How Do You Explain the Evidence for the Resurrection?

[Tree of Life]

Here's the evidence I'm referring to:

1. Multiple written witnesses to the resurrection which came from apostles or close associates of apostles coming from the mid to late first century. I'm thinking here of the four gospels, Peter's letters, and Paul's letters.

2. A complex social movement coming from the first century made up of Jews and non-Jews who believe that a man is God because he rose from the dead.

Basically, the existence of the New Testament and the Church is compelling evidence that something happened in the first century. Christians believe that the most plausible explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. How do you explain this?

 

[HitchSlap]

AFAIK, there is no empirical evidence for a "resurrection."

Here's the evidence I'm referring to:

IMO, smuggling in the word evidence, when what you really mean is claims, does not bolster your argument.

1. Multiple written witnesses to the resurrection which came from apostles or close associates of apostles coming from the mid to late first century. I'm thinking here of the four gospels, Peter's letters, and Paul's letters.

I hope you're aware, but scholars don't believe the gospels are eye witness accounts. And they've been copied, redacted, added to, and flat-out fabricated, so to insinuate they are somehow "evidence" is laughable.

2. A complex social movement coming from the first century made up of Jews and non-Jews who believe that a man is God because he rose from the dead.

FWIW, at least nine other people 'rose from the dead' just from the bible alone. Add other dying and rising gods, and it seems Jesus' is nothing special. BTW, even if Jesus did rise from the dead, nothing about that would necessarily mean he is/was a god.

Basically, the existence of the New Testament and the Church is compelling evidence that something happened in the first century.

Of course something happened. By extension, this would be proof for every religion that has ever existed.

Christians believe that the most plausible explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead.

Sure, at pain of death, I'd believe it too.

How do you explain this?

I think I just did.

 

[com7fy8]

1. Multiple written witnesses to the resurrection which came from apostles or close associates of apostles coming from the mid to late first century. I'm thinking here of the four gospels, Peter's letters, and Paul's letters.

These are claims. But I understand that only God can know if they are true or not, or how much is. And Hebrews 11:1 says faith is evidence. I consider that faith is oneness with God > connection with Him spiritually so we experience Him and howsoever He pleases to communicate reliably and personally with each of us. God proves Himself in us.

2. A complex social movement coming from the first century made up of Jews and non-Jews who believe that a man is God because he rose from the dead.

As Hitch Slap has said, how about Lazarus who rose from the dead?

Even so, God can use witnesses, but we need for Him in us to confirm what He knows is true.

 

[Tree of Life]

IMO, smuggling in the word evidence, when what you really mean is claims, does not bolster your argument.

The existence of so much historical record is certainly evidence that something happened - especially when multiple sources agree on so much historical detail.

I hope you're aware, but scholars don't believe the gospels are eye witness accounts. And they've been copied, redacted, added to, and flat-out fabricated, so to insinuate they are somehow "evidence" is laughable.

Some scholars don't believe the gospels are eye witness accounts. But many other scholars do believe they are eye witness accounts. I could list many such scholars, as I'm sure you could list many such scholars.

Yes the accounts have been copied. That's why we have more copies of these accounts than any other ancient document ever produced.

What evidence do you have that the original manuscripts were redacted, added to, or contain fabrications?

FWIW, at least nine other people 'rose from the dead' just from the bible alone. Add other dying and rising gods, and it seems Jesus' is nothing special. BTW, even if Jesus did rise from the dead, nothing about that would necessarily mean he is/was a god.

There are other myths of gods dying and rising but they don't at all present themselves as historical narratives like the gospel accounts. And the gospel accounts are not a myth of a god dying and rising, but the historical account of a human being dying and rising.

There is no necessary connection between Jesus rising from the dead and his being God, but could you suggest a more plausible explanation supposing that he did indeed rise?

Of course something happened. By extension, this would be proof for every religion that has ever existed.

That's not true. There are no other religions that are tied to historical miracles like Christianity. Buddhism does not depend on historical miracles and neither does Islam. Polytheistic religions like ancient Egyptian religion and Hinduism likewise do not depend on historical miracles but rather contain pre-historical mythologies of gods that are not at all embedded in real history like the gospel accounts.

Sure, at pain of death, I'd believe it too.

Christianity was illegal until the fourth century in the Roman empire. It was actually upon pain of death that people would believe in Jesus. And yet many people did believe in Jesus and were executed for it. Are you suggesting that Christianity spread so rapidly in its first three centuries by violence and force? This is simply historically untenable.

 

[HitchSlap]

The existence of so much historical record is certainly evidence that something happened - especially when multiple sources agree on so much historical detail.

Apart from the conflicting reports in the NT, I'm not aware of any extra-biblical sources. I'm not denying that something happened, but a critical historical analysis suggests a legendary tale is spun over the next two-hundredish years.

Some scholars don't believe the gospels are eye witness accounts. But many other scholars do believe they are eye witness accounts. I could list many such scholars, as I'm sure you could list many such scholars.

The gospels are written in third person narrative, by people who most definitely didn't know Jesus, in a language he didn't speak, from countries he never visited. The gospels are not signed, appear to copy heavily from each other, and where they weren't copied, contain irreconcilable discrepancies. John is is wildly different from MM&L, and describes another character almost completely.

Yes the accounts have been copied. That's why we have more copies of these accounts than any other ancient document ever produced.

Sure, which is what one should expect of historical documents with earthly origins. If you wan't to make a case the gospels are special, this wouldn't be how.

What evidence do you have that the original manuscripts were redacted, added to, or contain fabrications?

Mark, thought to be the earliest gospel, doesn't have a birth narrative, whereas Mt/Lk do have birth narratives. Our earliest copies of Mark do not contain 16:9-20. The writer of Matthew misinterprets Zechariah 9, and puts Jesus on two donkeys.

There are other myths of gods dying and rising but they don't at all present themselves as historical narratives like the gospel accounts. And the gospel accounts are not a myth of a god dying and rising, but the historical account of a human being dying and rising.

There are plenty of examples out there. Check it out when you have some time.

There is no necessary connection between Jesus rising from the dead and his being God, but could you suggest a more plausible explanation supposing that he did indeed rise?

History is replete with fabrications. Mundane explanations are the best, IMO.

That's not true. There are no other religions that are tied to historical miracles like Christianity.

I can think of about a dozen off the top of my head.

Buddhism does not depend on historical miracles and neither does Islam. Polytheistic religions like ancient Egyptian religion and Hinduism likewise do not depend on historical miracles but rather contain pre-historical mythologies of gods that are not at all embedded in real history like the gospel accounts.

You've yet to establish your religious miracles are any different than other religions miracles. You're putting the cart before the horse, as it were.

Christianity was illegal until the fourth century in the Roman empire. It was actually upon pain of death that people would believe in Jesus. And yet many people did believe in Jesus and were executed for it. Are you suggesting that Christianity spread so rapidly in its first three centuries by violence and force? This is simply historically untenable.

Yes, it was spread by violence and force. Constantine provided sanctions and protections for Christianity, and it subsequently was spread to the West from Rome. Crusades, Spanish missionaries, etc...

 

[HitchSlap]

If you truly want to understand why others may not view the gospels as you do, do yourself a favor and watch this video.

 

[Tree of Life]

If you truly want to understand why others may not view the gospels as you do, do yourself a favor and watch this video.

I will respond to your above post later. Carrier denies that something actually happened. He believes that there was no such person as Jesus. I think it's a very extreme and absurd position. Do you believe his position is defensible?

 

[HitchSlap]

I will respond to your above post later. Carrier denies that something actually happened. He believes that there was no such person as Jesus. I think it's a very extreme and absurd position. Do you believe his position is defensible?

Regardless of what you may think of Carrier, try and focus on the information he's talking about.

As for the Jesus' existence, I'm ambivalent. Perhaps there was a man (men) named Jesus' who the NT is loosely based on. It really doesn't matter to me.

I've also read Carrier's book On the Historicity of Jesus. He make's a compelling case, and I've yet to see a good scholarly refutation. I think his book is way ahead of it's time, and people really only have emotional objections to his work. In any event, one thing is patently clear; there is scant evidence for Jesus' existence either way.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Here's the evidence I'm referring to:

1. Multiple written witnesses to the resurrection which came from apostles or close associates of apostles coming from the mid to late first century. I'm thinking here of the four gospels, Peter's letters, and Paul's letters.

2. A complex social movement coming from the first century made up of Jews and non-Jews who believe that a man is God because he rose from the dead.

