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

[Akhenaten]

So then you don't believe evidence of an empty tomb increases the probability in any way that the resurrection occurred?

What empty tomb?

Is Akhenaten's empty tomb in the Royal Wadi at Tel el Amarna evidence that Akhenaten was resurrected?


Oh, hang on . . .

 

[DOC]

So you are reading what christian fundamentalist have to say on the matter.
What do you expect them to say? They are just as deluded as you are. [no of fence is meant] But really, don't you think you should read some true scholar, like Bart Erhman who is not biased in any way.

So your argument is Christians can't be objective. That is hogwash. Knowledgeable Christians can be just as objective as anyone else. This whole thread is about stone cold objective evidence.

And I have read many of Bart Erhman's arguments in this critique of his book:

Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" [Paperback]
by Timothy Paul Jones:

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Truth-Guide-Fallacies-Ehrmans/dp/0830834478

And no one is stopping anyone from bringing Bart E's arguments into this thread, and in fact some have.

 

[Akhenaten]

So your argument is Christians can't be objective.

No, DOC. The argument presented was that Christian fundamentalists can't be objective.

Rewording the post that you're pretending to respond to doesn't alter that at all; it just serves to demonstrate the complete dishonesty of your agenda.

That is hogwash. Knowledgeable Christians can be just as objective as anyone else.

We know this. That why, for instance cj.23's posts have been welcomed by even the most skeptical of us. cj.23 is a knowledgable Christian. You most definitely are not.

This whole thread is about stone cold objective evidence.

Which you have been utterly unable to provide.

And I have read many of Bart Erhman's arguments in this critique of his book:

Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" [Paperback]
by Timothy Paul Jones:

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Truth-Guide-Fallacies-Ehrmans/dp/0830834478

Are you seriously trying to claim that reading an apologists attempted refutation of Erhman's book is the same thing as having read the book itself?

Srsly???

That's just flat out lying to yourself. It's too ridiculous to believe you're trying to fool anyone else with it.

And no one is stopping anyone from bringing Bart E's arguments into this thread, and in fact some have.

The problem with the thread is your refusal to take any notice whatever of any arguments presented which might detract from your mission of using the the forum as a platform from which to preach your ridiculous version of the fairytale in which you pretend to believe.

Well, alright then, it's not really a problem at all. It's bloody hilarious.

Carry on.

 

[Mojo]

So then you don't feel an empty tomb {justifiable according to the cannons of historical research}

You're certainly outgunned as far as logic is concerned, but you won't win an argument by resorting to artillery.

 

[welshdean]

Ok DOC, I'll play!

Let's take a closer look at the resurrection.

Q1) To whom did Jesus make his first post-resurrection appearance?

The two Marys
Matthew 28:1, 9
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.... And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Mary Magdalene
Mark 16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
John 20:11-14
But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping ... and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
Cleopas and another
Luke 24:13-31
And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus.... And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? ... And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
Cephas
1 Corinthians 15:4-5
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.

Q2) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples after the resurrection?

On a mountain top in Galilee.
Matthew 28:16
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him.
In a room in Jerusalem.
Mark 16:14
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Luke 24:33-37
And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
John 20:19
Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. Q3) Where did Jesus tell his disciples to go after his resurrection?

Q3) Where did Jesus tell his disciples to go after his resurrection?

He told them to go to Galilee.
Matthew 28:10
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
Mark 16:7
But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

He told them to tarry in Jerusalem.
Luke 24:49
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Acts 1:4
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Q4) How many disciples did Jesus appear to in his first post resurrection appearance?

Twelve
1 Corinthians 15:5
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.

Eleven
Matthew 28:16-17
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him,they worshipped him: but some doubted.
Mark 16:14
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Luke 24:33-37
And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, ... And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

Ten
John 20:24
But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

Did Jesus forewarn the apostles of his death and resurrection?

Yes, he did.
Matthew 20:18-19
Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.
Matthew 26:31-32
Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.
Mark 8:31
And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
Mark 10:33-34
Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
Mark 14:28
But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.
Luke 18:31-33
Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

No, he did not.
John 20:9
For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

So then you don't feel an empty tomb {justifiable according to the cannons of historical research} is some evidence for the possibility of the resurrection being true?

You see DOC the new teste-ment can't agree with itself on a pivotal part of the story. This is another reason why you can't use it as evidence of the new teste-ments veracity.




My thanks to the SAB for their help in collating this Q&A

 

[Akhenaten]

So then you don't feel an empty tomb {justifiable according to the cannons of historical research}

You're certainly outgunned as far as logic is concerned, but you won't win an argument by resorting to artillery.

