The Evidence Skeptics would like to see for the Resurrection Claim

[Adrift]

So a sixth century writer comments on the writings of a late second century writer who wrote about the customs of the early and mid first century.

Not exactly. A sixth century legal document contained laws from the 1st and 2nd century. Since you're completely out of your zone here, let me assure you that vast amounts of our knowledge of the ancient world comes from later documentation, usually through several layers.

Not exactly eyewitness testimony.

Who said it was "eyewitness testimony?

But even if it is correct, notice this statement: "and sometimes it is not permitted, especially where persons have been convicted of high treason." Persons executed for high treason were usually NOT permitted to be buried. The Gospel of Mark clearly indicates that it was the crime of treason under Roman law that condemned Jesus to the cross, not blasphemy or any other violation of Jewish law.

Already dealt with.

There is nothing in Evans' statement that says that Jesus was NOT executed for claiming (and then refusing to deny) that he was the King of the Jews. Pilate may very well believed that Jesus was a looney pacifist and posed no threat to Rome but since Jesus refused to deny the charge of high treason against Caesar, Pilate's hand was forced.

Per Witherington, Jesus was killed because "He was rather seen as a present nuisance and a potentially dangerous threat".

Please provide a statement by Evans which states that Jesus was NOT crucified for the charge of claiming to be the King of the Jews. I'm not saying that I know what Evans believes on this subject but Ehrman seems to believe that Evans agrees with him on this issue.

Why should I do that? As far as I know Evans hasn't said that Jesus wasn't charged for claiming to be King of the Jews. Rather, Evans is claiming that Jesus wasn't charged for high treason. The two are not necessarily synonymous. Jesus' movement was non-violent and non-militaristic. For what reason would Pilate assume that Jesus was committing high treason? If Pilate assumed Jesus was committing high treason then it's suspicious that he would replace him on the cross with Barabbas. If he knew that Jesus' movement was militaristic, he would have rounded up his followers. No, instead, he was executed for being a political nuisance.

[shunyadragon]

This is a questionable scenario as to what actually took place. Nonetheless the accusation of claiming to be the King of Jews is treason according to Roman Law, and the punishment is crucifixion. Those crucified for treason were unlikely released to families.

[Gary]

Sure I do. He was buried in a tomb in Jerusalem as recorded, which is historically accurate from other records and archeology in regards to Jewish burial. Since it's a perfectly natural account, that's how historians typically treat such accounts. The only reason for skeptic to remove it is for the sake of inconvenience to their theories.

"He was buried in Jerusalem as recorded, which is historically accurate..."

I notice that neither Nick or Stein "amen'd" your comment. I would bet that even they would not go so far as to state the Resurrection is known historical fact.

[Gary]

Not exactly. A sixth century legal document contained laws from the 1st and 2nd century. Since you're completely out of your zone here, let me assure you that vast amounts of our knowledge of the ancient world comes from later documentation, usually through several layers.



Who said it was "eyewitness testimony?



Already dealt with.



Per Witherington, Jesus was killed because "He was rather seen as a present nuisance and a potentially dangerous threat".



Why should I do that? As far as I know Evans hasn't said that Jesus wasn't charged for claiming to be King of the Jews. Rather, Evans is claiming that Jesus wasn't charged for high treason. The two are not necessarily synonymous. Jesus' movement was non-violent and non-militaristic. For what reason would Pilate assume that Jesus was committing high treason? If Pilate assumed Jesus was committing high treason then it's suspicious that he would replace him on the cross with Barabbas. If he knew that Jesus' movement was militaristic, he would have rounded up his followers. No, instead, he was executed for being a political nuisance.

"potentially dangerous threat" to whom??? The Jews? Not hardly. The Romans executed Jesus because they viewed him as a threat to ROME. He claimed to be the King of Israel, but Caesar was the King of Israel.

That
is
treason!

[Meh Gerbil]

This is a questionable scenario as to what actually took place. Nonetheless the accusation of claiming to be the King of Jews is treason according to Roman Law, and the punishment is crucifixion. Those crucified for treason were unlikely released to families.

Herod the Great thinks you're kind of funny.

[Meh Gerbil]

"potentially dangerous threat" to whom??? The Jews? Not hardly. The Romans executed Jesus because they viewed him as a threat to ROME. He claimed to be the King of Israel, but Caesar was the King of Israel.

That
is
treason!

Herod the Great thinks you and Shunyadragon make a nice couple.

[shunyadragon]

"potentially dangerous threat" to whom??? The Jews? Not hardly. The Romans executed Jesus because they viewed him as a threat to ROME. He claimed to be the King of Israel, but Caesar was the King of Israel.

That
is
treason!

I believe anyone that claimed to be the Messiah, the King of Jews, would be a threat to the establishment Jewish authorities, because it threatened the status quo hierarchy where they flourished cooperating with the Roman authorities. A rebellion would be disasterous, as happened later.

