Jesus' Life and Resurrection.

[LiamOS]

In his Head-To-Head debate with otseng, WinePusher claimed that Jesus' life and resurrection can be attested to with outside, objective evidence.

For debate:
Can the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ be supported with objective evidence? If so, please provide such evidence.

[McCulloch]

Yes it sure can. The promoters of a new religion in the late first century wrote about the life of their messiah. Also one Jewish and a few Roman historians who were born after Jesus' life, made vague references to Jesus or his followers. And the same first century promoters of the new religion claimed that the witnesses to the events of Jesus' life were persecuted even to death for stating what they believed.

That about wraps it up. It is hard to understand why anyone would not be totally convinced that every written detail of Jesus' life was not literally true, with that kind of unimpeachable solid evidence. [Include reference to Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great].

[cnorman18]

Breaking this into two separate questions for reasons that will be apparent.

Can the life of Jesus Christ be supported with objective evidence?

I would read that as “Is there objective evidence that such a person actually existed as a real, historical person?� and I think the answer is “Almost certainly.�

There do seem to be extraBiblical references to Jesus in various places; and though many of those appear to have been altered by later hands, there seems to be little doubt that some sort of references existed in those sources prior to the alterations. Further: there are many oblique references to Jesus in the Talmud. Some are incredibly negative and, to Christians, incredibly offensive, which makes it rather more than unlikely that they were later interpolations by Christians; and there is never a hint that the person of Jesus never existed and was entirely fictional, though the sages would no doubt have jumped at the chance to propose, at least, that there had never been such a person. It’s also worth noting that the historical existence of some of the persons surrounding Jesus, e.g. Peter and James, is not, apparently, in doubt.

There is another factor in this question that is rarely examined, and it is this: Claimants to the office of Messiah were thick on the ground in first-century Palestine, and even if the story of Jesus were a conscious, deliberate fabrication -- which seems to me to be wildly unlikely anyway -- it would be far easier, and more likely to achieve some credibility, to base such a fiction on a real character rather than one who was entirely made up out of whole cloth. It's not like there weren't plenty of candidates to pin those doctrines on, and more than one was crucified, as it happens.

All that said, even if it’s proven beyond doubt that there actually was a real, historical Jesus, the historical details of his life and teachings are not, in my opinion, recoverable today. The Gospel record is too heavily influenced by Pauline and Greek thought to be relied upon, and some of the “sayings� seem to have been put in his mouth by later, though perhaps well-meaning, hands. “Well, it’s TRUE, so Jesus MUST have said that; and if he didn’t, he SHOULD have.� We’ve seen that sort of thing on this forum concerning a sitting President.

History just isn’t an exact science; it can’t be. The details, some of them important details, of some of the most intensively investigated events of RECENT times remain undetermined; the assassination of John F. Kennedy comes to mind instantly, and there have been revelations in the last week or so about the sinking of the Titanic that change our view of that event profoundly. Was Richard III responsible for the murders of the sons of Edward IV, the Princes in the Tower? In spite of the fact that Shakespeare wrote a play on the subject, no one, to this day, really knows. Deaths that were long thought to be natural, e.g. those of Napoleon and the boy pharaoh Tutankhamen, have been shown to be murders in recent years, and so on, and so on. It’s beyond foolish to suppose that history can objectively determine the truth and the details of events that took place two millenia ago, and it‘s equally foolish to depend on religious polemic as a source of historical fact. (And before anyone asks, yes, the same applies to Abraham and Moses. There is less evidence for THEIR real, historical existence than that of Jesus.)

Can the resurrection of Jesus Christ be supported with objective evidence?

No.

But it should be noted that many conservative Christians maintain that that absence of objective support for the Resurrection is no accident, but intended by God; if it were proven to be an incontrovertibly, objectively historical fact, faith would not be necessary. Also, many liberal Christians say that the historicity of that event is beside the point anyway, Paul notwithstanding; that the “Christ of Faith� is the proper focus of concern and devotion for Christians, and not the “historical Jesus.� The hope, not the fact. That is not a new perspective; it first appeared in the early 20th century, and perhaps even earlier.

