Just as we test the historicity of any event, not through emotional conviction, but with historical evidence, I would like to devote some time to laying out a brief historical case for the Resurrection of Christ, the central issue of the Christian faith.
Here is what we need:
1. Internal Evidence: Evidence coming from within the primary witness documents, the New Testament.
2. External Evidence: Collaborative evidence coming from outside the primary witness documents.
Internal Evidence:
- Honesty
- Irrelevant Details
- Harmony
- Public Extraordinary Claims
- Lack of Motivation for Fabrication
Honesty:
The entire Bible records both successes and failures of the heroes. I have always been impressed by this. It never paints the glorious picture that you would expect from legendary material, but shows them in all their worst moments. The Israelites whined, David murdered, Peter denied, the apostles abandoned Christ in fear, Moses became angry, Jacob deceived, Noah got drunk, Adam and Eve disobeyed, Paul persecuted, Solomon worshiped idols, Abraham was a bigamist, Lot committed incest, John the Baptist doubted, Abraham doubted, Sarah doubted, Nicodemus doubted, Thomas doubted, Jonah ran, Samson self-served, and John, at the very end of the story, when he should have had it all figured out, worshiped an angel (Rev 22:8). I love it! (ahem).
And these are the Jews who wrote the Bible!
In addition, the most faithful are seen as suffering the most (Joseph, Job, and Lazarus), while the wicked are seen as prospering (the rich man). In the case of the Gospels, the disciples who recorded it claimed to have abandoned Christ and did not believe in His resurrection when told. Even after the resurrection, they still present themselves as completely ignorant of God’s plan (Acts 1:6-7). Women are the first to witness the resurrection which has an element of self-incrimination since a woman’s testimony was not worth anything in the first century. If someone were making this up, why include such an incriminating detail? (I am glad they did—what an Easter message this is for us today!)
Irrelevant Details:
The Gospel writers (especially John) contain many elements to their story that are really irrelevant to the big picture. Normally, when someone is making a story up, they include only the details that contribute to the fabrication. Irrelevant details are a mark of genuineness in all situations.
Notice this small segment of the Gospel of John 20:1-8 (HT: Gregory Boyd, but modified):
“Early on the first day of the week (when? does it matter?), while it was still dark (who cares?), Mary Magdalene (an incriminating detail) went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one who Jesus loved (John’s modest way of referring to himself—another mark of genuineness) and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we don’t know where they have taken him!” (note her self-incriminating lack of faith here). So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. They were running, but the other disciple out ran Peter and reached the tomb first (who cares who won the race? a completely irrelevant detail). He bent over (irrelevant, but the tomb entrance was low—a detail which is historically accurate of wealthy people of the time—the kind we know Jesus was buried in) and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in (why not? irrelevant detail). Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb (Peter’s boldness stands out in all the Gospel accounts). He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head (irrelevant and unexpected detail—what was Jesus wearing?). The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen (somewhat irrelevant and unusual. Jesus folded one part of his wrapping before he left!). Finally the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went inside (who cares about what exact order they went in?)
Harmony:
The four Gospel writers claim to have witnessed the resurrected Christ. The same is the case for most of the other writers of the NT. The four Gospel writers all write of the same event from differing perspectives. Although they differ in details, they are completely harmonious to the main events surrounding the resurrection, and all claim that it is an historical event. Many people are disturbed by the seeming disharmony among the Gospels since the Gospel writers do not include all the same details. However, this is actually a mark of historicity since if they all said exactly the same thing, it would be a sign that they made it up. However, the Gospel writers contain just enough disharmony to give it a mark of genuine historicity.
Public Extraordinary Claims:
The Bible records that the resurrection of Christ happened and gives the time, place, people involved, and it names many of the witnesses. In other words, the extraordinary claims were not done in secret as would be the case if it were fabricated. Look to all the ancient myths and you will see how obscure the mythology has to be in order to claim historicity. Why? Because if you give too many details of times, people, and places it can be easily disproven. If it was a fabrication, the author should have said only one person knew about it. He should have said it happened in a cave or a place no one has ever heard of. We have those type of stories that start religions.
Lack of Motive for Fabrication:
There is no reasonable explanation as to why the Apostles (or anyone for that matter) would have made up such a story. They had no popularity, power, or riches to gain from it if it was a lie. They were in constant persecution because of their confession, and finally, most met a terrible death, sealing their testimony in blood.
Beyond this, it was culturally unacceptable at all levels to have a crucified and resurrected Messiah. The Jews certainly were not expecting their Messiah to be crucified. The Greek world would have nothing but disdain for the idea of a bodily resurrection. Therefore, for this idea to arise as a fabrication at this time in history would have been about the most counterproductive story anyone could have made up.
It could not have been an illusion, for illusions do not happen in mass over time. It could not have been a case of mistaken identity (i.e., they merely thought they saw Christ), since it is impossible to explain how this many witnesses could be mistaken about seeing someone dead and buried, and then seeing the same person alive three days later. It could not be that Christ did not really die, since the Romans were expert executioners, and many people helped in the burial process, wrapping Christ in burial cloths as was their custom. It could not have been made up since all the objectors (and there were plenty of them) had to do was to produce a body.
Next I will cover the external evidence.
148 replies to "Evidence of the Resurrection: Part 1 – Internal Evidence"
In response to Jen #31
You first have to prove that the lack of physical description of Jesus allows for a actual person.
Next you have to prove this isn’t a conglomeration of the past deities prior to this time and a creation to match the needed persona.
Move on to the fact that the written material you have is not original but only copies at best to something that is not supported by any source from secular entities which would be unbiased or in the extreme biased against and would go to better prove the existence far better than an account that is nothing more than a purported work to invent such a person and religion.
