Jesus resurrection - Historical Reality?

[nazz]

this sounds like nothing more than a sad attempt at dismissing the findings.
Why was there not another dating done?
Why is it that no one could tell that the sample taken was from a "patch" BEFORE the test was done?

I don't know the answer to the last question but these are the facts. No further testing has been allowed.

 

[McBell]

I don't know the answer to the last question but these are the facts. No further testing has been allowed.

Facts?
What is the source for your "facts"?

No further testing allowed?
Makes a person wonder what it is they are afraid of.

 

[nazz]

Facts?
What is the source for your "facts"?

No further testing allowed?
Makes a person wonder what it is they are afraid of.

I guess "facts" may have been a poor choice of words. There seems to controversy over whether it was done on a medieval patch. I would just google it and make up your own mind.

 

[Maya3]

Is there DNA of Jesus somewhere? Like a piece of hair or a fingernail?
If there is we can compare that to possible residue on the shroud.
If not how can people assume it was his. It could have been any random person.

Maya

 

[crocusj]

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?

Why not? Because dead men don't rise. They just don't. Alternatively, you can believe that they do. There is the story of Lazarus who died and his friend raised him from death but this story is attributed to a man who was at peace with his god, and it's actions, so it is very unlikely that if he could have done this that he would have done this. There can not be a God in this story, there can not.

Lazarus must have remained dead (well, because he must!) otherwise this "son" of god is prone to willfulness on a particularly epic scale or his "sacrafice" was not but a jape.

500 witnesses are a lot. I don't know how many saw Lazarus rise. How bizarre would a statement be before you don't believe it or is veracity down to numbers, if that is the case then I would suggest that you increase your storage capacity.

 

[McBell]

How bizarre would a statement be before you don't believe it or is veracity down to numbers, if that is the case then I would suggest that you increase your storage capacity.

There are some people who, if it was in their holy writings, will believe it no matter how bad, ridiculous, crazy, impossible, etc.

 

[rusra02]

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.

Respectfully, I don't think the issue is whether a court of law would or would not accept the evidence for Jesus resurrection. How do historians determine what really happened in the distant past and what did not? By examining records and testimony, physical artifacts, etc. The evidence for Jesus being an historical person is very strong, as is the record made by his early followers. The "history" of the wars against the native Americans is an example of much fiction being accepted as historical fact, written largely by the victors.
Examining the Bible as an historical document convinces many that it is a reliable history of supernatural events or miracles. Five thousand people witnessed being fed by Christ. The rulers who hated and vilified Jesus relentlessly could not deny he performed miracles. (Luke 11:15) Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead before "many" eyewitnesses. (John 11:44,45)
The eyewitness testimony of honest men of Jesus resurrection, as well as other events in Jesus life, many confirmed by secular historians, convinces millions that Jesus resurrection is a fact of history.

 

[Caladan]

Respectfully, I don't think the issue is whether a court of law would or would not accept the evidence for Jesus resurrection. How do historians determine what really happened in the distant past and what did not? By examining records and testimony, physical artifacts, etc. The evidence for Jesus being an historical person is very strong, as is the record made by his early followers. The "history" of the wars against the native Americans is an example of much fiction being accepted as historical fact, written largely by the victors.

You are discussing two different issues here. The historical existence of Jesus Vs. the supernatural stories about Jesus. Not the same thing. And just to add to this, there are certainly not overwhelmingly strong evidences about a historical Jesus, although there are of other protagonists and antagonists which are found in the story telling of the gospels.

Examining the Bible as an historical document convinces many that it is a reliable history of supernatural events or miracles. Five thousand people witnessed being fed by Christ. The rulers who hated and vilified Jesus relentlessly could not deny he performed miracles. (Luke 11:15) Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead before "many" eyewitnesses. (John 11:44,45)
The eyewitness testimony of honest men of Jesus resurrection, as well as other events in Jesus life, many confirmed by secular historians, convinces millions that Jesus resurrection is a fact of history.

The key theme here, is that it convinces many. But at the end of the day it fails to convince many others who find what you call thousands of eyewitnesses to be a collection of story editing and ancient hearsays. Just like today, 2000 years ago people could not turn water into wine, walk on water or bring people back from the dead. That some people choose to believe this, to me, is not an overwhelming proof or evidence of such phenomena.

 

[Shiranui117]

There has been uncovered some compelling evidence that it is not the image of Jesus Christ,

Do you mind elaborating on this point?

 

[Shiranui117]

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

A man with obscene amounts of wounds, blood loss, and a striking resemblance to numerous icons of Jesus Christ, especially the Sinai Pantocrator, to boot.

a. the shroud is from the correct historical period

The weave of the shroud itself and pollen samples collected from it establish that it was indeed in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.

b. the image was made by some process not available at the time, e.g. not painting

There's no paint on the shroud at all; there's nothing either from Roman or medieval times that could replicate the image on the Shroud, especially a 3D image such as what the Shroud presents.

c. the image is that of the person known as Jesus Christ, not any other man

This is ultimately unprovable; scientifically speaking, we have no way of knowing exactly WHO is on the Shroud, and we only have circumstantial evidence that it's Jesus' body, such as the various wounds from scourging, a crown of thorns, crucifixion and a spear wound to the side syncing up with what we know of Jesus from the Gospels.

d. the person known as Jesus Christ existed

About as much evidence for Him as there is Spartacus, yet no one doubts his existence...

e. the phenomenon known as resurrection is possible

Throwing in a supernatural, omnipotent deity makes this one pretty darn easy

f. the process of resurrection is the only possible cause of the image on the shroud.

Figuring out exactly HOW that image was produced is the hard part.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[Hawkins]

How do historians determine what really happened in the distant past and what did not?

That's a good question. In nature, history and evidence are mutually exclusive. When people ask for evidence, mostly they don't know what they are talking about. They are in a dream and they are in delusion.

There no evidence and whatsoever ever exists as long as any history is concern. History itself is a product of human witnessing instead of a product of evidence. It's only under very rare circumstance that history is considered evidenced.

To ask for evidence about history makes no difference to requesting your farther to give birth to a child in order to prove that he's actually your father. In nature male doesn't give birth to children. And in nature, history is never evidenced (under most circumstance).

Take a video tape of Ronald Legend, try to explain to the aliens that he's one of the president of the US. If you do this alone, you can never make it evidenced to the aliens, unless of course when multiple accounts of human witnessing are presented. (consider that before the creation of TV and movies, it's even more difficult for anything to be actually 'evidenced')

To put it short, people (especially those in this thread) never know what they are talking about. They think they do though.


To convey a truth of history, the following is already the best one can do:

1) write it down as you witnessed
2) willing to die for what you've written down

That's already the best can be done about a distant history.

 

[arthra]

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?

In my belief the early Christians were convinced that the Spirit of Christ lived on even though the body of Jesus was crucified. So they were willing to risk their lives to spread His teachings ...the Gospel.

So Christ's resurrection was not a literal physical resurrection as much as a spiritual resurrection.

I would encourage people to read the recent book by Geza Vermes "The Resurrection History and Myth" Published by Doubleday. Geza Vermes is the preeminent scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[McBell]

To convey a truth of history, the following is already the best one can do:

1) write it down as you witnessed
2) willing to die for what you've written down

That's already the best can be done about a distant history.

What does being willing to die for your beliefs show other than you believe your beliefs enough to die for them?

 

[Agnostic75]

There is not any reasonable secular history that verifies how the apostles died.

It is well-known among many historians that there was very little persecution of Christians during the first century A.D.

The best selling book "The Rise of Christianity," by sociologist Dr. Rodney Stark, who has written over 50 books, says that there was very little persecution of Christians during the first century.

Well-known conservative Christian scholar and author N.T. Wright has said that during the first century A.D., there were not enough Christians to "mount a riot in a small village." As such, since Christians in the first century were barely noticeable, it is easy to understand that they were not considered to be much of a threat.

 

[nazz]

Is there DNA of Jesus somewhere? Like a piece of hair or a fingernail?
If there is we can compare that to possible residue on the shroud.
If not how can people assume it was his. It could have been any random person.

Maya

Well there are also issues surrounding how the image came to be on the shroud.

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

I hear this all the time - but you are mixing two things that don't belong together.

There is a big difference in believing certain histories or historical legends such as Washington crossing the Delaware in his canoe, - and believing the supernatural - such as Ted 's story about the pink Huffalupagus that floated down from the sky and took him for a sky tour! Or someone murdered and in the grave three days, raising up with a lot of other dead people.

And by the way - all history is questioned. "History is written by the victors."

*

 

[Maya3]

I hear this all the time - but you are mixing two things that don't belong together.

There is a big difference in believing certain histories or historical legends such as Washington crossing the Delaware in his canoe, - and believing the supernatural - such as Ted 's story about the pink Huffalupagus that floated down from the sky and took him for a sky tour! Or someone murdered and in the grave three days, raising up with a lot of other dead people.

And by the way - all history is questioned. "History is written by the victors."

*

I did not realize that he was in the grave for three days.
That would really be impossible especially with blood loss from his injuries. He would first of all be too dehydrated to survive.

I think it is sad, I don´t know a lot about Jesus but the little I know he seems to have been a very wise teacher. These stories takes away from his teachings and makes it all seem like myth.

Maya

 

[Ouroboros]

On another note, seeing the "three day" thing. It wasn't really three days if he was crucified on Friday evening and resurrected on Sunday morning. It's at best 30-40 hours, not even two full days.

Besides, there are toxins in certain seafood that can be used to create a dead like state for a person (it's very dangerous). Maybe there were some mislabeled fish in the last supper?

 

[Maya3]

On another note, seeing the "three day" thing. It wasn't really three days if he was crucified on Friday evening and resurrected on Sunday morning. It's at best 30-40 hours, not even two full days.

Besides, there are toxins in certain seafood that can be used to create a dead like state for a person (it's very dangerous). Maybe there were some mislabeled fish in the last supper?

If he hadn´t been tortured for hours and hours after a meal with bad fish maybe.

Maya