The Resurrection of Jesus is historically probable

Originally posted by 1PLA1
This "debate" appears to be a one-sided debate.

Bibledefender presented a good case. The other guy didn't bother to engage in debate. His posts "prove it" were very disappointing and seemed particularly childish.

This was a debate, not a court of law.

I believe there are enough non-Biblical historical writings that discuss Jesus to prove that He did exist.

There are plenty of Jewish religious texts that prophesy a Jewish Messiah, prohesies which Jesus fulfilled, to indicate Jesus was that Messiah.

All-in-all, we will all know the truth eventually.

Why waste time presenting a case when two words summed it all up? He made the claims, it was his burden to prove. He gave only circumstantial, biased evidence. The only fact in his argument was that historians generally agree on the evidence provided to be fact, which doesn't make his evidence true.

He also alluded to me conceding his "facts" to be true. The only concession I will make in this "debate" is that historians generally accept what he presented as evidence to be true.

He shifted the burden of proof, wanting me to disprove his "facts." Moreover, he wanted me to prove the resurrection never happened, i.e. proving a negative.

Additionally, he was trying to prove the resurrection "probably happened," when in reality, the greater probability lies in the resurrection never happening.

Finally, his conclusion makes that claim Christianity is true, when there is no proof, other than an individual's personal faith.

This "debate" was pointless, unsanctioned, the terms weren't even agreed upon, and, quite frankly, a waste of time. Had I said anything other than "prove it," the whole thing would have turned into Ad nauseam.

Originally posted by randomname
Someone puts a gun to your head and asks u a question; did you see Santa Claus. if you say yes he pulls the trigger, if you say no, you can go.

That is what St. Peter and the early Christians faced.

Except it was the romans asking the question, Jesus was the subject and they weren't using bullets to kill you but horrible crucifixions or throwing you to lions to be eaten alive in front of 70,000 screaming Romans.

They all chose death because to not do so would be a lie.

A con artist, a thief or a liar would never give choose to die if faced with those options.

This is a nonsense argument.

Religion also makes Islamic suicide bombers.

In other words, people believe in crazy stuff.

reply to post by mkmasn


I can definitely sympathize WHY you chose to allow him to prove that which he wanted to argue because IT IS pointless.

Arguing over opinions of who said what and who wrote what and no one was there that WE KNOW AND TRUST...

Its complete faith of an opinion regarding not just Jesus and the resurrection because first you would have to prove that the Bibles text ( not any other text) was the word of God... Word for word will even be interpreted different and who is right on the interpretation?

We know man wrote the Bible and is man manipulative?, coniving? or controlling?

Of course. Do we trust it? Not all of us!!

I can prove to everyone on ATS WHY I Believe everything I believe and TRY to make everyone see out of my eyes but even then there will be people who call me a liar and probably say Im going to hell because THEY ARE NOT ME!!! We all have different perceptions.

Why are we made this way??

Its a snowball effect of questions... Lol..... We will never know certain truths until we are long gone from this earthly body!

I'm not sure whether bibledefender is playingscientist, lawyer or whatever, but he/she appears to have made a fundamental mistake in confusing the concept of five facts with five assumptions.
The argument stands up pretty well if it's based on five facts supported by strong evidence provided by the OP, but it's not. If the OP is indeed a legal amateur or professional, he/she would also know any text could be interpreted in a myriad of ways, and with something like scripture there's a lot of scope to disprove any of the assumptions made, and therefore we must look for unambiguous contemporary texts for evidence. The other reason for that is it was the Church that created the Gospels, not the other way around.

As far as I'm aware, there are no contemporary records of Jesus' existence, let alone of his crucifixion, miracles, teachings, movements, etc. He is allegedly the most important historical character, but nobody even knows for certain what year he was born or died.

Here's one fact, though: The letters of Paul are the oldest scriptural texts in the New Testament, predating the Gospels by 100 years or so. Being written about 20 years after the supposed crucifixion, they are perhaps the closest we have to historical evidence.

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
reply to post by windword

 

You need to fit The Hanged Man in there somewhere.

At least according to fundamental Christian beliefs. But the interesting thing about the Fool is that it's not only the first but also the last card. When you finally find clarity, you become like a child again, which the fool also represents. Children are closer to the truth than most adults are. They see the world in wonder and don't discriminate against it. So you come full circle and realize there was nothing to realize.

edit on 16/8/12 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)

Aren't the translations for Crucifixion in Latin or Greek "hanged?" I remember reading this somewhere.

