Proof of Jesus' Resurrection

We're talking about the assembling of the New Testament, right?

The writings of John, Peter, James, Matthew, etc are terribly inconvenient for you because they are direct sources from eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus.

<snip>

They were independently produced, external to scripture (which was the Old Testament) and contemporary with the generation which would have been able to refute the claims if they had been false.

Some early traditions speak of a document written in a Hebrew dialect by Matthew, one of Jesus' twelve disciples. Nevertheless, most contemporary scholars are reluctant to identify the First Gospel with this document, for Matthew is written in Greek, and though it betrays Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) language influence, it is not a translation... Since anonymous works in antiquity were often attributed to prominent persons, cumulative evidence suggest that an unknown Greek-speaking Jewish Christian, probably a scribe, composed the Gospel and that in the second century it was attributed to the disciple Matthew primarily to lend it authority.

Christian tradition from as early as the second century CE ascribes the Second Gospel to "Mark," putatively Peter's companion in Rome. Later connections were forged between this figure and "Mark" in several NT Letters and "John Mark" in Acts, yet nowhere in the Second Gospel is its author identified, much less correlated with other NT personalities. The authorship of Mark remains an enigma, perhaps by the author's design.

Certainty about the circumstances of Mark's composition is equally unattanable. Its presumption that readers will be unfamiliar with Jewish customs, Aramaic terms, and Palestinian geography suggests an origin beyond Palestine. The pervasiveness of Latin customs and vocabulary within the Gospel points to a provenance in Syria, Italy, or elsewhere within the Roman empire.... A dating in the late 60s also fits with the judgement, cautiously accepted by most scholars, that Mark was the earliest of the NT Gospels and a source for Matthew and Luke, both of which are thought to have been written toward the end of the first century CE.

This book bears the name of Luke, "the beloved physician" of Col 4.14, and is generally identified as the Third Gospel. Both of these identifications probably originate with the inclusion of the book in an early Christian collection of Gospels. This may also have been the time when the story about Jesus was separated from its companion volume, The Acts of the Apostles. The continuity of story and the literary similarity of the two volumes have led modern scholars to refer to them as "Luke-Acts", although in that extended story neither volume ever mentions Luke's name or speaks of the "acts of the apostles". It may be finally impossible to prove or disprove the traditional identification of the author, but the name Luke may be used without making too much of it.

The book also gives no direct indication of the time or place it was written. Because of its apparent use of the Gospel of Mark, scholars generally date it in the last third of the first century CE.... Similarly the prominence of the mission to the Gentiles in Luke-Acts does not provide the grounds for dating that were once assumed. Christian communities probably had various Jewish and gentile memberships throughout the later half of the first century, and nothing conclusive is known about where Luke was written.

A tradition going back to the second century identifies the author of the Gospel as John the son of Zebedee, one of Jesus' disciples. Since the book also speaks of a "disciple whom Jesus loved" and seems to connect him with its writing, this beloved disciple has often been identified with John. However, the Gospel itself does not make this identification and neither mentions John nor names its author. It may be that the author developed the book from traditions about Jesus that had been handed on by one of his disciples. It has also been suggested that an earlier document focusing on Jesus' miraculous 'signs' was incorporated into the Gospel. After its first writing, John was evidently further expanded: chs. 15-17 and 21 seem to have been added later, by the original author or by someone from the same circles.

John has always been recognized as the latest of the four Gospels. Its references... suggest a date in the 80s or 90s CE. Second-century tradition placed the writing of John in Ephesus, and this remains quite possible, though other places have also been suggested.

No offense taken Wolf. Maybe I misread your intent, and if so, I too apologise. I seldom post to this forum simply because most discussions seem to turn into bashing of people of faith.

But I'm up for continuing the discussion and will look forward to your additional proof.

rosborne979 wrote:

annoyed111 wrote:

Is there physical proof that Jesus resurrected from the dead? (Such as an empty tomb?)

No. Of course not. Besides, I don't know about you, but it would take a lot more than an empty tomb to convince me that someone rose from the dead.

If a stranger you met today told you that he saw someone rise from the dead, you would assume he was crazy. Yet when someone tells you he read the exact same story in an old book, millions of people believe it's true.

Why? Because they trust the person who read the book? He wasn't there either.

Because they trust the book itself? It's just a book, and it's not the original, and it's been translated by people who weren't there either.

Because they trust in a higher power which made the book infalable? The book is the thing which proposes the higher power in the first place.

Because they trust their hearts to tell them the truth? Maybe. Maybe it's just as simple as that. No logic, no reason, just a simple gut choice.

Ros,

Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that you actually did see someone who had risen from the dead. You not only saw him, you ate dinner with him and talked with him.

What 'proof' would you have?

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

annoyed111 wrote:

Is there physical proof that Jesus resurrected from the dead? (Such as an empty tomb?)

No. Of course not. Besides, I don't know about you, but it would take a lot more than an empty tomb to convince me that someone rose from the dead.

If a stranger you met today told you that he saw someone rise from the dead, you would assume he was crazy. Yet when someone tells you he read the exact same story in an old book, millions of people believe it's true.

Why? Because they trust the person who read the book? He wasn't there either.

Because they trust the book itself? It's just a book, and it's not the original, and it's been translated by people who weren't there either.

Because they trust in a higher power which made the book infalable? The book is the thing which proposes the higher power in the first place.

Because they trust their hearts to tell them the truth? Maybe. Maybe it's just as simple as that. No logic, no reason, just a simple gut choice.

Ros,

Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that you actually did see someone who had risen from the dead. You not only saw him, you ate dinner with him and talked with him.

What 'proof' would you have?

Nice side step, but a side step nonetheless. Scared to expose your own insanity maybe?

