Reserection "historical Reality"

[Ouroboros]

Ehrman is right. However, I was talking about the early tradition(s) recorded in 1 Cor 15.

Concerning the date of the creed, virtually all critical scholars agree that Paul received the tradition no later than five years after the crucifixion, with a majority holding that the material was passed on to him when he visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal 1:18-19), and a minority maintaining that the material was conveyed to him in Damascus via the community in Antioch immediately upon his conversion. (Kirk MacGregor,

1 Corinthians 15:3B-6A, 7, and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus

)

Five years seems a very short time. Jesus dies, the disciples start to preach, they convert people, the religious become annoyed and want to destroy it, they petition the government to persecute the Christians, Paul is picked, he kills a whole bunch of them, he has the vision, leaves for three years to study the scriptures, and then come back and get the tradition given to him. It seems rather compressed. If it was five years between crucifixion and Paul's vision it would make sense, but that all this stuff, even including him going away for several years to study on his own, and all the travel time (days and weeks), it just doesn't seem plausible. Or the time it takes to hunt down the Christians and kill them, before his vision, would take many years alone. It's not like they had phones, faxes, internet, and cars back then. They walked or rode horse. And that had to be done after the early heretic Christian/Jewish cult had become so widespread it caught the interest of the religious or Paul.

[Ouroboros]

The crucifixion of Jesus is historically certain, and virtually every scholar accepts it as a fact.

Sigh... not, not historical certain.

 

Do you maintain, as Norman Perrin does, that 1 Cor 15:3-8 is the strongest evidence that the resurrection is historical?

I believe 1 Cor 15 is rather good evidence for the resurrection, but it does not in itself prove it happened. That is, I don't believe in Jesus' resurrection simply because 1 Cor 15 says he was raised from the death.

So what does then? What does make it a historical certainty?

 

You're flip-flopping like crazy. On one end you're saying it's with an absolute certainty and undeniable evidence prove it, then it's about which verses are not enough to prove it but give you enough faith to believe it. In other words, absolute factual certainty is the same as belief and faith in things without enough evidence. That's what I keep on hearing from you. So make up your mind. Is it an absolute historical fact which can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt for everyone and everywhere, or is it belief based on faith in what you think could be true? If it's the former, then give us that evidence, but if it's the latter stop mixing up the concepts of "historical certain" and "belief." Didn't we talk about this before? There is very little "historical certainty" even for other events, people, and places, and not only in the Bible. History is about estimations and good guesses, so when words like "historical certainty" is thrown around I'm starting to have the urge to say "it's a scientific, historical, metaphysical, psychological, and religious fact that God does not exist." And be done with the conversation. But I don't, because I don't there isn't a fact like that. It's very annoying to have words misused and things said as "facts" when they're not. So please, start correcting yourself, or just pick one side and stay there, without jumping back and forth.

[Badger]

Sigh... not, not historical certain.

But it is. Jesus death is well-attested event in Roman history; and this is not merely my opinion.

 

So make up your mind. Is it an absolute historical fact which can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt for everyone and everywhere, or is it belief based on faith in what you think could be true?

Sorry, but I have never claimed here, not even once, that Jesus' resurrection is historical fact.

[Vigile]

But it is. Jesus death is well-attested event in Roman history; and this is not merely my opinion.

 

Please. It's still broadly up for debate whether the guy even existed in the first place. I'm of the opinion the gospels were just a composite of several people who existed over a period of history that predates Jesus by many years since much of what is attributed to him was attributed to other "prophets" as well through pre-Christ Greek and Roman history (not the least of which is the "savior" theme).

 

But I'm sure you will now quote for us Josephus and a few others that have been thoroughly debunked on this site many times over now.

[Ouroboros]

Sigh... not, not historical certain.

But it is. Jesus death is well-attested event in Roman history; and this is not merely my opinion.

No, it's not attested in Roman history. There are a couple of "Jesus-es", but Jesus was a common name (according to scholars in the debate about the Jesus-family tomb). And I think none of them really fit the Bible Jesus at all.

