The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[Inkubus]

Any feedback on that report?

Nope.  No PM to me, and obviously no banning of Xavier.     

Are the mods and/or admin even aware of our ban
requests? And assuming they are, then why no action?

For the millionth time, without the trolls this place is dead. Admin understand this perfectly well. 
If the 'exercise the family neuron' thread was shut down, that might help.

Word association thread (21,356 replies)

Science (Practically fuckall)

[SYZ]

... The vast majority of scholars completely reject the idea that Jesus Christ and Saint Paul are later myths. They are historical persons.

No they're not.

Anyway... when you masturbate, do you find that your jizz
tends to stick the pages of your bible together if you fail to
wipe it off quickly?

 Just askin' mate.     

[Xavier]

@Xavier
The thing is, nobody actually saw Jesus rise from the dead.
All we have are contradictory gospels. There's no agreement about any of the 'events' in the gospels, even down to how many women were present at the EMPTY tomb.

None of this shit would stand up in a court of law.

A harmony of the Gospel accounts was presented in the New Advent link shared in the OP. Here it is again, with a relevant excerpt about the women at the Tomb. Btw, the women at the tomb, by the "Criterion of Embarrassment" used by many Scholars, is yet another proof that the Male Apostles did not invent the Gospel Story, for no 1st century Jewish man, when women were held in such low esteem, and the oral law of the day did not accept the testimony of a woman, would make women the witnesses of the Resurrection. But Jesus did. Here is the link: "Here is an outline of a possible harmony of the Evangelists' account concerning the principal events of Easter Sunday: ... Mary Magdalen, Mary the Mother of James, and Salome approach the sepulchre, and see the stone rolled back, whereupon Mary Magdalen immediately returns to inform the Apostles (Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1-2). The other two holy women enter the sepulchre, find an angel seated in the vestibule, who shows them the empty sepulchre, announces the Resurrection, and commissions them to tell the disciples and Peter that they shall see Jesus in Galilee (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:5-7)." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm

Sue Bohlin writes about the women witnesses: "The first people Jesus chose to appear to after his resurrection were women; not only that, but he instructed them to tell his disciples that he was alive (Matt. 28, John 20). In a culture where a woman’s testimony was worthless because she was worthless, Jesus elevated the value of women beyond anything the world had seen." https://bible.org/article/christianity-b...ened-women


Also, the Gospels are written by (1) First Century Eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ (2) who were also Martyrs (3) who were either one of the 12 (Matthew and John), or one of the 70/72 disciples sent out by Christ 2 by 2 (Mark and Luke, also respectively disciples of Peter and Paul). If Christ were really not risen, or one of these had invented the story, they would have caved under pressure of martyrdom (especially as devout religious Jews fearing God's Judgment), and "confessed" and recanted their claim.

No they didn't, they fled and dispersed. As far as we know there were only three disciples (later apostles) that carried on the movement: Cephas, James, and John. The rest of them were nowhere to be found after the crucifixion, and the canonical gospel authors cannot even agree on who the 12 were.

Please elaborate. I don't know what you mean. As far as I know/recall, all 12 Apostles are identified identically in the Synoptic Gospels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles_i...sus_Christ

The 12 Apostles travelled worldwide, and spread Christianity everywhere. How do you think Christianity reached places where e.g. Judaism never or at least hardly ever went? Because Jesus Christ infused that Missionary Zeal into His Apostles. You'll find St. Thomas Christians in India who trace their priestly lineage back to St. Thomas, Christ's Apostle, as just one example among many. 

I think that covers the responses. Please let me know for any other question. God Bless.

[Deesse23]

You're misunderstanding me. People may die for what they sincerely believe is the Truth, but is objectively mistaken. But no one or hardly anyone will die FOR WHAT THEY KNOW IS A LIE. If the Resurrection were a lie, then the Apostles knew it and yet knowingly died for a lie.

Jesus F. Christ, this guy is so fucking dense.

[SYZ]

...I think that covers the responses. Please let me know for any other question. God Bless.

 Me! me! me! I have a question.

When you masturbate, do you find that your jizz
tends to stick the pages of your bible together if
you fail to wipe it off quickly?

