What would it take to prove that Jesus rose from the dead?

[McCulloch]

What would it take to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. giving that it happened way before cameras etc were invented?

P4JC

Good question P4JC.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

dgruber wrote:

"This is a common technique used by non-theists (I use this term to include atheists in this case) in debate. It happens for a couple of reasons. Non-theists do not want to provide defined parameters in which an opponent could possibly meet the terms of those parameters. Most are aware, and you can reference the A Room on this site to verify, that it is very difficult to bring forth any evidence that they don't have a cause to reject.

So if they say well I would see X as proof, then a distinct value has been laid on the table. It is in the nature of the non theist argument to want to keep theists floundering in non verifiable evidence."


Tired of the BS responds:

How can we define the parameters of an open and indeterminate belief? If you believe in flying reindeer, then my parameter for proving it might well be, "Fine, show me a flying reindeer. Even one should suffice. " To which you might well reply, "Well I don't have any personally. But Santa does. Santa can do that sort of thing because he has magic." Santa apparently is not constrained by the laws of physics. But you see, if Santa can do anything, because he has magic, then the parameters, YOUR PARAMETERS, are limitless. You are now able to claim anything you want as true, because you say so. So you see, not only am I NOT refusing to set parameters, I am the one trying, in vain apparently, to get cholland, or ANY professing Christian, to explain what it is they believe to be true. If the answer is, "I believe it because that's my belief," or, "I believe it because I believe God can do anything," those are simple statements and assertions, not fact or evidence. Evidence is something that can be confirmed, and therefore can be used to build a case with, even if it is only circumstantial. Can you make a case for your Christian beliefs or not?

[Goat]

What would it take to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. giving that it happened way before cameras etc were invented?

P4JC

Good question P4JC.

Short of the invention of a time machine, there probably is no way to prove that Jesus rose from the dead.

However, we could increase our confidence in the hypothesis of Jesus' resurrection if we could observe people today being raised from the dead after several days of internment. Regrettably, the evidence for resurrections is lacking and therefore the hypothesis looks rather dubious.

We could also increase the confidence that SOMETHING happened if it was a non-Christian unbiased source from within just a few years of the event. or if we had the report from an actual eye witness instead of claims of there being eye witnesses a few decades later.

[JoeyKnothead]

What would it take to prove Jesus rose from the dead?

Jesus.

[Vanguard]

We could also increase the confidence that SOMETHING happened if it was a non-Christian unbiased source from within just a few years of the event. or if we had the report from an actual eye witness instead of claims of there being eye witnesses a few decades later.

Well, that's an improvement for sure though even that would fall immeasurably short of an acceptable standard. I'm sure non-Christians were just as fooled by supposedly supernatural events as were Christians. In my mind, a non-Christian account of the Savior's ressurection would simply tell me - if I were a non-Christian - that the science of the body was certainly a far cry from the current standards.

Honestly, I'm not sure whether there is anything that would suffice short of Joey's suggestion. I believe this will eventually happen though I would rather He wait until I get my Waverunners, win the lotto (the mega one), and build my dream home.

[Pastor4Jesus]

Pastor4Jesus wrote:

"Answer the question."

P4JC


Tired of the BS answers back:

Well gee, it would have to be something substantial wouldn't it? Something hard to dispute. We are only talking of a reanimated corpse here. That's a relatively specious claim, wouldn't you agree? Some good solid reason to suppose it has even a small chance of being true would be a nice start. What have you got? Your the Pastor4Jesus after all. Aren't you supposed to go forth and proclaim the good news? Don't you have something more to offer than your own personal good feelings that it's all true? So pastor me. I'm listening at least. What more could you ask for? Others are watching by the way, so make it good.

I don't see that as answering the question. All you're saying is "show me something and I'll determine if it's good enough." That's not the question. Better make the answer good, Christians are watching.

heh heh (rubbing hands together)...

P4JC

[Pastor4Jesus]

What would it take to prove Jesus rose from the dead?

Jesus.

How would you determine that Jesus was who he said he was?

P4JC

[JoeyKnothead]

What would it take to prove Jesus rose from the dead?

Jesus.

How would you determine that Jesus was who he said he was?

P4JC

I sure wouldn't take his word for it.

Maybe if he could do that cool walking on water deal, reach down and grab a fish, then feed the multitudes with it.

Or my favorite, turn some water into wine.

He seemed to have plenty of ways to show folks when He was around, surely He could do so now.

[dgruber]

I have said this before: In what field of study does one ask others to provide standards of proof, then set about trying to fulfill them? None.

You are missing the point. This thread is a question that asks what would constitute proof for you. It is not attempting to dodge the burden of proof but a simple question. It seems that there is an unwillingness to answer that question, and to instead put it back in the theist's court.

In this case, if a historian were to go to his colleagues and ask, "What would I have to show to prove X?" their reply would inevitably be, "What have you got?" No reputable historian on Earth would actually ASK for the proper hoops to jump through.

Your comment here really does not match the situation. People have been trying to provide evidence for a resurrection for many years. Some see the Bible as evidence enough, others do not. The question seems to be asking those who do not, what would it take to prove for you that Jesus rose from the dead. Instead of a straight forward answer to a simple question, many people dodge by turning the question back around....a simple way out.

You are claiming that a perfectly routine and normal academic approach to the issue of historical proof is being taken by nontheists for tactical and disingenuous reasons. That's a falsehood.

I disagree with this entire quote.

You want to prove the Resurrection? That burden is entirely on you, including the question of what constitutes "proof." You don't get to ask your opponents for help on that. That isn't anyone's job but yours.

Yes that burden would be on me, but since I have not tried to claim that I am not under that burden. Your second point illustrates mine to a tee. Thank you for the help....Did Pastor4Jesus ask for your help? He asked a simple question. Instead of answering it, it was turned back on him....its really quite simple.

Claiming bias before you give your argument is a straight-up dodge. If bias is present, it will be visible after the debate begins, not before.

Bias? Explain please.

[Goat]

I have said this before: In what field of study does one ask others to provide standards of proof, then set about trying to fulfill them? None.

You are missing the point. This thread is a question that asks what would constitute proof for you. It is not attempting to dodge the burden of proof but a simple question. It seems that there is an unwillingness to answer that question, and to instead put it back in the theist's court.
.

I would say that Joey's criteria is pretty darn good.

Personally, right now, let's see some actual physical evidence that Jesus actually existed first. We'll worry about the rest of the stuff later. The bar on showing the physical existence of a person is a lot lower than the supernatural claims. Let's see something besides accounts written decades after the fact.

[cnorman18]

I have said this before: In what field of study does one ask others to provide standards of proof, then set about trying to fulfill them? None.

You are missing the point. This thread is a question that asks what would constitute proof for you. It is not attempting to dodge the burden of proof but a simple question. It seems that there is an unwillingness to answer that question, and to instead put it back in the theist's court.

In this case, if a historian were to go to his colleagues and ask, "What would I have to show to prove X?" their reply would inevitably be, "What have you got?" No reputable historian on Earth would actually ASK for the proper hoops to jump through.

Your comment here really does not match the situation. People have been trying to provide evidence for a resurrection for many years. Some see the Bible as evidence enough, others do not. The question seems to be asking those who do not, what would it take to prove for you that Jesus rose from the dead. Instead of a straight forward answer to a simple question, many people dodge by turning the question back around....a simple way out.

You are claiming that a perfectly routine and normal academic approach to the issue of historical proof is being taken by nontheists for tactical and disingenuous reasons. That's a falsehood.

I disagree with this entire quote.

You want to prove the Resurrection? That burden is entirely on you, including the question of what constitutes "proof." You don't get to ask your opponents for help on that. That isn't anyone's job but yours.

Yes that burden would be on me, but since I have not tried to claim that I am not under that burden. Your second point illustrates mine to a tee. Thank you for the help....Did Pastor4Jesus ask for your help? He asked a simple question. Instead of answering it, it was turned back on him....its really quite simple.

Claiming bias before you give your argument is a straight-up dodge. If bias is present, it will be visible after the debate begins, not before.

Bias? Explain please.

Sorry, but you're still not getting this.

Nothing is being "turned around" on anyone. There is only one question that is asked whenever something is to be proved: "What is your evidence?" That's true whether we're talking about a criminal trial, a scientific survey or experiment, or an assertion about a historical event. The nature and value of evidence can only be determined after that evidence is in hand, not before.

You claim that the question you ask is "simple." Is it? Let's see.

Suppose I specified the evidence as you are apparently asking.

"I want to see the autograph (that is, the original) of a letter from Pontius Pilate that contains references to Jesus, the Crucifixion, and at least mentions an alleged Resurrection. That would be convincing, though not of course conclusive."

What happens now? Will you fly off to Rome, Cairo and Jerusalem and begin combing through archives in search of such a letter?

Of course not. Demands of such specificity are absurd, of course.

The fact is, a priori demands of ANY degree of specificity are absurd. You find the evidence first, THEN you evaluate it. How could it be any other way?

Once again - what have you got?