Resurrection Evidence

[cvanwey]

Sure, if that means something other than repeatedly asking the same question. For clarity, no there is not a photograph, video, or any evidence of that sort for a resurrection. As you were aware of that before asking the question, it seems rather disingenuous to pose it in the first place. If you can explain what kind of evidence you think might exist, that would be a starting point. But I suspect, for reasons I can only guess at, that you won’t.

Post #1:

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

And just to add...

Post #303:

Please understand [my own personal criteria for historical reporting].

- Any/all historical reports have to be acknowledged as fallible.
- Reported sources, which stem from a particular bias - (politically or socially), tend to lend less plausible 'objective' credibility.
- Reported events, which defy the laws of physics, tend to lend less plausible credibility.
- Hearsay is usually less reliable than first hand reports.
- Such events supported by relevant concrete relics add to the possible veracity...
- Claimed events are independently corroborated, via eyewitness attestation.
- Eyewitness attestations are reported contemporarily.
- Original source documents are preserved, where applicable.

Maybe others, but this is all I can recall off the top of my head...

 

[Tom 1]

Post #1:

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

And just to add...

Post #303:

Please understand [my own personal criteria for historical reporting].

- Any/all historical reports have to be acknowledged as fallible.
- Reported sources, which stem from a particular bias - (politically or socially), tend to lend less plausible 'objective' credibility.
- Reported events, which defy the laws of physics, tend to lend less plausible credibility.
- Hearsay is usually less reliable than first hand reports.
- Such events supported by relevant concrete relics add to the possible veracity...
- Claimed events are independently corroborated, via eyewitness attestation.
- Eyewitness attestations are reported contemporarily.
- Original source documents are preserved, where applicable.

Maybe others, but this is all I can recall off the top of my head...

If you really want to get a handle on all of that, I’d suggest reading and comparing material from Tom Wright and Bart Ehrman. Reading all of it mind you, not just watching a couple of you tube vids. You should be able to cover most of the relevant material in a couple of months. After that a discussion could be interesting - both have different approaches to the same material, you can branch out and check whatever details you find interesting and come back with your opinions on it. It’s impossible to cover all of that in this format, unless your only objective is to make a few trite points based on things you haven’t really looked into. If that’s all you’re into, then count me out, however if you want to do your homework and then come back to compare different views on one thing or another then that could be interesting.

 

[cvanwey]

If you really want to get a handle on all of that, I’d suggest reading and comparing material from Tom Wright and Bart Ehrman. Reading all of it mind you, not just watching a couple of you tube vids. You should be able to cover most of the relevant material in a couple of months. After that a discussion could be interesting - both have different approaches to the same material, you can branch out and check whatever details you find interesting and come back with your opinions on it. It’s impossible to cover all of that in this format, unless your only objective is to make a few trite points based on things you haven’t really looked into. If that’s all you’re into, then count me out, however if you want to do your homework and then come back to compare different views on one thing or another then that could be interesting.

I'm not sure what you are so dang afraid of, or do not quite understand? Furthermore, you have absolutely no clue what I have studied, or what I have already exposed myself to?

You have dodged a good many inquiries, thus far, in this thread. If you are not interested in engaging; and by engaging, I mean to address post #1, then just say so?

I'm not interested in Bart E. or Tom W's take. I'm interested in what compelled YOU to accept a resurrection claim as valid? If you do not care to engage, then again, just say so. But I would then follow up with... Again, WHY are you hanging out in THIS forum?

 

[Tom 1]

I'm not sure what you are so dang afraid of, or do not quite understand? Furthermore, you have absolutely no clue what I have studied, or what I have already exposed myself to?

You have dodged a good many inquiries, thus far, in this thread. If you are not interested in engaging; and by engaging, I mean to address post #1, then just say so?

I'm not interested in Bart E. or Tom W's take. I'm interested in what compelled YOU to accept a resurrection claim as valid? If you do not care to engage, then again, just say so. But I would then follow up with... Again, WHY are you hanging out in THIS forum?

