrote what was ascribed to him. We will never find the bones of Homer, with a pen in his hand, writing out known works of Homer. And if we did, it would be simple to say he was copying something someone else wrote.

But, you will never actually be able to critically ascess the reliability of the claims unless you at least entertain the possibility that those things happened. If Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter, and Mark wrote Mark based on what he learned directly from Peter, what does it say about what Peter actually believed? It strongly supports that Peter believed in an empty tomb, and that he believed Jesus was resurrected. (1 Peter 1:3) The first century sources you say are unreliable because they weren’t first hand, were largely taught first hand. We are only one step removed from the people who supposedly witnessed it. (Luke 1:1-2)
But, otherwise, it appears we are done. The thread is over. Why?
Because you are not actually engaging in an honest discussion.

Really? All he was saying is it wasn’t an ordinary event, but he is willing to entertain evidence for it actually happening? He very quickly bursts your bubble on that score.

(emphasis mine.)

The “discussion” point is ‘was Jesus resurrected? did he himself appear and talk to people?’ His starting premise, the point in dispute, is that it didn’t happen. That is the premise he is asking us to disprove. But, he disregards the testimony of Peter and Paul by saying that they are unreliable simply because they say it happened, therefore it couldn’t have happened. He’s using that premise to prove itself. A clearly circular argument. Which means, he isn’t engaging in discussion… everthing he’s saying after my comment confirms it… so… we’re done… There is no point in “discussing” when he isn’t engaging in the discussion.

This is also my opinion about the worth of “debating” anything with Diogenes. Simply put this whole thread, phrased as it was with reference to the “null hypothesis” was never going anywhere but obstinately denying the reality of any evidence that is presented through circular arguments. Diogenes use of the null hypothesis is simply pseudo-scientific nonsense. Assuming the null hypothesis is only valid when one actually has data that dis-confirms the test hypothesis. It is not valid to just assume that the null is valid until proven otherwise. Doing so will clearly lead you to wrong conclusions.

So for instance, say I have a chemical compound that has not gone through any toxological tests. To test it you run some toxological tests, where the test hypothesis is that it is poisonous, and the null is that it isn’t. Properly understood it is not valid to assume that either hypothesis is true until the tests have been carried out. One doesn’t assume that it is non-toxic until proven otherwise. If you already knew the toxicity of the substance through applying the null, why bother testing it?

If you think about it, assuming the null hypothesis without evidence leads to clearly absurd situations. Take for instance the existence of the planet Uranus. Here the null hypothesis would be that Uranus doesn’t exist. It wasn’t until the 18th century that there was some concrete observations that showed that Uranus existed. Which means that if you believed the null before the observations of Uranus were made you were clearly wrong. Uranus was there, and so assuming that is was not would be incorrect. The only way that it would have been true to believe the null would be if the planet Uranus didn’t actually exist before it was discovered. When the planet was discovered the act of discovering it would essentially bring it into being so that the test hypothesis then becomes correct. This is clearly absurd, not least because something that does not exist cannot produce evidence of its existence, and so nothing could ever be discovered and therefore come into existence.

So without any reason or argument to believe the null, then it is simply illogical to assume that it is true. One must suspend judgement until there is some evidence that allows you to distinguish between the test and the null hypothesis. Until Diogenes can produce some evidence of the truth of his naturalist worldview, then all of his arguments are simply circular or presuppositional.

Also the more I read Diogenes “interpreting” the bible the more I suspect that he really doesn’t know all that much about it, and that all he is doing is parroting stuff that he read on the secular web or other atheist websites. Without going into heaps of detail I think his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15 in entirely wrong, and that Paul is clearly talking of a physical resurrection. The word that Paul uses for body when he talks of a “spiritual body” is soma. Soma never means something non-material, it is always used to describe a physical thing. When Paul is talking about a spiritual body, what he means is a body that has been perfected by the Holy Spirit, not a ghost-like non corporeal entity. It is similar to how we might describe someone as a “spiritual person”. What that means is that that they are a person that is interested in spiritual things, not that they are some sort of ghost. This is a point that was raised by ITR Champion, and Diogenes, as far as I can tell, hasn’t ever really responded to it.

Calculon.

[cosmosdan]

@FriarTed

The cohesion of a bunch of muddled squabbling disciples into the early Christian Church.

