Is there good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

just_sayin

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

MayCaesar said:

Let us see here... On the one hand we have centuries of rigorous scientific research and medical experience that suggest that people do not get healed from debilitating illnesses overnight by saying a few words - on the other hand we have one doctor's statement who has made claims ("she heard...") that he could not possibly know to be true. On one hand we have millennia of observations and experimentation suggesting that people do not rise from the dead - on the other hand we have a few "witnesses" from 2,000 years ago saying otherwise. On one hand we have extensive documentation of countless species and life forms going back all the way to 2+ billion years and are only missing a few small links in the process - on the other we have the argument that "complexity suggests intelligent design".

I think one has to be absolutely insane to view these groups of evidence as even remotely comparable - but that is just me.

@MayCaesar ; You're a foolish atheist.

May,
In the case of Barbara Commiskey, we have her medical records and the statements from 4 of her doctors. One wrote a published medical report on it. Three of the others wrote books about it, which include the medical evidence because she permitted to be published. Also, in addition to those who wrote about it the remain 31 medical people who were involved in her treatments have also said it was a miracle (I know that will really make you scream like a demon possessed child). Again, the very definition of a miracle is that it is not a regular occurrence.

May, you seriously think there are only a few misusing links in your theory? Just to go from non-life to a singled celled organism would require 10 known chemical miracles that science is further away from solving than it was 70 years ago.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

When Nero burned Christian women and children as torches to light his garden parties (historical fact), these people refused to recant their claim that Jesus was resurrected. Yet you think they were just engaged in hearsay. Nero cut Paul's head off when he would not recant. Nero had Peter crucified upside down. And you think they endured all that because they want to keep a lie going? I just don't have enough faith, or hate, to be an atheist.

It takes a lot more hate and faith to be christian as history and you attest to that fact. You would die right now to keep the lie going, why wouldn't they? You act as if it's fact these two specific executions (peter & paul) happened the way they're posited when they're actually just rumored to have happened by christian tradition. Further evidence you've no clue what evidence is...

According to tradition, Paul was beheaded during Nero's persecution of Christians, likely sometime between 64 and 67 CE.

According to tradition, Peter was crucified upside-down during Nero's persecution of Christians. The reason for this unusual form of execution was reportedly at Peter's own request, as he felt unworthy to die in the same manner as Jesus.

https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/ancient-history/nero-christians/#:~:text=Christianity was seen as a,source of dissent and rebellion.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

In case it has not been made clear yet (I believe it has), I do not view repeating the same statement without addressing any of its criticisms as a proper way to have a discussion. I have already pointed out a couple of things the doctor's testimony contained that the doctor had to make up as he had no access to the data he was referencing. I could go on and analyze everyone's writing, but one has to be practical, and given how shoddy all the evidence you have presented so far has been - and you have clearly spent a lot of time studying this case, so, presumably, you would be armed with the best arguments one can come up with - there is very little point for me to look into this further.

I weight the experience and knowledge of probably millions of doctors and scientists in multiple disciplines all arriving at the same conclusion with respect of possibility of "medical miracles" of the kind you are describing - against... I do not know what to even call this. The scales are not quite balanced.

To your last question, the missing links are quite serious - however, the known links are overwhelmingly consistent. There are very few other theories out there with better evidential support than this one - which is quite spectacular, considering that the majority of processes we are talking about here occurred billions years ago. Your "chemical miracles" are considered miracles only by you, Dr. Craig and other religious folks who have read some popular articles on the field (specifically those that aim at arriving at the same conclusion as you) - not by professionals who have studied these processes their whole lives. In serious science, we do not talk about "miracles": we talk about gaps of knowledge that we work hard towards closing.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

In case it has not been made clear yet (I believe it has), I do not view repeating the same statement without addressing any of its criticisms as a proper way to have a discussion. I have already pointed out a couple of things the doctor's testimony contained that the doctor had to make up as he had no access to the data he was referencing. I could go on and analyze everyone's writing, but one has to be practical, and given how shoddy all the evidence you have presented so far has been - and you have clearly spent a lot of time studying this case, so, presumably, you would be armed with the best arguments one can come up with - there is very little point for me to look into this further.

I weight the experience and knowledge of probably millions of doctors and scientists in multiple disciplines all arriving at the same conclusion with respect of possibility of "medical miracles" of the kind you are describing - against... I do not know what to even call this. The scales are not quite balanced.

To your last question, the missing links are quite serious - however, the known links are overwhelmingly consistent. There are very few other theories out there with better evidential support than this one - which is quite spectacular, considering that the majority of processes we are talking about here occurred billions years ago. Your "chemical miracles" are considered miracles only by you, Dr. Craig and other religious folks who have read some popular articles on the field (specifically those that aim at arriving at the same conclusion as you) - not by professionals who have studied these processes their whole lives. In serious science, we do not talk about "miracles": we talk about gaps of knowledge that we work hard towards closing.

Amen!

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

When Nero burned Christian women and children as torches to light his garden parties (historical fact), these people refused to recant their claim that Jesus was resurrected. Yet you think they were just engaged in hearsay. Nero cut Paul's head off when he would not recant. Nero had Peter crucified upside down. And you think they endured all that because they want to keep a lie going? I just don't have enough faith, or hate, to be an atheist.

It takes a lot more hate and faith to be christian as history and you attest to that fact. You would die right now to keep the lie going, why wouldn't they? You act as if it's fact these two specific executions (peter & paul) happened the way they're posited when they're actually just rumored to have happened by christian tradition. Further evidence you've no clue what evidence is...

According to tradition, Paul was beheaded during Nero's persecution of Christians, likely sometime between 64 and 67 CE.

According to tradition, Peter was crucified upside-down during Nero's persecution of Christians. The reason for this unusual form of execution was reportedly at Peter's own request, as he felt unworthy to die in the same manner as Jesus.

https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/ancient-history/nero-christians/#:~:text=Christianity was seen as a,source of dissent and rebellion.

First general extrabiblical references about Christians being persecuted and martyred:

He likewise inflicted punishments on the Christians, a sort of people who held a new and impious superstition. - Suetonius (Nero 16.2)

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed. - Tacitus (Annals 15.44:2–5)

When the government of Nero was now firmly established, he began to plunge into unholy pursuits, and armed himself even against the religion of the God of the universe.
2. To describe the greatness of his depravity does not lie within the plan of the present work. As there are many indeed that have recorded his history in most accurate narratives, every one may at his pleasure learn from them the coarseness of the man's extraordinary madness, under the influence of which, after he had accomplished the destruction of so many myriads without any reason, he ran into such blood-guiltiness that he did not spare even his nearest relatives and dearest friends, but destroyed his mother and his brothers and his wife,with very many others of his own family as he would private and public enemies, with various kinds of deaths.
3. But with all these things this particular in the catalogue of his crimes was still wanting, that he was the first of the emperors who showed himself an enemy of the divine religion.
4. The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows: "Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome. We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something of great excellence."
5. Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God's chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.
6. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: - Eusebius, Church History

Accounts of Peter

1. Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Peter (Acts of Peter 30–41)
2. Pseudo-Linus, Martyrdom of Blessed Peter the Apostle
3. Pseudo-Abdias, Passion of St. Peter
4. History of Shimeon Kepha the Chief of the Apostles

Accounts of Paul

1. Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Paul in Rome (Acts of Paul 14)
2. Pseudo-Linus, Martyrdom of the Blessed Apostle Paul
3. Pseudo-Abdias, Passion of Saint Paul
4. A History of the Holy Apostle My Lord Paul
5. The Martyrdom of Paul the Apostle and the Discovery of His Severed Head

