Resurrection Evidence

[Tone]

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

Acts 2
"23He was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross. 24But God raised Him from the dead, releasing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for Him to be held in its clutches."

That no fault was found in Him as testified by the governing authorities...and so the death sentence was overturned.

 

[Resha Caner]

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?

People don't ask me to convince them of the resurrection. You may bristle at the idea, but usually such questions are rhetorical - a challenge.

So, I wouldn't offer anything. I would try to engage them in a conversation.

 

[cvanwey]

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.

I'm not following your rationale here.... Let me demonstrate why....

Example:
Test different ways for men to treat women.

Establish 3 ways, precise details.

A) Treat them like property

B) Treat them like an animal

C) Treat them with honor

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

Tada....

“A good man treats women with honour.” Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

This must start to suggest Muhammad is the 'real deal.'

AGAIN, what evidence suggests that Jesus rose from he dead?

 

[Silmarien]

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?

Define "compelling." I think it's hard to argue that the apostles didn't experience something life-changing, given the less than stellar portrayal of them before the Crucifixion. I also think it's hard to argue that Paul didn't experience something to cause his sudden conversion. I don't think historical analysis of a specific, concrete event can get us further than that, though.

 

[BigV]

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

Typically, Christians, such as WLC, will argue that no natural explanation can explain the origin of belief in Jesus' resurrection, therefore, Jesus rose from the dead.

However, WLC and others don't account for competing supernatural explanations. If we start positting supernatural forces as explanation for this or that event, then now we must include Satan too, who could have supernaturally tricked the original Christians into believing a lie.

 

[cloudyday2]

"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.

And what is the predicted outcome for that action? Jesus said to love your neighbors ... period ... end of instruction. Jesus didn't say to love your neighbors so that you will gain enlightenment or so that you will gain good health or something. The love is supposed to be the goal rather than the means to achieve a goal.

So we can't test that instruction from Jesus. We need an instruction of the form "do X and Y will happen" to be testable IMO.

 

[cvanwey]

People don't ask me to convince them of the resurrection. You may bristle at the idea, but usually such questions are rhetorical - a challenge.

So, I wouldn't offer anything. I would try to engage them in a conversation.

That's fine. But I find it curious that God's attempt in convincing non-believers and skeptics is instead left in the hands of mere humans. Seems as though God could provide the same amount of compelling evidence that God asserts He will provide later, via Revelation. You know...

"Every knee will bow, every tongue will confess."

Seems a little suspect, that the believer sometimes has to resort to threats, such as, 'believe before it is too late." Or, "God will reveal to all in His chosen time.' etc...

I'm not saying you are or will do this; but I do find it curious none-the-less

 

[BigV]

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.

Well, that's a strange rule, if you think about it. How would you treat someone doing harm to your children? How would you love them as yourself?

Secondly, when it comes to Christmas presents and such, do you give neighbors the same gifts that you give to your loved ones?

I think Jesus' teachings are mostly nonsensical. They sound nice, but fail when you try to apply them. Most people read "Love your neighbor as yourself" and interpret it as meaning "Be nice and kind to people".

 

[SPF]

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?

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.

You asked for compelling evidence. I personally find Saul's conversion to Paul and subsequent life choices to be compelling evidence. I find the life choices of all the apostles to spread the Gospel after claiming to see the resurrected Christ as compelling evidence. If you don't find that compelling, then what WOULD you find compelling?

How can you not find Paul's story compelling? The guy was an incredibly educated, well known, well respected, and feared man. The fact that he went from that to believing in the resurrection sent shock waves through the community. For you to just shrug it off tells me that you really are completely closed off to the potential of the Gospel story being true. I doubt anything short of Jesus physically showing up in your room would suffice at this point as compelling evidence.

 

[cvanwey]

Define "compelling."

I'm not married to this term. I just find it 'fitting' to the context. But here goes it...

"not able to be refuted, overwhelming."

I think it's hard to argue that the apostles didn't experience something life-changing, given the less than stellar portrayal of them before the Crucifixion. I also think it's hard to argue that Paul didn't experience something to cause his sudden conversion. I don't think historical analysis of a specific, concrete event can get us further than that, though.

Addressed in post #58

 

[Resha Caner]

That's fine. But I find it curious that God's attempt in convincing non-believers and skeptics is instead left in the hands of mere humans. Seems as though God could provide the same amount of compelling evidence that God asserts He will provide later, via Revelation. You know...

"Every knee will bow, every tongue will confess."

Seems a little suspect, that the believer sometimes has to resort to threats, such as, 'believe before it is too late." Or, "God will reveal to all in His chosen time.' etc...

I'm not saying you are or will do this; but I do find it curious none-the-less

I've not said God left it to me to convince you. What intrigues me are the different things that convince different people. I've heard a wide variety of stories about how people came to faith.

