Historical proof

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]provide the rythm
Spell much?
Or is that one of the rules of jazz?[/b]

If I was going to go all "Spelling Nazi" on someone, I don't think I'd do it on that word.

An alien who decodes the English language must have a puzzled look on its face when it reaches that word.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
If I was going to go all "Spelling Nazi" on someone, I don't think I'd do it on that word.

An alien who decodes the English language must have a puzzled look on its face when it reaches that word.

Nazi would be another one.
Same thing for hyperbole.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Either you truly have never studied the New Testament and its topics, or you're simply having a laugh.

No, I'm not having a laugh. I am aware that you believe that the New Testament is true and therefore "proof" of certain things and events, but that is your 'faith'. This thread is called "Historical proof". What proof do you have, aside from your religious writings, that the body was taken, lost, not lost, found or whatever. What corroborating evidence do you have?

The previous poster commented on how a body was never found when it was in the interests of the Roman Government that it be found: where is the historical proof [the thread topic, remember] that the Roman Government thought it was missing, ever went looking for it, or that there was ever any issue with regard to the body as far as it was concerned?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]provide the rythm
Spell much?
Or is that one of the rules of jazz?[/b]

Oh, that's just a wee bit petty, don't you think? It's jazz, dude. Jazz! Just let it all hang out,
and enjoy the r h y t h m. See? I can spell. Now, can you give me five?

Originally posted by FMF
No, I'm not having a laugh. I am aware that you believe that the New Testament is true and therefore "proof" of certain things and events, but that is your 'faith'. This thread is called "Historical proof". What proof do you have, aside from your religious writings, that the body was taken, lost, not lost, found or whatever. What corroborating evidence do you ha ...[text shortened]... ing for it, or that there was ever any issue with regard to the body as far as it was concerned?

For a more detailed discussion on the topic, take a gander at the link provided by sonship on the previous page.
It's lengthy, but pretty good stuff.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For a more detailed discussion on the topic, take a gander at the link provided by sonship on the previous page.
It's lengthy, but pretty good stuff.

I see some youtube links. Some historical sources are what are required.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For a more detailed discussion on the topic, take a gander at the link provided by sonship on the previous page.
It's lengthy, but pretty good stuff.

Hey, give me five, brother.

Originally posted by buckky
I'm not being argumentative here but is there any historical proof of Jesus ?

The Historical Fact

"The resurrection is the cornerstone of any defense of the Christian faith. Upon it rests everything that is essential to Christian theology. The evidences for the resurrection are so abundant that they constitute one of the greatest apologetics for Christianity. These fall in various classifications. The resurrection appearances: an overwhelming historical proof. A careful study of the Scriptures will reveal the following order of events unfolded in the resurrection appearances of Christ:

1. According to Matthew 28:2-4, the guards saw an angel roll away the stone from the tomb, and because of this they were terrified. The Scriptures in this way account for the illegal act of breaking the Roman seal placed on the door of the tomb, and for the ineffectiveness of the guard to prevent removal of the body. The report of the soldiers suggested by the chief priest (Matt 28:11-15) that someone stole the body while they slept is false on the face of it. The probability is that Christ was raised from the tomb shortly after sundown the night before and the opening of the tomb was not to allow Christ to come out, but was a means of permitting others to enter and see the empty tomb.

2. Shortly after the stone was rolled away, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, and others arrived at the tomb (Matt 28:1, 5-7; Mark 16:1-11; Luke 24:1-10; John 20:1).

3. Upon learning that the stone was rolled away and hearing the announcement of the angel that Christ was raised from the dead, Mary Magdalene runs to tell the apostles with the other women following more slowly (Matt 28:8; Mark 16:8; Luke 24:8-10; John 20:2).

4. Upon informing the apostles, Mary Magdalene returns preceded by Peter and John and sees the empty tomb (John 20:2-10). She apparently does not understand at this time that Christ was actually raised from the dead, even though she has been told this by the angel.

5. The first appearance of Christ was to Mary Magdalene as she remained at the site of the tomb after Peter and John had left. Here she sees Christ and first mistakes Him for the gardener but immediately recognizes Him when He speaks to her (John 20:11-17; cf. Mark 16:9-11).

6. After she had seen the risen Lord, Mary Magdalene returns to report the appearance of Christ to her (Mark 16:10-11; John 20:18).

7. The second appearance of Christ was to the other women who are also returning to the tomb and see Christ on the way (Matt 28:9-10). The best texts seem to indicate that the phrase "as they went to tell his disciples" is an interpolation, and they were actually returning after telling the disciples.

8. The report of the guards watching the tomb concerning the angel rolling away the stone is another testimony to the resurrection of Christ from unwilling witnesses (Matt 28:11-15).

