Resurrection Reported VERY Early
Some people say that the resurrection is myth. Unfortunately for them, scholars report that the earliest testimony for the resurrection goes back to the very year it supposedly occurred– far too early for mythological development. New Testament Scholar Craig Blomberg reports that one such scholar is even an atheist. This is from Blomberg’s blog (HT: Melinda Penner at STR.org):
At the “Earnestly Contending” Apologetics conference at New Life Church in Smithfield, RI, this weekend, Professor Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University, an internationally known expert on the resurrection of Jesus, reported on a forthcoming work of Richard Bauckham, prolific New Testament scholar for many years at the University of St. Andrews. In it, Habermas explained, Bauckham builds on research by evangelical writer Larry Hurtado and atheist historian Gerd Ludemann, both of whom have argued that belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus must have emerged within two or three years of the death of Jesus (whether or not one believes it actually happened).
The argument goes like this. 1 Corinthians 15:3-6 contains, in credal form, a list of the eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. By including reference to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, Paul makes it clear he is talking about bodily resurrection. But verses 1-2 describe that this is information that Paul passed on just as he had received it, using verbs that were technical terms for the transmission of oral tradition. When would Paul have first learned this information? Almost certainly as one of the very fundamentals of the Christian faith taught him when he first became a follower of the Risen Jesus–perhaps by Ananias who instructed him while he was still temporarily blind, in Damascus, after the Risen Christ appeared to him en route.
But when one compiles the most probable dates of the relevant events, based on Paul’s own information in Galatians 1-2, if Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30, the most likely date, then Paul’s conversion must have come no more than two years later, in 32. (See any standard conservative New Testament introduction for how the dates are computed). But for Paul to have been given an already established creed including resurrection witnesses, known not just in Jerusalem but also in Damascus, some time must have already elapsed for this foundational information to have been crystallized in this form and become widely known in the various locations believers lived and become widely agreed on as the kind of information to be passed on to each new convert.
Ludemann, the atheist, says this means within one to two years from Jesus’ death, it was widely agreed on that Christ had been bodily resurrected. Bauckham, according to Habermas, apparently moves that date back to within about one-half year’s time, in order for the necessary time to elapse for this to become widely standardized by the time of Paul’s conversion.
One may still choose to follow Ludemann’s antisupernaturalism (we know resurrections can’t happen) and thus opt for some version of the mass hallucination hypothesis. But the most common skeptical alternative in recent years, that the resurrection stories are just late myths in which beliefs about Jesus’ cause living on became embodied in mythological garb, simply doesn’t have the decades (or sometimes centuries) needed for it to have developed the way all other ancient myths did. At some point, one has to say that it takes more faith to believe in the alternatives to the historic, Christian conviction at this point than to believe orthodox tradition!
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
That 2-3 years after Jesus’ death some believed in the bodily resurrection still leaves us a bit short of that point at which it’ll take more “faith” to hesitate in accepting the truth of their belief. I’m sure I’m missing something.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Okay, just read the article here….I want to comment on it, but I’m not sure how to do it without saying something I’ve already said. So here’s my best attempt:
(1) Circumstantial evidence, at best; hardly “proof” to the extent it is claimed here.
(2) Taking stabs at people who don’t accept this as such “proof” is hardly capable of convincing said people. I’m sure you knew someone like me would read this and think of point #1, and so I can only wonder if you really were aiming to convince anyone at all….
(3) I would be more content to listen to such hearings of “evidence” in the future if the people presenting them didn’t seem so suspiciously sure of themselves….I understand that you have a clear agenda to promote the story of Jesus’ resurrection, and although I disagree with that agenda I can’t say I blame you given that you’re Christian. However, proof is proof and this is not proof, at least not to me. If the claim in this article had been approached from a more skeptical angle, I might have read it differently, but I’m often easily turned away from sources that claim to be so sure of something based on so little. It leads me to question, “if they consider this ‘irrefutable evidence’ or anything close to that — if they are unwilling to consider even the faintest possibility of a different scenario — then who’s to say that their definition of the term ‘proof’ is even reliable or accurate?”
