Is this potential evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

[Audie]

I know it's not very deep but I'm not the claim either way that the resurrection did or did not happen... what I am doing or trying to do is trying figure out how trustworthy personal testimony and experiences are in reaching conclusions about purported historical events.

To a believer (a person who believes things) any evidence will do.

For an objective person, the purported testimony has zero value.

Here is actual testimony, signed by known people and sworn to
before god, at the risk of their presumably immortal souls.
Many millions of Mormons out there, and they are all satisfied.
How about you?

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

Mark Twain commented that he could not be more convinced if
the entire Smith and Whitmer families had testified!

 

[Audie]

True so I now I ask, if you had an encounter or what seemed to be an encounter with the risen Christ would that be enough to establish that the resurrection happened or would you need external verification of your experience?

Encounter in a dream? What do you mean by "encounter"?

Howabout if you had an encounter with a flying saucer?

 

[Milton Platt]

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

Well, yes. But generally stories from multiple independent sources...and the fewer the sources, the more tentative our acceptance.
Personally, I don;t care if every person in the Bible could be verified to have lived....that does still does not support any of the miracle claims or the god claims. You in essence have a collection of stories gathered together from many hundreds of others because they seemed to hang together a little better than the rest. All were written by someone with a specific agenda. And most all are anonymous.

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

 

[Jos]

I did not say we should fault them, everyone has their own 'standards' of evidence.
I would not have a belief that had not provable historical evidence supporting it, but that's just me.

OK fair enough.

 

[Jos]

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

Thank you, this should be very helpful.

 

[Jos]

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.

Hmm, OK, I've had similar experiences so I guess I'm in the same boat as you... I tend to think that there's something supernatural there but at the same time I also think it's possible for my brain to trick me so ultimately I end up agnostic about the whole thing.

 

[Jos]

Thank them for sharing and let them know that since you did not have said experience, it does not work for you.

I guess that's fair.

 

[Jos]

If Jesus' post resurrection appearances were the imaginative product of the authors with the intent to provide proof that Jesus lived, was raised, they could have had Jesus appear to his enemies, those involved in his crucifixion.

Well I'm not claiming that they made it up so that wouldn't apply to me.

 

[Jos]

Yeah, they will say anything to keep their story in tact.

Yeah that's sometimes true.

 

[Jos]

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

If most scholars agree that there was a historical Jesus then shouldn't that at least count in favour of there being one?

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

What if stories are all we have? Aren't stories all we can rely upon anyway when determining if a historical figure is dead or not?

 

[Jos]

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.

Wow really? I didn't know that. I thought he had touched and that's what made him believe.

 

[Jos]

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.

OK yes, you're right.

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 ).

Yeah I suppose it wouldn't make sense to just believe in that off of one source.

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.

What if an apologist argued that contradictions show that the story is true since they all look at the same story from different perspectives? And what are the contradictions with other sources?

 

[Jos]

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.

Good point but what about the fact that the romans could have trotted Jesus' body for everyone to see that He didn't rise from the dead and that could have shut down the whole debate?

 

[Jos]

Yes. Eyewitness accounts fill the NT and all 12 NT writers spoke of the resurrection. An apostle in NT times was one who saw the resurrected Christ and preached about that fact.

But weren't the Gospels written by anonymous authors?

 

[Jos]

Encounter in a dream? What do you mean by "encounter"?

A physical encounter

Howabout if you had an encounter with a flying saucer?

I honestly don't know how I would react.

 

[Jos]

Well, yes. But generally stories from multiple independent sources...and the fewer the sources, the more tentative our acceptance.
Personally, I don;t care if every person in the Bible could be verified to have lived....that does still does not support any of the miracle claims or the god claims. You in essence have a collection of stories gathered together from many hundreds of others because they seemed to hang together a little better than the rest. All were written by someone with a specific agenda. And most all are anonymous.

Christians claim that the Gospels are independent sources? What do you say to that?

 

[McBell]

If most scholars agree that there was a historical Jesus then shouldn't that at least count in favour of there being one?

That depends.

There are more red vehicles involved in accidents than any other color.
Which stands to reason because there are more red vehicles than any other color.

Another thing to keep in mind is that even if there is a specific person the Jesus stories are based upon, that does not mean the stories are true.
Take Santa Clause for example.

 

[McBell]

Christians claim that the Gospels are independent sources? What do you say to that?

This is somewhat of a pickle for me personally.
I hear people claim "using the Bible to evidence the Bible is circular reasoning".
I am not so sure that it is circular reasoning because there were different authors for the different books in the Bible which were written at different times.

 

[Left Coast]

Thank you, this should be very helpful.

You're welcome. You'll note that we have zero primary sources re: Jesus' alleged resurrection (unless you count Paul, whose first-hand account is of having a vision of Jesus already in heaven), and all the secondary sources we have a) are written by die-hard believers, b) don't cite any primary sources, and/or c) are clearly structured as mythology, as with the Gospels.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good point but what about the fact that the romans could have trotted Jesus' body for everyone to see that He didn't rise from the dead and that could have shut down the whole debate?

What debate? Why would you assume that there was even a debate to be had at the time?

Even Mark with its empty tomb narrative wasn't written until decades after Jesus supposedly died. Who can say how much even the tame version in Mark varied from the actual events? Was the empty tomb tacked onto the story?

Remember that these stories were circulating - and changing - orally for decades before they were written down.