Actually Jesus was an unknown commodity at the time from the Roman and Jewish authorities it was known that he had apostles, and a following among the Jews.

The Romans could not afford to show a weakness and not crucify Jesus for treason and treat him as a potential threat if there was a popular uprising under him.

[Tassman]

Not in the real world. Where I live, I am in the majority; the overwhelming majority. People like Nick, Adrift, and Littlepix are seen as religious extremists and avoided like the plague.

But on TW, I often have that feeling. Yes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-z...b_9889398.html

I believe that fundamentalist religion will destroy the world. The deluded religious belief that any one people or church is obedient to the "word of god" and that all others are in error, is the root cause of almost all our troubles.

[Tassman]

I don't remember anyone claiming that the majority of scholars had any view, one way or the other, on "magic stuff".

You'll notice that the "secure facts" statement is still within the citation tags, so, those aren't "my" secure facts, they're E.P. Sanders.

believed about him by the time gospels were composed some 40+ years after his death.

I'll also note your chronological snobbery in passing.

"chronological snobbery!

It's self-evident that the lack of eyewitness reportage about the events of Jesus' wondrous life and alleged resurrection, severely compromise their reliability as believable stories.

[Meh Gerbil]

I believe that fundamentalist religion will destroy the world. The deluded religious belief that any one people or church is obedient to the "word of god" and that all others are in error, is the root cause of almost all our troubles.

Your beliefs are cute but we're about evidence on this forum.
The evidence shows that when it comes to killing for an ideology atheists are more deadly (20X) than Christianity, Islam, and Judaism combined.

I'm trying to clear up a misconception on your part.
Please don't kill me.

[Adrift]

Again, I have no idea what you mean by "magic stuff". Who here in this thread made the claim that the majority of scholars had such a view one way or the other?

No, it's not that they don't accept the miracles in Jesus life, it's that discussion about the validity of the miraculous belongs to another discipline, specifically, the study of theology. I guarantee you that in their non-academic work, there are plenty of NT scholars who DO accept the miraculous. Also, It remains the case that the majority of scholars accept the empty tomb tradition as historical in their academic work.

I haven't missed the point. No one has said that Sanders' list concerned the reality of alleged miracles. You're being paranoid.

They are merely what Jesus' followers believed about him by the time gospels were composed some 40+ years after his death.

Of course! You seriously assumed I thought otherwise?

It's self-evident that the lack of eyewitness reportage about the events of Jesus' wondrous life and alleged resurrection, severely compromise their reliability as believable stories.

And yet, the majority of NT scholars, even critical scholars, accept the empty tomb tradition.

[Adam]

They are merely what Jesus' followers believed about him by the time gospels were composed some 40+ years after his death.

Of course! You seriously assumed I thought otherwise?
.

I for one do think otherwise. Why is no one interested in learning that the writing of the gospels by eyewitnesses started even before the Crucifixion?

[Tassman]

Your beliefs are cute but we're about evidence on this forum.

The evidence shows that when it comes to killing for an ideology atheists are more deadly (20X) than Christianity, Islam, and Judaism combined.

Nonsense! Totalitarian regimes, whether religion based or politically based, attempt to eliminate all who oppose them. This is the very nature of totalitarianism. We saw this with fascism and we saw it with the Crusades.

I'm trying to clear up a misconception on your part.

Epic fail!

Please don't kill me.

[Tassman]

Again, I have no idea what you mean by "magic stuff". Who here in this thread made the claim that the majority of scholars had such a view one way or the other?

Sure you do; its stuff that cannot be explained via natural means. In short the alleged miracles that make Jesus special. Without the magic the Jesus story is merely that of a nomadic preacher who was crucified by the Romans for high treason. In short a story of no great interest at all.

No, it's not that they don't accept the miracles in Jesus life, it's that discussion about the validity of the miraculous belongs to another discipline, specifically, the study of theology. I guarantee you that in their non-academic work, there are plenty of NT scholars who DO accept the miraculous. Also, It remains the case that the majority of scholars accept the empty tomb tradition as historical in their academic work.

I haven't missed the point. No one has said that Sanders' list concerned the reality of alleged miracles. You're being paranoid.

And yet, the majority of NT scholars, even critical scholars, accept the empty tomb tradition.

Ehrman holds the view because no empty tomb is mentioned in the earliest New Testament source, namely the writings of Paul, that it was therefore a later addition. This is the view of many scholars. But even if there was an empty tomb, there are several possible natural explanations for the missing body rather than positing a miraculous one.

[Adam]

My Post #237 remains unanswered.
Put aside whether there is any validity to my claim that there are seven written eyewitness accounts of Jesus as sources within the four gospels.
Just ask yourself why no one is even interested.