Basically, the existence of the New Testament and the Church is compelling evidence that something happened in the first century. Christians believe that the most plausible explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. How do you explain this?

Well I watched a video from the late Nabeel Qureshi, on this.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Here's the evidence I'm referring to:

1. Multiple written witnesses to the resurrection which came from apostles or close associates of apostles coming from the mid to late first century. I'm thinking here of the four gospels, Peter's letters, and Paul's letters.

Suppose I grant that these are eyewitness accounts. I'll say the same this I always say about this point...

You don't believe faith healers on the streets of Calcutta can cure disease through chakra alignment. You don't believe Muhammad experienced divine revelations. You don't believe Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni. You don't believe Elvis is still alive. Millions of Chinese peasants throughout history will tell you eating rhinoceros horn and dried tiger penis has cured them or their family members of all manner of ailments, yet you don't believe that. If I told you right here and now that I saw someone fly to Chicago yesterday by flapping their arms up and down, you wouldn't believe that either. And so forth.

You don't accept eyewitness accounts as evidence for extraordinary claims. Neither do I.

The only difference is, I apply that standard consistently, while you do not.

2. A complex social movement coming from the first century made up of Jews and non-Jews who believe that a man is God because he rose from the dead.

Basically, the existence of the New Testament and the Church is compelling evidence that something happened in the first century. Christians believe that the most plausible explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. How do you explain this?

People believe a thing happened. What's to explain, exactly?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Here's the evidence I'm referring to:

1. Multiple written witnesses to the resurrection which came from apostles or close associates of apostles coming from the mid to late first century. I'm thinking here of the four gospels, Peter's letters, and Paul's letters.

2. A complex social movement coming from the first century made up of Jews and non-Jews who believe that a man is God because he rose from the dead.

Basically, the existence of the New Testament and the Church is compelling evidence that something happened in the first century. Christians believe that the most plausible explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. How do you explain this?

How do we explain that? Incredibly easily. This was an age full, absolutely full, of Gods, demigods, sons of gods, miracle workers, healers, people coming back to life.
It was not abnormal for people to start religions. It was completely normal. It happened all over the place in this time period.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The existence of so much historical record is certainly evidence that something happened - especially when multiple sources agree on so much historical detail.

Not surprising, as historians generally agree that the gospels were drawing on a common well of stories and folklore, and indeed even outright copying each other!

What evidence do you have that the original manuscripts were redacted, added to, or contain fabrications?

I haven't looked into it much recently, but I understand there is quite a large body of evidence showing that the Gospels are unreliable in the extreme.

There are other myths of gods dying and rising but they don't at all present themselves as historical narratives like the gospel accounts. And the gospel accounts are not a myth of a god dying and rising, but the historical account of a human being dying and rising.

The only gospel which actually presents itself as a history is Luke's, and Luke was an extremely unreliable historian.

Christianity was illegal until the fourth century in the Roman empire. It was actually upon pain of death that people would believe in Jesus. And yet many people did believe in Jesus and were executed for it. Are you suggesting that Christianity spread so rapidly in its first three centuries by violence and force? This is simply historically untenable.

Plenty of religiously zealous people are attracted to an underdog religion. The whole idea that "Christianity was too improbable to be true" has been completely debunked.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If I told you right here and now that I saw someone fly to Chicago yesterday by flapping their arms up and down, you wouldn't believe that either. And so forth.

Hey, I saw that too! Man that was wild...

 

[FireDragon76]

Here's the evidence I'm referring to:

1. Multiple written witnesses to the resurrection which came from apostles or close associates of apostles coming from the mid to late first century. I'm thinking here of the four gospels, Peter's letters, and Paul's letters.

2. A complex social movement coming from the first century made up of Jews and non-Jews who believe that a man is God because he rose from the dead.

Basically, the existence of the New Testament and the Church is compelling evidence that something happened in the first century. Christians believe that the most plausible explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. How do you explain this?

This is actually fairly non-controversial among historians. Of course it's not unanimous, but those sorts of conclusions rarely are among historians.

 

[FireDragon76]

Suppose I grant that these are eyewitness accounts. I'll say the same this I always say about this point...

You don't believe faith healers on the streets of Calcutta can cure disease through chakra alignment.