The NT lacks the necessary support form contemporary outside sources of a secular nature that exist and prove other facts from the same period. So why doesn’t anything exist to prove a learned rabbi who would have to know how to read and write to become a rabbi not exist but you claim works exist from his followers that according to you would have been destroyed just as your claims to why nothing exists form the main person of your religion.
Your arguments do more to disprove your faith than it does to bolster it. If the surviving works exists and has survived then certainly any work for the Master or leader of it would have been preserved at any cost. And to continue to state that this being you claim to be god couldn’t insure that absolute proof survived to prove his existence is plain silly.
With every effort your position becomes so transparent and indefensible it is reduced to utter nonsense. You must prove your sources with the same proof that others historical figures are made to do and until you do, you are left without any reasonable expectation of even a foundation to start from. The NT is not ptoof nor is it usable in any manner until you can prove the validity of the material and the authorship beyond doubt.
TFR
TFR
Is that quote from Greg Boyd, the same Greg Boyd who is an Openest teacher?
I like it. And the Bible does prove it’s truth by the integrity of the writers.
I like Dr. Luke’s secong Epistle wher he begins by saying:
“In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself ALIVE to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.” Acts 1:1-3
I share this scripture verse with my atheist friends.
Have a blessed Easter! Jesus truly is our living Lord and Savior and Friend!
I am wondering if Michael Patton is willing to amend the article so that there is no claim that Luke claims to have seen the resurrected Christ, and anything else along those lines that would need correcting. Otherwise, please let us know where the basis is for the claim that Luke claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ, etc.
Other than that, I think the general five points about why the documents seem authentic and true, and also the four points about the external evidence, are all totally valid. The “rebuttals” to these seem to be about certain specific claims in the article that miss the big picture. A specific is about producing the body … while there could be many reasons why the corpse wasn’t produced besides just a resurrection, this misses the general point that there was plenty of time and motivation to create the arguments that would prove the whole account to be a fabrication in the early centuries, yet such arguments were not produced, or were not united. There was a story, for instance, that the disciples stole the body at night, but nobody has explained how they could have gotten past the guards, or tried to produce evidence that the guards weren’t there, … etc.
Having followed the link to the rational responders site there are a couple of things I would like to note. This post seems to assume that the resurrection was just an interesting historical that anyone might comment on as a curiosity. It was a claim of what was regarded as a fanatical sect which secular historians would have avoided to not embroil themselves in this kind of controversy. The proof of this is that all but three of the sources listed (Seneca the younger is marginal) were alive after the persecution of Christians by Nero attested by both Tacitus and Suetonius. If these people did not mention Christ or Christians even to show that they were a sect who had made their founder up it can only be that they did not want. A understandable response to a touchy religious controversy.
That Christian did not refer to the relevant passages in Josephus does not prove they were not there but they did not feel they needed to. I see no evidence that anyone in the early denied the historicity of Jesus, whatever they thought of His claims.
[…] But there are good reasons for belief in the resurrection. I’ve dealt with them in a series of blog posts (which we’ve also made available as a handout), but recently came across another good summary by Michael Patton. He lists internal (i.e., in the Bible) evidence for the resurrection such as honesty, irrelevant details, harmony, public extraordinary claims, and lack of motivation for fabrication. That information is summarized here. […]
To the recent responses about my comments;
First of all those who rely upon the two passages contained in the Josephus writings, those portions have been rejected as later interpolations by early christians who simply inserted them to make it appear Josephus had made them when he did not.
To continue to offer only NT and later work based upon it is not valid since it forces the person you are trying to convince that the the existing copies of this purported work is valid, which is not the case and since it fails to meet the same requirements of other historical accounts it is not valid to use as factual historical documentation of the alleged events.
Next, claiming honest accounts doesn’t elevate the NT or those of believers in using it to generate work solely upon it to substantiate the claims contained in this fiction.
A work of fiction is always a work of fiction no matter how much you pretend it to be something else. Don’t get angry of the facts of history simply because you want it to be different than history supports and it certainly doesn’t support your misguided belief system anymore than it supports any other religious belief period.
Other historical accounts that were in direct conflict of the authorities exist including the Roman Emperors actions and they as you claim controlled the material. So how do you overcome the negative comments of what exist about the Romans when it exists and known to be valid, with the fact that nothing supporting your religion from those said same periods which you continue to claim would have destroyed it due to its content.
Your arguments don’t work nor do they overcome the facts of history which has nothing mentioned outside of your NT and we know that was a construct by early groups. Since you haven’t the necessary proof to even demonstrate one account from any reliable source that would show honesty behind the account you basically have nothing but fiction and that as you know is fabrication…
In response to Mike #55;
You seem to think that attempting to explain away the complete avoidance of the major source of historical accounts from the very period you must in order to verify and prove your claims is ridiculous at best.
The reason Josephus wasn’t quoted was the sections now used by current believers is that those sections were added after that time!
You can’t ignore the experts and then chose to pick and chose religious adherents to support you. That is not honest nor is it ethical in proving the history of your claims.
So why do you do that? Because it is far to difficult for you to even entertain the possibility that your entire belief structure is nothing but a fiction. Face it when you look at the overwhelming base of your claims it shows that you have only your NT and material based upon it. Even Michael here uses that and alludes to material but never ventures into a complete examination of the facts vs the fiction that he uses.
If you look at the facts and set aside your beliefs long enough to see the facts examined fully you will have to conclude that you are simply furthering a fantasy which would be seen if you allow yourself an honest chance to do so.
I researched and looked at your claims for a very long time and after doing so concluded that your claims are nothing but fiction without any basis in reality.
TFR
Why is it no one ever explains the problem with the 3 days claim when I have shown the period at best is not even 2 full days at best?
According to the claims jesus was placed in a tomb before sunset on Friday and was said to be out either before dawn or at later during the day.
So since the counting of days at the time and the reason to place him in the tomb was to observe Passover before the evening on Friday and the day counts from sundown to sundown of the following day, how do you even begin to claim 3 days?