In a basic sense, what I mean is….it’s hard to trust someone who seems so sure of himself that he will criticize dissenters based on so little information. I’m not saying this to be irritable, but to put it bluntly….you’re hurting your cause more than you’re helping it, here.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
According to Galatians 1, Paul received the gospel directly by revelation from Jesus Christ. I don’t see how Habermas or Blomberg can endorse Ludemann’s assertion that the creed was already established without denying Paul’s testimony.
My theory is that Paul was persecuting Christians when he picked up the details of his creed from torture victims and informants who would have told him any crazy story just to get him off their backs. After he had his hallucination on the road to Damascus, Paul just assumed that everything he had been told was really true.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Vinny,
Just because Paul may have received the Gospel directly from God doesn’t mean that others hadn’t witnessed it or received it before him. In fact, that’s exactly what the article says and must have happened if Jesus actually did rise from the dead. Paul learned of it a couple of years after the fact.
Also, hallucinations don’t happen in groups. Did everyone hallucinate? How does it explain the empty tomb or the Jewish explanation for why the tomb was empty?
Tim,
Everyone has an agenda (including you), but that does not mean the evidence presented is false. Otherwise, we could believe no one.
“Too sure of himself”– please. That’s not counter evidence. And it backfires on you. Should we trust you? After all, you seem sure of yourself that being sure of yourself somehow makes you untrustworthy.
Are there any points in favor of Christianity that you might consider plausible, or does your agenda preclude you from such consideration? At least Dr. Ludemann is honest about the evidence (the early reporting) even if he doesn’t agree with the conclusion (the resurrection).
I sincerely appreciate you commenting here, but your knee-jerk opposition to everything that could lend any creedence to Christianity causes me to doubt your sincerity and crediblity. Let me know if I’m judging you wrongly.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:31 pm
“Too sure of himself”– please. That’s not counter evidence. And it backfires on you. Should we trust you? After all, you seem sure of yourself that being sure of yourself somehow makes you untrustworthy.
I’m just letting you know how non-Christians perceive your behavior. If you’d rather believe that I’m some kind of super-unique outcast in that my beliefs aren’t an accurate portrayal of the atheistic/agnostic belief system, then that is your choice to make, and I won’t stand in your way.
And for the record, I didn’t say your surefootedness was evidence that you were wrong (I reserve that claim for your “evidence” itself; it’s circumstancial at best, in that it proves nothing except that something is not impossible). Just that it doesn’t make listening to your “evidence” any easier, from a dissenting perspective, and that you’re willing to say “it’s proven” based on so little is evidence to me that your agenda surpasses the need for actual, universal evidence. Basically, what I’m saying is that it makes you appear untrustworthy; someone who does not agree with you is not likely to take what you say for granted if they can see the way you rationalize through this situation, because to you this constitutes “proof” whereas to them it does not. If your goal is to reach people whose minds are not necessarily open to your ideas (and who don’t hang around here as much and therefore don’t understand your argumentative tactics), then I think you could do better.
Of course, it was my understanding that one of the basic ideas of Christian Apologetics was to make Christianity appear to be a valid viewpoint in the eyes of people who might not normally think so. If that’s not the case, then I suppose I should retract my criticism.
I sincerely appreciate you commenting here, but your knee-jerk opposition to everything that could lend any creedence to Christianity causes me to doubt your sincerity and crediblity. Let me know if I’m judging you wrongly.
If you would admit it to be just that — something that could lend creedence to Christianity — as opposed to “something that proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt,” then I might be more inclined to take your side of things, because I do believe that much. But as it stands, I obviously don’t think what you’ve said here “proves” Christianity in any way; it simply attacks one specific counterpoint, which actually has very little weight with regard to why I am not Christian. I also disagree with the statement that it “takes more faith to believe in the ‘alternatives’ than it does to believe in the traditional Christian orthodoxy!” That’s quite a bold claim that is not entirely met by the purported “evidence.”
