Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

[KerimF]

Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus then the best explanation of the available evidence, or is there another hypothesis that explains the evidence better?

Jesus Resurrection and his short return in a human flesh to his Apostles and Disciples were crucial though for them only. There was no other way to let them accept freely devoting their life to spread Jesus teachings which oppose clearly the instincts of the human’s body. They do it while they were hated, cursed, persecuted and crucified by the world.

In our days, I didn’t hear of any Christian preacher (who wasn’t involved in Politics or the like) was assassinated because of Jesus. The reason is simple; almost every Christian preacher knows that many Jesus teachings are considered taboo in all ruling systems in the world; religious and political. So, all preachers, anytime they are allowed to address the common people in the world (mainly via satellites), cleverly avoid talking of these teachings as clear and loud as Jesus does on the today’s Gospel.

But after the Resurrection of Jesus body, the world started living the Resurrection of Jesus Message instead. How?

Let us recall first that when Jesus was on the cross, He let the world witness that both, His flesh and message, died for good. On that day, there was no one on earth who dared saying: “I believe what this man said”. And to emphasize this picture even more, Jesus let His Peter (His Rock) to deny Him 3 times (not once, not twice) on that day. And this is not the end of the story.

Jesus let His Apostles isolate themselves (hide) for 40 days. This is the exact period of time in which a widow has to be isolated in order to be certain that she has, for sure, no life in her, from her dead husband (in case he was an important person).

Now, after about 2000 years (...thru too many generations), I hear Jesus saying:

Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

So I wonder if a reader here can help me know just one powerful ruling system in the world that allows someone to address its people as Jesus did (see above verse). But, at the same time, NO ruling system on earth dares considering the printing of Jesus teachings as a crime that deserves punishment. These two FACTS contradict each other in a way which is clearly illogical to any human brain. In fact, they reflect every day the Resurrection of Jesus Message; a living miracle that no one can deny.

 

[Sylvester Clark]

What are the "Early, independent accounts that all claimed Jesus was raised from the dead"?

Four accounts of the life of Jesus (Attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). It is possible that Matthew and Luke drew from Mark as a source along with another hypothetical source called Q, so if that is the case, they wouldn't be entirely independent. Paul wrote many letters to Christians in which he claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead. In his letter 1 Corinthians, written about 55 AD, he even listed names of many "eyewitnesses" who had seen the risen Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:1-11).

At minimum, there are 5 different authors who write that Jesus rose from the dead by about 90-110 AD. These are all Christian authors, so of course they are biased to say that Jesus rose from the dead. However, they were not all predisposed to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. For instance, Luke, Mark and Paul were not Jesus' disciples before his death. Paul was even viciously opposing the Christians, before he had an "encounter" with they risen Jesus. They were Christians because they believed that Jesus rose from the dead, rather than believing that Jesus rose from the dead because they were Christians

 

[Colt]

 

[Left Coast]

IMO, the Bible is all we need as evidence for the resurrection of the dead. The teaching is found in various passages in the Tanakh: Job 19:26; Psalm 17:15; lsaiah 26:19: Daniel 12:2 and Ezekiel 37., and testimony to Jesus Christ's resurrection is given by all the apostles, and by others.

How would you respond to a Mormon who said, "IMO the Book of Mormon is all we need as evidence that Mormonism is true," or a Muslim who said, "IMO the Qur'an is all we need as evidence that Islam is true"? Would you find that remotely convincing?

If not, why would we (or you) find the claims of the Bible alone convincing?

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says, 'And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then all of the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time.'

And why should we believe Paul's say-so that any of those things actually happened?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Four accounts of the life of Jesus (Attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke-Acts and John). It is possible that Matthew and Luke drew from Mark as a source along with another hypothetical source called Q, so if that is the case, they wouldn't be entirely independent. Paul wrote many letters to Christians in which he claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead. In his letter 1 Corinthians, written about 55 AD, he even listed names of many "eyewitnesses" who had seen the risen Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:1-11).

At minimum, there are 5 different authors who write that Jesus rose from the dead by about 90-110 AD. These are all Christian authors, so of course they are biased to say that Jesus rose from the dead. However, they were not all predisposed to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. For instance, Luke, Mark and Paul were not Jesus' disciples before his death. Paul was even viciously opposing the Christians, before he had an "encounter" with they risen Jesus. They were Christians because they believed that Jesus rose from the dead, rather than believing that Jesus rose from the dead because they were Christians

1 Corinthians 15 doesn't say 'Jesus' rose from the dead but that 'Christ' rose from the dead. Paraphrasing it as Jesus is your own idea to confirm your opinion that everything is about saving your individual life. You might consider that the church is Christ's body. Maybe that means things other than 'Me' and 'I' am saved. Perhaps its more in line with 'Peace on earth, goodwill towards all' rather than 'The earth is eventually destroyed and everyone but the Christians dies.' As an early Christian, would you follow a religion that was all about you and about saving you? How would this be different from a pagan religion?

Suppose you find evidence for physical resurrection. What, then, does God get out of all of it? People obey God for a little while in order to be resurrected, and God is served by this, how? God saves our individuality?

 

[KerimF]

Since I was a kid I keep hearing (I was born in a Catholic family) that a Christian should believe in magic, but not any magic, only the magic revealed by Jesus!.
In other words, I use hearing something like:
"Jesus invites you to repent and believe that He is your Savior so that you can deserve being with Him in Heaven".

Naturally, for those who believe in magic, they can't believe in Jesus if they can't convince themselves first that Jesus miracles did happen, mainly His Resurrection.

But when I was teen and read carefully what Jesus says on the Gospel (a Catholic Arabic one), I didn't see in Him a magician of any sort. I saw in Him the divine perfect teacher who came in a human flesh to help me discover logically (by reason, not by blind faith) anything I was interested to know concerning my own existence and death, also the real world.

 

[firedragon]

A number of modern secular scholars have questioned the historicity of the crucifixion (and Jesus as a person, period): Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Hector Avalos, to name a few. Although it is still a minority opinion, I don't think it should be dismissed so readily. Dying and rising divine figures are a well known mythological archetype. Combined with the other thoroughly mythological elements (in both content and composition) of the Gospels, and the theological theme of salvation through the unexpected (a theological motif borrowed from Judaism as well), it makes at least as much sense to me to see the crucifixion as fabricated as not.

Why would you assume Richard Carrier is a "scholar"? Is he a New Testament scholar? What kind of scholar is he? Could you explain?

By the way, the mythicists are not just a minority, they are also "mythicists". You have to first make the case, not just go with the flow with the mythicists and say you believe them because you want to. That is called "blind faith".

 

[firedragon]

Four accounts of the life of Jesus (Attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke-Acts and John). It is possible that Matthew and Luke drew from Mark as a source along with another hypothetical source called Q, so if that is the case, they wouldn't be entirely independent. Paul wrote many letters to Christians in which he claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead. In his letter 1 Corinthians, written about 55 AD, he even listed names of many "eyewitnesses" who had seen the risen Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:1-11).

At minimum, there are 5 different authors who write that Jesus rose from the dead by about 90-110 AD. These are all Christian authors, so of course they are biased to say that Jesus rose from the dead. However, they were not all predisposed to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. For instance, Luke, Mark and Paul were not Jesus' disciples before his death. Paul was even viciously opposing the Christians, before he had an "encounter" with they risen Jesus. They were Christians because they believed that Jesus rose from the dead, rather than believing that Jesus rose from the dead because they were Christians

You mean to say the authors of the four gospels, and Paul are the so called "Independent witnesses"? Even they didnt witness anything. They are not independent. They dont meet any of your criteria.

 

[oldbadger]

Sylvester Clark said: ↑
Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus then the best explanation of the available evidence, or is there another hypothesis that explains the evidence better?



I agree with one's point number 1 above.
Any clue/evidence for the second one, please.?

Regards

Number 2 .....
Jesus son of the father, so loved by the people that after his conviction for rioting, causing one death, Pilate knew that Jerusalem could be torn apart by insurrection if he was executed, so Pilate released him to Joseph of Arimathea to travel North to the ports of Tyre/Sidon and in to exile. Jesus saw his mates in Galilee when he passed through.
The Cornish say that Jesus went there. Others maintain that he went to Gaul with Magdalene. Others say that he went to India.

Christians dated not remove this report from early accounts, may be frightened of what God might do...? So they left the account in the gospels, hidden in plain sight ..... the name Jesus was removed from earliest accounts and the rest, son of the father, was left in Eastern Aramaic, which Romans would not realise. BARABBA

 

[Left Coast]

Why would you assume Richard Carrier is a "scholar"? Is he a New Testament scholar? What kind of scholar is he? Could you explain?

His CV is attached for you.

By the way, the mythicists are not just a minority, they are also "mythicists". You have to first make the case, not just go with the flow with the mythicists and say you believe them because you want to. That is called "blind faith".

I didn't say I believed the mythicist position because I want to.