Frankly, you can’t and that is a major point of the belief system.
TFR
Another point I brought up and it is avoided was the link to the FFRF site which asks for anyone to take the gospels accounts and put together a precise chronological ordered account of the resurrection.
All you have to do is include the complete accounts in order of the reports in the gospels and present the time line in a complete account.
Doing this will only result in so many contradictions and put the believer with the position of being unable to reconcile their beliefs verse what they have been ignoring that is claimed to be absolute word of their deity.
Remember you have to put each of the points in chronological order and it is from the NT, nothing else so go ahead just list it out and then refute the NT which you use as your source of belief.
http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone
So much for “harmony”!!!
TFR
Alockslee,
From what I understand, the Jews spoke of “three days” not necessarily meaning three full days. A part of a day counted as a day in this type of reckoning. Therefore the day He was crucified counted as one day, Saturday as the second, and Sunday when He arose as the third. This seems to be the case elsewhere in Scripturaul usage too.
Lets now point our attention of the works Michael makes claims about being authentic, historical, in harmony, etc..
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
Why are the earliest copies written in Greek? the disciples were alleged to Jewish and would have written in Aramaic, or Hebrew, not Greek. They were governed by Romans (Latin) and while some Greek existed those who were followers would not have been literate in Greek, but if at all more prone to use Aramaic or Hebrew or even Latin instead of Greek.
So much for the honesty of the work especially since the existing examples are from long after the period and not one person can prove who wrote it in the first place.
When responding stick to discussing the facts of the website and avoid the typical attack the messenger routine as so many believers try to avoid dealing with the facts to prevent open honest discussion from reality and only stave off having to look at the truth of what exists as opposed to what those believers hope to prevent from surfacing to disprove their religion.
TFR
In response to #56;
After wading through the rhetoric on your blog making claims to “extra-biblical references” existing, all you offer is fiction written based upon the copies in Greek and not the language at the time nor contemporary to the time of this alleged events, it is simply material based upon a fiction in the first place.
Where are the extra-biblical accounts by reliable sources that even mention the earthquakes, dead walking the streets, and other accounts claimed to have taken place that would have been seen by others even though the events wouldn’t have been related to those claimed by you?
Your blog doesn’t provide anything beyond the bible based accounts and uses only those in agreement with your religious beliefs to reach your intended conclusions. You appear to raise questions to the contrary but fail to properly examine the issues fully and only at best mention existence of it.
So how about answering the questions I posed, take the challenges I linked to and then post your responses here so everyone can see your efforts? If you do it properly and honestly you will have to conclude that nothing exists to support you continuing beliefs and conclude according to the facts, not fiction.
TFR
cherylu on 06 Apr 2010 at 11:57 am #
Alockslee,
From what I understand, the Jews spoke of “three days” not necessarily meaning three full days. A part of a day counted as a day in this type of reckoning. Therefore the day He was crucified counted as one day, Saturday as the second, and Sunday when He arose as the third. This seems to be the case elsewhere in Scripturaul usage too.”
—————————————————————————-
In response: Sorry your argument doesn’t wash. The disciples were jews, and knew that a day was counted in accordance with the traditional methods. The fact you now comes forward and try to ignore that fact means you are refusing to accept the practices of the time.
It also means that whoever wrote the copies chose to ignore that fact as well. Had they been the original people you believe they are that would have been done without a second thought.
When the 3 days argument was refuted which it was, the whole resurrection claims is gone. Not one of the existing explains they weren’t following the tradition since the NT is moot as to the changes, so historically you have to go with the traditional practices, to dismiss it now is demonstrating your ignorance to the period practices.
The whole reason to entomb the body was because of Passover and you can’t make 3 days from less than two.
Thanks anyway but your comments are easily dismissed as nonsensical at best. Try your hand at the chronological ordering of the accounts from the Gospels and do it according to the terms listed on the link. Remember follow the rules and use only the full accounts of the gospels in the NT. You have to use every bit of the 4 gospels and don’t explain or excuse parts, just list a complete chronological account and include everything, then conclude what happened using it all. Make sure that you follow the rules.
TFR
The evidence is beyond despite. There are ways to explain it as wrong, but it takes far greater leaps of faith to do that than it does to accept it as true. No one can look at the evidence and say that the evidence is too weak to accept. The only way one can look at the evidence and reject it is if they have a philosophical predisposition that causes this (believing God can’t exist because their is evil in the world or having an anti-supernatural bias).
Alocksee,
Quick comment on the three days thing. There are many different positions scholars take on how this should be interpreted. A possible scenario is that Jesus wasn’t crucified on Friday. It must be noted that placing the crucifixion on Friday is a matter of tradition, nowhere in the Bible does it indicate that this is the case. All we are told is that it is the day before Passover and that it is the Day of Preparation for the Sabbath. One must realize that in 1st Century Judaism Passover would be considered a Sabbath Day and thus there could be two Sabbath days during the week that Jesus was crucified. Thus making the period between the Day of Preparation and the First Day of the week longer then the Friday – Sunday that is traditional.
Yet as I said this is just one of 20 different ways that this could be interpreted. Suffice to say I find nothing here that creates an intractable contradiction as you seem to assert.
Alockslee,
Are you familiar with the quotes in this article?
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/historical-secular-quotes-about-jesus/phlegon.html
Alocksee,
Re. 57
“since it fails to meet the same requirements of other historical accounts it is not valid to use as factual historical documentation of the alleged events.”
What criteria are you using to determine historicity?? The criteria you seem to be laying out are much higher then historians use when determining a documents authenticity (i.e. Herodotus’ account of the battle of Thermopylae). You claim that the New Testament is a work of fiction, but offer nothing to prove that it is fiction other than your a priori assumption that it must be. You claim some parallels to other beliefs (which many Secular scholars refute) yet even if this were so this commits the genetic fallacy.
