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

[Grandliseur]

When it comes to Christ's literal Resurrection there is just the bible, a single source, which doesn't give the claim much credence.

You say the Bible as if it is the work of one person. While I believe it was inspired, it is also clear that each writer was permitted his personality, even opinion, to shine through the work of that individual. In this then we have 3 gospel accounts who were written by eyewitnesses, we have Peter, James, and Jude in addition and finally Paul who was exposed to the risen Jesus' blinding light and revelations, even audible words - things that permitted him by the grace of God and Jesus to heal others.

Of course, this is where believers in the Bible and unbelievers part ways. Still, there were those eyewitnesses. That it is hearsay when they mention many many others is true, but it is witness that I accept.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

Clouds symbolise the heavens and loftiness. They also could represent traditions within the great religions that obscure the truth and the reality of Christ.

In like manner the Sun represents the source of Divine Teachings, the moon the Great Luminaries of those teachings, and the stars the saints and learned in Christ. So the sun becomng dimmed, the moon no longer shedding its light, and stars falling from heaven represent the conditions of religion that precede the return of Christ.

 

[Grandliseur]

Clouds symbolise the heavens and loftiness. They also could represent traditions within the great religions that obscure the truth and the reality of Christ.

In like manner the Sun represents the source of Divine Teachings, the moon the Great Luminaries of those teachings, and the stars the saints and learned in Christ. So the sun becomng dimmed, the moon no longer shedding its light, and stars falling from heaven represent the conditions of religion that precede the return of Christ.

Don't really have any opinion on those things. My philosophy is 'what is - is, what is not - isn't ' I do like reading SciFi and Fantasy with witches and what not. Keeps my mind occupied. So, I read nearly all the time. But, I am too old to pursue my old loves, mathematics, and physics.

I am solidly into the Bible and know things most people don't care to, such as the sign of Christ, what it shall do and whatnot.

So the sun becomng dimmed, the moon no longer shedding its light, and stars falling from heaven represent the conditions of religion that precede the return of Christ.

These events you mention here I am certain shall happen, some as being part of the sign of Christ, and the sun and moon darkness perhaps because of volcanic eruptions, super and other volcanoes that are getting busy at the moment. This could easily cause a short winter effect because of the volcanic ashes going into the air.

We'll have to wait and see what happens.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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

We have a different worldview and that's fine. I believe in the NT as inspired by God as a whole. The books attributed to John, Peter, and Paul I revere, whereas you see them as false.

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.

I have no doubt that a great number of your Jewish ancestors championed the Cause of Christ, but those who were first shall be last, and the last will later be first...
Matthew 20:16

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.

The Jewish leaders and many of the Jewish peoples rejected Christ from the very beginning, long before these allegedly false doctrines were written. Isaiah prophecised this would happen and so it came to pass,

Isaiah 8:14

Consider Caiaphus the high priest of the Jews.

Matthew 26:56-67

He interviewed Jesus and unhesitatingly rejected His Messianic Claims and accused Him of blasphemy. Learning and knowledge can be a great barrier between the seeker and that which he desires. It is only the pure in heart that can attain to the presence of Christ, gain a glimpse of His Glory, and be admitted into the paradise of His Kingdom.

Caiaphus was outwardly learned, but inwardly blind.

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.

It is because the cycle has been completed and history repeats itself. The OT was not at fault for the Hebrew peoples failing to perceive their Messiah. Nor is the NT at fault for the blindness of Christendom today.

I like how you say 'In my opinion' at the end. We are after all giving our opinions.

Do you believe in the resurrection and explained your evidence for or against? I'm not sure you have really answered the main questions that are central to this thread.

 

[wizanda]

I believe in the NT as inspired by God as a whole.

I believe we're in a simulated reality, where everything is inspired by God in someway; yet it takes careful observation to understand all the additional factors...

Where the reality is here as a test to see who is worth keeping, when things are set diametrically opposed to Oneness.

The books attributed to John, Peter, and Paul I revere, whereas you see them as false.

I love that God has made John, Paul and Simon contrary to the Law, and contrary to Yeshua's teachings; it is amazing prophesied test, just when people ignore it is a comprehension test, find it so shocking at first, I've been suffering PTSD since realizing what i was told as a child is true.

The Jewish leaders and many of the Jewish peoples rejected Christ from the very beginning

Tho can accept there are prophecies in Isaiah 53, and Zechariah 11 that he will be rejected, these are specifically by the Leaders of the people...

There are numerous condemnations of the Leaders misguiding the flock, our people were cut off because of the Leaders...

Yet Zechariah 11:11 says then the Poor of the Flock then knew it was the word of the Lord.

Yeshua wasn't teaching Gentiles, he was teaching Jews, it was Jews who followed him to begin; the Hellenization destroyed the real teachings as Daniel prophesied.

He interviewed Jesus and unhesitatingly rejected His Messianic Claims and accused Him of blasphemy.

In Zechariah 11 Yeshua came to cut off 3 foolish shepherds (Pharisees, Sadducees & Levites); he didn't come to claim the Messianic age then, his coming was a sign that all the other things will take place.

Zechariah 11 is about feeding the flock for slaughter, the destruction of the 2nd temple, and our people eating each other's flesh, which all happened at the Roman destruction.

As already explained to you before Dr Margret Barker, and other scholars are realizing there is One God Most High (EL Elyon), and then Elohim are representatives in first temple period within the Tanakh; after the Babylonian Exile the Leaders had removed these concepts, and thus could not understand that Yeshua Elohim was YHVH Elohim; instead they tried to make him the son of YHVH, as the gospel of John portrays they thought he was claiming.

The OT was not at fault for the Hebrew peoples failing to perceive their Messiah.

Actually it is, it is vastly overly complex...

I've been debating a Jewish professor of Kabbalah for 13 years online in chat rooms, who knows what he is talking about on many things, his comprehension to understand the Tanakh isn't advanced enough; I've coded my sites PHP, that is the level of comprehension we need to maintain, to analyze some of the Biblical prophecies in all contexts properly.

Nor is the NT at fault for the blindness of Christendom today.

Actually it is, it is deliberately set as an IQ/morality test, the things that contradict are blatant, there is justification for them written before in the Tanakh, if someone reads a book properly start to finish, and then builds precept upon precept, they shouldn't accept much of the NT... Which is where the Jews have something right.

Do you believe in the resurrection and explained your evidence for or against?

Since YHVH shall become Yeshua as prophesied in Isaiah 12:2, and in Isaiah 52:10/Psalms 98:3 both says Yeshua Elohim is sent from Heaven, claiming a divine being ascended back isn't an amazing feat...

It is the bad comprehension by many that Yeshua was only a man, that would even make this question poignant.

There is not sufficient evidence to say if the resurrection happened based on the NT writers, and it shouldn't matter, as it really is not important in comparison to all the real things people ignore.

In my opinion.

 

[Kenny]

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?

I suppose I could also say that Alexander the Great didn't conquer most of the known world and that you are a computer generated response... would you believe me?

 

[Kenny]

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.

In my view, one must also remember that Paul isn't the only one that wrote words of a resurrection. Evidence is there. As with many things, it is the interpretation thereof that differs.

It is not uncommon for one person to hold fast to the position that "there was a resurrection" and everyone else is wrong as there are people that say "there is no evidence" and everyone else is wrong.

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).

Again, interpretation.

We do know that he was a persecutor of The Church and something happened that made him a preacher of the resurrection.

Barnabas said that Paul saw him; "Acts 9:27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

Paul said Jesus stood by him: Acts 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

One can say he was speaking figurativey and say it isn't evidence or one can take him at his word and say he did.

One thing we do know is that he believed he did:

Romans 1:4, And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

1 Corinthians 15:12, Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

Philippians 3:10, That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

2 Timothy 2:18, Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

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.

