The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[pattylt]

Quote… 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

I’m going to stop you right here as this is NOT true.
Women weren’t allowed to participate in Mosaic law disputes but were able and did testify in common law…like if they saw somebody somewhere. Don’t ever use that excuse again as it’s patently false. Some women were even lawyers and women often testified in everything from robbery to murders and certainly were trusted by what they witnessed.

Edit to add…also women weren’t worthless in Jewish society ever…then or now. They could own a business and definitely ruled their households. Just because Jesus named some women doesn’t mean no woman before that was worthless. He allowed women to preach which later was ended as too threatening to men. Jewish women were not allowed to preach so, Jesus scores one lousy point for that that the Christian men latter took away from them.

[Cavebear]

Word association requires no thought.  

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

I'm not surprised... LOL!

[Minimalist]

Quote… 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

I’m going to stop you right here as this is NOT true.
Women weren’t allowed to participate in Mosaic law disputes but were able and did testify in common law…like if they saw somebody somewhere. Don’t ever use that excuse again as it’s patently false.  Some women were even lawyers and women often testified in everything from robbery to murders and certainly were trusted by what they witnessed.

Edit to add…also women weren’t worthless in Jewish society ever…then or now.  They could own a business and definitely ruled their households.  Just because Jesus named some women doesn’t mean no woman before that was worthless.  He allowed women to preach which later was ended as too threatening to men.  Jewish women were not allowed to preach so, Jesus scores one lousy point for that that the Christian men latter took away from them.

Could Xavier be JD Vance?  They seem a lot alike.

[Inkubus]

But no one or hardly anyone will die FOR WHAT THEY KNOW IS A LIE.

Zakalwe: In all human societies we have ever reviewed, in every age and every state, there has seldom if ever been a shortage of eager young males prepared to kill and die to preserve the security, comfort and prejudices of their elders, and what you call heroism is just an expression of this simple fact; there is never a scarcity of idiots.

Iain M. Banks, Use of Weapons

p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; background: transparent }cite { font-style: italic }

[brewerb]

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!

News flash, we don't care

[Minimalist]

Between the years of AD 62-67, Paul, Peter, and James suffered horrific martyrdom because they believed in Jesus of Nazareth.

Unlikely.  That story appears in First Clement of which the earliest variation of it that we have is the Codex Alexandrinus which dates from the 5th century.  Xavier tends to believe anything some shithead with a funny collar tells him.

[Aractus]

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.

Having come out of the conservative wing of the Anglican Church of Australia (NOT the Sydney Diocese I might add) I can tell you what “Liberal” is used for by clergy and laypeople - it's effectively a label to discredit a theologian, clergy person, lay person, or academic based on a perception that their interpretation of scripture is wildly incompatible with the tenets of Christianity. Sola scripture is not a core tenet/dogma except in the conservative wing of Protestant denominations.

The idea that you can define Scripture the way that you want it defined by your present denomination's view is presentism. Mark knew that he was not writing literal history, he wasn't an idiot. He was using his pen to express his theological truth through spiritual storytelling - something that happens in a great many other religions and traditional belief systems.

The Jesus Seminar simply brought the academic discussions out of the closed-door institutions, and nothing they've proposed is wildly inconsistent with what SBL scholars today are talking about. As I've pointed out elsewhere, there are only around 6,000 SBL scholars anyway - they are outnumbered by Christian clergy by more than 1,000 to 1. Add in the non-SBL Eastern bible scholars and add in Islamic leaders and that looks modest.

So what are we trying to say with “Liberal” in 2024? Are we happy with source, form, and literary criticism or are they “Liberal” enquiries into the bible? If those are not liberal why should redaction or memisis criticism be any different? The textual interconnectivity of the texts has also been well known and acknowledged now regardless of the different opinions upon how exactly they are connected.

Similarly, implanting your own beliefs onto the texts could well be described as liberal. With the Pauline epistles you have written phenomena. With the canonical gospels you have written phenomena. The idea that scholars once had that the gospel authors were “scissor and paste editors” has not been credible since redaction criticism was taken seriously. Redaction criticism is not a liberal idea, far from it actually as its core premise is that these men were intelligent and writing with purpose, not mindless scribes copying down some “oral tradition” word-for-word.

Christians have gone through two millennia of having flexible beliefs around different dogmas, doctrines, and traditions. In the first century and the early-mid second century, which is when most of the New Testament was written, they had no dogmas or creeds at that stage. They were practising their religion through religious practise - which built traditions. Worship, Song, Eucharist, Baptism, the Passion tradition, Christophanies, Prayer, Prophecy, Speaking in Tongues, Poems, Spiritual Storytelling, gathering together for meals in each other's houses etc. All of that stuff I've just mentioned is the “oral tradition” - it's religious practise, and it's all reflected in the gospels. When I say the Passion Tradition I don't mean Mark 14-16 - that's an adaptation of the death of Hector in the Iliad to conform to the Passion tradition, the actual Passion tradition that Mark knew is 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (or at least it's one of them - I think there was more than one version). The so-called “Empty Tomb” is a straightforward translation fable (Miller 2010).

Really it's the Evangelicals today that are the radicals. They've taken a spiritual text and stripped it of its original meaning, and then reapplied to it their own meaning. They've done this not just with the New Testament, but also with the Hebrew Bible by converting it into the “Old Testament” and reading it through the Pauline lens of the New Testament. That's radical for two reasons: firstly the Jews reject Paul's “reinterpretations” and he had no authority to reinterpret their Scriptures anyway, and secondly Paul himself was not that important in his lifetime. He was only one Apostle of many. The only reason we talk about him now is because he left behind 7 epistles (letters), but if you read then you can see his views are not aligned with the Jerusalem Apostles and he's really a self-proclaimed Apostle - so it's hard to even know to what extent the other Apostles at the time even recognised him as being one of them!!

[Aractus]

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.

Jerome also wrote that women were created from defective sperm.

[SaxonX]

Between the years of AD 62-67, Paul, Peter, and James suffered horrific martyrdom because they believed in Jesus of Nazareth.

There is zero evidence Paul, Peter or James were killed for their beliefs

[SaxonX]

But no one or hardly anyone will die FOR WHAT THEY KNOW IS A LIE.

Nonsense people die for things they know are bullshit all the time the human ability of cognitive dissidence and wishful thinking is unrivaled even in the face of the fact what they are dying for is bullshit because they would rather die with the lie then embrace the truth. I have heard it called belief in belief or belief in the noble lie. But let's be even more generous and say that they legit believed the cult they founded would build a better world even if built on a lie would someone throw their life down for that absolutely.

[brewerb]

accident/

[Deesse23]

None of this demonstrates whether these beliefs are true, but it does demonstrate that the person truly believed them.

Agreed

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

Agreed

Beyond painful martyrdom, what greater evidence could we ask for?

Actual evidence that demonstrates the veracity of their/your beliefs. Evidence that what they (sincerely) believed in is actually, factually, true, aka. is in accordance with reality, aka. stuff that demonstrates that Jesus actually resurrected.

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.

Does that make Buddhism or Islam true? Are you a Buddhist now, or a Muslim? Stop making arguments against your own position, you fool.
Jesus F. Christ. Whats so hard to understand about this?

These men signed their testimony in their own blood, and it’s safe to say that liars make poor martyrs!

Strawman, nobody claimed they were liars.
But, as YOU just proved with your Buddhist monk and 9/11 example: Martyrdom does not make your silly belief true.
Its not the unbelievers problem, that you dont have evidence with a weight in accordance to the claim you base your belief on. You should re-consider your standards for accepting beliefs, particularly religious ones.

[SYZ]

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...

I'd have to disagree with this.  The forum is not "dead" without
trolls like Xavier—who consistently breaches the forums T&Cs.
Apologetics/proselytizers like Xavier usually flood specific religious
threads with their bullshit, and refuse to participate in any of the
many other, more generalised non-religious threads.

In a mere FOUR DAYS, this cretinous theist arsewipe has started
SIX new threads, every one of them relating specifically to theism.

Kalam Cosmological Argument: Modern Science confirms an Ancient Christian Truth.  
 Dawkins: Unlike Islam, Christianity a fundamentally decent Religion.  
Kalam Cosmological Argument: Modern Science confirms an Ancient Christian Truth.  
 The Proof from Contingency/Necessity: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.  
10 MN to 720 MN: Christian Demographics in Africa.  
 The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  

 —I consider this to be SPAMMING, which is a clear breach of forum rules.

