Resurrection Evidence

[cvanwey]

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.

I have a simple stating counter point...

Would it be safe to say that the conclusion of 'supernatural' proportions would be the least likely candidate, in any claim?

 

[Chesterton]

I have a simple stating counter point...

Would it be safe to say that the conclusion of 'supernatural' proportions would be the least likely candidate, in any claim?

I don't think so. Why should I think so? That would require a fallacious kind of a priori circular reasoning. Like, "it can't have happened because...it can't happen".

 

[cvanwey]

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.

I had this copied before it was deleted:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/):

'Jesus’ death on the cross, as described in the New Testament, has become one of the most famous events. But what happened to the 12 disciples who were his closest followers? Not as much information has survived about their fates, but here is what’s available from various sources, including the a) New Testament itself, b) apocryphal texts, c) early Christian historians, d) legends and lore.'

******************

a) Using the New Testament, to prove the New Testament, is just as circular as using the Quran to validate their claimed Islamic martyrs located in Chapter 3, Verse 169 (and) Chapter 46, Verse 14.


b) Apocryphal means - '(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.' - Oxford Dictionary


c) A Christian historian will be bias towards their belief, just like a Muslim historian would be towards their beliefs.


D) Legends and lore is most likely the main culprit, as with many growing tales over time. The New Testament Bible was written decades after such claimed events, by way of oral tradition and/or claimed inspiration from god. Repeated story telling leads to fabrication, addition, subtraction, tales, and manipulation. Claims to authors receiving inspiration from god, especially from the anonymous authored sources, rely upon nothing other than faith to be true. Faith is belief in place of, or instead of, evidence. Please also remember we do not even have the original manuscripts.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't think so. Why should I think so? That would require a fallacious kind of a priori circular reasoning. Like, "it can't have happened because...it can't happen".

So you are saying (instead), that when a claim is asserted, the likelihood of it being 'supernatural' in conclusion is (equal) to all plausible and possible 'natural' based conclusions?

 

[BigV]

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.

So, do you give to everyone who asks of you? (Luke 6:30)

Did you give up all your possessions? (Luke 12:33, Luke 14:33)

Sorry if I'm skeptical of your 'testing' claims.

 

[Chesterton]

So you are saying (instead), that when a claim is asserted, the likelihood of it being 'supernatural' in conclusion is (equal) to all plausible and possible 'natural' based conclusions?

Not with any and every claim, but for a claim where the natural conclusions are poor in comparison, yes.

 

[cvanwey]

Not with any and every claim, but for a claim where the natural conclusions are poor in comparison, yes.

You think all conceivable 'natural based' conclusions, in relation to a 'resurrection' claim, fall short?

 

[Silmarien]

a) Using the New Testament, to prove the New Testament, is just as circular as using the Quran to validate their claimed Islamic martyrs located in Chapter 3, Verse 169 (and) Chapter 46, Verse 14.

This is completely false. The New Testament is a collection of writings produced by the early Christian community, and absolutely serves as a historical source for understanding the origins of Christianity. It is not circular to refer to it--these are our primary sources. This is why biblical scholarship exists.

Similarly, the Quran would be relevant to the study of the origins of Islam. I don't feel like grabbing my copy to check out those verses, but it wouldn't really surprise me if they validate martyrdom claims.

b) Apocryphal means - '(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.' - Oxford Dictionary

Irrelevant, as I was not discussing later legends.

c) A Christian historian will be bias towards their belief, just like a Muslim historian would be towards their beliefs.

Irrelevant, as I was not discussing later historians. Also, all historians are biased in one way or another, so you eliminate all historical research altogether by disqualifying entire writers on account of bias.

D) Legends and lore is most likely the main culprit, as with many growing tales over time. The New Testament Bible was written decades after such claimed events, by way of oral tradition and/or claimed inspiration from god. Repeated story telling leads to fabrication, addition, subtraction, tales, and manipulation. Claims to authors receiving inspiration from god, especially from the anonymous authored sources, rely upon nothing other than faith to be true. Faith is belief in place of, or instead of, evidence. Please also remember we do not even have the original manuscripts.

