Persuasive objective evidence for not only the existence of the biblical Jesus but for his actual resurrection as well would make history and change my world. No bated breath here.
What's "persuasive" for you isn't going to happen I guess, but the Bible was very persuasive to me, as to hundreds of millions of others down the last two millennia. Its history was made gloriously already in thousands of ways, but it can't change your world unless you are willing to open your eyes to it. You might try praying for light.
There's one terrific piece of evidence we often overlook, and that is that it was WOMEN who first discovered the empty tomb and it was a woman who first saw the risen Jesus Himself. We think nothing of it in our time but in those days to give women any responsibility for such an important role as witnessing the resurrection of Christ was a radical contradiction to the prevailing attitude toward women. That Jesus Himlself, God Himself, entrusted mere women with this revelation must have been quite an eyeopener to the male disciples who accepted the cultural attitude that women could not even testify in court (or only under some special circumstances, sorry I'm not up on all that.)
And this also has the wonderful effect of validating the scriptures as honest witness reports, since no Jew in his right mind would ever make up such a tale as that women were entrusted with this knowledge before the men knew it. It's also no doubt a big part of the reason why Thomas couldn't believe the reports he'd heard -- they came first of all from women.
Anyway, you can be sure none of the writers of the gospels would have made up such a thing.
Faith, I am afraid that you have no ability to evaluate evidence. Which is something of a handicap in these discussions.
The women did not even see the resurrection (nobody saw the actual event). They aren't put forward as court witnesses, just participants in the events. And in Mark, the original version, they don't even tell anyone what they supposedly saw.
As I pointed out to GDR this is evidence against the empty tomb story (which likely is fiction)
Only to a twisted mind.
Let me put it this way. Millions of people who are far better judges of just about anything than you are have found these accounts to be good evidence both for the resurrection and for the inerrancy of scripture. I'll take their word over yours any day.
What on earth could it mean to "see the actual event?" A man waking up and sitting up that you thought was dead? You'd just say it was a lie anyway, obviously he hadn't been dead or some such, anything to discredit the account.
And what could it add to the evidence of seeing there was no body in the tomb that you expected to be there, since he was supposed to be dead, a body that nobody ever produced? And the actual seeing of him alive as first Mary Magdalene did and then the other disciples. You split hairs and condemn yourself.
And by the way you've bought another lie: Mark was NOT the first gospel. Matthew was. That's why it's first in the canon. You prefer the revisionists who do whatever they can to twist things around to cast doubt on the scriptures. They are only leading you down the primrose path to you know where. Though you are going quite willingly aren't you?
The whole Bible has a remarkable ring of truth to it, to those who have ears to hear. Strange though that GDR has ears for some parts and not for others. But you might as well be totally deaf.
Yeah, Raphael, you might as well give up. PaulK's made up his mind and that's that.
If you want to use the Empty Tomb story, then you'd better come up with some pretty novel reasons to think it genuine AND explain why a missing body qualifies as "excellent evidence" of a resurrection. I think that's a tall order.
I think it takes a pernicious sort of obtuseness to deny the evidence of the empty tomb. Considering all the people who would have loved to prove Jesus did not rise from the dead, most of the Jewish establishment for starters, you'd think whoever supposedly stole the body would have brought it for evidence against our belief in the resurrectrion. But nobody did.
And then of course the disciples saw Him risen from the dead, starting with Mary Magdalene in the garden outside the tomb, and for forty days afterward.
But the perniciously obtuse deny that there's any truth at all to the Bible reports so don't bother, Raphael, trying to persuade PaulK.
Maybe there are some other people here who can still recognize good evidence, however.
Yes Faith, we know you despise the honest search for the truth. And that is really all you've said.
What you fail to grasp is that there is such a thing as no longer NEEDING to search for the truth because it's been FOUND! I certainly found it when I came to understand and believe the gospel. The searching had been done over all the early part of my life but most intensively in the few years leading up to understanding the gospel. It's delusional to think that after finding the truth, given by God Himself, I would need to consider the fallen human vaporings you trust in, that deny the God-given truth and can only lead you to perdition. The truth has been given, your job is to believe it.
