Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky?

[Zzyzx]

The KEY question is "Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky?" because unless those claims are true, Christianity is based on fraud.

No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else mentioned Jesus during his lifetime or anything he may have said or done.

Half a century later (40 to 60 years or more) four religion promoters wrote stories about him. The true identity of those 'gospel' writers is unknown to theologians and scholars, and none of them can be shown to have personally witnessed anything Jesus may have said or done.

"In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!" Dr. Bart Ehrman Professor of Religious Studies

AND only ONE of the gospel writers (whoever wrote 'Luke' and 'Acts') described the 'ascension', and he admits in his introduction that he is recording what he heard from others.

I, for one, would NOT believe tales told by four people claiming that someone came back to life (because a tomb was supposedly found empty). I certainly would not believe a tale told by one person about what he had heard from others that, half a century earlier, someone 'rose up into the sky'.

[William]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]

What are my "tales about the history" to which you refer?

For example: "No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else mentioned Jesus during his lifetime or anything he may have said or done".

My statement is based on
"In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!"
From: Dr. Bart Ehrman Professor of Religious Studies

I ran your comment here, as well as your Elvis comparisons, past AI and the following was the AI feed-back.

AI: Dr. Bart Ehrman, a renowned New Testament scholar and agnostic, is indeed frequently cited on this point. However, it is crucial to understand the full context of his scholarship, as the quote you've provided is often extracted in a way that misrepresents his actual academic position.

Here’s a breakdown of the issue:

1. What Ehrman Means (Context is Key):
Ehrman's point is about the nature of the historical record from the 1st century. He is correctly stating that we have no surviving contemporary Roman or Greek histories, inscriptions, or private letters that mention Jesus from the period of his lifetime or the immediate decades after. This is not surprising to historians for several reasons:

Jesus was a marginal religious figure in a remote, troublesome province of the Roman Empire during his life.

He was not a Roman official, military leader, or aristocrat—the people who typically featured in formal histories and inscriptions.

The literary output of the entire 1st-century Roman world is only a tiny fraction of what was written, and most has been lost.

2. What Ehrman Explicitly Does Not Mean:
Despite the lack of contemporary non-Christian sources, Ehrman is one of the most forceful mainstream scholars arguing for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. He dedicates an entire book ("Did Jesus Exist?") to refuting "mythicist" claims. His argument is that the earliest Christian sources, written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and their followers, provide compelling evidence for a historical Jesus, even when read critically.

3. The Actual Evidence Historians Weigh:
Scholars like Ehrman build their case on:

Multiple, independent early Christian sources (Paul's authentic letters ~50s-60s CE, Mark's Gospel ~70 CE, and the independent traditions behind Matthew and Luke) that all converge on a core narrative of a Jewish teacher from Nazareth crucified under Pontius Pilate.

The criterion of embarrassment: The Gospels include elements embarrassing to the early church (e.g., baptism by John, crucifixion—a shameful death, betrayal by a disciple, denial by Peter). Historians argue these are unlikely to be invented.

The rapid rise of a movement centered on a crucified Messiah, a concept utterly alien and offensive to both Jewish and Roman sensibilities. This demands a historical catalyst.

Early non-Christian references within a century: While not contemporary, they exist and are significant precisely because they have no theological axe to grind.

Josephus (c. 93-94 CE): His Antiquities contains a disputed passage about Jesus (the Testimonium Flavianum), but even critical scholars agree a core reference to "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" is authentic, placing Jesus in history.

Tacitus (c. 116 CE): A Roman historian, explicitly hostile to Christians, reports that "Christus" suffered execution under Pontius Pilate during Tiberius's reign—a detail confirming the core of the Christian claim from a hostile source.

Pliny the Younger (c. 112 CE) and Suetonius (c. 120 CE) mention Christ or Christians, confirming the movement's early existence.

Conclusion on the Comparison:
The quote, isolated, seems powerful. But in its full academic context, it does not mean "Jesus didn't exist." It means "We have to rely on a critical analysis of the early Christian sources and a few early non-Christian references, not on a wealth of contemporary Roman documentation."

This is fundamentally different from the Elvis analogy. For Elvis, we have an overwhelming contemporary documented record: thousands of newspapers, TV broadcasts, legal documents, and medical records from his lifetime. The "sightings" are later folklore contradicted by that solid contemporary record.

For Jesus, we have no such contemporary secular record to contradict. The "sightings" and resurrection claims are the very event that launched the movement, recorded in its earliest sources. The historical task is to explain the origin of those incredibly influential beliefs, and for mainstream historians (believers and skeptics like Ehrman alike), the most plausible explanation involves a historical Jesus around whom those beliefs crystallized.

In short: Zz is using Ehrman's observation about the *silence of 1st-century Roman archives* to imply a conclusion—"Jesus's story is no better attested than Elvis sightings"—that Ehrman himself strongly rejects based on the evidence we do have.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #10]

Apology for the delay in responding to your response. I missed notifications.

No problem, it happens to me as well. I am just thrilled to hear from you. I believe it has been a number of years since I have heard from you, and am glad to have the opportunity to converse with you again. At any rate let's get to it.

Does people believing something assure that what they believe is true?

It does not. However, we both know that we are not talking about folks who simply believed something to be true. In other words, we are not talking about folks who were believing something that was handed down to them. Rather, we are talking about folks who claimed to have witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion, and we have enough facts and evidence to convince the majority of scholars (even those who are not Christian) that these folks could not have made the reports up. So then, there is a tremendous difference between folks accepting something to be true, as opposed to those who are reporting what they claimed to have witnessed.

Many people claim to have seen and/or interacted with Elvis after he died.

The question here is, how many scholars do we have which are convinced by the facts and evidence concerning these Elvis sightings, that the reports could not have possibly been made up? I am not sure that my grandchildren will even know who Elvis was, and if I were to bet, my bet would be that in 2000 years Elvis will be forgotten. So let us get this straight. You are attempting to compare Elvis sightings, with the reports of the resurrection, while Elvis lived in our lifetime and is already almost forgotten, as compared to these ancient, uneducated folk, whose reports has had one of the most, if not the most significant impacts in the history of the world? Exactly what is the comparison?

Shall we believe all of them?

I am not suggesting that we should simply believe any of them. Rather, we should follow the facts and evidence.

If some made up their reports, would that constitute fraud?

All I am telling you is, we have enough facts and evidence to convince most all the scholars, whether Christian or not, that the reports could not have been made up. Could there have been some who claimed to have witnessed the event but did not? I guess that would be possible, but this would not change the fact that it is next to impossible that the reports of the resurrection were somehow made up. The facts and evidence will not allow this to be the case, and this is demonstrated by the fact that even those scholars who would rather not admit this to be the case are forced to do so.

Who was the author of "Luke"? When did he write, and where did he reside while writing?

You are absolutely making my point. The fact is, we have extremely strong evidence that the author of what we call the "Gospel of Luke" was indeed Luke, and I will be more than happy to demonstrate this to be the case. However, even with this extremely strong evidence, we cannot insist on who the author was, nor when he wrote, nor where he resided. Since this is the case, we cannot insist the author was not Luke, nor can we insist that the author was not a traveling companion of Paul, nor can we insist that these letters were authored some 40 to 60 years after the events. The point is, if we agree that we can know nothing about the author, then one cannot insist that the material was authored 40 to 60 years after the events.

What is the date of production of the earliest available manuscript of the gospel?

I cannot answer this question. What I do know is, the material contained in the NT has convinced most all scholars, whether Christian or not, that the reports of the resurrection could not have been made up. If this is the case, does it really matter the "date of production of the earliest available manuscript of the gospel?" I mean, you seem to be attempting to cast doubt on the credibility of the material contained in the NT, and I do not see how the credibility really matters, when we can agree there are certain things we can know, whether the material is reliable or not.

The letters of Paul, known as the Pauline epistles, were written between approximately 48 AD and 67 AD. Key letters include Galatians (around 48 AD), 1 Thessalonians (around 50-51 AD), and Romans (around 57-58 AD) among others."
From: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

You continue to make my point. We know that Paul did not die of natural causes, and we have letters authored by Paul decades after the events, and we know Paul was alive at the time of Jesus. So then, if Paul would have lived on, and continued to author letters to the Churches, Paul could have authored letters 40 to 60 years out from the events and been alive at the time of the events recorded. This goes on to demonstrate that since we agree that we do not know the authors of what we call the Gospels, then it is possible that the authors were indeed Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, and they could have authored the material 40 to 60 years out, and have been alive at the time of the events recorded.

Are preachers/clergy somehow NOT promoters of religion?