After that, the survival of said Church of the Destruction of Jerusalem, her conquest of the Roman Pagan Beast, struggle between Babylonian Harlotry & Bridal Fidelity, and role as the Mother of Western-style Civilization all indicate to me that her Lord Jesus is all that is claimed for Him- God made Flesh, Sacrificed Savior, Risen Lord and Reigning Sovereign.

Take a look at the history of other world religions including some older than Christianity. Mankind has a habit of distorting and inflating and creating myth around historical and spiritual figures. The cool thing about Buddhism is that while the religion is full of interesting myths and miracles it is generally accepted that it isn’t important whether they are accurate, because it’s the spiritual lesson that matters.

I suspect that for many such as the Gnostics, the many stories about Jesus were similar. It simply doesn’t matter if they are literally true. The spiritual and philosophical lessons are just as relevant.

I am a former Christian , but now it just seems archaic to believe that the physical death of anyone could somehow serve as a sacrifice for the sins of all past present and future humans to the omnipotent creator of the Universe.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Calculon

This is also my opinion about the worth of “debating” anything with Diogenes. Simply put this whole thread, phrased as it was with reference to the “null hypothesis” was never going anywhere but obstinately denying the reality of any evidence that is presented through circular arguments.

Do you dispute the null hypothesis in this case? Do you despite that a physical resurrection is prima facie impossible? What evidence do you believe has presented to overcome the null so far?

Also the more I read Diogenes “interpreting” the bible the more I suspect that he really doesn’t know all that much about it, and that all he is doing is parroting stuff that he read on the secular web or other atheist websites.

I assure you this is not the case. I do have a degree in this shit. I pretty much just present mainstream scholarship. I don’t need atheist websites (although I moderate a Biblical criticism forum on one).

Without going into heaps of detail I think his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15 in entirely wrong, and that Paul is clearly talking of a physical resurrection. The word that Paul uses for body when he talks of a “spiritual body” is soma. Soma never means something non-material, it is always used to describe a physical thing.

Paul thinks that the “spiritual” is a kind of physicality, that it has some kind of tangible subtsance, and he also explicitly says that resurrected bodies are not “flesh and blood.”

I’ve asked several times whether anyone thinks Jesus appeared to Paul in a physical body and haven’t gotten an answer. What do you think?

[CurtC]

@Calculon

If you think about it, assuming the null hypothesis without evidence leads to clearly absurd situations. Take for instance the existence of the planet Uranus. Here the null hypothesis would be that Uranus doesn’t exist. It wasn’t until the 18th century that there was some concrete observations that showed that Uranus existed. Which means that if you believed the null before the observations of Uranus were made you were clearly wrong.

Sure, but if you believed that Uranus existed before the 18th century, you’d be right for the wrong reasons. It would be a bad idea for a 17th century person to believe that there was a planet Uranus without any reason to base that belief on.

So without any reason or argument to believe the null, then it is simply illogical to assume that it is true. One must suspend judgement until there is some evidence that allows you to distinguish between the test and the null hypothesis. Until Diogenes can produce some evidence of the truth of his naturalist worldview, then all of his arguments are simply circular or presuppositional.

You are really trying to shift the burden of proof. Why is naturalism the null? Because we know the natural world exists. We don’t know whether a supernatural world exists (whatever that means). If you propose that it does, it’s up to you to bring evidence, not up to Dio to present evidence that it doesn’t.

All of our experience tells us that people who are dead for a day and a half, stay dead. If someone proposes that there was a case where one came back to life, he better have good evidence. The null hypothesis is clearly that he stayed dead.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

By the way, if Jesus was “clothed” in a brand new spiritual body over his physical body, then why did he still have holes in his hands?

[cosmosdan]

@spiirit

Proof-

Proof is to cause belief by fact… but I precieve that your mind is made up and you don’t want to be confused by any fact’s.

Your answer is to be found in your own conversion by the application of something intangible called Faith. Faith can be proven to be fact and fact is truth. Since truth is not a lie then true faith is not a lie and, this also can be proven and thus becomes a fact.

Since neither true faith nor fact are viable without tangible evidence of support, your fact’s have no more weight than true faith.

That’s some interesting gymnastics there.
Faith exists, and that’s a fact. IMO, faith is a component of every human make up and belief system with no exceptions. Every human is a combination of emotion and intellect. Which of these steers us the most varies from person to person.
I’m unsure what you mean by “true” faith. We can have faith in many things and our degree of faith ranges from possibly true, to certitude. There is no situation where certitude creates it’s own facts.

