Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

[Kenny]

Nope, the 500 Witness claim would not get anywhere near a court. That was hearsay when Paul heard it. Even if a supposed witness told Paul that would still be hearsay.

The witnesses weren't dead. Paul is just reporting and he talked to those who knew, Peter, John, James etc.

 

[Grandliseur]

Part of the reason the healing doesn't continue in miraculous quantities, is because it is only relying on faith and not medicine...

In Mark 6:13, and James 5:14 the Disciples healed with the Anointing Oil; people are called Christians as it means followers of the Anointed one (Christ).

When the anointing oil (Exodus 30:23-24) is made properly with Kaneh-Bosem (Cannabis), then it makes a molecular compound; where all the ingredients in the Holy oil are known medicines already.

I have once on this site given reason for my belief in the why of it. However, I am not opposed to healings by miracle. I just don't see what Jesus and the apostles did having happened anywhere, amputees, blind, and the like.

I am not sure if you go strictly by scripture. I do, but in a harmonious way, and also making allowances for my interpretation being wrong here and there. Your faith does not say that it is Christian! Kind of curious about that since your comments show you have faith of some sort.

 

[Grandliseur]

Hi again.......
Many Christians mention the 'Heaven-Hell' thing (in different words) and give the 'we'll be ok, you'll be in trouble' angle.
I'm a Deist, was dead for countless eons before life, and it was alright.
If I am right, then you will be alright.

I do not believe that after death there is life in death, if you understand what I am trying to say. What I wanted to convey was simply that that person's actions and beliefs would not lead to the promise given. There is no suffering when dead, only nothing, the return to not existing.

For me I just cannot change what I perceive, I never had a choice, I just saw what I saw and see what I see.
But you're right that we should all respect each other's philosophies, beliefs, faiths etc as long as they are not harmful.

I guess, I am the same. I cannot change what I perceive either. Others may believe what they want. It makes no difference to me, except when someone begins to use insulting language. Then, frankly, I don't mind giving a little back myself.

 

[Grandliseur]

"...does the court accept eye witness accounts?!"

Only if the eyewitness is available to testify. Someone saying that someone else claimed to have witnessed something is called hearsay and is NOT accepted by the courts.

Of course. But, if I wrote in a book about some terrible actions that were taken by the Japanese, by the US, by the Russians, by the Germans, or by the Turks - and later was killed and this material was discovered, together with that of others who corroborated this, that would still count as evidence depending on the situation.

After all, archaeologists have in the past many times used the Bible's accounts for finding places and such if memory serves. That is one way of using such evidence. Recently, was it, a pool in Jerusalem that none thought existed which was mentioned in the Gospels was found exactly as described. This kind of evidence also credits that what the writer said was true in other cases.

 

[InChrist]

Nope, the 500 Witness claim would not get anywhere near a court. That was hearsay when Paul heard it. Even if a supposed witness told Paul that would still be hearsay.

The word of those 500 witnesses in a court of that day certainly would not be considered hearsay, but instead valid eyewitness accounts. That is the point. Paul was making an appeal to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. He reminded them that those people were still alive and could be questioned themselves. This is what makes the account preserved in the scriptures valid for today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The word of those 500 witnesses in a court of that day certainly would not be considered hearsay, but instead valid eyewitness accounts. That is the point. Paul was making an appeal to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. He reminded them that those people were still alive and could be questioned themselves. This is what makes the account preserved in the scriptures valid for today.

You don't seem to understand. The only report of them is Paul's. They very well could have been made up. You have to admit that it is rather surprising that there is no contemporary writings on Jesus that survived.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The witnesses weren't dead. Paul is just reporting and he talked to those who knew, Peter, John, James etc.

What makes you think that? It is more likely that the "witnesses" never existed. I could make a similar claim about 500 people seeing Jim Nabors rise from the dead. Would you believe me?

 

[InChrist]

What makes you think that? It is more likely that the "witnesses" never existed. I could make a similar claim about 500 people seeing Jim Nabors rise from the dead. Would you believe me?

Sure, you could make the claim, but if others were to question several or even all of those you say saw Jim Nabors rise and they stated they saw him rise, then it is likely a lot of those people would also begin to believe your claim as true.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yeshua wasn't rejected by our people, thousands came to hear him at the Sermon on the Mount, thousands were following him after...

The leaders of our people were the ones who rejected him, and then systematically destroyed the true followers by the fake religion of Christianity (John, Paul and Simon the stone ((petros)).

If the Jews didn't reject Jesus, then where are all the Jews singing Jesus praise?

Paul didn't teach the Good News we see prophesied in Isaiah & Yeshua's Gospel...

Yeshua's Gospel was teaching that by his coming it is a sign that the Kingdom shall come (Messianic Age); Paul taught a dead Gospel, that Christ came to die for the sins of the world, and by his resurrection we're raised with him unto Grace.

In my opinion.

And if Paul taught a dead gospel, why are there so many Christians two thousand years later?

 

[InChrist]

You don't seem to understand. The only report of them is Paul's. They very well could have been made up. You have to admit that it is rather surprising that there is no contemporary writings on Jesus that survived.

It is unlikely Paul would have "made up the 500 witnesses" if he knew those witnesses could easily be questioned and prove him a liar. Besides, there were other accounts of those who saw the resurrected Christ. The disciples...Peter, John, etc. and the WOMEN. It the culture of that day the women were not too esteemed, nor was the testimony of women very respected. It certainly wouldn't be the wisest move to so prominently include the testimony of the women who saw the risen Jesus in the scriptural accounts if they were making a story up. The fact that the gospels state the women were the first witnesses to see the risen Christ gives strong validity to the truthfulness of the account.

 

[Dawnofhope]

How important the resurection is depends on who a person believes Jesus is. If only a prophet as some believe, then the resurection would be of little importance. However to the Christian the resurection has much importance. Jesus said he would rise from the dead. If he did not, then he was lying, which would make him untrustworthy.

When did He claim He would rise from the dead?

The only reference I'm aware of is Matthew 12:40 which of course can be interpreted in many ways.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, you could make the claim, but if others were to question several or even all of those you say saw Jim Nabors rise and they stated they saw him rise, then it is likely a lot of those people would also begin to believe your claim as true.

Do you remember the title of the thread? It is about evidence for Jesus's resurrection. The claim of 500 witnesses is hearsay at best. It is not what would be considered reliable evidence.

And one more time, we have no clue that those people made that claim. That was the claim of Paul and he heard it from someone else. He was not there, in case you forgot. You can read more about it here:

500 Eyewitnesses to the Risen Christ? Not Likely.

This is hearsay for Paul even.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is unlikely Paul would have "made up the 500 witnesses" if he knew those witnesses could easily be questioned and prove him a liar. Besides, there were other accounts of those who saw the resurrected Christ. The disciples...Peter, John, etc. and the WOMEN. It the culture of that day the women were not too esteemed, nor was the testimony of women very respected. It certainly wouldn't be the wisest move to so prominently include the testimony of the women who saw the risen Jesus in the scriptural accounts if they were making a story up. The fact that the gospels state the women were the first witnesses to see the risen Christ gives strong validity to the truthfulness of the account.

But they couldn't be. You forgot where Paul was when he made that claim. And he did not have to make it up, since he never spoke to the 500 witnesses himself. Another could easily have made it up for him.

And no, none of those are accounts. Those are tales in the Gospels that were written 40 to 60 years or more after the event. They were repeated tales of repeated tales.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm not sure why you say this is a problem. Certainly Paul didn't see it as a problem. I don't know of any "conservative Christian" sees it as a problem either.

But what evidence? You stated it:

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once;


500 Witness is a pretty good case for a court.

I don't have a problem with Paul's words or any of the Bible, but then again I don't feel compelled to believe in a literal resurrection. The problem I see is with the conservative position of insisting that it absolutely had to happen literally and anyone who thinks differently has it wrong. That's why I'm interested in the evidence.

When did Paul see the resurrected Christ? There's no evidence he did of course. My reading of the NT text is he is more likely to have experienced it, as did the 500 witnesses (whoever they are).

So in a court of evidence, we have Paul's testimony that doesn't really fit with a literal resurrection. Then we have hearsay evidence as to the mysterious 500 others. Its an open and shut case as you say.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You are making my argument for me.

I don't see a problem at all or believe Paul's experiences with Jesus were merely mystical. Clearly, if Paul saw or had an encounter with Jesus 40 days or any number of days after the crucifixion then it was the risen from the dead, resurrected Person of Jesus.

As Jesus spoke in a language that conveyed hidden spiritual truths, so too did His apostles. An encounter with Jesus sounds like something any of us could experience, which is the whole point. Jesus lives within each of us, and from the living word, waters of life giving waters flow.
John 7:37-39

Another thing is that Paul had more than that one interaction (on the Damascus road) with the risen Lord Jesus Christ. These personal interactions included Jesus giving Paul information he otherwise would not have had.

Those encounters sound mystical, do they not?

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

2 Corinthians 1-4

For example, Paul was not present at the last supper, yet he received the details about it directly from the resurrected Jesus.

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

So if we consider more closely the last supper and the symbolism of the bread and wine we may better understand what Paul meant by 'the body of Christ'.

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Matthew 26:26

Lets look at other examples of Paul speaking of the body of Christ.

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
For the body is not one member, but many.
1 Corinthians 12:12-14

How is the church the Body of Christ?

So perhaps it was not the physical body of Christ that was resurrected, but the body of His faithful believers.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Presently, I do not believe that the power of healing exists any longer. The reason is that the laying on of hands was done by the apostles, and they are dead. You might - if you are blessed - ask to be healed in prayer and get some help. It shall never be what Jesus and the apostles did, to that extent.

However, God and Christ do what they want irrespective of what I think is done today. Jesus rose not as a human but as a spirit being, in that kind of body. So, that he rose into the heavens is beyond what I have knowledge about. I have no idea what can and cannot be done by spirit beings. If it says he did it, is good enough for me. I go fully by the Bible, but use a harmonious interpretation.

