Posted on 01/22/2024 3:06:15 AM PST by spirited irish
The truth of the Resurrection stands or falls on the truth of the witnesses. Are they reliable? Of the New Testament writers, there are six witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, if we include the apostles Peter and Paul. These people have left us writings in the form of historical documents which give us their testimony concerning the resurrection.
The question is—are these historical documents reliable? Can we trust them? One way of determining whether the documents are reliable is to put the people who wrote them through the test a good magistrate or judge would put them through. The accuracy of these witnesses depends on five things: their honesty, ability, their number and consistency of their evidence, the conformity of their testimony with our own personal experience, and lastly, the coincidence of their testimony with other circumstances and facts.
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
bkmk
The truth of the resurrection does NOT depend on our opinion of it or the men who documented it.It stands on it’s own.
We all agree with what you say, and I am quite sure the author of the article does too, but never-the-less as the author wrote…. “When on Easter Sunday we hear the declaration ringing in our ears once again: ‘The Lord is risen’, it is comforting to know that on the basis of highly credible evidence, we can confidently respond: ‘He is risen indeed.’”
Yes
Many who witnessed Christ after the resurrection were martyred because of their faith. It’s hard to believe someone would risk death over a lie.
Back then, a hobby among some professionals such as Luke, was to collect stories in addition to writing stories that had circulated verbally over time.
That is, some people who were well read and also writers, sought to preserve.
Luke, Paul, plus scribes who wrote on behalf of Paul, were effectively witnesses of some of the people who personally had contact with or observed Jesus.
Back then, literature and libraries were bundled under systems of management consisting of various social, political, economic, and religious leaders, plus scholars.
There was, then, as there remains today, a variety of characters and purposes in that general body.
So, the characters and purposes affected what was stored, written, or dismissed.
The truth might survive, or not. Somebody might bury a truth, and another person might broadcast fiction.
Paul’s education and abilities lent credence to his being a witness of history; and that added some weight, as if a super notary, to the Gospels, that some detractors attempted to weaken by discrediting the Gospels on the basis of negative comments about the lower and uneducated witnesses of Jesus.
Interesting. I doubt such attempts at “proof” will sway many unbelievers though.
Paul was not a witness to the resurrection.
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
It’s hard to believe someone would risk death over a lie.The author of the article admits that people of other faiths and beliefs have martyred themselves for an idea, so the Christian martyrs are not unique in that act, unto itself.
But that was an idea they believed was true. Those who deny the resurrection would have us believe the Apostles died for something they knew was a lie.
Gary Habermass has just published a 1000 page book analyzing the evidence for the resurrection. It is highly documented. The evidence for the resurrection is overwhelming.
People WILL die for a lie.
But they won’t allow themselves to be killed for a report they repeatedly asserted was true, if they themselves made it up.
Bump
Regards,
There is there own eyewitness testimony. What other evidence could their possibly be?
There could be forensic-grade evidence. (DNA specimens, fingerprints, video recordings, etc.) Until such evidence is forthcoming (if ever), one can at best say, in the parlance of historians, "according to some sources, xyz happened."
This so-called "eyewitness testimony" does not meet modern standard for believability. Since we are unable to cross-examine the so-called "witnesses," this amounts to "hearsay evidence."
And even in courts of (criminal) law, the objective of the Prosecution is to prove that someone did something "beyond a reasonable doubt." (in civil cases, a "preponderance of evidence" is considered sufficient.)
In the case of the Resurrection, there is most certainly "reasonable doubt."
Regards,
From the first century? Really?
Meanwhile, the Revelation at Sinai is the only self-verifying claim of a Divine Revelation in human history. But let’s ignore that and continue to pretend that the Hebrew Bible is a chrstian document!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.