I think this is unnecessarily skeptical and demonstrates no understanding of how oral history works, but that set aside, it is utterly irrelevant to what I was addressing: the crucifixion of Peter. Peter was one of the leaders of the early Christian community, himself operating several decades after the events of the Gospels, and we have contemporary writings from that initial time period that allude to his death. One does not need to rely on faith to recognize that if there are documents from the Apostolic Age alluding to the death of Peter, one of the pillars of the early church, then this counts as evidence that he did in fact die in the way his contemporaries claimed.

 

[Chesterton]

You think all conceivable 'natural based' conclusions, in relation to a 'resurrection' claim, fall short?

No, not what I said. I indicated earlier that all natural based stories that I've heard, fall short in relation to the story given in the Christian gospels.

 

[cvanwey]

No, not what I said. I indicated earlier that all natural based stories that I've heard, fall short in relation to the story given in the Christian gospels.

Okay, which ones have you heard?

 

[cloudyday2]

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.

I don't follow what you are saying, but I do think it is good that you are trying to love your neighbors. We all need to do that.

Are you are saying that the reward you perceive for loving your neighbors is always a surprise? In other words you don't know what you are going to receive and you don't know how soon? If so, then you need to be careful you are not imagining a connection between the action of loving and the reward. Of course it is great for us to try to love each other, so I am not opposing your thinking.

 

[Resha Caner]

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?

It's not as rare as one might think. It was quite common for victorious kings to wipe out all trace and record of their defeated foes, and so there are many gaping holes in ancient history. As Ryan Reeves has shown, the Romans were puzzled by Christians. The Jewish stand at Megiddo was something they understood and respected. Fight for what you believe in. Though the Romans crushed many nations, it was common for them to incorporate what they respected from their defeated foes - hence the Pantheon. But these pacifist Christians who wouldn't fight and wouldn't break were dumbfounding. Hence, as Paul Maier has argued, there is some circumstantial evidence that the Romans considered adding Jesus to the Pantheon, but decided not to. They thought him weak and pathetic - something to mock.

As an example, how could it be that a vaunted leader from a major nation could accomplish one of the most amazing military feats of the ancient world, yet there is no evidence of his trek with a coterie of elephants across the Alps, no first hand records of the battle, and no documents that he (Hannibal) ever even existed? All that remains are a few accounts recorded decades (Is it decades or centuries? I forget.) … accounts recorded decades after by old, teetering veterans of the age. Hmm. Sounds familiar.

And that's not the only example. What you ask for, then, is evidence that can't be provided for any ancient person or event with maybe the exception of a Caesar here and there. Hence my question to another non-Christian in these forums about Presentism.

I then ask you as well. Do you also discount the existence of all these other ancient persons? Buddha, Mohamed, Confucius, the Pharaohs, etc.?

 

[cvanwey]

This is completely false. The New Testament is a collection of writings produced by the early Christian community, and absolutely serves as a historical source for understanding the origins of Christianity. It is not circular to refer to it--these are our primary sources. This is why biblical scholarship exists.

Similarly, the Quran would be relevant to the study of the origins of Islam. I don't feel like grabbing my copy to check out those verses, but it wouldn't really surprise me if they validate martyrdom claims.

In the prior response, you stated, 'if you accept textual criticism of John." Well, I kind of don't I don't really care to battle it out, but lets just say I find this Gospel the 'most likely highly fabricated' of the 4 Gospels.

Irrelevant, as I was not discussing later historians. Also, all historians are biased in one way or another, so you eliminate all historical research altogether by disqualifying entire writers on account of bias.

I honestly didn't claim you did It was just an article of interest.

I think this is unnecessarily skeptical and demonstrates no understanding of how oral history works,

Um, okay?

we have contemporary writings from that initial time period that allude to his death.

We do?

Papyrus 52 - a Fragment of John's Gospel

 

[cloudyday2]

I think this is unnecessarily skeptical and demonstrates no understanding of how oral history works, but that set aside, it is utterly irrelevant to what I was addressing: the crucifixion of Peter. Peter was one of the leaders of the early Christian community, himself operating several decades after the events of the Gospels, and we have contemporary writings from that initial time period that allude to his death. One does not need to rely on faith to recognize that if there are documents from the Apostolic Age alluding to the death of Peter, one of the pillars of the early church, then this counts as evidence that he did in fact die in the way his contemporaries claimed.

