• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
1. If they went to the wrong tomb, then the Roman and Jewish authorities would simply go to the right tomb when the apostles started proclaiming a resurrected Saviour and paraded Jesus' body around the city. Remember the Romans placed guards there at the request of the religious authorities. So they both knew exactly where his body was.
Click to expand...
Yeah...so why didn't the Romans do that?
Why didn't the Romans round up all those heretics that helped a convicted criminal escape?

2. Even if they went to the wrong tomb, that would not explain the 12 different appearances Jesus made according to the 4 Gospels. He lists these on page 303.

As Geisler points out on page 304 it wasn't the empty tomb that convinced most of the apostles it was the "appearances" that turned them from scared, scattered, skeptical cowards, into the greatest peaceful missionary force in history.
Click to expand...
So? The Bible claims this...so?
 
DOC said:
Well, I guess an empty tomb, might not motivate you to martyred,
Click to expand...
So you admit then that the empty tomb doesn't prove anything regarding the ressurection?

As such, any discussion regarding the tomb is considered unrelated and non-confirming in regard to the resurrection.

DOC said:
but having Jesus appear to you after he was wrapped up with cloth and spices might.
Click to expand...

In other words, your only support for the resurrection of Jesus is the account given in the bible. And of that account given in the bible, only the testimony of the devoted would be considered evidence of the resurrection.

Obviously we must ask. Are these testimonies hearsay or direct testimonies?
If they are direct testimonies, are they enough to support the resurrection as legitimate?

The best way to test this is, would you accept the word of a handful of fringe cultists if they told you that thier leader rose from the dead?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Remember the Romans placed guards there at the request of the religious authorities. So they both knew exactly where his body was.
Click to expand...

zooterkin said:
Remember we only have the story in the bible, no independent reports to back it up.
Click to expand...

But we do have a Pilate, Christ, connection if we are to believe the Roman Senator/Historian Tacitus.

From the site "Armory of Saints"

"Tacitus, a Roman historian, also makes mention of Pilate and Christ. Tacitus despised Jews and Christians so his reference is particularly fascinating. Tacitus has been said to be the most trustworthy Roman historian and it seems likely that Tacitus had access to the Imperial archives."

http://crusadefortruth.blogspot.com/2005/02/tacitus-pilate-and-jesus-myth.html
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Ah, yes, the highly respected Mr Geisler.


Remember we only have the story in the bible, no independent reports to back it up.


So, the reason the new testament is true is because other bits of the new testament agree with it?
Click to expand...
Don't be surprised. Geisler's entire method seems to be based upon bootstrap arguments.

zooterkin said:
So why did you bring up the tomb if it's the appearances that are convincing?
Click to expand...
Exactly!

It's clear that Geisler's attempt is at quantity over quality of arguments. If he makes enough small pointless claims, than that must be better than 1 concrete bit of evidence.

Unfortunately, reality doesn't work this way. If an argument/premise/bit of evidence is bad, it's existence doesn't add any weight to the overall theory being supported.

The tomb argument is tangential and doesn't support any point of the resurrection.
Similarly, the argument regarding martyrs is also tangential. It provides no weight to the truth of the resurrection. Geisler openly admited this fact when he reverted to saying that the martyrs saw the risen christ.
 
joobz said:
So you admit then that the empty tomb doesn't prove anything regarding the ressurection?

As such, any discussion regarding the tomb is considered unrelated and non-confirming in regard to the resurrection.
Click to expand...

But a full tomb would disprove the resurrection, so an empty tomb can be considered partial evidence towards a resurrection.
 
DOC said:
But we do have a Pilate, Christ, connection if we are to believe the Roman Senator/Historian Tacitus.

From the site "Armory of Saints"

"Tacitus, a Roman historian, also makes mention of Pilate and Christ. Tacitus despised Jews and Christians so his reference is particularly fascinating. Tacitus has been said to be the most trustworthy Roman historian and it seems likely that Tacitus had access to the Imperial archives."

http://crusadefortruth.blogspot.com/2005/02/tacitus-pilate-and-jesus-myth.html
Click to expand...

We have been talking about the resurrection, not whether or not Jesus existed. Please stay on topic.

How is Tacitus' reference "particularly fascinating", since he only mentions that Nero used Christians as a ready excuse for his act of arson? I mean, that's it. What is fascinating about that?

Oh, I see, because he also says that Christians were the hatred of the world. You wanted to remind us of how evil Christians were, right?
 
DOC,

Look, you have an easy way out of this -- at least any call for independent attestation as to the resurrection. All you have to say is that it is not possible for there to be independent sources for the resurrection as they would all be Christians. Anyone who knew of the resurrection would necessarily be Christian (or a total depraved individual who we could not trust, or a complete idiot), so there is no reason to ask for independent sources for it.

There is no easy way out of the poor logic that Geisler displays. It's probably best to let that go.
 
