Chili

To add to your confusion let me say that followers of Jesus are called Jesuits. Christian-ity is the condition of being Christian as the end of Catholic-ism in Christendom. Catholic means universal as Alpha of Christ to which we add our Jesuit identity when we become Jesuit by name or through the baptism of fire. Simply by the definition of being Christian there can be no such thing as a Christian religion.

Notice that Jesus was never addressed as Christ in the Gospels because he was not Christ until "it was finished" and then he was no longer called Jesus because Jesus got crucified to set Christ free. Jesus was raised to become Jesus Christ so reason would prevail since it was only the faculty of reason (TOK) that got crucified.

Jim Larmore

I haven't been able to find it but I was told of an ancient historian who spoke of the people who were resurrected at Christ's resurrection. Many came into the city and spoke of being in Heades or the grave. Josephus also spoke of Jesus as being a real person in history and that He was resurrected.
To me , and being a person who favors apologetics for the scriptures. The fact that there is nothing to counter the claims of resurrection is evidence for its accuracy. The Gospels were written within the life time of those who witnessed these accounts when they happened. If they were false then there would have been a lot of ink on papyrus to reflect that fact.

Amaleq13

I'm afraid you have been misinformed because there is no such record supporting the story in Matthew.

To me, a person who favors reason and logic, the fact there is no good evidence supporting the claims of resurrection is sufficient to reject those claims. The Gospels were written long after the events described and far from where they were alleged to have taken place. There is also no evidence that these stories were told to anyone within the lifetime of any of the alleged participants so claims of eyewitness confirmation of the contents would appear to be entirely specious.

John A. Broussard

Surely you must be joking.

Jim Larmore

Could be, I'm still looking.


That makes you a Bible critic and thats your right. I just feel something that was prophesied hundreds of times in the O.T. and co-incides with actual history in time is worth believing in.

Actually, theres evidence to support that some of the Gospels were written before 90 A.D. and that is well within the life time of many who saw and witnessed the accounts of the life of the Messiah.
Well, how do you account for the authors themselves then and the fact that many critics claim GMatthew and GLuke is nothing more than an exegesis of GMark?
John Mark was an actual apostle of Jesus so was the apostle John who authored a gospel account.

Diogenes the Cynic

You were misinformed. There is no such corroboration for Mathew's zombie assault on Jerusalem. Even the other Gospels don't mention it.
First, a claim that a Historical Jesus existed is not proof of the resurrection. Secondly, The Josephus passage is all but universally regarded by historians as being at least a partial forgery. Even those who argue for partial authenticity reject the claims for Jesus being the "Messiah" and appearing to his followers after his death as being a ham handed Christian interpolation. It is impossible that Josephus would have called Jesus "Messiah" without becoming a Christian. Moreover, Origen said that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah so that indicates that the TF did not yet exist in any copy read by Origen.
How about the fact that it's physically impossible (not a small thing), that it's completely uncorroborated by eyewitness testimony, that the accounts which do exist are contradictory and that the resurrection accounts do not exist in the earliest Christian traditions or literature?

I should also point out that the burden is on those who make extraordinary assertions to proof them, not on anyone else to disprove them. The rational default regarding people coming back from the dead is that it's impossible. Physical impossibility is a rather massive burden for apologists to overcome and none have ever come close.
The Gospels were written (at a minimum) between 70-100 CE which means that few, if any witnesses ever would have been alive when they were written. They were also written outside of Palestine for a non-Jewish audience after at least one war (and possibly two) had destroyed Jerusalem and decomated the population. How was anything in the Gospels supposed to be refuted by witnesses? The chances are exceedingly remote that any witness to Jesus ever would have found himself in Asia Minor or Rome 80 or 90 years after the resurrection (by the time these books were being widely distributed and read it was well into the 2nd century), having somehow survived the war, learned Greek, lived into his 100's and found his way into a Christian church or public reading of one of the Gospels. What if he remembers Jesus being crucified but never heard anything about a resurrection? What's he supposed to do about it? Tell them? What's that going to do? Are they all suddenly going to drop their new religion and spread the word around Christendom that some old fart from Palestine never heard boo about a resurrection of Jesus in 30 CE? How do you know that a witness or two didn't object? Why would that be written down?

The fact that there are no early written rebuttals to Christianity is proof that there was little or nothing to rebut at the time. There is actually no real evidence that a single person ever personally claimed to have seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion. All we have is late, non-eyewitnesses making the claim that anyone claimed it.

There isn't a single good reason to believe any part of the resurrection story.

Amaleq13

That does not at all describe the evidence related to the alleged resurrection of Jesus. There are a few (not "hundreds") passages from the Hebrew Bible that Christians have reinterpreted to be prophecies of the resurrection but there is no good reason to think that is how they were originally intended. Also, to assume the Gospel story of the resurrection represents "actual history" is entirely circular.

I tend to agree with regard to your dating of the Gospel story but, even assuming the first (Mark) was written c. 70CE, what "eyewitnesses" were still alive and what evidence do you have that they were aware of the story?

The actual authors of the Gospel stories are unknown. The current attributions cannot be dated earlier than the 2nd century and do not appear to have any basis in reliable evidence. That Mt and Lk are largely based on Mk presents no problem for me that requires an accounting as far as I can tell. The fact remains that there is no evidence these stories were ever told within the lifetime of the people mentioned in them.

No, he is alleged to have been Peter's secretary but there is no reliable evidence to support the 2nd century claim that he wrote the story.

Again, there is no reliable evidence to support that traditional claim. In addition, textual evidence suggests that multiple authors were involved in the creation of the story as it exists today.

Julian

What prophesies, exactly? Sure, the Jews were expecting a messiah but Jesus hardly fits the description of what the Jews hoping for. There is a reason why the Jews are not christians...
How do you know? The first mention we have of any gospels is in mid-2nd century. We also have a bit of papyrus that may date to 125CE. Now, I agree that GMark might be earlier than 90 but so what? Mark is pretty sparse. His ignorance also shows that he was no eye-witness nor did he have contact with someone who was.
Please provide evidence for this statement. I know of no serious scholar, even believers, who think that any of the gospels were written by any of the apostles.

Remember, you have no evidence that Jesus was ever a real person. Paul, who is the earliest writer we have, shows no interest in an earthly Jesus. Where is his gospel, hmmm? Funny, he didn't seem to write one. Much later writers suddenly come up with these things, and they get more fantastic, and more detailed, as time passes, GMark to GJohn.

Julian

John A. Broussard

What bothers me is all the secrecy surrounding the resurrection. If Jesus wanted to be convincing, it seems to me he would have arisen in broad daylight, with Romans, Pharisees and whoever standing around as witnesses to the occasion.

As it is we're not sure if we have just an empty tomb, or one measly angel, or a couple of women. Why all the secrecy...and confusion?

Chili

Can't, there is no daylight after he died . . . not even for Magdalene. That is the most important part of the message. From here on the celestial ligth takes over . . . by way of speaking, but that is the point made here.