[JehovahsWitness]

Since there is no reference outside the gospels to the details of Jesus life (although there is to his existence) no, I don't think Jesus life (what he did and said) or his resurrection can be proven by any means outside of the gospel accounts.

That having been said, the existence of Christianity is a fact. The existence and roots of Christianity in the first century is also a fact, any attempt to explain this phenonomen in the absense of a centrual figure(s) is like an attempt to explain the Holocaust in the absence of Hilter.

[Lux]

Personally, I've never seen any extra-biblical evidence for the resurrection.

In this other Head-to-head debate Goose and ChaosBorders are debating whether the resurrection of Jesus is historical or not, and I have to say that so far there seems to be no unbiased evidence for it whatsoever.

Edit to add: I'm not usually one to think that absence of evidence = evidence of absence. However, in this case I think absence of evidence is very significant. You'd think that a guy who walks around healing the sick and walking on water would attract enough attention that there'd be several texts mentioning him.

[ChristShepherd]

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.

What is the evidence for the resurection of Jesus? An empty tomb story and questionable post mortem occurrences?

If a body is missing from a tomb, do we assume that the corpse has resurrected? Or do we try and discover who moved the corpse?

There are many possible explanations of why the corpse was moved. Ask me if you can't think of any. But Matthew's gospel appears to close the "loophole" with the guards on the tomb. But the guards on the tomb story is most certainly fiction. We have four gospel writers telling the same tale and yet only Matthew mentions guards. The guards are so important to the tale, that if it were true the other gospel writers would most certainly have mentioned the guards.

But Matthew didn't close the loophole tight enough with his guards on the tomb fiction.
Matthew 27:62-66 (New American Standard Bible)
62Now on the next day, [day in the Greek means daylight hours] the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate,
63and said, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I am to rise again.'
64"Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last deception will be worse than the first."
65Pilate said to them, "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how."
66And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone.

So you see that Jesus' corpse was placed in the tomb, and the NEXT DAY, during daylight hours, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, and requested a guard be placed on the tomb. THE FIRST NIGHT THE CORPSE WAS IN THE TOMB THE TOMB WAS UNGUARDED. Anyone could have opened the tomb, removed the corpse, and closed the tomb to conceal the fact that the tomb was now empty.
So the empty tomb story proves nothing.

But what about those that saw Jesus post mortem?
We have Mary Magdalene.
Mark 16:9 (New American Standard Bible)
9Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. [See also Luke 8:2]
I would expect that any woman with seven demons would be considered a crazy woman mentally ill in today's world. Jesus may have calmed her down so she appeared normal.[cured] But most likely the shock of Jesus' sudden death and the loss of his soothing words may have pushed her back into a state of delusion. In any event she was not a competent witness.

But what about those 500 brethren who all saw Jesus at the same time post mortem according to Paul? This fiction is ridiculous. Did someone rent out a "Hall," and invite 500 brethren to all come at the same time to see Jesus? I am certain that this is Paul's fiction since Jesus only had 120 followers in the upper room on Pentecost when they all received the Holy Spirit.

What about Jesus' Apostles?
Matthew 28:16-17 (New American Standard Bible)
16But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.
17When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.
This is an amazing Scripture passage. Here we have 11 men who lived with Jesus several years, they see Jesus post mortem and some of them have doubt?

I have my own theory of how the Jesus resurrection story started with the Apostles. Many were fishermen, probably others were laborers of some kind. Fishing in those days was hard work. But when they traveled with Jesus they got used to the soft life. They preached, and passed around the baskets, and didn't have to row boats and pull nets out of the sea.
After Jesus died they went back to their old hard life.
John 21:3 (New American Standard Bible)
3Simon Peter said to them, "I am going fishing." They said to him, "We will also come with you." They went out and got into the boat; and that night they caught nothing.
They fish, they catch nothing, but then one disciple thinks he sees Jesus on the shore.
John 21:7 (New American Standard Bible)
7Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea.
Notice that Peter does not recognize Jesus. He "heard that it was the Lord." It is just some stranger on the shore, but at that moment Peter realizes that if Jesus were alive they could all go back to the soft evangelists life and to Hell with the hard fisherman's life.

