Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

[Left Coast]

You have claimed that because the oldest copy of the book of Isaiah dates to about 200 BCE (The Great Isaiah Scroll) that this is the only real evidence we have of Isaiah's prophecy. But there appears to be universal agreement that the Great Isaiah Scroll is not the original. The Great Isaiah scroll is a copy, and the process and methods employed by scribes in copying holy texts is cemented in tradition.

The Great Isaiah scroll is almost certainly not original, correct. The point is, we no longer have the original. Therefore, we do not actually know what the original said. Despite the methods used by scribes to copy texts in antiquity, we have numerous Biblical examples of cases wherein they did in fact make mistakes, and even intentionally added to or changed the text they were copying. This is plainly evident, for example, from the differences between the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The materials used were of high quality, making the scrolls expensive, and the rules governing the copying of holy text were strictly followed to avoid mistakes. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that the book of Isaiah changed over the intervening 500 years (from Isaiah's time, about 700 BCE). Given the quality of these sacred scrolls, it is, actually, quite likely that the Great Isaiah Scroll was a direct copy of Isaiah's original.
[The Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic Text | AHRC]

As even your own source points out, there are many differences between the DSS and the MT. This indicates that your belief that copyists would not make mistakes (or intentional edits) in transmission is simply inaccurate.

You also have no basis for the claim that it is "highly likely" that the Great Isaiah Scroll was a first generation copy of the original text. For one thing, scholars are widely agreed that all of what is now in the book of Isaiah was likely written by multiple people over time and added to the original. So in fact it is extremely unlikely that the Great Isaiah scroll is a 1st generation copy.

With regard to the issue of love, what do you think is the greatest thing a man can do for his fellow human beings?

I don't think there is one single answer to that question. It's extremely context dependent. You are likely to say that dying for others is the greatest thing a person could do, since that's what Jesus allegedly did. But of course if we all did that, none of us would be left to die for!

 

[Left Coast]

When Jesus ministered in Galilee and Judea, he was followed by many people, and all who demonstrated faith were healed of their sicknesses. You must know that asking for something without faith is not going to elicit a response. Time and time again, Jesus makes it clear to his audience that faith and righteousness are key elements to answered prayer. It is also necessary to know the mind of Christ, because many prayers are simply not in God's will.

These are, to be blunt, excuses. Firstly, as you admit below, even having sincere faith is no guarantee of receiving what you ask for. Secondly, no one knows the mind of Christ, because Christ isn't around to share his thoughts. So anyone claiming to know Jesus' thoughs is making an unfalsifiable claim.

I have asked for healing for many individuals. In some cases my prayers were not answered, but in many they were answered immediately. In fact, I have kept a book of testimonies, written by those who received healing from Jesus.

How did you determine any of the healings were done by Jesus? Name one, and how you determined that it in fact was Jesus who healed the person.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The Great Isaiah scroll is almost certainly not original, correct. The point is, we no longer have the original. Therefore, we do not actually know what the original said. Despite the methods used by scribes to copy texts in antiquity, we have numerous Biblical examples of cases wherein they did in fact make mistakes, and even intentionally added to or changed the text they were copying. This is plainly evident, for example, from the differences between the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls.



As even your own source points out, there are many differences between the DSS and the MT. This indicates that your belief that copyists would not make mistakes (or intentional edits) in transmission is simply inaccurate.

You also have no basis for the claim that it is "highly likely" that the Great Isaiah Scroll was a first generation copy of the original text. For one thing, scholars are widely agreed that all of what is now in the book of Isaiah was likely written by multiple people over time and added to the original. So in fact it is extremely unlikely that the Great Isaiah scroll is a 1st generation copy.



I don't think there is one single answer to that question. It's extremely context dependent. You are likely to say that dying for others is the greatest thing a person could do, since that's what Jesus allegedly did. But of course if we all did that, none of us would be left to die for!

The differences found between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic text of Isaiah are not differences in meaning. We can safely say that what Isaiah prophesied is exactly what is written!

As for love, it was Jesus who said, 'For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?'

