-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is this potential evidence for the resurrection of Christ?
- Thread starter Jos
- Start date
3rdAngel
Well-Known Member
An interesting article worth consideration from historians and scholars I found this morning may be helpful. It is posted below (3x post) and without comment from me...
Historical Evidence for the Resurrection
The historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ is very good. Scholars such as William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Gary Habermas, and others have done an especially good job of detailing that evidence.1 It is the aim of this article to offer a sort of synthesis of some of their key points and show the strength of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ.
A method commonly used today to determine the historicity of an event is "inference to the best explanation." William Lane Craig describes this as an approach where we "begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of that evidence." In other words, we ought to accept an event as historical if it gives the best explanation for the evidence surrounding it.
When we look at the evidence, the truth of the resurrection emerges very clearly as the best explanation. There is no other theory that even come close to accounting for the evidence. Therefore, there is solid historical grounds for the truth that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
It is worth pointing out that in establishing the historicity of the resurrection, we do not need to assume that the New Testament is inspired by God or even trustworthy. While I do believe these things, we are going to focus here on three truths that even critical scholars admit. In other words, these three truths are so strong that they are accepted by serious historians of all stripes. Therefore, any theory must be able to adequately account for these data.
The three truths are:
- The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
- Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
- As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.
The Empty Tomb
To begin, what is the evidence that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion?
First, the resurrection was preached in the same city where Jesus had been buried shortly before. Jesus' disciples did not go to some obscure place where no one had heard of Jesus to begin preaching about the resurrection, but instead began preaching in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus had died and been buried. They could not have done this if Jesus was still in his tomb--no one would have believed them. No one would be foolish enough to believe a man had raised from the dead when his body lay dead in the tomb for all to see. As Paul Althaus writes, the resurrection proclamation "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."
Second, the earliest Jewish arguments against Christianity admit the empty tomb. In Matthew 28:11-15, there is a reference made to the Jew's attempt to refute Christianity be saying that the disciples stole the body. This is significant because it shows that the Jews did not deny the empty tomb. Instead, their "stolen body" theory admitted the significant truth that the tomb was in fact empty. The Toledoth Jesu, a compilation of early Jewish writings, is another source acknowledging this. It acknowledges that the tomb was empty, and attempts to explain it away. Further, we have a record of a second century debate between a Christian and a Jew, in which a reference is made to the fact that the Jews claim the body was stolen. So it is pretty well established that the early Jews admitted the empty tomb.
Why is this important? Remember that the Jewish leaders were opposed to Christianity. They were hostile witnesses. In acknowledging the empty tomb, they were admitting the reality of a fact that was certainly not in their favor. So why would they admit that the tomb was empty unless the evidence was too strong to be denied? Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source. In essence, if a source admits a fact that is decidedly not in its favor, the fact is genuine."
Third, the empty tomb account in the gospel of Mark is based upon a source that originated within seven years of the event it narrates. This places the evidence for the empty tomb too early to be legendary, and makes it much more likely that it is accurate. What is the evidence for this? I will list two pieces. A German commentator on Mark, Rudolf Pesch, points out that this pre-Markan source never mentions the high priest by name. "This implies that Caiaphas, who we know was high priest at that time, was still high priest when the story began circulating." For "if it had been written after Caiaphas' term of office, his name would have had to have been used to distinguish him from the next high priest. But since Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18 to 37, this story began circulating no later than A.D. 37, within the first seven years after the events," as Michael Horton has summarized it. Furthermore, Pesch argues "that since Paul's traditions concerning the Last Supper [written in 56] (1 Cor 11) presuppose the Markan account, that implies that the Markan source goes right back to the early years" of Christianity (Craig). So the early source Mark used puts the testimony of the empty tomb too early to be legendary.
Fourth, the empty tomb is supported by the historical reliability of the burial story. NT scholars agree that he burial story is one of the best established facts about Jesus. One reason for this is because of the inclusion of Joseph of Arimethea as the one who buried Christ. Joseph was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrein, a sort of Jewish supreme court. People on this ruling class were simply too well known for fictitious stories about them to be pulled off in this way. This would have exposed the Christians as frauds. So they couldn't have circulated a story about him burying Jesus unless it was true. Also, if the burial account was legendary, one would expect to find conflicting traditions--which we don't have.
But how does the reliability of Jesus' burial argue that the tomb was empty? Because the burial account and empty tomb account have grammatical and linguistic ties, indicating that they are one continuous account. Therefore, if the burial account is accurate the empty tomb is likely to be accurate as well. Further, if the burial account is accurate then everyone knew where Jesus was buried. This would have been decisive evidence to refute the early Christians who were preaching the resurrection--for if the tomb had not been empty, it would have been evident to all and the disciples would have been exposed as frauds at worst, or insane at best.
Fifth, Jesus' tomb was never venerated as a shrine. This is striking because it was the 1st century custom to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There were at least 50 such cites in Jesus' day. Since there was no such shrine for Jesus, it suggests that his bones weren't there.
Sixth, Mark's account of the empty tomb is simple and shows no signs of legendary development. This is very apparent when we compare it with the gospel of Peter, a forgery from about 125. This legend has all of the Jewish leaders, Roman guards, and many people from the countryside gathered to watch the resurrection. Then three men come out of the tomb, with their heads reaching up to the clouds. Then a talking cross comes out of the tomb! This is what legend looks like, and we see none of that in Mark's account of the empty tomb--or anywhere else in the gospels for that matter!
Seventh, the tomb was discovered empty by women. Why is this important? Because the testimony of women in 1st century Jewish culture was considered worthless. As Craig says, "if the empty tomb story were a legend, then it is most likely that the male disciples would have been made the first to discover the empty tomb. The fact that despised women, whose testimony was deemed worthless, were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb can only be plausibly explained if, like it or not, they actually were the discoverers of the empty tomb."
Because of the strong evidence for the empty tomb, most recent scholars do not deny it. D.H. Van Daalen has said, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." Jacob Kremer, who has specialized in the study of the resurrection and is a NT critic, has said "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb" and he lists twenty-eight scholars to back up his fantastic claim.
I'm sure you've heard of the various theories used to explain away the empty tomb, such as that the body was stolen. But those theories are laughed at today by all serious scholars. In fact, they have been considered dead and refuted for almost a hundred years. For example, the Jews or Romans had no motive to steal the body--they wanted to suppress Christianity, not encourage it by providing it with an empty tomb. The disciples would have had no motive, either. Because of their preaching on the resurrection, they were beaten, killed, and persecuted. Why would they go through all of this for a deliberate lie? No serious scholars hold to any of these theories today. What explanation, then, do the critics offer, you may ask? Craig tells us that "they are self-confessedly without any explanation to offer. There is simply no plausible natural explanation today to account for Jesus' tomb being empty. If we deny the resurrection of Jesus, we are left with an inexplicable mystery." The resurrection of Jesus is not just the best explanation for the empty tomb, it is the only explanation in town!
continued...
