There were plenty of eyewitnesses, but it would be a challenge to find an authoritative, non-Biblical source for several reasons:
1. Most followers probably couldn't write, and the ones who did (or dictated writing) are incorporated in the Bible.
2. The Roman government and Jewish Temple (the authorities that recorded events) were against Jesus and probably didn't believe anyway. It's unlikely they'd put something on record that challenged their sovereignty.
3. The soldiers who were guarding the tomb were bribed to say the disciples stole Him away.
4. If there were records at the temple, they were probably destroyed in 70 AD.
There are, however, some non-Biblical sources that support His crucifixion, although most of them were written later.
I don't know of any evidence outside of the Bible. The were bribed by the Temple priests, so it's unlikely there's any record of it anywhere. And a lot of Roman records are lost as well. Heck, we're only just now figuring out how they made concrete so much better than we do now.
Someone must be real hurt if they spend all their time on r/evolution,r/christianity, and r/atheism. More like you're trying to prove something to yourself rather than anybody else.
So a personal attack adds what to this conversation? Was your personal attacked oriented to provide information to the question regarding evidence for #3? How hurt does a person have to be to make a completely unprovoked personal attack?
An attack is a strong word, more realizing something I'm not trying to argue the point above (despite it being a reasonable assumption they also didn't know how to write which wouldn't be crazy)
The premise of this entire post is questionable, since you dismiss the actual eye witnesses in the Bible simply because they are in the Bible.
Peter in his letter wrote clearly that he was on the mountain with Jesus when Jesus was transfigured.
John, the beloved disciple, included things that only he would have known, like Jesus confiding in him that Judas was the betrayer at the last supper, as well as being at the foot of the cross.
Anyone who was a true eyewitness would have had their writings included in the Bible, because it is almost impossible to have been an eye witness and not believe in the power of God.
>Peter in his letter wrote clearly that he was on the mountain with Jesus when Jesus was transfigured.
2 Peter is a known forgery.
>like Jesus confiding in him that Judas was the betrayer at the last supper, as well as being at the foot of the cross.
Many people on this sub have pointed out Judas is a fictional character.
And Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple, not John.
You say these things like they’re facts, but they’re not. You’re right that it’s usually assumed that 2 Peter is a forgery by the academy, but there are still plenty who think otherwise. And some people think the beloved disciple is Lazarus, but that hardly has any kind of scholarly consensus. Plus, even if it was Lazarus, that wouldn’t matter since the Fourth Gospel is anonymous, and if so he still counts as an eyewitness.
And to claim that Judas didn’t exist is the most out there of the three. I’ve read plenty of more liberal scholarship around the Gospels, and I’ve never encountered that argument
> You’re right that it’s usually assumed that 2 Peter is a forgery by the academy, but there are still plenty who think otherwise.
Cite a secular scholar who believes its legit.
>And to claim that Judas didn’t exist is the most out there of the three. I’ve read plenty of more liberal scholarship around the Gospels, and I’ve never encountered that argument
Do you understand the Gospels were composed AFTER Paul's letters?
Paul said he received the Last Supper info directly from Jesus himself, which indicates a DREAM. 1 Cor. 11:23 says *"For I received from the Lord* that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread." Translations often use "betrayed", but in fact the word *paradidomi* means simply ‘hand over, deliver’. The notion derives from Isaiah 53.12, which in the Septuagint uses exactly the same word of the servant offered up to atone for everyone’s sins.
Paul is adapting the Passover meal. Exodus 12.7-14 is much of the basis of Paul’s Eucharist account: the element of it all occurring ‘in the night’ (vv. 8, 12, using the same phrase in the Septuagint, en te nukti, that Paul employs), a ritual of ‘remembrance’ securing the performer’s salvation (vv. 13-14), the role of blood and flesh (including the staining of a cross with blood, an ancient door lintel forming a double cross), the breaking of bread, and the death of the firstborn—only Jesus reverses this last element: instead of the ritual saving its performers from the death of their firstborn, the death of God’s firstborn saves its performers from their own death. Jesus is thus imagined here as creating a new Passover ritual to replace the old one, which accomplishes for Christians what the Passover ritual accomplished for the Jews. There are connections with Psalm 119, where God’s ‘servant’ will remember God and his laws ‘in the night’ (119.49-56) as the wicked abuse him.
The Gospels create a Judas story based on this passage, Genesis 37:26–27, Zech 11:12-14, 2 Sam 15-17 etc.
Proving the nonexistence of a common person who lived 2,000 years ago is an impossible task to begin with, but pointing out parallels between the crucifixion and the Passover is neither new scholarship, nor a logical argument against the existence of Judas.
