Timeline for What evidence is there for the Resurrection of Jesus?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 30, 2015 at 7:28 | history | edited | Dick Harfield | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 486 characters in body
|
| S Aug 30, 2015 at 4:43 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S Aug 30, 2015 at 4:43 | comment | added | Caleb | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. | |
| Aug 30, 2015 at 1:23 | comment | added | Dick Harfield | @JackDouglas I was going to respond to your comment, but I think bignose did so much better than I could. I would add that using emotive words like 'bizarre' and citing your own question on another stackexchange site do not add weight to your argument. You ought to know that sources that are not 'historical sources' can nevertheless be very reliable. BTW the chat room for this question is still open. | |
| Aug 30, 2015 at 1:14 | comment | added | bignose | @jack-douglas The gospel accounts are secondary sources, because whatever primary sources they were drawn from are not available to us. We have only partial erroneous translations of fragmentary copies. Also, the gospel accounts are not historical records of the resurrection of Jesus, because they don't agree on the facts and no extrabiblical account concurs with the resurrection events. So while you may be right that the gospels are the closest thing we have to whatever the gospel teachers said, that neither makes them primary sources, nor does it make them historical records. | |
| Aug 29, 2015 at 7:57 | comment | added | Jack Douglas | To describe the gospel accounts as not "actual historical sources" is bizarre. They are primary sources (by the definition used by historians, which does not depend on whether the author is an eye-witness. See also here). You may argue they are not reliable or independent but you are not free to dismiss them as not "historical sources". | |
| Aug 28, 2015 at 1:35 | comment | added | Dick Harfield | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Aug 28, 2015 at 0:58 | comment | added | Jack Douglas | You leap from questioning whether the actual authors of the gospels are those to whom they have been attributed to, to calling them "secondary, unattributed sources, rather than actual historical sources", why? For example, whether or not Luke-Acts was authored by Luke the physician (about which critical opinion is evenly divided), there is strong internal evidence that it is indeed an eye-witness account. Whether you consider that internal evidence… | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 8:18 | history | answered | Dick Harfield | CC BY-SA 3.0 |