Hello my friends hope you're all doing well.
I would just like to converse with you about the evidence for Christ's resurrection for a few reasons
The first reason being I know you're all really knowledgeable people so there is as little chance, if this evidence is flawed that it'll be detected.
The second reason being to see if this evidence holds up well.
So let's get started.
I will only use one verse from the Bible then after that I will not be using the Bible at all.
The one verse is this in 2 Peter 1:16 "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
So here Peter is saying that he and the disciples witness the majesty of Christ talking about seeing him and him resurrected.
Now, historical texts say that Peter and the apostles and Paul was martyred for this witness of the resurrected Christ.
Ignatius in AD 110 claimed that Peter was the bishop of Rome
Irenaeus of Lyon in AD 180 agrees that Peter served in Rome
Tertullian in AD 195 said "on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John (the Baptist. by being beheaded)."
Dionysius of Corinth, AD 200 said "Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time"
And lastly Eusebius reported the crucifixion of Peter and Paul's beheading as well, and When he reported the crucifixion of Peter and the beheading of Paul in Ecclestiacial History, he was simply passing along a tradition which has been the unanimous opinion of the church for two hundred years.
Now, my question is this why would the apostles and Peter and Paul claim they saw the risen Jesus Christ and give up their lives to preach about him and be Hated and tourtured and ultimately killed, for a lie?
My prediction of one your responses may be "but don't people die for mistaken beliefs all the time"
Yes, but the apostles died for what they said they saw (emphasis on saw) not a belief.
So it's either they really saw the risen Christ or they did it all for a lie they knew, which would be absurd.
What are your thoughts or possible rebuttals on this?
All the best.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
All of your "historical" sources were written long after the events. Peter was executed during the persecution of Christians by Nero. As far as anyone knows, Christians were persecuted as scapegoats for the great fire, not for witnessing Jesus' resurrection. Paul never met Jesus. Like Peter, he was executed for being a member of a banned religious sect.
Also, there's not really any evidence that Jesus died on Golgotha.
So you have hearsay accounts written over a century after the events about eyewitness statements by two unreliable witnesses. How would you feel about a historical document written in 1970 that "proved" that Abraham Lincoln came back to life based on contemporary eyewitness accounts?
Do you have any other "evidence"?
Detective in Christ...….
I shall abbreviate that to "DiC" ….. for brevities sake....
"What are your thoughts"...
Well DiC…. I can agree with your use of the word "absurd"...… indeed that very word sprang to mind while I was reading your post...
Why do you think that the single bible verse you quote is valid when so many ,many others are mere inventions.
Also...you say ,"why would the apostles and Peter and Paul claim they saw the risen Jesus Christ "....
but surely Paul saw nothing in reality....just a vision ,a simple hallucination.... brought on by his epilepsy.... not the risen Christ in the flesh.
And your claim of Peter being in Rome..... well that as far as I can see has no actual proof , in fact the last place we have reasonable evidence for Peter is Antioch….. and speaking of proof.....your OP spoke of "evidence" ……. for the resurrection....
any chance of that …?
@DiC...2 Peter is a poor choice for evidence with its authorship in seroius doubt with biblical scholars citing dates as late as 150 AD.
As already mentioned by others Paul saw no-one in the uncorroborated Damascus road fable. He heard a voice. He never met or saw Jesus and is renowned for overriding the supposed teachings of Christ, especially adherence to Mosaic Law.
You mention Eusebius who also wrote it was fine to lie for God to save souls and is the prime suspect for the 'Christ' interpolation in Josephus' history.
All in all you have not provided any supported evidence just an opinion bout a single bible verse.
And people choose death for all manner of things they believe and the bravest do so without the certainty of an afterlife.
The bible isn't evidence of anything supernatural, and no book can rationally validate its own claims. .
In 1917 at Fátima in Portugal, it is alleged that tens of thousands of people saw the Sun dance about the sky.
If this had actually happened, the Earth would have been thrown out of the Solar System, which would have been observed by hundreds of millions of people.
We can thus say that if tens of thousands of people claim they saw the Sun dance about the sky, they are either lying or deluded.
Similarly, it is more likely that the early Christians were lying or deluded about any alleged resurrection happening.
According to @Detective in Christ 's logic, Mormonism must be true, because Joseph Smith wouldn't lie and die for a lie (i.e. about him having visions from an angel).
Even if Peter was killed by the Romans (a big if, as there isn't any primary evidence that he was), he would not have been killed for what he claimed to see. That completely misunderstands the Roman mindset towards religion.
@Sapporo:
Right. The early Christians in Rome weren't hated for witnessing anything. They were suspected of incest (they called each other "brother" and "sister", including husbands and wives), cannibals (for eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood), and atheists (for refusing to acknowledge the Emperors as gods). I don't think the Romans care what gods you worshiped as long as you observed their public rituals.
Because they were already hated, Christians became ideal scapegoats for the great fire that conveniently cleared land for Nero's Golden House.
@ DiC
A false premise starts your OP. There is no contemporary evidence, none, for a jesus type character as depicted in the gospels. Not a skerrick.