Re: 58
“You can’t ignore the experts and then chose to pick and chose religious adherents to support you. That is not honest nor is it ethical in proving the history of your claims.”
Whose experts? One could claim we’re cherry picking Christian experts while you’re cherry picking Secular experts. The idea you have that one is more objective then the other is simply a matter of bias, not fact.
Re: 60
Interestingly enough this is exactly what one expects from eyewitness accounts. You are expecting modern historical precisions from people who aren’t modern historians (and the Church is guilty of this too sometimes). I’m a lawyer by training and the one thing you learn about eyewitnesses is that generally there stories are similar, but they always contain discrepancies. Why?? Because people are different. They pick up on different details and remember things differently. Thus to me this lends credence to the assertion that these are or are based on eyewitnesses.
Re: 62
Greek was the most common language spoken in the Ancient Near East during the time of Jesus. The local language was Aramaic, but the Greeks had conquered the entire region and many people spoke Greek as it was necessary to carry on trade and business with anyone outside of…
Is it really true that one historian is as good as another? As an historian, I’m appalled at that statement. Some are good; some are bad. And one of the ways to tell the difference, is to look at physical evidence. In this case, today we don’t see people walking on water or moving mountains with just faith and a prayer; so we conclude that THOSE “historians” were mostly unreliable.
Lets start with the last portion of your response Michael,
First of all the Romans were in charge in the area, and the language of the time among the Jews was Hebrew or Aramaic and had been since Jerusalem was founded or don’t you understand that jesus was found in the temple speaking to the rabbis when according to your accounts his parents found him.
Latin, Greek or other languages were not used by the priest of the temple during the worship services and would not have been used to converse, preach or pray by the congregation, simply do the necessary research and you will find that to be the fact.
The immediate followers of jesus who could write would have learned writing and reading from the torah since they would have gone through bar mitzvah in accordance with the jewish law or don’t you understand the religion of the jews at the time.
There have fun and as to the rest of your poor attempts at refutation, it falls flat since you know full well historical accuracy and accepted scholarship follows a standard pattern and doesn’t follow your nonsense approach that just blindly adheres to a construct based upon past religious beliefs and inaccurate dating.
Finally, you have nothing that even puts the earliest writing of the claimed texts in the same period and they also contradict one another so badly that it cancels out the entirety without even moving beyond the NT itself.
Still waiting for your resurrection time line according to the terms on the link. Once you accomplish that following the rules using on the NT it will be clear you either reach the fact it it didn’t happen or simply refuse as the others have in the past. Either way you fail to overcome the truth that you have only fiction and little if any facts. The facts you may have don’t prove your basis for belief and that too is too high a hurdle to clear, so suffice it to say you have nothing but fiction and fiction is certainly not fact.
TFR
In response to #66. notice the date of alleged birth of your source person approximately 80 CE. So please tell us all how a person who is born at least 50 years after the alleged event that is the basis for you religion is considered contemporary?
Also, look up the eclipse on a real website that covers what it is and then report what it has on it and stop basing your defenses from another misguided fantasy believing person.
BTW if we follow your example, you just refuted Michael’s defense of not happening during Passover since Passover is set on the full moon and the eclipse had to be on a full moon to take effect to be the type you claim.
Thanks so much and keep it coming the more you discuss the facts the sooner you will be able to come to grips with this fallacy you cling to so closely.
TFR
Seriously folks simply take a few minutes and read the following web page here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
Once you have dealt with this author’s arguments then you will have a better understanding of how nonsensical you sound in trying to put forth anything remotely valid on this topic.
You can hold to any religious belief you want, but, don’t try to argue a non fact as if it were, you lose every time! If you must defend your position then do so honestly and stop trying to inject falsehoods and insert something you know isn’t true, can’t be proved or even speculate about what happened because you weren’t there and nothing exists outside the fiction you think is valid to back you up. Work produced form it by later authors is only fiction based upon fiction so don’t employ that as it is far worse than using the first source and offers nothing to bolster a thing in this discussion.
Spend some time reading the actual history and learn the facts and you will soon learn what you are trying to do is not possible and is only a fiction. Fiction is not reality and no amount of wishing (prayer) will change it.
TFR
Alockslee,
Here is an interesting quote from this article:
http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm
If this information is accurate, it says a lot about why New Testament manuscripts are written in Greek.
(The actual quote is in the next comment as it is too long to put in this one.)
Here is the quote:
“Most Jewish Funerary Inscriptions in GREEK!
In the next article in the same issue of Biblical Archaeological Review, the author, Pieter W. Van Der Horst, points out that no less than 1,600 Jewish epitaphs — funerary inscriptions — are extant from ancient Palestine dating from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D. The geographical spread of these inscriptions reveal that Jews were living all over the world at that time, especially the Roman period. In other words, when Jesus’ brother James said in Acts 15, “Moses has been preached in every city for generations past and is read in the synagogues on every sabbath” (v.21), he was simply stating the truth. Peter, in his first sermon, enumerates a list of the countries from which Jews came to worship on that first Pentecost of the newly formed Christian Church (Acts 2:9-11).
Van Der Horst goes on:
“One of the most surprising facts about these funerary inscriptions is that most of them are IN GREEK — approximately 70 percent; about 12 percent are in Latin; and only 18 percent are in Hebrew or Aramaic.
“These figures are even more instructive if we break them down between Palestine and the Diaspora. Naturally in Palestine we would expect more Hebrew and Aramaic and less Greek. This is true, but not to any great extent. Even in Palestine approximately TWO-THIRDS of these inscriptions are in GREEK.
“APPARENTLY FOR A GREAT PART OF THE JEWISH POPULATION THE DAILY LANGUAGE WAS GREEK, EVEN IN PALESTINE. This is impressive testimony to the impact of Hellenistic culture on Jews in their mother country, to say nothing of the Diaspora.