Let's know mate. Consider

[Dānu]

People who are innocent have plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit. You don't know the exact circumstances of deaths of the apostles, many of which are exaggerated or false, so you don't know that they didn't die for a lie. You're just speculating. Your speculations prove dick. Shit happens in the real world, unlike your sanitized accounts of what happened.

[jerry mcmasters]

"That Jesus was crucified [under Pontius Pilate] is as certain as anything historical can ever be" ~ John Dominic Crossan of the Liberal Jesus Seminar.

Crossan does not think there was a resurrection, and it was the Jesus Seminar not “Liberal Jesus Seminar”

I wouldn't call a penalty here, at least not on the second part.  The whole schtick of the Jesus Seminar phenomenon was that it was "liberal," not conservatively or conventionally tied to traditional orthodox religious beliefs (resurrection and other miracles really occurred) about Jesus.

[brewerb]

You're misunderstanding me. People may die for what they sincerely believe is the Truth, but is objectively mistaken. But no one or hardly anyone will die FOR WHAT THEY KNOW IS A LIE. If the Resurrection were a lie, then the Apostles knew it and yet knowingly died for a lie.

Jesus F. Christ, this guy is so fucking dense.  

Um... there is this thing often referred to as brain washing (indoctrination) which religions employ all the time. So I will counter X's position with Jonestown, Branch Davidians, and Heaven Gate. That's just scratching the surface.

[Dānu]

Crossan does not think there was a resurrection, and it was the Jesus Seminar not “Liberal Jesus Seminar”

I wouldn't call a penalty here, at least not on the second part.  The whole schtick of the Jesus Seminar phenomenon was that it was "liberal," not conservatively or conventionally tied to traditional orthodox religious beliefs (resurrection and other miracles really occurred) about Jesus.

That would be fine if he did that for all points of view, but doing it for one and not another is a form of poisoning the well.

[Xavier]

Let's start with the Martyrdoms of Saint Peter and Saint Paul. Even an Atheist here early mentioned them as the Chief Pillars of Early Christianity. These took place under the well known pagan Roman Emperor Nero and are very well documented.

Saint Jerome, on Illustrious Men: "Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion — the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia — pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord. He wrote two epistles which are called Catholic, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him. Then too the Gospel according to Mark, who was his disciple and interpreter, is ascribed to him. On the other hand, the books, of which one is entitled his Acts, another his Gospel, a third his Preaching, a fourth his Revelation, a fifth his Judgment are rejected as apocryphal."Buried at Rome in the Vatican near the triumphal way he is venerated by the whole world." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm The second year of Claudius is 42 A.D. and the 14th year of Nero is 67 A.D. St. Peter's 25 year reign as Bishop of Rome (Pope) was therefore from 42-67 A.D. The Gospel of St. Mark, as incidentally mentioned above, is essentially St. Peter's Gospel proclamations in written form. So we have an Eyewitness Martyr, and the Leader of the Apostles, who confirms it.

St. Eusebius, on Ecclesiastical History: "4. The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows: "Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome. We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something of great excellence."
5. Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God's chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.
6. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid:
7. "But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church."
8. And that they both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans, in the following words: You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time. I have quoted these things in order that the truth of the history might be still more confirmed." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm

That will do for now. Will quote from the histories of the lives of the other Apostles, and how they are confirmed by the history of numerous nations, and by the fact that Christianity was solidly established in those places, later on. God Bless.

[Dānu]

Let's start with the Martyrdoms of Saint Peter and Saint Paul. Even an Atheist here early mentioned them as the Chief Pillars of Early Christianity. These took place under the well known pagan Roman Emperor Nero and are very well documented.

Saint Jerome, on Illustrious Men: "Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion — the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia — pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord. He wrote two epistles which are called Catholic, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him. Then too the Gospel according to Mark, who was his disciple and interpreter, is ascribed to him. On the other hand, the books, of which one is entitled his Acts, another his Gospel, a third his Preaching, a fourth his Revelation, a fifth his Judgment are rejected as apocryphal."Buried at Rome in the Vatican near the triumphal way he is venerated by the whole world." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm The second year of Claudius is 42 A.D. and the 14th year of Nero is 67 A.D. St. Peter's 25 year reign as Bishop of Rome (Pope) was therefore from 42-67 A.D. The Gospel of St. Mark, as incidentally mentioned above, is essentially St. Peter's Gospel proclamations in written form. So we have an Eyewitness Martyr, and the Leader of the Apostles, who confirms it.