In my own experience I’ve come to understand that moving forward based on faith is a normal and natural {even unavoidable} part of the human journey. We go forward with the understanding that there is still much to learn and new data and experiences matter and can help us grow. “The truth will set us free” If we strive to be true to ourselves in what we think and feel, we have a better chance of growing through that journey. There’s the rub, because fear is also a normal part of the human experience we are at times reluctant to let go of certain attitudes and concepts, especially when we associate them with our personal identity, worth, and/or security.
IMO, that’s why so many people embrace religious tradition over the reasonable conclusions of the evidence we have available.

This matter is closed to debate.

Tom W.

I suppose by this you mean “with you”
I can see why you’d prefer that.

[cosmosdan]

@New_Deal_Democrat

I have read The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. I have also read about Joseph Smith. I am confident that he was a religious charlatan. He was not deluded. He was certainly not a prophet.

My own experience with Christianity was through the RLDS. At the time I was excited by the prospect that God continued to communicate with humanity. It certainly made sense from the aspect of love. Even now the idea of continued communion and accessibility makes more sense to me than any authoritative collection of writings.
Now, years later, I’ve come to the same conclusion you have about Joe Smith. I do still wonder where he gathered the Book of Mormon from. One thing I learned about the individual journey through that experience is that the falseness of Smith, and even the books, doesn’t mean that sincere seekers can’t find something of value.

Although I am a practicing Christian, my theological beliefs are close to agnosticism, so I am able to consider various possibilities.

Can you tell me what you mean by practicing. I still enjoy several of the aspects of worship and have attended a few different congregations here {enjoyed the Bahai} but ultimately it always seemed there was an expectation to join the group which I found impossible because there were key aspects I didn’t agree with.

[cosmosdan]

@ITR_champion

In discussing Dr. Wright’s qualifications, you somehow forgot to mention that he’s held numerous academic positions in New Testament Studies, and has scholarly publications and books and debates up the wazoo and is widely respected in the field even by opponents. Instead you decided to accuse him of being anti-gay, a fact which has no relevance whatsoever to anything in this thread. When it comes to New Testament interpretation, Dr. Wright is about as authoritative as we can get. If you’re looking for someone who has no credentials in New Testament studies, check the nearest mirror.

My experience has been that very educated and respected scholars can have their own bias that influences their work, especially in religion.

I’m a fan of Bart Ehrman and have read several of his books. I remember another scholar offered a counter argument to Ehrman’s conclusions. One of the things that turned me off immediately was his reference to what he saw as Ehrman’s attack on Christianity , and his misrepresentation of what he thought Ehrman’s conclusions were.
As I saw it Ehrman was presenting a lot of factual evidence , an overview of different scholarly views, as well as his own. His gift was being able to put this kind of information in a language for layman. There was no attack on Christianity , other than when scholarly facts seem contrary to religious tradition. Ehrman didn’t insist his conclusions were correct but left the reader to form their own by explaining where scholars differ. IMO, the Christian scholars attempt at being an apologist revealed a degree of bias I hadn’t seen in Ehrman’s work.

All this to say that boo coo credentials and scholastic recognition in this field is great, but it doesn’t make an apologist’s argument more logical or true. In fact I often wonder why there is such an apparent need to defend a religious tradition under scholastic terms and with a nod to sound reasoning. IMO, it’s perfectly acceptable to say “I believe” in God , Jesus as his son, Heaven, whatever, without hard evidence. My only objection is embracing certain traditional beliefs that we have ample evidence against, which concerning Christianity, has mainly to do with what the Bible is and isn’t.
I think religious scholars are more likely than scholars in other areas to be affected by their bias. although several fields are less exact and more prone to conflicting opinion.

[ch4rl3s]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

[QUOTE=ch4rl3s]
It strongly supports that Peter believed in an empty tomb, and that he believed Jesus was resurrected.