“In Jerusalem itself about 40 PERCENT of the Jewish inscriptions from the first century period (before 70 C.E.) ARE IN GREEK. We may assume that most Jewish Jerusalemites who saw the inscriptions in situ were able to read them” (“Jewish Funerary Inscriptions — Most Are in Greek,” Pieter W. Van Der Horst, BAR, Sept.-Oct.1992, p.48).”
Alockslee,
I read about 2/3 of the article you linked above. It was so long I didn’t make it to the end.
But what I can say is that I saw a whole lot of assumptions made by the writer of that article. For instance the one where he said that miracles are impossible. Can he “prove” that they are impossible?
It seems to me that article was written by someone that had already completely made up their mind that Jesus didn’t exist and set out to “prove” it. A priori???
A good share of what he claimed as impossible or obvious doesn’t appear impossible or obvious to me in the slightest.
One other thought that stuck out to me. He said the Apostle Paul knew nothing of the Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels. He never spoke of all the things He did and said there. Because He didn’t repeat everything said in the Gospels doesn’t prove He didn’t know them–what an assumption that is. And to state he knew nothing of a miracle working Christ when Paul himself spoke of miraculous things being done by Christians as Jesus Himself had said would happen is again an outrageous statement that appears to have been made by someone that hasn’t taken the time to read what Paul said and given any serious thought to it.
Sorry, your article appears extremely biased to me. He didn’t simply state what he believed to be facts–he drew conclusions repeatedly that to me seemed totally unwarranted. There is a whole lot of interpretation going on there.
Sorry folks, I have not and cannot participate here or on the other post. I have way too much going on and cannot possibly keep up with all the comments.
I pray that things are staying civil and on track.
No nonesense about Jesus never even existing, please (I think I caught something about that earlier). You have to be a fringe radical to suggest that. Its about like saying people did not land on the moon.
Anyway, it would waste the time and purpose of this blog.
Stick to the resurrection. If you don’t think Christ ever existed, just stay out of the issue. I don’t want the arguements turning to such nonesense.
Alockslee,
You apparently need a history lesson. When Alexander the Great conquered Persia (and Israel with it) in 331 BC the Greeks employed a process of forced Hellenization whereby the local populations were forcibly made to adopt Greek language and customs. This resulted in many Israelites being largely Hellenized by the time Greek rule ended. When the Romans conquered Israel in 64 BC they did not force Romanization on the Jews, but rather allowed them to have independent religious and cultural practices within certain boundaries as was typical of most conquered Roman territories. The result of this was that even at the time of Jesus many Jews and the vast majority of the people in the surrounding area spoke Greek.
Michael T,
Have you ever read a book by Harvard law professor Simon Greenleaf entitled, “The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administrated in Courts of Justice”? It was published in 1874. It demonstrates how the Gospel accounts would be acceptable in a court of law. If you have read it, I wonder what you think of it as a fellow lawyer?
It is available online here: http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/greenharmony.htm
I just ran across it this a.m.
Alockslee,
Incidentally, this book also contains a harmony of the Gospel accounts like you have been talking about. I haven’t looked at it however.
Alockslee,
“In response to #66. notice the date of alleged birth of your source person approximately 80 CE.”
Most of the primary source documents we have concerning ancient historical events, much less the secondary attestations were written well more then 50 years after the event in question. For instance the primary source for the Battle of Thermopylae is Herodotus writing 40-60 years after the event. Secondary attestations don’t come until over 80 years after the event and most, if not all of these, are just retelling what Herodotus said.
This type of thing is common in ancient history. There are historical events that historians believed happened and weren’t written about until over 100 years after the fact. As I said you must realize that to call into question the Bible on grounds that it wasn’t contemporary or doesn’t contain contemporary attestations is to call into question every ancient historical document we posses. Your standards for contemporary attestations are NOT the standards used to judge the historical nature of most ancient documents.
You can’t have it both ways. Either based date of writing vs. date of event and contemporary attestations the Bible is reliable or no ancient historical document (with a few exceptions) is reliable.
Alockslee,
When Alexander the Great conquered all of Persia in 331 BC (including Israel) the Greeks forced all those conquered to adopt Greek language and custom. When the Romans conquered Israel in 64 BC they did no such thing. As was common for the Romans they allowed the conquered Israelites to keep their customs and religion within certain boundaries. The result of this was that many in Israel and almost everybody in the surrounding areas spoke Greek. I know of no scholar or historian who disputes these facts. Maybe you do??
Alockslee,
“In response to #66. notice the date of alleged birth of your source person approximately 80 CE.”
I think most historians specializing in ancient history secular or Christian are going to have a beef with your idea of contemporary. For most historians this would be considered a very contemporary account. For instance the primary source or the Battle of Thermopylae is Herdotus writing 40-60 years after the event in question (longer then the Bible I might add) and the secondary attestations are largely (like the Bible) simply rehashes of what Herodotus said with the earliest being 80 or so years after the event in question.
You don’t realize it I know, but the standards you want to use are NOT the standards historians use. If they used your standards we wouldn’t know a single thing about what happened prior to 1700 AD. In ancient history historians writing over 100 years after an event is not uncommon. So as compared to most ancient historical documents the Bible fairs extremely well and better then most accounts that historians consider factual.
Alockslee,
I read the article you linked and it is so full of disinformation, a priori assumptions, and just outright falsehoods that I don’t even know where to respond so I will just say a couple things
1. The theory that Jesus was a complete myth and never lived is more outside of mainstream scholarship then the assertion made by Christians that the Gospels are historical. There are currently only 2 scholars living out of thousands of Bible scholars who provide any support to the Christ myth theory. They are G.A. Wells and Robert Price. Of these two neither is unequivocal in their support for the theory either.
2. The obscenely late datings for the Gospels are well outside of mainstream scholarship and the few who do date them this late do so because of the prophecy in Mark predicting the destruction of the Jewish temple.
