Why Believe This Claim?

[POI]

Taken from an exchange here (posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1166484).

It doesn't matter to me what the disciples saw and experienced. I believe they saw and experienced a resurrected Jesus, but the particulars are of little interest to me.

In essence, I'd like to focus here...

For Debate: Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?

[Hfighter30]

Taken from an exchange here (posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1166484).

It doesn't matter to me what the disciples saw and experienced. I believe they saw and experienced a resurrected Jesus, but the particulars are of little interest to me.

In essence, I'd like to focus here...

For Debate: Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?

I want to answer because faith but i think it will not satisfy you. So i will tells you 2 reasons why i believed it.
1. The usual empty tomb
All four gospels report the empty tomb.Even though the tomb was guardd by Roman soldiers, yet it was empty. The Jews and Romans who want Jesus dead, can't produce a body to refuse the resurrection claims. Instead, they tells the disciples stealing the body (Matthew 28:11-15). Why would the disciples, facing persecution cretes thiss story and die for it, if they know it was just a lie?
2. The witnesses
Many people saw it too. Not just to Mary Magdalene, two disciples on the road or to the twelve disciples but Paul also said to five hundred people! And some of them still alive (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

[1213]

For Debate: Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?

It is the best explanation for why we have the Bible still.

[POI]

1. The usual empty tomb

Crucifixion was meant to disrespect the body. Why order a disrespectful act, but then allow for a respectful burial? Such corpses were more likely chucked into a hole or other, not buried respectfully as told.

All four gospels report the empty tomb.

Why should anyone trust the Gospel accounts? Is this where 'faith' comes in?

2. The witnesses
Many people saw it too. Not just to Mary Magdalene, two disciples on the road or to the twelve disciples but Paul also said to five hundred people! And some of them still alive (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

Paul stating that "500" saw a risen Jesus means nothing without independent corroboration from 500 independent corroborated reports. Remember, we are not merely speaking about seeing a UFO or Bigfoot, we are instead talking about the claims of a Messiah here!

[Hfighter30]

[Replying to POI in post #4]

Crucifixion was meant to disrespect the body. Why order a disrespectful act, but then allow for a respectful burial? Such corpses were more likely chucked into a hole or other, not buried respectfully as told.

You ask why a respectful burial after a disrespectful act like crucifixion? Good question. But consider that Roman law and custom have variations and exceptions. They are not monolithic (a large powerful organization that cannot change quickly and does not consider the ideas or feelings of the people it affects). The one that make it possible to give Jesus a respectful burial is Joseph of Arimathea, i think (https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/joseph-arimathea). He was a prominent member of the Jewish council (Mark 15:43) also rich (Matthew 27:57). And because wealthy and influental he is, he can give Jesus a proper burial.
("In Rome, the punishment for crimes varied significantly based on the perpetrator's social standing. For example, while a patrician might receive a fine or exile for a particular offense, a plebeian or slave could face death or severe physical punishment for the same crime. This disparity underscores the deeply ingrained social hierarchies within Roman society." https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-and- ... nequality/) Or maybe its just because Pilate doesnt want any conflict, because Joseph is a prominent member of Jewish council and a Sanhedrin and the one who reported Jesus is Jewish themself.

Why should anyone trust the Gospel accounts? Is this where 'faith' comes in?

You are right to question the Gospels. My friends also tells me that Gospel or Bible is not historical fact, they are just a book written by humans, from their perspective. But what i used is the word "testimony". Testimony isn't worthless. I will say think of a detective case. Is the testimony he gained is true? Some are not but he dont dismiss it outright. The Gospel or the New Testament that 1/3 is written by Paul is written soon after the events. It within a few decades, not centuries while eyewitnesses are still alive, and while the events are still in their memory (https://carm.org/the-bible/was-the-new- ... er-christ/). But safe to say that 'faith' indeed have a role in this. But for me its not blind faith.

Paul stating that "500" saw a risen Jesus means nothing without independent corroboration from 500 independent corroborated reports. Remember, we are not merely speaking about seeing a UFO or Bigfoot, we are instead talking about the claims of a Messiah here!

Paul, in 1 Corinthians, is writing to a community that presumably has some of these 500 witnesses or maybe know them, many of whom he say are still alive. If this claim was completely a lie, it could have been easily challenged and discredited (https://tomstheology.blog/2025/01/29/th ... hians-156/)

[Purple Knight]

For Debate: Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?

Why indeed? If the things Jesus taught were genuinely moral and good, why should it matter that he had magic powers, and why would it matter if he didn't? Why would it even matter if he didn't exist at all?

IMO, it wouldn't and couldn't, because morality taught by a fictional character, if it is true morality, is exactly as good as morality taught by a real person. (The one time this gets muddied is if a real person teaches an exceptionally high standard, there are doubts as to whether that standard is even achievable, he holds himself as an example of that standard, and then is revealed to not himself meet that standard. Then he can be disregarded.)

The real problem with the Bible is that tacit assumption of might-makes-right. Magic powers make someone more worthy of heed. If Jericho falls, well then, huzzah to those it fell to - they won it fair and square... through force. Trickery too is seen as acceptable; trick your own brother if you like, or give someone the wrong sister and not the sister he wanted, for to the clever go the spoils. Do you see the pattern here? This is not morality. It's might-makes-right all the way down.

And if you believe in might-makes-right, then of course it matters who has powers and who can rise from the dead.

