1818 replies to this topic

[platypus]

There is still no explanation why the Judeo-Christian god is still talking to Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses and Muslims. Why do you think that is happening?  

[shadowhawk]

MajinBrian:  
Your personal experience is not everyone’s.  Mine for example was just the opposite.  So you went to college and left the church.  OK

The rest of this is,
THE GARBAGE TRUCK FALLACY
1. A. Dumps a pile of issues all at once, so big that it would take B. writing a book to answer them all.
2.  A. claims they win the issue when B. can’t or wont answer them.

Sometimes there are so many issues that is impossible to answer them all.
Sometimes there is a general charge about everything.  Example, the Bible is unscientific.

On top of this, it is not what we are talking about right now, which is minimal facts for the resurrection.  You won’t mind if I go back to that.

[shadowhawk]

FACT #4—THE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

No scholar denies the fact that the Christian religion exploded out of first century Israel. Within one generation of the death of Christ this movement known as “the Way” had spread to Europe, Africa, and Asia. Christianity is an effect that needs an adequate cause and explanation. Where exactly did the Christian faith come from and what best explains its origin?

The most obvious answer to this question is that the disciples truly saw the resurrected Christ. Only an event of this magnitude could turn scared, scattered, and skeptical disciples, with no prior concept and expectation of a crucified and risen Messiah, into courageous proclaimers of the gospel willing to suffer and die for their belief that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. This is what Peter boldly declared: “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses… Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”[55] The origin of the Christian faith is best explained by the disciples’ sincere belief that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Anyone who denies the resurrection itself as the explanation for the origin of Christianity must posit some other explanation. Only three possibilities seem to exist. If the resurrection did not occur, then Christianity was either the result of Christian, Jewish, or pagan influences.[56] Obviously the disciples could not succumb to Christian influences since Christianity was not yet in existence. But just as unlikely is the idea that the disciples’ belief in the resurrection originated from Jewish influences. The Jewish conception of the resurrection was one final, general resurrection of all mankind (or all the righteous) occurring after the end of the world. Nowhere in Jewish thought do we find the idea of a single individual resurrecting within history never to die again.[57]

Objection #4: Christianity Borrowed From Pagan Religions (The Copycat Theory)

Perhaps then Christianity finds its origin in paganism. Popular internet movies such as Zeitgeist have made ubiquitous the belief that there really is nothing unique about the Christian Savior. Jesus is simply a conglomeration of past dying and rising “messiahs” repackaged for a first-century audience whose zealousness eventually grew into the Christian religion we know today. Despite the pervasiveness of this belief it suffers from numerous problems.

First, pagan mythology is the wrong interpretive context considering that “Jesus and his disciples were first-century Palestinian Jews, and it is against that background that they must be understood.”[58]

Second, the Jews were familiar with seasonal deities (Ezek. 37:1-14) and found them detestable, making it extremely improbable that they would borrow mythology from them. This is why no trace of pagan cults celebrating dying and rising gods can be found in first-century Palestine.[59]

Third, the earliest account of a dying and rising god that somewhat parallels Jesus’ resurrection appears at least 100 years later. The historical evidence for these myths is non-existent and the accounts are easily explained by naturalistic theories.[60]

Fourth, the Copycat Theory begs the question. It assumes the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are false (the very thing it is intending to prove) and then attempts to explain how these accounts originated by appealing to supposed parallels within pagan mythology. But first it must be shown that the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are false! In other words, even if it could be shown that parallels exist, it does not follow that the resurrection of Jesus is not a historical event. The evidence for Jesus’ resurrection must be judged on its own merit because “the claims of resurrections in other religions do not explain the evidence that exists for Jesus’ resurrection.”[61]

Finally, to put to rest this outdated and unsubstantiated theory, the late Dr. Ronald Nash summarizes seven important points that completely undermine the idea that Christianity derived its doctrine from the pagan mystery religions:

1.      Arguments offered to “prove” a Christian dependence on the mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause… Coincidence does not prove causal connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.