It is interesting that post mortem, Jesus only shows himself to his own followers. He promised the high Priest and his entourage that they would see him. [Mark 14:62] But they never did.
Jesus promised his evil and adulterous generation that they would see him post mortem, [Matthew 12:39-40] but they never did.
If the Scientologists claimed that L Ron Hubbard resurrected, came to their conference, and then went to Heaven, would you believe them? So how can we believe a story when only Jesus' followers are the witnesses?

We have an extraordinary claim that Jesus rose from the dead, but the evidence for the claim is very poor.

Christ Shepherd

[McCulloch]

An empty tomb story and questionable post mortem occurrences?

Good post, but you left out one possibility. Could it be that there was no tomb? The whole Joseph of Arimathea story is not very credible. Traitors who were executed by Rome by crucifixion were not normally granted a burial. Why would Jesus of Nazareth be an exception? He died. His body was disposed of in the ignominious way of the traitor and the rebel of his day. The resurrection, the tomb, the miraculous visitations, the ascension, the rock, the guards, the angels, the earthquake, the ripping of the curtain in the temple, could all have been added later.

[ChristShepherd]

An empty tomb story and questionable post mortem occurrences?

Good post, but you left out one possibility. Could it be that there was no tomb? The whole Joseph of Arimathea story is not very credible. Traitors who were executed by Rome by crucifixion were not normally granted a burial. Why would Jesus of Nazareth be an exception? He died. His body was disposed of in the ignominious way of the traitor and the rebel of his day. The resurrection, the tomb, the miraculous visitations, the ascension, the rock, the guards, the angels, the earthquake, the ripping of the curtain in the temple, could all have been added later.

I agree with you. It's hard to separate the fiction.
Acts 13:27-29 (New American Standard Bible)

27"For those who live in Jerusalem, and their rulers, recognizing neither Him nor the utterances of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning Him.

28"And though they found no ground for putting Him to death, they asked Pilate that He be executed.

29"When they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb.

IMO these verses cast doubt on the Joseph of Arimathea story. In this version Jesus is buried by the rulers of Jerusalem.

Matthew 27:51-53 (New American Standard Bible)

51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split.

52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;

53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

According to Lightfoot's commentary, based on writings in the Talmud, there were two veils, one cubit apart. Not one veil as Matthew says. So this casts doubt on Matthew's account. How would anyone except the Levitical Priests know the veil was torn?
The part about the saints rising and going into the city is really ridiculous. What if a saint came back to life, found his wife married to another, and his house had been sold to another family etc? What confusion.

Thanks for the compliment.

Christ Shepherd

[JehovahsWitness]

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.

Not really. Granted, if *I* claim I can jump over the empire state building in an single leap, I would do well to demonstrate this by at least jumping over the Brooklyn bridge, but the implicaton of this statement -- that historical records of those that claim to have witnesses "extraordinary" events, must somehow produce an extraordinary amount of evidence to prove this -- is illogical if those events were supernatural in nature.

By defintion a miracle defies the laws that govern our universe, so in doing so would naturally not produce the results that would otherwise be inevitable. Thus if I stab you to death, one would naturally expect a lot of blood, if an alien evaporates you... maybe not. If a man burgles your home and steals your stereo, one would reasonably expect fingerprints and possibly your dog woke up and bit him, if an angel did the same thing... not really....

Logically a miracle, which can neither be reproduced nor demonstrated, can also leave zero trace of its occurance and thus the MORE extraordinary the less evidence may indeed be left behind. The miracles of the gospels, including the most extraordinary one of a human dying and being ressurected in a completely different life form and leaving the planet, may indeed require extraordinary evidence for us to be convinced it happened, but logic suggests given its nature, if the evidence needed is physical it won't be there.

In the end all the gospel writers could do is what they did, report what they saw and testify that they were indeed personally convinced. They could never be able to reproduces the elements that convinced them (in the case of a resurrected spirit person) , and we 2 thousand years later cannot reasonably demand they do. Their "claims" to have seen those extraordinary event, stand or fall on our assement of their character and the surrounding circumstances and in that, the historical method remains an even playing field.






