What evidence supports the theory of “resurrection”?

[Zzyzx]

Biblical reports indicate that a god-man was killed and was placed in a tomb for three days under guard, the body was missing when the tomb was opened, and the deceased was reportedly seen alive afterward.

A number of questions arise:

1. Was the person actually dead? How was death verified? Many cases of apparent death are cases of mistaken diagnosis or of deliberate falsification.

2. Would it have been possible for the tomb to have been entered or exited during the three days in question? Guards are not absolutely reliable and have been known to be distracted or bribed. A stone put in place by humans could be moved by humans. Is there any assurance that a substitution or some other slight-of-hand could not have taken place?

3. What impartial persons verified that the god-man lived after “arising from the dead”? Claims of associates, particularly close associates, to have seen the deceased living after death are not the most reliable source of truthful information.

If “resurrection” is not factual, is the basis of Christianity still valid?

[Goose]

You need to address the evidence that has been presented by achilles on page 2. Non of these claims are supernatural in-and-of-themselves. There is nothing supernatural about Jesus's death by crucifixion, His honorable burial in a tomb, and the tomb being discovered empty. These events are generally accepted as reasonably solid facts. Get through those and then we can hit you with some more evidence. Attempts to discredit the NT with one fell swoop has limited purpose sand effectiveness. It shows a heavy and unwarranted bias against Christian sources.

Part of the problem with the 'cruxifiction and ressurrection account' is that it goes into details that are counter-historical. The trial, for example, was against Jewish law. It also violated the High Holidays. While not 'supernatural', it violates what we know about history.

That's one perspective. It's not positive evidence against the event having taken place, it's speculation on the account given in the Gospels. We have four accounts in the Gosples affirming the trial. Are there any accounts affriming the trial did NOT take place? But again, I'm repeating myself. This isn't crucial to the resurrection in my opinion and we don't discard an entire source because an event is what we believe to be counter-historical.

Then, when it comes to the story about the roman guarding the body, while not supernatural , certainly is not standard. I find it very unbelievable.

There may or may not have been a guard. There are arguments for and against the possibility. Given the fact that it is only mentioned in one of the Gospels (Matthew), I'm perfectly happy to concede there was likely no guard. It is another inconsequential detail.

[Goat]

You need to address the evidence that has been presented by achilles on page 2. Non of these claims are supernatural in-and-of-themselves. There is nothing supernatural about Jesus's death by crucifixion, His honorable burial in a tomb, and the tomb being discovered empty. These events are generally accepted as reasonably solid facts. Get through those and then we can hit you with some more evidence. Attempts to discredit the NT with one fell swoop has limited purpose sand effectiveness. It shows a heavy and unwarranted bias against Christian sources.

Part of the problem with the 'cruxifiction and ressurrection account' is that it goes into details that are counter-historical. The trial, for example, was against Jewish law. It also violated the High Holidays. While not 'supernatural', it violates what we know about history.

That's one perspective. It's not positive evidence against the event having taken place, it's speculation on the account given in the Gospels. We have four accounts in the Gosples affirming the trial. Are there any accounts affriming the trial did NOT take place? But again, I'm repeating myself. This isn't crucial to the resurrection in my opinion and we don't discard an entire source because an event is what we believe to be counter-historical.

Then, when it comes to the story about the roman guarding the body, while not supernatural , certainly is not standard. I find it very unbelievable.

There may or may not have been a guard. There are arguments for and against the possibility. Given the fact that it is only mentioned in one of the Gospels (Matthew), I'm perfectly happy to concede there was likely no guard. It is another inconsequential detail.

There is the fact that only 1 body out of over 10,000 victims were ever recovered that showed sings of cruxifiction. It was a rare body to be allowed a proper burial.

The question is.. if one part of the story is manufactored, why not all of it?

[Zzyzx]

Your style of discussion / debate is a refreshing change from the emotionalism and dishonorable debate tactics typical of “offensive defense” and “shuck and jive” and personal condemnation – with which I am soooooo familiar in forum discussions whenever religious assertions are challenged.

It must be distressing for you to observe the ignorant, dishonest and emotional “defenses” frequently put forth by strident religionists when their public statements are challenged.

I do not disagree with your conclusion that the Jews would have wanted Jesus killed (provided there was such a person in reality). A great messiah would have threatened their existing theocratic hierarchy.

My disagreement would be on the fundamental level of whether a Jesus Christ actually existed in physical form. I do not doubt that there were early stories about such a character but those could well have been fables describing a mythical or “spiritual” character. But I digress.

Are there accounts from Roman records of a Poneous Pilate condemning a Jesus Christ messiah to death? Absence of such record would not be conclusive evidence against, but presence of such a record would be very strong evidence for the occurrence of such an event. Evidently Roman records from the era are quite complete (though I have no personal knowledge thereof).

Is there firm evidence of the existence of Poneous Pilate from actual Roman records? Do any such records square with biblical accounts of position and practices?

Your citation of historians from the era is thorough – however, it does indicate a gap of nearly a century before most accounts were written. That agrees with other sources that indicate that most JC accounts were written as the early Christian Church was forming.

During early formation stages the church had ample reason to exaggerate or create tales to justify its existence and to compete against other belief systems. The effort was quite successful and shortly after the early formation period, Christianity became an official state religion and began its reign of theocracy.

You have certainly analyzed the process of crucifixion. I did not notice if you made mention that nails through the hands are unlikely to support the body (I don’t remember the source of this tidbit of information) and through the wrists may be necessary. (Minor point of interest, not argument for or against).

Your excellent discussion of the process of death by crucifixion is based on the death of a human. Is that applicable in the case of JC?

There is ample biblical reference to JC having powers well beyond those of humans – walking on water is but a tiny example. A god-man capable of walking on water might well be expected to have abilities that relate to crucifixion as well. Levitation would be a handy skill to possess at a time like that. Also, one who could turn water into wine and to feed multitudes from a lunch bucket might be expected to be able to withstand the effects of crucifixion.

If one maintains at some points in argument that JC had super powers, consistency requires that that position not be abandoned when convenient. For instance, the mention of suffering brain damage from oxygen deprivation cannot be applied to god-men whose physical characteristics are unknown and who reportedly has super-human abilities and “proven” control over life and death in others.

Concerning the tomb: You honorably acknowledge there is no impartial evidence that a JC body was placed in a tomb. There is only church evidence of placing a body in a tomb, an open tomb, a missing body, and re-emergence in living form.

I agree when you say that “appearances, while useful are not necessary to support resurrection”; however, SOME solid evidence IS critically required to support the contention that someone “arose from the dead”.

You did a commendable job of addressing my questions. However, the questions remain as doubts of the veracity of the story because they cannot (and have not) been answered definitively – only by supposition and by reference to the tale itself. Nearly all “evidence” is a single source, which necessarily leads to circular reasoning (intentional or not).

Death of a god-man may or may not have occurred. Super powers (said to exist) may or may not have been evoked to avoid death.

A body may or may not have been placed in a tomb and a tomb may or may not have been sealed or guarded. A sealing rock could have been emplaced (or not) and could have been removed. If placed by humans it could be moved by humans. Though the “downhill to seal” supposition is interesting and creative, it is nowhere near conclusive evidence that a body was placed in a tomb and the tomb effectively sealed.

The “critical point” of the entire discussion is survival beyond death. To satisfy this test of truth, death must be beyond question and regaining of life must be beyond question. In the case being discussed there is significant question on both counts – particularly the latter IMO.

To the best of my knowledge there is absolutely no impartial evidence of JC being alive after crucifixion. If resurrection is not an absolute certainty, Christianity is completely without merit because its critical claim is doubtful.

Claims said to be made by disciples or any close associates (recorded long after the supposed events) of seeing their leader “after death” are very weak support for the thesis because involved people have incentive to exaggerate or fabricate tales that would serve to enhance their position, and because the reports were recorded decades or centuries after they supposedly occurred.

Consider: “A hundred years ago my great-great grandpa did cartwheels when he was 120 years old and fathered children when he was over a hundred. Great Aunt Helen wrote a letter to relatives a few years ago describing all this”. Would anyone believe such a tale if there was no other evidence?

The church-sourced accounts that indicate death and regaining life are insufficient to address the matter “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Although the claims are believed by multitudes, widespread belief by biased people (or unbiased for that matter) is no assurance of accuracy or truth.

The true test of any argument is NOT convincing those who want to believe (preaching to the choir), but convincing those who do not seek to believe – those who are neutral or negative. Convergence of evidence from reliable, impartial, independent sources is the most convincing. That is lacking in this case.

It is a pleasure to discuss this matter with someone of obvious intelligence who has done research. More important than ability and research, however, is your honest, unemotional and effective presentation of your ideas.

Thank you.

[Goat]

Are there accounts from Roman records of a Poneous Pilate condemning a Jesus Christ messiah to death? Absence of such record would not be conclusive evidence against, but presence of such a record would be very strong evidence for the occurrence of such an event. Evidently Roman records from the era are quite complete (though I have no personal knowledge thereof).

There is an account of Pilate executing a Samarian Messiah, name unknown, as recorded in Josephus about the Samarian Massacre. It is this incident that eventually caused Pilate to be recalled to Rome. This happened in 36 c.e. He mentions it in
antiquities 18:4

[Cathar1950]

Are there accounts from Roman records of a Poneous Pilate condemning a Jesus Christ messiah to death? Absence of such record would not be conclusive evidence against, but presence of such a record would be very strong evidence for the occurrence of such an event. Evidently Roman records from the era are quite complete (though I have no personal knowledge thereof).

There is an account of Pilate executing a Samarian Messiah, name unknown, as recorded in Josephus about the Samarian Massacre. It is this incident that eventually caused Pilate to be recalled to Rome. This happened in 36 c.e. He mentions it in
antiquities 18:4

I like that one personally but still say he might have been anyone from 200 BCE to 70 CE. If we look at Mark as the first epic and realize no one mentions any of the 4 gospels or do we have any pieces before the second century.
As far as the visions of Jesus we have know indication of what these supposed witnesses actually saw and if it was visions saw. We don’t even know if Paul received it(what was handed down) from a vision. Paul makes the clam at other times he received his gospel from Christ himself in a vision. We have no knowledge that would let us decide what it was conclusively. It was actually believers that came up with the mythic Jesus such as Bultman and others. They knew that the gospel Jesus was mythical and reflected the beliefs of some of the second century Christians. They felt it was pointless to look for the historical Jesus because he was now the Christ of faith.
But anyway, Galilee and Samaria are right next-door and both had anti-Roman and anti-High Priest due to legitimacy. Samaria had its own still living High Places and traditions about God’s Kingdom.. You see Zealots all over the gospels, which seems to enjoy avoiding anything related. Maybe seen from the eyes of a Samarian and Galilean
They might have looked at the High Priest and the temple establishment as a bunch of sissy Jews that kissed Rome’s butt. The Pharisees, Essens, Fourth way, Zealots all shared similar distaste for Romans with their friends to the north, northeast.
The rich and the temple establishment would be seen as pro-Roman as were the Herodians.
With the mess that went on there for several centuries it is amazing we know so much.
. But the gospels as later stories do not count as eyewitnesses. The earlier writings, while many are in question, only tell us of visions as they show us the practice of reading their Christ into any and every scriptures.

[Cathar1950]

These are not reports they are mini-epics some even look at Mark as he equivalent of a dime store novel. A later generation or two more mature and developed cleaned him up for better uses. Davy Crocket lived but I doubt he killed a bear (children eaters) when he was only three.
The opinions vary at all ends of the spectrum and if they were not so different and odd like any story or epic that develops people wouldn’t have good arguments on all sides of the fence.
What we have is the Christ of faith presented to us in stories and sometimes false or as goat says, “pseudographical works”. Even pious people might write them for what they felt were good reasons. Embellishments keep stories alive.

[Goose]

There is the fact that only 1 body out of over 10,000 victims were ever recovered that showed sings of cruxifiction. It was a rare body to be allowed a proper burial.

What does this prove? First, it is difficult at best to ascertain whether or not a person was crucified simply from their 2000 year old remains. If we were speaking of execution by decapitation for example it might be different. This could easily account for the lack of bodies shown to have been given a proper burial.

Again, you are expecting speculation to out-weigh evidence. All four Gospels speak of Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the council that condemned Jesus, being sympathetic to Jesus's cause and requesting Jesus's body for an honorable burial. Apparently Jesus was "rare" enough for Joesph of A. to want to bury Jesus in his tomb. Jesus seems to have attracted a following durring His ministry. Indeed, some obviously thought He was king of sorts. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think He was given a burial.

We also have the writings of Paul in early creedal passages found in 1Corinthians 15, speaking of Jesus's burial.

Is there any tangible evidence to the contrary?

The question is.. if one part of the story is manufactored, why not all of it?

First, you have yet to prove the accounts are manufactured. That accusation is purely based upon speculation.

I think this will be the third time I will have said this (and it will be the last). Historians do not discard a source simply because there is a questionable event mentioned. I've demonstrated this with Suetonis, an example you first cited. It has been pointed out several times in this thread that if you throw away an ancient document in its entirety simply based on the criteria that it contains something we don't agree with or is questionable, we would lose much of history. Dodging this, by continually asserting the NT can not be trusted what-so-ever shows a bias.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Biblical reports indicate that a god-man was killed and was placed in a tomb for three days under guard, the body was missing when the tomb was opened, and the deceased was reportedly seen alive afterward.

A number of questions arise:

1. Was the person actually dead? How was death verified? Many cases of apparent death are cases of mistaken diagnosis or of deliberate falsification.

2. Would it have been possible for the tomb to have been entered or exited during the three days in question? Guards are not absolutely reliable and have been known to be distracted or bribed. A stone put in place by humans could be moved by humans. Is there any assurance that a substitution or some other slight-of-hand could not have taken place?

3. What impartial persons verified that the god-man lived after “arising from the dead”? Claims of associates, particularly close associates, to have seen the deceased living after death are not the most reliable source of truthful information.

If “resurrection” is not factual, is the basis of Christianity still valid?

This is a little like asking, "How do we know Doomsday killed Superman?"

Once we understand the gospel Jesus never existed, the details of the alleged resurrection become a moot point.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Biblical reports indicate that a god-man was killed and was placed in a tomb for three days under guard, the body was missing when the tomb was opened, and the deceased was reportedly seen alive afterward.

A number of questions arise:

1. Was the person actually dead? How was death verified? Many cases of apparent death are cases of mistaken diagnosis or of deliberate falsification.

2. Would it have been possible for the tomb to have been entered or exited during the three days in question? Guards are not absolutely reliable and have been known to be distracted or bribed. A stone put in place by humans could be moved by humans. Is there any assurance that a substitution or some other slight-of-hand could not have taken place?

3. What impartial persons verified that the god-man lived after “arising from the dead”? Claims of associates, particularly close associates, to have seen the deceased living after death are not the most reliable source of truthful information.

If “resurrection” is not factual, is the basis of Christianity still valid?

[Goat]

There is the fact that only 1 body out of over 10,000 victims were ever recovered that showed sings of cruxifiction. It was a rare body to be allowed a proper burial.

What does this prove? First, it is difficult at best to ascertain whether or not a person was crucified simply from their 2000 year old remains. If we were speaking of execution by decapitation for example it might be different. This could easily account for the lack of bodies shown to have been given a proper burial.

Again, you are expecting speculation to out-weigh evidence. All four Gospels speak of Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the council that condemned Jesus, being sympathetic to Jesus's cause and requesting Jesus's body for an honorable burial. Apparently Jesus was "rare" enough for Joesph of A. to want to bury Jesus in his tomb. Jesus seems to have attracted a following durring His ministry. Indeed, some obviously thought He was king of sorts. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think He was given a burial.

We also have the writings of Paul in early creedal passages found in 1Corinthians 15, speaking of Jesus's burial.

Is there any tangible evidence to the contrary?

The question is.. if one part of the story is manufactored, why not all of it?

First, you have yet to prove the accounts are manufactured. That accusation is purely based upon speculation.

I think this will be the third time I will have said this (and it will be the last). Historians do not discard a source simply because there is a questionable event mentioned. I've demonstrated this with Suetonis, an example you first cited. It has been pointed out several times in this thread that if you throw away an ancient document in its entirety simply based on the criteria that it contains something we don't agree with or is questionable, we would lose much of history. Dodging this, by continually asserting the NT can not be trusted what-so-ever shows a bias.

The thing is that most of Suetonius can be verfied. Those 'gossipy' parts that Suetonius can be viewed at what the gossip mill (common people) thought about the leaders.

Another point is that we are looking at 'evidence for the ressurrection'. All we have is claims that several of the sources are copied from the first source. Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, so of course there will be some kind of agreement there.

However, that is merely relaying a statement of faith that is central to the late first century early second century christian beliefs (well, the group that won out politically at least). To use the Bible as evidence that the BIble is correct is circular, particularly with the use of the supernatural.

We have no outside verification these incidence actually happened. It is, however, evidence of at least one Christian groups beliefs.