You are missing the point. Even if the authors of the NT were "promoters of religion," the authors are no longer with us today and so they are no longer promoting religion. What we can know is that the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to have been addressed to those who were already believers. When I say, "the overwhelming majority," I mean the overwhelming majority. Out of all the NT there are only three authors who do not identify their audience. We cannot assume who the audience was, which means we cannot assume the intended audience was the unbeliever, in an attempt to promote the religion to the masses. The point I am making is; we can demonstrate beyond doubt that the overwhelming majority of the NT was not an attempt to promote Christianity to the unbelieving world. Rather, it can be demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of the NT was addressed to believing audiences at the time, addressing concerns within that audience at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that anyone else would ever read what they were writing, other than believing audiences at the time, and the authors could not have possibly known about any sort of Bible.

"Many scholars, including Bart Ehrman, agree that the early followers of Jesus, particularly the Apostles, believed they had experiences of seeing Jesus alive after his crucifixion. However, the nature of these experiences—whether they were visions, hallucinations, or something else—remains a topic of debate among historians."
From: garyhabermas (dot) com - and - ehrmanblog (dot) org

Agreed! And we know that any alternative explanation becomes extremely unlikely when you begin to compare them to the facts and evidence we have. We know this because Ehrman gives us a scenario which he agrees is very unlikely, and goes to great lengths explaining to us that he does not believe this scenario could have occurred, and after explaining to us this scenario which he agrees is extremely unlikely, he goes on to assure us that, "any explanation at all, no matter how unlikely it may be, is still more likely than the resurrection." GOOD GRIEF! He is preaching to the choir. No sane person would argue that a resurrection is the most likely explanation.

The glaring question here is, why would Ehrman not give us a likely explanation of the events, and then go on to explain that the resurrection is extremely unlikely? That is because, you know, and I know, he does not have a likely alternative explanation, because if he had one he would have surely used it. However, he is forced to use an explanation that even he has to admit is not very likely in the least, simply to demonstrate that even though such an explanation is not very likely at all, it is still more likely than a resurrection. Exactly what kind of argument is that?

You see, the thing is, Ehrman is fully aware there are no alternative explanations which are likely at all, because they all begin to falter when compared to the facts and evidence we can know. The resurrection is not unlikely when compared to the facts and evidence we have. Rather, the resurrection is only unlikely because of the fact that a resurrection is unlikely. In other words, the resurrection as an explanation answers all the questions we have as far as the facts and evidence we have, while all the alternative explanations become extremely unlikely when compared to what we can know.

[Zzyzx]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #22]

It is good to be back after my 'sabbatical'. I've been debating elsewhere, but people seem to be getting more hateful rather than having civil, intelligent, and respectful discussions/debates.

Time is limited right now but:

"What is an eyewitness report?
An eyewitness report is a report that is written from the first-person point of view. This allows the writer to provide an account of the events that occurred from his/her perspective. It, therefore, means that the writer of this type of report is a witness to the events being reported."
From: cseme@csecenglishmadeeasy (dot) com

Saying "there were eyewitnesses" is not an eyewitness report. Claiming that someone saw a person or event is not an eyewitness report. The witnesses are not identified and they left no documents.

The writer of "Luke" (whoever that may have been) acknowledged that he was reporting what he heard from others.

Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

There are no original gospel documents. The earliest available copies were produced three centuries later.

[Zzyzx]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #1]
Well then, what do you make of that?

Regarding the empty tomb:
Who found the tomb empty?
Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (16:1–10).
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the “other Mary” (mother of James and Joseph) (28:1–10).
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “the other women with them” (24:1–10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1-2).

Who else was present at the tomb?
Matthew: one angel,
Mark: a young man,
Luke: two men,
John: two angels,

Regarding guards at the tomb:
Only Matthew tells of guards -- the same writer (whoever he may have been) who reported that many 'saints' came out of graves and went to town (in the same story he was telling about Jesus being 'resurrected')

Regarding the 'ascension': Only one gospel writer (whoever wrote "Luke" -- famous name assigned a century later) describes the 'ascension' -- and he admits in his introduction that he was reporting what he heard from others.

[William]

There are claims made in gospel stories that people saw Jesus alive after he died. There are claims in newspapers and magazines that people saw Elvis after he died. They have in common (or are comparable) in that neither set of claims has been verified as being true.