Edit: Can't find where I read that... it may have been from Latin or Greek, not sure. Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me.

reply to post by mkmasn

Gary Robert Habermas (born 1950) is an American evangelical Christian apologist, historian, and philosopher of religion.

And? Care to discredit what Dr. Habermas SAID rather than Dr. Habermas? This isn't criminal court. All you've done with the above statement is displayed a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

reply to post by bibledefender

So, the historical question remains. What happened that fateful Easter morning? What happened that could make disciples believe something so much that they willingly suffered and died for? What happened that changed the enemy of Christians (Paul) to suddenly convert without any prior motive to? What could have happened that changed the once skeptical brother of Jesus (James) into becoming a leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem? What happened at the tomb that emptied it?

I'll tell you. Jews are very pragmatic people, if they hadn't seen certain signs from Yeshua, they never would have believed in him. Jews require signs to believe, they require proof. There were several false messiahs to come before Messiah and they were all discovered counterfeits and summarily executed after their rebellions were put down (as attested to by Gamaliel). No jew would have died in Yeshua's name if they believed him a liar. Neither would any jew have stolen Messiah''s body, he was crucified just before Passover which was a High Sabbath and it was unlawful for a jew to do any work during the weekly sabbath and the High Sabbath which in this case was when Yeshua was crucified before.

We can draw from this example of the jews to ferret out false Messiah's. There are prophetic requirements that must be met to determine Messiah. Messiah must be born in Bethlehem, be a jew and of the seed of King David, and he had to appear before the destruction of second Temple. So with these requirments in mind we can easily strike down any would be false Messiah's in our time, leaving only one option for Messiah. Yeshua ha'Neseret (Jesus of Nazareth).

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by mkmasn

 

Gary Robert Habermas (born 1950) is an American evangelical Christian apologist, historian, and philosopher of religion.

And? Care to discredit what Dr. Habermas SAID rather than Dr. Habermas? This isn't criminal court. All you've done with the above statement is displayed a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

It's not a discredit to the good doctor, it's a discredit to his results.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by bibledefender

 

So, the historical question remains. What happened that fateful Easter morning? What happened that could make disciples believe something so much that they willingly suffered and died for? What happened that changed the enemy of Christians (Paul) to suddenly convert without any prior motive to? What could have happened that changed the once skeptical brother of Jesus (James) into becoming a leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem? What happened at the tomb that emptied it?

I'll tell you. Jews are very pragmatic people, if they hadn't seen certain signs from Yeshua, they never would have believed in him. Jews require signs to believe, they require proof. There were several false messiahs to come before Messiah and they were all discovered counterfeits and summarily executed after their rebellions were put down (as attested to by Gamaliel). No jew would have died in Yeshua's name if they believed him a liar. Neither would any jew have stolen Messiah''s body, he was crucified just before Passover which was a High Sabbath and it was unlawful for a jew to do any work during the weekly sabbath and the High Sabbath which in this case was when Yeshua was crucified before.

We can draw from this example of the jews to ferret out false Messiah's. There are prophetic requirements that must be met to determine Messiah. Messiah must be born in Bethlehem, be a jew and of the seed of King David, and he had to appear before the destruction of second Temple. So with these requirments in mind we can easily strike down any would be false Messiah's in our time, leaving only one option for Messiah. Yeshua ha'Neseret (Jesus of Nazareth).

edit on 16-8-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

Except Jews don't believe Jesus to be their Messiah, Christians do.

reply to post by mkmasn


The first christians were not gentiles, they were jews. Christians are jews, adopted into the House of Israel through the blood of Christ. Jesus converted tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands during his ministry and they were all jews, because he didn't come to any but the lost sheep of Israel. For the first several years only jews were preached to, the gentiles didn't get the message until later.

According to islam, jews and christians are the same, they call us the "people of the book" and this is why they are told not to be our friends or they would be one of us, so they use taqiyya to feign friendship so they can use us for the cause of Allah. Orthodox jews may not believe yet, but the time is drawing nigh where they will soon enough. It's not uncommon to see messianic jews and christians worshipping in the same churches, all people are the same under one Master.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by mkmasn

 

The first christians were not gentiles, they were jews. Christians are jews, adopted into the House of Israel through the blood of Christ. Jesus converted tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands during his ministry and they were all jews, because he didn't come to any but the lost sheep of Israel. For the first several years only jews were preached to, the gentiles didn't get the message until later.

