Resurrection Evidence

[Silmarien]

Not off hand, no. My point being that believers in opposing god(s) will sometimes present evidence, whatever that may be. Since they are believers in their god(s), they attest that the evidence is sound. Do I recall what any of it is specifically? no.

Well, if you can't think of any claims that are similar to Christianity's and the evidence used to support them, I cannot really help you. The only thing I've ever seen is debates between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and only the Muslims are presenting a separate positive claim there. I could assess those claims, but it would be a little bit weird to do that in this section of the forum.

And now?

Now I have an interest in Peter and Paul also. For the most part, though, I focus on the Incarnation rather than the Resurrection, so the sorts of questions I'm looking at are different. Less evidentiary in nature.

 

[NBB]

Because Jesus is alive and can manifest to us, after that you can't deny that he exists and should make believing in the bible very easy. Since the bible talks about him.

 

[cvanwey]

So, when I read the Bible older than that, it was instead from a genuine curiosity later on in my early 30s, when I was intrigued that someone had given a special place of unusual emphasis, centrality to the rule:

"Love your neighbor as yourself"

as 1 of only 2 central rules of life, as 1 of 2 "greatest" of the rules for life.

This was intriguing because I was reading ideas from all the great thinkers from around the world, and this one is obviously a candidate for how to create lasting peace.

A rule that is far more powerful to create lasting peace than other kinds of ideas people use like deterrence or reasoning, rhetoric, diplomacy, behind the scenes horse trading (as Russia did with Germany before Germany went ahead and invaded), etc.

Everything else fails, except the things Christ emphasized, I gradually realized, to my increasing interest.

That was pretty intriguing, to an objective atheist studying history and wisdom ideas from around the world.

So, no, I never even took Hebrews or such seriously even for a moment.

In those days.

I somehow have some skepticism that you were 100% atheist, read the Bible, found the golden rule, and then started to reassess.

Though I agree that the golden rule seems logical, and looks to be a 'good' creed to live by, this has absolutely no relevancy to whether or not a being rose from the dead.

I'm asking for how you know Jesus resurrected from the dead? In your last response, you responded with 'faith'. (i.e.):

"God intentionally does not allow easy evidence to be available, because the repeated requirement in scripture is said to us to be faith first."

And then in this last response of yours, you state:

"So, no, I never even took Hebrews or such seriously even for a moment."

I'm a little leery as to how you surmised of a resurrection claim being true. Thus far, you claimed it's all faith first, and then your subsequent response states that because the golden rule is so powerful, the rest must be true?

Please also see my last response edit from post #19:

There's things I'm forced to believe, whether I want to or not. Being receptive to it first seems like an odd prerequisite/requirement?

Furthermore, I don't recall Sal of Tarsus needing 'faith.'

 

[Halbhh]

I somehow have some skepticism that you were 100% atheist, read the Bible, found the golden rule, and then started to reassess.

Ok. Nevertheless, that's pretty much how it gradually happened, though it was as much, or more really, the above central 'greatest commandments' emphasis on loving neighbors as it was the how-to rule in Matthew 7:12.

It was not overnight. It was years of time and continued reading and then finally testing.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm a little leery as to how you surmised of a resurrection claim being true.

I did not.

I took a leap of faith to seek God, instead, without assuming anything one way or the other about that separate question, though it's fair to think that's an implicit leap of faith about Christ happening simultaneously if a person reads in the gospels, and then seeks God. But I didn't think about other things, just the question of God Himself -- to me personally it was simply seeking God without assuming anything much about many other things, that all the rest was true for instance. I perhaps felt like: dunno, maybe, I don't want to decide. Not yet.

It's sorta like: you can't calculate it all out ahead of time. Or if one can, that would be surprising to me.

A person seeking God doesn't have to know most of the New Testament, or even most all that is in a gospel, but instead only some key things at minimum. That Jesus is from God in some sense, and we are called to turn from our wrongs, or alienation, and come to God in repentance or asking for forgiveness (which we hear He will give!).

 

[Halbhh]

Furthermore, I don't recall Sal of Tarsus needing 'faith.'

