Resurrection Evidence

[cvanwey]

All that says is that you don't understand what those people did - weren't around when the idea of Polynesians sailing the Pacific was thought extraordinary and ridiculous - weren't around to hear the scoffers and naysayers calling Heyerdahl a nut. When was the last time you crossed the Pacific in a small, open boat?

Your position is special pleading. Show me the formal logical system we can both use to distinguish "mundane" events from "extraordinary" events and we'll talk. If you want to hold me accountable, you must also submit yourself to some accountability. It goes both ways.

Well, even though I can partially empathize with your plight, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof here. Let me explain...

I doubt we need a 20-50 reply exchange on me determining what is considered 'mundane' vs 'exceptional'.

Example: A 9-month-old taking their first steps on their own (mundane, though rare) vs a 9-month-old running the 100 meter dash in 14 seconds (extra-ordinary, and requires more evidence).

Lets just agree now to common sense

The burden is ON YOU to demonstrate that a man was dead for ~3 days in a tomb, and came back to life, to demonstrate His glory to many.

Can you do that?

 

[Silmarien]

Was Lazarus a historical person? He was remarkably transformed from a fictional character in Luke’s Gospel to Jesus’ friend in “John’s” Gospel. Even Evangelical scholars consider Lazarus to be the “disciple whom Jesus loved”.

interesting note. In Luke’s Gospel, Luke 16, rich man asks that Lazarus be resurrected so that he could preach to rich man’s brothers whereas in John’s Gospel, Lazarus is actually resurrected!

in Luke’s Gospel, there is no resurrection of Lazarus because it’s not going to accomplish anything, since the rich man’s brothers already have Moses’ writings. In John’s Gospel resurrection of Lazarus has a great effect where many people believe in Jesus due to him raising Lazarus from the dead!

historical accounts???

I don't really think that Lazarus was a historical person, though I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mary and Martha were. I interpret the Gospel of John as being largely theological in nature, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have historical relevance as a witness to what was going on later in the early church. (The conflict with the larger Jewish community, references to Peter's later execution.) I've also seen it suggested that the sequence of events presented in the Gospel of John might be more accurate than in the Synoptics, so yes, there is definitely historical value here.

If you guys want to pretend that there's no historical context for the creation of the Gospels, and literally everything that appears in them was later legends with no foundation, including statements made about the leaders of the early church, I can't help you. I don't think that's a particularly coherent historical position, but you're welcome to believe what you want.

But if you're going to say that we need the original versions of 2000 year old documents to address historical questions, and without that all we have is conjecture, then you're invalidating the entirety of ancient history, because that type of original documentation almost never exists.

Okay, let’s play history. According to the book of Acts, the first Christian church was in Jerusalem! James was their leader. So what happened to that church? Why is there a record of Peter being the first Pope and record of Peter’s disciples whereas no record of the church in Jerusalem except what is written in Acts? How could they just vanish without a historical trace? And how plausible is it that we have a Roman Catholic Church but not Jerusalem Catholic Church?

?????

There are references to James and the church in Jerusalem in the Pauline Epistles, in the Church Fathers, in some of the apocrypha, in Josephus, and possibly in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There's way more documentation about James in Jerusalem than there is about Peter in Rome.

 

[cvanwey]

The world, as it was known then, has been completely discoed...and you don't think that this is extra-ordinary evidence?

Acts 17
"5 The Jews, however, became jealous. So they brought in some troublemakers from the marketplace, formed a mob, and sent the city into an uproar. They raided Jason’s house in search of Paul and Silas, hoping to bring them out to the people. 6 But when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some other brothers before the city officials, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have now come here, 7 and Jason has welcomed them into his home. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying there is another king, named Jesus!”

How do you, as @Silmarien said, "...destroy the entirety of ancient history."? Do you presume to say that The Story played no role in shaping the culture (among other things) in which you currently reside?

As I just told @Resha Caner , common sense.

Yes, many 'game changing' things happen in history. At the end of the day, the claim of a man rising from the dead after 3 days, to demonstrate His glory, requires it's own extra-ordinary evidence.

I have also stated, in other responses, it seems, to me anyways, that if we at least had multiple independent contemporary corroborated reports, then maybe I would think twice about it. But it appears that we do not. Again, if eyewitness testimony is the key, then what say-you, honestly, about what has been left behind for human analysis? Is this the best God could do? Or maybe He does not care? Or maybe He purposefully wants many to reject, due to a lack in evidence? Or other?

