Evidence for the Events in the NT

mdebets

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Although external sources state that Jesus performed wonders.

Would you please state which outside sources state that Jesus performed wonders (and don't mention Josephus because it has been proofen to be a later addition by Christians).

Fanny Cradock

mdebets wrote: »

Would you please state which outside sources state that Jesus performed wonders (and don't mention Josephus because it has been proofen to be a later addition by Christians).

Not proven, rather it is considered likely that there were additions made.

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It should be said that there isn't a consensus amongst critics that the Gospels weren't written by the apostles John, Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Is it up to critics to prove that anonymously written texts weren't written by people that later tradition attributes them to?

I can understand why critics may have to argue that the 6 disputed epistles of Paul were actually pseudonymous and not written by him at all, but I don't understand why the burden of proof should be on the critics in the case of the Gospels.

mdebets

PDN wrote: »

I'd agree with you up to that last sentence.

No history is written to give an impartial account of everything that occurred. Historians select events that suit their purposes which may be varied (to show the power of the Roman Empire, to demonstrate the evil of war, to promote an ideology etc.).

The Gospel writers obviously selected the material that served their purposes, but providing they selected genuine events, and fabricated nothing, then their Gospels would indeed be truthfully historical accounts.

I start with your last part. The selection of material from genuine events does not mean the resulting text is a truthfully historical account.
I have an example for this. Let's assume you have someone who committed a henious crime murdered e.g murdered someone in a brutal way. He goes to jail for his crime and becomes after a few years a born again Christian in jail ministers to other inmates in jail and becomes a really good guy.
You could now create a history of him only telling the part of his life where he is a murdere an paint him in as bad a light as possible. You could also write a history of him being a good Christian helping his follow men and an all around good guy.
Both histories are based on selected geniuine events. But are they truthfully historical accounts? On their own no. Taken together yes.

That's the problem with the Gospels if you look at them from the point of a historian. They are one sided. They only show the story through Christian-coloured glasses. They don't show the story from a non-Christian viewpoint and they are therefore biased.

If you add to this the way the human mind and memory works and that it is known that people tend to remember events differently to how they really heppened and the use of at least some second-hand accounts (even if the authors did know Jesus personally, not all of the events in the gospels can have been witnessed by them directly), it shows a clear picture that the Gospels are a 100% true account of Jesus' life.

That does however not mean that they are totally fabricated either.
Do I think they are the true accoun of Jesus' life, how it happened 2000 years ago? No.
Do I think the Gospels are based on true events? Yes.
Do I think that some of the stories might be close or even totally accurate? Probably.
Will it ever be able to proof this historically? No until someone builts a time-machine and travells back in time.

Just to make it clear. I don't think the Gospels are totally fabricated and some of the events happened in real life (otherwise I wouldn't call myself a Christian).
What I have a problem with is that the Gospels (and the rest of the bible) are seen as a 100% accurate account of what happened at that time and that history and archaeology will support this theory.
We can't prove all events about Augustus (who lived at the same time and has more surviving documents about him then Jesus), so why would we be able to prove Jesus' life much more accurate.
Everyone who tries to do this, has not understand the limitations of the study of written documents and material culture.

mdebets

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not proven, rather it is considered likely that there were additions made.

sorry I fell into the same trap I was arguing against in my other post.

I meant that it is the most likely conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. You can't really prove it unless you can travell back in time and watch Josephus write the original text.

Fanny Cradock

Charco wrote: »

Is it up to critics to prove that anonymously written texts weren't written by people that later tradition attributes them to?

I can understand why critics may have to argue that the 6 disputed epistles of Paul were actually pseudonymous and not written by him at all, but I don't understand why the burden of proof should be on the critics in the case of the Gospels.

You misunderstand what I mean by critic. I'm not talking about people who are criticising the Bible, I'm referring to people offering a reasoned analysis of it. I'm quite happy to let these people duke it out and look on from the side. However, it should still be noted that there are those who would still subscribe to the earliest Church traditions that apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the authors.

PDN

mdebets wrote: »

Would you please state which outside sources state that Jesus performed wonders (and don't mention Josephus because it has been proofen to be a later addition by Christians).

By outside sources, are you referring to sources outside the Bible? If so then the Egerton Gospel and 1 Clement spring to mind. Both of these are dated by most scholars as being contemporary with Josephus.

Nodin

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It should be said that there isn't a consensus amongst critics that the Gospels weren't written by the apostles John, Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Well, theres a majority in the case of three amongst non-literalists, or so I gather. (The odds of a consensus being acheived overall in any such debate would be similar to that of moving a herd of cats a hundred or so strong by foot from Dublin to Belfast without losing one on the way.)

mdebets

PDN wrote: »

By outside sources, are you referring to sources outside the Bible? If so then the Egerton Gospel and 1 Clement spring to mind. Both of these are dated by most scholars as being contemporary with Josephus.

I don't know which outside sources BrianCalgery was mentioning.

Personally I would see the Egerton Gopel and 1 Clement (I never heard of them before and just know what Wikipedia says about them) still as too Christian.
They probably are slightly different totheir bias then the 4 main gospels (or otherwise they would be in the standard bibel) but they are still in essence Christian.
A proper outside source would be a Jewish or even better Roman or Greek historian. They would not start with the presumption that Jesus was the Christus. Therefore their story would be free of the need to show Jesus in a certain Christian way.
For example. If Jesus would have been married (not that I say he was, but just as an example) a Roman source could write that without any problem, while a Christian source might have wanted to hide the fact, as it would not fit into the general perception of him.
Outside sources would of course have their own bias e.g. a Roman source might show him as an outlaw, to justify is crucifiction. It would however allow a much better picture when taken together with the texts written from a Christian bias to get nearer the historical truth.

mdebets

PDN wrote: »

The hypothetical Q document may well have been a template used by the Synoptic Gospel writers. An eye witness will check his memories against the accounts of others who have written about the same events.