 

[Redemptionsong]

These are, to be blunt, excuses. Firstly, as you admit below, even having sincere faith is no guarantee of receiving what you ask for. Secondly, no one knows the mind of Christ, because Christ isn't around to share his thoughts. So anyone claiming to know Jesus' thoughs is making an unfalsifiable claim.



How did you determine any of the healings were done by Jesus? Name one, and how you determined that it in fact was Jesus who healed the person.

Actually, faith comes in degrees, and to see even some prayers immediately answered reflects a degree of faith. This was exactly the case with the disciples who, when faced with a demoniac that they could not heal were told to spend more time in prayer and fasting!

The reason that l quoted the scripture about asking, seeking and knocking, was because it states plainly that God does not give false gifts. If people seek God, they will find God.

I know it's Jesus who heals because l don't have any powers of my own to heal. Healing is the result of believing, both by the intercessor and, when able, the person who suffers. When l pray, l ask in His name, and this, l believe, makes known the faith of my heart. Since there is no visible Jesus, or audible evidence of his presence, the kind of proof you desire is not available.

Does this mean that l am wrong? Or does it mean the your definition of evidence is too narrow?

 

[Left Coast]

The differences found between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic text of Isaiah are not differences in meaning. We can safely say that what Isaiah prophesied is exactly what is written!

Again, that is inaccurate. You are also ignoring the fact that we are aware Isaiah was added to over time by more than one author.

As for love, it was Jesus who said, 'For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?'

Cool. How is that evidence he rose from the dead?

 

[Left Coast]

I know it's Jesus who heals because l don't have any powers of my own to heal.

Are you and Jesus the only possible candidates to explain why people heal from various ailments?

Healing is the result of believing, both by the intercessor and, when able, the person who suffers.

DING DING DING DING DING!

Tell 'em what they've won, Johnny!

Thank you for saying this. What we know often has a healing effect on people is when they believe they will heal, or believe that some treatment will heal them. This is the case even with fake treatments, like sugar pills. This is a psychological phenomenon known as the placebo effect. It is well documented in medical academic literature.

What this demonstrates is that the mind is incredibly powerful, and a person's healing may have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual intervention intended to heal them. This also helps explain why we see 'miraculous' healing stories from all different cultures and religions. It's not that Jesus or the Virgin Mary or the village shaman actually have magic powers to heal anyone. It's the person's belief in whatever the supposed source of healing is that heals them.

This is why I asked you pages ago to distinguish between Jesus healing people and people's belief in Jesus healing then.

When l pray, l ask in His name, and this, believe, makes known the faith of my heart. Since there is no visible Jesus, or audible evidence of his presence, the kind of proof you desire is not available.

Does this mean that l am wrong? Or does it mean the your definition of evidence is too narrow?

It means that your jump to the conclusion that it is in fact Jesus who healed the people you know is irrational. You simply don't have the necessary information to make that conclusion (rationally). We know for a fact, as I just explained, that people can recover from various ailments simply by believing they will, no matter the source of healing they ascribe that to. We also know people go into spontaneous remission for no known medical reason and having nothing to do with any kind of faith healing. In other words, we simply don't know why some people are healed or cured. But jumping to our favorite conclusion to satisfy our preconceived biases is not reasonable. It requires us to wait and be patient for more medical evidence to roll in.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Are you and Jesus the only possible candidates to explain why people heal from various ailments?



DING DING DING DING DING!

Tell 'em what they've won, Johnny!

Thank you for saying this. What we know often has a healing effect on people is when they believe they will heal, or believe that some treatment will heal them. This is the case even with fake treatments, like sugar pills. This is a psychological phenomenon known as the placebo effect. It is well documented in medical academic literature.

What this demonstrates is that the mind is incredibly powerful, and a person's healing may have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual intervention intended to heal them. This also helps explain why we see 'miraculous' healing stories from all different cultures and religions. It's not that Jesus or the Virgin Mary or the village shaman actually have magic powers to heal anyone. It's the person's belief in whatever the supposed source of healing is that heals them.

This is why I asked you pages ago to distinguish between Jesus healing people and people's belief in Jesus healing then.



It means that your jump to the conclusion that it is in fact Jesus who healed the people you know is irrational. You simply don't have the necessary information to make that conclusion (rationally). We know for a fact, as I just explained, that people can recover from various ailments simply by believing they will, no matter the source of healing they ascribe that to. We also know people go into spontaneous remission for no known medical reason and having nothing to do with any kind of faith healing. In other words, we simply don't know why some people are healed or cured. But jumping to our favorite conclusion to satisfy our preconceived biases is not reasonable. It requires us to wait and be patient for more medical evidence to roll in.

In rejecting Jesus Christ, as God's Word, you have made yourself self-sufficient rather than God-sufficient, as Adam did in Eden.

In rejecting the unconditional love of God, your own conditional love, based on the flesh and not the Spirit, becomes the standard of truth in your world.

Having mocked the house built on the Rock, what will happen when the storms of life strike the house you have built on sand?

 

[firedragon]

The differences found between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic text of Isaiah are not differences in meaning. We can safely say that what Isaiah prophesied is exactly what is written!

Which Isaiah prophecy?

 

[Left Coast]

In rejecting Jesus Christ, as God's Word, you have made yourself self-sufficient rather than God-sufficient, as Adam did in Eden.

That isn't true. I'm interdependent with people and things all around me every day.

In rejecting the unconditional love of God, your own conditional love, based on the flesh and not the Spirit, becomes the standard of truth in your world.

That isn't true, either. Truth is that which corresponds to reality. I already told you that. As usual, you don't actually read what I write.

Having mocked the house built on the Rock, what will happen when the storms of life strike the house you have built on sand?

Threatening someone is the last recourse of a religion with no rational argument. Are fear and emotional manipulation your only apologetic tools left?

 

[Redemptionsong]

That isn't true. I'm interdependent with people and things all around me every day.



That isn't true, either. Truth is that which corresponds to reality. I already told you that. As usual, you don't actually read what I write.



Threatening someone is the last recourse of a religion with no rational argument. Are fear and emotional manipulation your only apologetic tools left?

The point is that you have placed your faith in the world, and not in the Creator.

If truth corresponds to different people's ideas of reality, then truth becomes relative. God, as absolute and objective truth, provides a standard of truth for all.

The words of scripture judge both me and you because they come from God. That's why the words of Jesus apply to both of us. If you take them as a threat, then that says something about where you stand. I see the words of Jesus as advice and warning.
Luke 6:47-49.
'Whomsoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it; for it was founded upon a rock.
But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.'

 

[Redemptionsong]

Which Isaiah prophecy?

I was referring specifically to Isaiah's prophecy of the fall of Babylon, and the rise of Cyrus. See post 311.

 

[firedragon]

I was referring specifically to Isaiah's prophecy of the fall of Babylon, and the rise of Cyrus. See post 311.

When was Isaiah written?

 

[Left Coast]

The point is that you have placed your faith in the world, and not in the Creator.

No, I'm sorry, that isn't true either. I don't have "faith" at all.

If truth corresponds to different people's ideas of reality, then truth becomes relative.

But of course I didn't say that. You may want to go back and read what I actually said.

God, as absolute and objective truth, provides a standard of truth for all.

The problem is we have no access to God's opinions about anything, other than through the claims of other humans. So that isn't useful to us at all. If God wants to come put her two cents in, she's welcome.

The words of scripture judge both me and you because they come from God.

In your opinion, of course. Which you haven't demonstrated with any remotely convincing evidence.

That's why the words of Jesus apply to both of us. If you take them as a threat, then that says something about where you stand. I see the words of Jesus as advice and warning.
Luke 6:47-49.

Semantics. When your pitch is, "Believe in my God, or suffer for eternity," that's a threat. It's the divine version of putting a gun to someone's head. No deity of actually unconditional love would make such coercive ultimatums. No deity of unconditional love would mandate belief in something, period. Belief isn't a thing we have a choice about. I can't choose to believe in your god right now any more than you can simply choose to stop believing in her. Punishing people for thought crime is the stuff of dystopian novels, not love.

Take your emotionally coercive sales pitch elsewhere. Come back when you have a rational argument.

 

[Redemptionsong]

When was Isaiah written?

That's a question you might like to table with Orthodox Jews. lsaiah has come down to us through their traditions and care, and l'm happy to accept those traditions.

