Is there good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

ZeusAres42

Now, it's one thing to say that Jesus did exist. However, it's quite another to say that he resurrected. As for existence, the consensus among biblical and historical scholars (including those non-religious) is that Jesus did exist as a historical figure.

Thus, while I think there is a likelihood he did at least exist, I am not convinced that this original post counts as sufficient evidence regarding resurrection. In addition to that, there exists a lot of conflicting information about who Jesus actually was among both the Christian and Judaism religions. According to many Jews, he was nothing more than a political rebel!

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Excellent point. Who knows how much knowledge, all types, has been lost in wars combined with different nefarious scorched earth campaigns. One thing we know for sure, man has been obsessed with the idea of eternal life. all through history. Osiris, the Egyptian god of the resurrection was around a couple thousand years before Jesus. Fact is there is no verifiable evidence of that happening. There is evidence of floods and such, but facts give rise to stories, stories do not give rise to facts. Total coincidences aside.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

On a philosophical level, it is quite interesting that the greatest fear a human has is that of the only inevitable event in his life: death. That humans have gone very far trying to either develop a "cure to mortality", or to convince themselves that death is merely the end of current stage of life and beginning of the new one, or to seek escape in mindfulness practices... While the most logical thing would be to accept it as inevitability and move on. In the Dune books Frank Herbert used the term "little death" to describe the metaphorical death of human soul resulting from inability to accept the real death: trying to escape it, to deny it is what leads to the actually frightening death.

I have always had a simple philosophical perspective on it: since tens of billions of people and uncountable numbers of other living organisms have gone through death, it must be the most common experience on this planet. And fearing something that so many organisms have experienced and the conclusion of which is erasure of my consciousness which will make even reflecting on the fact that I died impossible - makes no sense. Death is certainly unpleasant, but it is nothing special: it is the natural end of everyone's journey. And, who knows, we know very little about how consciousness works and why... Perhaps the actual death experience is very different from what we expect it to be. Yet another curiosity to uncover! Not that I am planning to uncover it any time soon, if I can help it.

Looking back at my life, the most painful experiences, in retrospect, were not even that bad. That seems to be the general flaw of human organism: we tend to fear things and blow them out of proportion, and when our fears do materialize, it turns out that we were afraid of ghosts. I remember my first ultramarathon when, after 14 hours of walking/running and consuming the equivalent of 20 cups of coffee, I found myself laying in the middle of field littered with rattlesnakes... Pretty much the bottom of human experience. Yet somehow I was fine, and looking back, I was actually on top of the world, extremely proud of myself. I think that we would all be much happier if we learned to accept that negative experiences, including the ultimate one - death - are integral parts of our journey and are interesting in themselves. Happier and, probably, more mortal.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

On a philosophical level, it is quite interesting that the greatest fear a human has is that of the only inevitable event in his life: death. That humans have gone very far trying to either develop a "cure to mortality", or to convince themselves that death is merely the end of current stage of life and beginning of the new one, or to seek escape in mindfulness practices... While the most logical thing would be to accept it as inevitability and move on. In the Dune books Frank Herbert used the term "little death" to describe the metaphorical death of human soul resulting from inability to accept the real death: trying to escape it, to deny it is what leads to the actually frightening death.

I have always had a simple philosophical perspective on it: since tens of billions of people and uncountable numbers of other living organisms have gone through death, it must be the most common experience on this planet. And fearing something that so many organisms have experienced and the conclusion of which is erasure of my consciousness which will make even reflecting on the fact that I died impossible - makes no sense. Death is certainly unpleasant, but it is nothing special: it is the natural end of everyone's journey. And, who knows, we know very little about how consciousness works and why... Perhaps the actual death experience is very different from what we expect it to be. Yet another curiosity to uncover! Not that I am planning to uncover it any time soon, if I can help it.

Looking back at my life, the most painful experiences, in retrospect, were not even that bad. That seems to be the general flaw of human organism: we tend to fear things and blow them out of proportion, and when our fears do materialize, it turns out that we were afraid of ghosts. I remember my first ultramarathon when, after 14 hours of walking/running and consuming the equivalent of 20 cups of coffee, I found myself laying in the middle of field littered with rattlesnakes... Pretty much the bottom of human experience. Yet somehow I was fine, and looking back, I was actually on top of the world, extremely proud of myself. I think that we would all be much happier if we learned to accept that negative experiences, including the ultimate one - death - are integral parts of our journey and are interesting in themselves. Happier and, probably, more mortal.

So, almost all of the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection were willing to be martyrs and tortured, because they feared the big death?  So they refused to change their story because they couldn't handle the idea of no more pain?  I just find that hard to believe - not that you are OK with dying, but that so many of the witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus would rather be tortured to death than deny what they had seen, if it were not true.  One thing that several of the Roman historians note about the early Christians is that they did not fear death.  This fact stood out to them and frustrated them.  Maybe there is another way to face death, even painful death, in a peaceful manner, that you have not thought much about. just sayin

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

No, but I think it plausible that the fear of the big death contributed to them believing that whatever they saw was evidence of Jesus' resurrection - and the coming happy afterlife. Perhaps this is the fundamental driver of what Jordan Peterson calls "awe", this feeling that you are experiencing something very special, something accessible only to you, some sort of communion with something from beyond mere reality. Perhaps, when I look at the woman I love and feel that our connection transcends reality, this "transcendence of reality" is something I fundamentally seek, so as to defy the fact that when I die, it is over for me. People build legacies and think about what happens on this planet after their death, because they evade the idea that journey inevitably ends.

That is more of a philosophical than a psychological hypothesis, but it does not seem that far-fetched to me.

Factfinder

@just_sayin@MayCaesar

So, almost all of the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection were willing to be martyrs and tortured, because they feared the big death? 

I doubt they were 'willing', it was sentencing pronounced on them. They were caught doing Christian things and Nero in his eagerness to squash Christianity for political reasons, executed them. There is no evidence he was interested in giving second chances. Some may have died defiantly, but chances are many just died. And the defiant ones? Well let's see we have Christians practicing their faith without fear which Nero didn't like so it would be expected some would have to have had to resolve before any arrests were made, to be willing to die for their cause. Nothing new or different there though. Around 1995 a movement in communist China had taken hold called Falun Gong. Called a religious movement but more like an ultra conservative, back to nature, anti vaccine and meditational movement. No Jesus sightings involved yet they were willing to suffer and die for their movement under the brutal persecution and the boot of red China. https://freedomhouse.org/report/2017/battle-china-spirit-falun-gong-religious-freedom

So yeah it makes sense some died as martyrs but nothing supernatural need be involved for people to do that, it has been a part of humanity throughout history. Especially considering possible political implications. Remember the jews thought Jesus came to liberate them from the Romans, but he didn't do that while alive so why not use his death to accomplish that? There is just too many natural possible explanations to write off in order to jump to the conclusion a god tricked the world and faked a death to gain followers after spending eons of time in eternity just fine without followers.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin@MayCaesar

So, almost all of the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection were willing to be martyrs and tortured, because they feared the big death? 

I doubt they were 'willing', it was sentencing pronounced on them. They were caught doing Christian things and Nero in his eagerness to squash Christianity for political reasons, executed them. There is no evidence he was interested in giving second chances. Some may have died defiantly, but chances are many just died. And the defiant ones? Well let's see we have Christians practicing their faith without fear which Nero didn't like so it would be expected some would have to have had to resolve before any arrests were made, to be willing to die for their cause. Nothing new or different there though. Around 1995 a movement in communist China had taken hold called Falun Gong. Called a religious movement but more like an ultra conservative, back to nature, anti vaccine and meditational movement. No Jesus sightings involved yet they were willing to suffer and die for their movement under the brutal persecution and the boot of red China. https://freedomhouse.org/report/2017/battle-china-spirit-falun-gong-religious-freedom

So yeah it makes sense some died as martyrs but nothing supernatural need be involved for people to do that, it has been a part of humanity throughout history. Especially considering possible political implications. Remember the jews thought Jesus came to liberate them from the Romans, but he didn't do that while alive so why not use his death to accomplish that? There is just too many natural possible explanations to write off in order to jump to the conclusion a god tricked the world and faked a death to gain followers after spending eons of time in eternity just fine without followers.

I think you forget a very key detail.  The disciples and first Christians would have known if the resurrection was true or not.  Someone may be willing to die for something they believe happened, but people don't willingly die for something that they know to be a lie.  

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

Honestly, to me it does not matter that much whether the alleged witnesses genuinely believed they had seen the resurrected Jesus or not. From the historical perspective, it only matters whether their accounts constitute strong evidence of this event happening, and anyone thinking rationally should say, "No". Humans are fallible and their claims can be anything.