No it doesn’t. Mark says Peter never even knew about the empty tomb.
[/QUOTE]

Hogwash. It does not say that Peter never, ever heard of it. It does not say, the women never spoke of it later, and no one, not even I, Mark, ever heard of it. It simply, (and I assume you are taking the ending as verse 8.) ends before they have a chance to hear of it. Not that they never heard of it. As of verse 8, they were too afraid to say anything, period. It does not say they were afraid forver and never told. It is disingenuous to leave the implication that Mark says the women never told this story, so Peter never heard it, and never told Mark, who never wrote it down. And that is the implication your definitive statement makes. You can’t possibly believe that implication yourself. I have never heard anyone, even those who think it originally ended at verse 8, suggest that that is where Mark intended to leave the story. Either it continued, but the end of the scroll was damaged and lost, or it ended because he couldn’t continue due to injury or death, or he intended to continue in another book like Luke did with Acts, (or possibly did, but that was lost.) All of the commentary talks about why it ends there, not about how that means Peter never heard it. The simple fact is that Mark talks of the empty tomb. All the 4 gospels say the tomb was empty and that women witnessed it. (which would be a ridiculous thing to make up, since women were known to be unreliable and couldn’t make witnesses. You only say this if you believe it. If you’re making up a story, you create good male witnesses, people in good social standing. You don’t say women first saw the resurrection. You don’t say, amoral, practically godless sheperds, (since that was the view of those disgusting people,) were invited by angels to see the newly born Messiah. etc. There are so many things you don’t say if you are making it up.

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The empty tomb and physical resurrection claims are not found in earlier layers like Paul or Q (or Thomas, for that matter) where you would expect to see them,
[/QUOTE]

Why would you expect Paul who had visited many of these places personally, and told them his story personally, to then recount every aspect of it again when writing to them for another purpose? Why would you expect to see it in Thomas which may be a gnostic text, and therefore wouldn’t believe the divinity of Jesus and therefore would not include any tale they knew of to corroborated that? If it’s a gnostic text, you *wouldn’t *expect to find that. Why would you expect it in Thomas or Q, which aren’t accounts of his life, only of sayings?

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

[QUOTE=ch4rl3s]
We are only one step removed from the people who supposedly witnessed it. (Luke 1:1-2)

Luke doesn’t say that. You need to get your facts straight. In point of fact, the closest thing the New Testament has to even a second hand source is Paul. Luke didn’t have any first hand sources. Luke’s sources were Mark and Q, possibly Josephus (for background) and his own imagination.
[/QUOTE]

Demonstrably false. Seeing as you couldn’t have read the verse I supplied and said that seriously, I will quote it.

[QUOTE=Luke 1:1-2]
1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
[/QUOTE]
(King James, picked because it was the least clear, but still distinctly saying he and others talked to eyewitnesses, and based their accounts on that.) They, who were the eyewitnesses, delivered these accounts to us. You may not believe him, but he does say that.

This is a joke. I haven’t been the slightest bit dishonest. Just rigorous about what constitutes evidence. I’m not here to be witnessed to. I’m asking for proof.

Here is where your argument is dishonest. Why the discussion doesn’t actually exist.

but, Paul was indeed either lying or psychotic. There are no other choices…

In an honest discussion, and everyone else has done this, you admit which things the other side claims as well. You admit which of your points are in dispute as well. Our side says, "among the options are: the witnesses actually saw a risen Jesus, or as you claim, they were lying or psychotic, discuss why we pick one side over the other. Your side, except for you, would also say, “we think visions must be lying or psychotic, but you think they were real, discuss, etc.” This is the discussion point. Your premise that these things are impossible is not true if the visions were real. So, you can not use that premse to disprove, (and summarily dismiss,) the visions. Alternately, the visions are false if your premise is true, they can not be used to disprove each other. Only if you prove one point otherwise do you disprove the other. I was saying that you were not having an honest discussion because, your statement boils down to… the visions can’t be real because my premise is that visions are not real. proven… You cleverly started this thread with the statement that all evidence has to be filtered through that premise. disprove my premise that visions are impossible by assumig visions are impossible, so any supposed evidence is discarded by the premise that visions are impossible and makes the viewer an unreliable witness, thereby corroborating the premise that visions are impossible.

I don’t believe because of the accounts of visions. I believe because I find the witness accounts to be credible without them, and then having credible witness accounts, I have to take the visions seriously. And do those visions square with the other things they say happened? I said, what if these things were true, is the whole thing credible? You never challenge your own belief, and so never start the argument. Every evidence is filtered through your pre-conceived notions that are not true if the evidence is, but you use these notions to disregard the evidence that your notion isn’t true. Total circle.

