Resurrection Evidence

[Resha Caner]

Are you insinuating He was resuscitated by someone, or was never truly dead to begin with?

No.

When you state 'serious spiritual push back', is that what directly lead you to the belief Jesus's claim is real?

There were multiple factors, but, yes, that was a very significant one.

When you state you trust God, do you claim to interact with Him?

I have.

Or, you trust that He is there, even though you do not apprehend direct contact from Him?

When not interacting, I trust he is still there.

 

[cvanwey]

The Story has the ring of truth.

Can you expand a little bit? What elements, regarding the claims of a resurrection, 'ring of truth'?

 

[cvanwey]

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'.

This kind of goes all the way back to post #19.

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.

This was already addressed in post #23.

I'm going to try to circle this back a bit... In regards to the OP, what do you feel is the most compelling evidence to support the claims of a resurrection? And as a precursor, let's just say your provided chosen evidence is presented to a generic theist/other. - Someone whom is a genuine seeker/other of God.

 

[cvanwey]

No.



There were multiple factors, but, yes, that was a very significant one.



I have.



When not interacting, I trust he is still there.

Okay. Thank you for that

Now, if your head was 'held to the fire', what evidence do you feel is most compelling for the claim/assertion of a resurrection?

 

[cvanwey]

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.

Pardon in advance, because you will find in this thread, I will use the word 'compelling' a lot

Are there specific arguments you find compelling for the claims of a resurrection?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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

So I expect never any obvious evidence.

Zero verifiable evidence to my knowledge that a disinterested person could examine, as if God were inert or only an object in nature.

And that fits scripture. Because He wants those with that are willing to humbly repent and trust Him -- "faith", a leap of faith -- to seek Him.

God isn't inert, nor is He willing to let just anyone connect with Him, regardless of their attitude and choices.

But when a person does that sincere humble seeking, to humbly seek God in a leap of faith, then what I found out, as have others, is that then He lets us connect.

That's what fits the scriptures.


So, there will never be proof first. You have to humbly have faith first.

There's no way to manage or control God and force it to be a way you prefer.

But isn't that a stupid way of doing things? Why not allow us to make an informed decision?

Our "free will" (whatever that actually means) would not be compromised by certain knowledge of God's existence because Satan had certain knowledge and he rebelled along with a third of heaven. The Bible is full of characters who had certain knowledge and still rebelled. Nearly every character who spoke with God argued with him. The Jews saw him manifest in reality and lead them from Egypt, then built a golden calf and pretended it was him.

So the lack of evidence for a resurrection is not something you can just spin into a positive for your religion. That's just absurd.

 

[cvanwey]

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.

Are you quite possibly suggesting that the 4 Gospels are works of legendary tales? Meaning, as oral tradition was passed on, and stories were re-told again and again, stuff got added?

 

[Halbhh]

This kind of goes all the way back to post #19.



This was already addressed in post #23.

I'm going to try to circle this back a bit... In regards to the OP, what do you feel is the most compelling evidence to support the claims of a resurrection? And as a precursor, let's just say your provided chosen evidence is presented to a generic theist/other. - Someone whom is a genuine seeker/other of God.

This is a direct answer to precisely this question, alone: "what do you feel is the most compelling evidence to support the claims of a resurrection? "

I'm below directly answering precisely that question.

Having confirmed so much of what Christ said, I finally took a leap of faith to seek God, and He is findable when you seek under the conditions He says. Then what happened is a lot of confirmations over time. That helps build faith, but the main spark of faith is first to read what Christ said.