According to islam, jews and christians are the same, they call us the "people of the book" and this is why they are told not to be our friends or they would be one of us, so they use taqiyya to feign friendship so they can use us for the cause of Allah. Orthodox jews may not believe yet, but the time is drawing nigh where they will soon enough. It's not uncommon to see messianic jews and christians worshipping in the same churches, all people are the same under one Master.

And according to Jews and Christians, Jews are Jews, Christians are Christians, and Muslims are Muslims. They are not interchangeable. They each have different beliefs and each believe in different Gods. In fact, there was quite a difference of opinion on whether the Old Testament (Jewish) laws should even be followed at the birth of Christianity. If I remember correctly, it was between Paul's teachings and Luke's teachings, but I could be wrong, it's been awhile.

The Prophet Muhammad said Jesus was a prophet, that he was not God incarnate. That is very different than the Christian view that Jesus is God. Which is very different than the Jewish view that Jesus was not the messiah, that he didn't fulfill the prophecy of the Old Testament.

The point I was making is that Jesus is only Messiah to those who believe. He only converted the Jews who accepted what he had to say.

I understand the Qur'an teaches that Allah is the one true God, that Jews and Christians have lost their way, but are Muslim. I understand Muslim literally means "one who submits to God." I spent time in Afghanistan and got to know many Muslims very well.

But please understand people do not all follow the Qur'an, and though it says they are Muslim because they submit to God, that is not necessarily true.

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by mkmasn

 

Gary Robert Habermas (born 1950) is an American evangelical Christian apologist, historian, and philosopher of religion.

And? Care to discredit what Dr. Habermas SAID rather than Dr. Habermas? This isn't criminal court. All you've done with the above statement is displayed a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

It's not a discredit to the good doctor, it's a discredit to his results.

You didn't show the error of his results, you discredited them off the bat because of his "bias", as you put it.

That's a circumstantial ad hom fallacy. His bias is irrelevant, everyone has presuppositions. Truth is independent of all bias.

reply to post by mkmasn


Actually according to both OT and NT Jesus is God. He is the physical manifestation of the jewish and christian God in this world, and not the first manifestation either, according to Moses. The prophets after Moses also spoke concerning him and Isaiah can barely keep himself from blurting out his name and Daniel right along with him.

Zechariah 12

The burden of the word of the Lord concerning Israel.

1 Thus declares the Lord who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him, 2 “Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. 3 It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it. 4 In that day,” declares the Lord, “I will strike every horse with bewilderment and his rider with madness. But I will watch over the house of Judah, while I strike every horse of the peoples with blindness. 5 Then the clans of Judah will say in their hearts, ‘A strong support for us are the inhabitants of Jerusalem through the Lord of hosts, their God.’

6 “In that day I will make the clans of Judah like a firepot among pieces of wood and a flaming torch among sheaves, so they will consume on the right hand and on the left all the surrounding peoples, while the inhabitants of Jerusalem again dwell on their own sites in Jerusalem. 7 The Lord also will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem will not be magnified above Judah. 8 In that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the Lord before them. 9 And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

10 “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. 11 In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves; 13 the family of the house of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself and their wives by themselves; 14 all the families that remain, every family by itself and their wives by themselves.

This came from God, speaking through Prophet Zechariah and he tells you plainly that he is the One they pierced, this is when he saves them from those who would destroy them in the Tribulation (Jacob's Trouble). Lastly, most christians do not know they are jews, Rome did it's best to cause people to forget our jewish heritage and the Feast Days with persecutions against the jews in the Dark Ages and the 600 year Inquisition, but Rome screwed up, because the Feast Days are buried in Revelation, the fulfillment of the dress rehearsals complete and this is a revelation from God that they couldn't stop. There's only 2 flocks that belong to Messiah, one of the 2 "abrahamic" faiths is an imposter, that imposter can be discovered by wether it's doctrines violate Torah and the Prophets and chiefly the 10 commandments. Judaism and christianity have the 10 commandments imbedded in them, islam does not and Jesus holds us to a higher standard than even Judaism, with Him thought is the parent of action.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Jesus doesn't fit the bill, unless you are to take a non literal approach to the bible. Seed of David. Since Jesus was born of a virgin, he doesn't come from David's bloodline.