But, you obviously have never heard the phrase honest argument before. And you are not having an argument unless you say, what if these things, things I don’t believe, were true. You can’t say, that, so, it’s not an argument. A dishonest argument frames the discussion to assume a point that should be in contention as true, and “disproves” the alternate theories with that contentious point, or proves itself by assuming itself. You have done both. I will admit you honestly believe this means something. (It doesn’t.) I will admit you think it is a valid argument. (It isn’t.)

[ch4rl3s]

[QUOTE=ch4rl3s]
There are so many things you don’t say if you are making it up.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think anyone would expect a glorified, risen, God to appear with the wounds of his crucifiction still intact. People hallucinate their loved ones healed. Not with evidence of the humiliating event that caused them to scatter and question everything.

[ch4rl3s]

[QUOTE=ch4rl3s]
don’t think anyone would expect a glorified, risen, God to appear with the wounds of his crucifiction still intact.
[/QUOTE]

haha, hadn’t read this far when I posted that.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

By the way, if Jesus was “clothed” in a brand new spiritual body over his physical body, then why did he still have holes in his hands?

See, no one would expect that, especially at the time. It’s only in hind-sight, after coming to see Jesus as the risen Messiah that you can say, “oh, he kept those because it’s the symbol of his greatest triumph. Not his greatest defeat. He came specifically to be humble unto death, and He accomplished that. And by that he redeemed the world.”

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@ch4rl3s

Hogwash. It does not say that Peter never, ever heard of it. It does not say, the women never spoke of it later

Yes it does. It says the women ran away and were too afraid to tell anybody.

And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any [man]; for they were afraid.

That is the last verse of Mark.

and no one, not even I, Mark, ever heard of it. It simply, (and I assume you are taking the ending as verse 8.) ends before they have a chance to hear of it. Not that they never heard of it. As of verse 8, they were too afraid to say anything, period. It does not say they were afraid forver and never told.

It’s fun to make stuff up, but Mark doesn’t say they changed their minds, and the text is the text. Speculation about what the characters in a story did or didn’t do outside of the confines of the text might be fun, but it casts no light on the actual text. You made a claim that Mark shows that Peter believed in a physical resurrection. It does not. It ends by saying the women ran away and didn’t tell anybody. Anything beyond that is just fanfic. It’s not in the text. It’s useless speculation. No matter how you slice it, you can’t say that the surviving text includes or even implies a Petrine witness to the resurrection.

The simple fact is that Mark talks of the empty tomb. All the 4 gospels say the tomb was empty and that women witnessed it.

All copied from Mark.

(which would be a ridiculous thing to make up, since women were known to be unreliable and couldn’t make witnesses.

This is a common apologetic claim, but I’ve never seen a thing to back it up. Moreover, Mark’s claim is defamatory to the women, saying they disobeyed Jesus and didn’t tell anyone about the empty tomb like they were supposed to.

You only say this if you believe it. If you’re making up a story, you create good male witnesses, people in good social standing. You don’t say women first saw the resurrection.

Mark wasn’t presenting the women as witnesses, he was using them as devices to explain why the story hadn’t been known about before. Mark’s gospel is anti-apostolic and anti-Petrine. He repeatedly says the disciples were idiots and didn’t get it. He has Peter deny Jesus and flee after his arrest and trial. Mark does not give Peter or any of the other disciples any redemption or any witness of a resurrection. Mark does not allege any witnesses to a risen Jesus at all. All of this makes sense if Mark’s Gospel is intended to let new converts in on a secret and explain why this empty tomb story hadn’t been known about by the apostles. Then Matthew and Luke added the apostles back in. Perfectly reasonable. You say that scholars don’t think mark originally ended at verse 8? Well, an explicitly anti-apostolic denouement would explain that perfectly well, would it not?

You don’t say, amoral, practically godless sheperds, (since that was the view of those disgusting people,) were invited by angels to see the newly born Messiah. etc. There are so many things you don’t say if you are making it up.

Where do you get “amoral,” and “practically godless” from, and why are you now tossing Luke’s nativity into the thread? For the record, most of the original audience for this new cult was people on the bottom of society. The poorest and most destitute, the laborers, shepherds. etc. A large number of converts in the Pauline society were slaves. The humble social status of the characters in the mythology was a feature, not a flaw. The whole selling point was that Jesus was going to come back soon (within their lifetimes) and reverse the social order. 'The first will be last and the last will be first." That expectation (failed though it was) is what made Christianity an appealing underground movement in the first place.

