# Christians: What is your best evidence for the literal, historical resurrection of Jesus **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 22, 2011, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680 "2011-08-22T17:51:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/1 "2011-08-22T17:51:06Z")
Invited by **ITR Champion** in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14168526#post14168526). To summarize quickly, **ITR** , when asked him if anything could convince him Christianity was not true said: > [@Atheist vs Believers](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-vs-believers/593512/147): > > Sure, you could provide me with an intellectual argument more convincing then the arguments I’ve read for Christianity. To which I said: > [@Atheist vs Believers](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-vs-believers/593512/148): > > The null hypothesis is that it’s physically impossible for people to come back from the dead. That doesn’t have to be proven. That’s the default, starting assumption. What arguments can you produce to falsify the null here? Other posters also asked **ITR** to be more specific about exactly what intellectual arguments for the truth of Christianity that he found so strong they could overcome the kinds of null hypotheses like the one I posed above. **ITR** was not specific, other than saying that he aligned his views with GK Chesterton, but said that he would be specific in a new thread. Well, here it is. I’m not asking for intellectual arguments for every part of Christianity, or for the existence of God. I’m just asking to see the evidence/argument for one thing - the physical resurrection of Jesus, This is a _prima facie_ impossible event. That means the evidence is going to have to be pretty exceptional to overcome the null. Let’s see it. I’m asking any and all other Christians who might be interested to show actual evidence that Jesus came back to life three days after he was dead. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/2 "2011-08-22T18:57:47Z")
A fellow came around a while ago purporting to demonstrate, from the assumption of eyewitness testimony, that the miracles at Sinai occurred with very little doubt (and thus Judaism is true). In fact, I can take his kernel of an idea and — with a bit of mathematical rigor — prove _incontrovertibly_ the resurrection of Jesus. All we must assume is that some testimony exists. By Bayes’ theorem: P(resurrection | testimony) = P(resurrection & testimony) / P(testimony) = P(testimony | resurrection) P(resurrection) / P(testimony) And by the law of total probability: P(testimony) = P(testimony | resurrection) \* P(resurrection) + P(testimony | ~resurrection) \* P(~resurrection) Note that P(testimony) refers to the unconditional probability of testimony for Jesus’s resurrection; this takes into account _no_ background knowledge and so is presumably very small. Thus P(testimony | ~resurrection) is exceedingly small as well and we can assume it to be zero. Then: P(resurrection | testimony) = P(testimony | resurrection) \* P(resurrection) / (P(testimony | resurrection) \* P(resurrection)) = 1 We may thus conclude with utmost certainty that Jesus’s resurrection was an historical occurrence. More seriously … this kind of argument, from the assumption that eyewitness testimony is more likely for true events than for false events, is developed rather extensively by some; see McGrew and McGrew in Ch 11 of the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (who are quite loose and free with quasi-probabilistic notation). But without the assumption that genuine eyewitness testimony was in fact recorded, they crumble apart in one’s hands. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/3 "2011-08-22T19:04:39Z")
That’s one of the biggest problems right there. There isn’t any eyewitness testimony. The first known claim of a physical resurrection doesn’t appear in Christian literature until 50 years after the alleged crucifixion. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/4 "2011-08-22T19:22:54Z")
The only argument I’ve ever heard for the historical resurrection is from William Lane Craig, and that argument was pretty pathetic. First, he (thinks he) proves that a God exists using the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Next he says that we have similar evidence of the resurrection as we have with many events that are universally accepted historically, and specifically compares the written records (decades after the event) to the fact that we have no contemporaneous records of Alexander the Great either, but nobody doubts that he existed! He then tries to hand-wave away the little problem that the resurrection of a dead body would be a quite extraordinary event requiring extraordinary evidence, by noting that since we’ve already demonstrated that an all-powerful God exists, then miracles are not _a priori_ extraordinary. A God could poof up a miracle anytime he wants! ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/5 "2011-08-22T19:24:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s one of the biggest problems right there. There isn’t any eyewitness testimony. The first known claim of a physical resurrection doesn’t appear in Christian literature until 50 years after the alleged crucifixion. Besides the lack of eyewitness testimony, there isn’t any contemporary hearsay evidence either, is there? I can understand the witnesses not having time to write it down, but I suspect there would be rumors floating around which should have been. There is also the problem that the an actual resurrection should have been enough to convince some reasonable number of Jews in Jerusalem to follow this new sect - but it didn’t. There is evidence of absence here. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/6 "2011-08-22T19:25:59Z")
