Is this potential evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

[Jos]

A skeptical becoming convinced of something is not evidence for it being true. If tomorrow I'm suddenly convince that bigfoot exist, doesn't mean that it's evidence for its existence. Someone's belief has merit the truth. Same as if a believer suddenly become a nonbeliever. That person's nonbelief is not evidence against the resurrection.

I know but it's how the skeptical person became convinced that's my issue. If they became convinced through a real experience then I would say that them switching from non belief to belief should count as evidence.

 

[Jos]

Why assume it is true? The sole source for the story is the NT (and only in the Gospel of John at that), which was written/complied/interpreted with the explicit purpose of establishing Jesus as the divine son of God. With no independent sources for the “doubting Thomas” story, I see no justification to assume it is true.

I was being hypothetical when I stated that I assumed that it was true... it was meant to be a hypothetical assumption. Right now I'm trying to figure out if it's true or not. It's a fair point you make about there being only one source for the story but don't we believe other historical events based off only one source?

A sceptical person being convinced isn’t evidence of truth in itself. The manner in which they’re convinced would be the significant element, since that would be the true basis of convincing others, but in this context, it still all boils down to what is claimed in the Bible alone.

Exactly! That's the bone of contention and that's what I'm trying to figure out ie. if the story in the Bible is a real historical account.

 

[Jos]

And the stated purpose in John. 'so that you may have faith'. If the purpose was to provide evidence, proof, John could have added an 'appearance' to non believers.

What do you mean exactly?

 

[Jos]

Yes. As well as the many witnesses who saw him, as well a the witnesses who wrote about what they saw

There are claims about eye witnesses but "are they reliable?" is the question.

They were so committed by what they saw, that they suffered constant persecution, and most died violently, in poverty.

I've heard that there's no evidence of this outside of what's claimed in the Bible so I'm not sure that's true.

If they were pulling a scam, or perpetuating a lie, I can't imagine they would live and die like this knowing it wasn't true.

Again, like I just stated above, there's not much if any evidence for them dying for their beliefs or so I've heard, idk.

 

[Jos]

Key word is assume.

Is the flood story evidence for the flood?

howabout...
THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES


Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer

Jacob Whitmer

Peter Whitmer, Jun.

John Whitmer

Hiram Page

Joseph Smith, Sen.

Hyrum Smith

Samuel H. Smith

Fair point about the flood story and the eyewitnesses to Joseph Smith's work but like I said, it's a hypothetical assumption... I was just assuming it's truth to state that it would be evidence of the resurrection if the story was a recording of an actual historical event.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But what if Thomas was a historical person and was skeptical until he had that encounter with Jesus? Wouldn't it be at least some evidence potentially for the resurrection?

No, because then King Arthur and Lancelot have equally valid claims to being real. As would Odin and Freya. Zeus and Athena. Good evidence must be externally provided, or else Cthulhu can be said to be real based on the "bloop" noise in the Pacific ocean as it originated approximately where Lovecraft put the sunken city of R'lyeh.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm not really a believer but one question that's really intriguing and could potentially be evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is the fact that doubting Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection but upon touching Jesus' wounds he became a believer in the resurrection. Now assuming the story is true, unless someone can provide reason to doubt that Thomas existed or reason to doubt that he was skeptical of the resurrection even if he did exist, wouldn't the fact that Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection but then became a believer in the resurrection be potential evidence for the resurrection?

There is reason to doubt that Thomas existed because you only have the Bible story to go by. But even if you could demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt Thomas was an actual person, you still have to demonstrate that he examined a resurrected Jesus and looked at the holes. How would you go about verifying that?

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not really a believer but one question that's really intriguing and could potentially be evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is the fact that doubting Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection but upon touching Jesus' wounds he became a believer in the resurrection. Now assuming the story is true, unless someone can provide reason to doubt that Thomas existed or reason to doubt that he was skeptical of the resurrection even if he did exist, wouldn't the fact that Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection but then became a believer in the resurrection be potential evidence for the resurrection?

Consider what reaction you have if someone touches a raw, open and infected wound.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I'm not really a believer but one question that's really intriguing and could potentially be evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is the fact that doubting Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection but upon touching Jesus' wounds he became a believer in the resurrection. Now assuming the story is true, unless someone can provide reason to doubt that Thomas existed or reason to doubt that he was skeptical of the resurrection even if he did exist, wouldn't the fact that Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection but then became a believer in the resurrection be potential evidence for the resurrection?

Now assuming the story is true...

If you going to simply assume that the story is true then is can't be considered evidence. IF you're going to just assume that it's true, why wouldn't you just assume that every single claim in the bible that says Jesus was resurrected is true as well?

 

[Left Coast]

Are there any witness statements recorded contemporary to the events or outside the Bible? If not, it all ultimately boils down to a single source with an obvious implicit bias.

There aren't even eyewitness statements in the Bible. The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts, they don't even claim to be. Paul claims to have been an "eyewitness" in a sense, but not of any Jesus on Earth, only a heavenly Jesus he saw in a vision. There's one claim in 1 Peter to being eyewitnesses, but it's widely understood in NT academia that 1 Peter is pseudepigraphal.

 

[stvdv]

I'm not really a believer but one question that's really intriguing and could potentially be evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is the fact that doubting Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection but upon touching Jesus' wounds he became a believer in the resurrection. Now assuming the story is true, unless someone can provide reason to doubt that Thomas existed or reason to doubt that he was skeptical of the resurrection even if he did exist, wouldn't the fact that Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection but then became a believer in the resurrection be potential evidence for the resurrection?

You have not witnessed it yourself, so you do not know

So, that I would "really" call a believer

 

[Trailblazer]

But what if Thomas was a historical person and was skeptical until he had that encounter with Jesus? Wouldn't it be at least some evidence potentially for the resurrection?

What if does not work unless there is proof that he was a historical person.
Otherwise, it could just as easily be a story. How can we know?

 

[Trailblazer]

I know that but that's kinda my point, I'm wondering if it's just a story or an actual historical event... that's the big question.

Yes indeed, that is the big question... How do you think we can ever know the answer?

How long have people been arguing about whether the bodily resurrection is a story or a historical event?

What is going to change that settles it?
Only if the remains of Jesus were found and we could prove they were His remains would it be settled, but believers would probably continue to believe even if there was proof. That is how belief works. It does not need to be based upon the actual evidence because people can always find a way to deny the evidence.

 

[Jos]

No, because then King Arthur and Lancelot have equally valid claims to being real. As would Odin and Freya. Zeus and Athena. Good evidence must be externally provided, or else Cthulhu can be said to be real based on the "bloop" noise in the Pacific ocean as it originated approximately where Lovecraft put the sunken city of R'lyeh.

So personal experience even if it's real isn't enough? Why? What if that's the only evidence a person has?

 

[Jos]

There is reason to doubt that Thomas existed because you only have the Bible story to go by.

Aren't there other historical figures who we only know exist through stories?

But even if you could demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt Thomas was an actual person, you still have to demonstrate that he examined a resurrected Jesus and looked at the holes. How would you go about verifying that?

Good point. I have no idea how I or anyone else could go about doing that.

 

[Jos]

Consider what reaction you have if someone touches a raw, open and infected wound.

"Ewww! Gross!" That would be my reaction, but respectfully asking, how is that related to the question asked in the OP?

 

[Jos]

Now assuming the story is true...

If you going to simply assume that the story is true then is can't be considered evidence. IF you're going to just assume that it's true, why wouldn't you just assume that every single claim in the bible that says Jesus was resurrected is true as well?

See this post from an earlier response:
"I was being hypothetical when I stated that I assumed that it was true... it was meant to be a hypothetical assumption."

 

[Jos]

You have not witnessed it yourself, so you do not know

So, that I would "really" call a believer

No I'm not a believer, I'm just a person who's unsure of the resurrection trying to look at the believer's side of the argument.

 

[Jos]

How do you think we can ever know the answer?

Isn't a personal experience of Jesus one way of knowing whether or not the resurrection happened?

How long have people been arguing about whether the bodily resurrection is a story or a historical event?

What is going to change that settles it?
Only if the remains of Jesus were found and we could prove they were His remains would it be settled, but believers would probably continue to believe even if there was proof. That is how belief works. It does not need to be based upon the actual evidence because people can always find a way to deny the evidence.

Fair point, I guess you're right but I asked this question because I wanted to look at the argument through the lens of a believer.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So personal experience even if it's real isn't enough? Why? What if that's the only evidence a person has?

We can't even call the Bible a personal experience. If it is, then Beowulf and the Divine Comedy too are accounts of personal experience. Chaucer too with his stories such as Canterbury Tales.