Surprising extra topic there, but he already believed in God, but thought Jesus couldn't be the legitimate messiah at that point, before the road to Damascus, because he didn't yet get it. So Saul had faith, already, before the moment of encounter.

 

[Chesterton]

Often times, debate will transpire between believers and non-believers. At the end of some of these discussions, the believer will stop the debate, and state 'all that matters is that Jesus died for us, etc..'

I now ask....

What exactly makes the evidence(s) for a claimed resurrection so dang compelling, as opposed to claims of other messiahs, god(s), other?

Because at the end of the day, Jesus either rose from the dead, or He didn't. Are we justified in believing He did?

I'll post this just in case you're interested. There's some good info on a variety of aspects of evidence for the resurrection. I'm not sure how to post a playlist, this might just link to the introduction, but there are seven videos in the series.

 

[cvanwey]

and then finally testing.

What testing confirmed that He is real?

 

[cloudyday2]

I've been slowly reading "The Resurrection" by Geza Vermes. There were three Jewish afterlife ideas at the time of Jesus: no afterlife, immortal spirit leaving body behind, and bodily resurrection. There was a study of tomb and ossuary inscriptions from the period. Unfortunately there were few inscriptions that cast light on the afterlife beliefs, but what they found showed most Jews believed in no afterlife or an immortal soul rather than bodily resurrection. Bodily resurrection seems to have been limited to the Pharisees, and the Pharisees were a tiny minority isolated to urban areas around Jerusalem.

So it is interesting that the gospels claimed bodily resurrection when that wasn't the typical belief at the time.

Of course, a study of tomb and ossuary inscriptions probably over-samples the wealthy classes.

 

[cvanwey]

Surprising extra topic there, but he already believed in God, but thought Jesus couldn't be the legitimate messiah at that point, before the road to Damascus, because he didn't yet get it. So Saul had faith, already, before the moment of encounter.

This demonstrates my point, you have to already accept Jesus. And yet, Paul, 'doubting Thomas', the devil, all fallen angels, etc, do not require faith first, as you stated, to acknowledge the existence of Jesus as a Messiah. In all such cases, Jesus decided to provide hard evidence. And yet, you are stating that God does not do this. But this runs contrary to many stories.

So which one is it? Does he require faith first, or not?

 

[Tone]

Often times, debate will transpire between believers and non-believers. At the end of some of these discussions, the believer will stop the debate, and state 'all that matters is that Jesus died for us, etc..'

I now ask....

What exactly makes the evidence(s) for a claimed resurrection so dang compelling, as opposed to claims of other messiahs, god(s), other?

Because at the end of the day, Jesus either rose from the dead, or He didn't. Are we justified in believing He did?

Do you really think that people accepted truth based on the scientific method...in those days? This is why Pilate asked "What is truth"...because they really didn't know. So why should I or anybody else give some scientific reason for believing in a resurrection...we believe for the same reasons they believed it back then...they saw it with their own eyes or they heard about it or read about it.

*I heard about it and read about it...and experienced it.

 

[cvanwey]

I'll post this just in case you're interested. There's some good info on a variety of aspects of evidence for the resurrection. I'm not sure how to post a playlist, this might just link to the introduction, but there are seven videos in the series.

Thank you. I watched the first video. Without having to watch all 7, can you please point to the best piece of evidence which supports the claim that He rose from the dead? And then demonstrate why all other proposed [conclusions] do not fair as well as the assertion of a resurrection?

 

[cvanwey]

Do you really think that people accepted truth based on the scientific method...in those days? This is why Pilate asked "What is truth"...because they really didn't know. So why should I or anybody else give some scientific reason for believing in a resurrection...we believe for the same reasons they believed it back then...they saw it with their own eyes or they heard about it or read about it.

When did I ever specify it needs to be scientific?

I do admit that without anecdotal claims, you may not have much, in the way of a claimed one-off past event. However, even in the Bible, this may be lacking, instead chalked up to hearsay or unsubstantiated claims?

 

[Tone]

When did I ever specify it needs to be scientific?