 

And when you're saying that "most scholars" agree on this, please give me some survey or statistics to support this claim, because I think that pretty much all Christian scholars do believe the resurrection was a historical event, while pretty much all non-Christian historians would hold the opposite position. So which group is largest? What do I support this claim on? My belief that it is so. To convince me of anything else, you need to provide some hard-core data and statistics now. Because I do not believe the majority of historians think the resurrection was a real event. It shouldn't be hard for you to prove me wrong, since you claim it's not your opinion but pure fact. So give me the facts.

 

So bring it on. Where's the evidence you claim exists for Jesus death in Roman history, and were is the evidence that most scholars believe Jesus died and was resurrected?

 

So make up your mind. Is it an absolute historical fact which can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt for everyone and everywhere, or is it belief based on faith in what you think could be true?

Sorry, but I have never claimed here, not even once, that Jesus' resurrection is historical fact.

Are you blind? You said: "The crucifixion of Jesus is historically certain, and virtually every scholar accepts it as a fact."

 

So you mean that "historical certainty" can't be translated to "historical fact?" Is it on the level of word games only? I see. To believe in Jesus you have to learn the proper use of the selected vocabulary, approved by the higher Christian courts of linguistic inquiry. You said it is a certainty, and a historical certainty, which to me means that same as saying it is a fact. Besides you take the side of the scholars that claim it is a fact, so yes, you do directly and indirectly claim that it is a fact. Don't be such a wiggle-worm.

[Ouroboros]

Ehrman is not dummy. He got degrees, education, and a long life of research in these matters, and here is what he says:

Why was the tomb supposedly empty? I say supposedly because, frankly, I don't know that it was. Our very first reference to Jesus' tomb being empty is in the Gospel of Mark, written forty years later by someone living in a different country who had heard it was empty. How would he know?...Suppose...that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea...and then a couple of Jesus' followers, not among the twelve, decided that night to move the body somewhere more appropriate...But a couple of Roman legionnaires are passing by, and catch these followers carrying the shrouded corpse through the streets. They suspect foul play and confront the followers, who pull their swords as the disciples did in Gethsemane. The soldiers, expert in swordplay, kill them on the spot. They now have three bodies, and no idea where the first one came from. Not knowing what to do with them, they commandeer a cart and take the corpses out to Gehenna, outside town, and dump them. Within three or four days the bodies have deteriorated beyond recognition. Jesus' original tomb is empty, and no one seems to know why.

 

Is this scenario likely? Not at all. Am I proposing this is what really happened? Absolutely not. Is it more probable that something like this happened than that a miracle happened and Jesus left the tomb to ascend to heaven? Absolutely! From a purely historical point of view, a highly unlikely event is far more probable than a virtually impossible one..."

 

So does this mean that most historians do NOT believe Jesus was resurrected? Well it must, if we use the "quote one and then generalize to 'most'"-method which I've seen used three or four times in this thread.

 

And this is what James McGrath wrote about historical inquiry:

...namely that all sorts of fairly improbable scenarios are inevitably going to be more likely than an extremely improbable one. That doesn't necessarily mean miracles never happened then or don't happen now - it just means that historical tools are not the way to answer that question.

 

(I took those two quotes from this site: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/...orian-and.html)

[Badger]

So bring it on. Where's the evidence you claim exists for Jesus death in Roman history, and were is the evidence that most scholars believe Jesus died and was resurrected?

First, at least Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, Lucian of Samosata, and Mara Bar-Serapion refers, either directly or indirectly, to the the crucifixion of Jesus. It is also attested by some gnostic texts like the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Thomas, the Treatise on Resurrection. The death of Jesus was an essential part of early Christian tradition, and it's mentioned in 6 of 7 Paul's genuine letters. The historicity of Jesus' crucifixion is a matter beyond dispute.

 

Second, I have not claimed that most scholars believe in Jesus resurrection.

 

Are you blind? You said: "The crucifixion of Jesus is historically certain, and virtually every scholar accepts it as a fact."

If you read that statement carefully, you will see I'm not talking about the resurrection but the crucifixion.

[Vigile]

Josephus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQZYnvwb8R8

 

Tacitus, Pliny, Seutonius: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6PP_FLNCX4

[Badger]

.

[Badger]

So is this guy a Jesus mythologist or what?