This again opens the question of how much is eyewitness acount and how much is down to the other written evidence cross-checked by the author and how much does the author trusts his own memory if his memory deviates from other written accounts?

Fanny Cradock

mdebets wrote: »

This again opens the question of how much is eyewitness acount and how much is down to the other written evidence cross-checked by the author and how much does the author trusts his own memory if his memory deviates from other written accounts?

That is something which is impossible to answer. Who is to say that the authors deviated at all? For me the fairly minor differences between the Gospel accounts don't weaken the overall complementary content of each. If they told the same story then we would have 4 Marks and not 4 separate accounts.

As an aside, PDN, did Paul not meet up with some key members of the Church (presumably eyewitnesses) about 15 years after Jesus' death to check the details of his story?

BrianCalgary

Nodin wrote: »

John? Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works#Modern_criticism

Matthew? Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Mark - early, but still probably no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship

About the only one in with a good shout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist.

Sorry but wickipedia is not an acceptable source for citations. Who wrote those articles?

Nodin wrote: »

Theres plenty of sources that say that x, y and z 'performed wonders'. They're taken with a grain of salt too.



Regardless of the holes in that statement, consider this. Imagine you had an exact birth date and date of death for all the apostles, and Jesus. That leaves a vast amount to be filled in. You can't prove the water was turned into wine, the whole thing with the fishes, nor can you prove the the words ascribed to Jesus, are his, are a transliteration of his words etc and so on.

Its hard to pin down (nearly did a faux pas there) far better documented historical figures than Jesus, I might add, even those into the twentieth century.

And again I get to the part of historical analysis. The parts of tehgospels that can be backed up by archaeology have been. There has been nothing written in them that has not been found to be false.

There is nothing written from the time to refute the events. Therefore they are a reliable source for their history and their teachings.

BrianCalgary

mdebets wrote: »

Would you please state which outside sources state that Jesus performed wonders (and don't mention Josephus because it has been proofen to be a later addition by Christians).

Actually it hasn't been proven. Here is the quote from Josephus:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, (if it be lawful to call him a man,) for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. (He was the Christ;) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, (for he appeared to them alive again the third day,) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

I have bolded the bits that are not in dispute.

BrianCalgary

To mdbets: Just a couple of comments regarding your questions.

Regarding the murderer who converts. Yes you could have two biographies that talk about different times in his life, but you would put both together to get a truer picture. As you do with Jesus, four gospels covering different views of His life and teachings. Put them all together and you get an accurate picture of His life from a Christian perspective.

Next is to look for sources outside of those. Those particular sources corroborate the character and events of the gospels.

We can also look for competing information. ARticles that would contradict any of teh events or character of Christ. There are none.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Sorry but wickipedia is not an acceptable source for citations.

But it's written down somewhere and nobody has contradicted it.

By the logic you use elsewhere, that means that you should accept it as true.

Not so?

Soul Winner

mdebets wrote: »

I don't know which outside sources BrianCalgery was mentioning.

Personally I would see the Egerton Gopel and 1 Clement (I never heard of them before and just know what Wikipedia says about them) still as too Christian.
They probably are slightly different totheir bias then the 4 main gospels (or otherwise they would be in the standard bibel) but they are still in essence Christian.
A proper outside source would be a Jewish or even better Roman or Greek historian. They would not start with the presumption that Jesus was the Christus. Therefore their story would be free of the need to show Jesus in a certain Christian way.
For example. If Jesus would have been married (not that I say he was, but just as an example) a Roman source could write that without any problem, while a Christian source might have wanted to hide the fact, as it would not fit into the general perception of him.
Outside sources would of course have their own bias e.g. a Roman source might show him as an outlaw, to justify is crucifiction. It would however allow a much better picture when taken together with the texts written from a Christian bias to get nearer the historical truth.

You must remember that the first records of anything 'Christian' were written by Jews with no predisposition to turn away from the faith of their fathers save the account they give for such a turning away. If this account - the resurrection of Christ - is not true then not only are they apostates of their own faith but liars in relation to this new one to.

What can you point to in the earliest account that makes liars out of them? Remember there was no Christianity before the first Christians emerged so there is nothing to be partisan to or biased towards. They are either lying about what they are saying or reporting what actually happened.

There are no historical sources that say that what they were professing was false. All anybody who had a gripe against this new way had to do to quench the new fire that was engulfing everything was to produce the body of Jesus. This never happened. Why? Because the tomb was empty. Why was it empty?.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

But it's written down somewhere and nobody has contradicted it.

By the logic you use elsewhere, that means that you should accept it as true.

Not so?

No, robin, because what has been written on wikipedia has been contradicted in scholarly papers over the years.

Also what the wiki articles have to say took place 2,000 years ago, the author of the articles was not an eyewitness to any events in teh life of Jesus and the author is ignoring the evidence.

Nodin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Sorry but wickipedia is not an acceptable source for citations. Who wrote those articles?.

Poisoning the well. Those pages are well laid out, with links and references provided where such exist. Even the most cursory examination would have shown this.

I have to point out that that kind of petty evasion does nothing for your case whatsoever.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And again I get to the part of historical analysis. The parts of tehgospels that can be backed up by archaeology have been. .

Yes, we are amazed how the existence of the Middle East has been borne out by science.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There has been nothing written in them that has not been found to be false..

Playing a blinder this evening Brian....

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There is nothing written from the time to refute the events. Therefore they are a reliable source for their history and their teachings.

.....and finishing with a classic.

Is there anything written concurrent with the Egyptian Book Of The Dead to disprove its veracity Brian?

Nodin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No, robin, because what has been written on wikipedia has been contradicted in scholarly papers over the years.

