Jesus resurrection - Historical Reality?

[rusra02]

The Christian faith is based on the historicity of Jesus resurrection. What evidence exists for accepting this? The Bible records that there were at least 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus post-resurrection appearances. (1 Corinthians 15:6)
The early Christians were so convinced of the reality of Christ's resurrection that they were willing to undergo persecution and even death rather than renounce their faith in Christ. Do you accept Christ's resurrection as historical fact, and if not, why not?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Neither the actions of the gullible nor the later claims of an apologist are sufficient warrant to believe in miracles.

 

[Shiranui117]

The Christian faith is based on the historicity of Jesus resurrection. What evidence exists for accepting this? The Bible records that there were at least 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus post-resurrection appearances. (1 Corinthians 15:6)
The early Christians were so convinced of the reality of Christ's resurrection that they were willing to undergo persecution and even death rather than renounce their faith in Christ. Do you accept Christ's resurrection as historical fact, and if not, why not?

I do, and IMHO, it has the Shroud of Turin (which cannot possibly be a forgery) as circumstantial evidence, at the very least.

 

[Ouroboros]

The Christian faith is based on the historicity of Jesus resurrection.

I think there is a way of being a "Christian" without the necessity of Jesus being a historical person. But I think that's another discussion.

What evidence exists for accepting this? The Bible records that there were at least 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus post-resurrection appearances. (1 Corinthians 15:6)

Too bad we don't have a written report with interviews of all of them, name, address, etc. 500, 50, 5, 5000, 5 billion, really doesn't matter. It's just a number.

The early Christians were so convinced of the reality of Christ's resurrection that they were willing to undergo persecution and even death rather than renounce their faith in Christ. Do you accept Christ's resurrection as historical fact, and if not, why not?

Can we be sure that the first Christians were convinced about a physical Jesus and died for that? Other people have died for faiths regarding spiritual only beings they believe in. Martyrs of all kinds have existed through history. Let's say the first Christians believed in a spiritual Jesus only and the belief in this spirit being's destruction of Satan was required to be saved, and they died for it, then the story changed over time... I'm not too convinced the first Christians must've had a physical person. Paul didn't. Paul even admits that he never met Jesus in person, only in visions. Yet he was willing to die for it.

 

[nazz]

The Christian faith is based on the historicity of Jesus resurrection. What evidence exists for accepting this? The Bible records that there were at least 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus post-resurrection appearances. (1 Corinthians 15:6)
The early Christians were so convinced of the reality of Christ's resurrection that they were willing to undergo persecution and even death rather than renounce their faith in Christ. Do you accept Christ's resurrection as historical fact, and if not, why not?

Yes

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...732-rational-defense-belief-resurrection.html

 

[Odi Brassicum]

I do, and IMHO, it has the Shroud of Turin (which cannot possibly be a forgery) as circumstantial evidence, at the very least.

I have see the Shroud of Turin. It shows the image of a man.

For this to be evidence of the resurrection of Jesus it first must be proved that

a. the shroud is from the correct historical period
b. the image was made by some process not available at the time, e.g. not painting
c. the image is that of the person known as Jesus Christ, not any other man
d. the person known as Jesus Christ existed
e. the phenomenon known as resurrection is possible
f. the process of resurrection is the only possible cause of the image on the shroud.

 

[maxfreakout]

All the stories about 'Jesus' are strictly mythical, the ressurection story is a metaphor for the experience of altered-state mystical ressurection/rebirth

 

[maxfreakout]

I do, and IMHO, it has the Shroud of Turin (which cannot possibly be a forgery) as circumstantial evidence, at the very least.

The shroud of Turin has been carbon dated several times, and conclusively established to be a forgery - Radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rusra02]

I think there is a way of being a "Christian" without the necessity of Jesus being a historical person. But I think that's another discussion.


Too bad we don't have a written report with interviews of all of them, name, address, etc. 500, 50, 5, 5000, 5 billion, really doesn't matter. It's just a number.


Can we be sure that the first Christians were convinced about a physical Jesus and died for that? Other people have died for faiths regarding spiritual only beings they believe in. Martyrs of all kinds have existed through history. Let's say the first Christians believed in a spiritual Jesus only and the belief in this spirit being's destruction of Satan was required to be saved, and they died for it, then the story changed over time... I'm not too convinced the first Christians must've had a physical person. Paul didn't. Paul even admits that he never met Jesus in person, only in visions. Yet he was willing to die for it.

I think there is more evidence for Jesus resurrection than for many historical events that are accepted with little question, based on far fewer eyewitnesses.

 

[Caladan]

I think there is more evidence for Jesus resurrection than for many historical events that are accepted with little question, based on far fewer eyewitnesses.