[Reltzik]

For the millionth time, without the trolls this place is dead.
Admin understand this perfectly well...

I'd have to disagree with this.  The forum is not "dead" without
trolls like Xavier—who consistently breaches the forums T&Cs.
Apologetics/proselytizers like Xavier usually flood specific religious
threads with their bullshit, and refuse to participate in any of the
many other, more generalised non-religious threads.

In a mere FOUR DAYS, this cretinous theist arsewipe has started
SIX new threads, every one of them relating specifically to theism.

Kalam Cosmological Argument: Modern Science confirms an Ancient Christian Truth.  
 Dawkins: Unlike Islam, Christianity a fundamentally decent Religion.  
Kalam Cosmological Argument: Modern Science confirms an Ancient Christian Truth.  
 The Proof from Contingency/Necessity: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.  
10 MN to 720 MN: Christian Demographics in Africa.  
 The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  

 —I consider this to be SPAMMING, which is a clear breach of forum rules.

Technically it was only 5 threads over the course of 5 days, at a pretty basic 1/day, until they lost their steam.  But I agree, it was definitely not enough time to explore any of the topics in depth, and they seem to have abandoned some of the threads just as they were getting to some key points.  At the very least someone should explain to Xerxes that the tempo here is a little bit slower than on Ex-Twitter.

[Xavier]

I'm not spamming anything. I created specific threads for specific discussions, also because some objected on Kalam threads that even if Kalam etc proves a Generic God, it doesn't prove the Christian God. That's true, and we never said otherwise. Kalam is consistent with a Monotheistic Creator God and part of a cumulative case demonstrating the Christian God, Jesus Christ, is the Truth. I also haven't refused to participate in non-religious threads, and have discussed those in the past. Maybe I will here too in time. Now, on topic, about 100 BN people have lived so far. If Resurrection narratives post death are allegedly so common, why don't we hear about it all the time? Neither of the disciples of Buddha, Plato, Mohammed or Joseph Smith claimed those persons rose from the dead. Not even those of Jim Jones and David Koresh, who were mentioned earlier, did so. It is very difficult to convince anyone, even sincere disciples, that someone actually rose from the dead unless they really did so. Prove me wrong with some counterexamples if there are any. Also, the Synagogue, or the Roman Empire would have easily stopped Early Christianity in its tracks, by producing the Dead Body of the Lord Jesus, if it actually could have done so. Both failed to stop it, just like Jesus Christ said they would fail. Jesus Christ also announced, 20 centuries ago, that His Gospel would resound one day in all Nations, and the witness of 20 centuries proves that it has and did: "And this Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." (Mat 24:14). Miracles and fulfilled Prophecies like these demonstrate Divine Omnipotence and Divine Omniscience respectively, and the Truth of Christianity.

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.

If they - Saints Peter, Paul, James, John etc - were not killed for their beliefs, they would not have been honored as Martyrs. Martyrs are those who die for confessing the Christian Faith, or heroic virtue, and not just any plain old death.

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.

Ok, Aractus. So that's your theory. I would say the Empty Tomb is evidenced by 1 Cor 15, which depends on an earlier creedal tradition that even secular scholars date to within a few months to at most about 10 years after the Crucifixion events. Here's a source: "The strong majority of historians acknowledge that the creed dates back to AD 30-35.1 A very small minority go to AD 41.2

• The Oxford Companion to the Bible: “The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a tradition that Paul ‘received’ after his apostolic call, certainly not later than his visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE, when he saw Cephas (Peter) and James (Gal. 1:18-19), who, like him, were recipients of appearances.” [color=var(--ref-gray)][Eds. Metzer & Coogan (Oxford, 1993), 647.][/color]
  

• Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [color=var(--ref-gray)][The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.][/color]
  

From: https://beliefmap.org/bible/1-corinthians/15-creed/date

Mark is written sometime after 70 CE and Matthew is, in my view, one generation later.

This, along with Markan priority generally, is a common theory among Liberals today, but it can be refuted in many ways. Some were mentioned in the article I shared earlier about Sir William Ramsay: https://onepeterfive.com/matthew-first-dates-gospels/ I highly recommend Sir William's work in general, for questions of the historicity and archaeological confirmation of Luke-Acts. But I will mention just one way we can be reasonably certain Matthew, Mark and Luke were written by around 55 AD, which was the traditional Augustinian (and Patristic/Church Fathers) Theory. (1) First, the Secular Encyclopedia Brittanica tells us 2 Corinthians, one of St. Paul's undisputed Epistles, was written around 55 AD: "The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (II Corinthians in the New Testament) was written from Macedonia in about 55 CE" (2) Next, 2 Cor 8:18 contains a clear allusion to the Gospel of St. Luke: "And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all the Churches". (2 Cor 8:18). (3) Next, since even most Liberals will agree Matthew and Mark (even those placing Mark before Matthew) were written before Luke, it clearly follows Matthew and Mark were written by the time St. Paul wrote 2 Corinthians. 

This is confirmed by the 7Q5 Papyrus. It was originally dated between 50 BC to 50 AD. Then it was found that it contained fragments of the Gospel of Mark, which means St. Mark had to have written before 50 AD, just like the Early Church said: "The editor assigned the fragment to a date between 50 BCE and 50 CE on the basis of its handwriting.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7Q5 St. Mark was very well known in the Early Church, especially in Alexandria, and was not at all "anonymous" as some Liberals believe. St. Luke mentions him in Acts and St. Peter refers to him as his spiritual son in his Epistles. St. Peter gave public sermons to confirm St. Matthew's Gospels, and St. Mark wrote some of these sayings down. That is the reason for the resemblances between Mark and Matthew, and among the Synoptics generally.

[Xavier]

Good grief, Sonny.  Timothy is one of the most obvious of fraudulent "epistles" attributed to this Paul [expletive deleted]

First, you/Carrier claimed St. Paul never mentions either Pilate or Mary, and that's not correct even in the undisputed Epistles. Romans is undisputed and mentions Mary. I know 1 Timothy is disputed, and I gave the list of undisputed Epistles in a prior post. But regarding the dispute, I cited Sir William's qualifications to settle it. Can you cite or show someone who has qualifications equal to his? I doubt Carrier or others you could cite do. Here are his qualifications again, and his conclusion that all 13 Pauline Epistles are authentic: "Knighted in 1906 to mark his distinguished service to the world of scholarship, Ramsay also gained three honorary fellowships from Oxford colleges, nine honorary doctorates from British, Continental and North American universities, and became an honorary member of almost every association devoted to archaeology and historical research ... Regarding the authorship of the Pauline epistles Ramsay also concluded that all thirteen New Testament letters ostensibly written by Paul were in fact authentic." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay

Women weren’t allowed to participate in Mosaic law disputes but were able and did testify in common law

Apologies. I misremembered the specifics, but the bolded is what I was alluding to. And what's referenced in the article by Sue Bohlin that I quoted: "The oral law prohibited women from reading the Torah out loud. Synagogue worship was segregated, with women never allowed to be heard ... He started a conversation with her—a Samaritan, a woman—in public. The rabbinic oral law was quite explicit: “He who talks with a woman [in public] brings evil upon himself.” Another rabbinic teaching prominent in Jesus’ day taught, “One is not so much as to greet a woman.”{7} So we can understand why his disciples were amazed to find him talking to a woman in public. Can we even imagine how it must have stunned this woman for the Messiah to reach out to her and offer her living water for her thirsty soul?

Among Jesus’ closest friends were Mary, Martha and Lazarus, who entertained him at their home. “Martha assumed the traditional female role of preparing a meal for Jesus, her guest, while her sister Mary did what only men would do, namely, learn from Jesus’ teachings. Mary was the cultural deviant, but so was Jesus, because he violated the rabbinic law of his day [about speaking to women].”{8} By teaching Mary spiritual truths, he violated another rabbinic law, which said, “Let the words of the Law [Torah] be burned rather than taught to women. . . . If a man teaches his daughter the law, it is as though he taught her lechery.”{9}" https://bible.org/article/christianity-b...ened-women Detailed references in the article.