Why would you expect Paul who had visited many of these places personally, and told them his story personally, to then recount every aspect of it again when writing to them for another purpose?

I would expect him to include an empty tomb as part of his appearance formula, but my larger point was only that you can’t use Paul as evidence for an apostolic belief in a physical resurrection.

Why would you expect to see it in Thomas which may be a gnostic text, and therefore wouldn’t believe the divinity of Jesus and therefore would not include any tale they knew of to corroborated that? If it’s a gnostic text, you *wouldn’t *expect to find that. Why would you expect it in Thomas or Q, which aren’t accounts of his life, only of sayings?

Gnostics believed in the divinity of Christ and the resurrection. What are you talking about?

Thomas probably wasn’t originally gnostic anyway, though it was evidently used by them, and they may have added to it.

Demonstrably false. Seeing as you couldn’t have read the verse I supplied and said that seriously, I will quote it.

I’m quite familiar with it, and it doesn’t say that Luke talked to witnesses. Luke says he familiarized himself with the material that has been “handed down to us” (παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν) from those who Luke (incorrectly) believed had been witnesses. Luke used written sources. We know this because we know what the sources were. they were primarily Mark and Q. When Luke did not have Mark or Q, he made things up (as with Joseph’s trip to Bethlehem).

(King James, picked because it was the least clear, but still distinctly saying he and others talked to eyewitnesses, and based their accounts on that.) They, who were the eyewitnesses, delivered these accounts to us. You may not believe him, but he does say that.

No he doesn’t.

Here is where your argument is dishonest. Why the discussion doesn’t actually exist.
In an honest discussion, and everyone else has done this, you admit which things the other side claims as well. You admit which of your points are in dispute as well. Our side says, "among the options are: the witnesses actually saw a risen Jesus, or as you claim, they were lying or psychotic, discuss why we pick one side over the other. Your side, except for you, would also say, “we think visions must be lying or psychotic, but you think they were real, discuss, etc.” This is the discussion point. Your premise that these things are impossible is not true if the visions were real. So, you can not use that premse to disprove, (and summarily dismiss,) the visions Alternately, the visions are false if your premise is true, they can not be used to disprove each other. Only if you prove one point otherwise do you disprove the other. I was saying that you were not having an honest discussion because, your statement boils down to… the visions can’t be real because my premise is that visions are not real. proven… You cleverly started this thread with the statement that all evidence has to be filtered through that premise. disprove my premise that visions are impossible by assumig visions are impossible, so any supposed evidence is discarded by the premise that visions are impossible and makes the viewer an unreliable witness, thereby corroborating the premise that visions are impossible.

I don’t know where you got that I said visions are impossible. Visons , I’m sure, happen all the time. They simply aren’t proof of anything, and the likelihood of hallucination is far greater than the likelihood that a dead body came back to life. It is prima facie impossible for dead bosies to come back to life. Sorry, but that’s a hard fact, and it is the default assumption that it hasn’t happened unless and until you show very strong evdience to the contrary. So far all you’ve got is that some guy said he had a hallucination of a dead guy (a guy he had never met while he was alive, by the way) appearing to him after he died. That is not anywhere near string enough to overcome the null.

I don’t believe because of the accounts of visions. I believe because I find the witness accounts to be credible without them

There aren’t any witness accounts.

and then having credible witness accounts

Where do you find these witness accounts and what makes them “credible?”,

But, you obviously have never heard the phrase honest argument before. And you are not having an argument unless you say, what if these things, things I don’t believe, were true.

I don’t have to say that about things that are impossible. I have no burden here.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@ch4rl3s

haha, hadn’t read this far when I posted that.

See, no one would expect that, especially at the time. It’s only in hind-sight, after coming to see Jesus as the risen Messiah that you can say, “oh, he kept those because it’s the symbol of his greatest triumph. Not his greatest defeat. He came specifically to be humble unto death, and He accomplished that. And by that he redeemed the world.”

So Paul was wrong, then?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

By the way, I’m still waiting to get an answer to my question about whether Jesus appeared to Paul in physical form or spiritual form.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@ch4rl3s

I don’t think anyone would expect a glorified, risen, God to appear with the wounds of his crucifiction still intact. People hallucinate their loved ones healed. Not with evidence of the humiliating event that caused them to scatter and question everything.