Personally I have some hope of an intelligent discussion with Raphael, and neither you, nor GDR seem able to manage that. So please butt out, instead of indulging your usual hostility to honest enquiry.
Faith writes: I think it takes a pernicious sort of obtuseness to deny the evidence of the empty tomb.
Only if you already believe.
There are some who CAME to believe by recognizing the meaning of the empty tomb. All you have to believe to believe that is that the Bible is a simple truthful record by and about simple truthful people.
Consider the magician who steps into the sword cabginet. He tells you this is gonna be magic. His assistant runs swords through at all angles. We hear screams. She opens the cabinet--and it is empty. After she closes the cabinet and withdraws the swords, she reopens it to reveal our triumphant magician. He tells you it was magic.
Do you believe it was magic? How can you be so perniciously obtuse as to deny the evidence of the empty cabinet?
Because you already don't believe in this magician.
But that is not the case with the empty tomb. Nobody is doing any hocus pocus or even trying to persuade us of the meaning of the empty tomb. It is presented as a simple factual account. The women came to the tomb in the early morning to finish anointing the body, and found the stone rolled back and the body gone. The narrative doesn't stop to tell us its import, it just goes on recounting fact after fact. If you put simple trust in the simple narrative by the simple honest people you have to give some thought to what it means that His body wasn't there. The disciples were not expecting this, they were shocked and confused at first, always slow on the uptake. You either believe the simple honest narrative by simple honest people or you don't. There is no magic involved.
You consistently call many of us here deluded for not being persuaded by something that would only persuade those who already believe in the magic. When you get frustrated enough by it, you call us pernicious, twisted, satanic...
Something has to persuade people in the first place, we assume others can be similarly persuaded, that's really all that's going on. PaulK goes out of his way to avoid the truth, it does take a pernicious obtuseness to do what he does to avoid it. Just believe the simple honest narrative by the simple honest people and recognize the implications of the absence of the body in the tomb.
ABE: You have to interfere with the narrative somehow to deny what it's saying. You have to call the writer a liar or the people he's writing about liars. Remember, again, that it would have been out of the question for a Jew to give credence to the report of women about such a momentous event unless he knew it was true; he certainly wouldn't make it up.
The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a perfect example of a bogus writing, as are all the gnostic gospels. It is not a narrative, it's a bunch of vaporings by a gnostic, the exact sort of thing the Bible is not.
(1) You can follow your own reasoning, and say that no-one would have invented the Gospel of Mary which elevates a woman above all the male disciples put together. In which case the Gospel of Mary is true and we should all believe a bunch of Gnostic nonsense.
(2) You can reject your own reasoning, and admit that the rather less prominent part played in the canonical gospels by women is not in fact good evidence for the truth of the canonical gospels.
Or I can continue to say that the fact that women were given such prominence specifically in the witnessing and reporting of Christ's resurrection, which no Jew could have made up, is evidence for the truthfulness of the gospels, and all the gnostic gospels are is bogus revisionist usurpers and copycats.
But look, Faith, you said that no-one would make up a story giving a such a prominent place to women. But the Gospel of Mary gives an even more prominent place to women. And the Gospel of Mary is, by your own admission, made up. Therefore, people would make up a gospel in which women play a prominent role. We know that they would because they did. So you can't argue for the truth of the canonical gospels on the basis that no person would do such a thing, because you know that such a thing was in fact done by a person.
THe gnostic gospels FOLLOWED the true gospels and added their own made-up stuff to them. They USED Mary, they didn't report on anything she actually did, such as her having been chosen as witness to the resurrection.
In general, if an argument rests on saying "This thing could not occur", then we can destroy the argument by pointing to a case in which it occurred.
This is really not a difficult concept, and I don't see why I have had to spell it out at such great length.
I think you are making a merely sophistical point. "Nobody would make it up" would be true only of an authentic original writing by Jewish writers. I don't get why this is such a big logical thing to you. I get your logic but in the context it doesn't compute.
By your logic evidence for an authentic writing can be easily discredited by a copycat bogus writing.