So since we have to take a metaphorical approach to the bible in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled, the whole thing is just a spiritual guide, not an historical account of what happened.

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
reply to post by windword

 

You need to fit The Hanged Man in there somewhere.

At least according to fundamental Christian beliefs. But the interesting thing about the Fool is that it's not only the first but also the last card. When you finally find clarity, you become like a child again, which the fool also represents. Children are closer to the truth than most adults are. They see the world in wonder and don't discriminate against it. So you come full circle and realize there was nothing to realize.

edit on 16/8/12 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)

Aren't the translations for Crucifixion in Latin or Greek "hanged?" I remember reading this somewhere.

Edit: Can't find where I read that... it may have been from Latin or Greek, not sure. Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me.

edit on 16-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)

Paul and Luke both refer to the "Hanging" of Jesus, while Matthew, Mark, and John only refer to the "crucifixion," but they don't describe it. Nails are not mentioned anywhere, that I can find anyway.

Classic pictures and reenactments often show the 2 thieves are tied to their crossbar, while Jesus is nailed. But the bible doesn't make that distinction.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Again, I ask you, have you chosen to blindly follow scripture or have you researched said scripture you hold onto with faith of accuracy?

Its your opinion verses another. Period.

Sciptures history of said author can tell you a lot, however which history is accurate?

Which jewish law was to be kept, if any? Who is right?

There were many jewish spawned sects who like today with Christianity has different views of right and wrong.

Denominations or different sects taught different things. Like.... The Gnostics, The Ebionites, The Essenes, and so on and so on. Jesus was said to hold secrets. Some even think he was a radical and free thinker who was a teacher that walked the Earth teaching some of these secrets that were later burned in Alexandria.

Who is right?

www.vexen.co.uk...

Their own version of Matthew, however, may have been a translation of the text into Aramaic. Jesus himself spoke Aramaic in Palestine, as did his earliest followers. It would make sense that a group of Jewish followers of Jesus that originated in Palestine would continue to cite his words, and stories about him, in his native tongue. It appears likely that this Aramaic Matthew was somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon. In particular, the Matthew used by Ebionite Christians would have lacked the first two chapters, which narrate Jesus' birth to a virgin - a notion that the Ebionite Christians rejected. There were doubtless other differences from our own version of Matthew's Gospel as well.”

His followers disagreed with one another so why is it we today would not still disagree?

RELIGION is a divider. Notice, Jesus dying on the cross made division even more rampant! Its based on historical accounts that have been passed down and tampered with. We have to seek greater understanding always as we will never have the truth and peace until Jesus returns to set us free from the bondage of chaos that began in the garden by the son of god, or the first and last man, Adam.

It is said in Matthew, if you believe in the accuracy of the total canon or just a little... He states this below along with Luke...

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes shall be they of his own household.” Again in Luke 12:49-53, the Lord said: “I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” So, as shocking as it may sound, Jesus said that He came into this world to bring division. But, before we pursue this subject any further, it is absolutely essential that we understand the statements made in Isaiah 9:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:16; and Luke 2:14. First of all, one can be sure that these statements do not contradict what Jesus said in Matthew 10:34-36 and Luke 12:49-53. The Bible, the inspired word of God, does not contradict itself! In Luke 2:14, the angels and host of heaven are speaking of the peace that would, as a result of this child's work, be able to exist between God and man. As Romans 5:1 says, “having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” This peace was being bestowed upon all of mankind “through Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:36), and the “glory” for all of this belongs to “God in the highest.” “But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:4-9). In other words, all of mankind became the enemies of God through sin, and the only way they could be at peace with Him was through His goodwill or grace. This, and this alone, is that of which Luke 2:14 speaks. Yes, it would be true that men who were at peace with God through Jesus Christ would also learn how to be at peace with each other (Romans 12:18; Hebrews 12:14; 1 Peter 3:11),

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Continued...

Jesus IS THE FLAMING SWORD (adam) cast out of the Garden of Edem and yes it has been a burden. But where they speak of baptism, think reincarnation and IT ALL MAKES PERFECT AND LOGICAL SENSE! :-)

His Grace is that we will upon his return have LIFE with PEACE!