I do admit that without anecdotal claims, you may not have much, in the way of a claimed one-off past event. However, even in the Bible, this may be lacking, instead chalked up to hearsay or unsubstantiated claims?

I edited to add:

"*I heard about it and read about it...and experienced it."

**Oh yeah, you may not have specified a scientific approach, but it seems some other uses are implying it.

***Isn't everything we think we know based on what we've heard and read and experienced?

 

[cvanwey]

I edited to add:

"*I heard about it and read about it...and experienced it."

**Oh yeah, you may not have specified a scientific approach, but it seems some other uses are implying it.

***Isn't everything we think we know based on what we've heard and read and experienced?

Why do you feel the resurrection is true? What 'evidence', and I use that term loosely, demonstrates truth to this claim? Give me your best piece first

 

[Tone]

Why do you feel the resurrection is true? What 'evidence', and I use that term loosely, demonstrates truth to this claim? Give me your best piece first

The Story has the ring of truth.

 

[Halbhh]

This demonstrates my point, you have to already accept Jesus. And yet, Paul, 'doubting Thomas', the devil, all fallen angels, etc, do not require faith first, as you stated, to acknowledge the existence of Jesus as a Messiah. In all such cases, Jesus decided to provide hard evidence. And yet, you are stating that God does not do this. But this runs contrary to many stories.

So which one is it? Does he require faith first, or not?

Faith is belief in God, first. Or a moment of belief, a leap of faith.

From that, once it becomes ongoing faith (see below), one becomes able then to begin to hear Christ, that is actually hear His words more fully, and get so much more, from His words in the gospels, past only the superficial or the parts that wouldn't be understandable to begin to get it. 'Ears that hear'.

What testing confirmed that He is real?

The first testing (and this was before faith) I did was of the instructions on how to live from Christ, beginning with "love your neighbor as yourself" -- doing it literally with the (until that time) strangers that lived immediately next door to me on both sides. That works spectacularly well, and I thought I must have been sorta lucky and tried it again in new locations, and again it works wonderfully, and I also began testing other things He instructed such as forgiving and even in time trying the radical and unlikely sounding "love your enemy" which was very difficult to do in the first minutes. And worked so well it was just...astounding, These things can be (were for me) like one buys a lottery ticket and it pays $100,000 or something like that. Or 4 tickets, and each pay out amazingly. It just works. Just success after success from these various instructions. That was convincing that Jesus knew very well what He was talking about, far more than I'd imagined or guessed at first, in fact perfectly, and that made me finally begin to wonder about the other things He had said, about God...

See? So I tested that finally, by seeking God. That's the leap of faith, when it's for real. "You will seek me and you will find me when you seek me with all of your heart."

-- It's for real, I found out. So, that was the testing I did. These are things anyone could try. Sometimes I've used a metaphor to say it's sorta (or can be) like leaving the familiar, and sailing into the unknown. It's...a leap of faith.

But before one sails off into uncharted water, they should read the words from the Guide, the one Who knows the way best, Jesus of Nazareth, and listen the best they possibly can. That points you in the right direction.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Not what I experienced.

At least in the threads I was in with you, answering your questions, dozens of times, you just repeated questions endlessly with new phrasing occasionally, and then claimed we didn't answer your questions, even after we did many times.

It's like you were trying to wear down everyone. But I started to wonder if it was a compulsion, perhaps. Could that be?

I hope you got past that, and figured out what you were doing. I bet it is something you could control.

Be nice, Halbhh. There's no need to cast aspersions. @cvanwey 's post sounds like a perfectly sensible question of the type that this forum was designed for.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Because Jesus is alive and can manifest to us, after that you can't deny that he exists and should make believing in the bible very easy. Since the bible talks about him.

Is he? Does he? On video, I hope?

 

[cloudyday2]

A couple of other issues:
(1) Typically the criminals who were crucified were fed to birds or stray dogs or simply thrown in the garbage pile, because this made the punishment more dreadful.
(2) Paul's authentic epistles are the earliest NT writings, and there is no mention of an empty tomb. Skeptical historians suspect that the story of the empty tomb was invented after Paul wrote.

Of course these are not smoking guns.