I don't know how to be any clearer about it - I asked you to explain what evidence you meant, given that it is rather obvious there is no direct evidence that can be produced on demand (as for pretty much anything else of a similar nature you might ask about). You kindly responded with a list of things under the heading of historical reporting. Let's be clear about this - if you are interested in that kind of evidence there simply are no shortcuts, either you familiarise yourself with the relevant material, which could lead to something interesting/useful to discuss, or you don't, in which case any discussion will be the same old piffling waste of time. As I've already said in several posts, my reason for taking claims such as the resurrection to be credible are to do with the whole package - for me, the experience of Christianity in action is unmatched with anything else I've observed. Religion I accept is often dry, lacking credibility, hypocritical etc however the fundamental teachings, when practised, live up to their own claims, which are the only claims that matter. Questions of the sort 'what's your evidence' in terms of some unrealistic notion of proof that can be thrown on the table, an extremely limited notion that assumes the rather strange presupposition that there is some standard of absolute proof available, are an attempt to retrofit the bible with some claim that it offers proof of that sort, that should hence be readily producible. Well, it doesn't - does not - not has doesn't whatever negatives you want to use, it isn't a science project or even a historical thesis. You can take it on its own terms, or not. Imposing your own terms as a third option is an exercise in futility.

 

[cvanwey]

As I've already said in several posts, my reason for taking claims such as the resurrection to be credible are to do with the whole package - for me, the experience of Christianity in action is unmatched with anything else I've observed.

And as I've already said, often times in this thread; it's one thing to JUST accept that Jesus was born, preached, and was executed. It's a completely different set of circumstances to then also accept 'miracles.'

You stated prior, that we did not yet have access to video and technology, like we might now. For which I agree, duh

However, I do not find the claims [as difficult] to dissect as you, apparently. In an attempt to save many exchanges, I have provided a list of criteria, for which I feel warrants tangible aspects to investigate any given historical claim from [long ago] or antiquity.

As I have also eluded to, quite often here and elsewhere, just because the Bible gets right the names of some characters, mentions real places, and seems to mention (some) real events in history, does not [then] also lend further credence/credibility to said events -- which defy the laws of physics or nature in general.

I have also stated that just because you agree with Jesus's moral teachings, does not then lend [more] credibility to such supernatural claims.

I have also stated that it seems the only way one could [verify] such said miracles, would be corroborated eyewitness attestation to such said events. And if we find that we do not have as such, then it seems logical to just dismiss, or disregard such claims, until further notice.

Does any of this make any sense? Or, am I just not well read enough, or studied up enough to compete with your apparent caliber of study, analysis, and/or thinking?

I will again, provide, yet another kick-start:

- Any/all historical reports have to be acknowledged as fallible. (We must first agree that there exists a chance or possibility that not everything reported, in these texts, are 100% correct or accurate. If not, then you are a Bible literalist; which I doubt you are). And since I bet we agree here, okay, next....

- Reported sources, which stem from a particular bias - (politically or socially), tend to lend less plausible 'objective' credibility. (Can we agree that it is likely that the <Gospels> were written by later believers, not actual witnesses, which might lend to the conclusion of bias/agenda/motive in some capacity)? (Is is fair to say we do not even know who wrote the Gospels, when, and why exactly? Is it even possible to assume that motive, agenda, and/or bias is in play for these documents)? It's not like someone reported of a war between A and B, and simply listed the number of deaths.....

- Reported events, which defy the laws of physics, tend to lend less plausible credibility. (Is it fair to say that any claims, which report defiance in the laws of physics require much deeper scrutiny; vs claims of mundane natural based occurrences)?

- Hearsay is usually less reliable than first hand reports. (This seems obvious. And furthermore, I trust we can agree such said claims of miracles were written, as told from oral tradition)?

- Such events supported by relevant concrete relics add to the possible veracity... (Do we really have any? And if not, does it really matter)? Who knows? I guess it would depend on [what] we had?

- Claimed events are independently corroborated, via eyewitness attestation. (I trust we agree, as eluded to above, that we really don't have any)? (Which begs the question, WHY believe miraculous claims anyways)?

- Eyewitness attestations are reported contemporarily. (I trust we also agree that all such later reports, in writing, are from decades/centuries of oral tradition)?

- Original source documents are preserved, where applicable. (I trust we agree these don't exist)? (And even if they did, does an original source writing then immediately validate a claim to a supernatural event)?

 

[Tom 1]

And as I've already said, often times in this thread; it's one thing to JUST accept that Jesus was born, preached, and was executed. It's a completely different set of circumstances to then also accept 'miracles.'

You stated prior, that we did not yet have access to video and technology, like we might now. For which I agree, duh

However, I do not find the claims [as difficult] to dissect as you, apparently. In an attempt to save many exchanges, I have provided a list of criteria, for which I feel warrants tangible aspects to investigate any given historical claim from [long ago] or antiquity.