Last edited:
3rdAngel
Well-Known Member
The Resurrection Appearances
Next, there is the evidence that Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ. This is not commonly disputed today because we have the testimony of the original disciples themselves that they saw Jesus alive again. And you don't need to believe in the reliability of the gospels to believe this. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul records an ancient creed concerning Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection appearances that is much earlier than the letter in which Paul is recording it:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time...
It is generally agreed by critical scholars that Paul receive this creed from Peter and James between 3-5 years after the crucifixion. Now, Peter and James are listed in this creed as having seen the risen Christ. Since they are the ones who gave this creed to Paul, this is therefore a statement of their own testimony. As the Jewish Scholar Pinchahs Lapide has said, this creed "may be considered the statement of eyewitnesses."
Now, I recognize that just because the disciples think they saw Jesus doesn't automatically mean that they really did. There are three possible alternatives:
Because of the absurdity of the theory that the disciples were lying, we can see why almost all scholars today admit that, if nothing else, the disciples at least believed that Jesus appeared to them. But we know that just believing something to be true doesn't make it true. Perhaps the disciples were wrong and had been deceived by a hallucination?
The hallucination theory is untenable because it cannot explain the physical nature of the appearances. The disciples record eating and drinking with Jesus, as well as touching him. This cannot be done with hallucinations. Second, it is highly unlikely that they would all have had the same hallucination. Hallucinations are highly individual, and not group projections. Imagine if I came in here and said to you, "wasn't that a great dream I had last night?" Hallucinations, like dreams, generally don't transfer like that. Further, the hallucination theory cannot explain the conversion of Paul, three years later. Was Paul, the persecutor of Christians, so hoping to see the resurrected Jesus that his mind invented an appearance as well? And perhaps most significantly, the hallucination theory cannot even deal with the evidence for the empty tomb.
Since the disciples could not have been lying or hallucinating, we have only one possible explanation left: the disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus because they really had seen the risen Jesus. So, the resurrection appearances alone demonstrate the resurrection. Thus, if we reject the resurrection, we are left with a second inexplicable mystery--first the empty tomb and now the appearances.
The Origin of the Christian Faith
Finally, the existence of the Christian church is strong proof for the resurrection. Why is this? Because even the most skeptical NT scholars admit that the disciples at least believed that Jesus was raised from the grave. But how can we explain the origin of that belief? William Lane Craig points out that there are three possible causes: Christian influences, pagan influences, or Jewish influences.
Could it have been Christian influences? Craig writes, "Since the belief in the resurrection was itself the foundation for Christianity, it cannot be explained as the later product of Christianity." Further, as we saw, if the disciples made it up, then they were frauds and liars--alternatives we have shown to be false. We have also shown the unlikeliness that they hallucinated this belief.
But what about pagan influences? Isn't it often pointed out that there were many myths of dying and rising savior gods at the time of Christianity? Couldn't the disciples have been deluded by those myths and copied them into their own teaching on the resurrection of Christ? In reality, serious scholars have almost universally rejected this theory since WWII, for several reasons. First, it has been shown that these mystery religions had no major influence in Palestine in the 1st century. Second, most of the sources which contain parallels originated after Christianity was established. Third, most of the similarities are often apparent and not real--a result of sloppy terminology on the part of those who explain them. For example, one critic tried to argue that a ceremony of killing a bull and letting the blood drip all over the participants was parallel to holy communion. Fourth, the early disciples were Jews, and it would have been unthinkable for a Jew to borrow from another religion. For they were zealous in their belief that the pagan religions were abhorrent to God.
Jewish influences cannot explain the belief in the resurrection, either. 1st century Judaism had no conception of a single individual rising from the dead in the middle of history. Their concept was always that everybody would be raised together at the end of time. So the idea of one individual rising in the middle of history was foreign to them. Thus, Judaism of that day could have never produced the resurrection hypothesis. This is also another good argument against the theory that the disciples were hallucinating. Psychologists will tell you that hallucinations cannot contain anything new--that is, they cannot contain any idea that isn't already somehow in your mind. Since the early disciples were Jews, they had no conception of the messiah rising from the dead in the middle of history. Thus, they would have never hallucinated about a resurrection of Christ. At best, they would have hallucinated that he had been transported directly to heaven, as Elijah had been in the OT, but they would have never hallucinated a resurrection.
So we see that if the resurrection did not happen, there is no plausible way to account for the origin of the Christian faith. We would be left with a third inexplicable mystery.
Three Independent Facts
These are three independently established facts that we have established. If we deny the resurrection, we are left with at least three inexplicable mysteries. But there is a much, much better explanation than a wimpy appeal to mystery or a far-fetched appeal to a stolen body, hallucination, and mystery religion. The best explanation is that Christ in fact rose from the dead! Even if we take each fact by itself, we have good enough evidence. But taken together, we see that the evidence becomes even stronger. For example, even if two of these facts were to be explained away, there would still be the third truth to establishes the fact of the resurrection.
These three independently established facts also make alternative explanations less plausible. It is generally agreed that the explanation with the best explanatory scope should be accepted. That is, the theory that explains the most of the evidence is more likely to be true. The resurrection is the only hypothesis that explains all of the evidence. If we deny the resurrection, we must come up with three independent natural explanations, not just one. For example, you would have to propose that the Jews stole the body, then the disciples hallucinated, and then somehow the pagan mystery religions influenced their beliefs to make them think of a resurrection. But we have already seen the implausibility of such theories. And trying to combine them will only make matters worse. As Gary Habermas has said, "Combining three improbable theories will not produce a probable explanation. It will actually increase the degree of improbability. Its like putting leaking buckets inside each other, hoping each one will help stop up the leaks in the others. All you will get is a watery mess."
continued...
Next, there is the evidence that Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ. This is not commonly disputed today because we have the testimony of the original disciples themselves that they saw Jesus alive again. And you don't need to believe in the reliability of the gospels to believe this. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul records an ancient creed concerning Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection appearances that is much earlier than the letter in which Paul is recording it:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time...
It is generally agreed by critical scholars that Paul receive this creed from Peter and James between 3-5 years after the crucifixion. Now, Peter and James are listed in this creed as having seen the risen Christ. Since they are the ones who gave this creed to Paul, this is therefore a statement of their own testimony. As the Jewish Scholar Pinchahs Lapide has said, this creed "may be considered the statement of eyewitnesses."
Now, I recognize that just because the disciples think they saw Jesus doesn't automatically mean that they really did. There are three possible alternatives:
- They were lying
- They hallucinated
- They really saw the risen Christ
Because of the absurdity of the theory that the disciples were lying, we can see why almost all scholars today admit that, if nothing else, the disciples at least believed that Jesus appeared to them. But we know that just believing something to be true doesn't make it true. Perhaps the disciples were wrong and had been deceived by a hallucination?
The hallucination theory is untenable because it cannot explain the physical nature of the appearances. The disciples record eating and drinking with Jesus, as well as touching him. This cannot be done with hallucinations. Second, it is highly unlikely that they would all have had the same hallucination. Hallucinations are highly individual, and not group projections. Imagine if I came in here and said to you, "wasn't that a great dream I had last night?" Hallucinations, like dreams, generally don't transfer like that. Further, the hallucination theory cannot explain the conversion of Paul, three years later. Was Paul, the persecutor of Christians, so hoping to see the resurrected Jesus that his mind invented an appearance as well? And perhaps most significantly, the hallucination theory cannot even deal with the evidence for the empty tomb.
