Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

[Left Coast]

Romans 10:17. 'So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.'

I suggest you read the New Testament, then the Old Testament. If you do this with an open heart, l believe God will speak to you, as he did to me.

IMO, there is no better evidence of God than his own word!

I have already read the Bible multiple times, my friend. I was a Christian for many years of my life. It was when I started questioning my dogmatic underlying belief that the Bible must be true/"God's word" that I started realizing the evidence for it didn't stack up.

 

[sun rise]

Not to me, simply because the Romans weren’t exactly asking permission.

If the Bible is accurate, Jesus knew what was going to happen and could theoretically have fled rather than accept the suffering.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the Bible is accurate, Jesus knew what was going to happen and could theoretically have fled rather than accept the suffering.

Very few Christians realize that Judas was one of the heroes of the story.

 

[sun rise]

I have already read the Bible multiple times, my friend. I was a Christian for many years of my life. It was when I started questioning my dogmatic underlying belief that the Bible must be true/"God's word" that I started realizing the evidence for it didn't stack up.

What some Christians have trouble with is that the Bible can be accepted as containing truths without being The Truth (inerrant). I can accept the two 'greatest commandments' the the Sermon on the Mount and some other parts while considering great parts of the Bible to be distorted or incorrect.

 

[sun rise]

Very few Christians realize that Judas was one of the heroes of the story.

Meher Baba stated that Judas was made to betray Jesus because it was needed for God's work - the redemptive suffering Jesus experienced for humanity's sake.

 

[Sylvester Clark]

4. There are six NT references to the resurrection (Paul, the four gospels, Acts 1). None of the accounts is ─
contemporary (indeed the first to specify a resurrection is Matthew, written some 50-55 years after the purported event, whereas Mark, a decade earlier, stops at the empty tomb);
by an eyewitness; or
independent.

1 Corinthians was written 20-30 years after the purported event, and the resurrection story that it contains is likely from even earlier. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the verses about Jesus' resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15.
"The account of the resurrection appearances of Jesus in verses 3–7 appears to be an early pre-Pauline creedal statement.[20] Verses 3–5 (plus possible additional verses) may be one of the earliest creeds about Jesus' death and resurrection. Most biblical scholars note the antiquity of the creed, probably originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community.[21] The antiquity of the creed has been placed to no more than five years after Jesus' death by most biblical scholars.[21] The linguistic analysis suggests that the version received by Paul seems to have included verses 3b–6a and 7.[22] The creed has been deemed to be historically reliable and is claimed to preserve a unique and verifiable testimony of the time.[23][24]" 1 Corinthians 15 - Wikipedia

Also, Acts 1 does not contain any explicit reference to the resurrection, only the ascension. Acts is part II of the book of Luke, which is the only gospel that describes the ascension. The descriptions of the ascension in Luke and Acts do not appear to contradict each other. And by the way, the book of Luke is also generally considered to have been written 50-60 years after the event as well, so it's in the same timeframe as Matthew.

5. Each of the six accounts contradicts the other five in major ways. (A usual Christian solution has been to create a single account from them, particularly from the gospel four. However, that only creates a seventh account incompatible with the other six.)

Again, we have 5 accounts of the resurrection. The four accounts in the gospels do have different details, many of which are not necessarily contradictory, but some of which appear so. In what ways does the 1 Corinthians 15 account (I assume that's the account of Paul that you were referring to) contradict any of the gospel accounts?

 

[blü 2]

The temporary body of Jesus died, not the spirit of the Son of God who returned in a new form and conversed with his fellows.

This would require belief in ghosts. Ghosts are one more category of the supernatural for which we have zero authenticated instances.

That's the problem with Atheists, they think they know everything about all forms of life in the universe. Outside of mans very limited range of senses there could be numerous sorts of living things of a material and a spiritual nature.

I think that for any thing, including any being, to be real, it must have objective existence ─ that's to say it must exist in the world external to the self, in nature.

And although it's reasonable to assume there are many things about nature of which we're not yet aware (and may never be), I don't see how that can be a license to assert the reality of something for whose reality we have zero credible evidence.

I likewise think it's correct to say that the only way supernatural beings and phenomena are known to exist are as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.