3. The work called Supernatural Religion is often attributed to Cassel’s but was published completely anonymously. It has been widely questioned as to assertions and method. Furthermore I find it odd that someone who is ripping on the Gospels for being anonymous is citing an anonymous book.
3. Related to 2 Iranaeus is not the first person to quote the Gospels. Ignatius for instance quoted them and we know he died prior to 117 AD with most scholars placing it around 108 AD.
4. Most of the Gnostic Gospels mentioned we’re written well after 200 AD.
5. Already addressed the Greek issue
6. Already addressed the issue about not having original documents.
7. This writing is likely quite old because it is missing some recent information such as the discovery of Nazareth and the discovery that people did travel to their ancestorial homes for census.
I could go on but you get the point. This article contains so much disinformation and outright falsehood that it is hardly worth the time of people to respond to. Whether you realize it or not this view is even more radical and outside the realm of mainstream scholarship the Christianity itself.
I would highly suggest that if you wish to be taken seriously and actually convince someone you fact check your sources and avoid source which use the rhetoric this sources does. Furthermore you might want to consider adopting a viewpoint that isn’t more radical and extreme then the one you’re arguing against.
Alockslee,
Just thought I’d throw this out there. I’m sure you are aware who Bart Ehrman is and are aware that he is no friend whatsoever of Christians. Yet despite that he had to say this about the hypothesis you are advancing.
“I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn’t exist. But I don’t know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.”
Ehrman, Bart (2008), interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., “Who Changed The New Testament and Why”, The Infidel Guy Show
In response to #79, Where are your sources? Please be kind enough to provide them so your research can be cross checked to insure this isn’t just another attempt to list a bunch of allegedly valid material as if it refutes anything and then not list them so it can be clearly seen for what it is, just another claim from another believer who doesn’t cite anything of merit either.
Waiting for your sources and please make sure that you list them according to their author,location where they can be found on the web and when you do please make absolutely sure that it is from an actual scholar that is not so blinded by their belief system (christianity) that they can’t be honest in their written material.
You claim the article is so full of misinformation, then please post what you contend is misinformation and then refute it with factual, valid, independent from bias of your belief system and then make your conclusions based upon what you have proved, not speculate upon.
TFR
In response to #76, funny you bring this site up as an attempt to make your position argument. You must not have seen my prior posts about that site and the author of it, where I not only refuted his points one by one, I also proved that tektonics almost every time failed to post any valid source material to base their position on.
So in the future please find someone who actually quotes a source and then quotes them accurately and then makes a conclusion based upon the quoted material which is not the case with the author on that site.
As to the “site” you got through about 2/3’s the way, please tell us which one that was as I have listed several. What on that site was so troubling to you that prevented you from finishing it?
Was it the facts? Was it the irrefutable evidence from those who don’t follow your fantasy and/or the complete lack of those on your side of the discussion having nothing to offer?
You spend time beating around the bush but say little to nothing to defend your side. where is your Time-line using the complete accounts from the 4 gospels? Certainly such a learned person as you are can accomplish something so critical to your belief system , that without it your entire structure for it fails should be able to do it in record time.
So, please using the task laid out complete it and remember don’t omit anything and then show us all what did happen with the claimed resurrection since the gospels certainly don’t agree and don’t defend it either just do as it asks and conclude on what you have when finished.
TFR
Alockslee,
I didn’t see or remember your reference to the site I mentioned in #76. And if you read my comment again, I said I had just found that online book. I had not read it. I merely asked Michael T his opinion of it.
And the site I got about half way through was the same article Michael T spoke of above.
And you know what, I find it quite amusing and frustrating that you expect us as Christians to read a site by infidels.org and be totally convinced by what they have to say. And yet you totally and completely refuse to accept any evidence we offer you written by a Chistian because that would be too biased! How is that for a double standard anyway??
In response to #75, Wow! The single most important point in your belief system and a guy that spends so much time dedicated to expousing this religious viewpoint and he doesn’t have the time to spend on defending the very religion his whole life is dedicated to.
Well we wouldn’t want to keep you from something more important now would we? Certainly this discussion that has shown not one of the fellow followers have anything to use to defend their religion except the very fiction that was created to develop it initially poses a problem.
So run along Mr. Patton and don’t give this a second thought since you don’t have the time to discuss the single most import part of your religion and leave those left to flounder and eventually resort to the usual tactics of misquoting history, trying to thump the book that has been proved to be nothing more than an historical novel at best and most likely a creation so long after the alleged events that even you would have to agree if you would allow yourself the opportunity.
Thanks for bailing out so soon and we both know the reason, it isn’t time that is the problem, it is simply you know full well that you can’t overcome the facts with fantasy and want to withdraw before you too are shown to have been pushing a fiction to others here.
Please don’t get upset but running away is not what a true believer would do in this case, but we all certainly understand and wouldn’t want you to have to go to any effort just to be proved unable to even defend the primary and most important basis for your faith.
TFR
cherylu, if you can’t remember what you have just read then please write it down so you can.
If you want to discuss the topic then fine but at least make some effort to cite your references and don’t try the elementary ploy of driving the discussion off topic which is again another trick employed by those followers of the f&e squad when they are faced with having to defend their religion and have to really look at it logically.
You of course find that having to take a logical look at your religion causes you to realize exactly how illogical it is and then having to really go through what you haven’t got with respect to tangible proof renders your position moot.
In other words you really don’t read the material that disagrees with your beliefs but only claim to, you certainly don’t quote it and when you do you conclude in error 9 out of 10 times. Finally you rely upon those that support your side but create more nonsense the deeper you investigate folks like the tektonics site.
So, in the future, please take the points I post one at a time and then work through them until you are able to reach the logical conclusion that I offer, you will if you are willing to really see what is written.