What documents are you referring to from the apostolic age? The gospel of John has Jesus apparently predicting the crucifixion of Peter. If we imagine the gospel of John as a recording of an actual prediction by Jesus then it isn't a historical account of Peter's crucifixion. On the other hand if we imagine that the gospel writer was falsely putting words into the mouth of Jesus (maybe unknowingly) then it would be a historical account from 90 AD or so. Of course the possible historical reference to Peter's crucifixion in the gospel of John doesn't necessarily mean that it happened. Maybe this was an early legend that was recorded.

Just curious - not trying to be nit-picky.

 

[cvanwey]

I then ask you as well. Do you also discount the existence of all these other ancient persons? Buddha, Mohamed, Confucius, the Pharaohs, etc.?

I will tenatively accept the claims for the existence of Alexander the Great, Jesus, Confucius, etc...

It's like I've told others here... Broken record time -- I accept the claims to Alexander being born, living, fighting in battle, and dying of fever. But I do not accept that he was the son of Zeus, as he may have claimed.

Going back to the claims for a resurrection....

Though I acknowledge anecdotal eyewitness testimony might be the [only] viable way one could argue a one-off event in the past, again, I find it quite clumsy to not appear to many unattached and unrelated educated individuals, whom would write of seeing such an event. If we had many contemporaneous corroborated attestations of seeing a man, claiming to be named Jesus, and doing this and that postmortem, then we've got something. But we don't.

And even if He did do this, I would still find fault, if God did not assure that such evidence was preserved, instead of destroyed by men.

 

[Silmarien]

In the prior response, you stated, 'if you accept textual criticism of John." Well, I kind of don't I don't really care to battle it out, but lets just say I find this Gospel the 'most likely highly fabricated' of the 4 Gospels.

Do you know what textual criticism is? It's usually people who adhere to very robust theories of divine inspiration who reject textual criticism, not skeptics. If someone sees the Gospel of John as primarily the product of the Christian community decades after the events being recounted, they can look at references to Peter's crucifixion and conclude that the document was written after this event happened and is incorporating an anachronistic reference to it into the narrative.

We do?

Papyrus 52 - a Fragment of John's Gospel

Yes, we do. The Gospel of John comes from the Apostolic Age. That means that it's a primary source for the first generation of Christians.

We don't date documents based on the earliest surviving fragments that are still available. Those are seldom going to be the original versions.

 

[Silmarien]

What documents are you referring to from the apostolic age? The gospel of John has Jesus apparently predicting the crucifixion of Peter. If we imagine the gospel of John as a recording of an actual prediction by Jesus then it isn't a historical account of Peter's crucifixion. On the other hand if we imagine that the gospel writer was falsely putting words into the mouth of Jesus (maybe unknowingly) then it would be a historical account from 90 AD or so. Of course the possible historical reference to Peter's crucifixion in the gospel of John doesn't necessarily mean that it happened. Maybe this was an early legend that was recorded.

Just curious - not trying to be nit-picky.

I would view it as an historical account from 90 AD or so. I don't view it as a prediction (especially since it's absent elsewhere), though even if it were one, I don't see any reason to think that people would remember it until after it came to pass.

I don't consider the idea that it's an early legend particularly credible, because I think it's too soon, the figure of Peter is too important for people to pretend he was executed when he wasn't, and what we see referenced in John is not particularly legendary in nature anyway. Later ideas like it taking place in Rome and specific grisly details about it are more likely to be legendary in nature.

 

[Resha Caner]

And even if He did do this, I would still find fault, if God did not assure that such evidence was preserved, instead of destroyed by men.

First things first.

Though I acknowledge anecdotal eyewitness testimony might be the [only] viable way one could argue a one-off event in the past, again, I find it quite clumsy to not appear to many unattached and unrelated educated individuals, whom would write of seeing such an event. If we had many contemporaneous corroborated attestations of seeing a man, claiming to be named Jesus, and doing this and that postmortem, then we've got something. But we don't.

But this is special pleading. I'm telling you that what you're asking for isn't available for other extraordinary events in the ancient world. Why would it be available here? It's not like rejecting Hannibal's birth, but rejecting that he was a tactical and logistical genius. The same for Alexander, who also accomplished amazing military feats. The same for the Egyptians and Mayans who accomplished amazing architectural feats - the Polynesians who accomplished amazing navigational feats. You can't accept those, and then say this particular case requires special evidence lacking in those other cases.