Since the disciples could not have been lying or hallucinating, we have only one possible explanation left: the disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus because they really had seen the risen Jesus. So, the resurrection appearances alone demonstrate the resurrection. Thus, if we reject the resurrection, we are left with a second inexplicable mystery--first the empty tomb and now the appearances.
The Origin of the Christian Faith
Finally, the existence of the Christian church is strong proof for the resurrection. Why is this? Because even the most skeptical NT scholars admit that the disciples at least believed that Jesus was raised from the grave. But how can we explain the origin of that belief? William Lane Craig points out that there are three possible causes: Christian influences, pagan influences, or Jewish influences.
Could it have been Christian influences? Craig writes, "Since the belief in the resurrection was itself the foundation for Christianity, it cannot be explained as the later product of Christianity." Further, as we saw, if the disciples made it up, then they were frauds and liars--alternatives we have shown to be false. We have also shown the unlikeliness that they hallucinated this belief.
But what about pagan influences? Isn't it often pointed out that there were many myths of dying and rising savior gods at the time of Christianity? Couldn't the disciples have been deluded by those myths and copied them into their own teaching on the resurrection of Christ? In reality, serious scholars have almost universally rejected this theory since WWII, for several reasons. First, it has been shown that these mystery religions had no major influence in Palestine in the 1st century. Second, most of the sources which contain parallels originated after Christianity was established. Third, most of the similarities are often apparent and not real--a result of sloppy terminology on the part of those who explain them. For example, one critic tried to argue that a ceremony of killing a bull and letting the blood drip all over the participants was parallel to holy communion. Fourth, the early disciples were Jews, and it would have been unthinkable for a Jew to borrow from another religion. For they were zealous in their belief that the pagan religions were abhorrent to God.
Jewish influences cannot explain the belief in the resurrection, either. 1st century Judaism had no conception of a single individual rising from the dead in the middle of history. Their concept was always that everybody would be raised together at the end of time. So the idea of one individual rising in the middle of history was foreign to them. Thus, Judaism of that day could have never produced the resurrection hypothesis. This is also another good argument against the theory that the disciples were hallucinating. Psychologists will tell you that hallucinations cannot contain anything new--that is, they cannot contain any idea that isn't already somehow in your mind. Since the early disciples were Jews, they had no conception of the messiah rising from the dead in the middle of history. Thus, they would have never hallucinated about a resurrection of Christ. At best, they would have hallucinated that he had been transported directly to heaven, as Elijah had been in the OT, but they would have never hallucinated a resurrection.
So we see that if the resurrection did not happen, there is no plausible way to account for the origin of the Christian faith. We would be left with a third inexplicable mystery.
Three Independent Facts
These are three independently established facts that we have established. If we deny the resurrection, we are left with at least three inexplicable mysteries. But there is a much, much better explanation than a wimpy appeal to mystery or a far-fetched appeal to a stolen body, hallucination, and mystery religion. The best explanation is that Christ in fact rose from the dead! Even if we take each fact by itself, we have good enough evidence. But taken together, we see that the evidence becomes even stronger. For example, even if two of these facts were to be explained away, there would still be the third truth to establishes the fact of the resurrection.
These three independently established facts also make alternative explanations less plausible. It is generally agreed that the explanation with the best explanatory scope should be accepted. That is, the theory that explains the most of the evidence is more likely to be true. The resurrection is the only hypothesis that explains all of the evidence. If we deny the resurrection, we must come up with three independent natural explanations, not just one. For example, you would have to propose that the Jews stole the body, then the disciples hallucinated, and then somehow the pagan mystery religions influenced their beliefs to make them think of a resurrection. But we have already seen the implausibility of such theories. And trying to combine them will only make matters worse. As Gary Habermas has said, "Combining three improbable theories will not produce a probable explanation. It will actually increase the degree of improbability. Its like putting leaking buckets inside each other, hoping each one will help stop up the leaks in the others. All you will get is a watery mess."
continued...
Last edited:
3rdAngel
Well-Known Member
Legend?
Before examining, briefly, the implications of the resurrection, I wish to take a quick look at perhaps the most popular theory today against the resurrection--that it was a legend that developed over time. The facts we have established so far are enough to put to rest any idea of a legend.
First, we have seen that the testimony of the resurrection goes back to the original experiences. Remember the eyewitness creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5? That is the first-hand testimony of Peter and James. So it is not the case that the resurrection belief evolved over time. Instead, we have testimony from the very people who claimed to have experienced it. Second, how can the myth theory explain the evidence for the empty tomb? Third, the myth theory cannot explain the origin of the Christian faith--for we have already seen that the real resurrection of Christ is the only adequate cause for the resurrection belief. Fourth, the myth theory cannot explain the conversion of Paul. Would he be convinced by a myth? His conversion was in fact too early for any myth to have developed by then. How then can we explain his conversion? Do we dare accuse him of lying when he said he saw the risen Christ?
Fifth, we have seen the evidence that the empty tomb story in Mark was very early--within seven years of the events. That is not long enough for legends. Sixth, we have seen that the empty tomb narrative lacks the classic traits of legendary development. Seventh, critical scholars agree that the resurrection message was the foundation of the preaching of the early church. Thus, it could not have been the product of the later church. Ninth, there is very good evidence that the gospels and Acts were written very early. For example, the book of Acts never records the death of Paul, which occurred in about 64, or the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70.
Since both Jerusalem and Paul are key players in the book of Acts, it seems strange that their demises would be omitted. The best explanation seems to be that Paul's death and Jerusalem's destruction are omitted because the book of Acts had been completed before they happened. This means that Acts was written before 64, when Paul died. Since Acts is volume 2 of Luke's writings, the book of Luke being the first, then the Gospel of Luke was even earlier, perhaps 62. And since most scholars agree that Mark was the first gospel written, that gospel would have been composed even earlier, perhaps in the late 50s. This brings us within twenty years of the events, which is not enough time for legends to develop. So the legend theory is not very plausible.
On the basis of the evidence we have seen, it appears to me that the resurrection is the best explanation. It explains the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the existence of the Christian church. No other competing theory can explain all three of these facts. In fact, none of these competing theories can even give a satisfying explanation for even one of these facts. So it seems like the rational person will accept that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
The Importance of the Resurrection
But, in conclusion, don't we have to ask ourselves what implications this has? Why does it matter? Or is this some dry, dusty old piece of history that has no relevance to our lives? I believe that the resurrection is the most important truth in the world. It has far reaching implications on our lives.
First, the resurrection proves that the claims Jesus made about himself are true. What did Jesus claim? He claimed to be God. One might say, "I don't believe that He claimed to be God, because I don't believe the Bible." But the fact is that even if we take only the passages which skeptical scholars admit as authentic, it can still be shown that Jesus claimed to be God. I have written a paper elsewhere to demonstrate this. So it is impossible to get around the fact that Jesus claimed to be God. Now, if Jesus had stayed dead in the tomb, it would be foolish to believe this claim. But since He rose from the dead, it would be foolish not to believe it. The resurrection proves that what Jesus said about Himself is true--He is fully God and fully man.