2.      Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from Christianity…

3.      The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century.

4.      Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan religions…

5.      Early Christianity was an exclusivistic faith…

6.      Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on events that actually happened in history…

7.      What few parallels may still remain reflect a Christian influence on the pagan systems…[62]

Nash offers this final word regarding the copycat theory: “Liberal efforts to undermine the uniqueness of the Christian revelation via claims of a pagan religious influence collapse quickly once a full account of the information is available. It is clear that the liberal arguments exhibit astoundingly bad scholarship. Indeed, this conclusion may be too generous.”[63] Therefore, it is safe to conclude that “the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church…remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself.”[64]

[shadowhawk]

SUMMARY
THE MINIMAL FACTS APPROACH TO THE EVIDENCE
http://www.longecity...-28#entry659385
MINIMAL FACTS
http://www.longecity...-28#entry659570
FACT #1?THE DEATH OF JESUS BY CRUCIFIXION
http://www.longecity...-28#entry659738
FACT #2?THE EMPTY TOMB
http://www.longecity...-28#entry659943
FACT #3?THE POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES
http://www.longecity...-28#entry660241
FACT #4?THE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
http://www.longecity...-29#entry660568


SOME EXTRA BIBLICAL NON CHRISTIAN, SOURCES FROM COLD CASE CHRISTIANITY
http://www.longecity...-28#entry660468

 

 

[Lewis Carroll]

MajinBrian:  
Your personal experience is not everyone’s.  Mine for example was just the opposite.  So you went to college and left the church.  OK

The rest of this is,
THE GARBAGE TRUCK FALLACY
1. A. Dumps a pile of issues all at once, so big that it would take B. writing a book to answer them all.
2.  A. claims they win the issue when B. can’t or wont answer them.

Sometimes there are so many issues that is impossible to answer them all.
Sometimes there is a general charge about everything.  Example, the Bible is unscientific.

On top of this, it is not what we are talking about right now, which is minimal facts for the resurrection.  You won’t mind if I go back to that.

 

My personal introduction was an attempt to show that I have not always felt this way. My parents and family are extremely religious, and I have no problem with that. However, they are not on these sort of forums interested in this sort of inquiry. I was very religious for the majority of my life. However, once enough cracks are made in the wall, the wall will collapse. Any reasonable person should take a good look at all the cracks in their religion's wall. My "garbage truck" dumping was an attempt to provide more then enough cracks in the wall of Christianity. 

[shadowhawk]

 

MajinBrian:  
Your personal experience is not everyone’s.  Mine for example was just the opposite.  So you went to college and left the church.  OK

The rest of this is,
THE GARBAGE TRUCK FALLACY
1. A. Dumps a pile of issues all at once, so big that it would take B. writing a book to answer them all.
2.  A. claims they win the issue when B. can’t or wont answer them.

Sometimes there are so many issues that is impossible to answer them all.
Sometimes there is a general charge about everything.  Example, the Bible is unscientific.

On top of this, it is not what we are talking about right now, which is minimal facts for the resurrection.  You won’t mind if I go back to that.

 

My personal introduction was an attempt to show that I have not always felt this way. My parents and family are extremely religious, and I have no problem with that. However, they are not on these sort of forums interested in this sort of inquiry. I was very religious for the majority of my life. However, once enough cracks are made in the wall, the wall will collapse. Any reasonable person should take a good look at all the cracks in their religion's wall. My "garbage truck" dumping was an attempt to provide more then enough cracks in the wall of Christianity. 

 

Actually it was a whole series of charges with no evidence.  No cracks.  It is also not related to the discussion.  What do you think about the minimal facts approach?

Sorry about your bad experience with your family

[shadowhawk]

CONCLUSION AND FOOTNOTES TO MINIMAL FACTS
CONCLUSION

If Jesus was dead at point A, and alive at point B, we have a resurrection. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the best explanation for the known historical data: His death by crucifixion, the empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith. Furthermore, Jesus’ resurrection fits the context of his life, vindicating His teachings and radical claim to be the unique, divine Son of God. Paul says that Christ “was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.”[65] Naturalistic explanations (swoon theory, legendary development, fraud, hallucinations) fail to account for all the relevant data and in some cases (copycat theories) are outright false and ahistorical. Conversely, the Resurrection Hypothesis accounts for all of the known facts, has greater explanatory scope and power, is more plausible, and less ad hoc.[66] Only if one is guided by a prior commitment to philosophical naturalism will the conclusion “God raised Jesus from the dead” seem unjustified.


[1] 1 Cor. 15:14, NIV.

[2] Clay Jones, Lecture Notes: In Defense of the Resurrection (Biola University: School of Professional Studies), Spring 2010).

[3] Matt. 12:39-40.

[4] Acts 1:21-22; 2:22, 24, 32; 10:39-41, 43a; 13:30-31, 34a, 37; 17:2-3, 30-31; 24:21; 26:22-23.

[5] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 44.

[6] For more information on the historical reliability of the New Testament see Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007), and F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981).

[7] See Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, Rev. ed. (Joplin: College Press, 1996), 158-167.

[8] Habermas and Licona note that “roughly 75 percent of scholars on the subject accept the empty tomb as a historical fact” (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 70).

[9] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 361.