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #1]
Well then, what do you make of that?
Did women from Graceland, including Priscilla, witness Elvis' burial?
Did those women later find his tomb empty?
Did Joe Esposito and Red and Sonny West seal and guard the tomb?
Did Billy Smith hear from the women close to elvis that his tomb was open and empty?
Did Jerry Schilling doubt their reports and go have a look for himself?
Did Marty Lacker Charlie Hodge and Lamar Fike later meet Elvis on the road to Las Vegas and tell the rest of the entourage of their encounter and did Jesus appear to most of the "Memphis Mafia, later that same day and eat and drink with them?
Did the risen Elvis show Dr. George Nichopoulos anything about his body which verified that it was indeed Elvis?
and finally, did Elvis tell his entourage to tell the world of all that they had witnessed, sing one final song and then rise up off the planet and disappear behind some clouds?

Regarding the empty tomb:
Who found the tomb empty?
Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (16:1–10).
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the “other Mary” (mother of James and Joseph) (28:1–10).
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “the other women with them” (24:1–10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1-2).

Who else was present at the tomb?
Matthew: one angel,
Mark: a young man,
Luke: two men,
John: two angels,

Regarding guards at the tomb:
Only Matthew tells of guards -- the same writer (whoever he may have been) who reported that many 'saints' came out of graves and went to town (in the same story he was telling about Jesus being 'resurrected')

Regarding the 'ascension': Only one gospel writer (whoever wrote "Luke" -- famous name assigned a century later) describes the 'ascension' -- and he admits in his introduction that he was reporting what he heard from others.

I take it that you agree with me that the story itself is not that similar to the Elvis one?
Who found the tomb empty? What does this tells us? We have various versions of that event. Does that mean the story was made up (a fiction)? Perhaps a bit of both fiction and fact?

Here is AI responding to what you wrote. I think that you should already know this Zz, so maybe you have something else schoolars haven't thought about?

AI: You've presented Zz's reply, which is a focused textual critique highlighting the discrepancies between the Gospel accounts of the resurrection and ascension. This is a standard and valid historical analysis. Let's address the substance of the critique directly, separating historical method from theological conclusion.

Zz's point is strong on a literary level: the Gospel narratives do contradict each other in their specific details. This is not a controversial observation; it is the starting point for all critical scholarship. The key question is: What does this mean for the historical core of the event?

Here is a historian's perspective on each point:

1. The Discrepancies in the Empty Tomb Accounts
Zz is correct. The lists of women, the number and description of the angelic figures, and the exact sequence of events vary. This is precisely what we would expect if we have multiple, independent sources (or traditions) reporting on a traumatic, shocking event decades later. They agree on the core, startling claim but differ on the peripheral details.

The Core Agreement: All four Gospels, independently, assert that women followers of Jesus discovered his tomb empty on the first day of the week. The inclusion of specific, named women (especially Mary Magdalene in all accounts) is significant. As noted before, inventing female witnesses would be a counter-productive strategy in that culture, making this detail a strong indicator of an early, pre-Gospel tradition.

The "Who" and "How Many": The variations are typical of oral history and eyewitness memory. It suggests the evangelists were compiling existing reports, not perfectly harmonizing a fabricated legend.

2. The Guard at the Tomb (Matthew 27:62-66; 28:11-15)
Zz's critique here is widely accepted by the majority of scholars, including many Christian ones. The guard story is considered apologetic material unique to Matthew. Its purpose is explicitly to refute the Jewish polemic that "the disciples stole the body" (Matt. 28:13). Its absence from Mark (the earliest Gospel) and the independent tradition in John suggests it was a later narrative development to address a specific objection.

The Resurrected Saints (Matthew 27:52-53): This is universally recognized by scholars across the spectrum as apocalyptic symbolism, not literal history. It is Matthew's dramatic, theological way of signaling that Jesus's death has shattered the power of death itself. Using this clearly symbolic passage to dismiss the entire narrative is not considered a strong historical argument.

3. The Ascension (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-11)
Zz is factually correct: only Luke provides a detailed physical description of the ascension. However, the concept of Jesus's exaltation to God's right hand is universal and primal in Christian belief.

It is embedded in pre-Pauline creeds (e.g., Philippians 2:9, a hymn Paul quotes from even earlier).

It is the theological foundation of the entire New Testament (Stephen sees Jesus at God's right hand in Acts 7, the Book of Hebrews is structured around it, etc.).

Luke's physical description is his narrative way of depicting this universal, accepted belief of the early church. John and Matthew imply it (John 20:17; Matt 28:18), and Mark's original ending is lost.