Accounts of Peter & Paul

1. Pseudo-Marcellus, Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul
2. Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul
3. Passion of the Apostles Peter and Paul
4. Pseudo-Dionysius, *Epistle to Timothy on the Death of the Apostles Peter and Paul*
5. Teaching of Shimeon Kepha in the City of Rome
6. Doctrine of the Apostles

References in Other Christian Literature

1 Clement 5:1–7
Martyrdom & Ascension of Isaiah 4:2–4
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians 12:1–2
Irenaeus of Lyons, Against the Heresies 3.1.1
Muratorian Canon 34–39
Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics 36.2–3
Tertullian, Antidote for the Scorpion’s Sting 15.2–3
Peter of Alexandria, On Repentance/Canonical Epistle 9
Lactantius, On the Deaths of the Persecutors 2.5–6
Papias & Dionysius of Corinth (Quoted in Eusebius) Ecclesiastical History 2.25.5–8
Origen of Alexandria (Quoted in Eusebius) Ecclesiastical History 3.1
John Chrysostom, Against the Opponents of the Monastic Life 1.3
John Chrysostom, On the Praises of Saint Paul 4.15
John Chrysostom, Homilies on 2 Timothy 10.1–2
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts 46
Jerome, Tractate on the Psalms 96:10
Jerome, On Illustrious Men 1, 5

Factfinder

@just_sayin

First general extrabiblical references about Christians being persecuted and martyred:

Of course that's not the claim being rejected.

JulesKorngold

There are millions of stories about Jesus Christ. Can they ALL be fiction? Yup.

Factfinder

JulesKorngold said:

There are millions of stories about Jesus Christ. Can they ALL be fiction? Yup.

Yes, specially since there were about a hundred jesuses running around at the time in question along with marys, johns, peters,...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_names

MayCaesar

I am not sure where the assumption that one can only speak falsehood by means of deliberately lying came from. Humans are impressionable, and deeply religious humans are hyper-impressionable. Someone who very strongly believes that there is a deity that protects them from harm will be strongly inclined to treat unexpected events, or even fairly mundane events sometimes, as signs of the divine intervention. You believe that Jesus was the messenger of god, and then on a bazaar you see a half-naked man with long hair walking around and mumbling something incoherent? And then you tell what you saw to your religious brothers, equally impressionable, who now suddenly also start remembering seeing such a man before? And then you wrap it all with the "broken phone" effect? You do not need much imagination to see where this is going.

We do not have to go far to find other things like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness_Monster
https://www.highlandtitles.com/blog/loch-ness-monster/#:~:text=We%20have%20all%20heard%20of,hunters%20and%20leaving%20scientists%20baffled.

We have all heard of the legend of the Loch Ness Monster, a serpentine beast lurking in the depths of Loch Ness. There have been over a 1000, often unexplainable, eye-witness accounts and sightings attracting monster hunters and leaving scientists baffled. This fame has turned the Loch Ness Monster into Scotland’s most beloved and elusive creature. But does it really exist?

I am a little worried here, as sometimes when I bring something like this up, thinking, "They will surely see how preposterous their reasoning is now", they say, "Oh, of course the Loch Ness Monster also exists". Then I feel very awkward...

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

I am not sure where the assumption that one can only speak falsehood by means of deliberately lying came from. Humans are impressionable, and deeply religious humans are hyper-impressionable. Someone who very strongly believes that there is a deity that protects them from harm will be strongly inclined to treat unexpected events, or even fairly mundane events sometimes, as signs of the divine intervention. You believe that Jesus was the messenger of god, and then on a bazaar you see a half-naked man with long hair walking around and mumbling something incoherent? And then you tell what you saw to your religious brothers, equally impressionable, who now suddenly also start remembering seeing such a man before? And then you wrap it all with the "broken phone" effect? You do not need much imagination to see where this is going.

We do not have to go far to find other things like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness_Monster
https://www.highlandtitles.com/blog/loch-ness-monster/#:~:text=We%20have%20all%20heard%20of,hunters%20and%20leaving%20scientists%20baffled.

We have all heard of the legend of the Loch Ness Monster, a serpentine beast lurking in the depths of Loch Ness. There have been over a 1000, often unexplainable, eye-witness accounts and sightings attracting monster hunters and leaving scientists baffled. This fame has turned the Loch Ness Monster into Scotland’s most beloved and elusive creature. But does it really exist?
I am a little worried here, as sometimes when I bring something like this up, thinking, "They will surely see how preposterous their reasoning is now", they say, "Oh, of course the Loch Ness Monster also exists". Then I feel very awkward...

LOL. A couple of questions for you May

1) Did these eyewitnesses know the monster beforehand and can verify if he was dead and alive now?
2) Did these witnesses touch the monsters hands and side?
3) Did these witnesses have dinner with the monster multiple times after it 'rose' up out of the water?
4) Were these witnesses willing to die for their claims that they saw the monster? Please provide their names.
5) Have any of these eye witness accounts been proven to be fake or the witnesses claimed they lied (yep for the Loch Ness Monster, and Nope for the eyewitnesses of Jesus).
6) Have there ever been mass sightings for Nessie, as the 500 people who saw Jesus at one time after he rose?

I love how you refuse to deal with the actual evidence of the Resurrection. I get it though. The evidence for the Resurrection is diverse, comes from friend and enemy alike, with many eye witness accounts, lots of supplemental support, and the reactions of the eye witnesses are hard to explain if it was not true. I get how it causes dissonance with your faith.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

LOL. A couple of questions for you May

1) Did these eyewitnesses know the monster beforehand and can verify if he was dead and alive now?
2) Did these witnesses touch the monsters hands and side?
3) Did these witnesses have dinner with the monster multiple times after it 'rose' up out of the water?
4) Were these witnesses willing to die for their claims that they saw the monster? Please provide their names.
5) Have any of these eye witness accounts been proven to be fake or the witnesses claimed they lied (yep for the Loch Ness Monster, and Nope for the eyewitnesses of Jesus).
6) Have there ever been mass sightings for Nessie, as the 500 people who saw Jesus at one time after he rose?

I love how you refuse to deal with the actual evidence of the Resurrection. I get it though. The evidence for the Resurrection is diverse, comes from friend and enemy alike, with many eye witness accounts, lots of supplemental support, and the reactions of the eye witnesses are hard to explain if it was not true. I get how it causes dissonance with your faith.

These are bizarre questions to ask when talking about a lake monster.

No, I do not think any of the witnesses have drunk beer with it. In the context of the entity we are talking about, however, the pieces of evidence they mention make perfect sense. And I should add that to me personally, while both stories sound utterly ridiculous, at least I can see how the Loch Ness Monster can be real in one of the 10^100 iterations of this planet's evolution: maybe a Plesiosaurus tens of millions years ago developed some mutation that allows it to regenerate and survived in the lake all this time? At least this would make for a cool sci-fi story.

I address exactly what you call "evidence" of the "resurrection" by comparing it to other hypotheses with similar pieces and amounts of evidence, and find it just as lacking. There is no "faith": I know very little about the historical character called "Jesus" on numerous occasions, and I am very open to the idea that he was very much unlike of what I think he could have been. However, the claim that he was "resurrected" by "god" is so out of this world (in the eyes of anyone who does not believe in folklore stories and fairytales), that the fact that you cannot come up with better evidence than "witnesses" from millennia ago almost certainly suggests that the claim is false.