Second, have you ever wondered what reasons there are to believe in the Bible? Is there good reason to believe that it was inspired by God, or is it simply a bunch of interesting myths and legends? The resurrection of Jesus answers the question. If Jesus rose from the dead, then we have seen this validates His claim to be God. If He is God, He speaks with absolute certainty and final authority. Therefore, what Jesus said about the Bible must be true. Surely you are going to accept the testimony of one who rose from the dead over the testimony of a skeptical scholar who will one day die himself--without being able to raise himself on the third day. What did Jesus say about the Bible? He said that it was inspired by God and that it cannot error. I will accept the testimony of Jesus over what I would like to be true and over the opinions of other men and women. Therefore I believe that the Bible is inspired by God, without error. Don't get misled by the numerous skeptical and unbelieving theories about the Bible. Trust Jesus--He rose from the dead.
Third, many people are confused by the many different religions in the world. Are they all from God? But on a closer examination we see that they cannot all be from God, because they all contradict each other. They cannot all be true any more than 2+2 can equal both 4 and 5 at the same time. For example, Christianity is the only religion that believes Jesus Christ is both God and man. All other religions say that he was a good man only-and not God. Clearly, both claims cannot be right! Somebody is wrong. How are we to know which religion is correct? By a simple test: which religion gives the best evidence for its truth? In light of Christ's resurrection, I think that Christianity has the best reasons behind it.
Jesus is the only religious leader who has risen from the dead. All other religious leaders are still in their tombs. Who would you believe? I think the answer is clear: Jesus' resurrection demonstrates that what He said was true. Therefore, we must accept his statement to be the only way to God: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, except through me" (John 14:6).
Fourth, the resurrection of Christ proves that God will judge the world one day. The apostle Paul said, "God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." The resurrection of Christ proves something very personal and significant to each of us--we will have to give an account of ourselves to a holy God. And if we are honest with ourselves, we will have to admit that we do not measure up to his standard. We are sinful, and therefore deserve to be condemned at His judgment.
Which leads to our fifth point. The resurrection of Christ provides genuine hope for eternal life. Why? Because Jesus says that by trusting in Him, we will be forgiven of our sins and thereby escape being condemned at the judgment. The NT doesn't just tell us that Christ rose from the dead and leave us wondering why He did this. It answers that He did this because we are sinners. And because we have sinned, we are deserving of God's judgment. Since God is just, He cannot simply let our sins go. The penalty for our sins must be paid.
The good news is that God, out of His love, became man in Jesus Christ in order to pay the penalty for sinners. On the cross, Jesus died in the place of those who would come to believe in Him. He took upon Himself the very death that we deserve. The apostle Paul says "He was delivered up because of our sins." But the apostle Paul goes on to say "He was raised to life because of our justification." Paul is saying that Christ's resurrection proves that His mission to conquer sin was successful. His resurrection proves that He is a Savior who is not only willing, but also able, to deliver us from the wrath of God that is coming on the day of judgment. The forgiveness that Jesus died and rose to provide is given to those who trust in Him for salvation and a happy future.
Let me close with the sixth reason the resurrection is significant. The Bible says that Christ's resurrection is the pattern that those who believe in Him will follow. In other words, those who believe in Christ will one day be resurrected by God just as He was. The resurrection proves that those who trust in Christ will not be subject in eternity to a half-human existence in just their souls. It proves that our bodies will be resurrected one day. Because of the resurrection of Christ, believers will one day experience, forever, the freedom of having a glorified soul and body. (source)
Before examining, briefly, the implications of the resurrection, I wish to take a quick look at perhaps the most popular theory today against the resurrection--that it was a legend that developed over time. The facts we have established so far are enough to put to rest any idea of a legend.
First, we have seen that the testimony of the resurrection goes back to the original experiences. Remember the eyewitness creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5? That is the first-hand testimony of Peter and James. So it is not the case that the resurrection belief evolved over time. Instead, we have testimony from the very people who claimed to have experienced it. Second, how can the myth theory explain the evidence for the empty tomb? Third, the myth theory cannot explain the origin of the Christian faith--for we have already seen that the real resurrection of Christ is the only adequate cause for the resurrection belief. Fourth, the myth theory cannot explain the conversion of Paul. Would he be convinced by a myth? His conversion was in fact too early for any myth to have developed by then. How then can we explain his conversion? Do we dare accuse him of lying when he said he saw the risen Christ?
Fifth, we have seen the evidence that the empty tomb story in Mark was very early--within seven years of the events. That is not long enough for legends. Sixth, we have seen that the empty tomb narrative lacks the classic traits of legendary development. Seventh, critical scholars agree that the resurrection message was the foundation of the preaching of the early church. Thus, it could not have been the product of the later church. Ninth, there is very good evidence that the gospels and Acts were written very early. For example, the book of Acts never records the death of Paul, which occurred in about 64, or the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70.
Since both Jerusalem and Paul are key players in the book of Acts, it seems strange that their demises would be omitted. The best explanation seems to be that Paul's death and Jerusalem's destruction are omitted because the book of Acts had been completed before they happened. This means that Acts was written before 64, when Paul died. Since Acts is volume 2 of Luke's writings, the book of Luke being the first, then the Gospel of Luke was even earlier, perhaps 62. And since most scholars agree that Mark was the first gospel written, that gospel would have been composed even earlier, perhaps in the late 50s. This brings us within twenty years of the events, which is not enough time for legends to develop. So the legend theory is not very plausible.
On the basis of the evidence we have seen, it appears to me that the resurrection is the best explanation. It explains the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the existence of the Christian church. No other competing theory can explain all three of these facts. In fact, none of these competing theories can even give a satisfying explanation for even one of these facts. So it seems like the rational person will accept that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
The Importance of the Resurrection
But, in conclusion, don't we have to ask ourselves what implications this has? Why does it matter? Or is this some dry, dusty old piece of history that has no relevance to our lives? I believe that the resurrection is the most important truth in the world. It has far reaching implications on our lives.
First, the resurrection proves that the claims Jesus made about himself are true. What did Jesus claim? He claimed to be God. One might say, "I don't believe that He claimed to be God, because I don't believe the Bible." But the fact is that even if we take only the passages which skeptical scholars admit as authentic, it can still be shown that Jesus claimed to be God. I have written a paper elsewhere to demonstrate this. So it is impossible to get around the fact that Jesus claimed to be God. Now, if Jesus had stayed dead in the tomb, it would be foolish to believe this claim. But since He rose from the dead, it would be foolish not to believe it. The resurrection proves that what Jesus said about Himself is true--He is fully God and fully man.