I dare say he missed the whole point of this:

 

[welshdean]

So then you don't believe evidence of an empty tomb increases the probability in any way that the resurrection occurred?

Nope, not in any way. The only thing that I can say about that tomb is that it is empty. It is not evidence that a body was put in there. It is not evidence that a body 'sprang' back to life in there. It is not evidence of grave robbers. It is not evidence that the body was squirrelled away by devotees during the night. It is simply evidence of an empty tomb. Why can't you grasp that, why do you make huge leaps?
Aside from all that, what evidence do you have of an empty tomb? Remember now DOC, you cant use the new teste-ment as your evidence.

 

[joobz]

So then you don't feel an empty tomb {justifiable according to the cannons of historical research} is some evidence for the possibility of the resurrection being true?

Ah yes, the police often conclude that when they can't find a body that it was resurrected. Our court systems are simply loaded with unsolved resurrection cases.

 

[Akhenaten]

So then you don't feel an empty tomb {justifiable according to the cannons of historical research} is some evidence for the possibility of the resurrection being true?

Ah yes, the police often conclude that when they can't find a body that it was resurrected. Our court systems are simply loaded with unsolved resurrection cases.

Especially when this guy is on the case:

​

 

[joobz]

So your argument is Christians can't be objective. That is hogwash. Knowledgeable Christians can be just as objective as anyone else. This whole thread is about stone cold objective evidence.

And I have read many of Bart Erhman's arguments in this critique of his book:

Then you haven't actually read Erhman's arguments, or understood his point.
I read parts of Timothy Jones' book, and found it to be a rather poor attempt at countering Erhman's arguments.

I find it interesting you would read this instead of the actual book. I think it exposes your fear of learning things that challenge your preconceived views.

 

[Aepervius]

So then you don't feel an empty tomb {justifiable according to the cannons of historical research} is some evidence for the possibility of the resurrection being true?

1) no evidence of such a tomb existing
2) no evidence a body was put IN to begin with
3) no evidence nobody STOLE the body for other purpose (looting, body usage in making up mummy, cannibalism, necrophilia , or just plain local authority wanting to have a martyr body used get ride of the body, and I pass many others)

summary : no evidence whatsoever of anything , no evidence even that natural explanation could be discarded.

ooooh and I forgot this one DOC : Is an empty tomb evidence of a resurection ? If yes, then I have bad news for you, there are a lot of empty tomb, with folk believing in various sort of afterlife and resurection , before even christianity existed. So why would not be those guy resurcted while YOU hold evidence an empty tomb is a proof of resurection ?

 

[Akhenaten]

Spot that fallacy!

How can you tell when DOC is about to commit a straw man or red herring fallacy?

So then you don't feel . . .

So then you believe . . .

So then you don't believe . . .

So you're another skeptic who believes . . .

So your argument is . . .

Easy peasy.

 

[zooterkin]

So then you don't believe evidence of an empty tomb increases the probability in any way that the resurrection occurred?

Have you got any such evidence? Not just any empty tomb of course.

 

[welshdean]

Especially when this guy is on the case:

​

 

[welshdean]

Spot that fallacy!

How can you tell when DOC is about to commit a straw man or red herring fallacy?

His lips move!

 

[RoboTimbo]

So then you don't feel an empty tomb {justifiable according to the cannons of historical research} is some evidence for the possibility of the resurrection being true?

That's a good question, DOC. Let me ask it of you instead. Do you feel that empty tombs are evidence that the person who should be inside it has risen from the dead?

No special pleading now. YES or NO, DOC?

 

[John Jones]

<crickets chirping>

 

[Elizabeth I]

So then you don't feel an empty tomb {justifiable according to the cannons of historical research} is some evidence for the possibility of the resurrection being true?

Well, King Tut's tomb is empty, and he's even been wandering around the world (not too many years ago he was in Dallas, I believe, or at least a number of his belongings were), but I haven't heard a single solitary person argue that King Tut has been resurrected.

And what caliber are your cannons of history? Pea-shooters, apparently, not even rising to the impressiveness of a slingshot.

Spot that fallacy!

How can you tell when DOC is about to commit a straw man or red herring fallacy?

His lips move!

Or, in this case of course, his keyboard is clicking.

 

[kmortis]

So then you don't feel an empty tomb {justifiable according to the cannons of historical research} is some evidence for the possibility of the resurrection being true?

In central Illinois there stands a mausoleum. This crypt has seven empty tombs. One is mine. Is that evidence for my ressurection?

 

[welshdean]

So then you don't feel an empty tomb {justifiable according to the cannons of historical research} is some evidence for the possibility of the resurrection being true?

I wonder what you make of The Moving Coffins of Barbados DOC.