[10] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 36.

[11] Ibid., 36-40.

[12] Ibid., 32.

[13] Wilbur Smith, Therefore Stand (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1945), 386, as quoted in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 211.

[14] William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman, Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?: A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman (Worcester: College of the Holy Cross, March 28, 2006), http://www.reasonabl...t.pdf?docID=621 (accessed May 2, 2010).

[15] John Warwick Montgomery, History, Law and Christianity (Edmonton: Canadian Institute for Law, Theology, and Public Policy Inc., 2002), 61.

[16] John Warwick Montgomery, “The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity,” in Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question, ed. John Warwick Montgomery (Probe Books, 1991), http://www.mtio.com/...es/bissart1.htm (accessed May 1, 2010).

[17] See Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:33, and John 19:18.

[18] Josephus Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3; Tacitus Annals 15:44; Lucian of Samosata The Death of Peregrine 11-13; Talmud Sanhedrin 43a.

[19] Flavius Josephus, The New Complete Works of Josephus, Rev. ed., trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 590.

[20] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2009), 163.

[21] William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255, no. 11 (March 21, 1986): 1463.

 

[22] David Friederick Strauss, The Life of Jesus for the People (London: Williams and Norgate, 1879), 1:412, as quoted in Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1977), 91.

[23] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 373.

[24] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 70. See also Acts 2 and Tacitus Annals 15:44.

[25] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 361.

[26] Acts 17:6, NKJV.

[27] See Matt. 28:12-13; Justin Martyr Trypho 108; Tertullian De Spectaculis 30.

[28] See Matt. 27:57-61, 28:1-8; Mark 15:43-16:7; Luke 23:50-24:12; John 19:38- 20:18.

[29] James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 782.

[30] Jeffrey Jay Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story: A Reply to William Lane Craig,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffrey Jay Lowder (Amherst: Prometheus, 2005), 266.

[31] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 367.

[32] For example, 1 Cor. 15:3-5, Acts 13:28-31, and Mark 15:37-16:7

[33] Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribners, 1976), 176.

[34] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 371.

[35] J. N. D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale Press, 1969), 92, as quoted in Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1977), 92.

[36] Craig (citing N.T. Wright), Reasonable Faith, 372.

[37] 1 Cor. 15:3-8, NASB.

[38] Jones, In Defense of the Resurrection, Spring 2010.

[39] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 38.

[40] J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 156.

[41] Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, trans. John Bowden (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 80. Lüdemann appeals to hallucinations as an explanation.

[42] Luke, Paul, Josephus, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Origen, and Hegesippus. See Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 56-62.

[43] Josephus Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1; Tertullian Scorpiace 15.

[44] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 59.

[45] Paul, Creeds (1 Cor. 15:3-8), Sermon Summaries (Acts 2), Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Clement of Rome, Polycarp. See Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 51-56.

[46] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 381.

[47] 1 Cor. 15:42-44; Matt. 28:5-6, 9; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5-6, 22-24, 30, 39-43; John 20:1-20, 27, 21:13.

[48] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 383.

[49] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 106.

[50] Matt. 28:9, 16-20; Mark 16:7; Luke 24:33-36; John 20:19-30; 21:1-22; Acts 1:3-9.

[51] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 385.

[52] Ibid., 394.

[53] See The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 104-119, and Reasonable Faith, 384-387, for more on the hallucination theory.

[54] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 384.

[55] Acts 2:32, 36, NASB.

[56] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 390.

[57] Ibid., 392.

[58] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 391.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 90.

[61] Ibid., 91.

[62] Ronald Nash, “Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?” Christian Research Journal (Winter 1994), http://www.iclnet.or...b/crj0169a.html (accessed May 2, 2010).

[63] Ibid.

[64] C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology 2/1 (London: SCM, 1967), 13, as quoted in Craig, Reasonable Faith, 394.

[65] Rom. 1:4.

[66] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 397-399.

http://pleaseconvinc...e-resurrection/

[Jeoshua]

IF you'd posted the citations earlier, we could have avoided at least one argument. That's what I was asking for the whole time!

[shadowhawk]

IF you'd posted the citations earlier, we could have avoided at least one argument. That's what I was asking for the whole time!

 

I told everyone I was going to post the citations.  I never argued about it, and the earlier list was different.

 

How about early Christian sources.  They are evidence as well.  I will post some of them soon
 

[shadowhawk]

Evidence for the Resurrection by Josh McDowell

For centuries many of the world's distinguished philosophers have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious and absurd. Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the resurrection. Others have tried to explain it away through various theories. But the historical evidence just can't be discounted.

A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. "Professor McDowell, why can't you refute Christianity?"