This puts the manner of this Jesus character's death and supposed resurrection in the category of "entirely without credible evidence"
Most scholars agree that 'Peter' was not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors. There are differences in style, textual references and other clues to support this conclusion. Like the Jesus character there is no credible contemporary evidence for the existence of this "peter".
Let us move to "paul" the author of three of the Epistles, the others either being compilations of multiple letters by person or persons unknown or downright later fakes such as Titus and the last of the Corinthians.
"paul" is anonymous. We do not know who "he" was, we can surmise the same person wrote the first three epistles, and that is all. If you would care to read Acts and compare it to the Epistles you will quickly see, like most any scholar they two samples are very different and could be describing different people. There are some good books on this subject, you should take off your 'bible glasses'' and do some reading.
There is no contemporary evidence for the existence of "jesus", the authorship of the one verse you quoted is questionable at best and written much later than the supposed events recorded, we have no idea who "Paul" was, but do know he did not write all the epistles and was a latecomer to the jewish christian scene. Never mind the fact he doesn't mention the discovery of the empty tomb legend once.
Which leaves your evidence reliant on oral tradition and the strong arm men of the church as the Pauline sect fought for supremacy on the latter half of the Third Century CE.
In short, no evidence at all.
(edited for spelling and clarity)
In terms of being willing to die, what is the difference between doing so based on delusion versus based on true knowledge?
The church has killed many people throughout history for what they believed was true.
All the proof you're looking for that Jesus Christ walked on water, turned water into wine, resurrected the dead, resurrected himself, is the Son of God, can all be found in the Biblical Universe where Jesus Christ is Lord.
Just like all the proof that Hobbits in The Hobbit are Hobbits can be found in The Hobbit Universe.
And all the proof you need that Darth Vader uses the force can be found in the Star Wars Universe.
If you say Jesus Christ didn't walk on water then you're saying Clark Kent isn't Superman, Harry Potter isn't a Wizard, Bilbo Baggins is a Wookie, Superman is really Batman.
You don't need evidence, scholars, or scientific proof, all the proof you need that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead is in The Bible.
Everybody should be in agreement with that if The Bible is a fictional work of art.
There should be no debate.
If you debate it then you're destroying characters and storylines you didn't create yourself.
Do you know what fictional means?
1. Flaw Number 1. "I will use a verse from the bible." It does not matter which verse you use, the bible is not an historical text. It is not authoritative in any way. If you use a verse you must have corroborating evidence from an external source. The goal of the bible was to support Christians and their beliefs. It is not historical by any stretch of the imagination.
2. The second Epistle of Peter is a forgery. There is no reason to quote from it.
"The New Testament book of 2 Peter is almost universally regarded by scholars as pseudonymous. In other words, it wasn't written by Peter but by someone else and much later. This comes as news to many sincere Christians who are convinced otherwise based on little more than wishful thinking." So far you are 2 for 0
http://otagosh.blogspot.com/2016/01/2-peter-forgery-and-fiction.html
3. "Ignatius succeeded Evodius.[8] Theodoret of Cyrrhus claimed that St. Peter himself left directions that Ignatius be appointed to the episcopal see of "
Ignatious can say anything he likes. This is evidence of nothing. It's like the 93 year old Russell Nelson claiming he is the next prophet of the Mormon Church. People say all sorts of crazy shit. FAIL 3 and 0.
4. Irenaeus of Lyon in AD 180 agrees that Peter served in Rome. (St. Peter Died AD 64 to 68),
How in the hell would Irenaeus know anything at all about Peter. Another random unsubstantiated claim. Still, I don't doubt that most historians would agree that Peter had something to do with the origin of the Christian Church in Rome. That seems to be a no brainer but it has nothing what so ever to do with the topic of your post. Evidence for Resurrection.
5. "Tertullian in AD 195- 240" Tertullian is not contemporary to Christ. He is writing years after the supposed death of Jesus. He is not a witness. He has no first hand knowledge. And what he reports is only what he has been told to him by the Christians of his day. Finally, he is a Christian writer supporting the Church.
6. "Dionysius of Corinth, AD 200 said "Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time"
HUH? Nothing at all here about the resurrections of Jesus. This is also AD 200. Nothing contemporary to the life of Jesus. Over 160 years after his supposed crucifixion. This is merely a story that has been handed down as tradition or dogma. Not Evidence.
7. "Why would Peter and Paul give up their lives/" Stupid argument. Why do Buddhists set themselves on fire? Why do Muslims fly planes into building or hop on subways and buses with explosives strapped to their bodies? "They Believe the Crap They Have Been Told?" It's just that simple. Believers do not need evidence for their faith. Aren't you a perfect example of that? It's a Christian text written for believers. They can say anything they like and it does not make it true.
Do you debate whether Superman can fly or whether Clark Kent is Superman?
Superman can fly.
Clark Kent is Superman.
Jesus Christ is Lord.
Regarding debates, my primary concern is the real world.
I was in a debate group headed by a believer years ago and I asked him how the lack of a body is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, couldn't it just be evidence that he never existed?
He kicked me out of the group.