In short….if I had to explain away the Bible (or irrefutably disprove/refute its claims to the supernatural) in order to disbelieve it, then I would have to do the same of every other religion, or for anything I disbelieve (such as the existence of invisible pink unicorns, or time-travelling teleporting sorcerers from the future). But the folly here is that it’s impossible to prove a negative in the sense of the supernatural; arguments/fallacies such as God of the Gaps can easily mangle any explanation to that end, in that it’s technically possible even if not very likely. No, my (dis)belief in Christianity is not founded on disproven claims, any more than my disbelief in Islam or Judaism is based on such things. It’s based on the rational appeal of more secular ideas such as evolutionary principle and the scientific method.
I guess what I mean is: there’s a part of me that gets a little fired up when I hear someone say they’ve “proven” something like this. It interests me deeply. And I feel quite a bit let down when I read it and find out that it’s simply another idea, another perspective, twisted by an individual’s agenda to mean something that it is not. It makes me lose more faith in a system of thought that I already don’t trust very much. It reminds me of that Obama article you linked to in that other posting — the one about abortion — and how all of these apocalyptic claims were made in that article, and yet very few of them were grounded in real consequential action; most of them were just rhetorical claims included in a sad attempt at emotional impact (and on top of that, lots of bills and claims were mentioned, but there were absolutely zero links to any sources to verify those assertions; I’m either expected to know every aspect of every law that passes through congress, or I’m forced to take this clearly biased fellow’s word for everything). That is what I think of your claims here, that this constitutes “proof” of anything; a fired-up spin on something that is really no more than a basic theory, at best.
And as for my “sincerity” and “credibility,” question them all you like~ If your criteria for evidence to that end is as shallow as your criteria for evidence towards your own agenda, then I don’t really stand a chance to prove my case one way or the other anyway, now do I? Feel free to judge me however you choose.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
P.S.
I realize perhaps my last post was unclear…..the basic problem I have with your claim of proof here lies in the claim it addresses — the idea that Jesus is a mythological figure that was established post-mortem, many years later, as a metaphor of the survival of his legacy beyond his own death. Now, if this were a provable claim, then obviously it would destroy Christianity. But the alternative is not as true; if it could be proven wrong, that wouldn’t really mean that Christianity is “true” or “proven;” it would only mean that Christianity is not disproven. That does not completely prove it, of course; if every false claim about Christianity that has been/will be debunked could be considered “proof that Christianity is true,” then it would be the same as me saying to you right now, “the Bible was written by a ghost writer in the 1900’s, and therefore it’s not real and it’s a sham.” To which you could respond, “well, actually, it was written much earlier than that,” citing historical records that show that it was printed at any particular time before that, and there we would have “proof” that Christianity is real.
What I mean to say is….the author of the article has addressed a particular theory, yes. And I applaud the effort; not everyone is as dedicated to keeping your side of the conversation going as far as folks like him seem to be. But in addressing that theory, he has hardly made it such that the following statement is true:
At some point, one has to say that it takes more faith to believe in the alternatives to the historic, Christian conviction at this point than to believe orthodox tradition!
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Frank,
The fact that Paul received it directly from Christ does not eliminate the possibility that others received it earlier, however, Ludemann’s argument assumes that Paul received it from those earlier believers. You cannot simultaneously affirm Ludemann’s argument and Paul’s account because they are in conflict as to where Paul got the creed.
Whether or not hallucinations happen in groups, hallucinations are sometimes reported as happening to groups. On October 13, 1917, 70,000 people were reported to have witnessed the Miracle of the Dancing Sun at Fatima. Similarly, Paul reports the appearance of Jesus to the 500 but he does not claim to have been a member of that group.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Vinny,
The point isn’t who gave it to Paul– the point is that the creed is early. And everyone agrees that it is early.
I don’t know the phenomena at Fatima, but my guess, if it wasn’t a miracle, was that there was some kind of external, observable natural, manifestation. That is not an hallucination which occurs inside someone’s mind independent of external factors. Moreover, it still does not explain the empty tomb or the birth of Christianity in the very city where everyone knew he had been buried.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Tim,
Obviously Blomberg is not saying that this one fact proves Christianity. He is saying that this is another fact in a long list of facts (you need to read his books) that requires one to have more faith to believe Jesus was mythological rather than historical.
Blessings,
Frank
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Frank,
What do you mean the point isn’t who gave it to Paul? Doesn’t it matter whether Paul was telling the truth in Galatians 1:12?
