Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

[Subduction Zone]

We've been over this, RS. The reason they hold little sway is because the fact that a story is set in a real place or names real people does not remotely indicate that the story is true. Do you believe Abe Lincoln was a vampire?

Of course not. Everyone knows that Lincoln was a vampire hunter:

You need to watch more history documentaries.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Faith is not evidence. Unless you think a Wiccan's faith is evidence that Wicca is true.



That is a great slogan to convince the followers of a religion to believe literally anything, no matter how absurd. "Believe this, or God won't be pleased with you!" Talk about a guilt trip. No thanks.



Correct, because the fact that someone believes something is not evidence that the thing is true. Think it through for a moment, RS.



I have discovered that God doesn't demonstrably respond to anything, good bad or indifferent.



We've been over this, RS. The reason they hold little sway is because the fact that a story is set in a real place or names real people does not remotely indicate that the story is true. Do you believe Abe Lincoln was a vampire?



Only if you already believe it's "God's word," despite it being written, copied, edited, and translated by human beings.

Yes, despite it being 'written, copied, edited, and translated by human beings' the Bible still contains enough substance to bring a person to faith in Christ. Having reached that point of faith, a believer can receive for himself/herself the Spirit of God through baptism. This is the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, promised by Jesus Christ, and evidence enough to convince a believer of the reality of God.

It's easy to forget that the first Christians did not have the New Testament. They had the testimony of the apostles and the Hebrew scriptures. What convinced them of the 'good news' was that it was preached with power. In other words, God supports his own word of love with signs and wonders. If other gods, existing in abundance during Roman times, were able to offer a more persuasive truth, then many would have adopted these gods and avoided persecution. So why did so many people choose to follow Christ at risk to their own lives? Or does your scepticism also cast doubt on the history of persecution that was faced by the early Christian Church?

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, despite it being 'written, copied, edited, and translated by human beings' the Bible still contains enough substance to bring a person to faith in Christ.

Of course, as the Qur'an contains "enough substance" to bring people to faith in Islam and the Book of Mormon contains "enough substance" to bring people to faith in the Mormon version of Christ. Once you abandon a need for solid evidence, you can be convinced to believe pretty much anything.

It's easy to forget that the first Christians did not have the New Testament. They had the testimony of the apostles and the Hebrew scriptures. What convinced them of the 'good news' was that it was preached with power. In other words, God supports his own word of love with signs and wonders. If other gods, existing in abundance during Roman times, were able to offer a more persuasive truth, then many would have adopted these gods and avoided persecution. So why did so many people choose to follow Christ at risk to their own lives? Or does your scepticism also cast doubt on the history of persecution that was faced by the early Christian Church?

That some Christians have faced persecution and even death is not in question. Of course, people the world over have been persecuted and martyred for all kinds of different religions and ideologies. Being willing to die for your beliefs does not demonstrate that your beliefs are true.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Of course, as the Qur'an contains "enough substance" to bring people to faith in Islam and the Book of Mormon contains "enough substance" to bring people to faith in the Mormon version of Christ. Once you abandon a need for solid evidence, you can be convinced to believe pretty much anything.



That some Christians have faced persecution and even death is not in question. Of course, people the world over have been persecuted and martyred for all kinds of different religions and ideologies. Being willing to die for your beliefs does not demonstrate that your beliefs are true.

I have not abandoned a need for solid evidence, quite the opposite. I have found in the Bible a wealth of evidence, all of which supports the personal encounter I had as a student over forty years ago.

What is apparent from our exchange is that we hold different ideas as to what constitutes good evidence.

As far as I can tell, our only access to the world outside our own heads is through our senses. So I use my senses to assess my surroundings to determine what's out there and what isn't. And I strive to obtain independent confirmation of what I perceive to make sure I'm perceiving things accurately.

I'm assuming that by 'senses' you mean the five senses of taste, touch, smell, sight and hearing. From this narrow definition of our ability to gather evidence, we clearly have a problem. It explains to me why you have such difficulty accepting the idea of prophecy, because prophecy does not fit this narrow definition of yours. Prophecy is a 'Spirit to spirit' revelation, and without such revelation most faiths would not exist.

What strikes me as odd, is that you persist in talking about religions and faiths when, in fact, you don't hold any of them to be true! You don't believe in the existence of God, or of anything outside of your perception. In that not true?

 

[Left Coast]

What is apparent from our exchange is that we hold different ideas as to what constitutes good evidence.

That much is true!

I'm assuming that by 'senses' you mean the five senses of taste, touch, smell, sight and hearing. From this narrow definition of our ability to gather evidence, we clearly have a problem. It explains to me why you have such difficulty accepting the idea of prophecy, because prophecy does not fit this narrow definition of yours. Prophecy is a 'Spirit to spirit' revelation, and without such revelation most faiths would not exist.