The truth is that to me these are just fun mental exercises: I do not have strong positions on these matters my entire world view hinges on. If I learn tomorrow that Jesus actually did rise from the dead, I will be curious to understand how it happened - but nothing would change in how I live my day to day life. It is quite different for you, for, as you yourself said (erroneously, in my opinion), Jesus' resurrection being untrue would destroy Christianity, and to you, as a devoted Christian, that would mean the end of the world as you know it.
That is why you are prone to thinking that others also have a very strong position on the subject, while to many non-religious people it is just one of the millions of fun historical peculiarities and nothing else. Whether Jesus was resurrected or not matters about as much to me as whether Hannibal's elephant could jump across ravines (there were "witnesses" of that too), and in the context of the debate it only interests me in terms of the arguments given in its support. And the arguments I have seen from you so far... let us call them "unconvincing".

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

LOL. A couple of questions for you May

1) Did these eyewitnesses know the monster beforehand and can verify if he was dead and alive now?
2) Did these witnesses touch the monsters hands and side?
3) Did these witnesses have dinner with the monster multiple times after it 'rose' up out of the water?
4) Were these witnesses willing to die for their claims that they saw the monster? Please provide their names.
5) Have any of these eye witness accounts been proven to be fake or the witnesses claimed they lied (yep for the Loch Ness Monster, and Nope for the eyewitnesses of Jesus).
6) Have there ever been mass sightings for Nessie, as the 500 people who saw Jesus at one time after he rose?

I love how you refuse to deal with the actual evidence of the Resurrection. I get it though. The evidence for the Resurrection is diverse, comes from friend and enemy alike, with many eye witness accounts, lots of supplemental support, and the reactions of the eye witnesses are hard to explain if it was not true. I get how it causes dissonance with your faith.

These are bizarre questions to ask when talking about a lake monster. No, I do not think any of the witnesses have drunk beer with it. In the context of the entity we are talking about, however, the pieces of evidence they mention make perfect sense. And I should add that to me personally, while both stories sound utterly ridiculous, at least I can see how the Loch Ness Monster can be real in one of the 10^100 iterations of this planet's evolution: maybe a Plesiosaurus tens of millions years ago developed some mutation that allows it to regenerate and survived in the lake all this time? At least this would make for a cool sci-fi story.

I address exactly what you call "evidence" of the "resurrection" by comparing it to other hypotheses with similar pieces and amounts of evidence, and find it just as lacking. There is no "faith": I know very little about the historical character called "Jesus" on numerous occasions, and I am very open to the idea that he was very much unlike of what I think he could have been. However, the claim that he was "resurrected" by "god" is so out of this world (in the eyes of anyone who does not believe in folklore stories and fairytales), that the fact that you cannot come up with better evidence than "witnesses" from millennia ago almost certainly suggests that the claim is false.

The truth is that to me these are just fun mental exercises: I do not have strong positions on these matters my entire world view hinges on. If I learn tomorrow that Jesus actually did rise from the dead, I will be curious to understand how it happened - but nothing would change in how I live my day to day life. It is quite different for you, for, as you yourself said (erroneously, in my opinion), Jesus' resurrection being untrue would destroy Christianity, and to you, as a devoted Christian, that would mean the end of the world as you know it.
That is why you are prone to thinking that others also have a very strong position on the subject, while to many non-religious people it is just one of the millions of fun historical peculiarities and nothing else. Whether Jesus was resurrected or not matters about as much to me as whether Hannibal's elephant could jump across ravines (there were "witnesses" of that too), and in the context of the debate it only interests me in terms of the arguments given in its support. And the arguments I have seen from you so far... let us call them "unconvincing".

May, a big difference I see between us, is that I have a lot more evidence for the miracles that I believe, than you have for the miracles you believe.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

This possibility does not bother me, given that the set of miracles I believe in is empty.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

This possibility does not bother me, given that the set of miracles I believe in is empty.

May you believe:

1) Everything came from nothing
2) Life came from non-life (and all the many sub-miracles associated with it)
3) Order came from chaos
4) Consciousness came from nonexistence
5) Morals came from matter

Those are all faith claims and miracles.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

May you believe:

1) Everything came from nothing
2) Life came from non-life (and all the many sub-miracles associated with it)
3) Order came from chaos
4) Consciousness came from nonexistence
5) Morals came from matter

Those are all faith claims and miracles.

I do not "believe" any of these things, of course. But you will keep attributing these beliefs to me despite anything I say, as you always have, will you not?

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:
just_sayin said:

May you believe:

1) Everything came from nothing
2) Life came from non-life (and all the many sub-miracles associated with it)
3) Order came from chaos
4) Consciousness came from nonexistence
5) Morals came from matter

Those are all faith claims and miracles.
I do not "believe" any of these things, of course. But you will keep attributing these beliefs to me despite anything I say, as you always have, will you not?

May, if you don't think life came from non-life (abiogenesis) then where do you think it came from?

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

I think that abiogenesis is the most reasonable hypothesis given the evidence. I do not "believe" in abiogenesis: my mind does not work on beliefs, only on hypotheses and models. It is possible that abiogenesis has never happened in Earth's conditions and true source of life here lies somewhere else, although I see it as somewhat unlikely.

I am not sure how many more times I have to explain this. My mind does not work the way yours does: I do not assume beliefs and hold on to them. You can keep claiming that I operate on "faith" as many times as you want, but it will not change the reality.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

May, if you don't think life came from non-life (abiogenesis) then where do you think it came from?

We don't know. Abiogenesis is the best working theory we got. Barring the troglodytes. That's not a faith declaration. It's a confession. You don't know either.

Any empirical evidence? Peer reviewed articles? Experiments? Observations of god by using the scientific method to establish behavior patterns? Samples of it's physiology to analyze? Of your god?

Didn't think so. Remember, conjecture, faith and the bible aren't evidence.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Geez, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. You know what I'm sayin? Just_sayin will be as deluded as he wants to be.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

I actually do not have a problem with discussing religion with religious people in general, and while I see them as confused, I think "deluded" might be too strong a word (or maybe I am overly tolerant of their views). It is just very hard to have a conversation with someone who does not listen to what you say... There are three active individuals on this website who have a habit of doing (not doing?) that, and I have never made much progress in discussions with them. After all these endless exchanges, we are back at square one, where I have to explain the same damn thing that I explained months ago: that no, my argument is not X, but Y.

just_sayin

Thus far, the deniers have failed to show
1) that Jesus was not crucified by Pontius Pilate and have ignored the 10 plus historical attestations by both friend and foe alike,
2) that the tomb was not empty - instead we see good evidence of this being corroborated by Jesus enemies, embarrassing details such as the women eyewitnesses, and the naming of the owner of the tomb - Joseph of Arimathea, a Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin
3) that there were no resurrection appearances of Jesus - the atheists have failed to explain why there so many eyewitness accounts, with an early Christian creed being dated at with 18 months of Jesus' resurrection, and very detailed evidence of disciples like Thomas touching the side and nail scars of Jesus
4) that the disciples of Jesus were not transformed by the event - Instead the evidence shows Jesus' brother James, not only becoming a believer, but leading the church in Jerusalem and being martyred for his belief in the resurrection, we see James the apostle being beheaded, Paul being beheaded by Nero, Peter being crucified by Nero, and the other disciples martyred for their belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus

We could end this debate now on the mercy rule, since none of the minimal facts have been shown to be false, but let's address some of the common theories deniers have put forward:

1) Jesus body was stolen
This was the first argument made by the Jews for the empty tomb. The gospels and early church fathers refuted this argument. Had the disciples stolen Jesus body, it seems unlikely that they would have all been willing to be martyred, and in some instances watched their children murdered, rather than deny that Jesus was resurrected. Someone may be willing to be a martyr for something they believe to be true, but it is unlikely someone will die for something they know to be a lie. If the disciples had stolen the body, it fails to explain their martyrdoms and their suffering for their claims. The stolen body theory fails to explain how James, Jesus' brother became such a strong Christian leader, as he did not believe Jesus prior to the resurrection, nor does it explain why an enemy of Jesus, Paul, became the strongest witness of the resurrection

2) Hallucination Theory
While an individual may hallucinate, groups do not. This theory fails to explain the multiple appearances of Jesus to different individuals - Mary Magdalene and the other women at the tomb, to the disciples at a meal, to Thomas a week later, to people on the road, to the disciples on the beach at breakfast, to James, to 500 at one time (possibly at his ascension).