9. The third appearance was to Peter in the afternoon of the resurrection day. Concerning this there are no details, but it is most significant that Christ sought out Peter, the denier, first, of all the twelve (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5).

10. The fourth appearance of Christ was to the disciples as they walked on the road to Emmaus. Due to supernatural withholding of recognition, Christ was able to expound to them the Old Testament Scripture concerning His death and resurrection, and was not known to them until He broke bread. (Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-35)." (1 of 3)

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/john_walvoord/resurrection/christ_resurrection1.cfm

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
The Historical Fact

"The resurrection is the cornerstone of any defense of the Christian faith. Upon it rests everything that is essential to Christian theology. The evidences for the resurrection are so abundant that they constitute one of the greatest apologetics for Christianity. These fall in various classifications. The resurrection appeara ...[text shortened]... (1 of 2)

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/john_walvoord/resurrection/christ_resurrection1.cfm

The Historical Fact (2 of 3)

"11. The fifth appearance of the resurrected Christ was to the ten disciples (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23). The Mark account refers to them as the eleven, but it is obvious from the context that only ten were there, as Thomas was absent. After the departure of Judas, the remaining disciples were often referred to as the "eleven" even if all were not actually present. In a similar way, Paul refers to the "twelve" as witnesses of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:5), but as a matter of fact Judas Iscariot was already dead.

12. The sixth appearance was to the eleven disciples a week after His resurrection. At this time Thomas was present (John 20:26-29).

13. The seventh appearance was to seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-23). It was on this occasion that he talked so significantly to Simon Peter following the miraculous catch of fish.

14. The eighth appearance was to five hundred and is recited by Paul as an outstanding proof of His resurrection (1 Cor 15:6).

15. The ninth appearance was to James, the Lord's brother (1 Cor 15:7). There is some evidence that James was not a believer prior to the resurrection (John 7:3), but immediately after the resurrection he is numbered among the believers (Acts 1:14; Gal 1:19). He later becames one of the outstanding leaders in the apostolic church.

16. The tenth appearance was to eleven disciples on a mountain in Galilee. On that occasion he gave them the great commission to preach the gospel (Matt 28:16-20). A similar commission is given in Mark 16:15-18 which may have been the same instance or an earlier appearance.

17. The eleventh appearance occurred at the time of His ascension from the Mount of Olives (Luke 24:44-53; Acts 1:3-9). This is the last appearance of Christ to His disciples prior to His glorification in heaven.

18. The twelfth appearance of the resurrected Christ was to Stephen just prior to his martyrdom (Acts 7:55-56).

19. The thirteenth appearance of Christ was to Paul on the road to Damascus as he was about to continue his work of persecuting Christians (Acts 9:3-6; cf. Acts 22:6-11; 26:13-18). It was on this occasion that Paul was converted.

20. The fourteenth appearance seems to have been to Paul in Arabia (Acts 20:24; 26:17; Gal 1:12, 17). This appearance is not clearly stated but may be implied from Galatians 1:12. Some believe that the instruction to Paul, which he mentions in Acts 26:17, were given to him in Arabia, not at the original appearance on the road to Damascus. There is no record of the precise revelation given to Paul in Acts 9 or Acts 22. In Acts 22:10, he is promised a later revelation which would give him the necessary instruction.

21. The fifteenth appearance of Christ was to Paul in the temple when Paul is warned concerning the persecution which was to come (Acts 22:17-21; cf. Acts 9:26-30; Gal 1:18).

22. The sixteenth appearance of Christ was to Paul while in prison in Caesarea, when it is recorded that "the Lord stood by him," and told him that he would bear witness in Rome (Acts 23:11).

23. The final and seventeenth appearance of Christ was to the Apostle John at the beginning of the revelation given to him (Rev 1:12-20).

Taken as a whole, the appearances are of such varied character and to so many people under so many different circumstances that the proof of the resurrection of Christ is as solid as any historical fact could be in the first century."

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/john_walvoord/resurrection/christ_resurrection1.cfm

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
The Historical Fact (2 of 3)

"11. The fifth appearance of the resurrected Christ was to the ten disciples (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23). The Mark account refers to them as the eleven, but it is obvious from the context that only ten were there, as Thomas was absent. After the departure of Judas, the remaining disciples were often ref ...[text shortened]... entury."

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/john_walvoord/resurrection/christ_resurrection1.cfm

The Historical Fact (3 of 3)

"The empty tomb as a witness to the resurrection of Christ.

All the evidence that exists concerning the tomb after the resurrection of Christ indicates that it was empty. This was the testimony of the disciples who carefully examined the tomb when they found the stone rolled away. The guard that was stationed at the tomb, according to Matthew's account, also reported that the tomb was empty. Only three explanations are even possibilities:

(1) It has been suggested that the disciples may have chanced upon the wrong tomb. This, however, is refuted not only by the presence of the angels, but by the Roman guard who certainly would not have been guarding the wrong tomb.