So, when we add the 120 in the upper room, the 500, Paul AND AN EMPTY TOMB, it is an open and shut case.

LOL... but there are always someone in the jury who will view the same evidence and come to a different position and we find a disagreement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose I could also say that Alexander the Great didn't conquer most of the known world and that you are a computer generated response... would you believe me?

Please, just be honest enough to admit that you do not understand the nature of evidence. You have no clue in this matter Once again, Paul was hundreds of miles away from where the supposed witnesses would have been. He could have merely heard a tale and treated it as the truth. Do you not know anything about the Bible?

 

[Kenny]

Please, just be honest enough to admit that you do not understand the nature of evidence. You have no clue in this matter Once again, Paul was hundreds of miles away from where the supposed witnesses would have been. He could have merely heard a tale and treated it as the truth. Do you not know anything about the Bible?

! is this your debate skills?

 

[RedDragon94]

With all due respect to my Christian brothers and sisters, why is Christ's Resurrection so fundamental to Christian belief?

Without it there is no way for humans to be righteous before God.

Many Christians believe Jesus was crucified and literally rose from the dead. An empty tomb and the appearance of Jesus before many as recorded in the gospels are cited as irrefutable proofs by conservative Christians.

Dr Bart Ehrhart, Christian and biblical scholar has argued:

'Even if we want to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, that belief is a theological belief. You can’t prove the resurrection. It’s not susceptible to historical evidence. It’s faith. Believers believe it and take it on faith, and history cannot prove it.'

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

The resurrection as part of an allegorical narrative assists us understand the eternal nature of the soul and the power of Christ's Teachings to bestow new spiritual upon those who follow Him.

So did Christ really rise from the dead and what's the evidence He did? Is there evidence to support He didn't?

With all due respect to my Christian brothers and sisters, why is Christ's Resurrection so fundamental to Christian belief?

He's right, you can't prove this resurrection because of the ascension of Christ.

 

[oldbadger]

Yeshua wasn't rejected by our people,

Absolutely!
Yeshua was campaigning exactly as the Baptist had been, for the people, the common working people and for the end of Temple and Priesthood corruption. And the Common people must have amounted to a huge % of the whole population because there was no middle class.

How Christians (and others) accept or allow the bad guys of the story to morph from the Priesthood to apostle John's 'The Jews' is just amazing.

It's like the mass defamation of a whole people.

 

[oldbadger]

I listen to a number of modern psychic sources and my current best opinion is that Jesus was on the borderline between life/death when taken down from the cross. He recovered himself with psychic energies and abilities he learned in the east (Himalaya region). He went with and married Mary Magdalene and lived in southern France. They had five children, two of which died very young.

Hello, again......
Three surviving children?
I might need to review all this; I thought that Magdalene got out to Gaul on her own, but pregnant, and had just one child, a girl. ........ and that Jesus was got down alive by Joseph, got clear away and recovered, a few weeks later travelling North through Galilee (where he saw the disciples) either on his way to Tyre or Sidon or to Kashmir.

Have you got info that I could see?

 

[Subduction Zone]

! is this your debate skills?

Mine are clearly better than yours. You have not been thinking logically. You have made error after error. You have no ability to respond so you attempt ridicule. Not only is that a bad debating skill on your part, it also goes contrary to the spirit of the forum.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You say the Bible as if it is the work of one person. While I believe it was inspired, it is also clear that each writer was permitted his personality, even opinion, to shine through the work of that individual. In this then we have 3 gospel accounts who were written by eyewitnesses, we have Peter, James, and Jude in addition and finally Paul who was exposed to the risen Jesus' blinding light and revelations, even audible words - things that permitted him by the grace of God and Jesus to heal others.

Of course, this is where believers in the Bible and unbelievers part ways. Still, there were those eyewitnesses. That it is hearsay when they mention many many others is true, but it is witness that I accept.