Second, have you ever wondered what reasons there are to believe in the Bible? Is there good reason to believe that it was inspired by God, or is it simply a bunch of interesting myths and legends? The resurrection of Jesus answers the question. If Jesus rose from the dead, then we have seen this validates His claim to be God. If He is God, He speaks with absolute certainty and final authority. Therefore, what Jesus said about the Bible must be true. Surely you are going to accept the testimony of one who rose from the dead over the testimony of a skeptical scholar who will one day die himself--without being able to raise himself on the third day. What did Jesus say about the Bible? He said that it was inspired by God and that it cannot error. I will accept the testimony of Jesus over what I would like to be true and over the opinions of other men and women. Therefore I believe that the Bible is inspired by God, without error. Don't get misled by the numerous skeptical and unbelieving theories about the Bible. Trust Jesus--He rose from the dead.
Third, many people are confused by the many different religions in the world. Are they all from God? But on a closer examination we see that they cannot all be from God, because they all contradict each other. They cannot all be true any more than 2+2 can equal both 4 and 5 at the same time. For example, Christianity is the only religion that believes Jesus Christ is both God and man. All other religions say that he was a good man only-and not God. Clearly, both claims cannot be right! Somebody is wrong. How are we to know which religion is correct? By a simple test: which religion gives the best evidence for its truth? In light of Christ's resurrection, I think that Christianity has the best reasons behind it.
Jesus is the only religious leader who has risen from the dead. All other religious leaders are still in their tombs. Who would you believe? I think the answer is clear: Jesus' resurrection demonstrates that what He said was true. Therefore, we must accept his statement to be the only way to God: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, except through me" (John 14:6).
Fourth, the resurrection of Christ proves that God will judge the world one day. The apostle Paul said, "God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." The resurrection of Christ proves something very personal and significant to each of us--we will have to give an account of ourselves to a holy God. And if we are honest with ourselves, we will have to admit that we do not measure up to his standard. We are sinful, and therefore deserve to be condemned at His judgment.
Which leads to our fifth point. The resurrection of Christ provides genuine hope for eternal life. Why? Because Jesus says that by trusting in Him, we will be forgiven of our sins and thereby escape being condemned at the judgment. The NT doesn't just tell us that Christ rose from the dead and leave us wondering why He did this. It answers that He did this because we are sinners. And because we have sinned, we are deserving of God's judgment. Since God is just, He cannot simply let our sins go. The penalty for our sins must be paid.
The good news is that God, out of His love, became man in Jesus Christ in order to pay the penalty for sinners. On the cross, Jesus died in the place of those who would come to believe in Him. He took upon Himself the very death that we deserve. The apostle Paul says "He was delivered up because of our sins." But the apostle Paul goes on to say "He was raised to life because of our justification." Paul is saying that Christ's resurrection proves that His mission to conquer sin was successful. His resurrection proves that He is a Savior who is not only willing, but also able, to deliver us from the wrath of God that is coming on the day of judgment. The forgiveness that Jesus died and rose to provide is given to those who trust in Him for salvation and a happy future.
Let me close with the sixth reason the resurrection is significant. The Bible says that Christ's resurrection is the pattern that those who believe in Him will follow. In other words, those who believe in Christ will one day be resurrected by God just as He was. The resurrection proves that those who trust in Christ will not be subject in eternity to a half-human existence in just their souls. It proves that our bodies will be resurrected one day. Because of the resurrection of Christ, believers will one day experience, forever, the freedom of having a glorified soul and body. (source)
Audie
Veteran Member
3rdAngel
Well-Known Member
Hello Audie nice to meet you
.You do not need to read the article if you do not want to as it was not addressed to you. It was addressed to the OP who was asking for historical evidence of the resurrection which was his request. How can you prove something is false when you do not read it or have evidence for your opinion? That only seems like a closed mind. I never said the article was brief or quick. In relation to the section you took out of the context to the whole article, the author was stating that "breifly" was in context to the implications provided not the whole article. If you read it though I guess you would have known that.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Hello Audie nice to meet you
You do not need to read the article if you do not want to as it was not addressed to you. It was addressed to the OP who was asking for historical evidence of the resurrection which was his request. How can you prove something is false when you do not read it or have evidence for your opinion? That only seems like a closed mind. I never said the article was brief or quick. In relation to the section you took out of the context to the whole article, the author was stating that "breifly" was in context to the implications provided not the whole article. If you read it though I guess you would have known that.
Three truths, it says.
Special meaning for the word “truth”
The question is, why does any particular scholar think that? It always seems to boil down to two arguments ─ the one you're using, everyone thinks so, and Paul's mention of James the brother of the Lord; but the first is circular ─ they say it's true because they say it's true ─ and the second is open to the objection that Paul calls people 'brothers of the lord' who are plainly followers, not kin.
There's no clincher. There may have been such a human, but there needn't have been.
We have no eyewitness account of Jesus, no contemporary mention of him, no independent mention of him. Instead we have at least five incompatible stories about who he was and what he did. Paul says virtually nothing about Jesus on earth. Mark's is the only account, and it's devised by moving Jesus through a series of 'fulfillment of prophecy' scenes; it may contain some sayings which the author thought were by Jesus, or it may not. The authors of Matthew, Luke, and John changed. added to and subtracted from it to suit their individual tastes.
If there was an historical Jesus, and if he's reflected in the gospels at all, then it's arguable he was a small player in the Jerusalem religious industry, unnoticed in his lifetime, who may have preached JtB's message, Get ready, the Kingdom will be here very shortly! He may have been crucified and that may have been for civil disorder. He may have been associated with some sayings, but as Crossan points out, we can only make best guesses at which. And (since all four gospels agree on the matter) he may, with only one exception, only have mentioned his mother so as to vituperate her. Whether as a human or as a story he became the central figure of a small Jewish cult which apparently intersected with Paul at some point.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
If the post to which I am responding is not proselytizing for Christianity, no post ever was.
Nevertheless, I thought it warranted a response so I started responding to it, and I only later realized the post was not written by the poster who posted it, stupid me.
The belief in the real resurrection of Christ is the only adequate cause for the resurrection belief, but beliefs do not make anything true since people can believe all sorts of things that are not true.
There is no reason to believe that any of this actually happened, since there is nothing but stories that men wrote and no outside confirmatory evidence. The empty tomb and the resurrection appearances are just part of the story line. So it seems like no rational person would accept that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, because rational people believe based upon evidence, not stories.
Moreover, you cannot logically maintain that Christianity is the only true religion and also say God is All-Loving, because an All-Loving God would not allow 67% of the world population to follow false religions.
There is no evidence that Jesus ever rose from the grave. That is just a belief based upon stories men wrote. Anyone can believe anything they want to believe, but that does not make it true.
Nevertheless, I thought it warranted a response so I started responding to it, and I only later realized the post was not written by the poster who posted it, stupid me.
No facts have been established regarding the bodily resurrection of Jesus from His grave. All you have are stories that the gospel writers wrote, but stories are not proof that the stories are true.
There is no evidence for the empty tomb. All you have are stories that the gospel writers wrote, but stories are not proof that the stories are true. Moreover, the gospel stories contradict each other.
The "origin" of Christianity has nothing to do with the resurrection. The resurrection was added on much later.
The belief in the real resurrection of Christ is the only adequate cause for the resurrection belief, but beliefs do not make anything true since people can believe all sorts of things that are not true.