3) Jesus didn't really die
The multiple accounts that Jesus was crucified argue against this. Roman soldiers were unlikely to not carry out the sentence. They were known for their ruthlessness and their very lives were at stake if they did not carry out their duties. Further, the multiple attestations that a spear was thrust into Jesus' side with water and blood flowing out denotes he was dead already. But suppose for a moment that they mistakenly thought Jesus was dead when he wasn't, and a severely wounded Jesus could open a tomb with a rock door from the inside, which was impossible. This fails to explain the other accounts and the disciples response to him. If Jesus appeared to the disciples after getting out of the tomb, the response would not be 'wow, Jesus arose from the dead', but 'uh, Jesus you don't look so good. Are you OK?' The response of the disciples would have been much different.

The evidence of Jesus resurrection gives of strong reasons to believe that it is true.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Thus far, the deniers have failed to show

Thus far you've failed to show anyone has been resurrected.
Thus far rumor, inuendo, conjecture and reports there of have failed to show verifiable empirical evidence of your fairytale.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

I actually do not have a problem with discussing religion with religious people in general, and while I see them as confused, I think "deluded" might be too strong a word (or maybe I am overly tolerant of their views). It is just very hard to have a conversation with someone who does not listen to what you say... There are three active individuals on this website who have a habit of doing (not doing?) that, and I have never made much progress in discussions with them. After all these endless exchanges, we are back at square one, where I have to explain the same damn thing that I explained months ago: that no, my argument is not X, but Y.

True and frustrating. I look at it this way though. They're coming here for a reason, no matter what they claim their 'real' life is blessed with. So if by one small chance a closed mind opens just enough one day to let a fact or reasonable thought to enter and resonate, why not engage? Afterall I'm here out of boredom and I learn something sometimes.

just_sayin

Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, physician William Edwards and his colleagues supported the combined cardiovascular collapse (by hypovolemic shock) and exhaustion asphyxia theories, assuming that the flow of water from the side of Jesus described in the Gospel of John.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220126124914/http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/deathjesus.pdf

So there is medical evidence that supports the evidence of Jesus crucifixion as being portrayed in a medically accurate manner.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, physician William Edwards and his colleagues supported the combined cardiovascular collapse (by hypovolemic shock) and exhaustion asphyxia theories, assuming that the flow of water from the side of Jesus described in the Gospel of John.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220126124914/http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/deathjesus.pdf

So there is medical evidence that supports the evidence of Jesus crucifixion as being portrayed in a medically accurate manner.

The fairytale claim being rejected do to no empirical evidence, isn't that a guy with a common name in ancient Israel died during a time under Roman rule from crucifixion, at a time when Romans were known to crucify people. The fairytale being rejected is that he got up three days later, walked around for a few more days, then flew into the sky and disappeared. Resuming the secrecy and hiding. That's the nonsense being rejected as you've failed to present actual evidence.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Eyewitnesses of the Resurrection

1) Mary Magdalene
She is mentioned as a witness in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and in gnostic gospels. Why believe she was the first witness? Women were not considered reliable witnesses in 1st century Judea. If you were making up a story, you wouldn't have a woman as the first witness - this would just make it harder to convince people. Because it is considered an 'embarrassing detail' it has the ring of authenticity.
There are several women with Mary Magdalene mentioned in the gospels
a. - Joanna,- Her husband was Chuza, the household manager or steward of King Herod Antipas
b - Mary - mother of Jesus
c - Mary - mother of James and Joseph
d - Mary - wife of Clopas
e - Salome - mother of James and John

2) The apostles
Peter
James
John
Andrew
Philip
Bartholomew
Matthew
James the Less
Simon the Zealot
Thaddeus
Thomas
Mattias - See Acts 1

Why believe they did? Because there is multiple attestations and very early ones. Peter says he did in 1 Peter. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, which is an early Christian creed no more than 18 months after the resurrection, mentions Peter by name, and the apostles in general. Early church fathers such as Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus who spoke with the apostles affirmed that they said they had seen the resurrected Christ. And the fact that each of them other than John were martyred for their faith.

Further the specific details of the accounts indicates several distinct encounters. With Thomas seeing Jesus a week after the others and asking to see Jesus' side and nail scars. Other accounts talk about meeting Jesus by the lake for breakfast.

3) Cleopas and a friend on the Road to Emmaus

4) James the brother of Jesus
James was not a believer in Jesus prior to the resurrection. The gospel records him and his other brothers trying to get Jesus to stop speaking because he was embarrassing them. James is mentioned in the early Christian creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, his martyr is mentioned by Josephus and he is named as the brother of Jesus there. The gospel of James also attests to James belief in his brother as the Christ.

5) Paul
And then there is the issue with Paul. He was tasked to kill Christians. He was a former member of the Sanhedrin. Both Acts and Paul's own epistles record that he met with Paul, John, and James to confirm their belief in a physical resurrection. The evidence would have had to have been pretty convincing for him to switch sides. Acts and his epistles record he had an encounter with Jesus - whether this was a vision or a manifestation of a bodily Jesus is unknown, what is known is that he switched sides shortly thereafter. Paul was not immediately welcomed by Christians due to his reputation. Barnabas, the uncle of John Mark, is the first to agree to work with Paul and he too was most likely a witness of the resurrection (church history says Barnabas was the rich young ruler who approached Jesus). Paul was martyred by Nero for his belief in the resurrection. It seems unlikely he would be so zealous in his faith given his background, if the evidence was not convincing.

Factfinder

Bible says is not evidence despite any devout belief that it is. Still, no resurrection evidence.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

Bible says is not evidence despite any devout belief that it is. Still, no resurrection evidence.

To say that because a historical source is valued in a religious community does not disqualify it from being considered as a historical text. This is your bias showing. There are many good reasons whey these texts should be considered credible. I've identified several points already: https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177022/#Comment_177022

What should we look for in good historical evidence? I would argue we should look for these types of things:

1. Multiple sources - there are 42 ancient sources within a 100 year period of the resurrection, both Christian and non-Christian, that mention Jesus. To put it into perspective, the most well known person of Jesus' day, Tiberius, has 15 sources of evidence in a 150 year period.

2. The Earlier the better - the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is said to be within 18 months of the resurrection. It mentions the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus plus names witnesses such as Peter, James, the apostles, and claims 500 eye witnesses. As far as early dates go in antiquity - that's incredibly early evidence.