As I have also eluded to, quite often here and elsewhere, just because the Bible gets right the names of some characters, mentions real places, and seems to mention (some) real events in history, does not [then] also lend further credence/credibility to said events -- which defy the laws of physics or nature in general.

I have also stated that just because you agree with Jesus's moral teachings, does not then lend [more] credibility to such supernatural claims.

I have also stated that it seems the only way one could [verify] such said miracles, would be corroborated eyewitness attestation to such said events. And if we find that we do not have as such, then it seems logical to just dismiss, or disregard such claims, until further notice.

Does any of this make any sense? Or, am I just not well read enough, or studied up enough to compete with your apparent caliber of study, analysis, and/or thinking?

I will again, provide, yet another kick-start:

- Any/all historical reports have to be acknowledged as fallible. (We must first agree that there exists a chance or possibility that not everything reported, in these texts, are 100% correct or accurate. If not, then you are a Bible literalist; which I doubt you are). And since I bet we agree here, okay, next....

- Reported sources, which stem from a particular bias - (politically or socially), tend to lend less plausible 'objective' credibility. (Can we agree that it is likely that the <Gospels> were written by later believers, not actual witnesses, which might lend to the conclusion of bias/agenda/motive in some capacity)? (Is is fair to say we do not even know who wrote the Gospels, when, and why exactly? Is it even possible to assume that motive, agenda, and/or bias is in play for these documents)? It's not like someone reported of a war between A and B, and simply listed the number of deaths.....

- Reported events, which defy the laws of physics, tend to lend less plausible credibility. (Is it fair to say that any claims, which report defiance in the laws of physics require much deeper scrutiny; vs claims of mundane natural based occurrences)?

- Hearsay is usually less reliable than first hand reports. (This seems obvious. And furthermore, I trust we can agree such said claims of miracles were written, as told from oral tradition)?

- Such events supported by relevant concrete relics add to the possible veracity... (Do we really have any? And if not, does it really matter)? Who knows? I guess it would depend on [what] we had?

- Claimed events are independently corroborated, via eyewitness attestation. (I trust we agree, as eluded to above, that we really don't have any)? (Which begs the question, WHY believe miraculous claims anyways)?

- Eyewitness attestations are reported contemporarily. (I trust we also agree that all such later reports, in writing, are from decades/centuries of oral tradition)?

- Original source documents are preserved, where applicable. (I trust we agree these don't exist)? (And even if they did, does an original source writing then immediately validate a claim to a supernatural event)?

Those are some more reasonable questions, however what I don’t understand is why you opt not to work through the available material on this. There’s plenty of it, Bart Erhman provides an atheist/agnostic perspective, Tom Wright provides a Christian one. There are others if you don’t like those options. It simply isn’t possible to cover any useful amount of that in a discussion forum, that’s why people write books. But, you can quite simply read through some of that material and pick out some things to compare, for example. It would actually save you time - you seem to spend a fair amount of time on this stuff, here on CF, but the scope of these discussions, where you attempt to reduce a multifaceted issue down to a basic question, then spend ages going round in circles with it, is not really adequate. You could spend that time catching up with some current perspectives on the kind of thing your questions relate to. That would be far more illuminating and would lead to the kind of questions, with a more specific focus, that might be usefully addressed in this kind of format.

 

[Tom 1]

It's a completely different set of circumstances to then also accept 'miracles.'

As I suggested in another thread, whether or not things that might be considered supernatural ever occur is something that can be explored. This is how a discussion could actually work, be useful etc. That you seem to prefer basic questions that never actually deal with anything is hard to fathom, as it’s an approach that doesn’t appear to be getting you anywhere.

 

[cvanwey]

Those are some more reasonable questions, however what I don’t understand is why you opt not to work through the available material on this. There’s plenty of it, Bart Erhman provides an atheist/agnostic perspective, Tom Wright provides a Christian one. There are others if you don’t like those options. It simply isn’t possible to cover any useful amount of that in a discussion forum, that’s why people write books. But, you can quite simply read through some of that material and pick out some things to compare, for example. It would actually save you time - you seem to spend a fair amount of time on this stuff, here on CF, but the scope of these discussions, where you attempt to reduce a multifaceted issue down to a basic question, then spend ages going round in circles with it, is not really adequate. You could spend that time catching up with some current perspectives on the kind of thing your questions relate to. That would be far more illuminating and would lead to the kind of questions, with a more specific focus, that might be usefully addressed in this kind of format.