If you wish to discuss the words and prophecies of lsaiah, then l'm happy to do so.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, I'm sorry, that isn't true either. I don't have "faith" at all.



But of course I didn't say that. You may want to go back and read what I actually said.



The problem is we have no access to God's opinions about anything, other than through the claims of other humans. So that isn't useful to us at all. If God wants to come put her two cents in, she's welcome.



In your opinion, of course. Which you haven't demonstrated with any remotely convincing evidence.




Semantics. When your pitch is, "Believe in my God, or suffer for eternity," that's a threat. It's the divine version of putting a gun to someone's head. No deity of actually unconditional love would make such coercive ultimatums. No deity of unconditional love would mandate belief in something, period. Belief isn't a thing we have a choice about. I can't choose to believe in your god right now any more than you can simply choose to stop believing in her. Punishing people for thought crime is the stuff of dystopian novels, not love.

Take your emotionally coercive sales pitch elsewhere. Come back when you have a rational argument.

What you call my 'emotionally coercive sales pitch' is the Gospel message. You have, by your own admission, turned from Christ, and he has become your stumbling block, not me!

 

[firedragon]

That's a question you might like to table with Orthodox Jews. lsaiah has come down to us through their traditions and care, and l'm happy to accept those traditions.

If you wish to discuss the words and prophecies of lsaiah, then l'm happy to do so.

If you are quoting it, it is important.

 

[Redemptionsong]

If you are quoting it, it is important.

Jesus quoted Isaiah [Matthew 24:29]. The writer of Matthew's Gospel quoted Isaiah [Matthew 1:23]. The writer of Mark's Gospel quoted Isaiah [Mark 9:44]. Luke quoted Isaiah [Luke 3:4]. John quoted Isaiah [John 12:40,41; Revelation 19:13]. Luke again quotes Isaiah in Acts [13:47]. Paul quotes Isaiah in Romans, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. Isaiah is also quoted in Peters epistles and in Hebrews. They quoted Isaiah because they believed Isaiah to be a prophet.

To question Isaiah is to question the New Testament. To question the New Testament is to question the foundations of the Church. To me this is a fruitless discussion. After 2700 years, Isaiah is not going to be swept aside, nor is Christ, nor is his Church.

 

[firedragon]

Jesus quoted Isaiah [Matthew 24:29]. The writer of Matthew's Gospel quoted Isaiah [Matthew 1:23]. The writer of Mark's Gospel quoted Isaiah [Mark 9:44]. Luke quoted Isaiah [Luke 3:4]. John quoted Isaiah [John 12:40,41; Revelation 19:13]. Luke again quotes Isaiah in Acts [13:47]. Paul quotes Isaiah in Romans, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. Isaiah is also quoted in Peters epistles and in Hebrews. They quoted Isaiah because they believed Isaiah to be a prophet.

To question Isaiah is to question the New Testament. To question the New Testament is to question the foundations of the Church. To me this is a fruitless discussion. After 2700 years, Isaiah is not going to be swept aside, nor is Christ, nor is his Church.

Well, that's denial.

Nevertheless, I was not asking you to "Question Isaiah". You said Isaiah prophecies the fall of Babylon. So what I asked is specific to this.

If you fear a slippery slope where your foundation is threatened, then you are not answering because you fear that slippery slope. Its a lack of faith. If you have strong faith, you should be confident in your statements and theological viewpoints enough to feel that exploration of someones question is not going to break the foundation of your theology.

Anyway, so that's that. peace.

 

[Left Coast]

What you call my 'emotionally coercive sales pitch' is the Gospel message.

On that much we agree. Come back with (good) evidence instead of threats!

 

[Teritos]

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?

Jesus died on the cross, that is absolutely certain. We already see in the Bible that the question was never whether Jesus really died, but whether he was really raised from the dead. The authors of the gospels themselves admit that they did not believe in the resurrection, they thought Jesus was now dead forever. Only after Jesus was raised and stood before them did they believe in it. For their unbelief they were even criticized by Jesus. There are many witnesses who saw the death of Jesus and many who saw him after he was raised from the dead. Paul is also a witness, he was a murderer of Christians and testifies to have seen Jesus alive years later after the crucifixion.