St. Eusebius, on Ecclesiastical History: "4. The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows: "Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome. We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something of great excellence."
5. Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God's chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.
6. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid:
7. "But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church."
8. And that they both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans, in the following words: You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time. I have quoted these things in order that the truth of the history might be still more confirmed." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm

That will do for now. Will quote from the histories of the lives of the other Apostles, and how they are confirmed by the history of numerous nations, and by the fact that Christianity was solidly established in those places, later on. God Bless.

None of this shows that they had any chance to recant. So, no, this doesn't show that they "died for a lie" even if their accounts were fictional. It just shows that they were killed. That doesn't show anything, even if you ignore the bias of the sources. Dying for a cause was considered a dignified death and the culture promoted it. That's a separate reason for dying completely apart from the truth or falsity of their accounts. As Moss points out, these people may not have had a choice. You're attributing to them a choice that you don't know they had.

[jerry mcmasters]

I wouldn't call a penalty here, at least not on the second part.  The whole schtick of the Jesus Seminar phenomenon was that it was "liberal," not conservatively or conventionally tied to traditional orthodox religious beliefs (resurrection and other miracles really occurred) about Jesus.

That would be fine if he did that for all points of view, but doing it for one and not another is a form of poisoning the well.

Looking at it now I think using capital "L" is the error.  Small "l" would have been fine.  (Frankly X just copies and pastes stuff so I don't know the context of wherever he lifted it from)

Respectfully disagree, it's a debate, he's using an adjective and the adjective is not incorrect (except for how I just mentioned).  What would have been opportunities to refer to other similar institutions as the JS (or other "points of view") with adjectives so as to not "poison the well"?

[Deesse23]

People who are innocent have plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit.  You don't know the exact circumstances of deaths of the apostles, many of which are exaggerated or false, so you don't know that they didn't die for a lie.  You're just speculating.  Your speculations prove dick.  Shit happens in the real world, unlike your sanitized accounts of what happened.

He argued that (paraphrasing) "the apostles would have known if the resurrection a lie". I was about to ask him, but decided it would be pearls before the swine: How does Xavier know the Apostles knew? After all, the Apostles could have been honestly wrong, like every Christian ever since then.

[CapriMark1]

JD Crossan is not a Christian anymore. He believes the Resurrection is a "metaphor". Yet, even he acknowledges the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ under Pontius Pilate is a historical fact. [

So what does Mr Crossan cite for his "historical fact"?  A list of executions from the Romans?  Be aware that the Bible can't be cited because that is what the dispute is about!

[Xavier]

Danu: "None of this shows that they had any chance to recant. So, no, this doesn't show that they "died for a lie" even if their accounts were fictional. It just shows that they were killed."

Read it again. It says (1)"At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord." Does that sound like someone who was on the point of recanting? It sounds like someone who was very sure Christ had truly been crucified. Also (2) the Early Christians only considered someone as a "Martyr" if they had died confessing Christ, not just for any plain death.

CapriMark: Tacitus was the official biographer for the Roman Empire of Tiberius Caesar. If Christ's Death wasn't a historical fact, Tacitus would have told us so. Instead, he confirms the Gospel narratives that Christ was crucified under Pilate and Tiberius. Beside that, please note, unlike e.g. (1) the Book of Mormon, or (2) the Quran, which were (3) written by one single person 5 or 15+ centuries and whole lifetimes after the events, and appeal purely to supernatural revelation, the Gospel records were written by (1) disciples of Christ, no differently than (2) Plato's disciples wrote about his sayings/teachings. That is why even Secular/Atheistic/Agnostic Historians acknowledge - without believing in supernatural inspiration - that the Gospel Biographies have historical value. So does e.g. the Creed mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15, which dates to within a few years of the Crucifixion/Resurrection, as further mentioned below.