 

[cvanwey]

and in another case you reject it all:

I thought I had made myself clear here? I accept He was born, lived, and was put on a cross for death.

Coming back from dead, after 3 days, requires evidence. Do you have anything worth addressing? To my recollection, you stated, 'the Bible'. I have already laid out my cards, what is yours?

[edit] Or, if you want to forego all that and acknowledge my original point, we can do that. The point was: It's not that you believe the Resurrection is possible, but just don't believe the historical claim that Jesus did it. Rather, you simply don't believe Resurrection is possible.

​

I don't believe He resurrected. If you can provide ample eyewitness attested accounts, as explained in other responses, then I would re-think my current position. Proof of Him resurrecting from the dead would obviously satisfy the other, that 'resurrection is possible.'

 

[BigV]

There are references to James and the church in Jerusalem in the Pauline Epistles, in the Church Fathers, in some of the apocrypha, in Josephus, and possibly in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There's way more documentation about James in Jerusalem than there is about Peter in Rome.

I agree the New Testament texts talk about James, and Jerusalem Church but what happened after James? History of the Christian Church goes back to Rome, in fine detail.

We find there were “heretical” Jewish Christian sects in Ancient Israel.

so wouldn’t they be historically accurate in terms of historical Jesus (assuming he existed) than the Christians in Rome?

If you guys want to pretend that there's no historical context for the creation of the Gospels, and literally everything that appears in them was later legends with no foundation, including statements made about the leaders of the early church, I can't help you. I don't think that's a particularly coherent historical position, but you're welcome to believe what you want.

I think there are good reasons to suspect that much of the Gospels were written from the Old Testament stories, similar to sayings of Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews. There, Jesus, or the Son, speaks exclusively quoting the Old Testament.

Having said that, there is no money or grants in discovering that Christianity is just version 1.0 of Mormonism, with special revelations being sold as the word of God.

 

[BigV]

I'm not missing that. I'm fully aware of it. I have an M.A. in history, and this was a major topic of my program. Did you think Christians are never skeptical?

I think Christians are seldom skeptical of the Bible claims. How can a skeptic believe the resurrection, coming back to life, literally happened? If you can believe that, then teleportation should be easy to believe as well. After all, you live in a world where resurrection(s) happen!

As for me, history cannot be proven with 100 percent certainty. Some events are more probable than others but certainty is next to impossible, and I’m talking about claims that correspond to our observations!

 

[Silmarien]

I agree the New Testament texts talk about James, and Jerusalem Church but what happened after James? History of the Christian Church goes back to Rome, in fine detail.

Jerusalem was extremely unstable do to the rebellions against Rome, and Christianity became a Mediterranean phenomenon rather than just a Jewish one. I'm not sure why you'd expect the most important center to continue to be Jerusalem, given the political realities of the Roman Empire.

We find there were “heretical” Jewish Christian sects in Ancient Israel.

so wouldn’t they be historically accurate in terms of historical Jesus (assuming he existed) than the Christians in Rome?

Later claims about the historical Jesus are apocryphal no matter where they're from, so not exactly historically accurate. See, for example, the Protoevangelium of James.

I think there are good reasons to suspect that much of the Gospels were written from the Old Testament stories, similar to sayings of Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews. There, Jesus, or the Son, speaks exclusively quoting the Old Testament.

Sure, if you think that the Gospel writers were literary geniuses, I suppose this could work. Given the quality of much of the apocryphal works, though, I just don't think the early Christian community was competent enough to pull a Shakespeare like that. Fullscale fabrication is pretty easy to detect.

I also find it a bit puzzling that people think it suspicious that a 1st century Jewish rabbi would be referencing the Hebrew Scriptures. What else would you expect?

 

[cloudyday2]

Something I have always noticed is how the narrative in the gospels dries-up after the Resurrection. There is mention that the resurrected Jesus explained his mission and teachings in greater detail to his disciples for 40 days and then ascended to heaven. Why was none of that 40 days recorded in some detail as the previous 3 years had been?

Maybe the story of Jesus remaining 40 days on Earth after the resurrection was a later legend.