Craig does rely a lot on the cosmological argument. He also presumes eyewitness testimony, then refutes a litany of straw objections to that testimony. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/7 "2011-08-22T19:25:59Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > The only argument I’ve ever heard for the historical resurrection is from William Lane Craig, and that argument was pretty pathetic. > > First, he (thinks he) proves that a God exists using the Kalam Cosmological Argument. > > Next he says that we have similar evidence of the resurrection as we have with many events that are universally accepted historically, and specifically compares the written records (decades after the event) to the fact that we have no contemporaneous records of Alexander the Great either, but nobody doubts that he existed! > > He then tries to hand-wave away the little problem that the resurrection of a dead body would be a quite extraordinary event requiring extraordinary evidence, by noting that since we’ve already demonstrated that an all-powerful God exists, then miracles are not _a priori_ extraordinary. A God could poof up a miracle anytime he wants! You’ve got to admire a “logical” argument that pulls itself up by its own bootstraps. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/8 "2011-08-22T19:28:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Besides the lack of eyewitness testimony, there isn’t any contemporary hearsay evidence either, is there? I can understand the witnesses not having time to write it down, but I suspect there would be rumors floating around which should have been. Correct. The empty tomb and physical resurrection claims are not found in earlier layers like Paul or Q (or Thomas, for that matter) where you would expect to see them, and even Mark only leaves off at the empty tomb without any physical appearances. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/9 "2011-08-22T19:28:46Z")
I would suggest reading [this essay by Dr. N. T. Wright](http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm), which is in effect a summary of a full-length book that he wrote. His process is first to summarize both pagan and Jewish beliefs about the afterlife. Then he outlines the distinctive beliefs of Christians about the afterlife. > [@Dr. Wright](#): > > the early Christian belief in resurrection had a much more precise shape and content than anything we find in Judaism. In early Christianity, obviously in Paul but not only there, resurrection will be an act of new creation, accomplished by the Holy Spirit, and the body which is to be is already planned by God. This will not be a simple return to the same sort of body as before; nor will it be an abandonment of embodiedness in order to enjoy a disembodied bliss. It will involve transformation, the gift of a new body with different properties. This is so engrained in earliest Christianity that it already affects teaching on other subjects, such as baptism (Romans 6) and ethics (Colossians 3). > > Where did that idea come from? Not from any ancient paganism known to us; and not, or not straightforwardly, from any ancient Judaism. The best-known feature of resurrection in Daniel 12 is that the righteous will shine like stars; that, interestingly, is one thing the early Christians do not say about the hope of resurrection, except in one gospel passage (Matthew 13.43) not echoed elsewhere.6 The hope of resurrection is thus not only virtually universal in early Christianity; it is much more sharply focussed than its Jewish equivalent. > > What then do the New Testament writers mean when they speak of an inheritance waiting for us in heaven? This has been much misunderstood, with awesome results in traditions of thought, prayer, life and art. The point of such passages, as in 1 Peter 1.4, 2 Corinthians 5.1, Philippians 3.20, and so forth, is not that one must ‘go to heaven’, as in much-popular imagination, in order to enjoy the inheritance there. It is rather that ‘heaven’ is the place where God stores up his plans and purposes for the future. If I tell a friend that there is beer in the fridge, that doesn’t mean he has to get into the fridge in order to enjoy the beer. When the early Christians speak of a new body in heaven, or an inheritance in heaven, they mean what St John the Divine means in Revelation 21: the new identity which at present is kept safe in heaven will be brought from heaven to earth at the great moment of renewal. Yes: the great majority of Christian expressions of hope through the middle ages, the reformation, and the counter-reformation periods have been misleading. ‘Heaven’ is not the Christian’s ultimate destination. For renewed bodies we need a renewed cosmos, including a renewed earth. That is what the New Testament promises. > > The third way in which early Christian belief about resurrection is significantly different from that of second-Temple Judaism is that, particularly in Paul, ‘the