How could we even ask something like: "Was Christ resurrected?" without hearing what He himself said? This is one part. Because without hearing his words, it would be....like asking instead some random other question like "Was Timothy resurrected" or some such. But here it's a different question: "Was Jesus the Christ of God resurrected?". So, for me, the overwhelming compelling evidence for me personally is that God exists, first, and then next, that everything Christ says you can possibly test turns out to work, which is....so dramatic in implication. And then, over time, it's like....metaphor: an engine that runs perfectly in a perfect vehicle, and then you learn it can fly also, and it flies, routinely, and then finally, you realize the vehicle is working. So, I no longer doubt anything Christ says. Ergo, He certainly rose from the dead, and not only by the accounts, see? Not because of the testimonies in the accounts. No, because God exists, and then every last thing Christ says works perfectly. So I can believe in what I cannot literally see already. That's even before some extraordinary confirmation some will get, such as having an seemingly impossible result in answer to a prayer (which you may recall has happened plenty for me, and thus I know for others by extension).

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Are you quite possibly suggesting that the 4 Gospels are works of legendary tales? Meaning, as oral tradition was passed on, and stories were re-told again and again, stuff got added?

What's suspicious is that Paul says that Jesus died and rose again according to the scriptures (???).

If that's referring to prophecy, then how is it that the disciples were surprised by the resurrection? What prophecy did they miss? Why is it that the gospel writers, who had decades to research and reflect, didn't include it?

 

[SPF]

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

First off, I'm not sure what specific claims of other messiah's you're specifically referencing, so you'll need to actually do so.

But I think Paul's conversion is strong testimony. I think Mary Magdalene's testimony is strong. And I think the testimony of the life lived by the apostles who went on to devote their lives to the furthering of the Gospel and their willingness to die as martyrs represent strong testimonies to them truly seeing a risen Christ.

 

[Halbhh]

But isn't that a stupid way of doing things? Why not allow us to make an informed decision?

Our "free will" (whatever that actually means) would not be compromised by certain knowledge of God's existence because Satan had certain knowledge and he rebelled along with a third of heaven. The Bible is full of characters who had certain knowledge and still rebelled. Nearly every character who spoke with God argued with him. The Jews saw him manifest in reality and lead them from Egypt, then built a golden calf and pretended it was him.

So the lack of evidence for a resurrection is not something you can just spin into a positive for your religion. That's just absurd.

Because God doesn't want those that don't....trust ("faith" means trust in God basically) and love...quite evidently, by the exact wordings in scriptures. That would be the answer from the bible as an overall altogether whole. And that really makes sense. You can see it if you considered if you were an eternal being and considering who to let into your household/city/heaven as a permanent resident forever (for the the "age to come" literally in some renderings). You'd not just let anyone in like saying: here come get treasure for free even if some were....dangerous, or slanderers, or malicious, or very prejudiced, etc.

You'd, even just for only practical reasons alone, pick people that are going to be able to enjoy living together. In just practical reasons alone, that will mean people that can love others. Just mere pragmatism -- what works and what does not work -- will indicate that requirement. If you try to think of the bible as being in part about what it says it is about, reconciling and living with God, then...well, it can make a lot more sense then.

 

[cvanwey]

This is a direct answer to precisely this question, alone: "what do you feel is the most compelling evidence to support the claims of a resurrection? "

I'm below directly answering precisely that question.

Having confirmed so much of what Christ said, I finally took a leap of faith to seek God, and He is findable when you seek under the conditions He says. Then what happened is a lot of confirmations over time. That helps build faith, but the main spark of faith is first to read what Christ said.

Thus far, I see nothing further than conformation bias. It's easy to 'connect dots' when you already want something to be true. I trust I do not need to delve into how this works? As you respond, it's quite possible you are swan diving head first into such bias, and it's classic definition?.?.?

"Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that affirms one's prior beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning."

How could we even ask something like: "Was Christ resurrected?" without hearing what He himself said?

Easy I'll ask it right now. Did Jesus come back to life after death? Even an Orthodox Jew might argue that if Jesus did rise from the dead, does not necessarily mean He IS the Messiah.

In my case, I'm not even really asking for this much. I'm simply asking how do you know Jesus rose from the dead? <period>

If you were to 'prove' that He did, I could THEN ask you to prove that not only did he come back to life, but is God.

