Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

[Sylvester Clark]

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.

Interesting suggestion. I'm not aware of any other records of anyone surviving crucifixion. Also, how could he possibly have recovered so completely that his disciples would have thought he had supernaturally risen from the dead? It would seem that if he somehow managed to survive the cross, it would have taken him weeks or months to recover from his wounds (brutal flogging, pierced hands and feet, pierced side).

I agree with you that his voluntary acceptance of suffering is quite remarkable, and is evidence that he was not an ordinary guy. I don't know that it proves his divinity, since there have been other people throughout history that have voluntarily endured immense suffering for a cause they believed in.

 

[Jimmy]

He be walkin on Lake Michigan

 

[Brickjectivity]

"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.

My view of repentance (repentance being resurrection) is not new. It begins with the Jewish prophets who are very influential in Christian language. Why wouldn't Jesus and his disciples borrow this usage? They did use it.

[Isa 26:5, 18-19 NIV] 5 He humbles those who dwell on high, he lays the lofty city low; he levels it to the ground and casts it down to the dust. ... 18 We were with child, we writhed in labor, but we gave birth to wind. We have not brought salvation to the earth, and the people of the world have not come to life. 19 But your dead will live, LORD; their bodies will rise--let those who dwell in the dust wake up and shout for joy--your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead.​

Notice how Isaiah speaks poetically about dead people rising, but he's actually talking about something else! The gospel of John alludes to the above passage in Isaiah where the people of the earth, though they are literally alive are spoken of as if literally dead. As you can see Isaiah is talking about bodies rising, but he means repentance. So what is John talking about?

[Jhn 5:25 NIV] 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.​

The above is not something that happens in isolation, and I won't have people telling me that they have all of this tied up and settled 'Because dogma'. The usages in the gospels are not new. They are old, old, old usages.

Am I claiming that no one can be resurrected physically by miraculous powers? No, of course not. I'm saying that's very-likely-not what's really being discussed when the NT is talking about resurrection. I'm saying that an afterlife is not important to a Christian, because a Christian has denied himself. His or her life is in Christ, and Christ (like Israel) is what is resurrected.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The idea of a dogma is that some authority says what is dogma, but where is such an authority for Christians?

Like I said, scripture and the creeds, and in the case of Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, there is also the Church.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Like I said, scripture and the creeds, and in the case of Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, there is also the Church.

...and using that scripture I could 100% support an argument that repentance is the resurrection. How is that possible if there is only one way of looking at it?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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?

The same reason I don't accept that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree but accept that he was the first President of the United States.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

...and using that scripture I could 100% support an argument that repentance is the resurrection. How is that possible if there is only one way of looking at it?

No, for you to do this, you would have to completely reject the gospel stories, which are very clearly talking about a literal resurrection.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No, for you to do this, you would have to completely reject the gospel stories, which are very clearly talking about a literal resurrection.

You already have rejected the gospel stories and don't consider them relevant to yourself and have said so more than once in this forum. I've read the gospel stories and placed them into context. That's not rejecting them.

 

[Sylvester Clark]

My view of repentance (repentance being resurrection) is not new. It begins with the Jewish prophets who are very influential in Christian language. Why wouldn't Jesus and his disciples borrow this usage? They did use it.

[Isa 26:5, 18-19 NIV] 5 He humbles those who dwell on high, he lays the lofty city low; he levels it to the ground and casts it down to the dust. ... 18 We were with child, we writhed in labor, but we gave birth to wind. We have not brought salvation to the earth, and the people of the world have not come to life. 19 But your dead will live, LORD; their bodies will rise--let those who dwell in the dust wake up and shout for joy--your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead.​

Notice how Isaiah speaks poetically about dead people rising, but he's actually talking about something else! The gospel of John alludes to the above passage in Isaiah where the people of the earth, though they are literally alive are spoken of as if literally dead. As you can see Isaiah is talking about bodies rising, but he means repentance. So what is John talking about?

[Jhn 5:25 NIV] 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.​

The above is not something that happens in isolation, and I won't have people telling me that they have all of this tied up and settled 'Because dogma'. The usages in the gospels are not new. They are old, old, old usages.