Also what the wiki articles have to say took place 2,000 years ago, the author of the articles was not an eyewitness to any events in teh life of Jesus and the author is ignoring the evidence.

The wiki articles merely collate "various scholarly papers" and present them as an encyclopedia would. If you'd bothered to read through even one of them, you'd have noticed that.

mdebets

BrianCalgary wrote: »

To mdbets: Just a couple of comments regarding your questions.

Regarding the murderer who converts. Yes you could have two biographies that talk about different times in his life, but you would put both together to get a truer picture. As you do with Jesus, four gospels covering different views of His life and teachings. Put them all together and you get an accurate picture of His life from a Christian perspective.

Next is to look for sources outside of those. Those particular sources corroborate the character and events of the gospels.

We can also look for competing information. ARticles that would contradict any of teh events or character of Christ. There are none.

That is the second time that you mention the mysterious sources outside the bible that corroborate the characters and events of the gospels, without mentioning which ones they are.
Please tell us which ones they are (they don't exist in my opinion).

The absence of sources that contradict the bible has one main reasons.
One the one hand, Jesus was much too unimportant at his time to warrant being mentioned in non-Christian (and I include Jews that followed Jesus in here) sources, as there were many people like him at the time.

You should also remember that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Just because none wrote that Jesus was not the Christ doesn't mean that he was it (not saying that he wasn't, I believe that he was it, but it can't be historically proven).

If you want to prove the Bible historically, you have to look at the Bible like any other text.
Compare the The Iliad and the Bible for example. Both tell stories about people, who lived over 2000 years ago. No other texts exist that say that Achilles or Jesus did not exist. Does this prove that Achilles and Jesus lived (you claim that it does for Jesus), but it didn't, it just proves that no such text survived, nothing else.

mdebets

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Actually it hasn't been proven. Here is the quote from Josephus:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, (if it be lawful to call him a man,) for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. (He was the Christ;) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, (for he appeared to them alive again the third day,) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

I have bolded the bits that are not in dispute.

Please show any reputable Historian, who doesn't dispute it.
You can look here, to see the arguments against it (I know, you don't accept Wikipedia as evidence, as do I, but you can follow the references in the article).

mdebets

Soul Winner wrote: »

You must remember that the first records of anything 'Christian' were written by Jews with no predisposition to turn away from the faith of their fathers save the account they give for such a turning away. If this account - the resurrection of Christ - is not true then not only are they apostates of their own faith but liars in relation to this new one to.

I have never said that the authors are liars or that the resurrection didn't happen (I'm Christian after all), but that the Gospels cannot be use as historical evidence that these events did happen in the way they are described in the bible and that there is historical or archaeological evidence for this.

If you want to prove the bible historically, you have to look at it with the eyes of an historian, not with the eyes of a Christian.
Let's take your assumption that the bible was written by Jews who wouldn't want to turn away from their faith and who where eyewitnesses of the events. So why did they wanted to write this account and what do we know for certain?
One thing we know is that the Gospels were written after Jesus' prosecution, death and resurrection (presumed resurrection if you are not a Christian). If they were eyewitnesses, they must have been followers of Jesus, as otherwise, they wouldn't have known so much about him. We also know, that they can't have been eyewitnesses to all events (e.g. Jesus' birth), so at least some of the stories are second hand.
So we know, that the authors had a positive attitude towards a convicted criminal and were writing about him. So they had to gain, if they portrayed him in a positive light and to loose if they didn't. If the story would not be about Jesus, but someone else, it would be very likely that the author would have been economical with the truth. The same could be argued for the authors of the gospels. Their word can therefore not been taken as gospel (sorry for the pun).

Soul Winner wrote: »

What can you point to in the earliest account that makes liars out of them? Remember there was no Christianity before the first Christians emerged so there is nothing to be partisan to or biased towards. They are either lying about what they are saying or reporting what actually happened.

There is the third possibility that the base of the story is true, but the authors changed some aspects deliberately or accidently.

I'm also never argued that the authors of the gospels were lying, just that it can't be argued that they weren't.

Soul Winner wrote: »

There are no historical sources that say that what they were professing was false. All anybody who had a gripe against this new way had to do to quench the new fire that was engulfing everything was to produce the body of Jesus. This never happened. Why? Because the tomb was empty. Why was it empty?.

As I said earlier, the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

the author of the articles was not an eyewitness to any events in teh life of Jesus

And neither was Paul an eyewitness, since by his own admission, he only met Jesus in dreams and visions.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

There are no historical sources that say that what they were professing was false.

Why would there be?

Who do you think would go to the trouble of doing that, particularly in such a manner that it would last hundreds of years as a historical record.

Christianity for at least 10 to 20 years after Jesus death was a tiny cult surviving on oral story telling. It was one of a large number of Jewish messiah cults in a time when cults and new religions sprung up and died away almost constantly.

One cannot look at Christianity now, 2000 years later, and apply the importance it holds in the world today retroactively to the time it originated in and assume that everyone was taking it really seriously back then.

At the time Christianity was ancient equivalent of a bizarre web site of a UFO loving cult with 40 members in Malaysia some where and what you are expecting is like thinking the New York Times would have written a piece attempting to demonstrate to everyone that what they believed was wrong.

Why would the Jewish authorities or the Romans consider Christianity of any great importance at all, when they had far bigger cults and rebellions at the time to suppress.

Do you think they should have known within the first year of Jesus death that Christianity was going to grow to such power that they should have grabbed the body of Jesus and dragged it around to the 20 Christians at the time one by one and shoved it in their faces say "Look, he wasn't resurrected, now stop being silly"

Do we have any evidence that the authorities knew anything about Christianity a year after Jesus' death, 2 years? 5 years?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Christianity for at least 10 to 20 years after Jesus death was a tiny cult surviving on oral story telling.

Any evidence of this?