JW

For more information please go to other posts related to...

FAITH, MIRACLES and ... RELIGIOUS TRUTH

[Zzyzx]

.

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.

Not really. Especially when dealing with the supernatural.

Yes really.

Anyone can make a claim that a “supernatural� event occurred (and many do or have). Do we just believe ALL the claims? If not, how do we decide which to believe and which to doubt or dismiss?

Religionists I have debated have admitted, grudgingly perhaps, that they doubt or dismiss claims by different religions and declare them fake. But they fail miserably in trying to explain why their own claims are to be accepted with no more evidence that those they reject.

Granted, if *I* claim I can jump over the empire state building in an single leap, I would do well to demonstrate this by at least jumping over the Brooklyn bridge, but the suggestion this applies to historical records those that witnesses a miracle is illogical.

In my opinion, what is illogical is to accept tales / stories / claims that supernatural events literally occurred within one’s chosen religious literature – while dismissing similar claims, equally evidenced (stories only) by competing religions promoting competing “gods�.

By defintion a miracle defies the laws that govern our universe, so in doing so would naturally not produce the results that would otherwise be inevitable.

I disagree. If the “miracle� was a worldwide flood there would be worldwide evidence of complete inundation – there is none.

Thus if I stab you to death, one would naturally expect a lot of blood, if an alien evaporates you... maybe not.

Therefore, if someone claims that an alien evaporated a person should they be believed without evidence of truth?

If modern religious cult members claim that their leader / icon died and came back to life, appeared to some of them, and disappeared -- but can show no evidence other than their own stories – shall we believe them without asking for evidence? If they can supply no evidence, only unverifiable tales, would any but the most naïve and gullible (and members of the cult) believe them?

Let’s be honest – and acknowledge that few would believe such a tale from members of a modern religious cult. Agreed?

How is that any different from the early Christian cult story of “resurrection of Jesus�? It is testified by followers only and can offer no supporting evidence. Even the identity and character of the storytellers is unknown as are their sources of information.

Logically a miracle, which can neither be reproduced nor demonstrated, can also leave zero trace of its occurance and thus the MORE extraordinary the less evidence may indeed be left behind.

Okay – then which “miracle� claims shall we accept as truth and why?

The miracles of the gospels, including the most extraordinary one of a human dying and being ressurected in a completely different life form and leaving the planet, may indeed require extraordinary evidence for us to be convinced it happened, but logic suggests given its nature, if the evidence needed is physical it won't be there.

Exactly. There will be and is no evidence – only stories told by followers.

In the end all the gospel writers can do is what they did, report they saw and testify they were indeed convinced.

Correction: Bible writers report what they HEARD from others (hearsay). There is NO evidence that those who wrote the tales decades or generations after the claimed events were personally eyewitnesses to ANY of the “miracles�. If you claim otherwise, kindly provide documentation.

They can, rightfully, testify that they were convinced – by what they heard from others – just as modern people may be convinced by what the read and hear from others – unverifiable testimonials.

People are free to believe whatever they wish. However, they are NOT free to claim truth (particularly in debate) when they cannot substantiate their claims.

They could never be able to reproduces the elements that convinced them, and we 2 thousand years later cannot reasonably demand they do.

Correction: Anyone who claims that something DID occur can very reasonably be expected to support their claim with evidence – to SHOW that they speak truth. If they realize that they have no evidence other than the tales themselves that “miracles� occurred, they should not make the claim in debate (or outside church or “Christian friendly� discussions such as Holy Huddle).

Their "claims" to have seen what they did, stand or fall on our assement of their character and the surrounding circumstances.

We have absolutely no way to assess the character of gospel writers, particularly since we do not even know their identity. Likewise, we cannot know the “surrounding circumstances�, or the source or quality of information upon which they based their writings.

All we have are unverifiable tales written by unidentified people long after the claimed events, whose sources of information are not known and cannot be verified, whose writings may or may not have been significantly altered by later compilers, editors, transcribers, translators, revisionists, etc.

How much less dependable can it get?