An eyewitness account in 1 Corinthians is not proof. It could be categorized as evidence in the form of information, but a rather unreliable evidence.
No court in the modern world will accept an eyewitness account of supernatural events in light of the scientific progress of our age.
In addition, in light of the scientific impossibility of physical resurrection, the logical conclusion is that this eyewitness account is planted by scribes and editors in order to promote a subjective dogma. Or a second option that this was an ancient hearsay mixed with the passions of the followers of an ancient Galilean teacher.
Out of curiosity, which historical events do you consider to be accepted with less evidence than the resurrection of Jesus?

Another question I pose is. Should a modern court accept eyewitness testimonies and accounts that claim supernatural events?
For example, is it enough to have eyewitness accounts of duplicating a handful of fish and loafs of bread into thousands, or walking on water, or turning water into wine in order for these claims to be accepted by modern academic institutions as a reality?
Think how much more vague descriptions of eyewitness accounts in 2000 year old texts are. Texts which their sole mission is based on a supernatural event such as the resurrection and promoting it as truth.

BTW, I'm not here to test your faith. I simply wish to make you ponder why an eyewitness account in an ancient text which promotes the resurrection as a dogmatic truth might be rejected as reliable evidence, and certainly might be rejected as proof.

 

[savagewind]

Is historical being used in the original post as meaning concerning past events
and belonging to the past, not the present?

Or does it mean is there physical evidence for an unbeliever to examine?

 

[Caladan]

The early Christians were so convinced of the reality of Christ's resurrection that they were willing to undergo persecution and even death rather than renounce their faith in Christ. Do you accept Christ's resurrection as historical fact, and if not, why not?

Many of my ancestors preferred to face death rather than renouncing their faith in Judaism and convert to Christianity. While I think they might have been proud and brave, I don't think it makes Judaism's theological claims the truth.

 

[McBell]

The shroud of Turin has been carbon dated several times, and conclusively established to be a forgery - Radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has not been conclusively established as a forgery.
There has been uncovered some compelling evidence that it is not the image of Jesus Christ, but not that it is a conclusive forgery.

 

[averageJOE]

The Christian faith is based on the historicity of Jesus resurrection. What evidence exists for accepting this? The Bible records that there were at least 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus post-resurrection appearances. (1 Corinthians 15:6)
The early Christians were so convinced of the reality of Christ's resurrection that they were willing to undergo persecution and even death rather than renounce their faith in Christ. Do you accept Christ's resurrection as historical fact, and if not, why not?

Well..even if Jesus was resurrected then that would just mean that he never died. Therefore there was never a sacrifice. It was more like a bad day.

 

[Odi Brassicum]

I had a similar discussion with two Jehovah's witnesses last year. I tried, but failed, to get them to understand that the existence of a story in their bible does not prove that the story actually happened. I tried to use the Harry Potter stories as analogy but that freaked them out and they left saying "Thank you for the door", whatever that was supposed to mean.

 

[Maya3]

If this in fact did happen. Then he must have somehow survived the crucifixion. Once a body have been without oxygen for a certain amount of time, there is no way you can get it back to life. The body begins to decompose immediately after death, especially in warmer climates. During that time people didn't know exactly how the body functioned and would not have known how to get the heart pumping again.

Maya

 

[nazz]

If this in fact did happen. Then he must have somehow survived the crucifixion. Once a body have been without oxygen for a certain amount of time, there is no way you can get it back to life. The body begins to decompose immediately after death, especially in warmer climates. During that time people didn't know exactly how the body functioned and would not have known how to get the heart pumping again.

Maya

If God raised Jesus from the dead surely he could recompose a decomposed corpse

 

[mycorrhiza]

The Christian faith is based on the historicity of Jesus resurrection. What evidence exists for accepting this? The Bible records that there were at least 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus post-resurrection appearances. (1 Corinthians 15:6)
The early Christians were so convinced of the reality of Christ's resurrection that they were willing to undergo persecution and even death rather than renounce their faith in Christ. Do you accept Christ's resurrection as historical fact, and if not, why not?

1. That it's in a book doesn't prove anything.
2. People of all kinds of religions have died for what the believed in rather than to renounce their faith.

To me, the story of the ressurection is no different than any other supernatural claim of any other religion. Many religious people claim that their leaders can (or could) do supernatural things. It's something you have to accept on faith, and not based on evidence.

 

[Maya3]

If God raised Jesus from the dead surely he could recompose a decomposed corpse

Make it into another life form, sure. Nothing is wasted in nature, it just gets transformed into something new. So in that sense, yes.


Maya

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Do you accept Christ's resurrection as historical fact, and if not, why not?

No.

Because it isn't historical fact.