The Christian church would have still existed if the resurrection belief had never been accepted and believed. The Church would have then be based upon the actual teachings of Jesus rather than on stories that were later written which led everyone away from the true Jesus, the historical figure.
There is no reason to believe that any of this actually happened, since there is nothing but stories that men wrote and no outside confirmatory evidence. The empty tomb and the resurrection appearances are just part of the story line. So it seems like no rational person would accept that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, because rational people believe based upon evidence, not stories.
I do not believe that the resurrection ever happened so I believe that widespread belief that it did happen is one of the worst things that ever happened in the world.
Jesus never claimed to be God, never. Jesus disclaimed being God but that is not what this thread is about, so I do not want to address that here. Suffice to say, Christians who believe that Jesus is God believe that so they can also believe that Jesus is superior to all the other Messengers of God and that Christianity is the only true religion. They try to back this belief up with the resurrection belief because they say that only God could raise Jesus from the dead.
Jesus never said that He was fully God and fully man. The Church said that. It is logically impossible to be fully God and fully man. Jesus was a Manifestation of God, a perfect mirror image of God, as the Bible says.
There are good reasons to believe in the Bible, but the resurrection stories are not the reasons. in fact, the resurrection stories would be reasons not to believe in the Bible.
Nobody ever rises from the dead. The physical body once dead remains dead. Jesus never claimed to be God, never ever. However, Jesus did speak for God so Jesus could certainly speak with absolute certainty and final authority.
No, certainly I am going to believe the scholar because what he writes is based upon actual evidence, not stories.
I do trust Jesus, but not because he rose from the dead, since I do not believe He ever rose from the dead. But even if He did, what a ridiculous reason to trust someone. I trust Jesus because of His teachings and the effect they have had upon humanity..
No, the world's religions do not contradict each other; although they are different differences are not contradictions. They appear to contradict only because the original scriptures have been altered and misinterpreted by the followers of those religions.
Moreover, you cannot logically maintain that Christianity is the only true religion and also say God is All-Loving, because an All-Loving God would not allow 67% of the world population to follow false religions.
If evidence was the criteria by which we were to decide which religion was correct, the correct religion would not be Christianity in its present form. However, I do not believe that there is only one true religion, but rather that all the revealed religions are true.
The only problem you now have is proving that Jesus rose from the dead - good luck with that.
There is no evidence that Jesus ever rose from the grave. That is just a belief based upon stories men wrote. Anyone can believe anything they want to believe, but that does not make it true.
I believe that Jesus was the only way to God during His Dispensation, and that is why Jesus said what he said in that verse. But Jesus did not say "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one will ever come to the Father, except through me." That verse thus only applied to the Dispensation of Jesus Christ, which ended when Muhammad was sent by God with a new message.
No, the Bible does not say that. Your interpretation of the Bible says that. Bibles don't talk.
The belief that physical bodies will rise from graves is an untenable belief. I cannot understand how any rational person could ever believe that, but that just goes to show that people can believe anything, even if it goes completely against science and reason. That is what the Christian faith is not growing as fast as other newer religions. This is "the age of reason."
Craig, Moreland, and Habermas are well-known Christian apologists. They are not taken seriously outside the conservative Christian apologetics world.
Given that we have no evidence establishing the existence of anything supernatural, even the most far-fetched natural explanation of the data is definitionally more plausible than any supernatural explanation.
The statement in bold is important, and we'll come back to it. According to this apologetic, we don't have to assume the NT is historically trustworthy.
I strongly question the historicity of Claim 1. Claims 2 and 3 do not establish the resurrection occurred at all. People can have real religious experiences without those experiences corresponding to objective reality. Religions can be established and grow without their claims being true. In fact, all orthodox Christians believe this about every non-Christian religion.
Total bull, and its notable that no specifics are offered here.
What is the historical evidence for this? Remember, we don't need to assume the NT is historically trustworthy.
Totally untrue. There were mystery cults and itinerant preachers running around the 1st century Near East preaching all kinds of things. Ancient people would have treated Christian preachers the way they treated any others. It's notable that the earliest Christian documents we have, the Pauline epistles, give little to no identifiable Earthly information about Jesus. All those biographical details come decades later in the Gospels.
False. We were told at the beginning of this article that we would not need to assume the trustworthiness of the NT to make this case. Yet here we are, being asked to creduously assume that what the author of Matthew recounts about what the Jews said is accurate. With no external evidence that it is.
The Toledoth Jesu is a document that was written in the Middle Ages. Hardly a contemporary account of events.
How odd that we get no reference to this debate. And if it's 2nd century, it's 100 years late. Not a contemporary source
But you don't have any hostile contemporary sources, as we just reviewed.
What source? How odd that we're not told.
Since we're given no access to this "pre-Markan source," we have no way to evaluate this analysis.
This is completely out of step with modern NT scholarship. The Pauline epistles predated, and in fact, appear to have informed the Gospels, not the other way around. See, for example, Mark Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark's Gospel by Tom Dykstra.
...continued in next post...
This is monumentally facile reasoning. First of all, the idea that people would have quickly dismissed early Christians as nutters, and that that would have dissuaded them from preaching, is directly contradicted by the NT itself. Paul takes pride in Christianity being foolish in the world's eyes (1 Cor. 1:18; 1. Cor. 2:14). Acts plays up the theme even more, by portraying a scene at Pentecost where the Christians speak in tongues and outsiders are convinced the disciples must be drunk (Acts 2:13). So the notion that early Christians would have been embarrassed away from saying or doing things others would be quick to dismiss simply misunderstands Christianity's whole appeal.
Secondly, Joseph of Arimathea appears to have a symbolic function:
"The role Joseph’s character plays, like most invented characters in ancient religious fiction, is symbolic and allegorical. His actions, his description, his function, all convey meaning about the gospel, and flesh out the story from popular Jewish and heroic parallels. An Arimathea didn’t exist so far as we know. And the Greek is suspiciously convenient in meaning, “Best Doctrinetown,” as in the most educating and most edifying, where the best disciples come from. That he isn’t a disciple was originally Mark’s point. Mark’s Gospel repeatedly deploys irony, reversing expectations by, for example, having Jesus tell Simon Peter he had to take up his cross and follow him, and then having a different Simon, a total stranger and a foreigner, actually do so. Mark does the same thing by reversing the social expectation that a disciple of Jesus would see to his burial, by instead having a total stranger do so, who is secretly “called” a disciple, with the fake town he comes from." Ms. Christian Apologist on Empty Tomb Stuff • Richard Carrier
a) this is an argument from silence.
b) Christians controlled the manuscript evidence for centuries. We have almost no contemporary writings from any of the competitor groups to what became the orthodox strain of Christianity. Yet we know they existed, because orthodox authors referenced them, their ideas, and their writings.
c) The NT accounts of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection conflict within themselves.
Giant "if" that we have no good evidence for.
Or that there was no such site in the first place, or that no one knew where it was.
LOL.