Regarding women in Christianity, there are some 700,000 Nuns in the Catholic Church, more than the number of Priests. So women do absolutely play a significant role in the Life of the Church, and someone like St. Mother Theresa or Mother Angelica probably had vastly more influence than more Priests ever will. The Early Christians honored/venerated St. Mary Magdalene as a Saint at least equal to the Apostles, and as "Apostle to the Apostles", because she was the Eyewitness to the Resurrection, and Mother Mary as Queen of the Apostles and vastly over them. So I disagree that Christianity hasn't elevated women. It has. If the Male Apostles were inventing the Story, it's very unlikely they would have placed Mary Magdalene as the first eyewitness.

I have heard it called belief in belief or belief in the noble lie.

The Apostles were Devout, Religious Jews. Even when they became Christians, they remained Jews in the sense that they believed in Jehovah and His Judgment, and believed Jesus Christ was the promised Jewish Messiah. Now, if they had perjured themselves (born public false witness in a grave matter, which contradicts the Eighth Commandment), they would have been terribly afraid of death and God's/Jehovah's Judgment. St. Paul alludes to this when discussing and refuting those who said there is no Resurrection: "12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." (1 Cor 15) and "are perished" in this context means not only physical death, but like in John 3:16, eternal death of hell. In other words, St. Paul is saying that if he and the other Apostles invented the Resurrection, then they all deserve hell for doing so. How, in this context, could they ever have given their life for God as Martyrs, believing God would reward them? They would have believed that if they were real eyewitnesses, not if they were liars. If they were liars, even in a so called noble lie, they would have rather feared God's Judgment and refused to be killed for Christ, fearing God.

Strawman, nobody claimed they were liars.

The argument goes something like this. (1) If Christ's Resurrection, which the Apostles claimed to have personally eye-witnessed, were false, then the Apostles invented the story. (2) Those who invent such a tale are liars. (3) Liars would not die for a lie they themselves made up (4) The Apostles did die to confirm the Truth of the Resurrection in their own blood (5) Ergo, the Resurrection is not a lie, but the Truth. Pls let us know which premise you think is false or allegedly doesn't follow.

Since neither Buddhists, nor Muslims, evidently sincere in their beliefs, claimed to have witnessed a Resurrection, the strawman is on your part, Deese. 

That covers the responses. God Bless.

[Minimalist]

You are easily fooled by church forgeries, sonny.  You are in way over your head.  


And most scholars think 7Q5 has nothing to do with fucking "mark" and "José O'Callaghan Martínez" was a fucking jesuit priest, so his bias is quite obvious.  We see that a lot with catholic priests.  Roland de Vaux with his "essenes were a bunch of monks copying scrolls" comes to mind.  Israeli archaeologists examined the site and concluded it was a pottery factory!


Martinez has not persuaded people of his reading.  In fact, when Daniel Wallace was making a fool out of himself in 2012 with his promise of a first century mark he never mentioned him or his "discovery."

Wallace's claim turned out to be third century, as well.

I'd pity you but you seem happy in your ignorance and it is normally none of my concern if you wish to delude yourself.  But when you start preaching here, that makes you a target.

[Deesse23]

The argument goes something like this. (1) If Christ's Resurrection, which the Apostles claimed to have personally eye-witnessed, were false, then the Apostles invented the story. (2) Those who invent such a tale are liars. (3) Liars would not die for a lie they themselves made up (4) The Apostles did die to confirm the Truth of the Resurrection in their own blood (5) Ergo, the Resurrection is not a lie, but the Truth. Pls let us know which premise you think is false or allegedly doesn't follow.

Since neither Buddhists, nor Muslims, evidently sincere in their beliefs, claimed to have witnessed a Resurrection, the strawman is on your part, Deese. 

That covers the responses. God Bless.

You are so dense, you would sink in a puddle of molten Osmium (google that if you wish)

First, which Apostle claimed to have witnessed the resurrection? And if one did (which they didnt), how would you know that this Apostle wasnt honestly mistaken? Like, Jesus coming back from a coma or some other shit, ANY shit which is 1000000x more plausible btw. than "magic!"?