There is no evidence that anyone claimed to have seen Jesus with holes in his hands. We have no idea what, if anything, people may have actually hallucinated. If you want to assert that holes in the hand is not something anyone would have hallucinated, that’s fine (specious but fine), since it hasn’t been shown that anyone claimed to have seen such a thing in the first place. No explanation is required.

[Meatros]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

It’s fun to make stuff up, but Mark doesn’t say they changed their minds, and the text is the text. Speculation about what the characters in a story did or didn’t do outside of the confines of the text might be fun, but it casts no light on the actual text. You made a claim that Mark shows that Peter believed in a physical resurrection. It does not. It ends by saying the women ran away and didn’t tell anybody. Anything beyond that is just fanfic. It’s not in the text. It’s useless speculation. No matter how you slice it, you can’t say that the surviving text includes or even implies a Petrine witness to the resurrection.

Speaking about this, with regard to Mark 16:8, I think there is a theory that says that no one had heard the story before (say 65 AD) because the women didn’t tell anyone and that the angel (or whatever he was at the end of the story) was the one who was releasing the information (so it wasn’t the apostle Mark who wrote the gospel, it was the angel or whatever).

Have you heard this theory before?

This is a common apologetic claim, but I’ve never seen a thing to back it up. Moreover, Mark’s claim is defamatory to the women, saying they disobeyed Jesus and didn’t tell anyone about the empty tomb like they were supposed to.

Yes, it’s a very disingenious claim since Mark is not attempting to present evidence in a court of law, which is where women’s testimony is supposed to be so unreliable - further, it’s the Gospel of Mark, not the Gospel of ‘the women’, although I wonder how apologists who make this claim explain the Gospel of Mary? Why would such a Gospel have even been made if women were not reliable?

[ch4rl3s]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I also didn’t say it wasn’t true “because the say it happened.” I said that Paul’s word is simply insufficient to overcome the null hypothesis.

No, What you said was that Paul’s having made a claim of seeing Jesus made him…

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
… indeed either lying or psychotic. There are no other choices…
[/QUOTE]

I don’t mind if you find it insufficient. I don’t expect to convince you, but you have no chance to convince me either, because that is not, entertaining the possibility, but finding it insufficient to overcome the hypothesis. That is using the hypothesis as a true statement, to decide whether a claim has any bearing on the truth value of the hypothesis.

Like I’ve already said, no hypothesis can be used to prove itself.

“argument” goes something like this:
A: I don’t believe that visions can ever be a contact with another sentience… But, I’m willing to “entertain” the idea and “discuss” it.
B: I know of some that convince me they were.
A: Let me look at those claims. First we assume that every vision is not contact with another sentience. Then, from that assumption, every vision must be either a lie, or a psychotic episode. There are no other choices!
B: Yes, there are, your assumption could be wrong.
A: (Continuing without even noticing the interruption,) A lie or psychotic episode is not credible evidence of contact with another sentience. Your accounts are of visions, and therefore can not be credible…
A: Since they aren’t credible, they can not be used as evidence of contact with another sentience. And though I have honestly challenged my belief, your story doesn’t rise to the level of evidence, let alone make me question my belief.
B: You can’t honestly challenge your belief by assuming it can’t be wrong. And anyone who honestly thinks it is a valid argument has nothing credible to say. Every other conclusion you have ever come to is suspect because I have to assume it was derived from the same faulty logic. I can take your word for NOTHING!

There never was a discussion.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Meatros

Speaking about this, with regard to Mark 16:8, I think there is a theory that says that no one had heard the story before (say 65 AD) because the women didn’t tell anyone and that the angel (or whatever he was at the end of the story) was the one who was releasing the information (so it wasn’t the apostle Mark who wrote the gospel, it was the angel or whatever).

Have you heard this theory before?

It doesn’t ring a bell specifically with the angel, but I’ve seen a hypothesis that the man at the tomb was the same as the “young man” who slipped out of his clothes and fled naked during Jesus’ arrest and that he was the “witness” (unnamed) who wrote Mark’s gospel.

[Meatros]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

It doesn’t ring a bell specifically with the angel, but I’ve seen a hypothesis that the man at the tomb was the same as the “young man” who slipped out of his clothes and fled naked during Jesus’ arrest and that he was the “witness” (unnamed) who wrote Mark’s gospel.

I’ve heard that one too.
Shoot, now I’m going to have to figure out where I’d heard the other from…