My request is to ask each believer here, whom decides to engage, which seems to be very little thus far, what points of evidence(s) lead them to believe the resurrection actually occurred? You state, 'it's not that simple.' Okay? I'm trying to get elaboration. I spoon fed you given criteria, for which you could virtually analyze any given claim from antiquity. What the bullet points represent, is a baseline to determine probable accuracy to any given claim. Not all bullet points pertain to all claims from history or antiquity. In the case for one-off, or one time claims and events, some apply more than others....

And of course this topic has many books and debates already. So does practically every other question, which has been posited here again, again, and again Are you just going to keep redirecting me to others, or, are you going to engage? You have yet to answer this question. Do you want to take a crack at post #1, or not?

I get the sneaking suspicion that maybe, just maybe, you do not really want your core beliefs probed in this manner?

 

[cvanwey]

As I suggested in another thread, whether or not things that might be considered supernatural ever occur is something that can be explored. This is how a discussion could actually work, be useful etc. That you seem to prefer basic questions that never actually deal with anything is hard to fathom, as it’s an approach that doesn’t appear to be getting you anywhere.

I have since elaborated, and have no problem continuing to do so. And yet, you still wish to instead refer me to others; for which I do not care of their opinions or conclusions. I'm asking you HOW you arrived at yours. Or, anyone here whom should happen to engage as a 'believer'.

 

[Tom 1]

My request is to ask each believer here, whom decides to engage, which seems to be very little thus far, what points of evidence(s) lead them to believe the resurrection actually occurred? You state, 'it's not that simple.' Okay? I'm trying to get elaboration. I spoon fed you given criteria, for which you could virtually analyze any given claim from antiquity. What the bullet points represent, is a baseline to determine probable accuracy to any given claim. Not all bullet points pertain to all claims from history or antiquity. In the case for one-off, or one time claims and events, some apply more than others....

And of course this topic has many books and debates already. So does practically every other question, which has been posited here again, again, and again Are you just going to keep redirecting me to others, or, are you going to engage? You have yet to answer this question. Do you want to take a crack at post #1, or not?

I get the sneaking suspicion that maybe, just maybe, you do not really want your core beliefs probed in this manner?

What gives you the idea that you are probing something? You’re mistaking a few superficial notions you have with what my beliefs are. It’s not so complicated, as above the questions you raise are basic starting points involving questions that have been thoroughly looked into. You can easy access all of that information, which may well lead you to some series of useful questions. What is it that you find objectionable about that? I am asking out of curiosity. What is it that leads you to believe re-hashing a few basic notions is somehow a substitute for finding out more about what people who devote serious amounts of time to this kind of thing have already investigated and written about?

 

[Tom 1]

I have since elaborated, and have no problem continuing to do so. And yet, you still wish to instead refer me to others; for which I do not care of their opinions or conclusions. I'm asking you HOW you arrived at yours. Or, anyone here whom should happen to engage as a 'believer'.

Through the process I am suggesting you might find more useful than these endless loops - by giving yourself a good grounding in a broad range of writing produced by people who, for one reason or another, have thoroughly investigated ideas of this sort and written about their conclusions. By reading widely and comparing what I read with my own experiences and observations I arrive, some of the time, at conclusions. If nothing else it is certainly more informative than this.

 

[cvanwey]

What gives you the idea that you are probing something?

You have made no effort to agree/disagree/other to my given set of specific criteria. This leads me to believe that maybe you agree with much of these given/provided statements; and that maybe your belief(s) is/are [not] based upon reason/logic/evidence alone, but instead, emotion????

Maybe your reason(s) for belief are not because you 'reasoned' your way into this belief? Thus, it's quite possible no one could 'reason' you out of it????

You’re mistaking a few superficial notions you have with what my beliefs are. It’s not so complicated, as above the questions you raise are basic starting points involving questions that have been thoroughly looked into. You can easy access all of that information, which may well lead you to some series of useful questions. What is it that you find objectionable about that? I am asking out of curiosity. What is it that leads you to believe re-hashing a few basic notions is somehow a substitute for finding out more about what people who devote serious amounts of time to this kind of thing have already investigated and written about?

Again, I have already acknowledged there exists a plethora of books and debates, on virtually every topic posited here in the apologetics forum. And yet, YOU are also still here? Why don't YOU leave here, and only read such books, and debate/engage with professional 'atheists'? Why do YOU come here at all????