So take the Polynesians. One could argue that maybe they spread via a land bridge in the very distant past, and that without evidence such a claim is equally plausible to navigating the Pacific in tiny open boats … until Thor Heyerdahl demonstrated it was possible. But once Heyerdahl shows it is possible, a very interesting corollary is also revealed. Why? Because there's still no evidence that's how the Polynesians did it. People's objections, then, aren't really about evidence, but about their own lack of imagination. Because they couldn't personally think up a way to cross the Pacific in a tiny open boat, couldn't do it themselves, they won't accept other people doing it.

Therefore, the only way your question is viable is if you are asking for evidence, not for one specific event, but general evidence that resuscitation of the dead is even possible. If that's not what you're asking, it's special pleading.

 

[cvanwey]

Do you know what textual criticism is? It's usually people who adhere to very robust theories of divine inspiration who reject textual criticism, not skeptics. If someone sees the Gospel of John as primarily the product of the Christian community decades after the events being recounted, they can look at references to Peter's crucifixion and conclude that the document was written after this event happened and is incorporating an anachronistic reference to it into the narrative.

Like I stated, I care not to battle it out, regarding 'Peter' and 'John'. I'm afraid we might be speaking past one another a bit. But it's okay. I'm trying to focus on evidence for a resurrection claim.

Even if I were to concede everything, or if it were proven that Peter was martyred in the way asserted (which I currently don't), all this would 'prove' is that maybe Peter really did believe what he believed. This no further validates it's 'truthiness', as people can die for as many false beliefs as true beliefs.

Yes, we do. The Gospel of John comes from the Apostolic Age. That means that it's a primary source for the first generation of Christians.

We don't date documents based on the earliest surviving fragments that are still available. Those are seldom going to be the original versions.

This essentially means very little. 'First generation Christians' is a very loose term, at best. You know how much hearsay can develop in 150 years? Heck, Elvis only died ~40 years ago, and look how much legend has developed there.

We don't have anything original to Jesus, nor do we for almost any works of antiquity. We do our best to piece together what we have, yes. But please do not 'fabricate/redefine' words. We do not have any contemporary records for Jesus, as we don't with most works of antiquity.

 

[cvanwey]

But this is special pleading.

Negative. See below...

I'm telling you that what you're asking for isn't available for other extraordinary events in the ancient world. Why would it be available here?

You missed what I stated in my prior response. I generally accept the claimed birth, events, and death of such claimed humans. BUT, if any of these individuals claimed extra-ordinary stuff, I would then require extra-ordinary evidence of them all equally Battles, architecture, etc., are mundane claims.

'Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.' You've heard it before I presume.

Claims of resurrections, being of Zeus, restoring dead people, etc., all require that 'something extra.' Otherwise, those claims made without evidence can surely be equally be dismissed without evidence. In this case, the Bible is the claim. If eyewitness attestation is the only available means, then it seems logical to provide third party reports of the same event. If not, then we have the claim 'proving' the claim.

 

[Silmarien]

Like I stated, I care not to battle it out, regarding 'Peter' and 'John'. I'm afraid we might be speaking past one another a bit. But it's okay. I'm trying to focus on evidence for a resurrection claim.

Even if I were to concede everything, or if it were proven that Peter was martyred in the way asserted (which I currently don't), all this would 'prove' is that maybe Peter really did believe what he believed. This no further validates it's 'truthiness', as people can die for as many false beliefs as true beliefs.

I've never said that it validates the truth of what Peter believes. I'm just interested in the historical question of whether Peter was also crucified, and I'd say there's good reason to say that he was.

This essentially means very little. 'First generation Christians' is a very loose term, at best. You know how much hearsay can develop in 150 years? Heck, Elvis only died ~40 years ago, and look how much legend has developed there.

We don't have anything original to Jesus, nor do we for almost any works of antiquity. We do our best to piece together what we have, yes. But please do not 'fabricate/redefine' words. We do not have any contemporary records for Jesus, as we don't with most works of antiquity.

The topic is contemporary records for Peter, not for Jesus, and the fact of the matter is that they very much do exist. If you deny that, that would suggest that you do not know what a primary source is. Furthermore, the Gospel of John was not written 150 years after the death of Peter--you're completely out of step with modern scholarship if you think it's from the end of the 2nd century.