[mwc]

If 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 are the prime evidence then maybe we should take a look at it for ourselves?

 

3 For I gave to you first of all what was handed down to me, how Christ underwent death for our sins, as it says in the Writings;

4 And he was put in the place of the dead; and on the third day he came back from the dead, as it says in the Writings;

Paul relates what was "handed down" to him. This may better be said as "handed over" or "surrendered" but the translation is good enough. As for "put in the place of the dead" I might say "given burial rites" whatever that entails. Reading the end of this chapter we see the comparison to the seed so it seems he was stuffed in the ground somehow. He was buried.

 

5 And he was seen by Cephas; then by the twelve;

This is probably the most important line. Which "twelve?" Judas was gone. So there's only eleven. So does this count Matthias from Acts? He was Judas' replacement. Impossible. Acts 1 is clear on the order. The ascension and then Matthias is chosen by lot. So who are these "twelve?" It must not be who we're thinking of as we'll see.

 

6 Then by more than five hundred brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, but some are sleeping;

The mysterious 500. Some of which were on the brink of death when this all happened.

 

7 Then he was seen by James; then by all the Apostles.

He finally appears to James. Then to all the "Apostles." Is this not the "twelve?" Are these two not synonymous? It would appear not. So did this James and these Apostles miss the show the first time around? If this James is one of the "twelve" with that name then he could not appear to the "twelve" from above (making it not just eleven but ten since Judas is missing). If he is one of the "twelve" then he technically appears to the "Apostles" twice and if we count Matthias he only appears to the "twelve" once (at this point).

 

8 And last of all, as by one whose birth was out of the right time, he was seen by me. 9 For I am the least of the Apostles, having no right to be named an Apostle, because of my cruel attacks on the church of God.

Lastly, we come to Paul. Who refers to himself as an "abortion" (though I don't think anyone translates it that way...here it is "birth was out of the right time"...odd way to write "abortion"). He lays claim to seeing whatever these others saw. He also lays claim to being an "apostle" as well. If they disagree on what it was to be an apostle it makes one wonder if they disagreed on anything else? From what Paul writes in relation to resurrection, what "form" it takes (in that it differs from the gospels take) and things like baptizing the dead it seems like there might be some things in which they just might disagree at that.

 

Whatever the case may be Paul fails when he mentions that there was an appearance before this "twelve." With Judas gone there was no "twelve" and Matthias comes too late to be counted.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

So bring it on. Where's the evidence you claim exists for Jesus death in Roman history, and were is the evidence that most scholars believe Jesus died and was resurrected?

First, at least Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, Lucian of Samosata, and Mara Bar-Serapion refers, either directly or indirectly, to the the crucifixion of Jesus. It is also attested by some gnostic texts like the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Thomas, the Treatise on Resurrection. The death of Jesus was an essential part of early Christian tradition, and it's mentioned in 6 of 7 Paul's genuine letters. The historicity of Jesus' crucifixion is a matter beyond dispute.

Those are not Roman contemporary records. If someone today write about someone who died 100 years ago, it doesn't make that writing an evidence for the event 100 years ago. Those records you claim to prove it are not evidence at all.

 

And the historicity of the Jesus' crucifixion is not a matter beyond dispute AT ALL! Why can I say that? Because IT IS DISPUTED!!! The discussion is alive today between historians. Ehrman isn't a fictitious person in our heads, is he? And there are others. So there are real human beings, historians, that do debate and argue against the crucifixion. Where have you been? To claim it's beyond dispute when they are currently in debate, is just ludicrous! It's like saying we're not having a debate here right now, right here, at this place, on this forum, about the crucifixion. It's like saying this post I'm writing right now isn't a post posted from me!

 

Tacitus: wasn't even born when Jesus died.

Josephus: wasn't even born when Jesus died.

The Talmud: show me the passage.

Lucian of Samosata: born in 125 CE.

Mara Bar-Serapion: some debate that it could have been written as late as the third century.

Gnostic texts: so you're an Gnostic now? Maybe Gnosticism is the true Christianity and you're the heretic? Must be, since the Gnostic texts provide the evidence for your faith!