When we talk about other legendary events, such as Joan of Arc's execution, as being historical, we cite much stronger evidence than a few guys who saw something. We refer to hard historical documents signed by monarchs, accounts of thousands of people across nations and times. And even all this evidence given, it is barely a plausible hypothesis: we also need to see how it fits into the general historical process, whether particular aspects of our hypothesis make sense and whether they are testable.

Here the claim is that something extraordinary happened: divine resurrection raising a prominent activist from the dead. When a claim is so out there, it does not matter if even billions of people testify to it: the evidence has to be rock solid, something so hard that denying it would constitute health hazard. Yet we have nothing. Just some ancient witness accounts. This is laughable.

The more curious aspect of it all to me is the cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, Christianity teaches the virtue of faith, especially faith despite evidence of the contrary: you are supposed to believe that the god has a benevolent plan for you even if your life is going to hell in a handbasket. Yet nowadays we have Christian thinkers trying to rationalize their beliefs, to claim that there is strong physical evidence of them being true. It seems that they are undercutting their own faith: if Christianity is something one should arrive at by means of logic and reason, then faith is counter-productive and is not a virtue, but a sin. Yet no Christian will ever acknowledge that.

It is all a huge epistemological mess. People do not know what they believe and what they are trying to prove, holding multiple contradictory beliefs in their heads - and, in addition to that, thinking that everyone else who does not is blind and in denial. This is what happens when you try to reconcile the stone age campfire stories with the 21st century knowledge.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

I think you forget a very key detail.  The disciples and first Christians would have known if the resurrection was true or not.  Someone may be willing to die for something they believe happened, but people don't willingly die for something that they know to be a lie.  

As usual you miss a major contention to what I was saying. Your 'key detail' relies heavily on biblical accounts as no 'eye' witness are recorded outside of the bible or are mentioned as 'church tradition'. While Nero reserved the most horrific forms of execution for those who never renounced their faith, he didn't let the others off the hook. That is because it was believed that he himself set the fire that swept through Rome. Christians were the scapegoat so it's not logical he would care what they believed or not. Nope it's far more likely he persecuted them all to such an extreme to deflect suspicion off of himself for burning Rome. And retain political power over Rome.

The persecution of Christians by Nero began in the year 64 CE, after a great fire swept through Rome, destroying much of the city.

 

According to the Roman historian Tacitus, Nero himself may have been responsible for starting the fire, although this claim is disputed by some scholars.

 

In any case, Nero was eager to deflect blame for the disaster, and he seized upon the growing Christian community as a convenient scapegoat.

 

The persecution of Christians under Nero was marked by extreme brutality and cruelty, and some of the most horrific methods of execution were reserved for those who refused to renounce their faith.

https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/ancient-history/nero-christians/

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Everything you said makes sense. It is though people operate based on faith being the same as knowledge and that mindset gets staunchly entrenched into the minds of the faithful. That is why I call it what it is, delusional.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: There is good evidence for the resurrection

As we are in the Christian holy week leading up to the resurrection, there is good evidence to believe that the resurrection is true:

1)  Many eyewitness accounts - ! Cor. 15:3-7 (Early Christian Creed), Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, James, etc.  As well as testimonies from the early church fathers that attest that the apostles stated they saw Jesus resurrected.  Further at least 4 documents exist where non-Christians attest to the fact that the disciples believed in the resurrection.

2) Early witness accounts - 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is an early Christian creed that is dated at no later than 18 months after Jesus' resurrection.

3) Empty tomb - even Jesus' enemies claimed the tomb was empty

4) Names of eye witnesses verified in other historical documents - people like James, Peter, John, and Mary Magdalene are mentioned by enemies of Jesus as being his followers.

5) The narratives match what we know historically of crucifixion and burial for the day.  

6) The testimonies and the lives of Jesus' disciples make most sense if Jesus was resurrected.  It makes no sense that these individuals would all claim they saw Jesus arise from the dead, endure persecution, and be martyred if they did not believe Jesus had been resurrected.

7)  Enemies of Jesus were persuaded he raised from the dead.  It is hard to explain how a former member of the Sanhedrin, Paul, who executed Christians, was converted if there was not strong evidence of the resurrection.  

Enjoy your holy week.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: What's an atheist to do?