resurrection’ has split into two. Paul still sees ‘the resurrection of the dead’ as a single theological event,7 but it takes place in two phases: first the Messiah, then at his coming all his people.8 This too only makes sense within second-Temple Judaism, but it is something no second-Temple Jew had said before. Resurrection had been a single all-embracing moment, not a matter of one person being raised ahead of everybody else. > > These modifications and sharpenings of the Jewish belief demand a historical explanation, and we shall come to that presently. But there were other modifications as well. Those Jews who believed in resurrection developed, as we saw, ways of speaking about the interim state of those who had died, ways of holding on to the belief that the physically dead had not entirely ceased to exist, but that they were still ‘there’ to be raised again on the last day. The early Christians, seeking to say the same thing, used some of the same language but some different expressions as well. They spoke of people being ‘asleep in Christ’.9 Revelation speaks of the souls under the altar who wake up, ask what time it is, and are told to go back to sleep again.10 The penitent thief will be with Jesus in Paradise — presumably not a final destination, even if we take ‘today’ metaphorically.11 Paul speaks of his desire being to ‘depart and be with the Messiah, which is far better’.12 The closest the New Testament gets to speaking of the dead being in ‘heaven’, even as a temporary resting place, is when in Revelation 21 the New Jerusalem, the bride of Christ, comes down to earth from heaven, where presumably she has been waiting, in order that the wedding can take place. > > Finally, the early Christians speak of one major aspect of the Jewish hope as already emphatically realised. Jesus himself was and is the Messiah, and they looked for no other. This deserves much more elaboration than I can give it here.13 > > Jesus had not done what Messiahs were supposed to do. He had neither won a decisive victory over Israel’s political enemies, nor restored the Temple (except in the most ambiguous symbolic fashion). Nor had he brought God’s justice and peace to the world; the wolf was not yet lying down with the lamb. But the early gospel traditions are already shaped by the belief that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah; Paul regularly calls him Christos, and if that term had become for him merely a proper name (which I dispute) that only goes to show how firmly Jesus’ messianic identity was already established by Paul’s day. For Revelation, Jesus is the Lion of the tribe of Judah. The historian is bound to face the question: once Jesus had been crucified, why would anyone say that he was Israel’s Messiah? > > Nobody said that about Judas the Galilean after his revolt ended in failure in AD 6. Nobody said it of Simon bar-Giora after his death at the end of Titus’s triumph in AD 70. Nobody said it about bar-Kochbar after his defeat and death in 135. On the contrary. Where messianic movements tried to carry on after the death of their would-be Messiah, their most important task was to find another Messiah.14 The fact that the early Christians did not do that, but continued, against all precedent, to regard Jesus himself as Messiah, despite outstanding alternative candidates such as the righteous, devout and well-respected James, Jesus’ own brother, is evidence that demands an explanation. As with their beliefs about resurrection, they redefined Messiahship itself, and with it their whole view of the problem that Israel and the world faced and the solution that they believed God had provided. They remained at one level a classic Jewish messianic movement, owing fierce allegiance to their Messiah and claiming Israel and the whole world in his name. But the mode of that claim, and the underlying allegiance itself, were drastically redefined. > > The rise of early Christianity, and the shape that it took in two central and vital respects, thus presses upon the historian the question for an explanation. The early Christians retained the Jewish belief in resurrection, but both modified it and made it more sharp and precise. They retained the Jewish belief in a coming Messiah, but redrew it quite drastically around Jesus himself. Why? In the remainder of the essay, Dr. Wright considers and then rejects alternate theories, such as that Paul or other early Christians viewed the resurrection as purely spiritual or that it was only intended as a metaphor. He also deals with questions of historical method and approach, concluding: > [@Dr. Wright](#): > > Of course, there are several reasons why people may not want, and often refuse, to believe this. But the historian must weigh, as well, the alternative accounts they themselves offer. And, to date, none of them have anything like the explanatory power of the simple, but utterly challenging, Christian one. The historian’s task is not to force people to believe. It is to make it clear that the sort of reasoning historians characteristically employ — inference to the best explanation, tested rigorously in terms of the explanatory power of the hypothesis thus generated — points strongly towards the bodily resurrection of Jesus; and to make clear, too, that from that point on the historian alone cannot help. When you’re dealing with worldviews, every community and every person must make their choices in the dark, even if there is a persistent rumour of light around the next corner. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/10 "2011-08-22T19:44:24Z")
Funny, I don’t see any evidence for a physical resurrection in any of that, just a lot of ludicrous special pleading. The belief of post-Pauline Christians in the resurrection is meaningless. Paul never claimed a physical resurrection, and there’s no evidence that any of the apostles did eitehr. I would appreciate it if you would in your own words, clearly state your _own_ arguments and not keep trying to deflect to other apologists. What do you think is Wright’s strongest point? Claiming that the claims of Christianity were unique is a.) not really true and b.) no more true for Christianity than for any other religious mythology. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/11 "2011-08-22T21:14:22Z")
The cohesion of a bunch of muddled squabbling disciples into the early Christian Church. After that, the survival of said Church of the Destruction of Jerusalem, her conquest of the Roman Pagan Beast, struggle between Babylonian Harlotry & Bridal Fidelity, and role as the Mother of Western-style Civilization all indicate to me that her Lord Jesus is all that is claimed for Him- God made Flesh, Sacrificed Savior, Risen Lord and Reigning Sovereign. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/12 "2011-08-22T21:19:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s one of the biggest problems right there. Indeed. Rather surreal to encounter page upon page of what is (more or less) a very special kind of pleading. We are told that — because Paul had nothing to gain from lying, and because hallucinations of sufficient vividness to explain his experience at Damascus are rare — then the probability of Paul’s testimony if the resurrection _didn’t_ happen “is at best on the order of 10[sup]-4[/sup]”. I’ll admit reading that was a head-scratchingly WTF moment. But even before discussing Paul they apply similar reasoning to the experience of the women at the tomb. The only alternatives they consider are: the women hallucinated; the body was moved; they went to the wrong tomb; or their experience was genuine. Thus they “judge P(women’s testimony | resurrection) to be at least several orders of magnitude greater than P(women’s testimony | ~resurrection)” [my notation]. The text is long and dense and it’s been a while since I read the whole thing, but I see no discussion of the possibility that there was no scenario corresponding to the women’s experience in the first place, which I think merits some attention given the length of time between the purported events and the written recording. In fairness, they do note that they assume Acts and the gospels to be “generally reliable”. Which means they’ve spent a great deal of verbiage only to admit that they don’t really address what’s at issue. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/13 "2011-08-22T21:20:46Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The belief of post-Pauline Christians in the resurrection is meaningless. Perhaps it is meaningless to you, but it is not meaningless to me. > [@](#): > > Paul never claimed a physical resurrection, and there’s no evidence that any of the apostles did eitehr. Paul did claim that Jesus had been physically resurrected. We know this because (1) Paul was a former Pharisee. The Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection for the Jews at the end of time. They did not believe in a spiritual resurrection, nor did any other known branch of Judaism. If you read Dr. Wright’s book, you’ll see he quotes a ton of ancient Jewish writings to establish this point. So if Paul refers to a resurrection, we can assume that he was referring to a bodily resurrection. (2) Paul refers to the resurrected body by the Greek word “soma” on multiple occasions. We can easily go through [a list](http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/priceresbody.htm) of Paul’s usages of the that word and verify that when he uses it he always means the physical body as clearly distinct from the spirit, and indeed a quick trip to the [Lexicon](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4983&t=KJV) will assure us that that’s what the word “soma” meant. So by using that word, Paul is going out of his way to double-super clear that he refers to a physical resurrection. (3) Further, in 1 Cor 15:50-4, Paul refers to the resurrection as “putting on” a new body, as distinct from the soul being disembodied and then placed into a new body. Some have disputed this point, but as Dr. Wright notes: > [@Dr. Wright](#): > > Why then does he say ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom’? Ever since the second century doubters have used this clause to question whether Paul really believed in the resurrection of the body. In fact, the second half of verse 50 already explains, in Hebraic parallelism with the first half, more or less what he means, as Paul’s regular use of ‘flesh’ would indicate: ‘flesh and blood’ is a way of referring to ordinary, corruptible, decaying human existence. It does not simply mean, as it has so often been taken to mean, ‘physical humanity’ in the normal modern sense, but ‘the present physical humanity (as opposed to the future), which is subject to decay and death.’ The referent of the phrase is not the presently dead but the presently living, who need not to be raised but to be changed; and this brings us back to the dual focus of verses 53 and 54. Both categories of humans need to acquire the new, transformed type of body. (4) Further, in Romans 8:18-23, Paul notes that all of creation is waiting for it creator and will soon be redeemed, and he specifically includes present-day human beings in that creation, thus clearly believing that those with their present-day bodies will be redeemed. (5) Paul refers to the appearances of Jesus after his death as proof that Jesus was resurrected. This, however, would not be his interpretation unless he believed in a bodily resurrection. As Dr. Gary Habermas noted: > [@](#): > > Such apparitions were well-known in the ancient world, but were not expressed as resurrections, and generally convinced no one in this direction. To the contrary, although these apparitions may have comforted the mourners, we must not lose sight of the fact that these persons were definitely known to have remained dead. So Paul believed in a physical resurrection. Since he squared his teachings with those of the Apostles in Jerusalem, we know that they believed in a physical resurrection as well. > [@](#): > > I would appreciate it if you would in your own words, clearly state your _own_ arguments and not keep trying to deflect to other apologists. Tough. Since you always ignore my requests, I’m not bending over backwards to satisfy yours. > [@](#): > > Claiming that the claims of Christianity were unique is a.) not really true and b.) no more true for Christianity than for any other religious mythology. Really? Dr. Wright makes specific claims about what the early Christians believed concerning the Resurrection and the Messiah that was different from what the Jews believed. Please provide specific reasons why you reject those claims and back those reasons up with sources better than Wikipedia. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/14 "2011-08-22T21:24:36Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > The cohesion of a bunch of muddled squabbling disciples into the early Christian Church. How is the formation of an obscure sect evdience for the resurrection? We don’t even know what those disciples actually believed. There is no evdience that they ever claimed to have witnessed a physical resurrection. > [@](#): > > After that, the survival of said Church of the Destruction of Jerusalem It was destroyed in Jerusalem. Paul’s gentile movement is what survived. > [@](#): > > her conquest of the Roman Pagan Beast, struggle between Babylonian Harlotry & Bridal Fidelity, and role as the Mother of Western-style Civilization all indicate to me that her Lord Jesus is all that is claimed for Him- God made Flesh, Sacrificed Savior, Risen Lord and Reigning Sovereign. How is the political success of the church (which happened mainly because of Constantine) evidence for a historical resurrection of Jesus? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/15 "2011-08-22T21:38:29Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Paul did claim that Jesus had been physically resurrected. Excuse me for needing to catch up, but why does it matter whether Paul thought that resurrections were physical or only spiritual? I don’t see how that has any bearing on the question in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/16 "2011-08-22T22:09:10Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Excuse me for needing to catch up, but why does it matter whether Paul thought that resurrections were physical or only spiritual? I don’t see how that has any bearing on the question in the OP. I’d think that if you read Dr. Wright’s article, his outline of argument is clear. In the early-to-mid first century pagans has set of beliefs A about resurrection and life after death. Jews had set of beliefs B. The first Christians had set of beliefs C, where C is quite distinct from A and B and has a number of specific, unique, certain features. We then ask: “Why is it that the earliest Christians believed these things about resurrection?” After investigating and rejecting other explanations, the best explanation left standing is that the early Christian community picked this up from an actual resurrection. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/17 "2011-08-22T22:13:52Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Perhaps it is meaningless to you, but it is not meaningless to me. Let me put it another way, it has no evidentiary value. > [@](#): > > Paul did claim that Jesus had been physically resurrected. Not true. Paul only says that Jesus “appeared” to people after his death, and draws no distinction between Jesus appearance to the apostles and to himself. He makes no mention of an empty tomb, and says that physical resurrections are impossible. He also says that he didn’t even get this information from other people, but only from the voices in his head. > [@](#): > > We know this because (1) Paul was a former Pharisee. The Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection for the Jews at the end of time. They did not believe in a spiritual resurrection, nor did any other known branch of Judaism. Then how do explain Paul saying that physical resurrections are impossible and calling people “idiots” if they believe that it is? You can’t just try to piggyback Paul onto the Pharisees and say he must have agreed with