If totally implausible, ridiculous-seeming things are the "signs of legendary development," then Mark is full of them. Just from the Passion narrative, while Jesus is on the cross, the "whole land" goes dark in the middle of the day for three hours (15:33), and then when Jesus cries out his last breath, the veil of the Temple (a couple inches thick, IIRC) gets magically torn in half. Then on Easter morning, the women come to the tomb, and the giant stone has been mysteriously rolled away from the tomb, and they enter and find "a young man clothed in a long white robe" randomly sitting there (generally understood to be an angel) who tells them Jesus is risen from the dead. They ask the young man no questions and immediately run from the tomb and tell no one about what happened.
That's just a small sample. The signs of Mark's legendary development are actually much more nuanced than that and have been written on quite extensively by NT scholars. Maybe I'll start a thread about it some day.
Again I ask, how do we know this? The only place this is stated is the Gospels - which we were told we don't have to accept as trustworthy.
Not true. In Mark, and in Christianity broadly, one of the main motifs is role reversal and the unexpected happening. So Jesus is a king but he's also a lowly carpenter's son. He must die so we can live. His suffering and defeat are actually his victory. We must lose our lives to save them. The first shall be last, and the last shall be first. What is foolish to the world is actually wisdom in the eyes of God. And so on.
Women's lowly status makes them the perfect candidates for yet another unexpected role reversing twist in the story.
No clue who that guy is, sounds like an apologist. And his claim is untrue, as we've seen.
Weird how we don't hear who any of them are, or how old that reference is. Apologists are notorious for saying, "### experts agree!" and then you go look and it was like, 1935.
Not true. Outside of fundamentalist Bible colleges and seminaries that require students and faculty to sign faith statements that they will not teach or write anything contrary to orthodox Christianity, in mainstream Biblical academia the Gospels have been totally debunked 10 ways from Sunday as reliable historical documents. They are thoroughly mythological and implausible. They have been so thoroughly discredited that the current debate in Jesus studies is whether we even have enough historical information to conclude that Jesus was even a real person, or if he was just completely made up.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Thanks. I thought I was the only one who would be willing to take that article on.
Better you than me because you apparently have a lot of knowledge that I do not have...
I was never a Christian so I only know enough about the Bible to be dangerous.
But I know enough about logic and reason and science to know that Jesus never rose from the grave because human bodies do not recompose after they have decomposed.
I find it odd that we are still even having this discussion in the modern age, but someone has to speak up for reason and it seems to me that the atheists and skeptics are the best ones for the job since they know the Bible and a lot more.
Just keep in mind that you cannot argue against Christian beliefs, since they are not based upon reason, they are based upon faith.
Thanks. I thought I was the only one who would be willing to take that article on.
Better you than me because you apparently have a lot of knowledge that I do not have...
I was never a Christian so I only know enough about the Bible to be dangerous.
But I know enough about logic and reason and science to know that Jesus never rose from the grave because human bodies do not recompose after they have decomposed.
I find it odd that we are still even having this discussion in the modern age, but someone has to speak up for reason and it seems to me that the atheists and skeptics are the best ones for the job since they know the Bible and a lot more.
Just keep in mind that you cannot argue against Christian beliefs, since they are not based upon reason, they are based upon faith.
Noted and appreciated. I used to be one of them, so hope springs eternal!
No, it isn't. That is completely made up.
Totally untrue. Paul says explicitly that the gospel came to him directly via revelation from Jesus, not from any man. (Gal. 1:11-12)
I don't think they were lying, so I won't spend time on that.
What historical evidence do we have for this? The only source for this claim is the Gospels. We were told we did not have to regard those as trustworthy.
Since we don't have to accept that the Gospel's claims about how Jesus appeared are true, this is all a non sequitur. Group hallucinations actually can occur, but I don't have to argue that for this article's purposes.
Is the claim here really that no one has ever had a religious hallucination that caused them to change their mind? Really? Come on now. We know this happens.
As we saw previously, the evidence for the empty tomb is sh*t.
At least, some of them did. Some of them, who often get labeled "Gnostics," appear to have rejected that idea.
Not true. Christianity undeniably shares many features with contemporary pagan mystery cults.
Also untrue, and it's notable that no specifics are given.
Christianity’s similarities with mystery cults include: the belief in a Savior god or demi-god, who is the son of a god, who undergoes suffering and/or death to provide salvation to his followers, who have to undergo an initiation ritual that simulates the suffering or death of their deity, who eat a communal ritual meal, and who then have access to the mysteries of the religion that are not shared or understood by outsiders.
To say that these similarities are just superficial aspects of Christianity is either wildly dishonest or ignorant.
LOL. Jews were notorious for syncretizing aspects of paganism into their spiritual practices; it’s most of what they get constantly excoriated for by the Biblical prophets. Judaism was also not monolithic – they didn’t all agree or believe the same things. This is even evident within the New Testament, which mentions multiple competing Jewish groups and belief systems.
Nonsense. And even if the answer we were left with was, “I don’t know,” so what? This is one of the fundamental problems with fundamentalism: it is profoundly uncomfortable with not knowing. We just have to have an answer to these things, even if our answer is totally unproven and contradicts everything we know about how the world works. Sorry – sometimes the real, honest answer is that we don’t know.
As we’ve seen, we have most definitely not established the circumstances of Jesus’ death, burial, or resurrection, nor have we established that Jesus actually appeared to anyone after his alleged resurrection.
As we covered early on, even the most implausible natural explanation is more plausible than a supernatural one. We have zero confirmation that anything supernatural has ever happened, much less that anyone who was ever actually dead came back to life. So the resurrection becomes the least plausible explanation, out of the gate.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It really helps if you have been one of them... Most atheists were formerly Christians so they have that advantage over me in their ability to converse and understand...Noted and appreciated. I used to be one of them, so hope springs eternal!
I cannot imagine what it would be like to be a Christian since I never was one. I cannot imagine what it would be like to believe in things I could never believe in. I think I understand atheists better than I understand Christians maybe because I was one of them and I retain an atheist bent. Also, atheism makes a lot more sense to me than fundamentalist Christianity.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
3rdAngel
Well-Known Member
Nonsense! Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig and J. P, Moreland are biblical scholars and historians. Yes they are also apologists. Your comments here are not true.
The article was on historical evidence. You cannot prove it did not happen can you? If you cannot prove that it did not happen than what are you basing your claims on? Yep nothing.
The article was not proving the supernatural it was showing historical evidence for the resurrection and examines the facts around the death, and burial and resurrection. I suggest you read the article it seems you haven't.
Because it is taking the bias out of the historicity of the biblical claims and examining what happened froem historical methodology.
That is because your putting your bias behind your claims and your assumptaions. Genuine historicity seeks not to do this. See previous section.
I see.. yet you cannot prove your claims. Go figure
Biblical read the book of ACTS. You claiming the NT is not trustworthy is based on your assumptions which you cannot prove.
Nonsense! This section of your post does not address what you are quoting from. Which says "Jesus' disciples did not go to some obscure place...as a fact for all concerned." Your trying to make an unrepated argument no one is talking about - strawman alert.
Nonsense! You are told you do not need to assum the NT is true to prove the points being made to prove historicity. What is being argued is the consistency between historical facts.
