How Do You Explain the Evidence for the Resurrection?

[FireDragon76]

This:

Neither Pliny nor Trajan mentions the crime that Christians had committed, except for being a Christian; and other historical sources do not provide a simple answer to what that crime could be, but most likely due to the stubborn refusal of Christians to worship Roman gods; making them appear as objecting to Roman rule.[3][4]

and:

Pliny states that he gives Christians multiple chances to affirm they are innocent and if they refuse three times, they are executed. Pliny states that his investigations have revealed nothing on the Christians' part but harmless practices and "depraved, excessive superstition."

Yes, that's typical of the Roman attitude towards Christians. Still, the evidence is that Pliny put Christians to death as governor.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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?

1) The Gospels and Epistles were not written by eyewitnesses.
2) All that is required for a religion to start is that people have to believe a story to be true. The story doesn't actually have to be true.

There's multiple stories across multiple cultures of people rising from the dead. The fact some people believe the story doesn't serve as evidence for its veracity.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

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.

Ok. So other people in history have also applied that standard inconsistently. Or perhaps, not at all. I still don't believe extraordinary claims based on eyewitness accounts, and I still won't be making any exceptions to that standard.

And again, that's granting that you have eyewitness accounts in the first place.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Ok. So other people in history have also applied that standard inconsistently. Or perhaps, not at all. I still don't believe extraordinary claims based on eyewitness accounts, and I still won't be making any exceptions to that standard.

And again, that's granting that you have eyewitness accounts in the first place.

I think too that Lapide doesn't qualify as an authority in 'resurrection' or biology or 'how nature works' or in the 'miraculous'. That a historian has a certain credulity about a miraculous event has no weight.

 

[cvanwey]

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?

You have yet to respond to post #10? Or maybe you have, and I missed it? I would be curious to read your honest response.

Furthermore, of course 'something' happened. Things are always happening, all the time. I.E. anecdotal claims, repeated stories, and the like... But the least likely, is supernatural in reality. I trust you at least agree to that much?

In light of the discussion topics posed thus far, I also have to ask...

If God's intent was to provide truth, do you honestly think 'truth' must hinge upon belief in anecdotal testimony? I.E. Claims of the rising dead written majoritively by later believing individuals, of a story passed down to them likely by oral tradition, whom were literate enough to do so...?

Your claims in veracity, hinge upon a time period, especially this time period, where belief and superstition was high.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I think too that Lapide doesn't qualify as an authority in 'resurrection' or biology or 'how nature works' or in the 'miraculous'. That a historian has a certain credulity about a miraculous event has no weight.

I have to wonder how exactly anyone becomes an authority on "miraculous" occurrences. Seven years at Hogwarts, one assumes.

 

[jayem]

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.

Paul was not one of the 12 disciples, and was not present at the time of Jesus's death. His alleged contact with Jesus came later. And Mark, the earliest of the gospels, wasn't written until 30 years after Jesus's supposed resurrection. Here's a thought experiment: I was in San Francisco on Oct. 18, 1989 when the Loma Prieta earthquake occurred. (And I have my hotel statement to confirm it. Which I've kept as a souvenir.) Supposed I sent a letter to my local newspaper that I was planning to drive my rental car into Oakland over the Bay Bridge. But just before 5pm, an angel appeared to me and told me to turn around and get back to my hotel. After 30 years, I'm now reporting that I witnessed a miraculous event that enabled me to avoid the bridge collapse. Wouldn't any rational person be highly skeptical?

BTW: Do you believe Joseph Smith found golden tablets on which were written a new revelation from God which supersedes earlier gospels? Because in the Book of Mormon, before any of the scripture, is a page where 11 people attest that they witnessed these tablets, and their names are recorded. So if you believe eyewitness testimony is convincing, then why aren't you a Mormon?

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Well the gospels are the "claim"....not the evidence. If you want evidence to verify what the gospels claim happened...it needs to be apart from the gospels.

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?

By that logic....there's "something" to every religion. If the mere fact that people believe it gives it validity, then every religion shares that validity.

My guess is you don't really believe that.