DOC said:
But a full tomb would disprove the resurrection, so an empty tomb can be considered partial evidence towards a resurrection.
Click to expand...
No it can't, because an empty tomb has multiple mundane explanations. The lack of a corpse doesn't mean that the corpse doesn't exist.
 
DOC said:
But a full tomb would disprove the resurrection, so an empty tomb can be considered partial evidence towards a resurrection.
Click to expand...

joobz said:
No it can't, because an empty tomb has multiple mundane explanations. The lack of a corpse doesn't mean that the corpse doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

So if you were a lawyer trying to prove the resurrection as more likely than not you wouldn't present the empty tomb as "part" of your evidence.
 
DOC said:
So if you were a lawyer trying to prove the resurrection as more likely than not you wouldn't present the empty tomb as "part" of your evidence.
Click to expand...


Heck no! As joobz mentioned, the empty tomb itself is pure hearsay, and even if it were true, it is only evidence that Jesus isn't buried there, not that he is walking around on earth, or that he rose up into heaven.

C'mon DOC, surely there is some evidence of the resurrection. No?
 
DOC said:
So if you were a lawyer trying to prove the resurrection as more likely than not you wouldn't present the empty tomb as "part" of your evidence.
Click to expand...
Uh no. Presenting an "empty" tomb as evidence would be like presenting an empty crypt as evidence that King tut had risen from the dead and was a walking mummy.

I could easily claim that an empty tomb would be evidence that Jesus survived the crucifixion or became a brain eating zombie or was taken up into space by alines or was eaten by rats or was dumped into a Roman mass grave etc.

Since all we have is here say evidence from true believers that contradict archeological and historical evidence of the common practice of Jewish and Roman traditions and laws, one has to wonder. Do we believe cultists or independent non-biased evidence from the Romans and Jews?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
DOC,

Look, you have an easy way out of this -- at least any call for independent attestation as to the resurrection. All you have to say is that it is not possible for there to be independent sources for the resurrection as they would all be Christians. Anyone who knew of the resurrection would necessarily be Christian (or a total depraved individual who we could not trust, or a complete idiot), so there is no reason to ask for independent sources for it.
Click to expand...

This is not true. Paul was not a Christian, in fact he even brutally persecuted them. And he claimed to see the resurrected Christ. He also said 500 other people saw the resurrected Christ at one time and most of them were still alive. 1 Cor 15: 5-8

http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/1cor15.html

Christ being seen by 500 people at once could explain the tremendous growth of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire even in the face of possible torture and death. Paul was really putting himself on the line by saying most of the 500 were still alive. Skeptics of the time would certainly be able to track down some of the over 250 witnesses still alive.
 
DOC said:
This is not true. Paul was not a Christian, in fact he even brutally persecuted them. And he claimed to see the resurrected Christ. He also said 500 other people saw the resurrected Christ at one time and most of them were still alive. 1 Cor 15: 5-8

http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/1cor15.html

Christ being seen by 500 people at once could explain the tremendous growth of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire even in the face of possible torture and death. Paul was really putting himself on the line by saying most of the 500 were still alive. Skeptics of the time would certainly be able to track down some of the over 250 witnesses still alive.
Click to expand...


It could also be due to temporal lobe epilepsy (as has been pointed out to you before).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2717838#post2717838
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2718900#post2718900
 
Hokulele said:
Heck no! As joobz mentioned, the empty tomb itself is pure hearsay, and even if it were true, it is only evidence that Jesus isn't buried there, not that he is walking around on earth, or that he rose up into heaven.

C'mon DOC, surely there is some evidence of the resurrection. No?
Click to expand...

How about the fact that we're talking about a carpenter who lived 2000 years ago.
 
DOC said:
This is not true. Paul was not a Christian, in fact he even brutally persecuted them. And he claimed to see the resurrected Christ. He also said 500 other people saw the resurrected Christ at one time and most of them were still alive. 1 Cor 15: 5-8

http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/1cor15.html

Christ being seen by 500 people at once could explain the tremendous growth of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire even in the face of possible torture and death. Paul was really putting himself on the line by saying most of the 500 were still alive. Skeptics of the time would certainly be able to track down some of the over 250 witnesses still alive.
Click to expand...
So we have a story of a true believer claim this vision of seeing Jesus(Paul never met this Jesus person when he was alive and didn't even know how this person supposedly looked like) and an alleged 500 witnesses that can never be verified?
Does your other gospels even corroborate his claim?
Where are any of the other writings of these witnesses?

Hey, I claim that Mr Boo saw Zeus and had 10,000 witnesses. Skeptics in 1000BC should be able to track down these witnesses. :rolleyes:

Try again. Your arguments are getting more desperate and even more moronic.
 
DOC said:
How about the fact that we're talking about a carpenter who lived 2000 years ago.
Click to expand...
Wow, I thought we are talking about an alleged god man who was (but was not) god?
Yeah what about it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom