Historical proof

The Great Resurrection Debate

William Lane Craig verses John Shelby Spong

YouTube


Comparing historical study of Mark's Gospel and the earliest known writings about Alexander the Great:

Dr. Craig Mark's Gospel which contains information from an even earlier unknown source, can be dated within seven years of the death of Jesus.

The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written about four hundred years after Alexander lived by Plutarch (spelling?) and another biographer, whose name I have to double check the spelling of also.

This info came at about 14:42 - 14:48 in the debate above.

The elapse concerning Jesus is seven years verses four hundred years gap for Alexander the Great. We can hold the Gospel of Mark as being exceptionally close (by the historian's standards) in its writing to the events being spoken about.

I wrote:

Dr. Craig Mark's Gospel which contains information from an even earlier unknown source, can be dated within seven years of the death of Jesus.

The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written about four hundred years after Alexander lived by Plutarch (spelling?) and another biographer, whose name I have to double check the spelling of also.

This info came at about 14:42 - 14:48 in the debate above.

The elapse concerning Jesus is seven years verses four hundred years gap for Alexander the Great. We can hold the Gospel of Mark as being exceptionally close (by the historian's standards) in its writing to the events being spoken about.

Clarifications: I meant that Mark's source for the so called Passion Story dates back to seven years of the event reported.

It is commonly believed by many that Mark was a young assistant of the Apostle Peter. And it is believed by many that Peter's sermons furnished most of the material for Mark's Gospel.

Hey, this stuff does take a lot of careful time to research. I am doing too many things at one time this morning - playing chess with Grampy, arguing with twhitehead, and listening to video debates, as well as talking on the phone.

So correction made.

This is a great debate. Biship Shelby Spong could be classified as a "Been-There-Done-That" kind of second thinker, X evangelical.

Craig verses Spong on the Resurrection:

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship
Paul met Jesus according to Paul.

Which should only add to the skepticism that we give to Pauls writings.

Even very liberal scholars grant the authenticity of First Corinthians.
Authenticity meaning what? Meaning that they grant that Paul wrote it, or that the contents are authentic?
I don't think any non-Christian scholar would think that Paul actually met Jesus.

Just on the grounds of the tools of the historian he makes a solid case for the early Christians really believed Christ had risen from the dead.
Depending on how early we are talking, I see no reason to dispute that.

It debunks conspiracy theories developed 1600 to 1800 years latter that this was legend telling or myth making.
No, actually it doesn't. The two are compatible.

No, at least within a decade or more the Christians believed that Jesus had risen and had appeared.
Before Paul, or after?

The point was raised that He wrote nothing. So it is not a switch. It is a reply.
Sorry, I think I misread your post there. My mistake.

My point is that if you doubt things about Jesus based on NT then you certainly should doubt more about information about too many other ancient figures, if long time spans and legend weaving is your issue.
Its a good point, and I have always had great doubts about many historical figures, as have most historians. Not necessarily about whether or not they existed, but rather what whether what was said about them was accurate.
But there are cases of seemingly historical figures whose existence is doubted.

It was BELIEVED within years of the life of Jesus.
That is technically impossible, given that it could only be believed after he died. The arguments I have heard do not dispute that Paul wrote about Jesus, so if Jesus did not exist then the myth either started with Paul or Paul picked it up from earlier sources.

That is why some conspiracy people have said that there was a mass hallucination. Which theory I find unconvincing. The Swoon Theory, that He never died, also I find unconvincing.
As a Christian you would not be convinced by anything. But I am no longer sure what we are discussing here, are we discussing whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, or whether or not Jesus existed at all?

You see I don't want you to think you are being forced to believe the New Testament.
Don't worry, you couldn't force me if you tried. At the very best you could convince me that it is more likely that Jesus existed than Alexander the Great, but I rather doubt you will succeed even that given that the facts are against you. Convincing me that there is a historical case for Jesus rising from the dead is simply out of the question.
I notice you haven't brought up the fact that one of the Gospels mentions large numbers of corpses walking through the streets at about the same time. Whats your view on that? Did that actually happen?

Strawmen arguments are weak arguments.
Strawmen arguments, are arguments based on the claim that your opponent holds a position he doesn't hold.
I do not need to provide lists of historians that doubt the existence of particular figures when I never claimed nor believe such doubting historians exist.

And your tactic is to always accuse an argument of being either not what you are saying or a strawman.
Its two ways of saying the same thing. And I do it because its true. You keep on demanding that I answer challenges that do not address my position at all.

I know about the Shakespeare deniers, a little bit.
Good. So you know there are skeptics about certain historical figures other than Jesus.

Originally posted by sonship
Dr. Craig Mark's Gospel which contains information from an even earlier unknown source, can be dated within seven years of the death of Jesus.

The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written about four hundred years after Alexander lived by Plutarch (spelling?) and another biographer, whose name I have to double check the spelling of also.

Dr. Craig got it wrong.

People wrote about Alexander the Great during his life time. The writers 400 years later were quoting from known sources (not unknown sources as in Marks case).
Moreover there are other early documents mentioning Alexander that are not biographies. So although we may doubt the accuracies of the biographies of Alexander, we are less inclined to doubt his existence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which should only add to the skepticism that we give to Pauls writings.

[b]Even very liberal scholars grant the authenticity of First Corinthians.
Authenticity meaning what? Meaning that they grant that Paul wrote it, or that the contents are authentic?
I don't think any non-Christian scholar would think that Paul actually met Jesus.

Just o ...[text shortened]... it.
Good. So you know there are skeptics about certain historical figures other than Jesus.[/b]

Don't worry, you couldn't force me ...

You're just saying what I said over again then.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Dr. Craig got it wrong.

People wrote about Alexander the Great during his life time. The writers 400 years later were quoting from known sources (not unknown sources as in Marks case).
Moreover there are other early documents mentioning Alexander that are not biographies. So although we may doubt the accuracies of the biographies of Alexander, we are less inclined to doubt his existence.

What is available to us is probably the point.
The writings may have referred to contemporary writers of Alexander which we no longer have.

We may have references to them written 400 years latter.
But at leisure I will look into it more.

In the same way we do not have the source material that is non-markian which goes into the other synoptic gospels. But we know that there is an even earlier source contributing material to Matthew and Luke which is other than Mark.

Originally posted by sonship

Don't worry, you couldn't force me ...

You're just saying what I said over again then.

No, I don't think so.

Originally posted by sonship
What is available to us is probably the point.

Dr Craig made several attempts at misdirection.
1. He restricted the list to biographies. There are much older references to Alexander that just don't happen to be biographies.
2. He mentioned that Mark had an earlier source (of which little is known) but failed to mention that the Alexander biographies had many known sources that were written by people who knew him.
3. He failed to mention that there are significantly more sources for Alexander than for Jesus.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] The Great Resurrection Debate

William Lane Craig verses John Shelby Spong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXzu4tcOTI


Comparing historical study of Mark's Gospel and the earliest known writings about Alexander the Great:

Dr. Craig Mark's Gospel which contains information from an even earlier unknown source, can ...[text shortened]... eptionally close (by the historian's standards) in its writing to the events being spoken about.[/b]

I still believe that the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin is the best historical proof available.

YouTube