Wicknight wrote: »

It was one of a large number of Jewish messiah cults in a time when cults and new religions sprung up and died away almost constantly.

Yeah because the penalty was death. Yet Christianity survived? How? What force drove these people to happily suffer death for their faith?

Wicknight wrote: »

One cannot look at Christianity now, 2000 years later, and apply the importance it holds in the world today retroactively to the time it originated in and assume that everyone was taking it really seriously back then.

I would reverse that. They took it more seriously back then than we do today. They became Christians under penalty of death. Even secular History bares this fact out.

Wicknight wrote: »

At the time Christianity was ancient equivalent of a bizarre web site of a UFO loving cult with 40 members in Malaysia some where and what you are expecting is like thinking the New York Times would have written a piece attempting to demonstrate to everyone that what they believed was wrong.

But what if the new website was stopping people buying the New York times? Then what do you think they would do?

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would the Jewish authorities or the Romans consider Christianity of any great importance at all, when they had far bigger cults and rebellions at the time to suppress.

Can you think of a bigger threat to the then Jewish leadership in Jerusalem, than the story of a man whose death they had engineered through Roman authority for making blasphemous claims that He was the Son of God, who is now suddenly being preached as being raised from the dead by God?

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you think they should have known within the first year of Jesus death that Christianity was going to grow to such power that they should have grabbed the body of Jesus and dragged it around to the 20 Christians at the time one by one and shoved it in their faces say "Look, he wasn't resurrected, now stop being silly"

Well according to the record they were interested enough in this Man to prevail upon the Roman authorities to put a seal on His tomb, and this was very soon after His death.

Wicknight wrote: »

Do we have any evidence that the authorities knew anything about Christianity a year after Jesus' death, 2 years? 5 years?

Well they didn't start preaching that He was raised until 7 weeks after the event itself. This is recorded in Acts by Luke who according to Sir William Ramsay was an historian of the first rank. That good enough for you?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Any evidence of this?

I'm not following? Are you disputing that? Do you think 5 years after Jesus death Christianity was a large religion with a collection of written down manuscripts?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yeah because the penalty was death. Yet Christianity survived? How? What force drove these people to happily suffer death for their faith?

They "happily" suffered death?

But you answered your own question, faith. The same reason people shoot their kids in the head and then take poison orange juice believing they are going to a better place. Faith is a curious thing.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I would reverse that. They took it more seriously back then than we do today. They became Christians under penalty of death. Even secular History bares this fact out.

I was talking about the Romans. The Romans had no way of knowing that Christianity would become such a big movement.

Your assertion that they would have gone to a lot of trouble to disprove Christianity is retroactively applying the importance Christianity has now to those times when it was a small secretive cult.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But what if the new website was stopping people buying the New York times? Then what do you think they would do?

Nothing, because the people who were not buying the New York times because of the cult would number in the dozens. And the NY Times don't care enough to go to the trouble. Again you cannot retroactively apply the importance Christianity holds today, or even 100 years after Jesus' death, to the 1st decade after his death. Around the time of Jesus cruxifiction the Romans were oppressing Jewish uprisings left right and centre. The Christians would have seemed quaint and relatively harmless compared to those guys.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Can you think of a bigger threat to the then Jewish leadership in Jerusalem, than the story of a man whose death they had engineered through Roman authority for making blasphemous claims that He was the Son of God, who is now suddenly being preached as being raised from the dead by God?

Yes. Most Jewish then and now would consider a man claiming to be the "son" of God to be laughably ridiculous, they were probably happy he was executed. And again there were violent Jewish uprising happening with hundreds of Jews taking up arms agains the Romans. A minor cult leader claiming to be something that most Jews at the time would consider stupid anyway, is not going to cause the Roman authorities much concern.

It would be like the US Army directing funding and intelligence away from Al Queda terrorist cells so they can track a guy in New Jersey with 10 followers handing out followers and saying he is the Second Coming. For all we know in 50 years time that guys followers might have over thrown the government, but at the moment any US Army General who actually did that would be locked up in a mental hospital.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well according to the record they were interested enough in this Man to prevail upon the Roman authorities to put a seal on His tomb, and this was very soon after His death.

By "the record" I assume you mean the Christian propaganda work written 50 years after the fact, ie the Bible :pac:

There are a number of historical contradictions in the idea of the Roman soldiers being told to guard the tomb which stretch the credibility of that story rather thin. It isn't a story we could take and say Look we know they took it very seriously.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well they didn't start preaching that He was raised until 7 weeks after the event itself. This is recorded in Acts by Luke who according to Sir William Ramsay was an historian of the first rank. That good enough for you?

No.

I asked do we have any reason to believe that the Roman authorities knew that Chrisitanity had continued after Jesus' death until much later.

Think about this. What is the window of opportunity to present the body of Jesus to disprove these claims. How long do a bunch of Roman guards want to be dragging around a decomposing body in a Middle Eastern summer, just on the off chance they that will be ordered to go and "convince" a Christian that Jesus hasn't risen.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not following? Are you disputing that? Do you think 5 years after Jesus death Christianity was a large religion with a collection of written down manuscripts?

Not as large as it is today obviously but then it didn’t need to be, but large enough to raise an eyebrow or two from the Jew leaders.

Wicknight wrote: »

They "happily" suffered death?

But you answered your own question, faith. The same reason people shoot their kids in the head and then take poison orange juice believing they are going to a better place. Faith is a curious thing.

It sure can be alright but their faith was based on eye witness accounts to events not long since their occurrence. Plus some of these people might even have seen Jesus during His own earthly ministry performing many miracles. And most of them were Jewish and would need persuading that Jesus was their long awaited Messiah, they were not gullible in the way you’d like to think. Try convincing a Jew today that Jesus is their Messiah and you’ll see what I mean. And sure all they needed to do to get proof that Jesus was not raised from the dead as reported was to have their own Jewish leaders produce the body. So even if the Jewish leaders were not interested in producing his body (which I don’t believe for a second) surely these new converts were aware of the public execution of Jesus and would have demanded that his body be shown in order to verify their own suspicions? No such request is ever made. Why? Because everyone knew that the tomb was empty, and the preaching that He was raised was given more weight because nobody could produce the body in order to dispel it.