Scholars cannot agree as to the dates and there is many versions of the Toledot Yeshu (ספר תולדות ישו, The Book of the Generations/History/Life of Jesus) often abbreviated as Toledot Yeshu, is an early Jewish text taken to be an alternative biography of Jesus. The fact it the empty tomb is recorded in Jewish literature is a fact you cannot deny or disprove.
Here you go, Martyr, Justin. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CVIII will this change your view? Nope. Who says it has to be too late?
Sure we do please keep up from the Toledot Yeshu; Martyr, Justin. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CVIII and the biblical narrative.
"pre-Markan creeds"
Yet here you are trying to debate scholars and historians that have access to this information?
Nonsense! If scholars do not even agree what makes you think your claims are correct?
Well this was not my article so I will leave it here for now.
..............
Well, I had a look at your other posts and did not think they were worth responding to as you have provided no evidence to show that the article is not true the same as no one has evidence to prove that the resurrection did not happen. You are free to believe as you wish. I believe according to the scriptures we all answer only to God come judgemement day. I my view according to the scriptures I would not want to be on the wrong side of the debate when that happens.
Last edited:
3rdAngel
Well-Known Member
Goodness here we go. I posted at the beggining that this was not my post just an article on the Historicity of the resurrection of JESUS and posted the article in full for the OP who was interested.If the post to which I am responding is not proselytizing for Christianity, no post ever was.
No worries, better late than never. Thanks for being honest.
Sure there have the article is on historical methodology that establishes the plausibility of what is being discussed and uses sources within the bible and outside of the bible.
This is not true This only shows you did not read the article or did not understand it. The gospels do not contradict each other it is your understanding of them that is the problem. Outside evidence of the empty tomb have also been provided from the Jewish sources from the Toledot Yeshu; Martyr, Justin. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CVIII and the biblical narrative.
Actually it has everything to do with the resurrection. This is the hope of every Christian and the promise of eternal life. 1 Corinthians 15:7 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins
At the same time that does not mean that the resurrection was not true and you cannot prove that it was not true can you.
Not according to Paul... 1 Corinthians 15:7 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins
Sure there is you have been given evidence that proves Historicity.
Yet here you are and cannot prove that the resurrection did not happen. Does it worry you?
Well that is not true. Try reading the gospel of John.
According to the scriptures JESUS was fully God who became fully man *JOHN 1:1-4; 14. God became man in order that we could become God's children.
All you have provided are your own opinions unsupported by fact.
Nonsense. All you have provided is your opinion you cannot prove.
Yet it was always the so called scholars of the day that did not know that the very scriptures they claimed to teach and understand all pointed to JESUS as the Messiah. He came unto his own and his own received him not *JOHN 1:10. They put him on a tree and crucified him. Yikes would not want to be in that camp.
continued...
3rdAngel
Well-Known Member
Yet you put your hope in some a prophet that does not beleive the bible? JESUS warns us about false prophets in MATTHEW 24:24 how do you know your not following one? Scripture is my guide how about you?
Sure the religions of the world contradict each other and have different beliefs. Even if your considering Christianity in isolation to every other religion in the world there is over 40,000 all prefession to have the correct understanding of the scriptures. You post above is contradicting itself.
God gives mankind free will to follow his Word of not follow his Word. We are all free to do as we wish. According to the scriptures we all answer only to God come judgment day and will be judged by the Word of God *JOHN 12:47-48.
You will never find God by requesting evidence or a sign. Faith in God's Word is the criterea for knowing God and finding God according to the scriptures. According to the scriptures the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God and the fool says in his heart there is no God.
I do not have a problem with that because of historical evidence and the many eye witnesses that testify to it's credibility. Your problem on the other hand is can you prove that the resurrection did not happen? If you can't does it not worry you that maybe it did? If it does not then it should according to the scriptures.
Yes you keep telling yourself this dispite evidence of the empty tomb being provided from the Jewish sources from the Toledot Yeshu; Martyr, Justin. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CVIII and the biblical narrative. Yet here you still are not able to provide any proof that there was no resurrection.
Where does it say that in the bible?
Sure it does. Read the following scriptures that you say the bible does not say;
John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"
Luke 20:35-36 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Romans 6:5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
John 5:24-25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
John 6:39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
Acts 26:23 that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.
Romans 6:8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him
1 Corinthians 6:14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power.
1 Corinthians 15:20-23 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
2 Corinthians 4:14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you.
I am sorry there is too many more scriptures if you do not get it by now you never will. Happy to post more scriptures if you want me to. Just let me know?
Yes, I'm afraid they are. Please do some reading of peer-reviewed Biblical studies literature.
The resurrection would be a supernatural event if it happened, would it not? So yes, literally the entire point of the article is to prove something supernatural. Perhaps you should reread the article?
If you tell me I don't have to trust the NT to make your case, and then your case is repeatedly dependent on trusting the NT, you're contradicting yourself.
You're not actually responding to the content of what I said. Do you deny that people have religious experiences you don't think correspond with reality? Do you deny that religions have formed and spread that teach things that are untrue?
I see.. yet you cannot prove your claims. Go figure
LOL I'm not the one with a case to make! If you want to assert that the resurrection happened, it's your job to demonstrate it.
No, my claiming the NT does not have to be taken as trustworthy is what your own article said. Please don't lie about what your own source said verbatim.
I had to use some ellipses to make my comments fit in the post, so there may be some misunderstanding here. The statement I was responding to was: "As Paul Althaus writes, the resurrection proclamation "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned." "
This is plainly not true. There were all kinds of competing sects running around claiming things. They'd be treated like any sidewalk preacher today : largely ignored.
But there is no consistency here, as I explained. This is claimed in Matthew, and no where else in contemporary writings at the time.
The earliest manuscript is from the 11th century. The earliest references to it are from the Middle Ages. It's no where near a contemporary document of the period in question. Try again. Toledot Yeshu | Program in Judaic Studies
LOL.
1) the Dialogue with Trypho was written by Justin Martyr, a Christian, who puts words in the mouth of a Jewish interlocutor and responds to him. It's hardly a reliable source of information of what Jews actually thought. For that, you'd need to consult, you know, Jews.
2) it was written in the mid-2nd century, over 100 years after the alleged resurrection. Justin has zero first-hand knowledge of what happened at the tomb, and certainly didnt interview any Jews about it from 50 years before he was even born.
...
"Pre-Markan" just means, "before Mark." It doesn't identify the actual piece of writing in question.
If they have the information, they publish it, so it can be examined by others. That's
how actual academia works.
So please, tell me: what is this pre-Markan source, and where can I read it?
You really need to do some reading outside of apologetics websites. What I'm saying about Paul's relationship to the Gospels is not particularly controversial, it's well-tread in NT studies.
That's not how the burden of proof works. It's not my job to prove the resurrection false. If your claim is that it's true, then the burden is on you to demonstrate that's the case.
You are free to believe as you wish. I believe according to the scriptures we all answer only to God come judgemement day. I my view according to the scriptures I would not want to be on the wrong side of the debate when that happens.
This is fear-based reasoning. Why are you avoiding the Christian hell instead of the Islamic one? Or any other horrible afterlife you might incur if your view is false?
Last edited: