Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection

[kobayashi]

I would love to get a discussion going on this. Right now, New Testament scholars (including non-believers) almost unanimously agree that Jesus died by crucifixion, that his followers had experiences after his death in which they saw him alive, and that both Paul and James (church persecutor and skeptic, respectively) converted to Christianity because they, too, had experiences in which they saw the risen Jesus. A fifth fact, accepted by about 75% of scholars, is that Jesus' tomb was indeed found empty. Personally, I find the evidence for these five facts very compelling. It seems to me that the best explanation - the only one that accounts for all the evidence - is that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Obviously this conclusion does not go unchallenged. There are of course alternative theories on offer, but none (so far as I can tell) can adequately provide a persuasive explanation for all these facts. Significantly, there is nothing even close to a consensus among New Testament scholars about how to account for the facts.

Given the immense importance of Jesus' resurrection - especially if true - it seems to me that everybody should take this into serious consideration. I look forward to discussing these ideas.

 

[Smoke]

A fifth fact, accepted by about 75% of scholars, is that Jesus' tomb was indeed found empty. Personally, I find the evidence for these five facts very compelling.

Personally, I find that 75% a rather dubious figure. How did you arrive at it?

My personal view is that Jesus died by crucifixion. I don't believe that his early followers or Paul ever saw him alive, or even believed they did. The Ebionites, whom I take to represent the original Jesus movement more than any other group, do not seem to have believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus, and apparently regarded visions of Jesus as purely spiritual events. Paul's experiences, as he describes them, also seem to me to describe spiritual (or more accurately, psychological) experiences, and not a physical encounter with Jesus.

 

[darkendless]

I would love to get a discussion going on this. Right now, New Testament scholars (including non-believers) almost unanimously agree that Jesus died by crucifixion, that his followers had experiences after his death in which they saw him alive, and that both Paul and James (church persecutor and skeptic, respectively) converted to Christianity because they, too, had experiences in which they saw the risen Jesus. A fifth fact, accepted by about 75% of scholars, is that Jesus' tomb was indeed found empty. Personally, I find the evidence for these five facts very compelling. It seems to me that the best explanation - the only one that accounts for all the evidence - is that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Obviously this conclusion does not go unchallenged. There are of course alternative theories on offer, but none (so far as I can tell) can adequately provide a persuasive explanation for all these facts. Significantly, there is nothing even close to a consensus among New Testament scholars about how to account for the facts.

Given the immense importance of Jesus' resurrection - especially if true - it seems to me that everybody should take this into serious consideration. I look forward to discussing these ideas.

You need to be re-educated about what constitutes evidence. There is nothing outside the bible to suggest that jesus was ressurected. All it seems like to me is a silly little fairy tale that got misinterpreted as something serious.

 

[kobayashi]

Personally, I find that 75% a rather dubious figure. How did you arrive at it?...

I don't believe that his early followers or Paul ever saw him alive, or even believed they did...Paul's experiences, as he describes them, also seem to me to describe spiritual (or more accurately, psychological) experiences, and not a physical encounter with Jesus.

The numbers come from research done by Gary Habermas of every work written on the subject in English, French, and German since 1975 - more than 2,200 sources. I found references to it in one of his books, called "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus." You can find more information on his website, which I can't post the link for because I am a new user. But you can find it easily on Google. Whether or not you trust his research is not for me to decide, but at least you know I'm not pulling the numbers out of thin air. I would add, however, based on other reading I've done on the subject, that the percentages sound reasonable.

In response to your other points: The argument is that the disciples sincerely believed they had seen the risen Jesus. First of all, they claimed it (according to Paul, oral traditions which predate the New Testament, and the early writings of the church). Second, they faced ongoing persecution (many, to the point of death) for their claim, which is attested by seven ancient sources. This doesn't mean what they claimed was true, but it does mean they weren't making the story up. People may suffer or die for a lie, but not for something they know to be a lie. So there's good reason to believe they saw something (even if they were mistaken). But accounting for what it was that they experienced is not as easy as it may look.

I'm confused when you say that Paul didn't believe he had seen Jesus, but then you imply that he did in fact believe this because you try to explain away his experience as a 'spiritual' or 'psychological' event. Can you clarify that?

 

[kobayashi]

You need to be re-educated about what constitutes evidence. There is nothing outside the bible to suggest that jesus was ressurected. All it seems like to me is a silly little fairy tale that got misinterpreted as something serious.

The five facts I mentioned are supported by both biblical and non-biblical material. In this discussion I am not treating the Bible as an inspired holy book. I am simply treating the New Testament sources as we would treat any other ancient source when trying to determine historical evidence for an event in the past. If you think the resurrection is easy to refute then I welcome you to offer a plausible theory for what really happened.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems to me that the best explanation - the only one that accounts for all the evidence - is that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Ah... so (and with apologies to Arthur Conan Doyle), once you have eliminated the improbable, whatever remains, however impossible, must be the truth!

:sarcastic

 

[darkendless]

The five facts I mentioned are supported by both biblical and non-biblical material. In this discussion I am not treating the Bible as an inspired holy book. I am simply treating the New Testament sources as we would treat any other ancient source when trying to determine historical evidence for an event in the past. If you think the resurrection is easy to refute then I welcome you to offer a plausible theory for what really happened.

Nothing, Jesus died, end of story. You can't seriously think (using a critical mind) that ressurection was possible. Can i please see your non-biblical sources and ill judge them for myself. If you know anything about treating sources, the bible and biblical history itself is very difficult to take seriously because there is nothing else to compare it to. Even Roman history during the time of jesus is dodgy as hell.

To give an example of how i treat biblical "evidence," its about as useful as trying to prove Constantine I was a Christian by only using Eusubius as a source. There is like a 99% chance you'll find exactly what he wanted you to.

 

[Smoke]

The numbers come from research done by Gary Habermas of every work written on the subject in English, French, and German since 1975 - more than 2,200 sources. I found references to it in one of his books, called "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus." You can find more information on his website, which I can't post the link for because I am a new user.

Well, I'm not, so I'll post it for you:

Dr. Gary R. Habermas - Online Resource for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Habermas says that three-quarters of the works he reviewed were written from the "moderate conservative" position. So maybe it really is the case that three-quarters of Bible scholars believe in the empty tomb.
​

In response to your other points: The argument is that the disciples sincerely believed they had seen the risen Jesus. First of all, they claimed it (according to Paul, oral traditions which predate the New Testament, and the early writings of the church).

The Ebionites seem to have believed in apparitions of Jesus, but they do not seem to have viewed them as physical encounters, and that's really the crucial point if you're talking about physical resurrection. You won't be surprised to learn that I don't consider Paul a particularly trustworthy witness; I think he was at odds with Jesus' family and followers. The oral traditions you mention are theoretical, and of course the early writings of the church follow Christian belief.

Second, they faced ongoing persecution (many, to the point of death) for their claim, which is attested by seven ancient sources. This doesn't mean what they claimed was true, but it does mean they weren't making the story up. People may suffer or die for a lie, but not for something they know to be a lie. So there's good reason to believe they saw something (even if they were mistaken). But accounting for what it was that they experienced is not as easy as it may look.

I'm not entirely convinced that people never die for something they know to be a lie, but even if that's true, you have not established that the people who followed Jesus when he was alive actually claimed to have encountered a physically-resurrected Jesus. What we have are late accounts from people other than Jesus' followers.

I'm confused when you say that Paul didn't believe he had seen Jesus, but then you imply that he did in fact believe this because you try to explain away his experience as a 'spiritual' or 'psychological' event. Can you clarify that?

I mean it doesn't sound to me like a physical encounter.

And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?"

And I answered, "Who art thou, Lord?"

And he said unto me, "I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest."

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
​

Paul didn't see Jesus. He saw "a great light" and heard "a voice." His companions, he says, saw the light, but didn't hear the voice. Whatever the explanation for Paul's experience -- and I think that explanation is likely to be entirely psychological -- it's absolutely clear that there was no resurrected Jesus standing in the Damascus Road.

 

[Smoke]

If you think the resurrection is easy to refute then I welcome you to offer a plausible theory for what really happened.

John Dominic Crossan, a Catholic scholar and former priest, considers it likely that the body of Jesus was never buried to begin with, and may have been left to the dogs. I withhold judgment on that theory, but it's quite a bit more plausible than physical resurrection.

 

[kobayashi]

Nothing, Jesus died, end of story.

If that were true then Christianity wouldn't exist.

You can't seriously think (using a critical mind) that ressurection was possible.

I wouldn't say it's possible by natural means, but nobody's arguing for that anyway.

Can i please see your non-biblical sources and ill judge them for myself.

The sources include church fathers as well as non-Christian historians. If you want to discuss specific points in the argument, I will be happy to share citations with you. But it would be boring to just type out all the relevant quotations in one post (probably boring to read too).

If you are disputing any of the facts I mentioned, say which ones and we'll discuss the evidence. I'm not defending the New Testament as inspired or even generally reliable; I am simply treating it as 27 ancient sources from the early Christians. My argument is based not on just what the Bible says but on well-supported historical facts accepted by most scholars who study this subject, including skeptical ones. If you think the evidence is weak, give me some kind of argument. Otherwise it's just your word against mine.

 

[J Bryson]

If that were true then Christianity wouldn't exist.

That's like saying "If Joseph Smith hadn't found the golden plates, then the Mormons wouldn't exist," (with no insult meant to my Mormon friends here) or "If Xenu hadn't blown up all of those volcanoes, then Scientology wouldn't exist".

The sources include church fathers as well as non-Christian historians. If you want to discuss specific points in the argument, I will be happy to share citations with you. But it would be boring to just type out all the relevant quotations in one post (probably boring to read too).

I, for one, would be fascinated. Don't' worry about typing stuff out. Copy/pasting the most compelling evidence should suffice.

 

[darkendless]

If that were true then Christianity wouldn't exist.

I wouldn't say it's possible by natural means, but nobody's arguing for that anyway.

The sources include church fathers as well as non-Christian historians. If you want to discuss specific points in the argument, I will be happy to share citations with you. But it would be boring to just type out all the relevant quotations in one post (probably boring to read too).

If you are disputing any of the facts I mentioned, say which ones and we'll discuss the evidence. I'm not defending the New Testament as inspired or even generally reliable; I am simply treating it as 27 ancient sources from the early Christians. My argument is based not on just what the Bible says but on well-supported historical facts accepted by most scholars who study this subject, including skeptical ones. If you think the evidence is weak, give me some kind of argument. Otherwise it's just your word against mine.

Im convinced Christianity was a cult much like scientology, with a similiar rediculous story behind it. Constantine used it to exploit the people around him. Isn't it weird how he was always a pagan?

Its a silly mythology no matter which way you look at it. Do you think that people really go to Valhalla when they die? Do the Norns sew the seeds to new worlds? No, but we don't take it seriously. Why do people take the equally rediculous story of the Jesus ressurection seriously.

I'd like you to name your non-biblical scholars. I think it would be interesting reading. I think the whole story of Jesus's ressurection is biblical nonsense where only people silly enough to believe whatever is served to them on a silver platter would take seriously.

 

[Magic Man]

If that were true then Christianity wouldn't exist.

How do you figure that?

The way I see it, it's true, and Christianity exists. I don't see why they would be mutually exclusive.

Basically, it seems to be true that Jesus existed and died by crucifixion. What you and other Christians believe is that he also performed miracles including coming back from the dead and ascending to Heaven. That part doesn't seem to be true, unless you want to believe it.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but don't confuse the issue. You believe Jesus was God's son and performed miracles, but there is no evidence to back that up.

 

[kobayashi]

Thanks for posting the URL.

1) I find it very difficult to believe that anyone would face persecution and die for something they knew to be false. At least somebody would have at least recanted under torture.

2) Even the most liberal Jesus scholars would affirm the oral sources (for instance, Marcus Borg). One of the most famous examples is 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. There is good reason to believe that this is a creed (e.g., “I delivered to you…what I also received” is a creedal formula). This creed is very early – Paul wrote the letter about AD 54, but mentions that he had already “passed on” to the Corinthians this teaching, which would be in AD 51, which means the creed is earlier than that; most scholars would date this creed to no later than AD 36. That’s within 6 years of Jesus’ crucifixion, although many would place it within 3-5. Do you have any good reason to deny the importance of oral tradition? Wouldn't that be a significant source for determining the beliefs of the early church?

3) What could Paul possibly gain from lying about the teachings of the other disciples?

Paul didn't see Jesus. He saw "a great light" and heard "a voice." His companions, he says, saw the light, but didn't hear the voice. Whatever the explanation for Paul's experience -- and I think that explanation is likely to be entirely psychological -- it's absolutely clear that there was no resurrected Jesus standing in the Damascus Road.

Interestingly, you base your argument on what you yourself argue is a late account “from people other than Jesus’ followers.” If you’re now going to rely on Luke’s testimony, why not use Acts 13:34-37, where Paul’s own words strongly imply a physical resurrection. Of what of Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:29-31, where he makes the same point? (I should point out here that the book of Acts contains several of these sermons (or rather, sermon-summaries), and these are in fact oral traditions that can be dated earlier than the gospels.) Why not trust Luke’s earlier testimony at the end of his gospel that the resurrection was a physical, bodily event (see Luke 24:36-43).

Also, even though the men with Paul did not see Jesus, the accounts in Acts make it clear that they saw and/or heard something which means that, if these accounts are reliable, then what Paul saw was not merely in his own head.

What evidence is there for supposing the Ebionites to represent early Christianity?

 

[kobayashi]

haha not so easy to copy/paste from books. If I get a chance I'll do it.

 

[kobayashi]

I'd like you to name your non-biblical scholars. I think it would be interesting reading.

If I get the time maybe I will. Otherwise it would be much easier to just do this topically, like in a back-and-forth over specific points.

 

[DarkMaster24]

Ah... so (and with apologies to Arthur Conan Doyle), once you have eliminated the improbable, whatever remains, however impossible, must be the truth!

:sarcastic

Ahh, meanie.

 

[Magic Man]

1) I find it very difficult to believe that anyone would face persecution and die for something they knew to be false. At least somebody would have at least recanted under torture.

I'm not saying they knew it to be false. I'm saying it's false in a literal sense. That means either they didn't think of it in the literal sense that you do, or they believed it literally but were mistaken.

2) Even the most liberal Jesus scholars would affirm the oral sources (for instance, Marcus Borg). One of the most famous examples is 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. There is good reason to believe that this is a creed (e.g., “I delivered to you…what I also received” is a creedal formula). This creed is very early – Paul wrote the letter about AD 54, but mentions that he had already “passed on” to the Corinthians this teaching, which would be in AD 51, which means the creed is earlier than that; most scholars would date this creed to no later than AD 36. That’s within 6 years of Jesus’ crucifixion, although many would place it within 3-5. Do you have any good reason to deny the importance of oral tradition? Wouldn't that be a significant source for determining the beliefs of the early church?

What do you think this proves exactly?

3) What could Paul possibly gain from lying about the teachings of the other disciples?

Again, no one said he was lying. He could geneuinely have believed those teachings to be literally true, or he could have meant them in a completely different way than you take them. Either way, he wouldn't have been lying, but still those teachings wouldn't have been true in the sense that you think they are.

 

[kobayashi]

The way I see it, it's true, and Christianity exists. I don't see why they would be mutually exclusive.

If Jesus died, and that was the end of the story, then why did his followers proclaim that he had risen from the dead? Why did they believe him to be the Messiah, for that matter? Judaism had no concept of a dying, much less rising, Messiah. In fact, in a world where pagans unanimously denied resurrection, and where many Jews believed that the resurrection would take place at the end of history, it is interesting that the early Christians were proclaiming that God had raised the Messiah individually, before everyone else. Something happened that caused this belief. The question is, What was it? The answer the early Christians gave was that God had risen Jesus from the dead. Even if we reject their answer, we know that something must have happened in order to cause this new belief system to spring out of second-Temple Judaism, but the fact that Jesus died isn't enough. It leaves so much unaccounted for (like those facts I listed).

 

[McBell]

I would love to get a discussion going on this. Right now, New Testament scholars (including non-believers) almost unanimously agree that Jesus died by crucifixion, that his followers had experiences after his death in which they saw him alive, and that both Paul and James (church persecutor and skeptic, respectively) converted to Christianity because they, too, had experiences in which they saw the risen Jesus. A fifth fact, accepted by about 75% of scholars, is that Jesus' tomb was indeed found empty. Personally, I find the evidence for these five facts very compelling. It seems to me that the best explanation - the only one that accounts for all the evidence - is that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Obviously this conclusion does not go unchallenged. There are of course alternative theories on offer, but none (so far as I can tell) can adequately provide a persuasive explanation for all these facts. Significantly, there is nothing even close to a consensus among New Testament scholars about how to account for the facts.

Given the immense importance of Jesus' resurrection - especially if true - it seems to me that everybody should take this into serious consideration. I look forward to discussing these ideas.

From Common Sense Atheism » The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona (Review) :

First, the conversions of Paul and James mean nothing. People change religions every day.

Second, the willingness of the early apostles to die for their faith also means nothing, for a very simple reason: people of many other religions believed so strongly that they were willing to die for their false beliefs, too.

Our earliest written accounts of Jesus’ Resurrection (1) were written only by Christian evangelists, (2) were compiled 20-70 years after the events they describe, (3) are so old they cannot be confirmed by physical evidence from the time, (4) come from a superstituous age of many similar mystery cults, (3) are internally contradictory, (4) and are contradictory between sources, too. We have much better evidence than that for the angel Moroni’s revelation to Joseph Smith, the Hindu milk miracle of 1995, visitation by space aliens, the dancing sun at Fatima, and many other modern phenomena. And yet most Christians do not believe those were genuine events.

We have much better evidence than that for the angel Moroni’s revelation to Joseph Smith, the Hindu milk miracle of 1995, visitation by space aliens, the dancing sun at Fatima, and many other modern phenomena. And yet most Christians do not believe those were genuine events.

​