From: https://www.evidenceunseen.com/christ/de...urrection/

It may surprise you to read, but even atheistic, critical scholars agree that the disciples had sincere experiences that they believed were Jesus risen from the resurrection:[1]

Gerd Lüdemann (atheistic NT professor at Göttingen): “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”[2]

Bart Ehrman (atheistic NT scholar): “It is undisputable that some of the followers of Jesus came to think that he had been raised from the dead, and that something had to have happened to make them think so.”[3]

Paula Fredriksen (historian and professor of religious studies at Boston University): “I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something.”[4]

Gary Habermas (Christian historian and philosopher): “It seems clear that the disciples were utterly persuaded that the risen Jesus had appeared to them. The data are strong enough that this is granted by virtually all critical scholars.”[5]

[Xavier]

Above article, continued:

Why would the vast majority of critical scholars affirm that the disciples sincerely believed that Jesus appeared to them after his death? The historical data are solid:

First, our earliest historical source records the eyewitnesses: 1 Corinthians 15. The concept of the eyewitnesses goes back to our earliest historical sources—not late legends. It lists three groups of people (e.g. the 500, the Twelve, and the apostles) and three individual people (e.g. Peter, James, and Paul).

Second, Jesus appeared to groups—not just individuals. 1 Corinthians 15 notes that Jesus appeared “to the Twelve… and to more than five hundred” (1 Cor. 15:6). Likewise, the gospels also report that Jesus appeared to groups—not just individuals. It would be counterproductive for Paul to mention 500 eyewitnesses of the resurrection, if they were not alive to corroborate his account. C. H. Dodd writes, “There can hardly be any purpose in mentioning the fact that most of the 500 are still alive, unless Paul is saying, in effect, ‘The witnesses are there to be questioned.’”[6]

Third, Jesus appeared to skeptics and violent persecutors of the Christian faith. In one massive appearance, some of the disciples still “doubted” (Mt. 28:17). Moreover, Jesus appeared to two key figures: (1) Paul and (2) James.

(1) Paul of Tarsus. Even if we limit ourselves to the letters only affirmed by critical scholars,[7] we discover that Paul had been an extremely zealous Pharisee (Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:5-6) and a violent persecutor of Christians (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13; Phil. 3:6). Yet, he claimed that the risen Jesus appeared to him (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:15-16), changing his life forever. At this moment, Paul became a proclaimer of Jesus’ message—not a persecutor of it (Gal. 1:16). He went from persecuting others to being persecuted himself.

(2) James—Jesus’ half-brother. James was not a believer in Jesus, and it’s easy to sympathize. Craig writes, “Many of us have brothers. What would it take to make you believe that your brother is the Lord, so that you would die for this belief, as James did? Can there be any doubt that the reason for this remarkable transformation is to be found in the fact that ‘then he appeared to James?’”[8]

James had been downright dogmatic in his disbelief. Originally, he thought Jesus was “out of his mind” (Mk. 3:21 NIV). Along with the rest of his brothers, James urged Jesus to travel to Judea, so that the religious leaders would kill him (Jn. 7:3-5). Nevertheless once James saw his brother risen from the dead (1 Cor. 15:7), he dedicated his adult life to following him. He became an “apostle” (Gal. 1:19) and a “pillar” of the early church (Gal. 2:9). The historical data about James carry heavy weight, because they would be embarrassing to record about one of your central leaders in Jerusalem. This is why even skeptical NT critics consider James to be one of the strongest evidences of Jesus’ resurrection.[9]

Moreover, when a feigned leader was killed by the authorities, the disappointed movement would usually fashion their hope on the dead leader’s brother or closest relative. Yet James receives not even a mention of this. Instead, James becomes a radical follower of his crucified brother.[10]

[Xavier]

The Fourth point addresses the objection here. Please read carefully:

Fourth, Jesus’ closest disciples died for their faith. It is a defensible statement to say that Jesus’ closest disciples were willing to suffer and die because of their dedication to Christ.

(1) Paul. Emperor Nero beheaded Paul in Rome in ~AD 67.[11] He also endured serious suffering and torture (1 Cor. 4:9-13; 2 Cor. 11:23-28).