It's seeming more and more apparent that I have broached upon a topic for which you really do not want probed??? You keep trying to redirect....

Why does it matter who I am? I'm asking you direct question(s)... You continue to go out of your way not to answer them. Am I wasting my time with you? If so, maybe apologetics is not your bag, or cup of tea?

 

[cvanwey]

Through the process I am suggesting you might find more useful than these endless loops - by giving yourself a good grounding in a broad range of writing produced by people who, for one reason or another, have thoroughly investigated ideas of this sort and written about their conclusions. By reading widely and comparing what I read with my own experiences and observations I arrive, some of the time, at conclusions. If nothing else it is certainly more informative than this.

Check it out....

Christian Apologetics


A forum for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith.

 

[Tom 1]

You have made no effort to agree/disagree/other to my given set of specific criteria. This leads me to believe that maybe you agree with much of these given/provided statements; and that maybe your belief(s) is/are [not] based upon reason/logic/evidence alone, but instead, emotion????

Maybe your reason(s) for belief are not because you 'reasoned' your way into this belief? Thus, it's quite possible no one could 'reason' you out of it????



Again, I have already acknowledged there exists a plethora of books and debates, on virtually every topic posited here in the apologetics forum. And yet, YOU are also still here? Why don't YOU leave here, and only read such books, and debate/engage with professional 'atheists'? Why do YOU come here at all????

It's seeming more and more apparent that I have broached upon a topic for which you really do not want probed??? You keep trying to redirect....

Why does it matter who I am? I'm asking you direct question(s)... You continue to go out of your way not to answer them. Am I wasting my time with you? If so, maybe apologetics is not your bag, or cup of tea?

No, it just bugs me that you ask such pointless questions when you could quite easily inform yourself so that a useful debate could be had. The nature of questions raised on cf about this kind of thing are generally low quality, poorly informed and emotional. I’m sure you can do better than that.

 

[Tom 1]

Check it out....

Christian Apologetics


A forum for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith.

Well that’s kind of the point, you appear to believe you are challenging something, but that isn’t the case. By shovelling out some basic versions of questions you only show that you are unaware how thoroughly those questions have been explored. Schools don’t expect kids to start debating complex issues in their early years, they focus on providing information so that later, when they have absorbed that info, they can move past it to ask new questions and suggest new answers.

 

[cvanwey]

No, it just bugs me that you ask such pointless questions when you could quite easily inform yourself so that a useful debate could be had. The nature of questions raised on cf about this kind of thing are generally low quality, poorly informed and emotional. I’m sure you can do better than that.

Prove it....

Post #505 please. Let's start here....

 

[cvanwey]

Well that’s kind of the point, you appear to believe you are challenging something, but that isn’t the case. By shovelling out some basic versions of questions you only show that you are unaware how thoroughly those questions have been explored. Schools don’t expect kids to start debating complex issues in their early years, they focus on providing information so that later, when they have absorbed that info, they can move past it to ask new questions and suggest new answers.

When someone feels they are loosing an argument, they will often times do 3 things...

- insult
- redirect
- not answer

You have done all three Post #505 please

 

[Tom 1]

When someone feels they are loosing an argument, they will often times do 3 things...

- insult
- redirect
- not answer

You have done all three Post #505 please

In what way is this an argument? You repeat yourself, I offer some explanations, you repeat yourself. That isn’t really an argument.

Please answer this question: why do you object to informing yourself so that you can form useful questions and have a useful debate? In what way do you find that objectionable?

 

[Tom 1]

When someone feels they are loosing an argument, they will often times do 3 things...

- insult
- redirect
- not answer

You have done all three Post #505 please

What is it that you believe you are challenging? Please explain.

 

[Tom 1]

And yet, you still wish to instead refer me to others; for which I do not care of their opinions or conclusions.

That is how learning works - you see? The question 'can supernatural events' happen is something that has seriously preoccupied some people to the extent that they have dedicated significant amounts of time to investigating it. Other people, any people, can read what they write, think about it, and form an opinion. That is how learning about things works. As I'm sure you are aware, people don't arrive at beliefs, opinions etc in a vacuum, or by some simplistic process that can easily be explained. Generally it is a cumulative process. Try it - address the question to yourself and provide evidence for some of your beliefs, see if you can manage to break it down to some set of absolutes.