Wicknight wrote: »

I was talking about the Romans. The Romans had no way of knowing that Christianity would become such a big movement.

I agree, but they were predisposed to adhering to the Jewish Leaders' requests to try Jesus and put him to death, then to set a seal on His tomb, surely they would have produced the decaying corpse to quell the upheaval that the Jewish leaders at least were worried about.

Wicknight wrote: »

Your assertion that they would have gone to a lot of trouble to disprove Christianity is retroactively applying the importance Christianity has now to those times when it was a small secretive cult.

It wasn't a secret cult in its origins. They boldly proclaimed Christ Risen openly, and it was this preaching that won the many converts, mostly Jews in Jerusalem in these early days. Only after it had grown to proportions that maybe the disciples themselves were surprised by did the major persecutions start by the Jewish leaders which subsequently led to the subscription of Saul of Tarsus.

Wicknight wrote: »

Nothing, because the people who were not buying the New York times because of the cult would number in the dozens. And the NY Times don't care enough to go to the trouble. Again you cannot retroactively apply the importance Christianity holds today, or even 100 years after Jesus' death, to the 1st decade after his death. Around the time of Jesus crucifixion the Romans were oppressing Jewish uprisings left right and centre. The Christians would have seemed quaint and relatively harmless compared to those guys.

Christianity was first preached 7 weeks after the death and resurrection of Christ. From this time it was openly preached in the streets of the very place where Jesus was crucified. And less than a mile from His burial place. They caused a tumult on the first day it was preached. All the Jewish leaders had to do to put a stop to the preaching that He was risen was to produce the body. That is such a no brainer that it’s not even funny, I fail to see why you can’t see its significance.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes. Most Jewish then and now would consider a man claiming to be the "son" of God to be laughably ridiculous, they were probably happy he was executed. And again there were violent Jewish uprising happening with hundreds of Jews taking up arms against the Romans. A minor cult leader claiming to be something that most Jews at the time would consider stupid anyway, is not going to cause the Roman authorities much concern.

Violent Jewish uprisings they could easily deal with. This new way was anything but violent yet it became somewhat of an embarrassment to them, after all it was they who engineered His death by the hands of Roman authority and it was He whom is now being preached raised from the dead, if that was true then their leadership meant nothing so where do you think they would have gone? To the tomb. But they didn't. Why? Because it was empty, i.e. no body in it. Now why was it empty? 4 possible reasons: 1) the disciples stole the body, 2) the Jews stole the body, 3) the Romans stole the body or 4) He actually rose from the dead.

1) If the disciples stole the body then they were liars and one only need read the records to see that this was not something that they would have been party to. Only the willfully ignorant of the facts would hold to such a view. They were a hodgepodge of everyday uncommon people who had just lost their master and had been publicly humiliated because they had followed Him for 3 years plus. And yet they are found in the very city where He was tried and condemned to death, preaching that God had raised Him from the dead only 7 weeks later? It just doesn't make sense that they would do that knowing that it wasn't true. If they had gone to a far off country first and did it, then yes, but to the very city where they were publicly discredited because of their association with a publicly condemned blasphemer and criminal? It just doesn't flow when one reads the record.

2) If the Jews stole the body then they would have produced it in a minute to shut up those who were preaching that this blasphemer and criminal had risen from the dead.

3) Same with the Romans, they would have adhered to any Jewish request to produce the body, as they had done when sealing the tomb and putting Jesus to death in the first place.

4) There is only one explanation left as to why the tomb was empty. He rose!!!

Wicknight wrote: »

By "the record" I assume you mean the Christian propaganda work written 50 years after the fact, ie the Bible

Give me one good reason to think that the New Testament documents as we have them today are not reliable historical sources for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. And then give me an example of an ancient historical document that you think is better attested to than the story of Jesus. Here’s some examples that might come in handy.

Wicknight wrote: »

There are a number of historical contradictions in the idea of the Roman soldiers being told to guard the tomb which stretch the credibility of that story rather thin. It isn't a story we could take and say Look we know they took it very seriously.

What evidence do you have that this part of the story is false? Do you have any counter claim to the events that is multply attested to?

Wicknight wrote: »

No.

I asked do we have any reason to believe that the Roman authorities knew that Christianity had continued after Jesus' death until much later.

Well Peter was sent to the house of Cornelius in Acts and he was a Roman Centurion which meant he was someone in charge of a lot of men, and he wanted to become a Christian which I think means that he at least knew about Christianity.

Wicknight wrote: »

Think about this. What is the window of opportunity to present the body of Jesus to disprove these claims. How long do a bunch of Roman guards want to be dragging around a decomposing body in a Middle Eastern summer, just on the off chance they that will be ordered to go and "convince" a Christian that Jesus hasn't risen.

They need only produce the body in public once to show all the people that what these preachers were preaching was false. Once they do that then the preachers would either be lynched or driven out of the country. Where is the evidence that this ever happened? Because if that body was still in the tomb then that is exactly what would have happened.

Nodin

Soul Winner wrote: »

It sure can be alright but their faith was based on eye witness accounts to events not long since their occurrence..

So in fact their faith is based on accounts they believed to be first hand. These would be akin to the accounts of persons who witnessed the golden plates of the church of mormon alluded to in another thread.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why? Because everyone knew that the tomb was empty, and the preaching that He was raised was given more weight because nobody could produce the body in order to dispel it...

Darby O'Gill and the little people.