The first mention of the empty tomb occurs in the Gospel of Mark written some thirty years after Jesus’ death. Not much point in looking for Jesus’ body then.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:15 am
Vinny,
Yes he was telling the truth. But why couldn’t Peter and James have told him the same thing three years later (Gal. 18-19)?
I don’t accept the late dating of Mark, but even if it were true, it’s not date of the writing but the date of the evidence. If one interviews an eyewitness of a personally tramatic event that happened 30 years ago, the testimony is still credible even if you write the story today. The NT is filled with eyewitness oral creeds that predate its writing. 1 Cor. 15:3-8 is one of them, and as most scholars agree, its source material goes back to the date itself. That’s the point of the article.
Moreover, the empty tomb is implied in 1 Cor 15. If you have a death and a resurrection, you obviously have an empty tomb. There’s no need to mention it as part of the gospel. (Do you mention an empty crib when a baby dies of SIDS?) But you do mention an empty tomb if you’re writing an account of the day of his resurrection and how they discovered he was resurrected. That’s what the gospels do.
Again, the hallucination theory cannot account for this fact or the birth of the church in the city in which Jesus was buried.
Blessings,
Frank
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:37 am
I’m not aware of any corrobarative evidence of the ressurection outside of the bible. In fact I’ve heard many atheists argue that it’s hard to prove that Jesus even existed. Compare it to the evidence we have for many of his contempories. Given that, whether or not he rose from the dead is a rather moot point.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 am
Andrew,
There are ten known non-Christian writers who mention Jesus within 150 years of his life. By contrast, over the same 150 years, there are nine non-Christian sources who mention Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor at the time of Jesus. So discounting all the Christian sources, Jesus is actually mentioned by one more source than the Roman emperor. If you include the Christian sources, authors mentioning Jesus outnumber those mentioning Tiberius 43 to 10.
Some of these non-Christian sources, such as Celsus, Tacitus, and the Jewish Talmud, could be considered anti-Christian sources. While these works do not have any eyewitness testimony that contradicts events described in the New Testament documents, they are works written by writers whose tone is decidedly anti-Christian.
These sources admit certain facts about early Christianity that help us piece together a storyline that is surprisingly congruent with the New Testament. Piecing together all ten non-Christian references, we see that:
1. Jesus lived during time of Tiberius Caesar.
2. He lived a virtuous life.
3. He was a wonder-worker.
4. He had a brother named James.
5. He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.
6. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
7. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.
8. Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.
9. His disciples believed he rose from the dead.
10. His disciples were willing to die for their belief.
11. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome.
12._ His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus _as God.
In light of these non-Christian references, the theory that Jesus never existed is clearly unreasonable. How could non-Christian writers collectively reveal a storyline congruent with the New Testament if Jesus never existed?
Blessings,
Frank
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 am
I’ll admit here to doing some googling and cut and pasting here Frank. These are not my words, but I’m interested as to your response:
Evidence for Caesar: During his lifetime, we have his own writings, the works of Julius Caesar. We have the writings of several well respected contemporary historians, such as the writings of Cattallus & Cicero. Immediately after his death we have many more historical references to Caesar. In 42-43 B.C. Caesar’s ally Sallust wrote one of the more famous, called Bellum Catilinae.
Evidence for Jesus: The earliest existing accounts of Jesus as described in the 4 varying gospels, written by unknown theological authors, surfaced some 150yrs after his supposed death – there are no historical references of Jesus whatsoever. The gospels cannot be considered historical or contemporary. Archaeologists date to the early 3rd century the oldest incomplete fragments conclusively belonging to the gospels. A fragment of the gospel of John dating to the late 2nd century may exist, but this is inconclusive. No one explicitly mentions Jesus Christ of the synoptic gospels until the late 2nd century writings of St. Irenaeus and Theopholis.