For you, it might be accepting resuscitation of the dead is possible. It might be a fascination with ancient history. It might be acceptance of the infinite. It might be letting go of a painful past. I wouldn't know.

 

[NBB]

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

You can get enough evidence of God to last a lifetime of believing firmly about him. Because God is alive and likes to do good things to people, i don't think you would understand very well...

 

[Halbhh]

I'm not following your rationale here.... Let me demonstrate why....

Example:
Test different ways for men to treat women.

Establish 3 ways, precise details.

A) Treat them like property

B) Treat them like an animal

C) Treat them with honor

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

Tada....

“A good man treats women with honour.” Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

This must start to suggest Muhammad is the 'real deal.'

AGAIN, what evidence suggests that Jesus rose from he dead?

For us the real world test of "Love your neighbor as yourself" (we are New Testament testing, the instructions from the Christ, yes?, if not, then I have the wrong topic here. ;-)

Would be of the actual alternatives people use, and the best ones available.

To me, at that time, some 25 years ago, these looked like so:

A) Mostly ignore neighbors in all ways possible, but be polite if one speaks to you (yikes! they are speaking to me), and then act casual, and then quickly exit as soon as you can without it being too obvious.

B) Be casually friendly to neighbors in a very standard way, such as having brief 1 minute or less conversations at random, but not too often (not more than say once every few months).

C) Pick out a likely looking nearby neighbor if possible to partially befriend, and then pay attention to that neighbor, and ignore the rest, and eventually invite them for a cookout, or a beer, etc. Make casual conversation about something like music or sports, etc.

D) Love your neighbor as yourself (note this one is really pretty difficult to get over your own resistance to try out and do for many people I think, because it feels....it just feels risky to totally love the particular neighbor that is immediately next door on each side, regardless of how they appear and their manner of life and culture)

Of course, with choices like these, most people have already been doing one, or even 2 of them, and it's not hard to try the other two within a month or 3 timewise, though it can take...something, like emotional courage, or risk taking, or a death wish for your ego, to do the last, D).

But if you are the kind willing to test things, then you can.

 

[Halbhh]

And what is the predicted outcome for that action? Jesus said to love your neighbors ... period ... end of instruction. Jesus didn't say to love your neighbors so that you will gain enlightenment or so that you will gain good health or something. The love is supposed to be the goal rather than the means to achieve a goal.

So we can't test that instruction from Jesus. We need an instruction of the form "do X and Y will happen" to be testable IMO.

Whether the unknown-ahead outcome will be somehow indicative of something, unknown ahead of time. Whether something will turn up that really stands out, and you end up with a pretty clear difference in outcome compared to other possibilities (see post #73 just above for some such).

It was. But not just a little. More like...buying a lottery ticket and then winning $100,000, instead of $3, $5, or $0. It was on that level in the first attempt for me. But I thought it was just luck, so I kept testing. It keeps working.

 

[Chesterton]

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?

Maybe I can kill two birds with one stone by saying that the best single "piece of evidence" is that all other proposed stories do not fare as well as simply accepting an actual resurrection as recounted in the gospels. I'm not going to demonstrate why all of them aren't as good, I probably don't know them all. You can pick the one you think the strongest and we can discuss that if you like.

 

[cvanwey]

You asked for compelling evidence. I personally find Saul's conversion to Paul and subsequent life choices to be compelling evidence. I find the life choices of all the apostles to spread the Gospel after claiming to see the resurrected Christ as compelling evidence. If you don't find that compelling, then what WOULD you find compelling?

Well, if dozens or hundreds of independent accounts of a claimed magical man, claiming to be Jesus, were reported from differing parts of the world, this might begin to raise an eye-brow or two.

Jesus chose to perform a resurrection publicly. How clumsy might one have to be to perform such said task - (a resurrection), and not have adequate independent corroborated accounts, not rendered exclusively solely from the Bible itself?

Demonstrate to people everywhere. Not exclusively to a finite region, where the majority were already wanting believers. And provide accountability - (individual names, individual statements, independent publications, etc), to the claims of the 'hundreds' of others whom claim they also saw as such.

How can you not find Paul's story compelling? The guy was an incredibly educated, well known, well respected, and feared man.

Again, I have no doubt He believed. But please go back to post #58 to explain further.

The fact that he went from that to believing in the resurrection sent shock waves through the community. For you to just shrug it off tells me that you really are completely closed off to the potential of the Gospel story being true.

Negative. I already agreed he believed. Going by your argument, you are stating that because he maybe possessed a high IQ, was educated, and was feared, his anecdotal belief carries more weight. If this were the case, then I should believe humans, whom carry the same attributes, whom have a deep conviction for an opposing deity as well.

I doubt anything short of Jesus physically showing up in your room would suffice at this point as compelling evidence.

I stated what might begin me to question above Many differing sources of anecdotal eyewitness attestation.

 

[Halbhh]

Well, that's a strange rule, if you think about it. How would you treat someone doing harm to your children? How would you love them as yourself?

Secondly, when it comes to Christmas presents and such, do you give neighbors the same gifts that you give to your loved ones?

I think Jesus' teachings are mostly nonsensical. They sound nice, but fail when you try to apply them. Most people read "Love your neighbor as yourself" and interpret it as meaning "Be nice and kind to people".

Whole different question, and He has an answer to that. That's addressed with a few more details, in another few areas of what He said, including for instance (for some situations, and aspects) such as in Matthew in chapter 5 and in 18. Now, generally instead of some abusive neighbor next door, many simply have a total stanger next door they know zero about, until they've lived there quite a while, but still won't know well unless they break the ice somehow. Still, we can remember that being Christian means forgiving, but doesn't mean we prevent the police from arresting those doing criminal actions, or refuse to give evidence, etc., if it is something serious. In all cases, we learn to forgive, and we can ask for aid as needed, and sometimes it is needed. He answers those prayers in my experience.

I noticed you put forth your own hypothesis: "They sound nice, but fail when you try to apply them. " I'm someone that doesn't trust a hypothesis on it's own, just cause it's my preference. Instead I test it, to try to find out what actually happens in reality.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm not married to this term. I just find it 'fitting' to the context. But here goes it...

"not able to be refuted, overwhelming."

Why would you assume that Christians always found the evidence for the Resurrection overwhelming and not able to be refuted? That is an extremely high standard, especially for ancient history.

Addressed in post #58

No, it isn't. You were responding to the claim that the apostles wouldn't martyr themselves for something they didn't know was true. All I'm saying is that the various conversion stories in the New Testament would indicate a life-changing experience. We know what their claims were, but historical analysis cannot assess those claims one way or the other.

Looking at post #58, however, you claim that there is no tangible evidence for the martyrdom of the apostles. If you accept textual criticism of the Gospel of John, there's actually really strong evidence for the crucifixion of Peter, since there's an allusion there to him dying the same type of death as Jesus. (John 21:18-19) Regardless of whether or not that is a genuine prophecy, given the dating of the Gospel of John, that's a pretty clear contemporaneous attestation to the authenticity of the later tradition concerning Peter.

 

[cvanwey]

For us the real world test of "Love your neighbor as yourself" (we are New Testament testing, the instructions from the Christ, yes?, if not, then I have the wrong topic here. ;-)

Would be of the actual alternatives people use, and the best ones available.

To me, at that time, some 25 years ago, these looked like so:

A) Mostly ignore neighbors in all ways possible, but be polite if one speaks to you (yikes! they are speaking to me), and then act casual, and then quickly exit as soon as you can without it being too obvious.

B) Be casually friendly to neighbors in a very standard way, such as having brief 1 minute or less conversations at random, but not too often (not more than say once every few months).

C) Pick out a likely looking nearby neighbor if possible to partially befriend, and then pay attention to that neighbor, and ignore the rest, and eventually invite them for a cookout, or a beer, etc. Make casual conversation about something like music or sports, etc.

D) Love your neighbor as yourself (note this one is really pretty difficult to get over your own resistance to try out and do for many people I think, because it feels....it just feels risky to totally love the particular neighbor that is immediately next door on each side, regardless of how they appear and their manner of life and culture)

Of course, with choices like these, most people have already been doing one, or even 2 of them, and it's not hard to try the other two within a month or 3 timewise, though it can take...something, like emotional courage, or risk taking, or a death wish for your ego, to do the last, D).

But if you are the kind willing to test things, then you can.

It's quite 'ironical'....

Before you started responding, you accused me of 'repeating myself.'

I've asked you several times to provide your best piece of evidence for a resurrection claim.

You instead keep repeating Matthew 7:12

For the LAST time.... Just because a human preached a message of situational ethics, which looks to work well for [you], has absolutely NO bearing on whether or not He rose from the dead. Many people in history have contributed many 'well received lessons'; which you may also find which test 'correct' consistently.

Again, what is the most compelling piece of evidence to support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead?

 

[cvanwey]

I've not said God left it to me to convince you. What intrigues me are the different things that convince different people. I've heard a wide variety of stories about how people came to faith.

For you, it might be accepting resuscitation of the dead is possible. It might be a fascination with ancient history. It might be acceptance of the infinite. It might be letting go of a painful past. I wouldn't know.

Fair enough. But for me, in this case, we can start with post #76. Not asking you to respond to it, just saying...

I'm aware that anecdotal claims is virtually all one might have to any assertion of witness to the 'supernatural', from the ancient past. However, in the case for the 'resurrection', please at least look at this post to gather my take.