 

[Tone]

it's own extra-ordinary evidence

Every true believer has this...He's called The Comforter.

what say-you, honestly, about what has been left behind for human analysis? Is this the best God could do? Or maybe He does not care? Or maybe He purposefully wants many to reject, due to a lack in evidence? Or other?

He is Personally involved with each individual throughout the entire process of believing and we have, at its climax, the reception of the Holy Spirit!

2 Corinthians 1
"21Now it is God who establishes both us and you in Christ. He anointed us, 22placed His seal on us, and put His Spirit in our hearts as a pledge of what is to come."

 

[Tone]

Okay, let’s play history. According to the book of Acts, the first Christian church was in Jerusalem! James was their leader. So what happened to that church? Why is there a record of Peter being the first Pope and record of Peter’s disciples whereas no record of the church in Jerusalem except what is written in Acts? How could they just vanish without a historical trace? And how plausible is it that we have a Roman Catholic Church but not Jerusalem Catholic Church?

It may have been easier to take Christian “history” seriously if there weren’t so many forgeries. I mean, we have a letter written by Jesus to king Abgar.

What @Silmarien said.



*

There are references to James and the church in Jerusalem in the Pauline Epistles, in the Church Fathers, in some of the apocrypha, in Josephus, and possibly in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There's way more documentation about James in Jerusalem than there is about Peter in Rome

 

[Silmarien]

Something I have always noticed is how the narrative in the gospels dries-up after the Resurrection. There is mention that the resurrected Jesus explained his mission and teachings in greater detail to his disciples for 40 days and then ascended to heaven. Why was none of that 40 days recorded in some detail as the previous 3 years had been?

Maybe the story of Jesus remaining 40 days on Earth after the resurrection was a later legend.

My major concern with calling it a legend would be that I'm not sure to what degree the ancient Jews used numbers in the same way we do. Or just how they perceived time at all, given that biblical Hebrew has aspect but not tense. Forty is just such an important number, though, it could have been a week and they might still have used the number forty to describe it.

 

[Tone]

Something I have always noticed is how the narrative in the gospels dries-up after the Resurrection

Maybe the narrative dries up, because the game changed:

2 Corinthians 3
"2You yourselves are our letter, inscribed on our hearts, known and read by everyone. 3It is clear that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts."

Maybe mere words on animal skin were overshadowed by the real power of a Spirit-filled existence.

 

[BigV]

Jerusalem was extremely unstable do to the rebellions against Rome, and Christianity became a Mediterranean phenomenon rather than just a Jewish one. I'm not sure why you'd expect the most important center to continue to be Jerusalem, given the political realities of the Roman Empire.

Well, Christians are the ones claiming they have historical documents. You can't have Acts as history and unstable Jerusalem as history.

Acts has a contradictory picture.

Acts 8:
8 And Saul approved of their killing him.
On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.

Very strange and targeted persecution. Leave the apostles, but persecute everyone else?

And we find that James never left Jerusalem, but there continued to be a sizable presence of Christians there, where they had councils, see Acts 15

But who is persecuting Christians? There is a curious story of Acts 21

17 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you.

here we read Paul coming to Jerusalem, and he is told about many THOUSANDS Jews who have believed and yet they remain zealous for the law (of Moses). And Paul is warned about these Christian believers by "... they will certainly hear that yo have come..." statement! Is Paul about to receive a warm welcome?

So, who was historical Jesus? Was Paul his follower or was James? And what happened to these thousands of Jews who were believers but also zealous for the Law?

Paul himself says that he was persecuted due to his stance on the circumcision.
Gal. NIV 5:11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.

Later claims about the historical Jesus are apocryphal no matter where they're from, so not exactly historically accurate. See, for example, the Protoevangelium of James.

Well, if we take the Gospel narrative, Jesus came, did his miracles, was confused for risen John the Baptist, ascended into heaven, and whose resurrection was totally forgotten.

Acts 23:
6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” 7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.)

9 There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. “We find nothing wrong with this man,” they said. “What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?”

Excuse me? Was there this mass amnesia that happened in Acts 23? Pharisees forgot about the risen Christ and how they paid money to the guards to keep quiet about what they saw? They now find NOTHING wrong with Paul is saying, by preaching Christ resurrected from the dead?