As you said, healing and resurrection is really not the same thing. Resurrecting a person dead for 4 days where the cells of the brain are dead and gone - is only by the power of God which is what was used. God listened to Jesus, and granted his prayer/request.

Here is an image that is interesting. What it means is beyond me:

Nice image. But is it the image of the risen Christ, or would somebody from another culture interpret it differently? It reminds me of the words of Shakespeare:

HAMLET
Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel?

POLONIUS
By th' mass, and ’tis like a camel indeed.

HAMLET
Methinks it is like a weasel.

POLONIUS
It is backed like a weasel.

HAMLET
Or like a whale.

POLONIUS
Very like a whale.

No Fear Shakespeare: Hamlet: Act 3, Scene 2, Page 17

 

[oldbadger]

I do not believe that after death there is life in death, if you understand what I am trying to say. What I wanted to convey was simply that that person's actions and beliefs would not lead to the promise given. There is no suffering when dead, only nothing, the return to not existing.

....the return to non-existing......... I see it that way, But......... every single particle and energy that was me will go on for ever, indestructible. What was me will be a part of countless other billions of beings over countless billions of years, long after our Sun and all is gone. There is no end. I wonder how many times these atoms in me were part of other beings?

I guess, I am the same. I cannot change what I perceive either. Others may believe what they want. It makes no difference to me, except when someone begins to use insulting language. Then, frankly, I don't mind giving a little back myself.

Ha ha! Debates can become heated. If others get bad at you it can mean that they're cornered, on back foot, caught out etc.
I sometimes tell really nasty people that they're lovely and that I enjoy reading their posts just for the laughter it causes me. That works best, sometimes.

 

[wizanda]

Your faith does not say that it is Christian! Kind of curious about that since your comments show you have faith of some sort.

My faith is that Oneness is the name of Heaven, and I was sent to help mankind before the Day of the Lord; where people take me being the joke for some strange reason.

I accept Yeshua; yet i don't accept Christianity which came about after, and was applied to Paul and Simon's Ministry.

If the Jews didn't reject Jesus, then where are all the Jews singing Jesus praise?

Because the Leaders of our people rejected Yeshua; thousands were following him, before they systematically created false doctrine, and destroyed the evidence...

Take into account we have no real knowledge of the Essenes or Ebionites, and yet they wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, and were a huge movement.

Take into account Jews reject Yeshua because of the false texts they've made up; John makes many Jews say he is a false Messiah, and Paul makes them say he is a false Messianic claimant, as Paul said the Messianic age started then.

Come on you're smarter than this, if you're a Doctor, this isn't something you can keep acting like it doesn't need dissecting first, to understand it properly.

And if Paul taught a dead gospel, why are there so many Christians two thousand years later?

Because we're in a place between Heaven and Hell, and thus the plan in prophecy is the Snare is left for a time to catch all the Ravenous beings....

Many seem to like Paul's Covenant with Death , and don't have the intelligence to comprehend all the prophecies or contradictions.

In my opinion.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Of course. But, if I wrote in a book about some terrible actions that were taken by the Japanese, by the US, by the Russians, by the Germans, or by the Turks - and later was killed and this material was discovered, together with that of others who corroborated this, that would still count as evidence depending on the situation.

After all, archaeologists have in the past many times used the Bible's accounts for finding places and such if memory serves. That is one way of using such evidence. Recently, was it, a pool in Jerusalem that none thought existed which was mentioned in the Gospels was found exactly as described. This kind of evidence also credits that what the writer said was true in other cases.

Yes... since the standards for evidence for an archaeologist or historian is vastly different from the standards for evidence in a court of law, I'm not really sure why you used eye witness testimony in a court of law as some sort of analogy.

And when it comes to archaeologists and historians, that corroborating evidence is essential. When it comes to Christ's literal Resurrection there is just the bible, a single source, which doesn't give the claim much credence.

Finally, finding this pool in Jerusalem from thousands of years ago that no one today thought really existed shouldn't be all that surprising. You'd expect that people who lived thousands of years ago would know about places we've yet to discover. But the fact that someone from thousands of years ago wrote about a place that actually existed thousands of years ago and it ended up in the bible doesn't in any way give validation to any of the supernatural claims that are made in the bible. That would be like someone thousands of years from now finding a copy of Harry Potter and concluding that because it mentions a place called England, that actually did exist, that everything it said about wizards must be true as well.

 

[Grandliseur]

Nice image. But is it the image of the risen Christ, or would somebody from another culture interpret it differently? It reminds me of the words of Shakespeare:

HAMLET
Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel?

POLONIUS
By th' mass, and ’tis like a camel indeed.

HAMLET
Methinks it is like a weasel.

POLONIUS
It is backed like a weasel.

HAMLET
Or like a whale.

POLONIUS
Very like a whale.

No Fear Shakespeare: Hamlet: Act 3, Scene 2, Page 17

I wouldn't dare make any claims here. That I think it reminds me of Jesus' promise that we would see him in the clouds, that I dare say.