We are still rectifying the beginning. The choice to choose life over knowledge. :-)

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Jesus doesn't fit the bill, unless you are to take a non literal approach to the bible. Seed of David. Since Jesus was born of a virgin, he doesn't come from David's bloodline.

So since we have to take a metaphorical approach to the bible in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled, the whole thing is just a spiritual guide, not an historical account of what happened.

He could in fact be the seed of David throught the first man, Adam, who is like, you probably know by now, my vision of Jesus first incarnation to earth, as both were and are the son of God and the son of man, The first and the last.

reply to post by bibledefender

Personally, I don't think these are historical facts at all, because there are no records or documentation, not even for the Disciple's existence. Let me address each one individually.

1.Jesus was indeed crucified and buried. This is attested to not only in the Gospels, but also by Paul and extra-biblical sources. And is admitted to as fact by almost all scholars.

Can anyone show these "extra sources?" The Romans kept excellent records, especially during the occupation of Ancient Israel. Why don't Roman records reflect these events? And the only scholars that swear to the story are Christian scholars, not secular scholars.
Why Are The Ancient Historians Silent About Jesus?

2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose from the dead and appeared to them. This is attested to by the fact that they willingly suffered for that message. That is accorded to in Acts, as well as extra-biblical sources and is also accepted as historical fact by nearly all scholars.

Again with the all scholars thing. Friend, hate to tell you, but belief in Christian dogma is not in any way all inclusive. Your statement on scholars is false. The disciples are named in Matthew 10:2-4, also in
Mark 3:16-19, and Luke 6:13-16. We are talking New Testament here, the book that came out of The Council of Nicea and Emperor Constantine defeated Emperor Licinius in 323 AD, and it was then he decided to stop harassing local Christians. And make for them a new religion with a new God based on the Roman God Mithras. Research will in fact reflect that.

For many Christians, to question the description of Jesus' birth as related in the Bible is unthinkable. They believe that the Bible is the "word of God", an infallible record of the Almighty's influence on his creation, and therefore to be taken at face value. However, a careful study of the nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke indicate that the supposedly unerring "word of God" is full of contradictions and inventions. The most plausible conclusion is that the familiar Christmas stories in Matthew and Luke are religious myths, awkwardly grafted onto an earlier non-miraculous tradition about Jesus' birth.

They appear to be legends recorded by later Jewish-Christian apologists who were attempting to explain the origins of a man whom they considered divine. In this sense, the authors employed the familiar Jewish practice of the time known as "midrash" to illustrate and prove their points; that is to say, they liberally interpreted and expanded on texts and prophesies in the Jewish scriptures. The miraculous birth stories also served other purposes, namely, to rebut the contemporary inferences about the illegitimate birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:18-19, Mark 6:3, John 8:41) and to counter charges that he was possessed by the devil, rather than the spirit.

source

3. Paul, who was an enemy of the church suddenly changed. This is stated by Paul himself in a number of N.T. texts and have claimed to have seen the risen Christ. Usually people will convert on the word of someone else, that is a secondary source. But Paul's conversion is due to something that he himself experienced. That is a primary source. Again, almost all scholars accept this as fact.
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly changed. This is attested to in the Bible, and extra-biblical source reports that he was a strict Jew. The Bible also testifies that after the Resurrection, James became a leader of the church.

I have already addressed that all of these stories came from one book that originated in Rome, and then always reoccurring "all scholars statement. I say look into the origins of the book for answers on whether the disciples were real or made up via "midrash."

5. The tomb was found empty. This is accepted by the majority of scholars also (Gary Habermas did a study on the state of scholarship to date. He reports that 75% of scholars agree that the tomb was indeed found empty).

Joseph of Arimathea was a very rich man, with connections to the Romans. Did he not go straight to Pilate with his request?
Joseph of Arimathea I also tend to think the Jewish Underground in with Jesus operated were able to engineer an escape for Jesus.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bibledefender

 

A theory will never explain facts.
Historical facts are just stories - his story (the person who wrote it).
There is one universal truth, everything else is a theory.

Total agreement. Any time you have a "Historical fact," what you have in fact is what someone wrote down, and History clearly reflects that the winners of battles, be it political, or military, always write the "facts."