Next once a source you offer is refuted and I have given reasons for it, move on and stop using them since that source has been invalidated. You have to stick to valid, secular sources of history, untainted by this religious brainwashing that prevents the person form seeing the truth when given. Please don’t even try to turn this around it will not work.
Don’t claim your NT is truth without proving it by real sources and start if you must by proving who wrote it by real evidence not speculation.
TFR
Lets return to a point that needs to be proven in order to start with and then once that happens it can be used in the future.
1. The period of time claimed by those who believe in the resurrection from entombing to the “resurrection” is said in the NT to be 3 days.
I have proved that the period if it happened, which there is nothing but your NT that even claims it that might be close to the alleged time of this alleged event and that period is not 3 days and actually less than 2 days.
So, the facts shown here are that we must consider the period to be based upon the Jewish dating tradition which runs from sundown to sundown to be a complete day. So Friday night to Saturday makes one and then the period of Saturday night to the latest period given in the gospels is Sunday during the DAY and that is not complete according to the period tradition.
That renders the time period to be at best 1 & 1/2 days to 1 & 3/4 days, but in no way is it beyond 2 days period.
So the 3 days claim is invalid and nothing from your source documents provide anything to dispute it, nor can you invent other information or explain it since it is the infallible word of your deity.
TFR
Moving onto the next problem for christians is the claims of what was said by “jesus” and then argue the NT is full of his spoken words.
Lets face it folks, nothing in the NT or any other documents in existence have ever proved that jesus existed nor actually said anyhting. All they do is allege it was uttered by a person called jesus, but nothing ever written by this person described in the NT has ever been found that is accepted by the experts on either side.
So, without a single shred of evidence of anything written or any reliable proof of this individual ever being produced which can be properly validated, tested or even shown to be of him the claims fall flat until something can be produced to show that he existed or if he did he said anything whatsoever.
Which leads us to the next phase of the discussion, where is the proof that anything from this alleged individual was said and that the NT is simply a creation of a construct used by a group of people to invent another religion just like other religions were invented in the past and/or have been invented throughout history.
The Romans kept very detailed records so where is the record of the trial and the crucifixion? We know there are records of other trials so where is this particular record? It doesn’t exist and would exist if it happened, which it doesn’t.
TFR
cherylu on 07 Apr 2010 at 10:24 am #
Alockslee,
I read about 2/3 of the article you linked above. It was so long I didn’t make it to the end.
But what I can say is that I saw a whole lot of assumptions made by the writer of that article.
———————————————————————-
In response: Please provide the article you can’t remember and then take the time to refute the arguments on that site.
Certainly you can do this if you disagree and work through each portion to disprove it.
TFR
I am still waiting for Michael to post the list of extra-biblical references he claims exists to prove his position.
Where are these references? Again these are nothing but written material based solely upon the NT that were drafted by later followers who needed something to add to the amount of material to help bolster their position and beliefs.
Where is the outside, secular extra-biblical materials that report the extraordinary claims of those in the NT? certainly someone somewhere had to also witness these widespread “miracles” that are so plentiful and have been recorded only in the NT.
Basically when challenged to produced the proof, followers will claim tons of stuff exists, but never produce it. In fact when they produce anything at all it is always something based upon the NT, written by a follower and then it isn’t extra-biblical at all but just another piece of further nonsense that only restates what was written or weakly attempts to make some lame explanation to try to defend and fail to accomplish it with each demand by logical thinking people who question this religion.
So again where is this evidence and when is Michael gonna provide it so it can be shown to be nothing more than just more nonsense upon nonsense just like the source of it all that created it in the first place. remember Josephus is the only source that is given as contemporary and those passages are forgeries, so this time lets see something else or just admit nothing exists to prove your faith.
TFR
Alockslee,
It’s funny how you have a double standard. The article you link doesn’t cite sources for it’s assertions either and yet you have no problem holding it up as being true. Furthermore, if you simply Google the author you will find out that he was not Biblical scholar. Here are some quotes from the article to demonstrate.
“Some of the ablest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all.”
Which scholars is he referring too? He doesn’t name names.
“Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the “original Mark.”
What sources does he cite for this proposition? None
“What it was, who wrote it, where it was written, nobody knows. The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document”
Which scholars again. He doesn’t give any source for this statement. Just “Christian scholars”.
“We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D”
Who told him this?? Which serious scholar actually dates John after 140? Just google “Rylands Fragment”. This papyrus contains a portion of the Gospel of John dated to 125 AD.
Again I could go on. I’m just pointing out your ridiculous double standard here. You are willing to accept a document containing a position that is even more outside of the scholarly mainstream then mine from somebody who isn’t even an expert in the field. Furthermore the document has no citations and contains nothing more then unverified assertions on the part of the author. And then you have the nerve to turn around and demand that I give you sources for what are generally accepted facts in the scholarly community??
Cherylu, lets look at your claim that Greenleaf wrote something to prove your religion in court.
First of all what did he actually prove? Please tell everyone here what he accomplished?
Next, explain what if anything he did as all that is ever given is that the ancient document exists, may corroborate some details of a fictionalized account, but doesn’t prove that the claims in it are true.
Notice it doesn’t prove the events it only repeats and compares some parts of it, nowhere in the article which is edited by the way, proves any of it actually happened.
In conclusion all it does if it does anything at all show a discussion of some old material being written by the same person which disproves the claims of whole lot of people believe that it was written by some disciples of an alleged person and even the documents themselves can’t be proved to exist at the time of the events. Next it is written in a language that would not have been used by the Jews who followed him since they were rebuilding the Jewish religion and would have relied solely upon the traditional language, HEBREW or Aramaic and certainly not Greek as as pointed out Greek was not the language of the JEWS!!!
Thanks but trying to argue the JEWS used Greek as their primary language is ridiculous and claiming the disciples would have done it especially after they were being killed for trying to restore the religion to the people as claimed in the NT, is again a pathetic argument to even offer.