3. Does it fit historically - Jesus crucifixion fits with what we know about Roman crucifixion. Burial in a tomb was for rich people - so it tracks that Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb, who also was a member of the Sanhedrin. The reaction of the disciples fits if they saw something miraculous, otherwise its hard to understand why they all were martyred - well except for John, who was imprisoned and boiled in oil.

4. Enemy attestation can be a strong evidence. - You expect your enemies to lie, but sometimes they can corroborate details. For example Jesus enemies said he could predict the future, performed miracles, was in Jerusalem for the Passover, was crucified by Pontius Pilate, that the tomb was empty, that the disciples believed Jesus was the Messiah. Multiple sources from Jesus' enemies such as Josephus, and Tacitus say that the disciples of Jesus were martyred when they refused to renounce Jesus resurrection.

Paul was an enemy of Jesus. He put Christians to death. This is attested to in Acts and in Paul's on writings.  Paul mentions in his letter to the Corinthian church (15:9), his letter to the Galatian church (1:13), and his letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 1:13), that he was a persecutor of Christians. From Paul’s own writings he tells us that he killed some Christians and had others imprisoned. Paul even tries to get some churches, that he had not visited yet, at ease over his past in his epistles before visiting them. It seems for someone who was a zealous Jew, who stoned Christians to death in behalf of the high priest, to 'switch sides' ,that the evidence had to be pretty compelling to him. How do you account for this otherwise? Remember he was beheaded for preaching that Jesus was risen, and spent years of his life in prison. He was stoned and beaten for his message.

5. Embarrassing details can also lend weight to a historical claim. People don't usually share their embarrassing moments in antiquity. If Jesus had not been crucified it is unlikely that detail would have been mentioned. If women were not the first witnesses, it is unlikely that detail would have been created because it would have been counterproductive. Thomas saying he wouldn't believe unless he saw Jesus for himself is a detail that would not have been shared by the disciples if not true. Mark in his gospel mentions a young man running away naked when the high priests guards came to take Jesus away - in the original Koine Greek the reader understands that the writer is talking about himself. Do you freely talk to others about running away naked because you are fearing for your life? Mark includes details about Peter denying Christ on the eve Jesus was crucified. It is unlikely Mark, whose source was Peter, would have made that detail up because it puts Peter in a bad light.

Your 'I am angry with God so I don't accept the gospels as a source' is your own special pleading.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Stop trying to figure out me and start figuring out what evidence consists of. Storytelling from primarily one source, the bible is not evidence. Relatively speaking there is little evidence outside the bible. Were there crucifixions, persecutions, clashes of cultures, real places in history that stories derived from, yes but none of that is direct evidence of a resurrection. Every "eye" witness account comes from the bible. If the stories themselves were true and not just orated myths woven through some benign historical facts, we'd expect to see a lot more accountings unrelated to the biblical accounts of the stories themselves. So much so that we couldn't ignore the biblical accounts. As it is now, you take the bible away and your left with a few trinkets of factual data and a whole lot of conjecture.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Is there any evidence of the Resurrection outside of the Bible

Yes.

The Enemies of Jesus

Josephus (37-100) - Christian scribe version
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

Indirect Evidence from Jesus Enemies

Suetonius (70-160)
“Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition [the resurrection].”

Phiny the Younger (61-113)
“I have never been present at an examination of Christians. Consequently, I do not know the nature of the extent of the punishments usually meted out to them, nor the grounds for starting an investigation and how far it should be pressed…They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day [Sunday in remembrance of Jesus’ resurrection] to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god.”

Early Church Fathers

Gospel of Barnabas
Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended into the heavens. Barnabas 15:9

Factfinder

@just_sayin

And not a single 'eye' witness outside the bible, just hearsay and not much of it given the magnitude of the claim. Still no evidence. Christians writing about christian doctrine and beliefs are not evidence. Jesus's 'enemies' giving small vague references as to what christians believe is not evidence. No resurrection in Jerusalem or anywhere else at anytime. Though we do know that the Egyptian god horus's father Osiris was king of the resurrection thousands of years before. My how stories evolve and spread.

MayCaesar

If only all those millions of crusaders and Moslem warriors who died fighting for Jerusalem were resurrected... Ah how sweet the world would be! Unfortunately, resurrection happens to be impossible, so all those people deceived by their rulers and preachers perished fighting for a city in the middle of the desert, leaving their wives and children behind. But one naked crucified guy who a few people 2,000 years ago claimed to have seen walk - that makes all the difference.

There is a book that claims that Christianity originated with a bunch of people consuming psychedelic mushrooms and having wild visions. The evidence presented there is shoddy at best, but sometimes I wonder if there is something to it.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

And the thing is we are not insulting anyone. I may point out the reality that the god bible has as much chance of existing as fairy elves and you point to psychedelics but we generally leave the faithful themselves alone. Wonder what makes them upset? Just provide one sliver of evidence and they don't need to feel insecure. Oh yeah, there is none. Guess there is that.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

It is this weird concept of "sacrilege", the idea that certain things just are not to be said, and that evaluation of their quality is dependent not on their logical merit, but on their satisfaction of certain conventions. It is not exclusive to religion - the "woke" people nowadays have it as well - but it certainly originated in it.

I am not offended or upset when someone criticizes my views: I welcome the challenge. Now, if the criticism is lousy (as the one our little friend here routinely throws our direction), then I may get mildly irritated by it: I expect more of my opponents. But every single thing I believe in is absolutely a subject to criticism - no exceptions.

Not so with theocrats. You are not allowed to make fun of their views, and if you are not 100% on board with their fantasies, then you are evil. Even if you just go about your life and do not engage with them without them initiating these conversations, they still get upset. First they knock in your door in the morning and start telling you their fantasies. Then you question their views, and they get outraged. Like, if you do not want your views criticized, then do not express them to me.

What am I supposed to do, listen and nod my head even when I disagree with everything you say?

just_sayin

Thus far the atheist has failed to give good reasons why the numerous eye witness accounts from those who saw Jesus after his resurrection should be discounted. There have special pleadings for sure, such as saying that because the eye witnesses believed Jesus was the Messiah and they became followers their eye witness accounts should be ignored. However, this is a laughable argument. Imagine explaining to a judge that someone can't be an eye witness in a trial, because they know the guy in question and think well of him. It logically follows that if someone saw Jesus risen from the dead that they would be impacted by the experience and be a follower.

when you ask the person who does not believe in Jesus' resurrection why the numerous eye witness accounts should not be considered, you get crazy notions such as they all had the same group hallucination. Now, there is no known instance of people who were in various places all having the same group hallucination. But that is exactly what some have claimed.

Considering the reaction to those who say they saw the resurrected Christ, it makes the most sense to conclude that they truly believe that they same Jesus alive. Someone may be willing to die for what they believe is the truth, but it is unlikely that one will die for something they know to be a life, especially hundreds of people.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Thus far the atheist has failed to give good reasons why the numerous eye witness accounts from those who saw Jesus after his resurrection should be discounted. There have special pleadings for sure, such as saying that because the eye witnesses believed Jesus was the Messiah and they became followers their eye witness accounts should be ignored. However, this is a laughable argument. Imagine explaining to a judge that someone can't be an eye witness in a trial, because they know the guy in question and think well of him. It logically follows that if someone saw Jesus risen from the dead that they would be impacted by the experience and be a follower.

when you ask the person who does not believe in Jesus' resurrection why the numerous eye witness accounts should not be considered, you get crazy notions such as they all had the same group hallucination. Now, there is no known instance of people who were in various places all having the same group hallucination. But that is exactly what some have claimed.