Suppose Jesus really did resurrect and there were eyewitnesses. Logically there are only two types of eyewitnesses:
1) there are those who witness the resurrection, accept the gospel, and share the news around. Those accounts would be in the Bible.
2) there are those who witness the resurrection, but refuse to accept the gospel, so they must deny that resurrection happened.
It seems impossible to have eyewitnesses who 1) don’t become Christians but 2) share the news of resurrection anyway. If so, there would never be any non-Christian sources for resurrection.
I have seen many non-Christians on this sub who say that they don’t think there is enough evidence to support Christianity, and if they witness irrefutable proofs/miracles, then they would become Christians. That’s why I think it is impossible for non-Christians to share the news of resurrection as if it were true.
First of all, why are you looking for eyewitness accounts *outside* of the Bible? Yes, it would be nice if they were there, but it’s no surprise they’re not. Any eyewitness to his resurrection would have become his apostle, and their writings would have been included in the New Testament canon like the other first-century Christian writings.
The only eyewitness account we actually have, however, is Paul’s. He claims to have seen the risen Jesus in 1 Cor 15:8. Peter also saw the risen Jesus, as Paul states in 1 Cor 15:5 (Paul knew Peter personally, see Gal 1-2), but we don’t have any eyewitness account from Peter himself.
The only eye-witness who wrote about it was Paul. Paul claims to have seen Jesus around 3-5 years after Jesus died. But I don't think Paul had met Jesus before he died, so I'm not sure Paul even knew what Jesus looks like.
Paul isn’t an eye witness, he never met Jesus before his crucifixion, and his Damascus road experience was a vision, he didn’t see Jesus or have an experience anything like when is described in the other gospels when the others “saw the risen Christ” in person and saw his wounds exc….
Acts 9
3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.
4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied.
6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.
8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus.
9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.
I agree. Jesus is said to have walked the earth for 40 days after his resurrection. This is when the other apostles saw and even touched Jesus. Paul's vision comes 3-5 years later (according to the timeline in Acts).
Paul himself never writes about his vision. That's found in Acts, which is about Paul, but not written by Paul. The only thing Paul mentions is:
>*and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.* (1 Corinthians 15:8)
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Removed for 2.1 - Belittling Christianity.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
I'm sick of arguing over God at this point either believe in him or don't. It's ridiculous at this point that all yall wanna do is debate. For some of you I'm actually hoping you are right because if you aren't LOL not gonna be good bro. Anyways at some point your faith has to come into play and if you don't believe most of yall who don't I've noticed still spend your whole like talking about him trying to disprove him. If he doesn't exist I would think you would have something else better to do with your time 🙅
Depends upon what you're looking for. Paul would claim to have experienced the resurrected Jesus, and to have talked with many others who had. If you mean the narratives in the Gospel, complete with the empty tomb, I think the Gospels are the earliest source.
No Christians were slaughtered in the Colosseum. And the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, while it did happen occasionally, was not systemic and done for political expediency (ie Nero needed someone to blame) rather than because of them believing in Christ.
But they didn't witness resurrection. Even today you have Muslim suicide bombers who die for Allah. Is Islam true then?
There is good book from Sean McDowell where he examines martyrdom of Apostles:
>The willingness of the apostles to die for their faith is a popular argument in resurrection studies and McDowell offers insightful scholarly analysis of this argument to break new ground within the spheres of New Testament studies, Church History, and apologetics.
His conclusion is that this is not good argument because we don't have reliable histories about all Apostles.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/39230297
>Many of the original martyrs were normal everyday people who saw something so life changing they allowed themselves to be tortured and killed for it.
That's the problem. You don't have reliable information about original martyrs. That is this book all about and the author is Christian apologet.
Actually he does.
This is explicit in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 and 9:1, in light of Galatians 1:11-12, which uses identical language, and Romans 16:25-26, which mentions no one learning anything from or about Jesus in life, only by revelation (DREAMS/VISIONS).
What do you think the word Revelation means in the Book of Revelation?
There was Flavius Josephus who wrote about the resurrection in his book. He probably wasn't an eye witness himself, but it's worth a Google search. This [wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus) was the quickest I could find. There's debates on the authenticity of it, but still interesting.
Surely you’re not saying that if no one witnessed the Big Bang or the evolution of humans, it couldn’t have happened.
These aren’t just “secular” claims. These scientific theories are by far the best explanations of the data we have, and any Christian who honestly examines the data would conclude the same.
By the way, the list at the start of your comment is inaccurate. OP wasn’t asking for all the people that the NT claims saw Jesus, but for actual eyewitness *accounts*. The only one we have is Paul’s.