My bet is that you hold prophecy from other religions to the same standard to which I hold them all, including yours. I started a thread on it a while back.

If you're interested, you can read it here:

How To Make a Believable Prophecy

I'd be curious to know which standard I outline there that you think I should lower, if any.

What strikes me as odd, is that you persist in talking about religions and faiths when, in fact, you don't hold any of them to be true! You don't believe in the existence of God, or of anything outside of your perception. In that not true?

Why would it be weird that I talk about religions and faith? I'm a former Christian who finds religion fascinating.

Here's what I find weird. We are in a thread about evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, which if true is like the single most important fact of history that God wants everyone to know. Yet when asked for evidence, the best you can come up with is a personal experience of a feeling of love you had while reading the Bible one time.

Would you find that remotely convincing if it came from a non-Christian in regard to their faith or holy book? I'm betting not.

 

[Redemptionsong]

That much is true!



My bet is that you hold prophecy from other religions to the same standard to which I hold them all, including yours. I started a thread on it a while back.

If you're interested, you can read it here:

How To Make a Believable Prophecy

I'd be curious to know which standard I outline there that you think I should lower, if any.



Why would it be weird that I talk about religions and faith? I'm a former Christian who finds religion fascinating.

Here's what I find weird. We are in a thread about evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, which if true is like the single most important fact of history that God wants everyone to know. Yet when asked for evidence, the best you can come up with is a personal experience of a feeling of love you had while reading the Bible one time.

Would you find that remotely convincing if it came from a non-Christian in regard to their faith or holy book? I'm betting not.

There are two main sources of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Firstly, the testimony of those who claimed to be eye-witnesses, including the 500 who were witnesses together at one time. This is the record of scripture, and for many people it is persuasive evidence!

The second source of evidence is baptism in the Holy Spirit. Baptism first came after the resurrection of Jesus, and could not have occurred without the resurrection. In fact, the very existence of the Church hinges on the Pentecostal experience, providing further evidence of its importance.

You claim to be a former Christian. Did you not experience baptism in the Holy Spirit?

 

[Alex22]

I don't believe there is any evidence for Jesus rising from the dead, rumors and fantastical tales were very common back then, so no wonder the myth spread around and just because some book says he did does not make it so.

 

[Left Coast]

There are two main sources of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Firstly, the testimony of those who claimed to be eye-witnesses, including the 500 who were witnesses together at one time. This is the record of scripture, and for many people it is persuasive evidence!

The claim that 500 witnesses saw the resurrected Jesus is made by one person in your scriptures, Paul. Paul doesn't tell us where he got this information, he simply makes a bald claim that it happened. It's mentioned by no other New Testament writer.

Meanwhile, he elsewhere claims his only information about Jesus came not from other human beings, but via direct revelation from Jesus in heaven (ie visions). So he himself was not an eyewitness of any Jesus on earth, nor did he get his information from eyewitnesses, by his own admission.

So that piece of evidence is out. Next?

The second source of evidence is baptism in the Holy Spirit. Baptism first came after the resurrection of Jesus, and could not have occurred without the resurrection. In fact, the very existence of the Church hinges on the Pentecostal experience, providing further evidence of its importance.

Again, the only place that event is mentioned is Acts, part 2 of the Gospel of Luke. It is a thoroughly implausible account. I've already reviewed the multiple reasons why the Gospels (of which Acts should be considered a part) should not simply be trusted as accurate history. Go back and read what I wrote about it in this dialogue, if you'd like to review.

So that piece of evidence is not convincing to anyone who doesn't already believe the Bible is infallibly true.

So the two main sources of evidence you've got are completely unconvincing to anyone who doesn't already believe this stuff.

You claim to be a former Christian. Did you not experience baptism in the Holy Spirit?

You already asked me this question, and I already answered. Go back and actually read and think through what I said, if you are actually interested in learning my perspective.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The claim that 500 witnesses saw the resurrected Jesus is made by one person in your scriptures, Paul. Paul doesn't tell us where he got this information, he simply makes a bald claim that it happened. It's mentioned by no other New Testament writer.

Meanwhile, he elsewhere claims his only information about Jesus came not from other human beings, but via direct revelation from Jesus in heaven (ie visions). So he himself was not an eyewitness of any Jesus on earth, nor did he get his information from eyewitnesses, by his own admission.

So that piece of evidence is out. Next?



Again, the only place that event is mentioned is Acts, part 2 of the Gospel of Luke. It is a thoroughly implausible account. I've already reviewed the multiple reasons why the Gospels (of which Acts should be considered a part) should not simply be trusted as accurate history. Go back and read what I wrote about it in this dialogue, if you'd like to review.