On Luke's Introduction (Luke 1:1-4): Citing this as a weakness misunderstands ancient historiography. Luke is declaring his method: he investigated existing sources and eyewitness accounts to compile an "orderly account." This is a mark of carefulness for the time, not an admission of hearsay. All ancient historians, like Thucydides or Josephus, worked from sources.

The Historian's Conclusion from This Evidence
A historian examining these conflicting texts does not throw them out. Instead, they ask: "What is the best explanation for the existence of these varied, sometimes contradictory, yet passionately held accounts that emerged within the lifetime of eyewitnesses?"

The minimal historical consensus remains, as noted by scholars like Bart Ehrman (who, again, is an agnostic and agrees with Zz's textual analysis):

Jesus was crucified and buried.

Shortly after, his followers had experiences they interpreted as encounters with him alive.

Their movement was founded on the immediate, fervent proclamation of his resurrection, despite every social and political reason to disband.

The Gospel variations are evidence of the process, not proof of the null hypothesis. They show a complex, rapid development of tradition around a central, catalytic claim.

Final Analogy Check:
The Elvis stories are posthumous folklore layered atop a well-documented, secular life. The Jesus stories are the foundational documents of a movement that emerged simultaneously with the claims themselves. The discrepancies in the Gospels are the kind we see in primary sources grappling with a transformative event. The discrepancies in Elvis sightings are the kind we see in urban legends growing in the absence of a transformative event.

Zz has correctly identified the textual tensions, but from a historical method standpoint, those tensions do not erase the historical puzzle that the sources themselves present: why did this movement, with this specific and shocking claim, begin at this time? Textual criticism is the first step in answering that, not the last word.

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]

What are my "tales about the history" to which you refer?

For example: "No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else mentioned Jesus during his lifetime or anything he may have said or done".

My statement is based on
"In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!"
From: Dr. Bart Ehrman Professor of Religious Studies

Ok, so it is Dr. Bart Ehrman's tales about history that we should believe without any verification. Thanks for the clarification.

[Zzyzx]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]
Ok, so it is Dr. Bart Ehrman's tales about history that we should believe without any verification. Thanks for the clarification.

Everyone is entitled to decide for themselves whether to believe Ehaman's statements -- with or without verification.

If someone wishes to claim or announce that the statements should NOT be believed, they are welcome to present verifiable evidence to support their claim/announcement.

You are welcome to present verifiable evidence to prove that a first-century Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet DID mention Jesus or his words and deeds. OR that his name DOES occur on an inscription from that era.

[William]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #27]

You are welcome to present verifiable evidence to prove that a first-century Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet DID mention Jesus or his words and deeds. OR that his name DOES occur on an inscription from that era.

How would such being done/not being done, answer your question "Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky"?

[Zzyzx]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #27]

You are welcome to present verifiable evidence to prove that a first-century Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet DID mention Jesus or his words and deeds. OR that his name DOES occur on an inscription from that era.

How would such being done/not being done, answer your question "Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky"?

No one noticed or recorded ANYTHING about the astonishing supposed events 'resurrection' or 'ascension' other than religion promoters writing stories long after he is said to have died. Those tales are not even original. Many 'gods' of earlier mythology and religion are claimed to have done so long before Christians copied that common theme.

Other 'gods' claimed to have 'resurrected' include Osiris, Horus, Buddha, Krishna, Zarathustra, Hercules, Mithra, Dionysus, Thammuz, Hermes, Adonis, and MANY more.

WHY would a rational person believe tales told about ANY 'gods' coming back to life after dying? Why believe some (or one) tale and not others?

[William]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #27]

You are welcome to present verifiable evidence to prove that a first-century Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet DID mention Jesus or his words and deeds. OR that his name DOES occur on an inscription from that era.

How would such being done/not being done, answer your question "Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky"?

No one noticed or recorded ANYTHING about the astonishing supposed events 'resurrection' or 'ascension' other than religion promoters writing stories long after he is said to have died. Those tales are not even original. Many 'gods' of earlier mythology and religion are claimed to have done so long before Christians copied that common theme.

Other 'gods' claimed to have 'resurrected' include Osiris, Horus, Buddha, Krishna, Zarathustra, Hercules, Mithra, Dionysus, Thammuz, Hermes, Adonis, and MANY more.

WHY would a rational person believe tales told about ANY 'gods' coming back to life after dying? Why believe some (or one) tale and not others?

So, you are saying then that it didn't happen - nor any of the others you mentioned, happened, therefore your answer to the question is "no - Jesus didn't come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky?