Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

[Sylvester Clark]

The Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead is fundamental to Christianity, but is undeniably a very radical claim. There is a certain amount of historical evidence surrounding the life of Jesus, but does the evidence support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form?

Many alternative hypotheses have been offered to account for the historical data we have surrounding the life of Jesus and the beginning of the Christian movement.
1. Some suggest that Jesus as described in the Bible didn't even exist, and that the biblical accounts of his life are purely fabrications.
2. Some suggest that Jesus was real and was crucified, but his followers fabricated the story of his resurrection.
3. Maybe Jesus was hung on a cross, but never actually died, and after swooning for a while, somehow recovered.
4. Maybe those who claimed to have had seen post-mortem appearances of Jesus were hallucinating, or something of that nature.

Honestly, none of these seem to be very good explanations of the historical data to me.

Considering these facts:
The vast majority of scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. There are several very early, independent accounts that all claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. The idea of a resurrection anything like what is claimed for Jesus was not at all a common idea in Judaism before that time. Hallucinations don't happen to groups of people at the same time, but multiple early sources record postmortem appearances of Jesus to groups of people. I have yet to hear a good explanation for how Christianity would have taken off like it did if the apostles were simply fabricating the whole story. Of course they could have fooled other people, but why would all of the apostles have been willing to suffer torture and death for something they knew was false? There are a bunch of other details that could be brought into this conversation as well.

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

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If they suggest, strongly point to, use only one source, confirmation bias, fill in the blank, and prove a positive by absense thereof,there's no reason to believe such thing is fact outside ones personal conviction.

 

[exchemist]

The Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead is fundamental to Christianity, but is undeniably a very radical claim. There is a certain amount of historical evidence surrounding the life of Jesus, but does the evidence support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form?

Many alternative hypotheses have been offered to account for the historical data we have surrounding the life of Jesus and the beginning of the Christian movement.
1. Some suggest that Jesus as described in the Bible didn't even exist, and that the biblical accounts of his life are purely fabrications.
2. Some suggest that Jesus was real and was crucified, but his followers fabricated the story of his resurrection.
3. Maybe Jesus was hung on a cross, but never actually died, and after swooning for a while, somehow recovered.
4. Maybe those who claimed to have had seen post-mortem appearances of Jesus were hallucinating, or something of that nature.

Honestly, none of these seem to be very good explanations of the historical data to me.

Considering these facts:
The vast majority of scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. There are several very early, independent accounts that all claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. The idea of a resurrection anything like what is claimed for Jesus was not at all a common idea in Judaism before that time. Hallucinations don't happen to groups of people at the same time, but multiple early sources record postmortem appearances of Jesus to groups of people. I have yet to hear a good explanation for how Christianity would have taken off like it did if the apostles were simply fabricating the whole story. Of course they could have fooled other people, but why would all of the apostles have been willing to suffer torture and death for something they knew was false? There are a bunch of other details that could be brought into this conversation as well.

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

What evidence can you cite that the "vast majority of scholars" think Jesus was crucified? I am unaware of any corroborating evidence for this. I am aware that most think he was a historical person, but that is rather different.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead is fundamental to Christianity...

Not really if you take into consideration that large sections of Christians are sola scriptura, and using Sola Scriptura I can show you a Christianity in which Jesus preaches that repentance is resurrection. Therefore its not fundamental to Christianity and is merely a flavor of Christianity.

If this doesn't ring a bell with you recall the phrase "Dead in their transgressions," "New creation" and "live in Christ."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@Sylvester Clark

I do not accept the Resurrection, but let's examine the actual evidence, and I don't mean the legends recorded in their New Testament.

The very best evidence they have is the fact that the disciples turned from sniveling cowards who hid during the crucifixion into dynamic evangelists who were willing to die for their faith. Why? If not the resurrection, then what?

I think most of the written record is nothing but legends. I don't think Mary Magdeline talked to Jesus. I don't think Thomas put his fingers into Jesus' wounds.

What I DO find believable, and very, very fascinating is the story of the Road to Emmaus. The whole way there, the men did not recognize "Jesus." Apparently he looked quite different. Indeed for all practical purposes he appeared to be a different person. It was only when he broke bread, that there was something in his manner that reminded them of Jesus.

I think this story is what is at the heart of what really happened. It was actually not Jesus on the road, but the manner in which he broke bread caused a sense of de ja vu so strong that they wondered if he were not Jesus in disguise. And so the rumors began.

It is often this way after someone dies. When my father died, in a strange way I felt he was closer to me than when he was aiive--he was just always with me, which was not true when he was alive. I think that the apostles must have seen Jesus on the face of children and similar. To them, it was very, VERY real. Real enough to transform them.

But it was nevertheless figurative, rather than literal. It was just that those they tried to explain it to took it literally, and it became encoded into Christian teaching as a literal story, and so the legends built up around it, "proving" it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not really if you take into consideration that large sections of Christians are sola scriptura, and using Sola Scriptura I can show you a Christianity in which Jesus preaches that repentance is resurrection. Therefore its not fundamental to Christianity and is merely a flavor of Christianity.

If this doesn't ring a bell with you recall the phrase "Dead in their transgressions," "New creation" and "live in Christ."

I have to agree with them. A literal resurrection is Christian dogma, although you may personally disagree with it. Not only is it point blank taught by the New Testament (see gospels and Romans 10:9), but it is listed as a basic tenet of faith in both the Apostle's Creed and Nicene Creed.

 

[Rival]

What evidence can you cite that the "vast majority of scholars" think Jesus was crucified? I am unaware of any corroborating evidence for this. I am aware that most think he was a historical person, but that is rather different.

As far as I know, it is in fact the consensus of most scholars that Jesus being crucified basically wouldn't be made up and it's the one element that all Christians and those who talk about Christians are united on. Early depictions by non-Christians mocking their crucified god also occur, as I'm sure you know. I think the consensus is that this wouldn't be made up because why would you? It goes against everything the Jewish Messiah is meant to achieve.

 

[InChrist]

The Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead is fundamental to Christianity, but is undeniably a very radical claim. There is a certain amount of historical evidence surrounding the life of Jesus, but does the evidence support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form?

Many alternative hypotheses have been offered to account for the historical data we have surrounding the life of Jesus and the beginning of the Christian movement.
1. Some suggest that Jesus as described in the Bible didn't even exist, and that the biblical accounts of his life are purely fabrications.
2. Some suggest that Jesus was real and was crucified, but his followers fabricated the story of his resurrection.
3. Maybe Jesus was hung on a cross, but never actually died, and after swooning for a while, somehow recovered.
4. Maybe those who claimed to have had seen post-mortem appearances of Jesus were hallucinating, or something of that nature.

Honestly, none of these seem to be very good explanations of the historical data to me.

Considering these facts:
The vast majority of scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. There are several very early, independent accounts that all claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. The idea of a resurrection anything like what is claimed for Jesus was not at all a common idea in Judaism before that time. Hallucinations don't happen to groups of people at the same time, but multiple early sources record postmortem appearances of Jesus to groups of people. I have yet to hear a good explanation for how Christianity would have taken off like it did if the apostles were simply fabricating the whole story. Of course they could have fooled other people, but why would all of the apostles have been willing to suffer torture and death for something they knew was false? There are a bunch of other details that could be brought into this conversation as well.

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 think the bodily resurrection is the best and accurate explanation.

 

[Jimmy]

The Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead is fundamental to Christianity, but is undeniably a very radical claim. There is a certain amount of historical evidence surrounding the life of Jesus, but does the evidence support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form?

Many alternative hypotheses have been offered to account for the historical data we have surrounding the life of Jesus and the beginning of the Christian movement.
1. Some suggest that Jesus as described in the Bible didn't even exist, and that the biblical accounts of his life are purely fabrications.
2. Some suggest that Jesus was real and was crucified, but his followers fabricated the story of his resurrection.
3. Maybe Jesus was hung on a cross, but never actually died, and after swooning for a while, somehow recovered.
4. Maybe those who claimed to have had seen post-mortem appearances of Jesus were hallucinating, or something of that nature.