Soul Winner wrote: »

To the tomb. But they didn't. Why? Because it was empty, i.e. no body in it. Now why was it empty? 4 possible reasons: 1) the disciples stole the body, 2) the Jews stole the body, 3) the Romans stole the body or 4) He actually rose from the dead....

I suggest you familiarise yourself with Jewish concepts of ritual purity, circa 1 A.D.

Soul Winner wrote: »

4) There is only one explanation left as to why the tomb was empty. He rose!!!....

.....Yes.

I have an empty box that used to house a small number of Raptor like creatures. They escaped though........

Soul Winner wrote: »

Give me one good reason to think that the New Testament documents as we have them today are not reliable historical sources for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. ...

They weren't written as histories in the modern sense. You put a strength of belief in them that can only be justified by faith, not facts. For example, the period of his life between birth and the age of 30 is barely covered at all.

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not as large as it is today obviously but then it didn’t need to be, but large enough to raise an eyebrow or two from the Jew leaders.

The lack of attention Josephus gave to the Jesus cult near the end of the 1st Century just goes to show how unimportant this group was regarded. If they were any kind of force to be reckoned with then Josephus would have given them more attention, he had no reason not to because the purpose of his works was to assist the Roman rule of Judea, if the Jesus cult was considered relevant then he would have dealt with them in much more detail.

So even if the Jewish leaders were not interested in producing his body (which I don’t believe for a second) surely these new converts were aware of the public execution of Jesus and would have demanded that his body be shown in order to verify their own suspicions? No such request is ever made.

That may have been because of Jewish attitudes towards corpses and graves.

"This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent: all that come into the tent ... shall be unclean seven days" (Numbers, 19:16).

Jews do not unnecessarily come in contact with dead bodies, especially if the only reason is to contradict some lunatics who claimed that they saw an executed criminal walking around.

Because everyone knew that the tomb was empty,

So everyone knew that the tomb was empty yet the city of Jerusalem did not mass convert to Christianity on the spot and the guards at the tomb decide to take a few coins and say the body was stolen rather than shout from the roof tops that they had seen a fully dead corpse walk out of the tomb they were guarding after an angel opened it up.

Yeah, like thats really believable...

surely they would have produced the decaying corpse to quell the upheaval that the Jewish leaders at least were worried about.

Firstly, the only source we have that claims the Jewish leaders were worried was the Gospel of Matthew, not exactly a neutral source.

Secondly, the followers of Jesus remained hidden away until the feast of Pentecost, this was over 50 days after Jesus was executed. If the followers of Jesus only started making a fuss almost 2 months after he died then what point would there be for anyone to produce the corpse of Jesus, who would have recognised it after all that time?

Thirdly, the chances are that Jesus wasn't even buried in the tomb, Jewish law stated that executed criminals had to be lain in an exposed criminals grave outside the city for a year before the bones could be collected. Jesus would only have been placed in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea temporarily as Sabbath was approaching and he would have been moved out of the tomb at the earliest possible time, hence the empty tomb being found by the women.

Soul Winner

Nodin wrote: »

So in fact their faith is based on accounts they believed to be first hand. These would be akin to the accounts of persons who witnessed the golden plates of the church of mormon alluded to in another thread.

Not at all. The original disciples were eyewitnesses too. The women reported that the tomb was empty but their faith was not based on that fact or on that testimony. Their faith was based on their own eye witnessing of the risen Christ and His post resurrection appearances to them.

Nodin wrote: »

Darby O'Gill and the little people.

How quaint.

Nodin wrote: »

I suggest you familiarise yourself with Jewish concepts of ritual purity, circa 1 A.D.

Pray tell to what end?

Nodin wrote: »

.....Yes.

I have an empty box that used to house a small number of Raptor like creatures. They escaped though........

Please stop, you're killing me, I'm in stitches here.

Nodin wrote: »

They weren't written as histories in the modern sense. You put a strength of belief in them that can only be justified by faith, not facts. For example, the period of his life between birth and the age of 30 is barely covered at all.

Actually there is strong evidence that he was in England and India on those years but what has that got to do with the events of his final days in Palestine? There are many facts multiply attested to in the records, I gave only one, the empty tomb. You still haven't explained that, if He flew to Mars and back in His missing years that does nothing to alter the fact that His tomb was empty on the third day.

Soul Winner

Charco wrote: »

The lack of attention Josephus gave to the Jesus cult near the end of the 1st Century just goes to show how unimportant this group was regarded. If they were any kind of force to be reckoned with then Josephus would have given them more attention, he had no reason not to because the purpose of his works was to assist the Roman rule of Judea, if the Jesus cult was considered relevant then he would have dealt with them in much more detail.

So the 'lack' of attention that Josephus gives to the growth of early 'Christianity' in his 'extant' records disproves every multiply attested to record in the New Testament documents? That is a perfect example of an argument from silence, well done.

Charco wrote: »

That may have been because of Jewish attitudes towards corpses and graves.

"This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent: all that come into the tent ... shall be unclean seven days" (Numbers, 19:16).

Jews do not unnecessarily come in contact with dead bodies, especially if the only reason is to contradict some lunatics who claimed that they saw an executed criminal walking around.

If they were all merely lunatics as you suppose then all the more reason just to show them the body of their condemned criminal leader which should have still been laying in its tomb. No need to touch the corpse, just let the Romans publically display it.

Charco wrote: »

So everyone knew that the tomb was empty yet the city of Jerusalem did not mass convert to Christianity on the spot

Why would they? It was after all only an empty tomb. The only question I asked was, why was it empty.

Charco wrote: »

and the guards at the tomb decide to take a few coins and say the body was stolen rather than shout from the roof tops that they had seen a fully dead corpse walk out of the tomb they were guarding after an angel opened it up.

The records states that they ran off in fear of what they saw. The Jewish leaders said that they would back up their story to their superiors, that while the soldiers slept the disciples came in the night and stole away the body in the night.