(2) The soldiers themselves made the suggestion that someone had stolen the body while they slept. If this had been the case, the guard would have been summarily executed. Instead, according to Matthew's account, they were given money to spread the false story that someone had stolen the body. This was obviously an attempt at bribery to prevent the truth being told and was gladly accepted by the soldiers as it also assured them of intervention with the Roman authorities so that they would not be executed.

(3) The complete lack of evidence for any alternative leaves the account of the resurrection of Christ the only plausible explanation. If it were not that this were supernatural and so intrinsic to the whole Christian faith, it would not even have been questioned. When the evidence for the empty tomb is added to the many other arguments for a bodily resurrection of Christ, it forms additional proof of the genuineness of the entire narrative. There would have been no motive on the part of the disciples to steal the body in the first place, and if the enemies of Christ had taken the body it would have been to their interest to have produced it when the accounts of the resurrection began to be circulated. There is no evidence, however, that the enemies of Christ made any effort to try to find the supposedly stolen body of Christ. The empty tomb remains a silent but eloquent witness to the fact of the resurrection.

The character of the human witnesses to the resurrection.

It is clear from the accounts given in the Gospels that the witnesses to the resurrection of Christ were quite reluctant to believe their senses concerning this important event. Only when overwhelming proof was presented did they at long last accept the fact of His resurrection. The disciples certainly could not have been fooled in identifying Christ, as they knew Him well. They themselves, however, demanded tangible evidence such as Thomas required when he was not present at the first appearance of Christ to the eleven. There does not seem to have been any expectation on the part of the disciples that Christ would rise from the dead, even though He had told them plainly that this would be the case. Once the evidence was produced that Christ had actually been raised from the dead, no amount of persecution could make them waiver in their testimony. They repeatedly showed willingness to die rather than give up their faith in Christ as their resurrected Lord. The reluctant testimony of the soldiers as well as the grudging admission of the leaders of the Jews add a touch of reality to the fact of Christ's resurrection." http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/john_walvoord/resurrection/christ_resurrection1.cfm

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]The Historical Fact (3 of 3)

"The empty tomb as a witness to the resurrection of Christ.

All the evidence that exists concerning the tomb after the resurrection of Christ indicates that it was empty. This was the testimony of the disciples who carefully examined the tomb when they found the stone rolled away. The guard that was stat ...[text shortened]... ection." http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/john_walvoord/resurrection/christ_resurrection1.cfm[/b]

I have never well understood about the soldiers being bribed, paid to circulate the false explanation that the disciples stole the body while they slept.

Wouldn't this rumor have gotten back to their superiors and caused them to be executed for sleeping on guard ?

How did the Pharisees plan to keep the soldiers from being executed by their superiors ?

Originally posted by sonship
I have never well understood about the soldiers being bribed, paid to circulate the false explanation that the disciples stole the body while they slept.

Wouldn't this rumor have gotten back to their superiors and caused them to be executed for sleeping on guard ?

How did the Pharisees plan to keep the soldiers from being executed by their superiors ?

"2) The soldiers themselves made the suggestion that someone had stolen the body while they slept. If this had been the case, the guard would have been summarily executed. Instead, according to Matthew's account, they were given money to spread the false story that someone had stolen the body. This was obviously an attempt at bribery to prevent the truth being told and was gladly accepted by the soldiers as it also assured them of intervention with the Roman authorities so that they would not be executed."

Perhaps an investigation of Matthew's Account would shed light on these speculative questions. I'll look into it too. Thanks.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For a more detailed discussion on the topic, take a gander at the link provided by sonship on the previous page.
It's lengthy, but pretty good stuff.

When sonship writes rubbish like this:

Compared to other important ancient figures and writings, how do the New Testament documents compare in time span between the events and the earliest copies ?

Bibiographical writngs about Julius Caesar
Lived 100-44 BC.
Earliest copy - 900 A.D
Intervening Time Span - 1,000 years.
Number of copies - 10

which shows him to be a liar or simply ignorant - why waste time reading anything he posts?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
When sonship writes rubbish like this:
[quote]Compared to other important ancient figures and writings, how do the New Testament documents compare in time span between the events and the earliest copies ?

Bibiographical writngs about Julius Caesar
Lived 100-44 BC.
Earliest copy - 900 A.D
Intervening Time Span - 1,000 years.
Number of copi ...[text shortened]... te]
which shows him to be a liar or simply ignorant - why waste time reading anything he posts?

What is your objection in the quoted text, exactly?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What is your objection in the quoted text, exactly?

I don't know what his objection is. I am open to explore correction of any errors in fact, if he's not just belching hot air.

I did this when very tired and in a hurry and could have made a typo.