So that piece of evidence is not convincing to anyone who doesn't already believe the Bible is infallibly true.

So the two main sources of evidence you've got are completely unconvincing to anyone who doesn't already believe this stuff.



You already asked me this question, and I already answered. Go back and actually read and think through what I said, if you are actually interested in learning my perspective.

Paul almost made that claim far far away from Jerusalem. He was in Ephesus at the time. People at that time rarely left their home town and Paul was saying "It's true, trust me. You only need to travel over 500 miles to people that probably were never 50 miles away from home.

 

[Prim969]

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.

Yes there certainly was someone commonly known as Jesus Christ. Also known as the good Shepherd, Lord and the great I AM to name just a few titles given to him. He was removed from the cross before death you say? If you know anything about Roman law than you should realise the penalties imposed upon Roman soldiers for allowing captives to escape. It was often death. Roman soldiers are known as a professional killing elite So when they came to break the legs of Jesus they didn’t have to because they knew he was dead, trained soldiers know when someone is dead . Christine you mentioned that the crucifixion bodies were often left upon the cross to rot. That’s right. But you must also note that the Jewish custom before certain Jewish festivals and Sabbaths meant that no Jewish bodies should be left to rot on a sabbath day The very reason why the bodies were taken down because of Jewish law with the upcoming sabbath . As to Jesus Christ being a terrorist and a traitor against Rome. No. Roman governor Pontius Pilate found no wrong doing in the man. It was only at the behest of the Jewish leadership inciting the mob that the criminal Barabbas was given freedom and the righteous Christ sent to the cross.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes there certainly was someone commonly known as Jesus Christ. Also known as the good Shepherd, Lord and the great I AM to name just a few titles given to him. He was removed from the cross before death you say? If you know anything about Roman law than you should realise the penalties imposed upon Roman soldiers for allowing captives to escape. It was often death. Roman soldiers are known as a professional killing elite So when they came to break the legs of Jesus they didn’t have to because they knew he was dead, trained soldiers know when someone is dead . Christine you mentioned that the crucifixion bodies were often left upon the cross to rot. That’s right. But you must also note that the Jewish custom before certain Jewish festivals and Sabbaths meant that no Jewish bodies should be left to rot on a sabbath day The very reason why the bodies were taken down because of Jewish law with the upcoming sabbath . As to Jesus Christ being a terrorist and a traitor against Rome. No. Roman governor Pontius Pilate found no wrong doing in the man. It was only at the behest of the Jewish leadership inciting the mob that the criminal Barabbas was given freedom and the righteous Christ sent to the cross.

Romans did not care for the niceties of religious laws of the states that they ruled over.

Now if the Hebrews had crucified Jesus they would likely have taken him down. And there are records of them using that punishment. But the myth says that the Romans did it. They would have left his body up on the cross.

 

[Prim969]

Romans did not care for the niceties of religious laws of the states that they ruled over.

Now if the Hebrews had crucified Jesus they would likely have taken him down. And there are records of them using that punishment. But the myth says that the Romans did it. They would have left his body up on the cross.

Stoning, strangulation and the burning method were more in line with the capital punishment laws of Israel. But you prefer that they went with the crucifixion and done the actual crucifixion themselves. You say the Roman myth ? No myth at all. Governor Pilate only allowed after the chanting crowd cried you be no Friend of Caesar if he had not obliged.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stoning, strangulation and the burning method were more in line with the capital punishment laws of Israel. But you prefer that they went with the crucifixion and done the actual crucifixion themselves. You say the Roman myth ? No myth at all. Governor Pilate only allowed after the chanting crowd cried you be no Friend of Caesar if he had not obliged.

Please do not try to distort what I said.

Just as the Romans sometimes used crucifixion, it was a rare punishment, so did the Hebrews, and for them it was a rare punishment too.

But if the Romans were driven to that point they would not take down a body for the mythical beliefs of the people that they subjugated.

The Bible is far from a reliable source. It is only the claim, it is not the evidence.

And I did not say "the Roman myth". We are discussing the Christian myth here.

 

[Prim969]

Please do not try to distort what I said.

Just as the Romans sometimes used crucifixion, it was a rare punishment, so did the Hebrews, and for them it was a rare punishment too.

But if the Romans were driven to that point they would not take down a body for the mythical beliefs of the people that they subjugated.

The Bible is far from a reliable source. It is only the claim, it is not the evidence.

And I did not say "the Roman myth". We are discussing the Christian myth here.