 

But... I do agree that Jesus's crucifixion is part of the Christian tradition. There were many who were killed through crucifixion, and I think that tradition came from that their leader (whatever name he really had) was killed that way, and the story grew after that.

 

Second, I have not claimed that most scholars believe in Jesus resurrection.

Okay. My bad. I misunderstood you.

 

Are you blind? You said: "The crucifixion of Jesus is historically certain, and virtually every scholar accepts it as a fact."

If you read that statement carefully, you will see I'm not talking about the resurrection but the crucifixion.

I see. Okay. Most scholars accept the crucifixion as a fact, not the resurrection.

 

I thought the debate we had in this topic was about the historicity of the resurrection and not the crucifixion, so I assumed you really meant to talk about the resurrection and not throw other non-vital parts into the debate. Most historians agree that Julius Caesar existed, but it's not of any interest to the topic. 'Monkey wrenches in the machine' like that one, doesn't really help the debate.

[Ouroboros]

So is this guy a Jesus mythologist or what?

Does it matter? Since there's no debate, then this person doesn't exist, and the video must be an illusion.

[Badger]

Those records you claim to prove it are not evidence at all.

Of course they are.

 

Ehrman isn't a fictitious person in our heads, is he? And there are others.

I really do not belive Ehrman denies Jesus' crucifixion. If he does, can you please prove that?

 

I thought the debate we had in this topic was about the historicity of the resurrection and not the crucifixion, so I assumed you really meant to talk about the resurrection and not throw other non-vital parts into the debate.

The crucifixion of Jesus is indeed vital part.

[Vigile]

So is this guy a Jesus mythologist or what?

 

I have no idea what he is. His points about these records are pretty much in line with info provided on this website when these discussions come up. Someone correct me if I'm wrong please.

[Badger]

Does it matter? Since there's no debate, then this person doesn't exist, and the video must be an illusion.

I think it was Ehrman who said, "I don't know of any serious historians who doubt that Jesus existed -- though a lot of non-historians who want to make money off of books have tried to argue it! The evidence for Jesus is just too overwhelming though."

[Badger]

Whatever the case may be Paul fails when he mentions that there was an appearance before this "twelve." With Judas gone there was no "twelve" and Matthias comes too late to be counted.

Fails? What do you mean? But it may be that "the twelve" is a designation of the apostles as a group and is not to be pressed numerically.

[Vigile]

Someone help me out. I'm doing a google search looking for historian opinion, consensus on the existence of Jesus, his death, etc...

 

The only thing I can come up with that is academic and not just apologetic is the Jesus Seminar, which as far as I can tell did not vote on the crucifixion event. They did, however, vote on words attributed to Jesus and found:

Overall reliability of the five gospels

 

The Seminar concluded that of the various statements in the "five gospels" attributed to Jesus, only about 18% of them were likely uttered by Jesus himself (red or pink). The Gospel of John fared worse than the synoptic gospels, with nearly all its passages attributed to Jesus being judged inauthentic[13]. The Gospel of Thomas includes just two unique sayings that the seminar attributes to Jesus: the empty jar (97) and the assassin (98). Every other probably-authentic or authentic saying has parallels in the synoptics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

 

So, that's 150 of the world's leading Jesus historians who indicate that 80% of the gospels are written about someone other than Jesus. And here we are trying to determine whether or not he was actually crucified.

[Ouroboros]

Those records you claim to prove it are not evidence at all.

Of course they are.

Of course they are not. History isn't that exact. We can assume them to be true, if we so want, but the discussion can never stop. History is always about dividing opinions and interpretations.

 

Would you trust a person born 20 years ago to write an accurate and truthful report of some events 100 years ago without any supportive evidence or references to the material that gave them the information?

 

Ehrman isn't a fictitious person in our heads, is he? And there are others.

I really do not belive Ehrman denies Jesus' crucifixion. If he does, can you please prove that?

As I said, the confusion here was that I thought you talked about the crucifixion/resurrection as one package, meaning that when you suddenly started to use "crucifixion" for your references I thought you still meant to include the resurrection. My mistake. You could have been a bit clearer about what you did, that's all.