(2) Peter. Emperor Nero crucified Peter in Rome in ~AD 67.[12]

(3) James—the half-brother of Jesus. The Roman historian Josephus records that the Sanhedrin had James stoned to death.[13] Later Christian authors add that James was “thrown from the pinnacle of the temple” and “beaten to death with a club.”[14]

In 1963, a Buddhist monk doused himself in gasoline and burned himself alive to protest the persecution of Buddhists in South Vietnam.[15] In 2001, Muslim extremists flew airplanes into the World Trade Center, believing that paradise awaited them. Between the years of AD 62-67, Paul, Peter, and James suffered horrific martyrdom because they believed in Jesus of Nazareth.

None of this demonstrates whether these beliefs are true, but it does demonstrate that the person truly believed them. To put this another way, martyrdom doesn’t show the veracity of our beliefs, but it does show the sincerity of our beliefs! Beyond painful martyrdom, what greater evidence could we ask for? These men signed their testimony in their own blood, and it’s safe to say that liars make poor martyrs!

[Dānu]

Danu: "None of this shows that they had any chance to recant. So, no, this doesn't show that they "died for a lie" even if their accounts were fictional. It just shows that they were killed."

Read it again. It says (1)"At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord." Does that sound like someone who was on the point of recanting? It sounds like someone who was very sure Christ had truly been crucified. Also (2) the Early Christians only considered someone as a "Martyr" if they had died confessing Christ, not just for any plain death.

First, Jerome was writing several hundred years after the event. Even then, Jerome doesn't know what choices he was offered, if any. You're speculating again.

[Dānu]

To put this another way, martyrdom doesn’t show the veracity of our beliefs, but it does show the sincerity of our beliefs!

No it does not. It shows they were killed, perhaps because of their beliefs, perhaps they would have been killed regardless. It simply cannot be determined conclusively.

[Cavebear]

Nope.  No PM to me, and obviously no banning of Xavier.     

Are the mods and/or admin even aware of our ban
requests? And assuming they are, then why no action?

For the millionth time, without the trolls this place is dead. Admin understand this perfectly well. 
If the 'exercise the family neuron' thread was shut down, that might help.

Word association thread (21,356 replies)

Science (Practically fuckall)

Word association requires no thought. Science threads do.

This place is not "dead" without trolls. I am mostly here for the science, history, and political discussions among fellow atheists. Responding to the trolls is what I do last when very bored and I even do less of that recently.

If you want to go arguing with theists, go to their sites. I bet they would love to have you.

[Edible crust]

For the millionth time, without the trolls this place is dead. Admin understand this perfectly well. 
If the 'exercise the family neuron' thread was shut down, that might help.

Word association thread (21,356 replies)

Science (Practically fuckall)

Word association requires no thought.  

Excuse me..... It took me ages to think of the word 'arse' earlier today.

[Aractus]

I wouldn't call a penalty here, at least not on the second part.  The whole schtick of the Jesus Seminar phenomenon was that it was "liberal," not conservatively or conventionally tied to traditional orthodox religious beliefs (resurrection and other miracles really occurred) about Jesus.

The Jesus Seminar's goal was to investigate the historical truth about Jesus of Nazareth (specifically: “To decide their collective view of the historicity of the deeds and sayings of Jesus of Nazareth”). It was formed in 1985. This is before we even had Steve Mason's work on Josephus - and I note that Harris 1898 somehow went unnoticed by them!!

Please elaborate. I don't know what you mean. As far as I know/recall, all 12 Apostles are identified identically in the Synoptic Gospels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles_i...sus_Christ

The 12 Apostles travelled worldwide, and spread Christianity everywhere. How do you think Christianity reached places where e.g. Judaism never or at least hardly ever went? Because Jesus Christ infused that Missionary Zeal into His Apostles. You'll find St. Thomas Christians in India who trace their priestly lineage back to St. Thomas, Christ's Apostle, as just one example among many. 

I think that covers the responses. Please let me know for any other question. God Bless.

Your source is Wikipedia?

Start with Lindars 1986 please. Then you can move to Goodacre 2021. That should take care of the empty tomb pretty much entirely, but if you really want further reading I can provide it to you. The disciples were not convinced in a translation based on an “empty tomb” it was the christophanies that “convinced” them.

When exactly do you think the Canonical Gospels were written?

I'll note you're shifting the goalposts by responding with Synoptic Gospels when what I said was clearly Canonical Gospels.