With respect to Jesus, there is simply no reliable historical evidence whatsoever. Documents showing up a century and a half later than someone’s supposed death written by unknown religious authors is not reliable evidence for a historical Jesus.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 am
Peter and James could have told Paul the same thing or they could have told him something completely different or they could have told him nothing at all. We don’t know. Before he met Peter and James, Paul had already preached successfully for three years based on whatever understanding of Jesus’ life and ministry he had acquired prior to his experience on the road to Damascus. As Paul makes clear, he did not need to have anything confirmed. Given Paul’s superior learning, his successful preaching, his intensity, and his past violence towards people who disagreed with him, I suspect that Peter and James would have been very wary of trying to straighten out any misimpressions that Paul might have held.
Even if 1 Cor 15 implies the existence of an empty tomb, it doesn’t imply that anyone knew where the tomb was. Jesus’ body could have been thrown into a common grave as was the usual practice with crucified criminals. Moreover, Paul does not say how long it was between the resurrection and the appearances. Nothing in Paul’s writings suggests that evidence of a missing body or an empty tomb played any role in his beliefs or anyone else’s.
Nowhere does the author of Mark say that he interviewed any eyewitnesses. He does not identify any sources for any of his stories.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Andrew,
I don’t know your source regarding Ceasar, but the earliest extant copy of the “Gallic Wars” is from 900 AD– that’s 1,000 years after it was written. By contrast, we have fragments of the New Testament within 25 years of its writing, not 150 years as you say. Moreover, most if not all of the NT documents were written prior to 70 AD. Chapters 9 and 10 of our book go into the evidence for this. I’ll post some of it later.
BTW, how’s the new baby? Getting any sleep yet?
Blessings,
Frank
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 am
Vinny,
Jesus’s tomb was a Jewish tomb. That’s the last place they’d say they put him if they were making it up. It would be too easily refuted if false. Instead the Jews came up with a story to explain the empty tomb– this isn’t just in Matthew, but was the explanation the Jews gave through the entire second century.
Blessings,
Frank
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 am
She’s now 4 and a half months old Frank, and very healthy. She slept right the way through the night for the first time earlier this week. You can see a pic of her if you put my name in Facebook (perhaps there are lots of other people with my name there, but mine is the result with a little girl with lots of spikey black hair).
Regarding my sources, like I said, it was just a quick google. I was interested in your reply, and wasn’t holding it up as ‘gotcha evidence’.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 am
Andrew, Wow! What an adorable baby! Where did she get that hair?
You certainly are blessed.
Frank
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Yes, I am blessed! Thanks for looking. She gets the hair from me (Mummy is a red head), though ironically alopecia means that currently I have very little hair myself (just one of those things).
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
Frank,
1 Cor 15 says nothing about any tomb whatsoever, much less a Jewish tomb. The earliest dating we have for that story is long after anyone would have been in a position to refute it.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
Vinny,
Yes, we’ve already established that about 1 Cor 15. The reference to the Jewish tomb is in Mt. 27:60, The Jewish explanation for the empty tomb continued through the 2nd Century. Moreover, the reference to many Jewish Priests in Jerusalem being converted in Acts 6:7 would have destroyed the credibility of their story for many years if it was fabricated. Why were Jewish Priests being converted in Jerusalem if there was no resurrection?
Blessings,
Frank
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Frank,
Once again you are talking about stories written thirty to forty years after the events. Moreover, Acts might have been written in Rome. How would any of Acts’ readers go about verifying whether unnamed Jewish priests had been converted 1400 miles away decades earlier?
Neither Matthew nor Acts is sufficient to establish the source or content of Paul’s beliefs.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Vinny,
According to Roman historian Colin Hemer, the book of Acts has 84 historically-confirmed eyewitness details, many of them obsure facts about the places Paul visited that only an eyewitness could know. It was written no later than 62 A.D. and there is no way anyone without eyewitness access could have written it. See Chapter 10 of our book for a listing of these details.
Others who confirm the authenticity of Luke include Sir William Ramsay and William Albright, two of the greatest archaeologists of the last century. Both were originally skeptics who found Luke incredibly accurate. Ramsay said this about Acts:
“I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts]. . . . It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.”
Acts certainly is a good source for Paul’s beliefs– Luke is traveling with him and records many of this teachings. See our book for more.
Blessings,
Frank
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Frank,
That still doesn’t explain how the reader’s of Luke would have been able to verify that some unnamed Jewish priests had converted thirty years earlier.