The early attestation in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 of Jesus resurrection, not more than 18 months after the event is strong evidence of the resurrection.  Rarely do you find such evidence corroborating an event in the Ancient Near East.  Not only does the passage say that Jesus died, was buried, and arose again the 3rd day, it identifies specific people and groups who saw him after his resurrection.  Some of these witnesses have their own testimonies preserved in the historical record - James, 1 & 2 Peter, Matthew, Mark (writing in behalf of Peter), and John.  Early church fathers, who knew the apostles, also corroborate that the apostles claimed to have seen Jesus alive after his resurrection.  Even Jesus' enemies record int heir histories accounts which tell us that the disciples believed he was resurrected and that Jesus performed miracles.

So what's an atheist to do?  They have to ignore the eye witness accounts.  They have to ignore the historical documents - both by Jesus' followers and his enemies.  They have to make up fanciful theories to explain how Jesus' disciples chose to be martyred rather than say Jesus didn't rise from the dead.  They have to try and explain how someone who was comfortable for killing Christians like Paul, could be so easily converted and willing to die a martyr for his belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

So what fanciful excuse will it be?  Some have suggested mass hallucinations.  There is no historical evidence that people in numerous locations, over many days, of having the same hallucination.  Some have suggested that Jesus didn't really die.  If that had been the case, it doesn't explain the actions of the Roman guards who would not have let Jesus off the cross if he were not dead.  Instead of Jesus appearing triumphantly, the response of the disciples would have been 'Jesus, you don't looks so good.  We need to get you some medical help right away.'  Instead, the resurrection was a catalyst for the disciples dramatic boldness and willingness to travel to different parts of the world proclaiming the gospel at the risk of personal injury and death.  

To be an atheist, one must ignore the evidence of eye witnesses and enemies alike.  The atheist has to ignore the dramatic transformed life of the apostles and their willingness to die for their belief that Jesus rose from the dead.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Argument Topic: There is good evidence for the resurrection

As we are in the Christian holy week leading up to the resurrection, there is good evidence to believe that the resurrection is true:

Can't wait to see this evidence with an open mind.

1)  Many eyewitness accounts - ! Cor. 15:3-7 (Early Christian Creed), Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, James, etc.  As well as testimonies from the early church fathers that attest that the apostles stated they saw Jesus resurrected.  Further at least 4 documents exist where non-Christians attest to the fact that the disciples believed in the resurrection.

2) Early witness accounts - 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is an early Christian creed that is dated at no later than 18 months after Jesus' resurrection.

3) Empty tomb - even Jesus' enemies claimed the tomb was empty

4) Names of eye witnesses verified in other historical documents - people like James, Peter, John, and Mary Magdalene are mentioned by enemies of Jesus as being his followers.

That is all hearsay from religious texts describing tenets  of dogma out of a particular faith designed to aid in spiritual, religious conviction, not evident of reality.

5) The narratives match what we know historically of crucifixion and burial for the day.  

Literally thousands of fictional stories of this nature have been borne out actual historical events. Leaps of faith are not evidence. What makes your god story true while you remain atheist to all the others?

6) The testimonies and the lives of Jesus' disciples make most sense if Jesus was resurrected.  It makes no sense that these individuals would all claim they saw Jesus arise from the dead, endure persecution, and be martyred if they did not believe Jesus had been resurrected.

If they existed and died the way you claim it would be good material for documentaries about people who made the ultimate sacrifice. People have done that for al kinds of beliefs and reasons. There is no evidence church leaders were given the option of renouncing faith during Nero's persecution of Christians but there is some evidence Nero used the Christians as a scapegoat. Suggesting his reasons were other than religious and likely not interested in extending options of that sort. And again we know the bible isn't evidence. Christian tradition makes these claims but historic research can't independently confirm they were martyred in specific ways.

7)  Enemies of Jesus were persuaded he raised from the dead.  It is hard to explain how a former member of the Sanhedrin, Paul, who executed Christians, was converted if there was not strong evidence of the resurrection.  

This particular example you chose is biblically based doctrine designed to bolster religious conviction. Not to provide evidence.

Enjoy your holy week.

Thank you and may you do the same.

just_sayin

@Factfinder
That is all hearsay from religious texts describing tenets  of dogma out of a particular faith designed to aid in spiritual, religious conviction, not evident of reality.

The eye witnesses were religious.  That much is true.  However, they are making a historical claim - one that is supported not only by their eye witness accounts, but other accounts as well, such as other early Christians, and even Roman and Jewish historians.  It is hard to explain their conviction of Jesus' resurrection if it were not real.  The Jews were not looking for someone to be physically resurrected.  They weren't looking for someone who had been crucified either.  While someone may give their life for something they believe to be true, no one would give their life for something that they knew was false.  The fact so many gave their lives and that enemies like Paul changed their views and also gave their lives is a strong indication that Jesus arose from the dead.