 

[blü 2]

1 Corinthians was written 20-30 years after the purported event, and the resurrection story that it contains is likely from even earlier. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the verses about Jesus' resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15.
"The account of the resurrection appearances of Jesus in verses 3–7 appears to be an early pre-Pauline creedal statement.[20] Verses 3–5 (plus possible additional verses) may be one of the earliest creeds about Jesus' death and resurrection. Most biblical scholars note the antiquity of the creed, probably originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community.[21] The antiquity of the creed has been placed to no more than five years after Jesus' death by most biblical scholars.[21] The linguistic analysis suggests that the version received by Paul seems to have included verses 3b–6a and 7.[22] The creed has been deemed to be historically reliable and is claimed to preserve a unique and verifiable testimony of the time.[23][24]" 1 Corinthians 15 - Wikipedia

This reminds me that Paul quotes the proto-Christian "kenosis hymn" at Philippians 2:5-11, and verses 8-9 state that Jesus was not called Jesus in his lifetime.

But (given an historical Jesus) the question is not whether Jesus died, but whether, being irreversibly dead, he was miraculously returned to life. If he was only a memory or dream or ghost story, that's not a resurrection in the material sense usually asserted by Christians.

Acts is part II of the book of Luke, which is the only gospel that describes the ascension. The descriptions of the ascension in Luke and Acts do not appear to contradict each other. And by the way, the book of Luke is also generally considered to have been written 50-60 years after the event as well, so it's in the same timeframe as Matthew.

I agree about dating Matthew and Luke to the mid -80s CE.

Again, we have 5 accounts of the resurrection. The four accounts in the gospels do have different details, many of which are not necessarily contradictory, but some of which appear so. In what ways does the 1 Corinthians 15 account (I assume that's the account of Paul that you were referring to) contradict any of the gospel accounts?

The contradictions can be demonstrated by setting out side by side the respective answers each account gives to the following questions (where 'they' stands for 'he/she/they' as the case may be):

1. Who went to the tomb?
2. What did they see on arriving?
3. Did they see guards?
4. What did they do?
5. Did they see anyone in the tomb? If so, who?
6. What did they do next?
7. To whom did Jesus first appear?
8. How?
9. What did the guards (if any) do?
10. What did they do next?
11. To whom did Jesus secondly appear?
12. Where?
13. With what result?
14. To whom did Jesus thirdly appear?
15. Fourthly?
16. Fifthly?
17. From where did Jesus ascend?

 

[We Never Know]

I just have to ask....there are 148 posts so far...how much evidence has been shown?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The beginnings of Christianity are in some ways obscure, however everyone agrees that it begins as a Jewish movement which uses the sign of the fish as its symbol. What fish? Its probably Jonah's fish

I can't say whether the Christian fish has connections to Jonah's fish or not -- that's a little above my pay grade. But I know that back in the 1970s when it seemed like every Christian was wearing a fish, I was told that IXOYE (FISH) was an anagram in Greek, the letters standing for Jesus Christ God's Son Savior.

 

[We Never Know]

I just have to ask....there are 148 posts so far...how much evidence has been shown?

And when I say evidence, how much has been shown to support....
1. Jesus was resurrected.
2. Jesus wasn't resurrected

 

[Brickjectivity]

I can't say whether the Christian fish has connections to Jonah's fish or not -- that's a little above my pay grade. But I know that back in the 1970s when it seemed like every Christian was wearing a fish, I was told that IXOYE (FISH) was an anagram in Greek, the letters standing for Jesus Christ God's Son Savior.

Yes it does, and this is from the 2nd century CE, not the very earliest of Christian times. Its possible that its not seen as Jonah's fish, but what other fish is there? The only other fish connection I can think of is a text where Jesus says he intends to make his disciples 'Fishers of men' (alluding to a passage in Jeremiah 16). It could be an allusion to that, but I cannot quite follow the reasoning for how that becomes the fish sign. I can see some possibilities. Whatever the fish is, it must allude to some scripture or another. Its not randomly just 'Fish' for the sake of an anagram.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes it does, and this is from the 2nd century CE, not the very earliest of Christian times. Its possible that its not seen as Jonah's fish, but what other fish is there? The only other fish connection I can think of is a text where Jesus says he intends to make his disciples 'Fishers of men' (alluding to a passage in Jeremiah 16). It could be an allusion to that, but I cannot quite follow the reasoning for how that becomes the fish sign. I can see some possibilities. Whatever the fish is, it must allude to some scripture or another. Its not randomly just 'Fish' for the sake of an anagram.

