Resurrection Evidence

[cvanwey]

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?

 

[Resha Caner]

The evidence comes from the Bible. If you don't accept the Bible, you're not going to believe the claim. With respect to non-Christians, there are two types of conversations that can be had with respect to the Biblical claim. The most common is the historical argument. However, a more recent argument championed by John Warwick Montgomery beginning in the 1960s/1970s was the legal argument - the argument being that if Paul had been put on trial in the first century A.D. for lying about the Resurrection, per traditionally accepted concepts of Western law, based on the witnesses available at the time, he would have been found not guilty.

However, I don't expect you to accept any of that. I think it would be better to begin with this question: Do you accept that resuscitating someone declared legally dead is possible?

 

[cvanwey]

The evidence comes from the Bible. If you don't accept the Bible, you're not going to believe the claim.

Not so fast Even non-believers can accept some stuff claimed from the Bible (i.e.) places, events, people, etc., - just not everything obviously.

If you believe everything in the Bible is literal or fact, then the leading question becomes unnecessary. What evidence, specifically from the Bible, compels you to believe the resurrection is true?

With respect to non-Christians, there are two types of conversations that can be had with respect to the Biblical claim. The most common is the historical argument. However, a more recent argument championed by John Warwick Montgomery beginning in the 1960s/1970s was the legal argument - the argument being that if Paul had been put on trial in the first century A.D. for lying about the Resurrection, per traditionally accepted concepts of Western law, based on the witnesses available at the time, he would have been found not guilty.

However, I don't expect you to accept any of that. I think it would be better to begin with this question: Do you accept that resuscitating someone declared legally dead is possible?

I'd rather just stick to the OP. What is the evidence which compels [you] to the fact of a resurrection?

 

[Resha Caner]

Not so fast Even non-believers can accept some stuff claimed from the Bible (i.e.) places, events, people, etc., - just not everything obviously.

Fair.

If you believe everything in the Bible is literal or fact, then the leading question becomes unnecessary. What evidence, specifically from the Bible, compels you to believe the resurrection is true?

Also fair, but I'm not sure my reasons for believing the Bible match with your impression of why Christians believe the Bible.

I'd rather just stick to the OP. What is the evidence which compels [you] to the fact of a resurrection?

OK, but I still think it's an important point. If you don't believe it was medically possible to resuscitate Jesus, it doesn't matter what the Bible says. I didn't check the medical science behind resuscitation before I believed, but I have looked at it and was surprised. I expected everything to oppose resuscitating Jesus, but that's not what I found.

Anyway, evidence that convinced me. Hmm. I'd have to say it was more a trust thing than an evidence thing. When I was young my parents believed it, and I trusted them. When I got older and decided to doubt everything, I had some serious spiritual push back that convinced me God exists. So then it became a matter of trusting God.

 

[Halbhh]

At the end of some of these discussions, the believer will stop the debate,

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.

 

[cvanwey]

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.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the thread. I'm not going to entertain it, regardless.

If you wish to join in to present the evidence, great. If not, then please remain in the background, and read of others; or go elsewhere.

Thnx

 

[Halbhh]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the thread. I'm not going to entertain it, regardless.

If you wish to join in to present the evidence, great. If not, then please remain in the background, and read of others; or go elsewhere.

Thnx

But are you sincerely asking real questions -- or are they instead only tactical repetitions of rhetorical points, and you don't really want them to be answered?

That's what it looks like in the past, many times.

@Resha Caner might be familiar with such from you, but I want everyone to beware.

 

[cvanwey]

OK, but I still think it's an important point. If you don't believe it was medically possible to resuscitate Jesus, it doesn't matter what the Bible says. I didn't check the medical science behind resuscitation before I believed, but I have looked at it and was surprised. I expected everything to oppose resuscitating Jesus, but that's not what I found.

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

Anyway, evidence that convinced me. Hmm. I'd have to say it was more a trust thing than an evidence thing. When I was young my parents believed it, and I trusted them. When I got older and decided to doubt everything, I had some serious spiritual push back that convinced me God exists. So then it became a matter of trusting God.

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

When you state you trust God, do you claim to interact with Him? Or, you trust that He is there, even though you do not apprehend direct contact from Him?

 

[cvanwey]

But are you sincerely asking real questions -- or are they instead only tactical repetitions of rhetorical points, and you don't really want them to be answered?

That's what it looks like in the past, many times.

@Resha Caner might be familiar with such from you, but I want everyone to beware.

It' no secret I'm a current unbeliever. This arena is designed for non-believers to challenge believers. I trust [you] are aware of this reality?

Now, if you have evidence, bring it. If not, then you are merely here to smear my character.

 

[Silmarien]

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

What other claims? I'm unfamiliar with any similar claims from other religions. The closest you can get is Mohammed, and he never claimed to be the Messiah.

 

[Halbhh]

It' no secret I'm a current unbeliever. This arena is designed for non-believers to challenge believers. I trust [you] are aware of this reality?

Now, if you have evidence, bring it. If not, then you are merely here to smear my character.

Asking why you are doing what you've done isn't a smear of course.

Would you like to address that question above?

I'll repost it if needed.

 

[cvanwey]

What other claims? I'm unfamiliar with any similar claims from other religions. The closest you can get is Mohammed, and he never claimed to be the Messiah.

Evidence to support any opposing 'god(s)' in general.

What compels you to entertain the idea that a resurrection might have happened?

 

[cvanwey]

Asking why you are doing what you've done isn't a smear of course.

Would you like to address that question above?

I'll repost it if needed.

I would like for you to participate in the OP. If you do not plan on it, then please move on.

 

[Halbhh]

But are you sincerely asking real questions -- or are they instead only tactical repetitions of list of rhetorical points you have stored up to repeat just for effect, and you don't really want them to be answered?


I've had discussions with cvanwey in many threads, for many hundreds of posts, so I'm asking based on that experience.

 

[cvanwey]

But are you sincerely asking real questions -- or are they instead only tactical repetitions of list of rhetorical points you have stored up to repeat just for effect, and you don't really want them to be answered?

Last response, unless you participate.

If the evidence is sound, I will have no choice but to concede it as valid.

What'za got?

 

[Silmarien]

Evidence to support any opposing 'god(s)' in general.

I've never seen evidence provided for opposing gods. Do you have any?

What compels you to entertain the idea that a resurrection might have happened?

Initially? I guess I just always had an interest in Mary Magdalene. The whole Apostle to the Apostles being a woman thing eventually really caught my attention.

 

[Halbhh]

Last response, unless you participate.

If the evidence is sound, I will have no choice but to concede it as valid.

What'za got?

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.

 

[cvanwey]

I've never seen evidence provided for opposing gods. Do you have any?

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.

Initially? I guess I just always had an interest in Mary Magdalene. The whole Apostle to the Apostles being a woman thing eventually really caught my attention.

And now?

 

[cvanwey]

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.

Finally. Thank you for that. The whole Hebrews 11 approach

Have you ever entertained the idea that the people whom wrote such said passages were clever in doing so. This way, if you are already preconditioned to believe in it, you will be more easily convinced it's true, possibly lacking tangible evidence?

Just asking?

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]

Finally. Thank you for that. The whole Hebrews 11 approach

Have you ever entertained the idea that the people whom wrote such said passages were clever in doing so. This way, if you are already preconditioned to believe in it, you will be more easily convinced it's true, possibly lacking tangible evidence?

Just asking?

I was an atheist, from such influences as Ayn Rand at age 12 (about the right age for her in a way).

So, I never bothered to wonder if Hebrews was made up -- I just believed it had to be more religious false ideas.

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.