Sure, if you think that the Gospel writers were literary geniuses, I suppose this could work. Given the quality of much of the apocryphal works, though, I just don't think the early Christian community was competent enough to pull a Shakespeare like that. Fullscale fabrication is pretty easy to detect.

I also find it a bit puzzling that people think it suspicious that a 1st century Jewish rabbi would be referencing the Hebrew Scriptures. What else would you expect?

Gospels writers were not literally geniueses any more than the Muslim authors of the Quran or Joseph Smith, the author of the Book of Mormon.

I find it puzzling that you think a 1st century Jewish rabbi would reference the Greek version of the Old Testament.

 

[BigV]

Something I have always noticed is how the narrative in the gospels dries-up after the Resurrection. There is mention that the resurrected Jesus explained his mission and teachings in greater detail to his disciples for 40 days and then ascended to heaven. Why was none of that 40 days recorded in some detail as the previous 3 years had been?

Maybe the story of Jesus remaining 40 days on Earth after the resurrection was a later legend.

And I find it curious that a historical Jesus is almost never mentioned by the first Christian Scripture.
It's as if he came to this earth, did his work, and then vanished.

Notice that whenever there are examples of Godly living that is given, we never hear Mary, the mother of Jesus, oe Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist. These Christian authors quote Old Testament prophets as examples.

1 Peter 3:1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

What happened to examples of the saints of their time?

James 5:10 Brothers and sisters, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.

Maybe "James" and "Peter" did not know about the Godly New Testament heroes of the Gospels because the Gospels were not written yet, and they had no clue about their 'history'?

 

[Halbhh]

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?

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.

Yes generally to the first, according to authenticity of course (I can say no to scams I think). 2nd, if you want to discuss what it means to give all for Christ, I'd suggest first just seek God. First things first. You aren't in a position to understand such things well. The gospel seems foolish to those who are lost, unless they have the breakthrough, the ability to hear.So, ask advanced questions later (if you get that chance), after you truly believe He rose and will come again.

 

[Silmarien]

Paul himself says that he was persecuted due to his stance on the circumcision.
Gal. NIV 5:11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.

Yes... the root of Paul's conflict with the church at Jerusalem was that he denied that Gentiles needed to be circumcised. I am not sure what this has to do with the historical Jesus or why you are quoting Acts at me.

Gospels writers were not literally geniueses any more than the Muslim authors of the Quran or Joseph Smith, the author of the Book of Mormon.

Well, I would certainly view Mohammed as a historical figure and not a later invention of "Muslim authors" after the fact also. If you think Islam is one big conspiracy theory, that's your prerogative, but I would say that at a certain point we need to simply accept that religions actually have founders.

I find it puzzling that you think a 1st century Jewish rabbi would reference the Greek version of the Old Testament.

Why would that be at all puzzling? The Septuagint was in use amongst Jews at the time--they didn't abandon it until the 2nd century.

There's no way to know whether Jesus himself used the Hebrew or Greek text--I would assume Hebrew, and that the early Christians referenced the Septuagint themselves, but I suppose Jesus could have used either or even both.

 

[BigV]

Yes... the root of Paul's conflict with the church at Jerusalem was that he denied that Gentiles needed to be circumcised. I am not sure what this has to do with the historical Jesus or why you are quoting Acts at me.

The church of Jerusalem seems to be no different than the Jews who were not Christian. I'm quoting Acts to show you there is a picture of a church that is contradictory. Saul who persecuted the Church before becoming Paul seems to be persecuted by the Church of Jerusalem the same way he was persecuting Christians while presumably being a non-Christian.

I wonder what the real difference is between the Jerusalem Church and Jesus's teachings. Perhaps Christians should call themselves Paulinists?

Why would that be at all puzzling? The Septuagint was in use amongst Jews at the time--they didn't abandon it until the 2nd century.

There's no way to know whether Jesus himself used the Hebrew or Greek text--I would assume Hebrew, and that the early Christians referenced the Septuagint themselves, but I suppose Jesus could have used either or even both.

Per my understanding, Septuagint is only the Greek Translation of Torah. The rest of the Old Testament is not Septuagint and nobody knows who translated it. Rabbinic Jews reject Greek Old Testament and find it differs from the Hebrew texts.