I see no reason the anagram isn't sufficient for the symbol.

 

[Deeje]

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?

It was prophesied that they would strike the Shepherd and the sheep would scatter......they were human after all.
Zechariah 13:7....(Tanakh)
"O sword, awaken against My shepherd and against the man who is associated with Me! says the Lord of Hosts. Smite the shepherd, and the flock shall scatter, and I will return My hand upon the little ones."

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.

You think? OK ....you can think whatever you wish.....does it make any difference to what others believe?

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.

You think a lot apparently......could there possibly be another explanation?
When Jesus broke the bread and they recognized him, what happened next?

Here is the account from Luke 24....
"But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. 22 Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, 23 and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.” 25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, 29 but they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”

Sometimes it pays to read the whole account.....not only did they recognize him when he broke the bread, but he vanished right before their eyes. Humans of flesh and blood do not have the ability to "appear" and "disappear" but spirit beings do. Angels had appeared to God's servants like Daniel (Gabriel) and the three who visited Abraham at Mamre......they appeared as humans, but they were materialized spirit beings.

The disciples did not always recognize him because he 'appeared' in different bodies. For a doubting Thomas he even made one with the wounds of his execution, but at other times no mention was made of his injuries which would have been obvious to any observer. He was a physical wreck at the time of his death. They physically escorted Lot and his family out of Sodom.

Our scripture tells us that Jesus was 'put to death in the flesh but raised as a spirit' in order to return to his Father in heaven....a place where humans cannot go. He lingered for 40 days after his resurrection to strengthen his apostles because of what had taken place with their "Shepherd". That is why they they regained their spiritual strength and were fortified to face all that was to come, especially at the hands of the Jews.

It is often this way after someone dies. . . . .

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.

There is no way to "prove" anything in the Bible that requires faith.....if we have "proof" then no faith is necessary......it is by our faith that we tell God how much we trust him and his word.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I see no reason the anagram isn't sufficient for the symbol.

I understand you. For me its too random.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It was prophesied that they would strike the Shepherd and the sheep would scatter......they were human after all.
Zechariah 13:7....(Tanakh)
"O sword, awaken against My shepherd and against the man who is associated with Me! says the Lord of Hosts. Smite the shepherd, and the flock shall scatter, and I will return My hand upon the little ones."

Zechariah 13:5 but he shall say: 'I am no prophet, I am a tiller of the ground; for I have been made a bondman from my youth.'

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I understand you. For me its too random.

Inventing an anagram is far from random. It's a quite deliberate action.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I have already read the Bible multiple times, my friend. I was a Christian for many years of my life. It was when I started questioning my dogmatic underlying belief that the Bible must be true/"God's word" that I started realizing the evidence for it didn't stack up.

Then maybe we can discuss the evidence that you don't believe 'stacks up'.

I think that the 'heart', as used in the Bible, is more akin to conscience than to raw emotion. The Psalms talk about 'meditation of the heart' and about our hearts being searched by the Spirit of God. This means that faith is not a blind belief but a response that comes from our deepest meditation and innermost core. Conscience is effected by events in life, and similarly, the heart can become hardened and devoid of compassion. This, l believe, is why the word of God is so powerful because it is able to reach those parts of our spiritual being that have been blanketed by the dehumanising events of life.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Inventing an anagram is far from random. It's a quite deliberate action.

Yes, and I think they would have selected a symbol from scripture not just a random item. They could have rearranged letters, picked different words like instead of 'Savior' could have put some synonym. They wanted it to be a fish.

 

[Deeje]

Zechariah 13:5 but he shall say: 'I am no prophet, I am a tiller of the ground; for I have been made a bondman from my youth.'

He was not of noble birth....

And verse 6 says...."And one will say to him, "What are these wounds between your hands?" And he shall say, "That I was smitten in the house of my friends."