But if the soldiers really slept then how did they know that it was the 'disciples' who stole the body?

Charco wrote: »

Yeah, like thats really believable...

Ok give me your explanation of the events so.

Charco wrote: »

Firstly, the only source we have that claims the Jewish leaders were worried was the Gospel of Matthew, not exactly a neutral source.

Well then give me your 'multiple' sources which contradicts Mathew’s report?

Charco wrote: »

Secondly, the followers of Jesus remained hidden away until the feast of Pentecost, this was over 50 days after Jesus was executed. If the followers of Jesus only started making a fuss almost 2 months after he died then what point would there be for anyone to produce the corpse of Jesus, who would have recognised it after all that time?

50 days?? Hmmm that is a toughy. I know, let’s look up how long it takes a corpse to decompose and vanish into thin air shall we?? In any case the women reported the empty tomb on the third day, not fifty days later. They started preaching Christ risen fifty days later, if he was still in the tomb then that’s where they would have headed to shut up the preaching, but they didn’t because they knew it was empty, eveyone did, right up to the Jewish leaders.

Charco wrote: »

Thirdly, the chances are that Jesus wasn't even buried in the tomb, Jewish law stated that executed criminals had to be lain in an exposed criminals grave outside the city for a year before the bones could be collected. Jesus would only have been placed in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea temporarily as Sabbath was approaching and he would have been moved out of the tomb at the earliest possible time, hence the empty tomb being found by the women.

Then why isn’t this explanation of the empty tomb ever attested to in any historical document?

What you are saying is that Joseph of Arimathea (a high standing member of the Jewish elite) is going to take the corpse of a condemned criminal out of his tomb and throw it on a Roman thrash heap? If that is the case the how do you explain this:

Charco wrote:

"This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent: all that come into the tent ... shall be unclean seven days" (Numbers, 19:16).

Jews do not unnecessarily come in contact with dead bodies,”

And sure even if that was the case then why would he even bother to bury Jesus in his tomb in the first place? Why not just throw him in the common grave along with all the other criminals after they took him down from the cross?

Why bother with an internment of a criminal if all you are going to do is dump the corpse out the next day onto some trash heap? Wait wait, don’t tell me, let me guess, eh, he was adhering to Jewish law by burying him? Well then why didn’t he bury the two thieves as well? I assume they were Jewish too and were in need of burial. They couldn’t have been Roman because Roman citizens were not sentenced to crucifixion. Why only bury Jesus?

I’ll tell you shall I? Because Joseph of Arimathea was a follower of Jesus, all be it secretly, and there is no way he would have gone to the trouble to request his body from Pilate, take him down from the cross and then bury his master in his own tomb, in order to just dump Him out the next day onto some common grave.

Nodin

Soul Winner wrote: »

How quaint. .

...yet apt.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Pray tell to what end? .

...well if you'd looked it up with the context in which I suggested it in mind, you'd know that by now.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Actually there is strong evidence that he was in England and India on those years .

"strong evidence"? And that would be...?

Soul Winner wrote: »

There are many facts multiply attested to in the records, I gave only one, the empty tomb. You still haven't explained that, if He flew to Mars and back in His missing years that does nothing to alter the fact that His tomb was empty on the third day.

We don't know it was. See also Darby O'Gill, empty Raptor box.

mdebets

Most of the people make two fatal mistakes in this discussion.
They go in with a prejudice, either that the Gospels are 100% true (Christians) or not 100% true (Non-Christians). That's always a bad idea, as it mostly leads to false conclusion.
The second mistake is that they don't understand the limitations of history.
History doesn't tell you what really happened in the past, it tells you a possible version of the past and how likely it was, by looking at the evidence that survived from this time (written + material culture).
In connection with this, it needs to be understand that just because an author wrote that event A happened 200 years ago means that this event really happened, but rather there are several possibilities:
1) the event really happened and the author tells the truth
2) the event didn't happen and the author wrote a work of fiction
3) the event did happen, but different to how the author describes it. This could be for various reasons, he might remember incorrectly or was told incorrect facts
4) A mix of all the above
It must however also be understand that gaps in the record do not proof anything other then that there is a gap.
Just because author A wrote Event B happened 2000 years ago and no other author wrote that Event B didn't happen, doesn't mean that Event B really did happen.
This gap can be for various reasons.
1) No one bothered to record the real event (e.g. because it was to insignificant at the time)
2) No one bothered to correct another text that tells the event incorrectly (e.g. because it was to insignificant at the time)
3) The record was destroyed (deliberately or accidental)
4) The record hasn't been found yet.
Especially point 3 is important in regards to the beginnings of Christianity, as Christianity has a bad record in destroying documents that are against its teachings after the years.

So after this is established, you can now look at the Gospels, not to find out how reliable the events in them are.
One thing that can be said about the authors, what ever else one thinks about them is, that they were not enemies of Jesus, but had a positive attitude towards him. It doesn't matter for this argument if they were Jews in the middle of the 1st century AD, who actually knew him and didn't want to create a new religion, or Christians in the late 1st century who wrote them to built a foundation for their new faith.
Therefore positive events in the Gospels are more suspicious of being not 100% accurate then negative events, as the authors had more to gain from positive events then negative events.
As no non-Christian texts exist that tell us about Jesus' life, we can't check the stories of the Gospels for accuracy against other texts.
It can therefore be deducted, that, based on the existing evidence, the story of Jesus cannot be historically proven.

This means however not that the story is false or at least true in general, but that it cannot be proven by historical means. You need faith to believe the story, but you can't prove it, so don't try.

mdebets

mdebets wrote: »

BrianCalgary wrote:

We dont ask archaeology to do so. Archaeology confirms dates and places and people. And since the findings of arcaeology confirm the dates, places and people of the Bible and none refute we can say thatthe events as recorded are in fact true.

Could you please specify which dates and persons were confirmed by archaeology? I would be especially interested in dates as the dating evidence around the birth of Christ is notoriously bad, as a tableau exists around that time in C14 dating so that dates can only be specified with a margin of errors of several decades.

mdebets wrote: »

BrianCalgary wrote:

Although external sources state that Jesus performed wonders.

Would you please state which outside sources state that Jesus performed wonders (and don't mention Josephus because it has been proofen to be a later addition by Christians).

Brian, I'm still waiting for your external and archaeological sources that prove the Gospels, or can I just presume you made them up?

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

So the 'lack' of attention that Josephus gives to the growth of early 'Christianity' in his 'extant' records disproves every multiply attested to record in the New Testament documents? That is a perfect example of an argument from silence, well done.

That Josephus shows disinterest with the Christian cult does not disprove the claim that by the latter half of the first Century Christianity was already a major player in the region, but it does leave the neutral observer confused as to why exactly he would intentionally fail to mention such a supposedly important Jewish sect.

If they were all merely lunatics as you suppose then all the more reason just to show them the body of their condemned criminal leader which should have still been laying in its tomb. No need to touch the corpse, just let the Romans publically display it.

Why should the Jewish authorities have been even slightly interested at refuting the ridiculous claims of a tiny group of followers of an executed criminal? I'm sure they had better things to be doing than that.

Why would they? It was after all only an empty tomb. The only question I asked was, why was it empty.

Precisely, it was only an empty tomb. Even the majority of uneducated Jews living 2,000 years ago had more sense than to conclude that just because the tomb was empty therefore something supernatural must have happened, if only educated Christians today followed the sensible example of these illiterate peasants.

The records states that they ran off in fear of what they saw. The Jewish leaders said that they would back up their story to their superiors, that while the soldiers slept the disciples came in the night and stole away the body in the night.

The records being...the Gospel of Matthew. But Matthew actually does record two versions of the event, the claim of the women at the tomb and the claim of the guards.

The women claimed that there was a great earthquake and an angle descended from Heaven and told them that Jesus is risen. Meanwhile the soldiers claimed that the body was simply stolen by the disciples.

I think if I was living back then and I heard both sides of the argument I know which side I would find more believable.

But if the soldiers really slept then how did they know that it was the 'disciples' who stole the body?

Ok give me your explanation of the events so.

OK, firstly I should point out that I don't completely buy the story that there even were soldiers at the tomb. I think if they really were there then other Gospels would have mentioned them because they add credibility to the Christian claim, which is all the more reason to invent them.

But for arguments sake lets say that they actually were there. From the Christian account we can see that they were open to being bribed, who is to say that the Jewish authorities were the first to bribe them? How about the possibility that the disciples got to them first, bribed them to allow them remove the body of Jesus for whatever reason, perhaps they realised that Jesus' corpse would be thrown on a criminal graveyard in a couple of days and did not want to see such a thing happen to their friend and leader so they took his corpse and gave it a secret burial.

The soldiers took the disciples money, allowed them to take the body, and went back to the Jewish leaders the next day and told them that Jesus miraculously rose from the dead. The Jewish authorities then bribed the soldiers to claim that the Christians stole the body, not realising that the soldiers had already been bribed.

Now I'm not saying this what actually happened because I just don't know, but answer me honestly please, can you admit that it is at the very least a somewhat credible alternative to the miraculous claims of Christianity.

50 days?? Hmmm that is a toughy. I know, let’s look up how long it takes a corpse to decompose and vanish into thin air shall we?? In any case the women reported the empty tomb on the third day, not fifty days later. They started preaching Christ risen fifty days later, if he was still in the tomb then that’s where they would have headed to shut up the preaching, but they didn’t because they knew it was empty, eveyone did, right up to the Jewish leaders.

The women reported the empty tomb to the disciples, not to the Jewish authorities, the disciples did not begin preaching the risen Christ until Pentecost. If the story about the soldiers at the tomb isn't true, as I suspect, then that would have given them 50 days to remove the body.

Then why isn’t this explanation of the empty tomb ever attested to in any historical document?

Now who is using the argument from silence? The procedures for dealing with executed criminals is dealt with in Jewish writing, just because the Jews didn't record what happened to each executed criminal does not mean we can assume they made an exception we look at one criminal in particular and not find any record of how his corpse was dealt with.

What you are saying is that Joseph of Arimathea (a high standing member of the Jewish elite) is going to take the corpse of a condemned criminal out of his tomb and throw it on a Roman thrash heap?

Maybe that would have been one of his priestly duties. I believe there were exceptions allowed in Jewish law for temporary burials if a proper burial would have conflicted with the Sabbath provided the reburial took place at the earliest possible time after the Sabbath.

And sure even if that was the case then why would he even bother to bury Jesus in his tomb in the first place? Why not just throw him in the common grave along with all the other criminals after they took him down from the cross?

Because Sabbath had almost begun and they didn't have time.

Well then why didn’t he bury the two thieves as well? I assume they were Jewish too and were in need of burial. They couldn’t have been Roman because Roman citizens were not sentenced to crucifixion. Why only bury Jesus?

You are using the argument from silence again. Just because ithe Gospels don't say he buried the other criminals doesn't mean he actually didn't. For all we know he may well have put all three corpses together. Or maybe they were put in another tomb.

I’ll tell you shall I? Because Joseph of Arimathea was a follower of Jesus, all be it secretly, and there is no way he would have gone to the trouble to request his body from Pilate, take him down from the cross and then bury his master in his own tomb, in order to just dump Him out the next day onto some common grave.

Or maybe he was just a devout Jewish member of the Sanhedrin who had no interest in Jesus and was only doing his Jewish duty by removing the body of a criminal from the crucifix before nightfall.