Second: non sequitur, fool. Resurrections (or whatever) have nothing to do with the argument YOU made. Yes it was YOUR argument that Buddhist monks burn themselves publicly because of sincere belief, and muslim terrorists flew planes into skyscrapers. YOU asked "what greater evidence could we ask for". I told you what evidence i ask for: Actual evidence. Adress that please instead of rambling incoherently. I also asked you back if YOU need greater evidence than the Buddhists or Muslims, and why you are thus not a Buddhist or Muslim. Adreess that too if you are cognitively able at all.

And congratulations, you just managed to argue with yourself. Calling your OWN argument, which i hurled back at you a "strawman". That so classy, but also indicative how utterly clueless you are. If rigid thinking was like a rock, your thinking is like jello.

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. .....

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!

[mordant]

Could Xavier be JD Vance?  They seem a lot alike.

Why not -- Vance has already legally changed his name at least 3 times ... why wouldn't he have a dozen Internet handles?

[Edible crust]

Could Xavier be JD Vance?  They seem a lot alike.

Why not -- Vance has already legally changed his name at least 3 times ... why wouldn't he have a dozen Internet handles?

I've got loads of names and passwords for different shit.
I'm on a mental health forum, my username for that is Nontheist it's a bit of a drawback because nearly all the people in there are theists but hey.

My first alias was Batfink. It's not my fault that I have fangs.

[Dānu]

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.

If they - Saints Peter, Paul, James, John etc - were not killed for their beliefs, they would not have been honored as Martyrs. Martyrs are those who die for confessing the Christian Faith, or heroic virtue, and not just any plain old death.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Prior authors attributed their deaths as martyrdoms, but you don't know what evidence, if any, they considered as they didn't record it. Your claim that they wouldn't have been honored as martyrs if they hadn't died as martyrs is mere assertion as there are plenty of motives for claiming they were martyred which have nothing to do with any facts. You seem to think that if some religious person wrote it, then it must be true. That's not how it works.

[Edible crust]

Kamikaze saints.

Whatever next.

[Xavier]

Lol. Yeah, I'm secretly JD Vance. Xavier is one of my aliases. But don't tell anyone, it's a secret. </sarcasm>

Anyway, back to the discussion. Minimalist. Another Scholar, though a Liberal, you can consult for early dates of the New Testament is John Robinson. https://www.amazon.in/Redating-Testament...1579105270 A Liberal and a Universalist, Robinson nevertheless concluded much of the NT is written before many in the field today think it was. Several other scholars concur with him. Here's the Wiki page: "Although Robinson was considered a liberal theologian, he challenged the work of like-minded colleagues in the field of exegetical criticism. Specifically, Robinson examined the reliability of the New Testament as he believed that it had been the subject of very little original research during the 20th century. He also wrote that past scholarship was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and an "almost wilful blindness".[29]

Robinson concluded that much of the New Testament was written before AD 64, partly basing his judgement on the sparse textual evidence that the New Testament reflects knowledge of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. In relation to the four gospels' dates of authorship, Robinson placed Matthew as being written sometime between AD 40 and the AD 60s, Mark sometime between AD 45 and AD 60, Luke sometime during the AD 50s and the 60s and John sometime between AD 40 and AD 65 or later.[30][31] Robinson also argued that the letter of James was penned by a brother of Jesus Christ within twenty years of Jesus' death, that Paul authored all the books attributed to him, and that the "John" who wrote the fourth Gospel was the apostle John. Robinson also suggested that the results of his investigations implied a need to rewrite many theologies of the New Testament.[32][33][34]
In a letter to Robinson, the New Testament scholar C. H. Dodd wrote, "I should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton[;] the offspring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic's prejudice that, if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud."[35][36] Robinson's call for redating the New Testament – or, at least, the four gospels – was echoed in subsequent scholarship such as John Wenham's work Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem and work by Claude Tresmontant, Günther Zuntz, Carsten Peter Thiede, Eta Linnemann, Harold Riley, Jean Carmignac, and Bernard Orchard." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robin..._Woolwich)

First, which Apostle claimed to have witnessed the resurrection?

Every one of them. Specifically, at least Saints Peter and Paul, James and John, Matthew and Thomas. I'll start with those 6 for now, as they are sufficient to establish the Truth. It was codified in ancient Law, that "You must not convict anyone of a crime on the testimony of only one witness. The facts of the case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Deut 19:15) and that is a legal principle still operative today. People have been put to death, or given life imprisonments, as convicted murderers based on the eyewitness testimony of 2 or 3 credible eyewitnesses, even non-martyred ones: "In Indian law, eyewitness testimony is given considerable weight by the juries and is considered a vital element in establishing the truth. It can provide direct evidence of the events that occurred and help to maintain fairness in the justice delivery system." https://www.freelaw.in/legalarticles/Cre...-Testimony All of this shows eyewitness testimony is of the greatest weight in deciding even legal disputes.

 And if one did (which they didnt), how would you know that this Apostle wasnt honestly mistaken? Like, Jesus coming back from a coma or some other shit, ANY shit which is 1000000x more plausible btw. than "magic!"?

Alternative hypotheses, such as one you alluded to are discussed and refuted in the New Advent article I shared: "There is the theory of those who assert that Christ did not really die upon the cross, that His supposed death was only a temporary swoon, and that His Resurrection was simply a return to consciousness. This was advocated by Paulus ("Exegetisches Handbuch", 1842, II, p. 929) and in a modified form by Hase ("Gesch. Jesu", n. 112), but it does not agree with the data furnished by the Gospels. The scourging and the crown of thorns, the carrying of the cross and the crucifixion, the three hours on the cross and the piercing of the Sufferer's side cannot have brought on a mere swoon. His real death is attested by the centurion and the soldiers, by the friends of Jesus and by his most bitter enemies. His stay in a sealed sepulchre for thirty-six hours, in an atmosphere poisoned by the exhalations of a hundred pounds of spices, which would have of itself sufficed to cause death. Moreover, if Jesus had merely returned from a swoon, the feelings of Easter morning would have been those of sympathy rather than those of joy and triumph, the Apostles would have been roused to the duties of a sick chamber rather than to apostolic work, the life of the powerful wonderworker would have ended in ignoble solitude and inglorious obscurity, and His vaunted sinlessness would have changed into His silent approval of a lie as the foundation stone of His Church. No wonder that later critics of the Resurrection, like Strauss, have heaped contempt on the old theory of a swoon." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm

Second: non sequitur, fool. Resurrections (or whatever) have nothing to do with the argument YOU made. Yes it was YOUR argument that Buddhist monks burn themselves publicly because of sincere belief, and muslim terrorists flew planes into skyscrapers.

Resurrections have everything to do with the argument. Did you read it carefully? 

(1) Buddhist Monks, nor the Islamist Jihadists of 9/11 HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE EYEWITNESSES TO A PHYSICAL RESURRECTION.

(2) Christ's Apostles MOST CERTAINLY DID CLAIM THIS AND GAVE THEIR LIVES TO CONFIRM THE TRUTH OF THEIR TESTIMONY. Therefore, the two cases are not analogous at all. Show us Buddhist Monks, or Islamist Terrorists, who claim Buddha or Mohammed physically rose from the dead, and they personally saw his risen body, and ate with him, if you can, and then it will be analogous.

YOU asked "what greater evidence could we ask for". I told you what evidence i ask for: Actual evidence. Adress that please instead of rambling incoherently.

Answered above. As I said, eyewitness testimony is used to decide legal cases even today, including murders.

I also asked you back if YOU need greater evidence than the Buddhists or Muslims, and why you are thus not a Buddhist or Muslim. Adreess that too if you are cognitively able at all.

(1) Neither Buddha nor Mohammed rose from the dead.
(2) Neither of their disciples even claimed that they did.
(3) Nor were their disciples martyred for such a belief in this claim.

Therefore, once more, the situations are not analogous, and the comparison fails. Show me alleged counterexamples to witnesses claiming they had personally seen the Founder of their Religion rose from the dead, then dying to confirm their eyewitness testimony was not a lie. It should be easy if there were many. There are not.

[Dānu]

Plenty of modern day people claim that they know of an example of a modern person who was restored from death, contrary to your claim that the resurrection of Jesus is unique.

You don't even have a clue what the actual facts are. You're just pulling shit that you want to be true from your ass.

[Minimalist]

Indeed, Danu.

And at least Elvis could sing unlike this jesus shithead.


https://time.com/4897819/elvis-presley-a...-theories/

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)]Elvis Presley Died 40 Years Ago. Here’s Why Some People Think He’s Still Alive[/color]