Honestly, none of these seem to be very good explanations of the historical data to me.

Considering these facts:
The vast majority of scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. There are several very early, independent accounts that all claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. The idea of a resurrection anything like what is claimed for Jesus was not at all a common idea in Judaism before that time. Hallucinations don't happen to groups of people at the same time, but multiple early sources record postmortem appearances of Jesus to groups of people. I have yet to hear a good explanation for how Christianity would have taken off like it did if the apostles were simply fabricating the whole story. Of course they could have fooled other people, but why would all of the apostles have been willing to suffer torture and death for something they knew was false? There are a bunch of other details that could be brought into this conversation as well.

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

He lives man! lol

 

[MatthewA]

The Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead is fundamental to Christianity, but is undeniably a very radical claim. There is a certain amount of historical evidence surrounding the life of Jesus, but does the evidence support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form?

Many alternative hypotheses have been offered to account for the historical data we have surrounding the life of Jesus and the beginning of the Christian movement.
1. Some suggest that Jesus as described in the Bible didn't even exist, and that the biblical accounts of his life are purely fabrications.
2. Some suggest that Jesus was real and was crucified, but his followers fabricated the story of his resurrection.
3. Maybe Jesus was hung on a cross, but never actually died, and after swooning for a while, somehow recovered.
4. Maybe those who claimed to have had seen post-mortem appearances of Jesus were hallucinating, or something of that nature.

Honestly, none of these seem to be very good explanations of the historical data to me.

Considering these facts:
The vast majority of scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. There are several very early, independent accounts that all claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. The idea of a resurrection anything like what is claimed for Jesus was not at all a common idea in Judaism before that time. Hallucinations don't happen to groups of people at the same time, but multiple early sources record postmortem appearances of Jesus to groups of people. I have yet to hear a good explanation for how Christianity would have taken off like it did if the apostles were simply fabricating the whole story. Of course they could have fooled other people, but why would all of the apostles have been willing to suffer torture and death for something they knew was false? There are a bunch of other details that could be brought into this conversation as well.

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

Hello Sylvester Clark: would like to share with you some thoughts after going through your post.

Though do believe that Jesus Christ raised again from the dead, by God after being buried in the earth for three days. That believers in Christ Jesus died as Christ had died (Romans 6:1-5;Galatians 2:20; Galatians 5) ~ believers die to their flesh and are baptized with Christ in His death.

Then believers are raised to new (2 Corinthians 5:17 - new creation) spiritual life (John 14:26; John 16:7) ~ (Matthew 6:9-13) with direct communication with God after being baptized by the holy spirit (Romans 8:11) and fire by Christ Jesus. ( Luke 3:15-18 - baptism of Christ Jesus by the holy spirit and fire)

This what is found interesting at least for myself, as well as what you did say. The disciples went out and continued to preach (Romans 1:1-17) and spread the Gospel of Christ (Good News) of the Gospel about the truth (John 8:32; John 14:6) about who Jesus Christ is and what he is all about ( Matthew/Mark/Luke/John).

All the disciples did end up dying for their faith, but according to this Good News ~ They were resurrected and went onwards to God, and were given a spiritual body. That is the same at least according to the bible happens to all of humanity (of course many may disagree, or not believe this) - is resurrected (John 5:29 - Resurrection) and given a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:1-39) at the end of life.

And The good news of Christ is that He came down, lived a life on this earth and taught many helpful and meaningful lessons about spiritual things (1 Corinthians 3:16) (Luke 13:18), and earthly things (Matthew 6:28), and about things to come in their own life (Disciples Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-19) even after He had died for all humanity and (the whole world - of sin) 1 John 2:2), and was risen again, by God (Romans 8:1-13). ~ According to what is viewed from scripture.

The Lord Jesus Christ overcame, death, sin, grave/hell/she'ol, Satan, and had victory over these things. According to the Good News ~

That anyone who believes - can become alive again spiritually (born again John 3): by the spirit that is given by the Lord Jesus Christ that comes from the Father. ~ (Romans 6:1-5)They are free from bondage of sin, they are set free from darkness (Colossians 1:13-18?), There is no condemnation in thoughts who are believers in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1-5), Justified by faith (Romans 5:1-7).

(2 Peter 3:18) ( 2 Corinthians 13:14)

All of these things you have decide for yourself if they are really true, or if they have any value or if there is any merit to these claims or not.

What you take away from this; just test it by the scriptures

Thank you for reading, ~ Take Care​

 

[sun rise]

In medicine there's a proven but rare case of people appearing to come back from the dead called, among other things, the lazarus syndrome. The medical evidence is that this can happen for only a relatively short time, minutes Autoresuscitation (Lazarus phenomenon) after termination of cardiopulmonary resuscitation - a scoping review

In India, yogic practices can include not breathing or very barely breathing for a time.

Without evidence, it's quite possible to assume that one or both of these possibilities happened and that Jesus did not in fact die on the Cross but appeared to have died to the people of the time.

Given how much people fear death, it's natural that surviving apparent death has great significance.

But a stronger claim to Jesus' divinity for me is voluntarily accepting suffering.

 

[ChristineM]

The Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead is fundamental to Christianity, but is undeniably a very radical claim. There is a certain amount of historical evidence surrounding the life of Jesus, but does the evidence support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form?

Many alternative hypotheses have been offered to account for the historical data we have surrounding the life of Jesus and the beginning of the Christian movement.
1. Some suggest that Jesus as described in the Bible didn't even exist, and that the biblical accounts of his life are purely fabrications.
2. Some suggest that Jesus was real and was crucified, but his followers fabricated the story of his resurrection.
3. Maybe Jesus was hung on a cross, but never actually died, and after swooning for a while, somehow recovered.
4. Maybe those who claimed to have had seen post-mortem appearances of Jesus were hallucinating, or something of that nature.

Honestly, none of these seem to be very good explanations of the historical data to me.

Considering these facts:
The vast majority of scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. There are several very early, independent accounts that all claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. The idea of a resurrection anything like what is claimed for Jesus was not at all a common idea in Judaism before that time. Hallucinations don't happen to groups of people at the same time, but multiple early sources record postmortem appearances of Jesus to groups of people. I have yet to hear a good explanation for how Christianity would have taken off like it did if the apostles were simply fabricating the whole story. Of course they could have fooled other people, but why would all of the apostles have been willing to suffer torture and death for something they knew was false? There are a bunch of other details that could be brought into this conversation as well.

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

My hypothesis based on nothing more than knowledge of Roman methods, basic logic and medical reality is that...

Yes someone of that name existed. Given his method of execution he was went against Roman law and was executed as a terrorist/traitor to Rome. He was removed from the cross before his death, in crucifixion the body was not removed but left to rot, so probably bribes were involved. He was tended and recovered sufficiently to walk about town but succumbed to blood poisoning from the iron nails and died.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have to agree with them. A literal resurrection is Christian dogma, although you may personally disagree with it. Not only is it point blank taught by the New Testament (see gospels and Romans 10:9), but it is listed as a basic tenet of faith in both the Apostle's Creed and Nicene Creed.

There's no Christian equivalent to the Talmud, and Christian dogmas aren't binding. There's no Torah requirement to accept them, so Christians have had various schools of thought from early times. The gospels are of uncertain origin, and its known that there have always been competing schools of thought among Christians about the core dogmas to which you have appealed. You cannot establish how the gospels are intended to be read except to appeal to an authority which does not exist.

Many of these schools of thought were many centuries ago authoritatively thrown down and erased but by whose authority? Was it the Talmud? No, because Christians don't have Talmud. As I said there is no Christian equivalent to the Talmud as we have departed from the Talmud. The creeds are a failed attempt by a dubious authority to unite all Christians and settle all questions, but the questions have not remained settled. Many of the schools of thought once buried (and books burned) have been confirmed in the Nag Hammadi manuscripts and other manuscripts and have resurfaced. It has become clear that despite the disappearance of the books and despite the attempt to quash them ideas have continued to circulate among Christians over the centuries, some even perhaps spreading to Islam. Where did Islam get the idea, for example, that Jesus didn't literally die? Can you tell me?

As for what is blatantly taught by the NT, I think you can't even say for sure that its intended as a teaching tool. Christians aren't commanded to teach their children dogmas. There is also nobody to ask which books ought to be Christian and which not. The idea of a dogma is that some authority says what is dogma, but where is such an authority for Christians?

 

[MatthewA]

There's no Christian equivalent to the Talmud, and Christian dogmas aren't binding. There's no Torah requirement to accept them, so Christians have had various schools of thought from early times. The gospels are of uncertain origin, and its known that there have always been competing schools of thought among Christians about the core dogmas to which you have appealed. You cannot establish how the gospels are intended to be read except to appeal to an authority which does not exist.

Many of these schools of thought were many centuries ago authoritatively thrown down and erased but by whose authority? Was it the Talmud? No, because Christians don't have Talmud. As I said there is no Christian equivalent to the Talmud as we have departed from the Talmud. The creeds are a failed attempt by a dubious authority to unite all Christians and settle all questions, but the questions have not remained settled. Many of the schools of thought once buried (and books burned) have been confirmed in the Nag Hammadi manuscripts and other manuscripts and have resurfaced. It has become clear that despite the disappearance of the books and despite the attempt to quash them ideas have continued to circulate among Christians over the centuries, some even perhaps spreading to Islam. Where did Islam get the idea, for example, that Jesus didn't literally die? Can you tell me?

As for what is blatantly taught by the NT, I think you can't even say for sure that its intended as a teaching tool. Christians aren't commanded to teach their children dogmas. There is also nobody to ask which books ought to be Christian and which not. The idea of a dogma is that some authority says what is dogma, but where is such an authority for Christians?

Hello brick;

Agree with most of what you have to say here.

Do not believe that human beings have any authority except having the authority to be responsible for their very own life - soul - mind/will/emotion/heart.

Human beings do have only one authority though however, and that only comes into occupations - Police / Hospital / people who are in charge when it comes to have to dealing with public, and public health services. Also the courts, and judge system that comes along with the provide inhabitants of that land where ever it is.

Human beings have the right to have free thought, to their own opinion, and their own world views depending on how they view life, by and through experience which vary from person to person.

Just wanted to also share the greek word for Dogma was: Strong's Greek: 1378. δόγμα (dogma) -- an opinion, (a public) decree :

Thayer's Greek : Thayer's Greek: 1378. δόγμα (dogma) -- an opinion, (a public) decree
STRONGS NT 1378: δόγμα

δόγμα, δογματος, τό (from δοκέω, and equivalent to τό δεδογμενον), an opinion, a judgment (Plato, others), doctrine, decree, ordinance;

1: Public decree
2: of the rules and requirements of the law of moses - Law of commandments contained in ordinances
3.of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living​

Believe it is a good thing to discuss about topics be it the bible, or cars, but to do it in a decent matter, and to be clear with another person always helps in understanding.

Thank you for reading just some thoughts. To me I would believe God is the ultimate authority but you may not believe that or have a different view, and that is okay.

Webster's New World Dictionary 1984:

Dogma - [Latin? L. an opinion, that which one believes, in LL.] (Ec.), a decree
order < greek dogma - opinion, judgement -< dokein, to seem: see DOCTOR -

1. a doctrine; tenet; belief
2. doctrines, tenets, or beliefs, collectively
3. a positive, arrogant assertion of opinion
4 Theol. a doctrine or body of doctrines formally and authoritatively affirmed - SYN. see DOCTRINE.​

 

[Valjean]

As far as I know, it is in fact the consensus of most scholars that Jesus being crucified basically wouldn't be made up and it's the one element that all Christians and those who talk about Christians are united on. Early depictions by non-Christians mocking their crucified god also occur, as I'm sure you know. I think the consensus is that this wouldn't be made up because why would you? It goes against everything the Jewish Messiah is meant to achieve.

