Truth of resurrection and death of the apostles (for Willowtree)

Suuuuuuure Chris we believe youBrian.

The authors of the Gospels may not have been eyewitnesses though.It is by no mens certain that Matthew Levi wrote Matthew's Gospel. Mark was not an eyewitness, Luke freely acknowledges that he wasn't an eyewitness, and John's Gospel is far too late to have been an apostle.Technically, no one witnessed the resurection of Jesus, they may have seen him 'die', then they may have seen him alive, but no one saw him rising from the dead.Brian.

Hi,But did anyone see him die?How did they know he was dead?If he was dead, how did they know that the Jesus walking around after this was the same Jesus that died?Didn't a couple of his friends walk the raod to Emmaus and not recognise 'Jesus'.Was Thomas his twin?Brian.

Hi, thanks for the quick reply.Of the eyewitnesses you provide we have no direct testimony of any of them.I understand crucifixion very well, it was a well used Roman punishment for political criminals.The few hours that jesus spent on the cross is a remarkably short time, three days would have been about the expected time.Does the Bible say the spear went into his heart?They didnt take Jesus off the cross because he was dead, they done it because the Sabbath was approaching.I know the doubting Thomas narrative, but there is no way to verify this at all.The road to Emmaus is simply unbelievable, it smacks of folk lore rather than historicity.The theory that Thomas was Jesus twin was doing the rounds a while ago. Since Thomas means 'Twin', it was thought that he was mistaken for Jesus after the alleged resurrection, Da Vinci's last supper has Jesus twin sitting at his left hand: Brian.

Your Sunday School teachers list of 'Contemporary Secular Sources' does not include a single contemporary source.Josephus: Jesus died before Josephus was born, and that Josephus' work was forged is well established.Thallus. Is quoted in a work written about 200 years after Jesus died, his reference in only to a sudden darkness, not actually to Jesus.Phlegon. Born about 50 years after Jesus died.Pliny the Younger. Wrote in 112, almost 80 years after Jesus died, hardly contemporary. Records that people worshipped a 'Christ' he doesn't know if their object of worship was ever a real man.Tacitus. Born about 20 years after Jesus died, he never mentions Jesus by name and simply records that some people worshipped a Christ.Seutonius. God knows why people keep using Seutonius, maybe it is because of the nutter that the Sunday School teacher quotes from, Josh Macdowell. But Seutonius uses the word Chrestus which means 'the good', the texts does not say 'Christos'.Bar Serapion. Doesn't even mention Jesus at all, and he was writing 40 years after Jesus died.Your Sunday School teacher is very poor at archaeological research too,Your source says: This is simply untrue, I won't say it is a lie, he repeats a very common error, an error that actually led me to e-mail the Passantino's who also spread this falsehood through their website.They actually did edit the essay, more than likely because a few Christians wrote to them and informed them that they had read my post at this website and that there was indeed ample evidence for Pilate before this find.You will find that Pilate is attested to by Josephus and by Tacitus, this piece of propaganda was made up to make the Bible look impressive.In fact, your source is so poor at researching that he claims that the Tacitus reference is very reliable, and who does the Tacitus quote mention, well guess... But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate , procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Strange that he fails to notice this mention of Pilate when he uses the source as proof of Jesus.The sunday school teacher hasn't qualified Sunday School yet.Brian.

Hi, The point is that your sources said there were no mentions of Pilate until this inscription was found in 1961 and had actually used a source that mentioned Pilate from the 2nd century CE. The point is, your source is trying to make the bible appear to be super special by leaving out the fact that Pilate was attested to by historians a couple of thousand years ago. He even uses the common tactic of apologists when he makes the empty claim ‘sceptics claimed’ without actually mentioning the names of any of these ‘sceptics’. I know, this is the point I am making. Your source claims there was no independent evidence that Pilate existed until the inscription was found in 1961 yet he uses a source to support the historicity of Jesus that specifically mentions Pilate, how could he make this simple error? Do a Google for ‘Josephus Jesus forged’ and you will get over 1600 hits, even the description of the site gives information on why it is believed that Josephus was forged.I really know of no scholar who thinks that Josephus was not forged in some way, it is only the degree to which his work was forged that there is any controversy over. I fail to see the significance here, what is the big deal about archaeological data concurring with the bible over things such as the names of towns or cities, or of individual people? Do you think that because the Bible mentions Nazareth then the entire bible is true?
Well here is some news for you, archaeology cannot prove anything at all, archaeology can only disprove an historians hypothesis or theory.
Your source mentions evidence for King David, he doesn’t actually name the inscription but I am guessing it is the Tell Dan Stele found by Biran at Tell Dan no less. The ‘house of David’ claim by Biran and Naveh is not proven and many people doubt their translation.
But it shouldn’t be that much of a surprise that people mention towns and cities that were around when they were writing things down, I fail to see how anyone can be excited over this.If you want to impress me you could explain why Moses called Avaris by the name Pirameses c. 200 years before the city of Rameses was built, now that’s magic!Brian.

Hi, Is this more of Rohl's unsupported claptrap?My understanding is that the city of Ramses is built on the same site as Avaris (Wright, Van Seters, Habachi) or very close to the site of Avaris (Finkelstein)I have never heard of Avaris being moved 'lock, stock and barrel' before, do you have a reference for this?Brian.

Hi, It’s fine, no problem, just took me a bit by surprise.
There are literally dozens of these types of stories that have circulated over the last 30 years or so, but they are really aimed at taking advantage of the general public’s lack of knowledge. David Rohl is a prime example of this, his work is full of unsupported assertions, he really is taking his readers for a ride. David Rohl is a sort of Eric von Daniken figure, he takes one or two established ‘facts’ and then just makes things up, and his audience, who are usually very eager to latch on to something that anything supports in the Bible, buy his books and swallow everything he says. Maybe he is very clever and realises that he is on to a nice earner here.I am also very surprised about the claims made for the mud-brick buildings, some others have pointed this out too. But, to add a little, it is well-established that Canaanites wandered freely to and from Egypt and some even settled there during times of famine, also the whole of Palestine was a province of Egypt for many centuries and I think it would be no problem for the concept of brick buildings to have been firmly established in Palestine.One of the leading scholars concerning Avaris is Manfred Bietak who has led many excavations at Tel-ed-Daba, the modern day site of Avaris.Thanks for taking the time to reply.Brian.