Everything you just said also applies to the historicist position and its scholars who defend it, of course.

Personally I'm on the fence. I think both sides make good arguments and it's not a slam dunk either way.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Valjean said: ↑
WHAT evidence he rose?
What, not where.
You're dodging the question.


"All around you" isn't fluff?
You can't cite any substantive evidence, can you?

Of course not. There will never be any evidence for the one who was resurrected. Everybody knows that

 

[King Phenomenon]

Except there is no evidence

There never will be evidence for the resurrected one. everybody knows that

 

[ChristineM]

There never will be evidence for the resurrected one. everybody knows that

Score one to me i think.

 

[KerimF]

Of course not. There will never be any evidence for the one who was resurrected. Everybody knows that

But, at least, the world lives now the Resurrection of Jesus Message.
You may like reading post #81 to comment it.
Thank you.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Score one to me i think.

The chosen one forfeited the game since the beginning

 

[ChristineM]

The chosen one forfeited the game since the beginning

In your opinion

 

[InChrist]

But this is religious folklore. How is it any more authoritative than any other folklore?
There's no real evidence supporting this.

Only religious folklore in your opinion.
Historical facts and information from my perspective.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only religious folklore in your opinion.
Historical facts and information from my perspective.

Religious folklore according to historians as well. There is a reason that they do accept part of the Iliad as history, but not most of it. The same reasons make the resurrection folklore. There are claims that would have been noticed by non-Christians, but there are no records of it. There are claims that are refuted by how the Romans would have reacted. Such as the guarded empty tomb. If a Roman guard failed in its duty or disappeared there would be consequences. Parts of the Jesus story are probably true. Parts are clearly not.

 

[Redemptionsong]

How would you respond to a Mormon who said, "IMO the Book of Mormon is all we need as evidence that Mormonism is true," or a Muslim who said, "IMO the Qur'an is all we need as evidence that Islam is true"? Would you find that remotely convincing?

If not, why would we (or you) find the claims of the Bible alone convincing?



And why should we believe Paul's say-so that any of those things actually happened?

Jesus said, 'scripture cannot be broken'. He was referring to the Tanakh but his words apply equally to the New Testament scriptures.

The only way to discover the truth of scripture is to study carefully and with an open heart. The scriptures (the Bible) have a unity and composition of unparalleled beauty. The Bible, both Hebrew and Greek portions, is a compilation that took about 1500 years to complete (from Moses to John), yet the message is consistent throughout. If one compares the Bible to either the book of Mormon, or Qur'an, there is simply no comparison. It took 23 years for Muhammad to reveal the Qur'an, and the message, whilst claiming to be a prophecy from the God of Abraham, is totally inconsistent with the Bible. In other words, the Bible becomes the standard of truth and claimants like Muhammad attempt to fit themsleves into its scheme. Muslims often try to turn this around and use the Qur'an as the standard of truth, but they fail to see that one prophet can be wrong, whilst forty or more prophets, all repeating the same message, are highly unlikely to be wrong!

 

[Left Coast]

Jesus said, 'scripture cannot be broken'.

I don't recall that quote,, chapter/verse? Do you mean, "not one jot or tittle will pass away..."?

He was referring to the Tanakh but his words apply equally to the New Testament scriptures.

How do you know that?

The only way to discover the truth of scripture is to study carefully and with an open heart.

Does this mean you think anyone who disagrees with you has not studied the Bible "carefully and with an open heart"? Would you be convinced if a member of another religion said that about your view of their holy book?

The scriptures (the Bible) have a unity and composition of unparalleled beauty. The Bible, both Hebrew and Greek portions, is a compilation that took about 1500 years to complete (from Moses to John), yet the message is consistent throughout. If one compares the Bible to either the book of Mormon, or Qur'an, there is simply no comparison. It took 23 years for Muhammad to reveal the Qur'an, and the message, whilst claiming to be a prophecy from the God of Abraham, is totally inconsistent with the Bible. In other words, the Bible becomes the standard of truth and claimants like Muhammad attempt to fit themsleves into its scheme. Muslims often try to turn this around and use the Qur'an as the standard of truth, but they fail to see that one prophet can be wrong, whilst forty or more prophets, all repeating the same message, are highly unlikely to be wrong!

Ironically, the very Jews who read and believe the Hebrew Scriptures you cite, don't agree with you that the New Testament fit with their Scriptures! And although you claim remarkable consistency of the messages of the various books of the Bible, the literally thousands of different Christian groups who all believe the "consistent message" of the Bible teach wildly contradictory things demonstrates that's clearly not the case.