Aren't all religions supported by a majority of believers? Aren't resurrection stories a common theme in religion? What makes the Christian one any different?
Would you believe a resurrection, water-to-wine, or walking on water story if you read of one in the paper today?
Me, I'd be skeptical. I'd want some concrete evidence; yet Christian faith is based no nothing but 2000 year old, unevidenced folklore.

 

[Valjean]

I think the bodily resurrection is the best and accurate explanation.

Explanation for what? Based on what evidence?

 

[Rival]

Aren't all religions supported by a majority of believers? Aren't resurrection stories a common theme in religion? What makes the Christian one any different?
Would you believe a resurrection, water-to-wine, or walking on water story if you read of one in the paper today?
Me, I'd be skeptical. I'd want some concrete evidence; yet Christian faith is based no nothing but 2000 year old, unevidenced folklore.

I'm not talking about the resurrection. I'm talking about the crucifixion.

 

[Sylvester Clark]

What evidence can you cite that the "vast majority of scholars" think Jesus was crucified? I am unaware of any corroborating evidence for this. I am aware that most think he was a historical person, but that is rather different.

A few quotes:

"The fact of the death of Jesus as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable, despite hypotheses of a pseudo-death or a deception which are sometimes put forward."
(Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, trans. John Bowden [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995], 17.)

"The single most solid fact about Jesus' life is his death: he was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate, on or around Passover, in the manner Rome reserved particularly for political insurrectionists, namely, crucifixion."
(Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews [New York: Vintage, 1999])

"There is not the slightest doubt about the fact of Jesus' crucifixion under Pontius Pilate."
(John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991], 375.

"Even most skeptical scholars admit a minimal core of facts pertaining to Jesus' death and the following events...Virtually no one doubts Jesus' death by crucifixion."
(Gary Habermas, Five Views on Apologetics, ed. Stanley N. Gundry, Steven B. Cowan [Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2000], 115.)

Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland discuss more of the "minimal facts" concerning Jesus' death and the scholars who hold those facts in Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1998), 126-36.

 

[Sylvester Clark]

Not really if you take into consideration that large sections of Christians are sola scriptura, and using Sola Scriptura I can show you a Christianity in which Jesus preaches that repentance is resurrection. Therefore its not fundamental to Christianity and is merely a flavor of Christianity.

If this doesn't ring a bell with you recall the phrase "Dead in their transgressions," "New creation" and "live in Christ."

"Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins."
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Co 15:12–17). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

This is the idea I was referring to.

 

[Sylvester Clark]

@Sylvester Clark

I do not accept the Resurrection, but let's examine the actual evidence, and I don't mean the legends recorded in their New Testament.

The very best evidence they have is the fact that the disciples turned from sniveling cowards who hid during the crucifixion into dynamic evangelists who were willing to die for their faith. Why? If not the resurrection, then what?

I think most of the written record is nothing but legends. I don't think Mary Magdeline talked to Jesus. I don't think Thomas put his fingers into Jesus' wounds.

What I DO find believable, and very, very fascinating is the story of the Road to Emmaus. The whole way there, the men did not recognize "Jesus." Apparently he looked quite different. Indeed for all practical purposes he appeared to be a different person. It was only when he broke bread, that there was something in his manner that reminded them of Jesus.

I think this story is what is at the heart of what really happened. It was actually not Jesus on the road, but the manner in which he broke bread caused a sense of de ja vu so strong that they wondered if he were not Jesus in disguise. And so the rumors began.

It is often this way after someone dies. When my father died, in a strange way I felt he was closer to me than when he was aiive--he was just always with me, which was not true when he was alive. I think that the apostles must have seen Jesus on the face of children and similar. To them, it was very, VERY real. Real enough to transform them.

But it was nevertheless figurative, rather than literal. It was just that those they tried to explain it to took it literally, and it became encoded into Christian teaching as a literal story, and so the legends built up around it, "proving" it.

That's an interesting idea, and not one I've heard before.

What are your reasons for mistrusting the New Testament texts? Do you hold other first century texts to the same standard? Why do you rule out the possibility of Mary Magdeline having talked to Jesus and Thomas putting his fingers into Jesus' wounds, but accept the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus as possibly true?