The Dead Sea scrolls have at least one very good candidate for a portion of the Gospel of Mark. Based upon it, some have suggested the latest possible date for Mark would be 50 A.D.

The Dead Sea scrolls have at least one very good candidate for a portion of the Gospel of Mark. Based upon it, some have suggested the latest possible date for Mark would be 50 A.D.

real life wrote:

The Dead Sea scrolls have at least one very good candidate for a portion of the Gospel of Mark. Based upon it, some have suggested the latest possible date for Mark would be 50 A.D.

Good of you to bring that up, rl; known as 7Q5 (for fragment 5 from Qumran cave #7), the largest single fragment,

real life wrote:

The Dead Sea scrolls have at least one very good candidate for a portion of the Gospel of Mark. Based upon it, some have suggested the latest possible date for Mark would be 50 A.D.

Good of you to bring that up, rl; known as 7Q5 (for fragment 5 from Qumran cave #7), the largest single fragment,


which a dissident minority of scholars assert - to the delight of Fundamentalist Christian apologists - to be from Mark's gospel is around an inch and a half square, smaller than a small Post-It note, inscribed with one identifiable word and perhaps a half dozen word fragments totaling in all fewer than a couple dozen characters, nearly half of which are too indistinct to be positively identified, each word/word fragment standing alone on 5 distinctly individual lines (one line containing only a tiny fragment of what might be any of several letters), without unambiguously discernable flanking words (BTW - statistically, the norm for the Dead Sea/Qumran scrolls is 20-24 words per line, though of course there are exceptions).

The supposed Markan identification of the fragment is cast strongly into doubt Here, devastated HERE, and shown to be poopie HERE. For an excellent overview of studies pertaining in particular to the Q7 material, see E. Muro: Bread of Angels Website. A much stronger, and far more widely held position is that the fragment corresponds quite closely to the OT book 1 Enoch, undisputed examples of which were found in Cave 7. Muro, among others, points out no adjustment, interpolation, or guesswork concerning indistinct or otherwise disputable letters is required to match the fragment with Enoch, while considerable "what if"ing and "maybe this"ing is necessary to support Markan identification. Even at that, Muro acknowledges and agrees that 7Q5 very well may be not a component of any known Biblical text, canonical or otherwise.

Finally, the Essenes, generally accepted the most likely source of the Dead Sea Scrolls, were a strict, ultraorthodox, extremely legalistic sect of Judaism. It is not highly likely they would have possessed, let alone seen fit to preserve, a document deriving from a to their point of view upstart, heretical sect - particularly troubling a notion if, as purported, the document is a fragment of Mark 6, which amounts to at best an unflattering appraisal of Orthodox Temple Jews.

Addendum: The University of Chigago's Oriental Institute Dead Sea Scrolls Project offers an objective, authoritative, comprehensive overview of the current state of research pertaining to the scrolls.

the differences between the Qumran community (usually considered to be identical with the Essenes) and the nascent Christian community are so pronounced that contact between the two seemed improbable (and a literary contact, as O'Callaghan proposed, seemed to imply that not only was there communication between the two groups, but open and somewhat friendly communication).

Finally, the Essenes, generally accepted the most likely source of the Dead Sea Scrolls, were a strict, ultraorthodox, extremely legalistic sect of Judaism. It is not highly likely they would have possessed, let alone seen fit to preserve, a document deriving from a to their point of view upstart, heretical sect - particularly troubling a notion if, as purported, the document is a fragment of Mark 6, which amounts to at best an unflattering appraisal of Orthodox Temple Jews.

It's always problamatic to take metaphors literally. The resurrection? Flying corpses? How about trying to pull yourself up by your bootstraps literally; it's an exercise in frustration, like trying to discuss spirituality with fundamentalists or atheists.

coluber2001 wrote:

It's always problamatic to take metaphors literally. The resurrection? Flying corpses? How about trying to pull yourself up by your bootstraps literally; it's an exercise in frustration, like trying to discuss spirituality with fundamentalists or atheists.

That is the truest thing I've seen lately about these type discussions.

real life
As demonstrated in multiple posts, inside and outside of this thread, you have a very very loose grasp of what circular reasoning constitutes.
You seem to cry 'circular!' every time you are faced with an argument you are unable to refute. Whether this is an intentional dodge or a lack of knowledge of what constitutes circulus in probando, I can't be sure.
If the latter.. (which frankly I find unlikely)
GO, read, learn.

Doktor S wrote:

real life
As demonstrated in multiple posts, inside and outside of this thread, you have a very very loose grasp of what circular reasoning constitutes.
You seem to cry 'circular!' every time you are faced with an argument you are unable to refute. Whether this is an intentional dodge or a lack of knowledge of what constitutes circulus in probando, I can't be sure.
If the latter.. (which frankly I find unlikely)
GO, read, learn.

Hi DS,

Well, what to say in response to an apparent lack of perception.....

If you cannot recognize the circular argumentation in timber's post, perhaps it is because you are still dizzy from entertaining your own circular musings?

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

real life
As demonstrated in multiple posts, inside and outside of this thread, you have a very very loose grasp of what circular reasoning constitutes.
You seem to cry 'circular!' every time you are faced with an argument you are unable to refute. Whether this is an intentional dodge or a lack of knowledge of what constitutes circulus in probando, I can't be sure.
If the latter.. (which frankly I find unlikely)
GO, read, learn.

Hi DS,

Well, what to say in response to an apparent lack of perception.....

If you cannot recognize the circular argumentation in timber's post, perhaps it is because you are still dizzy from entertaining your own circular musings?

But it was very expansive of him to offer to instruct you on the matter, don't you think? What a giving soul.