December 6th, 2008 at 9:07 am
I’m curious to know if any New Religious Movement has ever had a formal creed within 6 months of formation. I know of none, but would like to be told otherwise.
I wonder why the author of Luke/Acts never claims James was in any way related to Jesus, or had ever seen Jesus, alive or dead.
I guess even the best historians miss basic facts about the movement they are writing about.
When did 500+ Christians gather together, before Jesus ascended into a cloud on his way into the sky?
Was there a convention? That is a *lot* of people to gather together for a movement that had allegedly been sent into despair by the unexpected death of their Messiah (although he had predicted his death many timess)
Did the apostles go public with the news before the ascension of Jesus, and start converting people?
Or did 500+ Christians gather together after the ascension and so never have seen the resurrected body of Jesus? (Unless the Second Coming happened a bit sooner than than expected)
What sort of occasion could have brought 500+ Christians together in one place?
December 6th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Vinny,
They would have been able to vertify because eyewitnesses were still alive in 62 A.D.
Do you think Luke was making up a story and trying to pass it off as the truth? If so, don’t you think he would have lost all credibility for falsely saying that “a large number of priests” had been converted 30 earlier? After all, eyewitnesses– including Pharisee priests– were still alive in 62 A.D.
How does Luke know all those eyewitness details I mentioned? He’s obviously writing history. If not, what is he writing?
Blessings,
Frank
December 6th, 2008 at 9:21 am
FRANK
According to Roman historian Colin Hemer, the book of Acts has 84 historically-confirmed eyewitness details, many of them obsure facts about the places Paul visited that only an eyewitness could know.
CARR
How do you know them then?
Take one example. Why would only an eyewitness know that the people of Malta would expect somebody to be harmed by one of the snakes on their island, and that anybody not harmed by such a snake must have been a god?
‘A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in no little business for the craftsmen.’
Why would only an eyewitness know that the shrines to Artemis were in silver?
December 6th, 2008 at 9:27 am
FRANK
Moreover, the empty tomb is implied in 1 Cor 15. If you have a death and a resurrection, you obviously have an empty tomb.
CARR
And an empty tomb implies a resurrection?
December 6th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Hi Steven,
Thanks for contributing. BTW, do you have our book? Have you looked at all 84 details? Do you think someone could have made ALL of them up and gotten them ALL right by chance?
No, an empty tomb does not necessarily imply a resurrection, but it may in the case of Jesus given the other evidence about him. It is also difficult to explain why the Jews admitted the tomb was empty by their “disciples stole the body” explanation if Jesus was still in the tomb. How could Christianity have begun in Jerusalem immediately after Christ’s death if he was still in the tomb? The Jews or Romans would have stopped the nonsense right there.
Blessings,
Frank
December 6th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Frank,
How would a reader of Acts in Rome in 62 A.D. find eyewitnesses to what had happened in Jerusalem thirty years earlier?
Moreover, even if Acts was written in 62 A.D., we have no evidence that it passed immediately into general circulation. Clement of Rome does not seem to be aware of its existence in 95 A.D. What evidence do we have that Acts was generally known within the lifetime of eyewitnesses.
Moreover, there would only have been eyewitnesses if the thing actually happened. If one of those readers happened to travel to Jerusalem and find someone who said that they had not seen it happen, that would not prove that it did not happen. The only way to disprove it would be to find every priest who had been living Jerusalem at the time to ask them whether they had converted.
As far as I can see, the author of Luke ran little risk whatsoever of having his stories debunked.
December 6th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Vinny,
Do you believe Luke was making it all up?
Blessings,
Frank
December 6th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Frank,
I suspect that for the most part the author of Luke was passing along stories he had heard or read elsewhere.
December 6th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Vinny,
Then how did he know all those details without the use of modern technology? What could have been his motivation? Why do you doubt he was telling the truth?
Blessings,
Frank
December 7th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Frank didn’t answer my questions.
I am curious to know what NRM had a formal creed within a year of foundation, or what brought 500+ Christians together, before the disciples went public.
FRANK
It is also difficult to explain why the Jews admitted the tomb was empty by their “disciples stole the body” explanation if Jesus was still in the tomb.
