Zzyzx wrote:
.
From another thread:
OReilly wrote:
I, in opposition to your opinion, would argue that the preponderance of the evidence would suggest the truth of the resurrection, for example.
We are probably all aware that there are stories about a dead body coming back to life after days in the grave – stories written by promoters of a religious splinter group – decades or generations after the supposed event. The identity of the writers is not known to Christian scholars and theologians. None are known to have witnessed the events they write about. Their sources of information are unknown. The stories differ from one another. None have been verified as being truthful and accurate.
Unverified stores by four salesmen touting their product can hardly be considered "preponderance of evidence" so there must be strong evidence elsewhere. Right?
What is the other confirming evidence?
Since you post my statement above, I reply with most of the substance of my original reply to the question, with some additions.
Summary Case for the Resurrection by Steven O'Reilly
The historical record, presumptively, documents actual events. Miracles are found in the historical record. Therefore, miracles are, presumptively, actual events. That is not to say that we accept all claims uncritically, but it does suggest that as the historical record is full of miracles, Christian and non-Christian, human experience in history suggests a strong presumption that miraculous events are certainly possible and indeed probable. Thus, to reject the possibility of miracles in the face of human experience documented in the historical record - based on one's own limited personal experience - is not reasonable.
To say a miracle, or in this case the Resurrection in particular, do not conform to laws one personally observes will not suffice. "If, occasionally, historical evidence does not square with formulated laws, it should be remembered that a law is but deduction from experience and experiment, and therefore laws must conform with historical facts, not facts with laws." (Immanuel Velikovsky (Worlds In Collision), p.19). Therefore, the question comes down to the facts of the historical record.
Briefly, then, there are sufficient grounds to believe in the historical truth of the Resurrection of Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by apostles of Jesus. That Matthew was penned by an apostle agrees with the earliest of sources (e.g., Papias) - so it is not something just made up a few hundred years afterwards. Internal evidence of John's gospel (e.g., John 19:35) points to it being written by an eyewitness. In addition, early sources (Church fathers) point to Mark being a follower of Peter, and that he penned Peter's account. And Luke, as a companion of Paul, had access to Peter, James and probably other eyewitness sources. To these we have the evidence of Acts and the epistles.
As to the dating of the gospels, I would reject late dating of them. Paul was executed in Rome circa 64-65AD following the Great Fire of Rome (various Church fathers). Luke's Acts shows no knowledge of his death, and thus one may rightly suppose he wrote it no later than 65ish AD. Further, we know Luke's gospel was written prior to Acts, so we can certainly be confident it derives from an even earlier date for it - but certainly no later than 65AD. Given the relation of Luke's Gospel to Mark and Matthew; these other two Gospels must, therefore, have been written even earlier. So, at worst, we have historical records of Jesus' life, death and resurrection penned within 25-30 years. But that is at worst, and they well could have been written much earlier. And, as I noted earlier, even 25-30 years after the fact is very good by historical standards. Herodotus, Arrian, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc., all wrote histories of event far more distant in the past than that, and these are granted status as histories.
Further, Luke's Acts records the history of the Church from the earliest, following the Ascension. As Luke as a companion of Paul, he would have met Peter and James (per Paul's epistles), and others, from whom his account is based. Acts indicates the apostles were preaching the resurrection from the first, and getting in trouble with the authorities for it. It was not a later development.
Thus, in summary, we have two eyewitness histories (Matthew and John), another based directly on Peter's account (Mark), and a fourth (Luke) that had access to eyewitnesses and other written accounts - one of which I surmise to be James for a couple reasons. These testify that Jesus lived, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified died and was buried and rose again on the third day.
From non-Christian sources, various aspects of this general testimony is confirmed. Certain aspects of the accounts are confirmed by Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus - even if we were to admit the consensus view that only certain parts of the TF were interpolations (Which, btw, I don't). Even Tacitus refers to the death of Jesus, and that the superstitious belief recovered from this set back - certainly statements consistent with knowledge of the resurrection accounts, even if he did not credit them.