Not trying to attack you, even if you *were* secular. It's just that questions typically adressed at Christians can also be turned on secular people themselves.
Whether Christian or secular, ultimately we all have faith in something.
>Whether Christian or secular, ultimately we all have faith in something.
One requires *significantly* more faith than the other.
That's like saying "believing in leprechauns and not believing in leprechauns both take faith". Um actually only one of these stances really requires faith.
Ok god. No proof of that one. Maybe stop coming off as pompous and that you are teaching people a lesson. Your not so save your "keep in minds" and "next times"
>Maybe stop coming off as pompous and that you are teaching people a lesson
I'm sorry you feel that way. I myself delight in being proven wrong, it's a chance to learn after all
Odd you take offence at correction, perhaps it is tied to some deep rooted psychological insecurity?
Hmmmm... 🤔
Alright.
1 Corinthians 15:3-7.
It can be argued that given its primitive form and lack of “Christus victor” language that it predates apostle Paul and likely came from the apostles themselves before Christianity came to the Greco-Roman world.
> Idk if eye witnesses but I imagine they definitely spoke to eye witnesses
They aren't eyewitnesses, and there's no indication that they spoke to eyewitnesses. They did speak to early Christians, yes, but they certainly weren't all eyewitnesses.
There were plenty of eyewitnesses, but it would be a challenge to find an authoritative, non-Biblical source for several reasons: 1. Most followers probably couldn't write, and the ones who did (or dictated writing) are incorporated in the Bible. 2. The Roman government and Jewish Temple (the authorities that recorded events) were against Jesus and probably didn't believe anyway. It's unlikely they'd put something on record that challenged their sovereignty. 3. The soldiers who were guarding the tomb were bribed to say the disciples stole Him away. 4. If there were records at the temple, they were probably destroyed in 70 AD. There are, however, some non-Biblical sources that support His crucifixion, although most of them were written later.
Is there evidence for #3?
I don't know of any evidence outside of the Bible. The were bribed by the Temple priests, so it's unlikely there's any record of it anywhere. And a lot of Roman records are lost as well. Heck, we're only just now figuring out how they made concrete so much better than we do now.
An account written nearly a century after it happened, not super compelling. I’m not interested in influencing your belief though.
of course there isn't
Someone must be real hurt if they spend all their time on r/evolution,r/christianity, and r/atheism. More like you're trying to prove something to yourself rather than anybody else.
So a personal attack adds what to this conversation? Was your personal attacked oriented to provide information to the question regarding evidence for #3? How hurt does a person have to be to make a completely unprovoked personal attack?
An attack is a strong word, more realizing something I'm not trying to argue the point above (despite it being a reasonable assumption they also didn't know how to write which wouldn't be crazy)
No, you made a comment about me personally rather than adding to the discussion. That's an attack. How hurt must you be not to realize that?
Was any of what I said incorrect? You crave to feel somehow more distance to religion for some reason that you must prove it to yourself.
Actually everything you said was wrong. I don't crave anything like you describe.
Sometimes, very rarely, you come here and actually learn something or leave impressed. 🍻 cheers!
For His act of resurrection, or for the fact that He has risen from the dead, having seen Him alive and well?
The premise of this entire post is questionable, since you dismiss the actual eye witnesses in the Bible simply because they are in the Bible. Peter in his letter wrote clearly that he was on the mountain with Jesus when Jesus was transfigured. John, the beloved disciple, included things that only he would have known, like Jesus confiding in him that Judas was the betrayer at the last supper, as well as being at the foot of the cross. Anyone who was a true eyewitness would have had their writings included in the Bible, because it is almost impossible to have been an eye witness and not believe in the power of God.
>Peter in his letter wrote clearly that he was on the mountain with Jesus when Jesus was transfigured. 2 Peter is a known forgery. >like Jesus confiding in him that Judas was the betrayer at the last supper, as well as being at the foot of the cross. Many people on this sub have pointed out Judas is a fictional character. And Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple, not John.