CARR
Name one Jew who aid he saw an empty tomb.
I wonder why , according to Acts, Christians were never charged with grave-robbing.
Paul says Christians were persecuted on the issue of circumcision.
Acts has an alleged letter from a Roman. It says Paul was charged with nothing serious, apart from an internal Jewish dispute over Jewish laws.
I guess the Jews were just too dumb to think of telling the Romans that Paul was a follower of a criminal, who his followers claimed had cheated death and was still alive. If it had occurred to the Jews to have Paul charged with following a recently executed criminal, claimed to be still alive by his followers, then Paul’s defense that Jesus really had been killed would hardly have saved him.
You can imagine the trial scene :-
‘You are charged with following a rebel who claimed to be king, and who you claim still leads your movement, and whose body cannot be found. How do you plead?’
‘Not guilty. Jesus was crucified and is now in Heaven.’
‘Pathetic. If this criminal is still alive and leading your movement, then he obviously can’t have been killed. His body is missing. Do you think we Romans believe in people returning from the dead?’
But not even Acts claims Paul was ever charged with anything serious.
December 7th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Frank,
Gone With The Wind contains lots of accurate details about the Civi was but Margaret Mitchell did not witness them. She did research. Are you seriously going to tell me that details available to a 20th century historian were not available to the author of Acts?
December 7th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Vinny,
So Luke was writing an historical novel? Was that even a genre in the first century? Are you saying that Paul and Jesus didn’t really exist?
No, Luke did not have access to the modern maps, nautical charts or books like we do now. Isn’t that obvious?
Again, why don’t you think Luke was telling the truth?
Blessings,
Frank
December 7th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Steven,
Sorry, but I’m not following your line of reasoning. Please rephrase this:
I am curious to know what NRM had a formal creed within a year of foundation, or what brought 500+ Christians together, before the disciples went public.
Blessings,
Frank
December 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Frank,
I am not saying that the author of Luke was writing an historical novel. I am saying that getting facts right does not prove that a person was an eyewitness.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to answer my question now:
How would a reader of Acts in Rome in 62 A.D. find eyewitnesses to what had happened in Jerusalem thirty years earlier?
December 8th, 2008 at 8:35 am
I am at a loss how to rephrase the question of which New Religious Movement ever formalised a creed within 6 months of formation, or what sort of occassion could have brought 500+ Christians together for Jesus to appear to them.
VINNY
How would a reader of Acts in Rome in 62 A.D. find eyewitnesses to what had happened in Jerusalem thirty years earlier?
CARR
I think if prisoners on a ship could learn in one voyage all those amazing details from the crew about winds and depths of seas, then somebody could easily make a trip to Jerusalem to find eyewitnesses to events of 30 years earlier.
People picked up thinks so rapidly in those days. One trip as a prisoner on a ship made you an expert on technical nautical terms.
December 12th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Is this formal creed a translation, or did all these Aramaic speaking converts produce a formal creed in Greek?
December 17th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Hello Frank,
Off topic…
FYI: There’s a challenge from John Loftus (former Christian, now turned atheist/agnostic[?]) to Christian Apologists to debate him, and your name is on the list.
http://debunkingchristianity.b.....ll-of.html
Care to comment please.
Blessings,
Aaron
January 28th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Mr. Turek,
God Bless you!!! I love all your awesome info. God is definitely using you as a tool to reach the so called “wise”!
Thank you so much!!!!!!
God Bless you!!!!
April 7th, 2009 at 9:44 am
What early witnesses to this supposed resurrection are we talking about here? Why we’re talking about witnesses the Bible claims saw the resurrection. Where are the “early” secular contemporary witnesses to this event? How about an “early” secular writer mentioning this event like Philo who lived in and around Jerusalem during the first half of the first century? Why did no one like him mention this event?
The title of this blog is typical smoke and mirrors. Nothing is any different than the same old nonsense we’ve been hearing from Christians who desperately try to prove Jesus existed. Once again the Bible is used to prove the Bible is true. Citing the witnesses mentioned in this article is like trying to prove Rudolph’s red nose by citing the eyewitness testimony of Dancer. Smoke and mirrors.