You're really diverting from the point being made. You do realize believing in the resurrection does not necessarily entail religious exclusivism? Even the Israeli theologian and historian, Pinchas Lapide, believed in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed believing in the resurrection of Jesus doesn't even necessarily put you outside orthodox Judaism. Likewise, a Christian believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ does not necessarily entail anything about whether a Hindu healer in Calcutta can actually cure disease. There are, after all, Christians that have a somewhat inclusivist orientation to at least some other religions, or they have other explanations altogether without having to dismiss those accounts as simply wishful thinking.

 

[FireDragon76]

Here's the evidence I'm referring to:

1. Multiple written witnesses to the resurrection which came from apostles or close associates of apostles coming from the mid to late first century. I'm thinking here of the four gospels, Peter's letters, and Paul's letters.

2. A complex social movement coming from the first century made up of Jews and non-Jews who believe that a man is God because he rose from the dead.

Basically, the existence of the New Testament and the Church is compelling evidence that something happened in the first century. Christians believe that the most plausible explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. How do you explain this?

Just a small point... I believe the basis of Jesus' divinity is more complicated than simply that he rose from the dead (as I pointed out, lots of non-Christians believe that too, Pinchas Lapide, the Dalai Lama, for instance.). We must also connect that with his actions and authority he demonstrated during his life. The exact nature of Jesus' divinity was also something that took time (literally centuries) to clarify among the early Christian movement.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Regardless of what you may think of Carrier, try and focus on the information he's talking about.

As for the Jesus' existence, I'm ambivalent. Perhaps there was a man (men) named Jesus' who the NT is loosely based on. It really doesn't matter to me.

I've also read Carrier's book On the Historicity of Jesus. He make's a compelling case, and I've yet to see a good scholarly refutation. I think his book is way ahead of it's time, and people really only have emotional objections to his work. In any event, one thing is patently clear; there is scant evidence for Jesus' existence either way.

It is quite possible that if you could actually go back in time, you would not find an individual matching the story of Jesus of Nazareth. It's quite possible that either (a) it was just a collection of religious stories that coalesced and, over time, was ascribed to an individual, or that (b) there was a preacher called Jesus - and if so, you wouldn't really see him multiplying fish, walking on water and rising from the dead.

Honest question, might be a bit silly - but do Christians really believe that, if they could go back in the aforementioned time machine, they would see the stories in the Bible happening? The loaves and fishes multiplying? Jesus, emerging from the tomb? Jesus actually walking on water?

I imagine the answers will be a bit indignant. I know, I'm letting myself in for it. It's just sometimes, you know, I wonder. Do people actually think these Bible stories are literally true?

Even the dead people walking in the gospel of Matthew?

 

[Silmarien]

Apart from the conflicting reports in the NT, I'm not aware of any extra-biblical sources. I'm not denying that something happened, but a critical historical analysis suggests a legendary tale is spun over the next two-hundredish years.

For the sake of historical accuracy, it is probably worth pointing out that there are no serious scholars who would place the Gospels in the 3rd century A.D. The only one that is ever dated even as late as the 2nd century is the Gospel of John. For the Synoptic Gospels, we are looking at a story that coalesced within a generation, not over two centuries.

 

[HitchSlap]

For the sake of historical accuracy, it is probably worth pointing out that there are no serious scholars who would place the Gospels in the 3rd century A.D. The only one that is ever dated even as late as the 2nd century is the Gospel of John. For the Synoptic Gospels, we are looking at a story that coalesced within a generation, not over two centuries.

I wasn't suggesting the gospels were written 2nd/3rd century, only that the stories slow burned over the next couple centuries, and was solidified by Constantine in the early 4th century.

Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[FireDragon76]

I wasn't suggesting the gospels were written 2nd/3rd century, only that the stories slow burned over the next couple centuries, and was solidified by Constantine in the early 4th century.

Thanks for pointing this out.

What do you mean by "slow burn"?

Constantine did not create Christianity, it existed before him. In fact Constantine's version of Christianity actually was not approved at Nicea by the synod of bishops. Constantine was an Arian, a follower of Arius, an Egyptian priest who taught a heavily Neo-Platonic theology. The Council of Nicea in 325 concluded against his take on Christianity in favor of the theology of Athanasius and the Cappodocians.