-
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
Lol, fair enough. Just a little thought experiment but if it were true would you still need external verification? And if so how would you do so given that your experience is personal?
So how would you deal with claims of personal experience?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Some helpful guidelines from an actual historian on how historians determine the historicity of people and events:
How Historians Determine the Historicity of People and Events – davidmiano.net
How Historians Determine the Historicity of People and Events – davidmiano.net
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
A good example is the "spiritual experiences" I've had. I certainly feel like I felt something, something I couldn't shake off as being something funny my brain was doing, bit ultimately I don't know what it was, I don't know what was going on, and though it certainly felt real I am forced to concede that I have no idea what it was.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
This is not true. Some "holy" books are written by liars seeking to become rich or famous, or both. Motive for writing holy books is important. As is the end effect of such writings.
For instance, the Book of Mormon has many of the earmarks of something that someone claimed, in order to make his boring life interesting and/or to acquire the above. Muhammad also died rich and relatively famous. Hinduism has no such writer trying to make a name for himself (we don't even know half the writers), but we have the end effect, as I mentioned. There are two unwanted side-effects of Hinduism: (1) the caste system, which subjected a group of people to untouchable status merely for an accident of birth, and (2) stuff like arranged marriage and bride-burning.
So, no, all religious text is not created equal. Its side-effects and its author's motives matter.
So what about the motives of those who told this story. Did they seek wealth? Nope, many died poor, having lost their jobs for their values. Fame? The names of the saints are not known outside the church. And many of these were martyred brutally for what they believe in, rejected, penniless, and made to endure tortures (why I contend Catholicism is a false church, they not only have the Pope as a stand-in for Jesus, but they seem to have managed to become far more wealthy than other churches on average). And yet, none of them said "The whole thing was made up." Evidence here is good evidence, since none of the typical motives exists. It is also good evidence, because we see the side-effects being rather good. Changed lives.
Also, I wonder what evidence on this you'd take. Historical evidence? People can be defamed, or worse, suppressed like what happened to many Egyptian pharaohs like Akhnaten. Further, "history is written by the winners."
Scientific evidence? Well, actually, someone did this. A Case For Christ had a devoted atheist trying to go to medics and other experts before finally concluding they had already mentioned why it was a resurrection and not a coma or something (Luke was a medic, btw).
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I can safely dismiss that as rubish as there are no documented cases of a resurrection, and medicine provides for no means to make it possible. The dead are dead. There is pseudo-deaths, but those people arent dead. They only appear to be. Most historians do accept there was a real Jesus. But the dead remain dead.
And we have no reason to think anything reported in Luke is true (and we have lots of reason to think it isn't), and Luke's profession is irrelevant because we have no idea who wrote the Gospel of Luke.
First, for Jesus to rise from the dead, or do anything else, in any significant sense, there must first have been an historical Jesus, not just a legendary or mythical one. It's possible there was such a person in history. It's also possible there was not. There's no clincher either way.
Second, for someone to rise from the dead, there must be credible evidence that (a) they had suffered irreversible cessation of the body's life support functions and (b) afterwards they had nonetheless returned to life, a event common in stories but without a single authenticated example in reality ─ note the import of 'irreversible cessation'.
Third, there are six accounts of the resurrection (Paul's, the four gospels', and Acts 1). None is by an eye-witness, none is an independent account, and none is contemporary. The earliest is Paul's brief mentions, and these are written not earlier than twenty years down the track. The second, and the first with any substantial details, is by the author of Mark, about 45 years after the purported event. Matthew and Luke are maybe decade further on, and John, and Acts', around 70 years late. If those aren't sufficient barriers to credibility, in addition each of the six accounts contradicts the other five in major ways.
That's to say, it's no more credible that Jesus rose from the dead than that Osiris, Dionysos, Hercules, Asklepios, or countless others in antiquity rose from the dead; and to establish that there was one such incident requires addressing all the problems above to an extremely high standard, which can't be done ─ the evidence for the resurrection is a forensic disaster.
Read the report (John 20:24-29) carefully. You'll notice that in the story, Thomas is invited to touch the wounds, but he doesn't do so.
Note too that (a) the author of John is writing about 70 years after the purported event and (b) neither Paul nor the other three gospel authors has mentioned any such thing.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
The problem is that you asked whether it would be evidence for the resurrection but the truth of the story would be the evidence. The truth of the story can be an assumption or the claim you're trying to establish. It can't be both at the same time.
Sometimes to an extent, but not unconditionally, especially on specific details or on any elements which make no immediate logical sense (such as dead people magically coming back to life
).Some elements apparently are (as they're supported by other sources or archaeological evidence) while other parts seem not to be (due to internal contradictions between the gospels, contradictions with other sources or contradictions which what is currently established as physically possible). The resurrection, both as a general concept and the specifics of the story falls in to the second category.
I think it's important to remember here that in the oldest surviving version of the story - the original ending of Mark - there is no resurrection. The book ends with the tomb empty and the disciples confused and afraid.
As the decades passed and other Gospel books were written (and the longer ending got tacked on to Mark), the story got more and more grandiose.
The later the date of authorship of a gospel, the more fantastic the claims about Jesus. IMO, this is not generally a sign that those fantastic claims are true.
Its representative of the theology/Christology employed by the evangelists in post resurrection faith.