There be only one unreliable source. That is you.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes there certainly was someone commonly known as Jesus Christ. Also known as the good Shepherd, Lord and the great I AM to name just a few titles given to him. He was removed from the cross before death you say? If you know anything about Roman law than you should realise the penalties imposed upon Roman soldiers for allowing captives to escape. It was often death. Roman soldiers are known as a professional killing elite So when they came to break the legs of Jesus they didn’t have to because they knew he was dead, trained soldiers know when someone is dead . Christine you mentioned that the crucifixion bodies were often left upon the cross to rot. That’s right. But you must also note that the Jewish custom before certain Jewish festivals and Sabbaths meant that no Jewish bodies should be left to rot on a sabbath day The very reason why the bodies were taken down because of Jewish law with the upcoming sabbath . As to Jesus Christ being a terrorist and a traitor against Rome. No. Roman governor Pontius Pilate found no wrong doing in the man. It was only at the behest of the Jewish leadership inciting the mob that the criminal Barabbas was given freedom and the righteous Christ sent to the cross.

Jewish custom is was meaningless to Roman law.

Of course you are using the bible rather than roman history to reach your conclusions. The bible is the only source of any claims of Pilates actions.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The claim that 500 witnesses saw the resurrected Jesus is made by one person in your scriptures, Paul. Paul doesn't tell us where he got this information, he simply makes a bald claim that it happened. It's mentioned by no other New Testament writer.

Meanwhile, he elsewhere claims his only information about Jesus came not from other human beings, but via direct revelation from Jesus in heaven (ie visions). So he himself was not an eyewitness of any Jesus on earth, nor did he get his information from eyewitnesses, by his own admission.

So that piece of evidence is out. Next?



Again, the only place that event is mentioned is Acts, part 2 of the Gospel of Luke. It is a thoroughly implausible account. I've already reviewed the multiple reasons why the Gospels (of which Acts should be considered a part) should not simply be trusted as accurate history. Go back and read what I wrote about it in this dialogue, if you'd like to review.

So that piece of evidence is not convincing to anyone who doesn't already believe the Bible is infallibly true.

So the two main sources of evidence you've got are completely unconvincing to anyone who doesn't already believe this stuff.



You already asked me this question, and I already answered. Go back and actually read and think through what I said, if you are actually interested in learning my perspective.

No, you have side-stepped my question. I would like to know what kind of Christian it is that denies the Holy Spirit.

The claims made by Paul are believable if you read his story in the context of the whole Bible. Paul was not the first to encounter the risen Lord, and when he did have his encounter Jesus was no longer on earth. The ascension had taken place.

If these accounts were false, as you claim, then Paul's ministry amongst the Gentiles would not have happened, and, subsequently, there would have been no Christian Church. So your sceptical argument fails. It fails to account for the history of the early Church, which grew rapidly despite terrible persecution from the Roman authorities.

Your dismissal of Paul's account also fails to acknowledge that Paul (as Saul) was an ardent Pharisee and opponent of the Christian movement. He was feared and avoided by Christians. It would, therefore, take more than a few persuasive words from a Christian to convert such a person from his intended path.

The truth is that prophecy occurs throughout the Bible, and any attempt to take the Spirit out, or demystify the text, fails miserably.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There be only one unreliable source. That is you.

Now, now. Don't get mad just because you are wrong.

 

[Prim969]

Jewish custom is was meaningless to Roman law.

Of course you are using the bible rather than roman history to reach your conclusions. The bible is the only source of any claims of Pilates actions.

Jewish customs were meaningless to Roman law you say..Christine Roman law and diplomacy was most respectful to the laws and customs of most of the nations it conquered just as it was with Israel or Judea long before their uprising of 66AD-70AD after all they had been in charge of Judea since 63BC Julia Caesar and Augustus certainly gave them the freedom to worship at their synagogues, colleges and holy temple. Like the British the Romans were perhaps the greatest empire builders the world has ever known. And that was not merely because of powerful legions but also because of their laws and diplomacy they used. As to your reference to the bible of being of no value. I not understand .Because that is what the poster uses as his reference point . But I have read Roman history as well. Though I’m some amused why you would cast aside the bible without hesitation, considering the New Testament is full of the history of the Roman world especially within the book of Acts.

 

[ChristineM]

Roman law and diplomacy was most respectful to the laws and customs of most of the nations it conquered

Except when local law contradicted or threatened the Pax Romana

certainly gave them the freedom to worship at their synagogues, colleges and holy temple.

Yes Rome accepted ant religion so long as it didn't interfere with other religion.

Though I’m some amused why you would cast aside the bible without hesitation, considering the New Testament is full of the history of the Roman world especially within the book of Acts.

Without hesitation? I have spent considerable time researching the bible and although it does present some snippets that can be verified the majority is a case of the bible must be right because the bible says so.

The bible contains extracts of the Roman world that suited the bible and its biases.

 

[Prim969]

Now, now. Don't get mad just because you are wrong.

Really. I guess people like you are never wrong.