"For a very simple reason," I answered. "I am not able to explain away an event in history--the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?

A QUESTION OF HISTORY
After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history.

Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven.

From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries.

LIVING WITNESSES
The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means "good news," the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection.

F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."

IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE?
Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.

By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.

Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."

Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University

BACKGROUND
The New Testament witnesses were fully aware of the background against which the resurrection took place. The body of Jesus, in accordance with Jewish burial custom, was wrapped in a linen cloth. About 100 pounds of aromatic spices, mixed together to form a gummy substance, were applied to the wrappings of cloth about the body. After the body was placed in a solid rock tomb, an extremely large stone was rolled against the entrance of the tomb. Large stones weighing approximately two tons were normally rolled (by means of levers) against a tomb entrance.

A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb. This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, which was meant to "prevent any attempt at vandalizing the sepulcher. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb's entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.

But three days later the tomb was empty. The followers of Jesus said He had risen from the dead. They reported that He appeared to them during a period of 40 days, showing Himself to them by many "infallible proofs." Paul the apostle recounted that Jesus appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and who could confirm what Paul wrote. So many security precautions were taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial, entombment, sealing, and guarding of Christ's tomb that it becomes very difficult for critics to defend their position that Christ did not rise from the dead. Consider these facts:

FACT #1: BROKEN ROMAN SEAL
As we have said, the first obvious fact was the breaking of the seal that stood for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. The consequences of breaking the seal were extremely severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsible. If they were apprehended, it meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. People feared the breaking of the seal. Jesus' disciples displayed signs of cowardice when they hid themselves. Peter, one of these disciples, went out and denied Christ three times.

FACT #2: EMPTY TOMB
As we have already discussed, another obvious fact after the resurrection was the empty tomb. The disciples of Christ did not go off to Athens or Rome to preach that Christ was raised from the dead. Rather, they went right back to the city of Jerusalem, where, if what they were teaching was false, the falsity would be evident. The empty tomb was "too notorious to be denied." Paul Althaus states that the resurrection "could have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."

Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth Jeshu." Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine."

Gamaliel, who was a member of the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, put forth the suggestion that the rise of the Christian movement was God's doing; he could not have done that if the tomb were still occupied, or if the Sanhedrin knew the whereabouts of Christ's body.

Paul Maier observes that " . . . if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement."

FACT #3: LARGE STONE MOVED
On that Sunday morning the first thing that impressed the people who approached the tomb was the unusual position of the one and a half to two ton stone that had been lodged in front of the doorway. All the Gospel writers mention it.

There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.

Clark Pinnock
Mcmaster University

Those who observed the stone after the resurrection describe its position as having been rolled up a slope away not just from the entrance of the tomb, but from the entire massive sepulcher. It was in such a position that it looked as if it had been picked up and carried away. Now, I ask you, if the disciples had wanted to come in, tiptoe around the sleeping guards, and then roll the stone over and steal Jesus' body, how could they have done that without the guards' awareness?

FACT #4: ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL
The Roman guards fled. They left their place of responsibility. How can their attrition he explained, when Roman military discipline was so exceptional? Justin, in Digest #49, mentions all the offenses that required the death penalty. The fear of their superiors' wrath and the possibility of death meant that they paid close attention to the minutest details of their jobs. One way a guard was put to death was by being stripped of his clothes and then burned alive in a fire started with his garments. If it was not apparent which soldier had failed in his duty, then lots were drawn to see which one would be punished with death for the guard unit's failure. Certainly the entire unit would not have fallen asleep with that kind of threat over their heads. Dr. George Currie, a student of Roman military discipline, wrote that fear of punishment "produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches."

FACT #5: GRAVECLOTHES TELL A TALE
In a literal sense, against all statements to the contrary, the tomb was not totally empty--because of an amazing phenomenon. John, a disciple of Jesus, looked over to the place where the body of Jesus had lain, and there were the grave clothes, in the form of the body, slightly caved in and empty--like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar's cocoon. That's enough to make a believer out of anybody. John never did get over it. The first thing that stuck in the minds of the disciples was not the empty tomb, but rather the empty grave clothes--undisturbed in form and position.

FACT #6: JESUS' APPEARANCES CONFIRMED
Christ appeared alive on several occasions after the cataclysmic events of that first Easter . When studying an event in history, it is important to know whether enough people who were participants or eyewitnesses to the event were alive when the facts about the event were published. To know this is obviously helpful in ascertaining the accuracy of the published report. If the number of eyewitnesses is substantial, the event can he regarded as fairly well established. For instance, if we all witness a murder, and a later police report turns out to he a fabrication of lies, we as eyewitnesses can refute it.

OVER 500 WITNESSES
Several very important factors arc often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." Let's take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.

HOSTILE WITNESSES
Another factor crucial to interpreting Christ's appearances is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced.

Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ's followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.

F. F. Bruce
Manchester University

The argument that Christ's appearances were only to followers is an argument for the most part from silence, and arguments from silence can be dangerous. It is equally possible that all to whom Jesus appeared became followers. No one acquainted with the facts can accurately say that Jesus appeared to just "an insignificant few."

Christians believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected in time and space by the supernatural power of God. The difficulties of belief may be great, but the problems inherent in unbelief present even greater difficulties.

The theories advanced to explain the resurrection by "natural causes" are weak; they actually help to build confidence in the truth of the resurrection.

THE WRONG TOMB?
A theory propounded by Kirsopp Lake assumes that the women who reported that the body was missing had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. If so, then the disciples who went to check up on the women's statement must have also gone to the wrong tomb. We may be certain, however, that Jewish authorities, who asked for a Roman guard to be stationed at the tomb to prevent Jesus' body from being stolen, would not have been mistaken about the location. Nor would the Roman guards, for they were there!

If the resurrection-claim was merely because of a geographical mistake, the Jewish authorities would have lost no time in producing the body from the proper tomb, thus effectively quenching for all time any rumor resurrection.

HALLUCINATIONS?
Another attempted explanation claims that the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection were either illusions or hallucinations. Unsupported by the psychological principles governing the appearances of hallucinations, this theory also does not coincide with the historical situation. Again, where was the actual body, and why wasn't it produced?

DID JESUS SWOON?
Another theory, popularized by Venturini several centuries ago, is often quoted today. This is the swoon theory, which says that Jesus didn't die; he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought Him dead, but later He resuscitated and the disciples thought it to be a resurrection. Skeptic David Friedrich Strauss--certainly no believer in the resurrection--gave the deathblow to any thought that Jesus revived from a swoon: "It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to His sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that He was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life,

For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian

an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship."

THE BODY STOLEN?
Then consider the theory that the body was stolen by the disciples while the guards slept. The depression and cowardice of the disciples provide a hard-hitting argument against their suddenly becoming so brave and daring as to face a detachment of soldiers at the tomb and steal the body. They were in no mood to attempt anything like that.

The theory that the Jewish or Roman authorities moved Christ's body is no more reasonable an explanation for the empty tomb than theft by the disciples. If the authorities had the body in their possession or knew where it was, why, when the disciples were preaching the resurrection in Jerusalem, didn't they explain: "Wait! We moved the body, see, He didn't rise from the grave"?

And if such a rebuttal failed, why didn't they explain exactly where Jesus' body lay? If this failed, why didn't they recover the corpse, put it on a cart, and wheel it through the center of Jerusalem? Such an action would have destroyed Christianity--not in the cradle, but in the womb!

THE RESURRECTION IS A FACT
Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."

REAL PROOF: THE DISCIPLES' LIVES
But the most telling testimony of all must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ?

Had there been any visible benefits accrued to them from their efforts--prestige, wealth, increased social status or material benefits--we might logically attempt to account for their actions, for their whole-hearted and total allegiance to this "risen Christ ."

As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking.

Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.

WHERE DO YOU STAND?
How do you evaluate this overwhelming historical evidence? What is your decision about the fact of Christ's empty tomb? What do you think of Christ?

When I was confronted with the overwhelming evidence for Christ's resurrection, I had to ask the logical question: "What difference does all this evidence make to me? What difference does it make whether or not I believe Christ rose again and died on the cross for my sins!' The answer is put best by something Jesus said to a man who doubted--Thomas. Jesus told him: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6).

On the basis of all the evidence for Christ's resurrection, and considering the fact that Jesus offers forgiveness of sin and an eternal relationship with God, who would be so foolhardy as to reject Him? Christ is alive! He is living today.

You can trust God right now by faith through prayer. Prayer is talking with God. God knows your heart and is not so concerned with your words as He is with the attitude of your heart. If you have never trusted Christ, you can do so right now.

The prayer I prayed is: "Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and trust You as my Savior. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be. Thank You that I can trust You."