 

So lets be extra clear here. When you say "crucifixion" do you also include that Jesus died on the cross, or that he died later by some other means? Think about it. With the word "crucifixion" you also include "death by it." And of course when Christians talk about this event, and in a discussion when we are talking about the resurrection, and not the crucifixion, it's natural to assume that you're talking about both events. So please, when you are using a word in a more restrictive and limited way, say so and be clear about it.

 

I thought the debate we had in this topic was about the historicity of the resurrection and not the crucifixion, so I assumed you really meant to talk about the resurrection and not throw other non-vital parts into the debate.

The crucifixion of Jesus is indeed vital part.

Other people died too. Many Jesus-es died. It was after all a very popular name back then.

[Vigile]

Whatever the case may be Paul fails when he mentions that there was an appearance before this "twelve." With Judas gone there was no "twelve" and Matthias comes too late to be counted.

Fails? What do you mean? But it may be that "the twelve" is a designation of the apostles as a group and is not to be pressed numerically.

 

That's the problem with apologists. They have an answer to everything. If it makes you sleep at night I guess.

 

OTH, if it is really god's word, holy spirit inspired, doesn't change by a jot or a tittle, then why does it require so much twisting and turning to defend even the most basic aspects of it. If it is meant to be the premiere evidence for the life and death of christ then you would think they would have gotten their facts straight and not forced believers to make assumptions based purely on conjecture in order to defend it.

[centauri]

When did the event of over 500 believers seeing Jesus at the same time take place?

 

Badger:

Does it really matter where it happened? Of course we can speculate about it if we want, but there is no suggestion that Paul is referring to the same events describe in Acts 1. Also, contrary to your claim, the Acts doesn't say that 120 believers were present at the time Jesus ascended; you confused the Ascension and the Pentecost.

 

You've been quoting Christian apologists that attempt to portray Paul's claims as the strongest evidence for the resurrection.

Before I'll just take their word for it, I think it's appropriate to affirm his claims.

Did it occur to Habermas or to you that Paul's claim about 500+ people witnessing Jesus at the same time might be an exaggeration used to make the story more compelling, as part of an effort to win converts and keep them in the fold?

I didn't say 120 believers were present at the ascension, I said that a "church" size of 500+ believers doesn't line up with Acts which suggests a church size of around 120 members.

 

At this event, did Jesus appear in the flesh or was it in a vision experienced by over 500 believers?

 

1 Corinthians 15 says only that Jesus "appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time." The Greek word used here is οπτανομαι, meaning, to be seen or to appear.

 

So it could have been a vision rather than Jesus in a resurrected body.

 

So did Paul receive the most important elements of his Gospel as given in 1 Cor 15 from men or by revelation?

Why does Paul refer to his message as "my gospel"?

 

The linguistic data strongly suggest the material (at least verses 3b-5) is a primitive creed and, therefore, pre-dates Paul. Paul himself affirms this material is not his own but he had delivered what he had received earlier. Where he had received it not said, but according to the popular view, Paul received this material during his visit in Jerusalem three years after his conversion. Garry Habermas states, "Paul probably received this report from Peter and James while visiting Jerusalem within a few years of his conversion. The vast majority of critical scholars who answer the question place Paul's reception of this material in the mid-30s A.D. Even more skeptical scholars generally agree." (Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present) There doesn't need to be any conflic with Galatians 1, where Paul says he received his gospel by revelation.

 

But there is a conflict.

If Paul actually got key elements of his gospel from second hand reports, then he's misleading people by claiming that his information is straight from the Almighty.

Gal 1:11-12

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

Isn't Paul attempting to convince people that his material is pristine and not subject to human error?

 

I'm not sure how you establish "Jesus" being crucified and buried in a tomb as factual.

 

The crucifixion of Jesus is historically certain, and virtually every scholar accepts it as a fact.

 

So we're back to the number of approving scholars again as evidence of certainty.

 

For example, John Dominic Crossan affirms, "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be." (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography) In addition to biblical support, that is, early Christian tradition, Paul's letters and the Gospels, it is confirmed by ten non-Christian texts at least.

The burial of Jesus is also an essential part of the earliest kerygma (cf. 1 Cor 15:3-5; Acts 13:26-31), narrated in all four canonical Gospels, and in the Gospel of Peter. Having given an overview of the historical context and ancient funerary rites, J. B. Green concludes, "Although both Roman and Jewish practices allow for Jesus' burial (the former more by concession), one would expect in his case ignominious tratment... We have reason to believe from an historical viewpoint that his burial must have been lackluser." (The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels). Craig Evans affirms, "It is concluded that it is very probable that Jesus was buried, in keeping with Jewish customs, and was not left hanging on his cross, nor was cast into a ditch, exposed to animals." (Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus)

 

So because it repeatedly appears in cult literature and tradition, that makes it a certainty.

There cannot be any doubt that the character "Jesus of Nazareth" was crucified and buried in a tomb.

Did Paul ever refer to Jesus specifically as "Jesus of Nazareth"?

 

Just curious, do you believe the story about dead people being raised to life when "Jesus" died?

 

Not sure. It may have happened, but there is no way to prove that.

 

Why not?

If Paul's information about 500+ witnesses is deemed reliable and strong evidence, why not Matthew's?

 

If you regard the crucifixion and burial as factual, do the specifics of these two events need to be considered for reliablity or are the crucifixion and burial simply themes that stand alone?

 

I think Green explains this issue well,

It is clear nonetheless that the later Evangelists were unwilling to leave unchanged the rather simple burian story as reported in Mark. Thus Matthew has added to his Markan sources that the linen in which Jesus' body was wrapped was clean, the tomb in which he was buried new (27:59-60). Similarly, Luke reports that it was "a tomb wherein no one had yet been laid" (23:53). Both Evangelists thereby underscore the special honor paid Jesus. John, however, far outdistances Matthew and Luke, potraying Jesus' burial as that of a king.

I don't think the specifics must be considered to be factual.

 

So the theme of a story can be considered factual history, while the details of that story, which conflict with each other in numerous ways, don't take away from the credibility of the general theme.

As long as the general theme seems workable, it can be considered factual.

 

Yet, Paul never met Jesus prior to his ascension, but had visions and dreams.

 

Why Jesus could not appear to people, after the Ascension, as a kind of physical being? Moreover, Paul does not say he had visions or dreams; does he?

 

Yes, he does.

2 Cor 12:1-4

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)

How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

 

The issue of the thread was the historical reliablity of the resurrection.

Anyone can claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus if he shuttles back and forth from heaven to earth.

Didn't Jesus say he would send the Holy Spirit to communicate with believers rather than coming back over and over again to be seen by believers?

How do you determine if a witness to Jesus saw the genuine article?

 

Do you maintain, as Norman Perrin does, that 1 Cor 15:3-8 is the strongest evidence that the resurrection is historical?

 

I believe 1 Cor 15 is rather good evidence for the resurrection, but it does not in itself prove it happened. That is, I don't believe in Jesus' resurrection simply because 1 Cor 15 says he was raised from the death.

 

Yes, I realize that.

But you do have a fondness for quoting apologists, and I take strong issue with things that they simply assume are true.

[Ouroboros]

Does it matter? Since there's no debate, then this person doesn't exist, and the video must be an illusion.

I think it was Ehrman who said, "I don't know of any serious historians who doubt that Jesus existed -- though a lot of non-historians who want to make money off of books have tried to argue it! The evidence for Jesus is just too overwhelming though."

Listen, I'm not a person who completely deny that there was a movement started with some central figure who was given the name Jesus, and most likely killed for it too.

 

This debate was about: RESURRECTION, not existence of Jesus, nor death of Jesus. So when you threw that in, and probably you did intentionally, doesn't help the discussion.

 

So lets be clear here: I was talking about the RESURRECTION part of the story, even when you used the word CRUCIFIXION I was talking about the whole package. In other words: I was talking about the miraculous part of a dead person coming alive, and not that they died. I don't care if he died or not, but the discussion is about the last part of the story. Is that so hard to understand?

 

I can only assume that you are currently trying to confuse the subject by throwing in this. I suspect that you have no real argument anymore for the resurrection, so now you're trying to misdirect the whole topic to something completely different.

 

Why not talk about if Herod existed or not? Isn't that pertinent to the whole discussion too? Or if the Roman Empire existed or not? Does it help the discussion about the resurrection if I suddenly say: there's no doubt the Roman's were toga at the orgies?

 

Jesus was killed. He died. Sure. So what. There were also two thieves who supposedly died next to him. So people die, and Jesus if he existed died on a cross. Sure. Then someone screwed up and when Joseph from Arimathea put him in his family tomb, they thought it was somewhere else. Or maybe Joseph was afraid to tell anyone where the body was, and he lied to everyone. And the guards ended up in an already empty tomb. That's awesome! What a miracle!

[Badger]

Of course they are not. History isn't that exact. We can assume them to be true, if we so want, but the discussion can never stop. History is always about dividing opinions and interpretations.

That's true, more or less, but it does not change what I said: those records are the evidence for Jesus' crucifixion. And frankly, most historians and scholars seems to think the case is pretty strong.

 

Would you trust a person born 20 years ago to write an accurate and truthful report of some events 100 years ago without any supportive evidence or references to the material that gave them the information?

I'm not sure. If he is the only person who has wrote about this event, maybe not.

 

So lets be extra clear here. When you say "crucifixion" do you also include that Jesus died on the cross, or that he died later by some other means? Think about it. With the word "crucifixion" you also include "death by it."

Yes, if Jesus was crucifed he most probably also died.

 

And of course when Christians talk about this event, and in a discussion when we are talking about the resurrection, and not the crucifixion, it's natural to assume that you're talking about both events. So please, when you are using a word in a more restrictive and limited way, say so and be clear about it.

I don't find it natural at all. Sounds odd.

[Ouroboros]

That's true, more or less, but it does not change what I said: those records are the evidence for Jesus' crucifixion. And frankly, most historians and scholars seems to think the case is pretty strong.

My intention wasn't to argue about the crucifixion, since this debate is about the resurrection. So basically this debate is taking a couple of assumptions as a premise: 1) that Jesus supposedly existed, 2) that Jesus supposedly was killed on a cross. So the discussion about those two premises would be sidetracking it. So I'm not even debating that part.

 

Would you trust a person born 20 years ago to write an accurate and truthful report of some events 100 years ago without any supportive evidence or references to the material that gave them the information?

I'm not sure. If he is the only person who has wrote about this event, maybe not.

What if he wrote based on the belief on a group of people? Lets say that a teenager today would write about Mormons and only based it on what the Mormons say, would you believe what he wrote as evidence for the things Mormons claims to be true? Does this mean that the Mormons are right?

 

So lets be extra clear here. When you say "crucifixion" do you also include that Jesus died on the cross, or that he died later by some other means? Think about it. With the word "crucifixion" you also include "death by it."

Yes, if Jesus was crucifed he most probably also died.

 

And of course when Christians talk about this event, and in a discussion when we are talking about the resurrection, and not the crucifixion, it's natural to assume that you're talking about both events. So please, when you are using a word in a more restrictive and limited way, say so and be clear about it.

I don't find it natural at all. Sounds odd.

Okay.

 

You know what else isn't natural at all, that you start talking about the crucifixion in the middle of a debate where it is assumed already to be part of the premises.

 

If we would for a moment in this debate, right here, assume that Jesus didn't exist and didn't die, then why even bother arguing about the lack of evidence for the resurrection? It's quite odd to me that you brought this side-track on board, and I can only assume you did it on purpose.

[mwc]

Fails? What do you mean? But it may be that "the twelve" is a designation of the apostles as a group and is not to be pressed numerically.

Well, is it or isn't it? Paul uses the term a grand total of one time. In that very verse.

 

What about the usage of Apostles right after? What, then, does it designate if not the Apostles as a group? If you mean the "original twelve" then why would they relay faulty information to Paul? Especially after the massive betrayal of Judas in regard to their lord, teacher, friend, (for some) relative and possibly even their god? Even the majority of the gospels and Acts gets this right. For the earliest bit of information it seems strange that it is not reliable or doesn't include an aside to mention "the twelve minus one."

 

So since Paul fails to utilize the term anywhere else I'm going to have to conclude this wasn't some "designation" he tended to throw around and the number is significant especially since the term "apostles" is used in close proximity.

 

mwc