There is no evidence that Peter, James, or Jude were actually written by those individuals... in fact there's considerable evidence to the contrary. As for Paul, calling someone's hallucination an 'eyewitness account' is rather ridiculous.

 

[George-ananda]

Hello, again......
Three surviving children?
I might need to review all this; I thought that Magdalene got out to Gaul on her own, but pregnant, and had just one child, a girl. ........ and that Jesus was got down alive by Joseph, got clear away and recovered, a few weeks later travelling North through Galilee (where he saw the disciples) either on his way to Tyre or Sidon or to Kashmir.

Have you got info that I could see?

Here is just one source I respect on the subject. It is actually a channeled interview with Jesus Himself. I accept that you will be skeptical of this BUT I and many others had a paranormal prank played on me by the central figure Erik. He was a 20-year old lad that committed suicide in 2009. I truly believe Erik is working from the other side to help the development of his family. He facilitates channeling from people of the past through a living medium. Again I expect you to be skeptical, but aren't there enough beyond the normal stuff out there to not summarily dismiss something new. I am about 98% convinced this interview with Jesus is real.

Jesus Interview

(Quentin Crisp made a cameo appearance at the beginning. The two Yanks had never heard of him though)

 

[Kenny]

Mine are clearly better than yours. You have not been thinking logically. You have made error after error. You have no ability to respond so you attempt ridicule. Not only is that a bad debating skill on your part, it also goes contrary to the spirit of the forum.

If you say so - it must be true

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you say so - it must be true

I can support my claims, you don't seem to be able to do so. All you have is your own rather poor understanding of the Bible.

Please try to debate like an adult if you want to debate. Otherwise it is hypocritical when you respond in the way that you have. You should not be angry because there is no valid evidence for your beliefs. Just admit that all that you have is faith. And remember, faith is just as likely to lead to Islam, Hinduism, or even a belief in the Norse Gods.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If he did not, then he was lying, which would make him untrustworthy.

Or maybe the authors were lying. Jesus didn't write the stories, remember.

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.

Yesterday I nearly died. Pillows had fallen onto my face (I was in my mom's bed to make the dogs happy and she loves her some pillows). My mom admits to seeing me suffocate and thought "I must have meant to do it" and walked back out (she didn't mean I meant for suicide, but I meant it for comfort or something). Had it not been for a nightmare of a ghost suffocating me, I would've died in my sleep. Yes, the blind not seeing a problem IS a problem. I'm terrified to sleep now.

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.

The white supremacists make it sound like Natives generously gave up their homes to Europeans and Africans were just indentured servants who enjoyed working here. Lots of documentation. None of it true.

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.

I know King's Cross Station is real. Still trying to find Platform 9 3/4, though.

Oh, no, wait ... found documented evidence of teleportation to the platform:
Platform 9¾ at King’s Cross Station

Glad we cleared that up. I guess after Voldie's demise, the glamour preventing Muggles from seeing the portal was removed.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There are the books people write about their visions and momentary glimpses of an afterlife. There are no such accounts in the Bible except for the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, but it is fanciful. The point of the parable seems to be that a resurrection or any other miracle would not convince anyone to repent; and even that is a figurative way of illustrating the larger principle that people are drawn to repentance by kindness and forgiveness. You can't scare people into a true conversion. Therefore I have to ask why do so many accounts of an afterlife attempt to do that? Why do people take seriously books about scary trips to hell or delightful visits to heaven? Consider the book Embracing the Light. Since its publication what difference has it made in the world? None. It has, however, sold many copies.

 

[Kenny]

I can support my claims, you don't seem to be able to do so. All you have is your own rather poor understanding of the Bible.

Please try to debate like an adult if you want to debate. Otherwise it is hypocritical when you respond in the way that you have. You should not be angry because there is no valid evidence for your beliefs. Just admit that all that you have is faith. And remember, faith is just as likely to lead to Islam, Hinduism, or even a belief in the Norse Gods.

If you say so.

When you give me something more substantive that what you have offered, I would be happy to address it.