Reply to The Resurrection of Jesus Is Probably Real

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "The Resurrection of Jesus Is Probably Real"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?[/quote]

There was a lot of instability in Judea at the time and recurring rebellions. Keep in mind we have no contemporaneous Roman records of the crucifixion--the earliest is probably Tacitus, who does write about it, but around 70 years later, and a few decades after the Jewish rebellion recorded by Josephus (around AD 67 I think). Christians like to treat the story of Jesus as if the Scriptures are the equivalent of CNN, the daily newspaper, and official court and death records.

There's a theory I have read about (ran across a book about it in my university bookstore) that Jesus took off to India and returned in his 80s after learning about Buddhism. [/quote]

This. There is no record of Jesus during his time living or dying or rising from the dead. [/quote]

What do you mean by “during his time”? The earliest gospel account was written ~33 years after His death. That would be like saying that if a friend of Conway Twitty’s or Thurgood Marshall’s wrote a book about either one of them tomorrow, it wouldn’t be from their time. [/quote]

No, the records describe events 20-30 years after the alleged execution, but they were written later. Josephus wrote about 60 years later, but while there is likely some basis of truth in the surviving records, historians widely agree that later Christians tampered with the references to Jesus.

Tacitus is really the first surviving, likely original record of Jesus. That was written around 116AD.

That is a long time for inaccuracies to spread, particularly given that the written records of the time regularly demonstrated personal bias. Annals is considered a credible source, in part, because of the contempt it demonstrated towards early Christians.[/quote]

Let's also not forget that Jesus was a very common name at that time. It would be like spreading stories around a person named John or James today. [/quote]

The early records also reference the Christ name.

It's a pretty narrow time period, in a fairly specific region. While a lot of the surviving sources are tainted, legitimately questioning many of the details in those stories, the totality of surviving evidence fairly strongly supports the idea that there existed an individual named Jesus, who also went by Christ, that led a religious sect prior to being executed.[/quote]

The evidence is weak. Excluding Christian sources (which are highly suspect), the earliest non-Christian source is around 93-94 CE in Josephus. That was most likely hearsay to the 10th degree (sarcasm). [/quote]

Josephus's writings are widely believed to be tainted/rewritten by early Christians. But Tacitus's account is within 100 years and more reliable.

Yes, nearly all the details are suspect, but Tacitus provides strong, independent corroboration of existence.[/quote]

Keep trying. The evidence for Tacitus is also weak. The cited reference is from around 120 CE. Tacitus was not a witness to anything, he was repeating what Christians had told him. [/quote]

A lot of our understanding of history is built on secondary sources. And primary sources have their own problems, often being from biased or interested parties.

I can't tell what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying you don't think there was a person named Jesus that is the basis for what became Christianity? Or you just emphasizing that many of the stories are not reliable, either being stolen or made up entirely. The latter certainly isn't controversial, the vast majority of historians would agree Jesus existed as a historical figure.[/quote]

Even if a vast majority agree, it doesn't make it true, nor does it mean they are correct. I understand and agree that it is not proof that Jesus didn't exist, but it is also not proof that he did. Time will tell. Personally, I think the evidence does not meet a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Separately, you think that God would incarnate itself, go through suffering and sacrifice to leave it all to oral story telling? For a God capable of creating the vast universe that we know today, it couldn't create a way to have a lasting record of its deed? What was its plan to reach the Americas or Australia prior to the age of discovery? What was its plan to deal with modern science and knowledge? [/quote]

Good points![/quote]

I disagree. “If God exists, He would’ve done it this way…” makes no sense if the speaker is just a fellow human. God exists or He doesn’t; you have no first principles from which you can explain how He’d go about His business unless you’re already assuming He doesn’t exist.

Also, it’s profoundly unserious to suggest that Jesus outright didn’t exist. [/quote]

What's your evidence that he did exist? [/quote]

Among other things, a mass religious movement predicted on his existence led by people who purported to know him personally and zero record of anyone at the time disputing his existence.

There are plenty of reasonable arguments to make about religion. This isn’t one of them. [/quote]

"a mass religious movement" - It was so massive that not one source of information survives during Jesus' supposed lifetime or immediately thereafter  :roll:

"zero record of anyone at the time disputing his existence" - That same logic can be argued against his existence. For a belief system that was disruptive to the established Jewish community, their silence speaks volumes in the opposite direction. [/quote]

1. It is objectively a very large religion. I take it your point is that the movement wasn’t massive during Jesus’ time on earth. The literal point of this thread is that it is the Resurrection that led to the growth of the movement. A bit of an “own goal” on your part.

2. The same logic cannot be employed in the opposite direction. That would mean that there is no evidence of Jesus. There of course is. You might not be a Christian, but the historical record as to the existence of Jesus is simply not in equipoise. [/quote]

The same logic CAN be employed in the opposite direction. Just as there is a lack of supporting evidence, there is also a lack of gainsay evidence.  [/quote]

Imagine a piece of evidence, like a scroll or something. There are three possibilities: (1) “this piece of evidence tends to support the notion that Jesus existed”, (2) “this piece of evidence is silent on the existence of Jesus”, and (3) “this piece of evidence tends to contradict the notion that Jesus existed.” Most pieces of evidence falls in (2). Some evidence falls in (1). I am aware of no evidence that falls in (3). [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics