The evidence for the resurection of Jesus

[leroy]

The evidence for the resurrection is grounded on 5 claims that are widely accepted by scholars (and people in general)

1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point)

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives

1 Reject some of these facts and explain why you think scholars are wrong

2 Accept this facts and provide an alternative explanation , and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis

3 a combination of 1 and 2

4 Do something dishonest like chaning the topic, ignoring the challenge, refute a strawman etc.

So which one do you pick?

 

[McBell]

The evidence for the resurrection is grounded on 5 claims that are widely accepted by scholars (and people in general)

1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point)

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives

1 Reject some of these facts and explain why you think scholars are wrong

2 Accept this facts and provide an alternative explanation , and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis

3 a combination of 1 and 2

4 Do something dishonest like chaning the topic, ignoring the challenge, refute a strawman etc.

So which one do you pick?

Still waiting for you present some evidence.
Thus far all you have is a list of bold empty claims.

 

[Rival]

Folks also experience Krishna.

So?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The evidence for the resurrection is grounded on 5 claims that are widely accepted by scholars (and people in general)

1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point)

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives

1 Reject some of these facts and explain why you think scholars are wrong

2 Accept this facts and provide an alternative explanation , and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis

3 a combination of 1 and 2

4 Do something dishonest like chaning the topic, ignoring the challenge, refute a strawman etc.

So which one do you pick?

1. Well, the existence of fire-breathing dragons and Santa Claus are also "at least possible." What is it that would lead us to conclude that we should pay more attention, just in case it's true?
2. The statement that Jesus died on the Cross is certainly one made in the Gospels and Acts, but these had an agenda to sell. Also, lots and lots and lots of other people also died on crosses around that time.
3. Yeah, at that time, pretty much everybody who got dead also got buried. This doesn't provide much evidence of anything at all.
4. That the tomb was found empty is among the most inconsistent of stories in the NT. (How many women were at the tomb? Two, three, or over three? Who were the women? When Did they go to the tomb? "early, after the sun had risen" or "early, while it was still dark"? Was the stone rolled away before or after the women showed up? Who greets the women? A young man in the tomb? Two men who appear after the women entered the tomb? Two angels sitting inside the tomb? Two guards, along with one angel that arrives during an earthquake that rolls away the rock? It all depends which gospel you read!)
5. Lots of people have lots of experiences that the "interpret" in lots of ways -- some utterly ridiculous.

I don't see anything so far that looks like "evidence."

 

[shunyadragon]

Historical events do not justify claims of supernatural events such as the Resurrection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence for the resurrection is grounded on 5 claims that are widely accepted by scholars (and people in general)

1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point)

Amazing. You start out with a pathetic fail. We do not know if the existence of a God is even possible. How are you going to provide any evidence for that claim? And even if there was a God you are miles away from demonstrating that it is the Christian God. This claim is not widely accepted at all.

2 Jesus died on the cross

Most scholars do probably accept this.

3 Jesus was buried

Sorry, when it comes to scholars in the field this does not appear to be the case. Since Roman crucifixions almost always ended up with the body left on the cross you and those that believe this have a heavy burden of proof to support this claim. It appears all that they have is the Bible.

4 The tomb was found empty

Again, if he was not buried there was no tomb. And even if he was this again puts a huge burden of proof upon you. The Bible is the claim, it is not the evidence. Where is your evidence? This does not appear to be widely accepted by scholars either.

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

Hallucinations are common among those feeling a strong emotional attachment. This does not appear to be widely accepted either.

As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives

1 Reject some of these facts and explain why you think scholars are wrong

But they are not fact. They are assumptions that you have made that you probably cannot properly support.

2 Accept this facts and provide an alternative explanation , and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis

Again, unsupported claims are not facts.

3 a combination of 1 and 2

4 Do something dishonest like chaning the topic, ignoring the challenge, refute a strawman etc.

So which one do you pick?

Unsupported claims are not facts. Most of your claims appear to be wrong. Please support them properly with valid sources and then we can move on.

Now traditionally when almost everyone was a Christian your claims may have been true. But we have learned quite a bit over the years and the flaws in the Bible are well known to scholars today. They do not make your errors.

 

[Trailblazer]

As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives

1 Reject some of these facts and explain why you think scholars are wrong

2 Accept this facts and provide an alternative explanation , and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis

3 a combination of 1 and 2

4 Do something dishonest like chaning the topic, ignoring the challenge, refute a strawman etc.

So which one do you pick?

I am a believer but I do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
None of the things you listed are facts, because a fact is something for which proof exists.

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information: fact

There is no proof that Jesus ever rose from the dead; all we have are stories that say that Jesus rise from the dead, but a story is not proof that anything in the story ever took place. You would need witnesses who are not IN the story to verify that the Jesus rose from the dead. You have none. All you have is the New Testament and the stories that are written in it.

An alternative explanation is as follows:

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. Legends without a historical basis were created by the early church; these included the empty tomb and described Jesus returning in his original body to eat and talk with his followers.

 

[darkskies]

1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point)

Nope. Get your definitions straight first, please.
Then back up your claims.

 

[Heyo]

The evidence for the resurrection is grounded on 5 claims that are widely accepted by scholars (and people in general)

1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point)

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives

1 Reject some of these facts and explain why you think scholars are wrong

2 Accept this facts and provide an alternative explanation , and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis

3 a combination of 1 and 2

4 Do something dishonest like chaning the topic, ignoring the challenge, refute a strawman etc.

So which one do you pick?

Paulogia https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIS4cWaXgWpznjwovFYQBJQ has a series on the resurrection claims (under "Paulogetics"). He is very thorough in his investigations and arguments, better than I ever could be.
I guess his approach falls under #1 and he brings scholars to debunk the other scholars.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The evidence for the resurrection is grounded on 5 claims that are widely accepted by scholars (and people in general)

1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point)

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives

1 Reject some of these facts and explain why you think scholars are wrong

2 Accept this facts and provide an alternative explanation , and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis

3 a combination of 1 and 2

4 Do something dishonest like chaning the topic, ignoring the challenge, refute a strawman etc.

So which one do you pick?

I have another option:

Only verse 5 pertains as evidence for the resurrection. Options 2, 3 and 4 are too mundane to be concerned about, even option 4 could have been instigated by a conspiracy.

All these points can be explained with references to human methods or human psychological experiences and concepts, and that is where the evidence points as we have no evidence that

a) it is possible for people to be resurrected
b) that Jesus is in heaven as a human body (updated)
c) That a God exists
d) that a god performed said resurrection

In order to prove that the resurrection occurred it isn't sufficient to use evidence that is ordinary or seem within human capabilities. You would have to provide evidence that is unexplainable, that cannot be explained through human means. The evidence cannot look so human.

 

[ChristineM]

The evidence for the resurrection is grounded on 5 claims that are widely accepted by scholars (and people in general)

1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point)

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives

1 Reject some of these facts and explain why you think scholars are wrong

2 Accept this facts and provide an alternative explanation , and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis

3 a combination of 1 and 2

4 Do something dishonest like chaning the topic, ignoring the challenge, refute a strawman etc.

So which one do you pick?

Not believer here and
1. Not facts but assumption based on the writing in the bible.

2. Not facts. Having studied Rome +/- years of the fall of the republic i can say that the cross was reserved for traitors to Rome and the Emperor

 

[HonestJoe]

1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point)

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

I don't see how the possible existence of God would be necessary for the resurrection, only necessary for specific interpretations of it.

I'm not sure the exact nature of Jesus' death is clear but again, I don't see why it is relevant to claims of resurrection.

The burial of someone who died can be pretty much taken as read in this context. The exact time, place and form of that burial would be more relevant.

I would question the tomb being found empty as a definitive fact. Is there anything outside the (somewhat inconsistent) Biblical depictions to support that assertion?

That various people have claimed to have had experiences they (or others) interpreted to be the risen Christ is undeniable. The validity of any of those claims remains entirely unproven though.

As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives

So, I've gone with a mixture of 1 and 2 in the context of this thread then I guess.

That said, I would generally go with ignoring the "challenge" and don't see anything dishonest about that. I don't see why I have any responsibility to explain each and every specific religious claim or assertion to support the simple fact that I happen to not believe in the existence of any specific god or gods.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The evidence for the resurrection is grounded on 5 claims that are widely accepted by scholars (and people in general)

1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point)

I do not accept this point.
The existence of god might be possible. It also might not be.

It kind of depends on what you claim god is.
Not everything is possible by default.

2 Jesus died on the cross

Assuming Jesus was an actual person, which I would consider likely but certainly not certain, that might be true. Not an extraordinary claim at least, people were crucified all the time.

3 Jesus was buried

Perhaps, assuming he existed and was crucified. Although he would have died eventually anyway off course.

But specifically in the case of crucifixion... usually the body was just left hanging there. So this claim deviates from the norm here. On what evidence do you claim this?

4 The tomb was found empty

So the story goes. Assuming he existed, was killed and got burried.

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

So it is claimed. Assuming all of the above again.

Also, you can go and meet people today that have had experiences that the interpreted as having seen Elvis, Michael Jackson or have been kidnapped by aliens and had weird anal sexual experiments performed on them aboard the alien space ship. Just to say, people "experience" a lot of crazy **** and "interpret" those experiences in a lot of different ways.

As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives

1 Reject some of these facts and explain why you think scholars are wrong

2 Accept this facts and provide an alternative explanation , and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis

3 a combination of 1 and 2

4 Do something dishonest like chaning the topic, ignoring the challenge, refute a strawman etc.

So which one do you pick?

I pick secret unmentioned number 5 and reject your claim that the majority of scholars / historians accept all 5 points as established fact.

 

[leroy]

Still waiting for you present some evidence.
Thus far all you have is a list of bold empty claims.

These “empty” claims are supported by the majority of experts,…. Do your own research on any source that you would consider reliable, if after doing your research you find out that some of these claims are likely to be wrong, feel free to elaborate your arguments and present your case.

If you are not willing to do this, then find someone else to discuss with.

 

[leroy]

Folks also experience Krishna.

So?

Elaborate your case for Krishna, and I ll be happy to provide my positive evidence for why I think you are wrong.

 

[leroy]

1. Well, the existence of fire-breathing dragons and Santa Claus are also "at least possible." What is it that would lead us to conclude that we should pay more attention, just in case it's true?
2. The statement that Jesus died on the Cross is certainly one made in the Gospels and Acts, but these had an agenda to sell. Also, lots and lots and lots of other people also died on crosses around that time.
3. Yeah, at that time, pretty much everybody who got dead also got buried. This doesn't provide much evidence of anything at all.
4. That the tomb was found empty is among the most inconsistent of stories in the NT. (How many women were at the tomb? Two, three, or over three? Who were the women? When Did they go to the tomb? "early, after the sun had risen" or "early, while it was still dark"? Was the stone rolled away before or after the women showed up? Who greets the women? A young man in the tomb? Two men who appear after the women entered the tomb? Two angels sitting inside the tomb? Two guards, along with one angel that arrives during an earthquake that rolls away the rock? It all depends which gospel you read!)
5. Lots of people have lots of experiences that the "interpret" in lots of ways -- some utterly ridiculous.

I don't see anything so far that looks like "evidence."

Please be clear, explain explicitly which of these claims do you affirm are likely to be wrong and why

 

[leroy]

Historical events do not justify claims of supernatural events such as the Resurrection.

why not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

These “empty” claims are supported by the majority of experts,…. Do your own research on any source that you would consider reliable, if after doing your research you find out that some of these claims are likely to be wrong, feel free to elaborate your arguments and present your case.

If you are not willing to do this, then find someone else to discuss with.

Prove it. Show that the majority of experts believe the nonsense that you posted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

why not?

You are right. I guess that the Iliad is an accurate history of Troy.

 

[leroy]

But they are not fact. They are assumptions that you have made that you probably cannot properly support.

.

Yes these are claims accepted by the majority of scholars, if you think there is a mistake then elaborate your case and explain why is that a mistake.

This article represent my view




The Resurrection of Jesus | Reasonable Faith

Amazing. You start out with a pathetic fail. We do not know if the existence of a God is even possible. How are you going to provide any evidence for that claim? And even if there was a God you are miles away from demonstrating that it is the Christian God. This claim is not widely accepted at all.

Yes this thread presupposes that you grant that the existence of God is possible (analogous to the existence of Aliens, Big foot, Unicorns etc)

With possible I mean “there is no conclusive evidence against the existence of God”

So under this definition do you grant that the existence of God is possible?