Edited by shadowhawk, 05 May 2014 - 11:59 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Chart of early Christian writers, some of them were alive and knew the apostles.  They also believed in the truth of the resurrection.  Also, historical evidence from the earliest Church.  Belief in the resurrection was not some later invention.

http://www.religionf...rch_fathers.htm
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
http://www.earlychri...rchfathers.html
http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0684829517
http://www.amazon.co...nternetsacredte
http://www.catacombe...it/en/index.php
http://www.thecolefa.../italy/pompeii/
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/
http://carm.org/intro-ecf
http://ntwrightpage....esurrection.htm
http://www.theblaze....on-from-pagans/
http://smarthistory....-centuries.html
http://employees.one...arthistory.html
 

[shadowhawk]

Is the Bible Evidence?  
Just because someone is Greek, does mot mean a Greek person can’t be a witness to something in Greek history.  Being American does not mean the history of American slavery is untrue or there was no Abraham Lincoln.  Historical evidence says otherwise.  We have eyewitness accounts, a unified country, other historical sources beside American, artifacts, and people with oral stories.  These are just a few things history is made of and only a hard core skeptic who is blind would not believe them.

So far I have given non Christian sources and The minimal facts that the vast majority, both Christian and non Christians agree on.  I have given even negative viewpoints which serve to back up the Easter event.  Next I am going to discuss the evidence of the Bible as a historical document.
 

[Lewis Carroll]

Is the Bible Evidence?  
Just because someone is Greek, does mot mean a Greek person can’t be a witness to something in Greek history.  Being American does not mean the history of American slavery is untrue or there was no Abraham Lincoln.  Historical evidence says otherwise.  We have eyewitness accounts, a unified country, other historical sources beside American, artifacts, and people with oral stories.  These are just a few things history is made of and only a hard core skeptic who is blind would not believe them.

So far I have given non Christian sources and The minimal facts that the vast majority, both Christian and non Christians agree on.  I have given even negative viewpoints which serve to back up the Easter event.  Next I am going to discuss the evidence of the Bible as a historical document.
 

 

I am actually really enjoying your posts (still trying to read through all of them). I am very excited to see what you're going to present "to discuss the evidence of the Bible as a historical document". Especially when it contains information that is just simply wrong or highly improbable (and normally, as a result, unprovable). This would, in my mind, call the entire rest of the Bible into question. 

[shadowhawk]

MainBrain, Glad you enjoy.  I could say anything I wanted if it is all subjective but it isn’t.  If there is a God, than God made the cosmos.  The Big Bang is no small task.  Evidence is the issue, unless you believe there can’t be a God.  What do you accept as proof?

[Lewis Carroll]

MainBrain, Glad you enjoy.  I could say anything I wanted if it is all subjective but it isn’t.  If there is a God, than God made the cosmos.  The Big Bang is no small task.  Evidence is the issue, unless you believe there can’t be a God.  What do you accept as proof?

 

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. But proof could be anything that fits the definition... evidence that thoroughly validates what is stated. The Bible opens with Genesis, so I'd be curious to see some valid proof that would enable one to view Genesis as a historical document (rather than an interesting fiction piece). This might be tough to do since a lot of it has been thoroughly debunked by modern science (via legit evidence).

 

For the record, I really like the Bible. It's a very interesting collection of stories. In particular, I find the Old Testament quite fascinating. I mean Genesis is quite the adventure story. God creates the universe. God creates man for his entertainment (so that he will be worshiped and praised... and man is judged based on this) . Man and woman are originally just as blind and unaware as all the other animals. However, a wise snake comes along and convinces the woman to eat an apple which allows her to become a sentient, conscious being. God gets mad about this and kicks them out of Eden. The couple have kids who then are forced to reproduce with each other. Eventually these humans are so screwed up that god decides just to kill everyone. So, he sends a giant flood to wipe out everything and start over. Ironically god screws up a second time and is still not happy with his creation.

 

So, who wrote Genesis? How can you prove that this writer knew what happened at the beginning of creation? He/she wasn't there was he/she? Did god personally tell him/her? Can you prove it? Genesis contains many factual errors... did god misspeak when talking to the writer or was the writer just writing too quickly which resulted in a few errors? If you can't prove/provide the originally source of the information contained within Genesis, can the book still be considered a non-fiction, historical document?

[platypus]

I repeat: How come Jahve does not tell Jews, Muslims, Jehova's Wittnesses and Mormons that they are wrong? Adherent of all these religions contact God through prayer - why Jahve does not care? 

[shadowhawk]

I repeat: How come Jahve does not tell Jews, Muslims, Jehova's Wittnesses and Mormons that they are wrong? Adherent of all these religions contact God through prayer - why Jahve does not care? 

Don't know who you are talking about.  Why dont you tell them they are all right and include the Atheists in that also. 

[shadowhawk]

MainBrain,  Obviously Genesis is a historical document but I have talked about it at some length already because it contains a very advanced cosmology,     If you have some other O.T. issue, for now I suggest this book.   http://www.amazon.co...Archer, gleason

If you want to study books in the O.T. there are hundreds of scholarly commentaries which deal with issues such as who wrote Genesis.  I suggest as a starter,   http://www.amazon.co...=R Laird Harris
But, right now the discussion is on the resurrection of Christ and the basis for believing it true.  The Historical sources are important to that and the reason I will next bring up the issue.

It is good you enjoy the bible, it is after all the heart of Western civilization.

I don’t want to get derailed from discussing the resurrection so I will leave your interesting questions for another time.  I suggest you focus your study more because you will not find the answers with a shotgun approach.
 

Edited by shadowhawk, 08 May 2014 - 06:25 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Daniel B. Wallace, head if The Center For The Study Of New Testament Manuscripts    and one of the leading scholars in the world, speaks of the historical document evidence for the New testament. No other Historical documentation even comes close to the New Testament.

“How many NT manuscripts do we know of?

As far as Greek manuscripts, over 5800 have been catalogued. The New Testament was translated early on into several other languages as well, such as Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, etc. The total number of these versional witnesses has not been counted yet, but it certainly numbers in the tens of thousands.

At the same time, it should be pointed out that most of our manuscripts come from the second millennium AD, and most of our manuscripts do not include the whole New Testament. A fragment of just a verse or two still counts as a manuscript. And yet, the average size for a NT manuscript is more than 450 pages.

At the other end of the data pool are the quotations of the NT by church fathers. To date, more than one million quotations of the NT by the church fathers have been tabulated. These fathers come from as early as the late first century all the way to the middle ages.

What’s the earliest manuscript we have?

Up through the end of 2011, the following would be the answer: A papyrus fragment that had been sitting in unprocessed ancient documents at the John Rylands Library of Manchester University, England, is most likely the earliest NT document known today. Known as P52 or Papyrus 52, this scrap of papyrus has John 18:31-33 on one side and John 18:37-38 on the other.

It was discovered in 1934 by C. H. Roberts. He sent photographs of it to the three leading papyrologists in Europe and got their assessment of the date—each said that it was no later than AD 150 and as early as AD 100. A fourth papyrologist thought it could be from the 90s. Since the discovery of this manuscript, as many as eleven NT papyri from the second century have been discovered.

On February 1, 2012, I made the announcement in a debate with Dr. Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill, that as many as six more second-century papyri had recently been discovered. All of them are fragmentary, having only one leaf or part of a leaf. One of them rivals the date of P52, a fragment from Luke’s Gospel. But the most significant find was a fragment from Mark’s Gospel, which a leading paleographer has dated to the first century!

What makes this so astounding is that no manuscripts of Mark even from the second century has surfaced. But here we may have a document written while some of the first-generation Christians were still alive and before the NT was even completed. All seven of these manuscripts will be published by E. J. Brill sometime in 2013 in a multi-author book. Until then, we should all be patient and have a “wait and see” attitude. When the book comes out it will be fully vetted by textual scholars.

How does the number of NT manuscripts compare to other extant historical documents?

NT scholars face an embarrassment of riches compared to the data the classical Greek and Latin scholars have to contend with. The average classical author’s literary remains number no more than twenty copies. We have more than 1,000 times the manuscript data for the NT than we do for the average Greco-Roman author. Not only this, but the extant manuscripts of the average classical author are no earlier than 500 years after the time he wrote. For the NT, we are waiting mere decades for surviving copies. The very best classical author in terms of extant copies is Homer: manuscripts of Homer number less than 2,400, compared to the NT manuscripts that are approximately ten times that amount.”

Edited by shadowhawk, 08 May 2014 - 06:52 PM.

[shadowhawk]

CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS
Want to learn more?

http://www.csntm.org/
 

 

[platypus]

There was no global flood and the Bible gets the origin of species completely wrong. 

[Lewis Carroll]

There was no global flood and the Bible gets the origin of species completely wrong. 

There was definitely a global flood. Though the cause was the ending of the last ice age rather then the wrath of god.

The Bible was way out of the ball park in regards to the origins of the species.

[shadowhawk]

THE GARBAGE TRUCK FALLACY
1. A. Dumps a pile of issues all at once, so big that it would take B. writing a book to answer them all.
2.  A. claims they win the issue when B. can’t or wont answer them.

Sometimes there are so many issues that is impossible to answer them all.
Sometimes there is a general charge about everything.  Example, the Bible is unscientific.

Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
    Topic A is under discussion.
    Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
    Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.or...ed-herring.html
 
“Section04 D-- Replying to topics in the posting guidelines of the Longecity forum.  