them, because obviously he did not. He had a completely different conception of the Messiah, for one thing, and was an admitted psychotic for another. > [@](#): > > If you read Dr. Wright’s book, you’ll see he quotes a ton of ancient Jewish writings to establish this point. So if Paul refers to a resurrection, we can assume that he was referring to a bodily resurrection. Factually incorrect since Paul explicitly denies the possibility of physical resurrection. > [@](#): > > (2) Paul refers to the resurrected body by the Greek word “soma” on multiple occasions. We can easily go through [a list](http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/priceresbody.htm) of Paul’s usages of the that word and verify that when he uses it he always means the physical body as clearly distinct from the spirit, and indeed a quick trip to the [Lexicon](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4983&t=KJV) will assure us that that’s what the word “soma” meant. But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. 42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. (1 Cor. 15:35-44) I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” (1 Cor. 15:50-54) Paul makes a clear distinction here between the _σῶμα ψυχικόν_ (“body physical”) and the _σῶμα πνευματικόν_ (“body spiritual”). He makes it clear that the physical body rots and is replaced by a spirtual body. He likens it to sowing seeds. > [@](#): > > So by using that word, Paul is going out of his way to double-super clear that he refers to a physical resurrection No, he’s bending over backwards to say it is NOT physical. > [@](#): > > (3) Further, in 1 Cor 15:50-4, Paul refers to the resurrection as “putting on” a new body, as distinct from the soul being disembodied and then placed into a new body. Some have disputed this point, but as Dr. Wright notes: I’ve read this half-assed quote from Wright several times and still can’t see how it amounts to anything but hand waving. “Hebraic parallelism?” My ass. What a a masterpiece of obfuscation. Wright has no credentials as a historian, by the way. His doctorate is in Divinity. He’s an Anglican Bishop and a conservative evangelical well out of the mainstream of scholarship (and noted for his anti-gay stances within the Anglican Church). > [@](#): > > (4) Further, in Romans 8:18-23, Paul notes that all of creation is waiting for it creator and will soon be redeemed, and he specifically includes present-day human beings in that creation, thus clearly believing that those with their present-day bodies will be redeemed. Paul says everybody will be “transformed” into physical bodies. > [@](#): > > (5) Paul refers to the appearances of Jesus after his death as proof that Jesus was resurrected. Paul does not say those appearances were physical. > [@](#): > > This, however, would not be his interpretation unless he believed in a bodily resurrection He asserts exactly the opposite. > [@](#): > > So Paul believed in a physical resurrection. Paul said exactly the opposite. > [@](#): > > Since he squared his teachings with those of the Apostles in Jerusalem, we know that they believed in a physical resurrection as well. Cute, but specious. First of all Paul said he got his info from the voices in his head, not from the apostles, and secondly, he did not say for a second that the appearances were physical, and he did not draw any distinction between Jesus’ appearances to the disciples and to himself. Moreover, and moreover, even if Paul had claimed a physical resurrection, it would be no evidence anyway. Claims are not evidence, especially claims for impossible events, and Paul was an admitted psychotic (and skilled prevaricator). > [@](#): > > Tough. Since you always ignore my requests, I’m not bending over backwards to satisfy yours. I don’t know what requests you’re referring to, but this thread was started at your own invitation. > [@](#): > > Really? Dr. Wright makes specific claims about what the early Christians believed concerning the Resurrection and the Messiah that was different from what the Jews believed. Please provide specific reasons why you reject those claims and back those reasons up with sources better than Wikipedia. It’s pretty simple. We have no data about those beliefs. We have no testimony or writings from from any of them. If you or Reverend Wright beg to differ, then please show the data. You seem to have the wrong idea about who has the burden of proof here. If you want to assert knowledge of those early beliefs, let’s see the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/18 "2011-08-22T22:34:01Z")
Given that Jesus tells us it is better to believe without seeing (aka, the Doubting Thomas story), why would you want or expect Christians to need evidence for the resurrection? ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/19 "2011-08-22T22:50:27Z")
Because they have brains capable of rational thought? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2011, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/20 "2011-08-22T22:57:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Given that Jesus tells us it is better to believe without seeing (aka, the Doubting Thomas story), why would you want or expect Christians to need evidence for the resurrection? I don’t necessarily, but **ITR** said he could do it, so I called him on it. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680.md?page=2)