All four Canonical Gospels are derived from the first one, which is Mark. Luke-Acts is second century and the “central theme of Luke–Acts is that the message of salvation was sent to the Gentiles because the Jews rejected it” (Burkett 2019). The gospel of John is mid-second century, it's the last of the Canonical Gospels to be written with “John” making use of all three previous “Synoptic Gospels” as you call them.


Anyway the disciples are characters in a prose. Some of them were historical figures (Peter, James and John) but in gospels they are not the disciples from history, they're just characters in the story.

External evidence is absolutely demonstrative that St. Matthew the Apostle himself wrote the Gospel of Matthew, wrote first, and wrote well before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This is attested to by Bishop Saint Papias, who knew St. John the Apostle; Tertullian in Africa; Saint Irenaeus, who was bishop of Lyons in Europe but well acquainted with the Tradition of the East, having spent a significant time in Asia; and several other witnesses. Thus we have the unanimous witness of three whole continents and virtually the entire early Christian world that Saint Matthew the Apostle is the first of the Evangelists and wrote his Gospel well before 70 A.D."

Mark is written sometime after 70 CE and Matthew is, in my view, one generation later. That is - about 20 years later or so. The gospels are fundamentally theological texts, and Matthew's purpose is to update the “long-in-the-tooth” theology of Mark. It's been 20 years, some of Mark's theology hasn't aged well and Matthew as (presumably) some preaching apostle is embarrassed by some of it. So you could basically have Mark c. 75-85, Matthew c. 95-105, Luke-Acts c. 105-115 and John c. 120-150 CE.

And no, none of the gospels were written by disciples, I'm not sure why you would think that? They were all illiterate. But even if they weren't, we can see that all of these texts have direct literary dependence on each other, and prior to that literary dependence on the Epistles of Paul, the LXX, and most importantly the Greek Classical Literature. That's where you're getting things wrong - this isn't some novelty, these are Greek texts that conform to the standard Greek literary norms that we expect - they're not Jewish!

[Minimalist]

Good grief, Sonny.  Timothy is one of the most obvious of fraudulent "epistles" attributed to this Paul asshole.  There is a list of over 60 interpolations into "Paul" ( even the later revised versions that we have! ) which scholars have identified.  One can only imagine how many they have missed.

You've made your point.   You are a flaming fundie idiot who is going through life clueless.  Now get lost.  The adults are talking.

[Inkubus]

You're misunderstanding me. People may die for what they sincerely believe is the Truth, but is objectively mistaken. But no one or hardly anyone will die FOR WHAT THEY KNOW IS A LIE. If the Resurrection were a lie, then the Apostles knew it and yet knowingly died for a lie.

Jesus F. Christ, this guy is so fucking dense.  

No. You are!

And that's a generic 'you' btw.

[jerry mcmasters]

I wouldn't call a penalty here, at least not on the second part.  The whole schtick of the Jesus Seminar phenomenon was that it was "liberal," not conservatively or conventionally tied to traditional orthodox religious beliefs (resurrection and other miracles really occurred) about Jesus.

The Jesus Seminar's goal was to investigate the historical truth about Jesus of Nazareth (specifically: “To decide their collective view of the historicity of the deeds and sayings of Jesus of Nazareth”). It was formed in 1985. This is before we even had Steve Mason's work on Josephus - and I note that Harris 1898 somehow went unnoticed by them!!

But you made a point of saying "Liberal" should not be in front of "Jesus Seminar" implying some sneakiness or rhetorical trick on X's part.  My point, and it is a very minor one indeed, is that "liberal" is a very accurate adjective of the group and was commonly applied to them by both friends and detractors at the time of their heyday.  (Remember the media excitement?  "Put one bean in the jar if you believe the Virgin Birth was maybe true.  Put two beans in the jar if you believe the Virgin Birth was definitely true.  Put three beans in the jar if you like putting beans in jars.")

I have amended my complaint to focus only on the capital letter "L" in Liberal which implies it's literally part of their name instead of a mere adjective.  If that was intended that would be sneaky.  But honestly I don't think X is aware of any of this because it seems he's just frenetically cutting and pasting stuff from apologetics websites.