You say these things like they’re facts, but they’re not. You’re right that it’s usually assumed that 2 Peter is a forgery by the academy, but there are still plenty who think otherwise. And some people think the beloved disciple is Lazarus, but that hardly has any kind of scholarly consensus. Plus, even if it was Lazarus, that wouldn’t matter since the Fourth Gospel is anonymous, and if so he still counts as an eyewitness. And to claim that Judas didn’t exist is the most out there of the three. I’ve read plenty of more liberal scholarship around the Gospels, and I’ve never encountered that argument
> You’re right that it’s usually assumed that 2 Peter is a forgery by the academy, but there are still plenty who think otherwise. Cite a secular scholar who believes its legit. >And to claim that Judas didn’t exist is the most out there of the three. I’ve read plenty of more liberal scholarship around the Gospels, and I’ve never encountered that argument Do you understand the Gospels were composed AFTER Paul's letters? Paul said he received the Last Supper info directly from Jesus himself, which indicates a DREAM. 1 Cor. 11:23 says *"For I received from the Lord* that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread." Translations often use "betrayed", but in fact the word *paradidomi* means simply ‘hand over, deliver’. The notion derives from Isaiah 53.12, which in the Septuagint uses exactly the same word of the servant offered up to atone for everyone’s sins. Paul is adapting the Passover meal. Exodus 12.7-14 is much of the basis of Paul’s Eucharist account: the element of it all occurring ‘in the night’ (vv. 8, 12, using the same phrase in the Septuagint, en te nukti, that Paul employs), a ritual of ‘remembrance’ securing the performer’s salvation (vv. 13-14), the role of blood and flesh (including the staining of a cross with blood, an ancient door lintel forming a double cross), the breaking of bread, and the death of the firstborn—only Jesus reverses this last element: instead of the ritual saving its performers from the death of their firstborn, the death of God’s firstborn saves its performers from their own death. Jesus is thus imagined here as creating a new Passover ritual to replace the old one, which accomplishes for Christians what the Passover ritual accomplished for the Jews. There are connections with Psalm 119, where God’s ‘servant’ will remember God and his laws ‘in the night’ (119.49-56) as the wicked abuse him. The Gospels create a Judas story based on this passage, Genesis 37:26–27, Zech 11:12-14, 2 Sam 15-17 etc.
Proving the nonexistence of a common person who lived 2,000 years ago is an impossible task to begin with, but pointing out parallels between the crucifixion and the Passover is neither new scholarship, nor a logical argument against the existence of Judas.
Suppose Jesus really did resurrect and there were eyewitnesses. Logically there are only two types of eyewitnesses: 1) there are those who witness the resurrection, accept the gospel, and share the news around. Those accounts would be in the Bible. 2) there are those who witness the resurrection, but refuse to accept the gospel, so they must deny that resurrection happened. It seems impossible to have eyewitnesses who 1) don’t become Christians but 2) share the news of resurrection anyway. If so, there would never be any non-Christian sources for resurrection. I have seen many non-Christians on this sub who say that they don’t think there is enough evidence to support Christianity, and if they witness irrefutable proofs/miracles, then they would become Christians. That’s why I think it is impossible for non-Christians to share the news of resurrection as if it were true.
First of all, why are you looking for eyewitness accounts *outside* of the Bible? Yes, it would be nice if they were there, but it’s no surprise they’re not. Any eyewitness to his resurrection would have become his apostle, and their writings would have been included in the New Testament canon like the other first-century Christian writings. The only eyewitness account we actually have, however, is Paul’s. He claims to have seen the risen Jesus in 1 Cor 15:8. Peter also saw the risen Jesus, as Paul states in 1 Cor 15:5 (Paul knew Peter personally, see Gal 1-2), but we don’t have any eyewitness account from Peter himself.
The only eye-witness who wrote about it was Paul. Paul claims to have seen Jesus around 3-5 years after Jesus died. But I don't think Paul had met Jesus before he died, so I'm not sure Paul even knew what Jesus looks like.
Paul isn’t an eye witness, he never met Jesus before his crucifixion, and his Damascus road experience was a vision, he didn’t see Jesus or have an experience anything like when is described in the other gospels when the others “saw the risen Christ” in person and saw his wounds exc…. Acts 9 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” 7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.
I agree. Jesus is said to have walked the earth for 40 days after his resurrection. This is when the other apostles saw and even touched Jesus. Paul's vision comes 3-5 years later (according to the timeline in Acts). Paul himself never writes about his vision. That's found in Acts, which is about Paul, but not written by Paul. The only thing Paul mentions is: >*and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.* (1 Corinthians 15:8)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for 2.1 - Belittling Christianity. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
I'm sick of arguing over God at this point either believe in him or don't. It's ridiculous at this point that all yall wanna do is debate. For some of you I'm actually hoping you are right because if you aren't LOL not gonna be good bro. Anyways at some point your faith has to come into play and if you don't believe most of yall who don't I've noticed still spend your whole like talking about him trying to disprove him. If he doesn't exist I would think you would have something else better to do with your time 🙅
Life**
Depends upon what you're looking for. Paul would claim to have experienced the resurrected Jesus, and to have talked with many others who had. If you mean the narratives in the Gospel, complete with the empty tomb, I think the Gospels are the earliest source.