(a) D.1-- Please ask yourself "Does my reply offer a significant contribution?"
(b) D.2-- It is critical that you try to keep follow-up posts on topic. Avoid going off on a different tangent. If it occurs to you that this might be another thread, open a new thread and put a link to it in the old one
© D.3-- As an extension of the previous point, do not derail a topic with fundamental critique....
(e) D.5-- There is usually no benefit for people in reading that you agree unless you give an explanation to go with it.
f) D.6-- ...If someone posts a link or uploads an article- read it before you go on. Also read the posts of your predecessors and be aware of related discussions elsewhere”


 

[Jeoshua]

Do I need to post the article about Argumentum ad Logicam again?

Why not just ignore the people who aren't discussing evidence, instead of trying to call them out about every logical fallacy you think they are committing and then not addressing any of the points?

Edited by Jeoshua, 08 May 2014 - 11:20 PM.

[Lewis Carroll]

MainBrain,  Obviously Genesis is a historical document but I have talked about it at some length already because it contains a very advanced cosmology,     If you have some other O.T. issue, for now I suggest this book.   http://www.amazon.co...Archer, gleason

If you want to study books in the O.T. there are hundreds of scholarly commentaries which deal with issues such as who wrote Genesis.  I suggest as a starter,   http://www.amazon.co...=R Laird Harris
But, right now the discussion is on the resurrection of Christ and the basis for believing it true.  The Historical sources are important to that and the reason I will next bring up the issue.

It is good you enjoy the bible, it is after all the heart of Western civilization.

I don’t want to get derailed from discussing the resurrection so I will leave your interesting questions for another time.  I suggest you focus your study more because you will not find the answers with a shotgun approach.
 

 

You are a very difficult one to have a conversation with. You clearly stated that you "have given even negative viewpoints which serve to back up the Easter event.  Next I am going to discuss the evidence of the Bible as a historical document." Your statement resulted in my questioning a book within the Bible, and reasons that would make me question its being a legit historical document.

 

But I guess this is your thread; hence, you're the creator and you make the rules.

[shadowhawk]

I am not afraid to discuss things like the Flood or any other of thousands of Issues but it is an endless rabbit trail and the subject will again be changed the minuet I start to discuss it.  It is a game to derail the topic and as you can see a dozen topics have been brought up in the last few posts.  I gave you some resources which will start to deal with any question you have.  Right now we are discussing the resurrection which if true, is the main basis for Christianity.  Argue against that and later we can discuss the flood.
http://www.reasons.o...-flood-part-one


 

[Lewis Carroll]

I am not afraid to discuss things like the Flood or any other of thousands of Issues but it is an endless rabbit trail and the subject will again be changed the minuet I start to discuss it.  It is a game to derail the topic and as you can see a dozen topics have been brought up in the last few posts.  I gave you some resources which will start to deal with any question you have.  Right now we are discussing the resurrection which if true, is the main basis for Christianity.  Argue against that and later we can discuss the flood.
http://www.reasons.o...-flood-part-one


 

 

I have never seen someone resurrect from the dead. Yes, in years from now we will probably have some sort of technology that makes it possible, but, at the moment, it's not feasible via known technology. Two thousand years ago they didn't posses our current technology (and obviously didn't have future technology that we do not yet posses), so it's safe to say it was not technology that could allow one to be resurrected. 

 

I have never seen a miracle (though I know you will probably whip up some articles on modern day miracles). I have never heard/seen scientific documentation of a miracle. I have never heard of a modern day resurrection via a miracle. So, why should I believe it happened two thousand years ago?

 

...Your response is probably going to somehow point to writings within the Bible as evidence of the resurrection.

 

Edited by MajinBrian, 09 May 2014 - 01:06 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Do I need to post the article about Argumentum ad Logicam again?

Why not just ignore the people who aren't discussing evidence, instead of trying to call them out about every logical fallacy you think they are committing and then not addressing any of the points?

I spoke of the Garbage Truck and Red Herring fallacies.  And how does your comments about about Argumentum ad Logicam relate to either of these and what actually happened?  Show me.

 

Yes, ignore them.  OK

[shadowhawk]

MainBrain, Obviously, you have not been reading what has been going on.  That you haven't seen a miracle is the exact point.  Suppose you saw a resurrection every other day.

Edited by shadowhawk, 09 May 2014 - 01:18 AM.

[Lewis Carroll]

MainBrain, Obviously, you have not been reading what has been going on.

30 plus (not sure of exact number because I'm on my phone) page thread is a lot to read. Especially when you insure to provide absurdly long posts everything

But I'd love to hear your answer to my last post!