I'm only asking for the evidence that He came back to life.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Because God doesn't want those that don't....trust ("faith" means trust in God basically) and love...quite evidently, by the exact wordings in scriptures. That would be the answer from the bible as an overall altogether whole. And that really makes sense. You can see it if you considered if you were an eternal being and considering who to let into your household/city/heaven as a permanent resident forever (for the the "age to come" literally in some renderings). You'd not just let anyone in like saying: here come get treasure for free even if some were....dangerous, or slanderers, or malicious, or very prejudiced, etc.

Sorry, but no. You can't just completely ignore my points, assert your own points, and then say it makes sense. You actually have to address my counterpoints. And I don't even need to address yours because I've done enough to show that your belief system doesn't make sense. Adding stuff that does make sense to a system that doesn't make sense still leaves you with a system that doesn't make sense.

You'd, even just for only practical reasons alone, pick people that are going to be able to enjoy living together. In just practical reasons alone, that will mean people that can love others.

I have to call you on this bluff.

If you've not tried posting as an atheist, you haven't seen how ugly Christians can be.

As I've said many times, Christ called for you to love your enemies. Back then, that literally meant people who wanted to cut your eyes out. Christians today not only fail to love people who merely are critical of their beliefs on the internet in a non-personal way, but they spew unmitigated hatred at them. How badly does that fail your criteria here?

Just mere pragmatism -- what works and what does not work -- will indicate that requirement. If you try to think of the bible as being in part about what it says it is about, reconciling and living with God, then...well, it can make a lot more sense then.

Well, taking what you're saying here as fact, I'd expect most self-identified Christians to end up in hell right alongside me.

 

[cloudyday2]

Are you quite possibly suggesting that the 4 Gospels are works of legendary tales? Meaning, as oral tradition was passed on, and stories were re-told again and again, stuff got added?

Yes, and probably things were written down in pieces and then collected together and edited. My pet theory is that the hypothesized Q sayings gospel was actually an earlier version of Matthew written in Aramaic (in accordance with what Papias wrote about Matthew). Later, somebody decided to improve Matthew by absorbing the narratives from Mark and translating the sayings to Greek, but they continued to call the gospel Matthew.

 

[Halbhh]

Thus far, I see nothing further than conformation bias. It's easy to 'connect dots' when you already want something to be true. I trust I do not need to delve into how this works? As you respond, it's quite possible you are swan diving head first into such bias, and it's classic definition?.?.?

"Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that affirms one's prior beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning."



Easy I'll ask it right now. Did Jesus come back to life after death? Even an Orthodox Jew might argue that if Jesus did rise from the dead, does not necessarily mean He IS the Messiah.

In my case, I'm not even really asking for this much. I'm simply asking how do you know Jesus rose from the dead? <period>

If you were to 'prove' that He did, I could THEN ask you to prove that not only did he come back to life, but is God.

I'm only asking for the evidence that He came back to life.

That's what a scientist avoids by testing.

Literally. Literally put the things to test, each one, one at a time. And repeatedly.

Example:
Test different ways to relate to next door neighbors.

Establish 3 ways, precise details.

A)

B)

C)

Then test each one, and see which works best. Then do so again. Then do so again.

 

[Resha Caner]

Now, if your head was 'held to the fire', what evidence do you feel is most compelling for the claim/assertion of a resurrection?

Originally you asked what convinced me. I don't understand how that would change if I was put under pressure. Are you asking if I would recant under pressure? I have no idea.

Or are you asking more generally what would be convincing to others? I don't think there is a general answer.

So ... not sure what to say.

 

[Halbhh]

Sorry, but no. You can't just completely ignore my points, assert your own points, and then say it makes sense. You actually have to address my counterpoints. And I don't even need to address yours because I've done enough to show that your belief system doesn't make sense. Adding stuff that does make sense to a system that doesn't make sense still leaves you with a system that doesn't make sense.



I have to call you on this bluff.

If you've not tried posting as an atheist, you haven't seen how ugly Christians can be.

As I've said many times, Christ called for you to love your enemies. Back then, that literally meant people who wanted to cut your eyes out. Christians today not only fail to love people who merely are critical of their beliefs on the internet in a non-personal way, but they spew unmitigated hatred at them. How badly does that fail your criteria here?



Well, taking what you're saying here as fact, I'd expect most self-identified Christians to end up in hell right alongside me.

You only made me smile at "bluff" and stop reading.

That's merely rhetoric. And it raises a question I hadn't thought of: "Is someone bluffing here?" And of course, now I wonder if in some manner you are bluffing. Ok, I'll let go of that.

In sympathy, I decided to continue reading.

To me, the term "Christian" means a Christ-follower. That's from the etymology:

The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning "follower of Christ"... (origin from the Book of Acts, relating the first time the term is used)

And from His words we hear what that is to be, precisely. And therefore, I don't think of people as being Christian or not Christian, but I'm incompetent to judge that past the most clear precise way Christ said: "By this everyone will know you are my disciples, if you love one another" -- so if they don't do that, then I know, but not easily otherwise from a distance (where we might see them love some, but be unsure how extensive it is at a distance). You'd have to be up close in someone's personal life (such as immediate family for example) to get more more than that limited outward evidence from a distance. Sure, if they don't love others, say only love a few friends, you know they are not there yet.

 

[cvanwey]

First off, I'm not sure what specific claims of other messiah's you're specifically referencing, so you'll need to actually do so.

I think people are missing my point here? It's not about 'Messiah's' specifically... I'm saying that many people believe in opposing deities, and might offer 'evidence' to support their claims. I'm basically asking why you reject all their evidence, but favor yours?

But I think Paul's conversion is strong testimony. I think Mary Magdalene's testimony is strong.

I agree, in that he/she believed he/she is/was right. However, many opposing people believe, with as much conviction, that they are also right; which oppose yours and Paul's beliefs. Many people convert away from one religion to another. Hence, I don't see how one's mere conviction lends to truth?

And I think the testimony of the life lived by the apostles who went on to devote their lives to the furthering of the Gospel and their willingness to die as martyrs represent strong testimonies to them truly seeing a risen Christ.

Beg to differ. People believe a lot of things. -- Many things in which you might render false.... Many people die for false beliefs. Aside from the 'fact' we lack tangible evidence for the apostles being martyrs for their beliefs; even if they did, I'm sure it would not be hard for me to 'russell up' some people whom genuinely martyred themselves for a belief in which you perceive/conclude as false.

 

[cvanwey]

Originally you asked what convinced me. I don't understand how that would change if I was put under pressure. Are you asking if I would recant under pressure? I have no idea.

Or are you asking more generally what would be convincing to others? I don't think there is a general answer.

So ... not sure what to say.

No worries... Let me clarify. What evidence might you extend to someone whom does not share the same belief? What is the first and biggest piece of evidence you might find most compelling to start with?

 

[Halbhh]

Yes, and probably things were written down in pieces and then collected together and edited. My pet theory is that the hypothesized Q sayings gospel was actually an earlier version of Matthew written in Aramaic (in accordance with what Papias wrote about Matthew). Later, somebody decided to improve Matthew by absorbing the narratives from Mark and translating the sayings to Greek, but they continued to call the gospel Matthew.

I utterly bypassed these kinds of questions an elegant way, without even considering such. Here's how:

If it is true, then it will work. And you can test things to see whether they work.

And, He made some extraordinary instructions and promises about outcomes (!)....




But, there is a slight catch -- it's not a trivial one and done to --

"Love your neighbor as yourself".

No, that's a revolution, and the world changes. It's like jumping off a cliff maybe even.

It is somewhat like, or can be, akin to jumping off a cliff onto another cliff.

Because if it isn't actually love...well, then it isn't actually love.

See?

It has to be for-real to be an actual test.