So so much for your Greenleaf and Greek arguments.
Lets see you resurrection timelines and your refutations of Rook Hawkins paper on the other sites.
TFR
CMP,
Talk about spamming. I’m seeing all these posts in a row by an obvious atheist. I know you are preparing for the funeral of a good friend, and don’t have a whole lot of time right now, but as the author of this post I hope you will personally respond to the charges made here against Christianity as a whole. Michael T. has gone above and beyond the call of duty here, and his common sense posts are much appreciated. Now it’s time for you to answer the arguments.
Thanks and God bless.
Continuing, according to your main experts, jesus preached to the jews and that was why the people of the time wanted him out of the way.
The Greek documents prove they were written by a writer well after the fact since it contains facts that occurred AFTER the events it purports to describe. It is prophecy, it is a few historical facts woven into the myth creation to give it a bit of certainty to the myth and is the proof that shows that they were written long after the alleged events in an attempt to keep their efforts alive.
No one in the Roman government would have destroyed records of a convicted criminal and they would have gone to great effort to preserve them had it happened since so many groups were rebelling against them. It would have served as a reminder to anyone who tried to start a rebellion against them as a deterrent such as the Death Penalty exists today.
So lets not use this line of argument any longer since I just proved it doesn’t work to explain away the lack of proof by the Romans or anyone else for any reason. It simply doesn’t wash or hold water to do so so please stop with it as it falls flat.
As to the documents proving anything beyond it being a fiction, the Iliad exists and is not questioned as being anything but a fiction so it doesn’t prove ZEUS exists anymore than the NT proves jesus did either. So much for the ancient document proves a thing at all.
TFR
Alocksee,
It is impossible to answer you because of the double standard you present. You assume a worldview is true and then ask someone to use only people who ascribe to that worldview to prove it false. You are asking the impossible, not just for me, but for you too. If we are going to play this game I want you to prove to me that the naturalistic atheist worldview is true only using non-atheists.
The fact of the matter is that an individual’s scholarship stands or fall on it’s merits not on whether or not that individual is a Christian or not. For instance one of the foremost experts in Koine Greek (The Greek spoken between 300 BC and 300 AD) is Daniel Wallace (who contributes to this site on occasion). Now if you go to any secular school to learn Koine Greek there very high chance you will be using his book, Greek Grammer Beyond the Basics, to learn from. His scholarship in that book is accepted as accurate and correct. It’s stands on its own apart from his personal views. You simply can’t write someone’s scholarship off because they are a Christian anymore then I can because they are an atheist. The standard here is are they are reputable scholar – not are they a Christian or Atheist.
As to sources
1. With regards to proving that the Christ-Myth Theory is outside the mainstream I already quoted Bart Erhman. If you want me to quote other secular scholars stating the same thing I can.
2. As to the late dates for the Gospels, Google “Rylands Fragment”. This is a portion of the Gospel of John generally dated to 125 AD. Dan Wallace does a good job of explaining the different theories here. Suffice to say no one, or at least very few modern scholars date John as late as your author does. Most don’t go past 110.
http://bible.org/seriespage/gospel-john-introduction-argument-outline#P93_20865
(go to the dating section)
3. Just Google “Supernatural Religion” or something. That this book was written anonymously is common knowledge.
4. For the discoveries regarding Nazareth look here. This is the Israeli Antiquities Authority.
http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1638&module_id=#as
5. For the fact that Koine Greek was widely spoken in the Roman times just Google “Koine Definition”. Any online dictionary will indicate that it was the English of its time, a common language used by those who didn’t speak the same native tongue to communicate. Hence the name “Koine” Greek which translates “Common” Greek.
Ultimately all this stuff is just common knowledge stuff. Furthermore since your author makes blanket assertions without any citations to scholars who actually hold the position he advocates it’s a little hard to refute him with scholars. Why? Because no scholar takes his assertions seriously. No serious Bible scholar is ever going to write a paper refuting a non-expert who makes outrageous claims no one in the academia considers viable. Seriously don’t take my word for it – look through the various scholarly journals and see how much is written concerning Christ-Myth Theories. Almost nothing because even secular scholars consider it absurd.
Alockslee,
As Michael T said and as I said before, you are operating on a ridiculous double standard here.
And you are so sure that if we just jump through all of your hoops, we will come to believe as you do. As a matter of fact, you have actually had the nerve to come on this blog and demand that we jump through all of your hoops!
And by the way, this is the second time I have told you that I did not read that book by Greenleaf. I saw it was available on line and asked Michael T about it. I did not try to use it as proof–pretty hard to do when you haven’t read it and really know nothing about it at all. If someone read it online and it was good, it may have been useful as proof to them. But I did not know one way or the other. Uh, maybe if you can’t remember what you have read you should take notes so that you can—ya think?!?
Alockslee,
It’s funny how you have a double standard. The article you link doesn’t cite sources for it’s assertions either and yet you have no problem holding it up as being true. Furthermore, if you simply Google the author you will find out that he was not Biblical scholar. Here are some quotes from the article to demonstrate.
“Some of the ablest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all.”
Which scholars is he referring too? He doesn’t name names.
“Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the “original Mark.”
What sources does he cite for this proposition? None
“What it was, who wrote it, where it was written, nobody knows. The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document”
Which scholars again. He doesn’t give any source for this statement. Just “Christian scholars”.
“We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D”
Who told him this?? Which serious scholar actually dates John after 140? Just google “Rylands Fragment”. This papyrus contains a portion of the Gospel of John dated to 125 AD.
Again I could go on. I’m just pointing out your ridiculous double standard here. You are willing to accept a document containing a position that is even more outside of the scholarly mainstream then mine from somebody who isn’t even an expert in the field. Furthermore the document has no citations and contains nothing more then unverified assertions on the part of the author. And then you have the nerve to turn around and demand that I give you sources for what are generally accepted facts in the scholarly community??