Considering the reaction to those who say they saw the resurrected Christ, it makes the most sense to conclude that they truly believe that they same Jesus alive. Someone may be willing to die for what they believe is the truth, but it is unlikely that one will die for something they know to be a life, especially hundreds of people.

Wrong again. But I get it, you need to feel secure about your faith. Really though, I'm not sure who posed the 'mass hallucination' alternative, but it doesn't matter cause we're talking about mindsets here. As unlikely as it would be for people to see the same hallucinations, that would still be more feasible than a super being that is eternal coming down to mess with people by pretending to die so as to divide the sheep from the goats. See the issue? Depending on what people took in those days, that little bit of hard evidence would conceivably wipe out 'the bible says' faith you bring to the table. That's all.

just_sayin

The evidence for the resurrection provides good reasons to believe it happened

1) Early attestation - the Christian creed found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 - is dated no later than 18 months after the resurrection. This is an incredibly early attestation for an event in antiquity. It says:

I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said.  He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve.  After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles.

It states Jesus was raised from the dead on the 3rd day and it identifies witnesses of the resurrection. We have the eye witness testimony of Peter, some of the apostles, and James as corroborating sources.

2) Multiple sources - There are at least 12 sources for the crucifixion of Jesus, with half of the sources being enemies of Jesus and Christianity. Eye witness accounts also have multiple attestations. The gospel accounts identify many eyewitnesses, while accounts in Matthew, John, James, 1 Peter provide personal eyewitness accounts.

Early church fathers corroborate the eye witness accounts. Church fathers such as Clement, Polycarp and Irenaeus who knew the apostles confirm that they did indeed claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Further, there are several sources from Jesus' enemies which corroborate that the followers of Jesus believed he rose from the dead.

3) Historical accuracy - the eye witness accounts portray crucifixion, and burial in historically accurate ways. Further, the the details of Jesus' crucifixion match medical evidence of what a crucifixion would have been like.

4) Embarrassing elements - All four gospels mention that women were the first witnesses. In the culture of the day, women were not considered reliable witnesses. A fabricated story would not have had women as the first witnesses. Further the gospels all record that the disciples ran away on the night Jesus was arrested. These embarrassing events suggest that the accounts are about a real event.

5) Lots of facts are provided that could have been verified: 1) Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. He was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin - he would have obviously have been known. The same goes for Nicodemus who was also a member of the Sanhedrin who assisted in the burial of Jesus. 2) Lots of names are mentioned in the accounts - Mary Magdalene, Clopas, Peter, John, Thomas, James, Mattias, etc. Further, many of the names mentioned corroborated the accounts we have.

To believe the atheist -
1)we must dismiss numerous eye witness accounts - both from Jesus' friends and enemies.
2) Believe that all the preserved accounts are false even though they were written from many different people in many different locations.
3) Believe that embarrassing details that would not have benefited the spread of the story were made up and included anyway.
4) Believe that the well known people named were part of the plot to lie about the event.
5) Believe that the witnesses who said Jesus was resurrected allowed themselves and in some instances, their families, to be martyred, to preserve the lie.

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

JulesKorngold

Atheists generally value reason and evidence over faith. The resurrection narrative requires accepting a supernatural explanation without empirical proof. There are major discrepancies between the Gospel accounts of the resurrection, raising questions about their reliability:

The Women at the Tomb:

Number: Mark mentions one woman (Mary Magdalene) while Matthew mentions several women visiting the tomb.
Encounter with the Angelic Being(s): Matthew describes one angel, Mark and Luke describe young men, and John has the women encountering two angels inside the tomb (after Peter and another disciple had already left).

The Resurrected Jesus:

Location of Appearances: The Gospels differ on where Jesus first appeared after the resurrection. Mark and Luke have appearances in Jerusalem, while John places them primarily in Galilee.
Number of Appearances: The Gospels don't all agree on the number of appearances Jesus made.

Additional Details:

Empty Tomb: While all Gospels depict an empty tomb, details of how the tomb was found open differ.
The Guards: Matthew is the only Gospel mentioning Roman guards stationed at the tomb.
The Ascension: The timing of Jesus' ascension to heaven also differs. Luke describes it happening on the same day as the resurrection, while Acts places it 40 days later.

Obviously, the stories are not divinely inspired or historically accurate.

just_sayin

JulesKorngold said:

Atheists generally value reason and evidence over faith. The resurrection narrative requires accepting a supernatural explanation without empirical proof. There are major discrepancies between the Gospel accounts of the resurrection, raising questions about their reliability:
The Women at the Tomb:

Number: Mark mentions one woman (Mary Magdalene) while Matthew mentions several women visiting the tomb.

Encounter with the Angelic Being(s): Matthew describes one angel, Mark and Luke describe young men, and John has the women encountering two angels inside the tomb (after Peter and another disciple had already left).

The Resurrected Jesus:

Location of Appearances: The Gospels differ on where Jesus first appeared after the resurrection. Mark and Luke have appearances in Jerusalem, while John places them primarily in Galilee.

Number of Appearances: The Gospels don't all agree on the number of appearances Jesus made.

Additional Details:

Empty Tomb: While all Gospels depict an empty tomb, details of how the tomb was found open differ.

The Guards: Matthew is the only Gospel mentioning Roman guards stationed at the tomb.

The Ascension: The timing of Jesus' ascension to heaven also differs. Luke describes it happening on the same day as the resurrection, while Acts places it 40 days later.

Obviously, the stories are not divinely inspired or historically accurate.

Sigh. I'll give a plausible explanation for the so called 'discrepancies' in a moment, but first a note. The minimal core evidence I have mentioned is regarded by the vast bulk of historians as actual historical events. Even if there were actual discrepancies in the gospels, it would not invalidate the minimal core I have focused on.

The gospels don't say 'only' one woman was here. In fact over 6 total women across the gospels are identified. Just like if you had a police report, the accounts would not all contain the same details. The focus on Mary Magdalene in Mark is because she was the first witness (it does not exclude other women having gone to the tomb). The general sequence of events is:
a) The women left before sunrise to travel the 2 miles to the tomb from Bethany
b) On the way the sun arose and the women arrive at the tomb and find it empty and see the angels
c) The women run back to tell the disciples - Mary to see Peter and John who were staying with John's friend in Jerusalem and the other women back to Bethany.
d) Peter and John and Mary arrive at the tomb first, while Peter and John go into the tomb, Mary encounters Jesus

The number of angels is not problematic. The text does not exclude more than one angel. The one angel is mentioned because that angel made the announcement. Again, you have to examine the documents in the way that ancient mid-eastern people would have related the story - your AI is programmed for Western thought patterns, and these accounts are not western. The writers focused only on details that related to the point they were trying to make.

Matthew mentioning guards is not problematic. In eyewitness testimony, detectives will tell you that one witness will mention one detail, while another may mention another detail not mentioned by the others. Rather than reduce authenticity, the accounts actually have a ring of true accounts.

There is no 'this happened the same day' clause in Luke. In fact, Luke, who wrote the sequel to his gospel, Acts, which deals with what the Apostles did after Jesus when up into heaven said:

In my first book I told you, Theophilus, about everything Jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up to heaven after giving his chosen apostles further instructions through the Holy Spirit. During the forty days after he suffered and died, he appeared to the apostles from time to time, and he proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive. And he talked to them about the Kingdom of God. Acts 1:1-3

An AI would have to intentionally misrepresent Luke to make such a conclusion as you mentioned. Further, John mentions post resurrection appearances both in Jerusalem and Galilee which happened over the 40 day period. There is no discrepancy.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

The evidence for the resurrection provides good reasons to believe it happened

1) Early attestation - the Christian creed found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 - is dated no later than 18 months after the resurrection. This is an incredibly early attestation for an event in antiquity. It says:

I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said.  He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve.  After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles.

It states Jesus was raised from the dead on the 3rd day and it identifies witnesses of the resurrection. We have the eye witness testimony of Peter, some of the apostles, and James as corroborating sources.

2) Multiple sources - There are at least 12 sources for the crucifixion of Jesus, with half of the sources being enemies of Jesus and Christianity. Eye witness accounts also have multiple attestations. The gospel accounts identify many eyewitnesses, while accounts in Matthew, John, James, 1 Peter provide personal eyewitness accounts.

Early church fathers corroborate the eye witness accounts. Church fathers such as Clement, Polycarp and Irenaeus who knew the apostles confirm that they did indeed claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Further, there are several sources from Jesus' enemies which corroborate that the followers of Jesus believed he rose from the dead.

3) Historical accuracy - the eye witness accounts portray crucifixion, and burial in historically accurate ways. Further, the the details of Jesus' crucifixion match medical evidence of what a crucifixion would have been like.

4) Embarrassing elements - All four gospels mention that women were the first witnesses. In the culture of the day, women were not considered reliable witnesses. A fabricated story would not have had women as the first witnesses. Further the gospels all record that the disciples ran away on the night Jesus was arrested. These embarrassing events suggest that the accounts are about a real event.

5) Lots of facts are provided that could have been verified: 1) Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. He was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin - he would have obviously have been known. The same goes for Nicodemus who was also a member of the Sanhedrin who assisted in the burial of Jesus. 2) Lots of names are mentioned in the accounts - Mary Magdalene, Clopas, Peter, John, Thomas, James, Mattias, etc. Further, many of the names mentioned corroborated the accounts we have.

To believe the atheist -
1)we must dismiss numerous eye witness accounts - both from Jesus' friends and enemies.
2) Believe that all the preserved accounts are false even though they were written from many different people in many different locations.
3) Believe that embarrassing details that would not have benefited the spread of the story were made up and included anyway.
4) Believe that the well known people named were part of the plot to lie about the event.
5) Believe that the witnesses who said Jesus was resurrected allowed themselves and in some instances, their families, to be martyred, to preserve the lie.

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Yes, your 'core' evidence being the bible and the religiosity surrounding it. But do you know what actual evidence is? Cause you ain't produced a bit. You are an atheist to all the fantasy gods but one.

just_sayin

What do both Jesus' enemies and followers agree on about him? The following are a list of things about Jesus that his enemies said about him that agree with what Jesus' followers said:

Jesus was born and lived in Palestine. He was born, supposedly, to a virgin and had an earthly father who was a carpenter. He was a teacher who taught that through repentance and belief, all followers would become brothers and sisters. He led the Jews away from their beliefs. He was a wise man who claimed to be God and the Messiah. He had unusual magical powers and performed miraculous deeds. He healed the lame. He accurately predicted the future. He was persecuted by the Jews for what He said, betrayed by Judah Iskarioto. He was beaten with rods, forced to drink vinegar and wear a crown of thorns. He was crucified on the eve of the Passover and this crucifixion occurred under the direction of Pontius Pilate, during the time of Tiberius. On the day of His crucifixion, the sky grew dark and there was an earthquake. Afterward, He was buried in a tomb and the tomb was later found to be empty. He appeared to His disciples resurrected from the grave and showed them His wounds. These disciples then told others Jesus was resurrected and ascended into heaven. Jesus’ disciples and followers upheld a high moral code. One of them was named Matthai. The disciples were also persecuted for their faith but were martyred without changing their claims. They met regularly to worship Jesus, even after His death. - compiled in Cold Case Christianity

Sources:
Thallus
Tacitus
Mar Bar-Sarapion
Phlegon
Pliny the Younger
Suetonius
Lucian of Samosata
Celsus
Josephus
Jewish Talmud
The Toledot Yeshu

Factfinder

What do both enemies and friends of Osiris say about him? Yup, enemies of Osiris and his followers agree...

Osiris became one of Egypt’s most important gods, together with Isis and Horus, and he was indeed worshipped for roughly three thousand years, “from shortly before the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3150–2613 BCE) to the Ptolemaic Dynasty (323–30 BCE), the last dynasty to rule Egypt before the coming of Rome.”

Reflect, then, on the global impact of two thousand years of Christianity, in terms of how its theology and institutions have influenced other cultures. Now add a thousand years to that influence. That was the impact of the myth of Osiris.

But talking about Osiris as a lone deity is empty because the Egyptian trinity represents a convoluted dynamic that dramatized the Egyptian’s yearning for personal immortality. Osiris was the lord of the underworld, the judge of souls in the afterlife, and the god of fertility, of resurrection, and of the renewal of life.

https://medium.com/interfaith-now/jesus-and-osiris-how-christianity-adapted-egyptian-myths-c63ef171cd10

egypt christrianity

Factfinder

What more people say about Osiris.... https://english.alarabiya.net/features/2017/04/11/How-Egypt-was-Christian-before-the-birth-of-Christ

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Comparisons of Osiris and Jesus

Claim: Osiris was called “Lord of Lords”, “King of Kings”, “God of Gods”, “Resurrection and the Life”, “Good Shepherd”, “Eternity and Everlastingness”, and the god who “made men and women to be “born again”
Truth: These names for Jesus were not used by Osiris, who was called, “Lord of All”, the “Good Being”, “Lord of the Underworld”, “Lord (King) of Eternity”, “Ruler of the Dead”, “Lord of the West”, “Great One”, “He who takes seat,” “the Begetter”, “the Ram”, “Great Word”, “Chief of the Spirits”, “Ruler of Everlastingness”, “Living God,” “God above the gods.” These rather general names were not uncommon for many other deities as well.

Claim: Osiris’ birth was announced by Three Wise Men: the three stars Mintaka, Anilam, and Alnitak in the belt of Orion, and Osiris had a star in the east (Sirius) that signified his birth
Truth: It is true that some scholars connect Osiris with Orion, but they don’t stretch the imagination to call the three stars of the belt “wise men”, and there is no mention of an eastern star in the Osiris mythology.

Claim: Osiris had a Eucharist ceremony of sorts, in which his flesh was eaten in the form of communion cakes of wheat
Truth: There is no evidence for this in the research of the scholars

Claim: Osiris taught much of the same material as Jesus; many teachings are identically the same, word for word
Truth: There is absolutely no evidence of any of this, and the “wisdom” of Osiris is still available for review.

Claim: Osiris was killed and later resurrected, providing hope every believer might also be resurrected into eternal life
Truth: Osiris was murdered and his body was then dismembered and scattered. Later, his body pieces were recovered and rejoined, and he was rejuvenated. Osiris then journeyed to the underworld, where he became the lord of the dead. He did not resurrect with a glorified body and walk with men on earth, as did Jesus. He was not alive again, as was Jesus, but was instead a “dead” god who never returned among the living

My favorite lie atheists repeat is that there is a virgin birth associated with Osiris. The actual myth is that Isis reassembled Osiris dead body parts, minus one crucial one, and then flew around Osiris as a bird and his 'seed' impregnated her as she flew around him. Not exactly like the biblical account of Jesus.