In addition, we have the first non-Christian attack on the resurrection as a written 'artifact' in Matthew 28. There we find a Christian apologetic to counter a pre-existing (to Matthew) story, which had to have been in circulation earlier. In it, Jewish officials claimed the body of Jesus had been stolen by his disciples. Thus, even here, we at least have an early non-Christian account of events admitting some basic facts shared with the Christian account. Which are:
1. There was a Jesus.
2. He was executed and buried.
3. A guard was set for fear the body might be stolen, based on an expectation prior to Jesus' death that he would rise again on the third day - thus the Jewish account that the body was stolen for this purpose, despite a guard being set
4. The tomb was found empty on the Third Day.
As to the credibility of the gospel accounts, we have every reason to grant it. Aside from the corroboration of multiple sources on key aspects of the accounts, we know that Peter and Paul were executed by the Romans in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome. What we know of Roman legal procedures regarding Christians (e.g., Tacitus, Pliny the Younger) is that if one denied being Christian and sacrificed to the gods, one was set free. However, since we know Peter and Paul were martyred, we know they did not take this out. If they had taken it, it would have suggested very strongly they were liars. As many will die for what they
know to be the truth, or even for only what they
believe to be the truth -
it is quite remarkable for someone to die for what they know to be a lie. Thus, Peter's and Paul's deaths testify to their truthfulness regarding the first hand claims of each (e.g., seeing the resurrected Jesus); as well as to Paul's view of the credibility of the eyewitnesses he did interact with.
It is sometimes alleged that the people of the times were too ready to believe baseless superstitions. However, it may be rightly pointed out that the apostles and other disciples were the first skeptics of the resurrection. They disbelieved the women, and Thomas disbelieved both them and his fellow apostles. In addition, Paul actively persecuted Christians until his mystical experience of Jesus. Consequently, we see, these, at least, were not credulous individuals. Indeed, they were the first skeptics, and Paul, as a persecutor of Christians was a skeptic on steroids. Thus, it is evident, compelling evidence must have swayed them, that is, seeing the resurrected Jesus.
But, what of the Christians who believed without seeing, it is said they were too credulous; too ready to believe baseless superstitions, just like all peoples of that age were superstitious - it is said. However, the argument is patently fallacious. Even if we were to admit ancient peoples accepted all sorts of baseless ancient superstitions, it would not follow that they did not have solid grounds in reason and fact to justifiably believe the accounts of Jesus over other options available to them in that age.
The allegation it was a superstitious age might explain why there were numerous pagan sects at the time of Jesus, mystery religions and cults, etc. However, the allegation undermines the hoped for argument against Christianity. That is, the fact that the Christian religion triumphed in the market place of ideas relative to the other cults, and against organized state opposition at that; clearly suggests the evidence (credibility of apostles, early miracles, eyewitness accounts, etc) for Christianity was very compelling. So compelling in fact that it enabled the Church to draw to it people who were otherwise attached to their superstitious cults! In sum, the point is, the 'superstitious ancient people' supposition supports the case that Christianity was based on good evidence; otherwise, it would not have triumphed and emerged as THE victor in the marketplace of so many competing ideas/sects among superstitious peoples and against the opposition of the state.
Finally, if God acted in the world in the times of Jesus, and powerfully so through His resurrection, one might expect that miracles might yet continue. Rev. Harrison, speaking of points made by Arnold Lunn, said "The fact that Catholic history has been constantly marked by many other well-attested miracles in the lives of holy men and women lends a certain a priori credibility to the New Testament accounts of Jesus' miracles and his Resurrection.
It would seem surprising, indeed, if a society which for over 2,000 years has produced a constant stream of miracles was not adorned at its foundation by events at least as wondrous." (
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9108dd.asp). Such documented wonders would include, but are not limited to, Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, the Shroud of Turin and the miracles in the causes of the saints.
In conclusion then, there is sufficient reason to accept the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as a historical fact based on the preponderance of the evidence.