If they existed and died the way you claim it would be good material for documentaries about people who made the ultimate sacrifice. People have done that for al kinds of beliefs and reasons. There is no evidence church leaders were given the option of renouncing faith during Nero's persecution of Christians but there is some evidence Nero used the Christians as a scapegoat. Suggesting his reasons were other than religious and likely not interested in extending options of that sort. And again we know the bible isn't evidence. Christian tradition makes these claims but historic research can't independently confirm they were martyred in specific ways.

Both Roman writers Suetonius and Tacitus say Christians were martyred for their beliefs.  Now, I don't know if all were given a chance to recant, but I know, that all the apostles were either martyred for their faith, or in the instance of John, physically tortured (burned in a vat of oil).  Other evidence for Peter’s martyrdom can be found in early church fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian and more. The early, consistent and unanimous testimony is that Peter died as a martyr.  So, let's no kid ourselves.  They believed Jesus rose from the dead. In fact in order to be called an apostle the person had to have been an eye witness of the resurrection:

“So now we must choose a replacement for Judas from among the men who were with us the entire time we were traveling with the Lord Jesus— 22 from the time he was baptized by John until the day he was taken from us. Whoever is chosen will join us as a witness of Jesus’ resurrection.” - Acts 1:21-22

This particular example you chose is biblically based doctrine designed to bolster religious conviction. Not to provide evidence.

Paul's conversion is a strong indication that the resurrection is true.  Why else would he stop killing Christians and become one himself.  Paul's life is mentioned by at least a dozen sources outside of the Bible. So there is good evidence that he was real and his testimony about his conversion is true.  

Have a Happy Easter.   

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

@Factfinder
That is all hearsay from religious texts describing tenets  of dogma out of a particular faith designed to aid in spiritual, religious conviction, not evident of reality.

The eye witnesses were religious.  That much is true.  However, they are making a historical claim - one that is supported not only by their eye witness accounts, but other accounts as well, such as other early Christians, and even Roman and Jewish historians.  It is hard to explain their conviction of Jesus' resurrection if it were not real.  The Jews were not looking for someone to be physically resurrected.  They weren't looking for someone who had been crucified either.  While someone may give their life for something they believe to be true, no one would give their life for something that they knew was false.  The fact so many gave their lives and that enemies like Paul changed their views and also gave their lives is a strong indication that Jesus arose from the dead.

If they existed and died the way you claim it would be good material for documentaries about people who made the ultimate sacrifice. People have done that for al kinds of beliefs and reasons. There is no evidence church leaders were given the option of renouncing faith during Nero's persecution of Christians but there is some evidence Nero used the Christians as a scapegoat. Suggesting his reasons were other than religious and likely not interested in extending options of that sort. And again we know the bible isn't evidence. Christian tradition makes these claims but historic research can't independently confirm they were martyred in specific ways.

Both Roman writers Suetonius and Tacitus say Christians were martyred for their beliefs.  Now, I don't know if all were given a chance to recant, but I know, that all the apostles were either martyred for their faith, or in the instance of John, physically tortured (burned in a vat of oil).  Other evidence for Peter’s martyrdom can be found in early church fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian and more. The early, consistent and unanimous testimony is that Peter died as a martyr.  So, let's no kid ourselves.  They believed Jesus rose from the dead. In fact in order to be called an apostle the person had to have been an eye witness of the resurrection:

“So now we must choose a replacement for Judas from among the men who were with us the entire time we were traveling with the Lord Jesus— 22 from the time he was baptized by John until the day he was taken from us. Whoever is chosen will join us as a witness of Jesus’ resurrection.” - Acts 1:21-22

This particular example you chose is biblically based doctrine designed to bolster religious conviction. Not to provide evidence.

Paul's conversion is a strong indication that the resurrection is true.  Why else would he stop killing Christians and become one himself.  Paul's life is mentioned by at least a dozen sources outside of the Bible. So there is good evidence that he was real and his testimony about his conversion is true.  

Have a Happy Easter.   

Claims are not evidence. Everyone is aware of Roman and other historians minimal references to the magnitude of  what they saw as a religious sect claims. They themselves did not endorse the claims as fact personally did they? They didn't witness it themselves did they? The bible says isn't evidence.