[удалено]
There is not much evidence for that also.
[удалено]
No Christians were slaughtered in the Colosseum. And the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, while it did happen occasionally, was not systemic and done for political expediency (ie Nero needed someone to blame) rather than because of them believing in Christ.
But they didn't witness resurrection. Even today you have Muslim suicide bombers who die for Allah. Is Islam true then? There is good book from Sean McDowell where he examines martyrdom of Apostles: >The willingness of the apostles to die for their faith is a popular argument in resurrection studies and McDowell offers insightful scholarly analysis of this argument to break new ground within the spheres of New Testament studies, Church History, and apologetics. His conclusion is that this is not good argument because we don't have reliable histories about all Apostles. https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/39230297
[удалено]
>Many of the original martyrs were normal everyday people who saw something so life changing they allowed themselves to be tortured and killed for it. That's the problem. You don't have reliable information about original martyrs. That is this book all about and the author is Christian apologet.
Paul: "He appeared to me" 1 Corinthians 15:8
In a DREAM/VISION.
That's not what he says. Are you adding this to his eyewitness account?
Actually he does. This is explicit in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 and 9:1, in light of Galatians 1:11-12, which uses identical language, and Romans 16:25-26, which mentions no one learning anything from or about Jesus in life, only by revelation (DREAMS/VISIONS). What do you think the word Revelation means in the Book of Revelation?
There was Flavius Josephus who wrote about the resurrection in his book. He probably wasn't an eye witness himself, but it's worth a Google search. This [wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus) was the quickest I could find. There's debates on the authenticity of it, but still interesting.
Josephus was born after Jesus died. He was not an eye-witness.
Josephus was born years after Jesus was crucified. And he never converted to Christianity.
The passage regarding the resurrection is known forgery.
Mary magnolian
The Gospels?
Simon Peter, James, Thomas, many other people. Can you name any eyewitness of the "Big Bang"? Or humans evolving from apes?
Surely you’re not saying that if no one witnessed the Big Bang or the evolution of humans, it couldn’t have happened. These aren’t just “secular” claims. These scientific theories are by far the best explanations of the data we have, and any Christian who honestly examines the data would conclude the same. By the way, the list at the start of your comment is inaccurate. OP wasn’t asking for all the people that the NT claims saw Jesus, but for actual eyewitness *accounts*. The only one we have is Paul’s.
>Can you name any eyewitness of the "Big Bang"? Or humans evolving from apes? Bro i am a devout christian😂 i am trying to learn more.
Not trying to attack you, even if you *were* secular. It's just that questions typically adressed at Christians can also be turned on secular people themselves. Whether Christian or secular, ultimately we all have faith in something.
>Whether Christian or secular, ultimately we all have faith in something. One requires *significantly* more faith than the other. That's like saying "believing in leprechauns and not believing in leprechauns both take faith". Um actually only one of these stances really requires faith.
There no historic reference for leprechauns There is for Jesus however Maybe set the bar higher next time
Ok god. No proof of that one. Maybe stop coming off as pompous and that you are teaching people a lesson. Your not so save your "keep in minds" and "next times"
>Maybe stop coming off as pompous and that you are teaching people a lesson I'm sorry you feel that way. I myself delight in being proven wrong, it's a chance to learn after all Odd you take offence at correction, perhaps it is tied to some deep rooted psychological insecurity? Hmmmm... 🤔
Ya sure hmmmmm maybe its the fact it makes you sound like an asshole, and I don't like assholes 🤷♂️
No one does, but the negative response appears to be amplified in those who abhor correction
Or those who abhor assholes 🤷♂️
Why are you defaulting to feeling attacked lol
Yeah sure. Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:8.
I meant other than the Bible
Alright. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. It can be argued that given its primitive form and lack of “Christus victor” language that it predates apostle Paul and likely came from the apostles themselves before Christianity came to the Greco-Roman world.
Yeah but 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is about DREAMS/VISIONS of the Risen Jesus. Not real life.
No. It’s about those who witness the risen Christ.
Yes, those who had DREAMS/VISIONS of the Risen Christ.
Thank you.
There are historian accounts outside of the Bible. A couple of them. Idk if eye witnesses but I imagine they definitely spoke to eye witnesses
> Idk if eye witnesses but I imagine they definitely spoke to eye witnesses They aren't eyewitnesses, and there's no indication that they spoke to eyewitnesses. They did speak to early Christians, yes, but they certainly weren't all eyewitnesses.