Gospel authors reference Greek translation, even when Jesus is said to be reading it. How historical is that? A Jew reading Greek Old Testament/Tanakh in Judea?

 

[Silmarien]

The church of Jerusalem seems to be no different than the Jews who were not Christian. I'm quoting Acts to show you there is a picture of a church that is contradictory. Saul who persecuted the Church before becoming Paul seems to be persecuted by the Church of Jerusalem the same way he was persecuting Christians while presumably being a non-Christian.

I wonder what the real difference is between the Jerusalem Church and Jesus's teachings. Perhaps Christians should call themselves Paulinists?

I don't see any contradiction in what you quoted from Acts. I'm not even sure what your argument is here, so I can't comment on it. The church of Jerusalem refers specifically to the Christian Jews, though, not to non-Christian Jews.

Per my understanding, Septuagint is only the Greek Translation of Torah. The rest of the Old Testament is not Septuagint and nobody knows who translated it. Rabbinic Jews reject Greek Old Testament and find it differs from the Hebrew texts.

Yes, there are differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text, though the latter was actually compiled considerably later than the Septuagint. We don't really know which one is closer to the original--probably the Masoretic, but we don't have access to the original Hebrew text to know.

The Septuagint is definitely the entire Greek Old Testament, not merely the Torah. We don't know who translated any of it, but it's kind of neat if you're interested in translation more broadly, since parts of it are supposed to be an extremely literal translation from the Hebrew, whereas other parts are actually written in halfway decent Greek.

Gospel authors reference Greek translation, even when Jesus is said to be reading it. How historical is that? A Jew reading Greek Old Testament/Tanakh in Judea?

Extremely historical. The Gospels were written in Greek, so any quotes from the Old Testament would have automatically come from the Septuagint, regardless of what language Jesus had actually used when quoting Scripture himself.

 

[BigV]

Yes generally to the first, according to authenticity of course (I can say no to scams I think). 2nd, if you want to discuss what it means to give all for Christ, I'd suggest first just seek God. First things first. You aren't in a position to understand such things well. The gospel seems foolish to those who are lost, unless they have the breakthrough, the ability to hear.So, ask advanced questions later (if you get that chance), after you truly believe He rose and will come again.

You give off this cultish vibe with your responses. This is something I imagine some cultists, like the Heaven's Gate, would say too. (i.e. you need to be in to really understand why the teachings makes sense).

The reality is that few Christians take Jesus' commands to give up own possessions seriously. I already know what you will say. That Jesus doesn't really want you to give up anything. You'll find a little bit of Paul, a little of Peter and off you go ignoring the clear instruction of Jesus. Namely, give to everyone who asks of you. Scams or not. You are not the Gospel author and you are not allowed to add to it or change the meaning.

You've already said you will say no to scams. Well, Jesus did not exempt scams. So, we agree Jesus' teaching is nonsensical. Difference between you and me is I don't claim to follow Jesus.

 

[BigV]

I don't see any contradiction in what you quoted from Acts. I'm not even sure what your argument is here, so I can't comment on it. The church of Jerusalem refers specifically to the Christian Jews, though, not to non-Christian Jews.

Argument is that you can't tell between beliefs of Rabbinic Jews and Christian Jews. Both seem to want to kill Paul and Christians like him. But if you want to follow Jesus, assuming he is historical, wouldn't he be more like James/Jewish Christians?

There is a curious bit with Jesus fully endorsing Pharisaic teachings in GMatthew
Matt. 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

The Septuagint is definitely the entire Greek Old Testament, not merely the Torah.

What are you basing this claim on?
Septuagint | biblical literature

Septuagint, abbreviation LXX, the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew. The Septuagint was presumably made for the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the common language throughout the region. Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century BCE and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century BCE.

The name Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, “70”) was derived later from the legend that there were 72 translators, 6 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, who worked independently to translate the whole and ultimately produced identical versions.

It's obvious that the translators who translated the Torah 3rd Century BCE were not the same guys who translated the rest of the OT in the 2nd Century CE, around 500 years later.

Extremely historical. The Gospels were written in Greek, so any quotes from the Old Testament would have automatically come from the Septuagint, regardless of what language Jesus had actually used when quoting Scripture himself.

What is you source for the claim that Rabbinic Jews in Judea and Galilee read Greek Tanakh?