Am I claiming that no one can be resurrected physically by miraculous powers? No, of course not. I'm saying that's very-likely-not what's really being discussed when the NT is talking about resurrection. I'm saying that an afterlife is not important to a Christian, because a Christian has denied himself. His or her life is in Christ, and Christ (like Israel) is what is resurrected.

I totally agree with you that the Bible uses the language of death and resurrection as a metaphor for sin and repentance/redemption. You quoted several instances. Another clear one is Ephesians 2:1-6 (There are many others as well.)

"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph 2:1–6 ESV).

I don't think we can conclude, however, that every time the Bible speaks of resurrection it is speaking metaphorically. The resurrection of Jesus, for instance, is clearly portrayed as literal (e.g. in 1 Corinthians 15 as I posted earlier, and elsewhere as well, such as the gospel accounts). If resurrection from the dead is always referring to repentance from sin, that would imply that Jesus was dead in sins, and his resurrection was simply his repentance from sin. That is very unbiblical. The Bible is clear that Jesus did not sin (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22, 1 John 3:5).

 

[robocop (actually)]

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?

Don't forget, the book of mormon has jesus appearing to the Americas. Other sheep I have which are not of this fold.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I totally agree with you that the Bible uses the language of death and resurrection as a metaphor for sin and repentance/redemption. You quoted several instances. Another clear one is Ephesians 2:1-6 (There are many others as well.)

"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph 2:1–6 ESV).

I don't think we can conclude, however, that every time the Bible speaks of resurrection it is speaking metaphorically. The resurrection of Jesus, for instance, is clearly portrayed as literal (e.g. in 1 Corinthians 15 as I posted earlier, and elsewhere as well, such as the gospel accounts). If resurrection from the dead is always referring to repentance from sin, that would imply that Jesus was dead in sins, and his resurrection was simply his repentance from sin. That is very unbiblical. The Bible is clear that Jesus did not sin (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22, 1 John 3:5).

I'm not concluding anything with finality about how the scripture must be interpreted by everyone. To me its not necessarily a metaphor and looks more like a way of speaking. To conclude what it absolutely is would require an authority, but there isn't one except for one in heaven. Its not me, and I won't accept any person as that final authority. Let each person look to their own conscience, the intelligence they have been given, the measure of umph that they have.

I'm willing to break bread with any other Christian who thinks the resurrection is about an afterlife. I'm not cutting anyone off, not after the lessons I have learned. I'm also not going to sit everyone down at my feet to be my disciples. We can't always know everything, and we can agree to live as Jesus disciples without bossing each other around. Are we still Jesus disciples if we don't always agree? His twelve didn't always agree. What he told them was not to quarrel on the way.

 

[Psalm23]

He lives man! lol

He is risen indeed.

 

[Jimmy]

He is risen indeed.

Yeah we chat from time to time.
Oh shoot I didn’t want anybody know that I talk to myself. Bwahahahaha

 

[Psalm23]

Yeah we chat from time to time.
Oh shoot I didn’t want anybody know that I talk to myself. Bwahahahaha

I believe he is risen. Jesus is my Lord and Savior.

 

[InChrist]

Explanation for what? Based on what evidence?

Explanation for the empty tomb and the body of Jesus being gone; His resurrection.
Based on the lines of evidence highlighted in the linked article, if you are interested...

Why should I believe in Christ’s resurrection? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Jimmy]

I believe he is risen. Jesus is my Lord and Savior.

cool

 

[Jimmy]

You already have rejected the gospel stories and don't consider them relevant to yourself and have said so more than once in this forum. I've read the gospel stories and placed them into context. That's not rejecting them.

The dude rose bro

 

[Jimmy]

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.

Explanation for what? Based on what evidence?

The evidence that he rose
Now he’s walk-in on water in Australia

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You already have rejected the gospel stories and don't consider them relevant to yourself and have said so more than once in this forum. I've read the gospel stories and placed them into context. That's not rejecting them.

If you reject the gospel stories of a literal resurrection, you are no different than I am.

 

[Jimmy]

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.

You’ll never get evidence
Resurrection involves more than one knows