Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

[Jimmy]

@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.

It is literal
U missed it

 

[Jimmy]

"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.

All rise!

 

[paarsurrey]

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?

Sylvester Clark "Jesus was raised from the dead "

Jesus did not die and could not die on the Cross. So, there is no question of his being raised or resurrected. Right?

Regards

 

[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.

Not

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

ChristineM "but succumbed to blood poisoning from the iron nails and died"
And one's evidence for the above, please.

Regards

 

[Left Coast]

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.

There are many dying-and-rising deities and demi-gods in mythologies around the world (and specifically in the ANE). Christianity appears to be the Jewish variation on the same theme.

One of the problems with using the criterion of embarrassment to determine what's historical in the Gospels is that what would be embarrassing to us is not necessarily embarrassing to 1st century Christians. The entire point of Christianity, theologically speaking, is to turn the traditional notions of power and victory and glory on their heads.

"For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength...God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God."
1 Corinthians 1:25, 27-29

Jesus, per the Gospels, was born under morally dubious circumstances in a little podunk town to a family that was working class, opposed the mainstream Jewish leadership of his day, intentionally kept his ministry a secret and spoke to the masses in riddles so they wouldn't understand him, taught that "the first will be last and the last will be first in the kingdom," and was ultimately betrayed and disowned by his own closest disciples to be sentenced to death for blasphemy. From beginning to end it's a story written to contradict what you'd expect the story of a victorious mighty king to be like. That's the entire point.

 

[darkskies]

I contend the definition of "death" used in the sources. The current understanding of what a proper death is took us until the mid 19th century to get to, and is still under scrutiny.

 

[Jimmy]

There are many dying-and-rising deities and demi-gods in mythologies around the world (and specifically in the ANE). Christianity appears to be the Jewish variation on the same theme.

One of the problems with using the criterion of embarrassment to determine what's historical in the Gospels is that what would be embarrassing to us is not necessarily embarrassing to 1st century Christians. The entire point of Christianity, theologically speaking, is to turn the traditional notions of power and victory and glory on their heads.

"For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength...God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God."
1 Corinthians 1:25, 27-29

Jesus, per the Gospels, was born under morally dubious circumstances in a little podunk town to a family that was working class, opposed the mainstream Jewish leadership of his day, intentionally kept his ministry a secret and spoke to the masses in riddles so they wouldn't understand him, taught that "the first will be last and the last will be first in the kingdom," and was ultimately betrayed and disowned by his own closest disciples to be sentenced to death for blasphemy. From beginning to end it's a story written to contradict what you'd expect the story of a victorious mighty king to be like. That's the entire point.

Surprised we knew him at all

 

[firedragon]

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 are the "Early, independent accounts that all claimed Jesus was raised from the dead"?

 

[firedragon]

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?

You dont even have any evidence that these people were killed or martyred except for third party, latter hearsay.

Also, there are suicide bombers who killed the prime minister of India in the name of their Leninist cause. That does not make their cause a divine one.

 

[Valjean]

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

But this is religious folklore. How is it any more authoritative than any other folklore?
There's no real evidence supporting this.

 

[Valjean]

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

WHAT evidence he rose?

 

[Rival]

There are many dying-and-rising deities and demi-gods in mythologies around the world (and specifically in the ANE). Christianity appears to be the Jewish variation on the same theme.

One of the problems with using the criterion of embarrassment to determine what's historical in the Gospels is that what would be embarrassing to us is not necessarily embarrassing to 1st century Christians. The entire point of Christianity, theologically speaking, is to turn the traditional notions of power and victory and glory on their heads.

"For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength...God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God."
1 Corinthians 1:25, 27-29

Jesus, per the Gospels, was born under morally dubious circumstances in a little podunk town to a family that was working class, opposed the mainstream Jewish leadership of his day, intentionally kept his ministry a secret and spoke to the masses in riddles so they wouldn't understand him, taught that "the first will be last and the last will be first in the kingdom," and was ultimately betrayed and disowned by his own closest disciples to be sentenced to death for blasphemy. From beginning to end it's a story written to contradict what you'd expect the story of a victorious mighty king to be like. That's the entire point.

I disagree with this. I think the reason Christianity became this way in the first place is because the disciples weren't expecting him to be crucified. They had to re-examine their understanding of the Messiah. Such a phenomenon has been well documented among modern cult members where such events actually make their faith stronger instead of hitting it with a deadly blow. Jesus being crucified is, as I said, not even really contested by secular scholars. Another user on this thread gave quotes to such effect.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

An ironic statement. If I reject your interpretation then I'm different than you are at least in that respect. We walk in the light rather than make it.

 

[Jimmy]

WHAT evidence he rose?

All around u

 

[Left Coast]

I disagree with this. I think the reason Christianity became this way in the first place is because the disciples weren't expecting him to be crucified. They had to re-examine their understanding of the Messiah. Such a phenomenon has been well documented among modern cult members where such events actually make their faith stronger instead of hitting it with a deadly blow. Jesus being crucified is, as I said, not even really contested by secular scholars. Another user on this thread gave quotes to such effect.

A number of modern secular scholars have questioned the historicity of the crucifixion (and Jesus as a person, period): Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Hector Avalos, to name a few. Although it is still a minority opinion, I don't think it should be dismissed so readily. Dying and rising divine figures are a well known mythological archetype. Combined with the other thoroughly mythological elements (in both content and composition) of the Gospels, and the theological theme of salvation through the unexpected (a theological motif borrowed from Judaism as well), it makes at least as much sense to me to see the crucifixion as fabricated as not.

 

[firedragon]

All around u

Probably the best explanation of evidence that any one has ever uttered. "All around you" is as good as a Phd thesis.

Excellent.

 

[Jimmy]

Probably the best explanation of evidence that any one has ever uttered. "All around you" is as good as a Phd thesis.

Excellent.

Y tank u
Ain’t got time to bs ya with o lot a fluff

 

[exchemist]

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.

OK, those are good references. You've convinced me.

 

[sayak83]

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?

Think of Elvis is not dead movement.
Why Do Some People Think Elvis Is Still Alive?
There are several more such instances from very different cultures
Solving the Mystery of Netaji's ‘Disappearance’: Part One
I have no doubt that the early Christians fervently believed that Jesus resurrected and will come again soon bringing in the kingdom of God where they will be honored above all people. That strong belief in an imminent end to this world and the coming of a new glorious age where they too will be made anew like Jesus no doubt sustained the movement. The eschatology also attracted non Jews where similar beliefs and cults were far more common. After the fall of the temple in the war, the movement lost most of its Jewish connection and essentially became a gentile messianic movement.
The movement never made much inroads among the Jews, for while Jesus had some popularity, very few believed the claims made about his resurrection.
That is my tentative assessment.