People don't really examine this assumption though. But if they wouldn't bow to the first real supervillain who showed he could knock down the hero with telekinesis, they do not actually hold such an assumption and they should rethink why they think it matters if Jesus is magic or not.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I for one am not asking you to believe any such thing. I am fine with those who do not believe, and I also understand the unbelief. My problem is with those who seem to want to insist there would be no reason to believe the claims, when they cannot in any way demonstrate this to be the case. This is especially true concerning those who want to insist they were convinced, dedicated Christians at one time well into adulthood. How in the world can one be convinced of something there would be no reason to believe? One can insist that they were somehow indoctrinated, and they can go on to insist this is the reason they believed as they did for years into adulthood, but none of this would have a thing in the world to do with whether there would be good reasons to believe. In other words, simply because one did not have good reasons to believe as they did, does not in any way demonstrate there would be no good reasons to believe.

So then, we have a Christian who is not insisting that there would be no reason to doubt, and or reject the claims of Christianity, but we seem to have those who seem to want to insist there would be no reason at all to believe what they claim to have been convinced of themselves with no reason at all, but the problem is, they cannot in the least demonstrate there would be no reason to believe what they were once convinced of with no reason.

It is like the argument is, I was convinced for no reason, therefore, this somehow demonstrates there can be no reason. I can assure you that if one were to tell me a story of a man raising from the dead, I would choose not to believe it. However, when we know for a fact that we have ordinary, uneducated, no count fishermen, who had just witnessed the leader they had been following for some 3 years crucified as a criminal, and these folks go on to continue to proclaim this same man who had been crucified had rose from the dead, with the overwhelming majority of scholars today, who dedicate their life to such study being convinced these folks were truly convinced in what they report, because the evidence is overwhelming, then it is a fact that this sort of evidence needs some sort of explanation.

Now, I am not insisting that your explanation has to be a resurrection. However, I am insisting that there needs to be some sort of explanation which would explain all the facts and evidence we have, that would eliminate a resurrection. Again, I am not insisting there would be no reason to doubt, or even not believe the claims. What I am insisting is that one cannot insist there would be no reason involved in believing the claims.

[POI]

You ask why a respectful burial after a disrespectful act like crucifixion? Good question. But consider that Roman law and custom have variations and exceptions. They are not monolithic (a large powerful organization that cannot change quickly and does not consider the ideas or feelings of the people it affects). The one that make it possible to give Jesus a respectful burial is Joseph of Arimathea, i think (https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/joseph-arimathea). He was a prominent member of the Jewish council (Mark 15:43) also rich (Matthew 27:57). And because wealthy and influental he is, he can give Jesus a proper burial.

("In Rome, the punishment for crimes varied significantly based on the perpetrator's social standing. For example, while a patrician might receive a fine or exile for a particular offense, a plebeian or slave could face death or severe physical punishment for the same crime. This disparity underscores the deeply ingrained social hierarchies within Roman society." https://romanempiretimes.com/crime-and- ... nequality/) Or maybe its just because Pilate doesnt want any conflict, because Joseph is a prominent member of Jewish council and a Sanhedrin and the one who reported Jesus is Jewish themself.

Crucifixion was reserved for non-Romans. Further, crucifixion was also reserved for what was deemed as one of the 'worst' crimes against Romans. In this case, Jesus was charged with 'treason.' Makes little sense to charge and execute Jesus for treason, but then bury him respectfully. If Jesus was crucified, he was more likely dumped into a mass grave, with the other two who were also executed along side of him.

You are right to question the Gospels. My friends also tells me that Gospel or Bible is not historical fact, they are just a book written by humans, from their perspective. But what i used is the word "testimony". Testimony isn't worthless. I will say think of a detective case. Is the testimony he gained is true? Some are not but he dont dismiss it outright. The Gospel or the New Testament that 1/3 is written by Paul is written soon after the events. It within a few decades, not centuries while eyewitnesses are still alive, and while the events are still in their memory (https://carm.org/the-bible/was-the-new- ... er-christ/). But safe to say that 'faith' indeed have a role in this. But for me its not blind faith.

This does not fly, as eyewitness testimony. Saul/Paul was not there for the so-called resurrection tour. The average life expectancy was also around 25 years old. We have no idea who he spoke to, and about what. The story speaks more to legend and lore. He likely spoke to some folks who received this information from such circulating oral tradition(s), etc...

Paul, in 1 Corinthians, is writing to a community that presumably has some of these 500 witnesses or maybe know them, many of whom he say are still alive. If this claim was completely a lie, it could have been easily challenged and discredited (https://tomstheology.blog/2025/01/29/th ... hians-156/)

Since we do not know who the '500' were, then you cannot make this claim. As stated prior, many/most may have already been dead, moved away, or were not direct witnesses, but instead received such information from circulating legend and lore. Further, it's not like anyone, in those days, could read or even give a rip as to what Saul/Paul wrote while he was alive -- even if they could read what he had written.

[POI]

For Debate: Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?

It is the best explanation for why we have the Bible still.

Why do you say this?

[POI]

I sifted through your response and the quoted part below is the only part which looks to pertain to the debate question, in any capacity.

I can assure you that if one were to tell me a story of a man raising from the dead, I would choose not to believe it. However, when we know for a fact that we have ordinary, uneducated, no count fishermen, who had just witnessed the leader they had been following for some 3 years crucified as a criminal, and these folks go on to continue to proclaim this same man who had been crucified had rose from the dead, with the overwhelming majority of scholars today, who dedicate their life to such study being convinced these folks were truly convinced in what they report, because the evidence is overwhelming, then it is a fact that this sort of evidence needs some sort of explanation.

Is this it? We have other testimonials of all sorts of things which seem to go beyond the realm of what is deemed possible by the laws of 'nature.' Should we then consider them all?