Gotta laugh at atheists.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Claim: Osiris was called “Lord of Lords”, “King of Kings”, “God of Gods”, “Resurrection and the Life”, “Good Shepherd”, “Eternity and Everlastingness”, and the god who “made men and women to be “born again”
Truth: These names for Jesus were not used by Osiris, who was called, “Lord of All”, the “Good Being”, “Lord of the Underworld”, “Lord (King) of Eternity”, “Ruler of the Dead”, “Lord of the West”, “Great One”, “He who takes seat,” “the Begetter”, “the Ram”, “Great Word”, “Chief of the Spirits”, “Ruler of Everlastingness”, “Living God,” “God above the gods.” These rather general names were not uncommon for many other deities as well.
Claim: Osiris’ birth was announced by Three Wise Men: the three stars Mintaka, Anilam, and Alnitak in the belt of Orion, and Osiris had a star in the east (Sirius) that signified his birth
Truth: It is true that some scholars connect Osiris with Orion, but they don’t stretch the imagination to call the three stars of the belt “wise men”, and there is no mention of an eastern star in the Osiris mythology.
Claim: Osiris had a Eucharist ceremony of sorts, in which his flesh was eaten in the form of communion cakes of wheat
Truth: There is no evidence for this in the research of the scholars
Claim: Osiris taught much of the same material as Jesus; many teachings are identically the same, word for word
Truth: There is absolutely no evidence of any of this, and the “wisdom” of Osiris is still available for review.
Claim: Osiris was killed and later resurrected, providing hope every believer might also be resurrected into eternal life
Truth: Osiris was murdered and his body was then dismembered and scattered. Later, his body pieces were recovered and rejoined, and he was rejuvenated. Osiris then journeyed to the underworld, where he became the lord of the dead. He did not resurrect with a glorified body and walk with men on earth, as did Jesus. He was not alive again, as was Jesus, but was instead a “dead” god who never returned among the living
My favorite lie atheists repeat is that there is a virgin birth associated with Osiris. The actual myth is that Isis reassembled Osiris dead body parts, minus one crucial one, and then flew around Osiris as a bird and his 'seed' impregnated her as she flew around him. Not exactly like the biblical account of Jesus.
Gotta laugh at atheists.

You didn't get those straw man claims from my post. Mine is the one with glaring evidence ancient Egyptology was plagiarized by Christianity with the facts you ignored because you know I'm right.

MayCaesar

Not sure how many times this has to be said, but accounts of witnesses from 2,000 years ago do not constitute evidence of anything any more than words of Hector from the Iliad do. When historians formulate and test hypotheses about historical events, they cross-reference multiple independent texts and events, send archaeologist in the field on digs to uncover direct evidence of those events, and make double-tripe-quadruple sure that all alternative explanations are excluded as hard as possible. Even when all these conditions are satisfied, they refrain from calling the hypothesis anything more than "plausible": for instance, there is still no consensus on whether Socrates existed, despite Socrates arguably having the largest volume of texts written about him out of all philosophers in existence (perhaps slightly outcompeted by Aristotle, who was allegedly a student of Plato, himself a student of Socrates). So even the most famous philosopher in human history may be, at the end of the day, a fiction. And historians are okay with this uncertainty.

But something wild such as resurrection of a human being through divine intervention? Hey, who cares about hard evidence: we have a few witnesses and a bunch of fantasy stories. We are good!

I have come to believe that religion is a product of intellectual cowardice. People who are uncomfortable with ignorance and uncertainty invent fake knowledge. Has there ever been a good reason to believe that Zeus existed? Not really: people did not know how lightning works and came up with a fantasy story explaining it. Saying, "I do not know how lightning works", was too uncomfortable, too scary, for those people. And that is understandable.

It is not as understandable in the 21st century when the fundamentals of physics and biology are known to every elementary school kid, yet adults still cling to primitive superstitions. Feynman wrote about the "cargo cults" in Oceania, of tribal people who did not understand modern technology, so whenever they saw it, they associated it with divinity. A passenger plane flies above your island? It is a sign from gods! Seems that cargo cults are alive and well even in the most developed parts of the world.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Obviously the problem with Socrates is he didn't have get out of hell free cards. If he had perhaps fantasy stories would suffice for claiming his existence and we'd be like "jesus who"?

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

Seriously though, this does raise an interesting question: to what extent are stories based on something that happened in reality and was somewhat loosely reinterpreted, and to what extent are they just made up? With people such as Socrates, Jesus or Buddha, there is a lot of certainty in that even if the individuals in question did not exist, their image represents groups of individuals that did. Whether Socrates was one man, or a group of philosophers, or even no one in particular - virtually every historian agrees that Socratic teachings did exist in the Ancient Greece and influenced Plato, Aristotle and others. Things become blurrier when we talk about stories such as the Trojan War or the Great Flood: while these stories were likely inspired by some real wars and natural disasters that took place, it could be that they are not directly related to any particular event and are just ancient stories that carried through generations, or even outright fiction. My understanding is that Homer did not just make up the story of the Trojan War, that the story or a part of it existed in the Greek folklore prior to him - however, how much of it did he make up? "Troy" itself may have been his invention.

It is easier with modern fiction: with, say, The Lord of the Rings, we know very well who the author is and what sources he drew inspiration from. It is not so simple when talking about history and fiction from millennia ago, especially given countless instances of destruction of stored knowledge. How much knowledge was lost when the Alexandria Library was destroyed is hard to assess, but it is quite likely that if that knowledge miraculously returned, we would be shocked by how much we were missing. Perhaps we would instantly understand the Bronze Age Collapse, one of the greatest historical mysteries to date.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

Seriously though, this does raise an interesting question: to what extent are stories based on something that happened in reality and was somewhat loosely reinterpreted, and to what extent are they just made up? With people such as Socrates, Jesus or Buddha, there is a lot of certainty in that even if the individuals in question did not exist, their image represents groups of individuals that did. Whether Socrates was one man, or a group of philosophers, or even no one in particular - virtually every historian agrees that Socratic teachings did exist in the Ancient Greece and influenced Plato, Aristotle and others. Things become blurrier when we talk about stories such as the Trojan War or the Great Flood: while these stories were likely inspired by some real wars and natural disasters that took place, it could be that they are not directly related to any particular event and are just ancient stories that carried through generations, or even outright fiction. My understanding is that Homer did not just make up the story of the Trojan War, that the story or a part of it existed in the Greek folklore prior to him - however, how much of it did he make up? "Troy" itself may have been his invention.

It is easier with modern fiction: with, say, The Lord of the Rings, we know very well who the author is and what sources he drew inspiration from. It is not so simple when talking about history and fiction from millennia ago, especially given countless instances of destruction of stored knowledge. How much knowledge was lost when the Alexandria Library was destroyed is hard to assess, but it is quite likely that if that knowledge miraculously returned, we would be shocked by how much we were missing. Perhaps we would instantly understand the Bronze Age Collapse, one of the greatest historical mysteries to date.

Touch grass. There are 42 historical documents within the first 100 years after the resurrection that identify Jesus in them. To claim that Jesus is a made up character shows how out of touch with reality you are. Can you tell me which historians agree with you that Jesus was a myth? I'll wait for your answer. Are you that desperate to deny Jesus existence that you deny what the consensus of historical scholarship is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

I have decided to refrain from answering strawman questions altogether. If you want to hear a good response from me, first state accurately my position on the subject. I have not "claimed that Jesus is a made up character", so that is a good first correction to make.

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

There are "many reasons" campus leaders should take "calming steps" now, professor says

In this Debate

Is there good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch