# 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:** 11
**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 27, 2011, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/201 "2011-08-27T04:52:09Z")
> [@Megas\_P](#): > > Czarcasm, can you tell us who was Patroclos and how he end up in Troy? Only you have to completely disrecard the Iliad. Also stories you have heard don’t count > > What? There are no other data regarding Patroclos? Toughen up man, stop whining. What do you mean you have nothing? Mixed feelings. I am sad that you have multiple personality disorder…but I am honored that you have chosen me as one of your personalities. I find this conversation you are having with my pseudo-self interesting. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/202 "2011-08-27T05:03:37Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > I am not confused because of my “silly beliefs”. The fundamental premise that Diogenes appears to be working with is that the resurrection is physically impossible because of “natural laws”. All I am doing is asking that he justify the existence of these natural laws and give some reason to think that they actually exist. He is the one presuming that these laws exist, and so he has to provide some evidence that they are real. The laws of physics and chemistry preclude corpses returning to life. > [@](#): > > This is more than just some silly, academic argument True, your argument is anything but academic. It’s simply handwaving and wishful thinking. > [@](#): > > , because ultimately science itself denys the possibility of fixed, immutable laws of nature. If one hold to the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, then fundamentally the laws of nature are indeterministic. That means that it is not “impossible” for anything to happen, it is merely unlikely. So the statement that all of history shows that there are fixed laws of nature is clearly wrong. Whether or not the laws of quantum mechanics are deterministic or not, and whether there are immutable fixed laws really is an open question in the philosophy of science. Every proton in your left leg could degrade at once. It’s unlikely, but it could happen. You however, are not coming back from the dead. > [@](#): > > And really it is not hard to get atheists to start proclaiming that the laws of nature are in fact non-deterministic. Take for instance the Kalaam cosmological argument. The argument is essentially: > > 1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause Like God? Or virtual particles? > [@](#): > > 1. The universe began to exist > 2. Therefore the universe has a cause > What this argument shows at the least is that the natural world is not all there is, that there must be some transendent cause of the universe that exists necessarily outside of the natural world. What this argument shows is you are easily fooled by nonsense. > [@](#): > > Premise 2 is well confirmed by modern science and cosmology. For instance The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorum states that any universe that is on average inflationary in the past must have a begining at a finite point in the past, irrespective of what goes on in the plank-time moment after that begining point. That covers the vast majority of serious cosmological models. Those few that are not covered by this model do not obey the second law of thermodynamics, and are therefore pretty much dead in the water. > > The only real way to avoid the conclusion of the argument is to argue that premise 1 is false, and that things can come into existence without cause. This is in direct violation of Diogenes insistence that there are natural laws that govern the behaviour of all things. So for instance in the book “Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology”, the atheist philosopher Quentin Smith argues that the universe simply came into existence, from nothing, by nothing and for nothing. But if things can happen without cause that means that the premise that all things happen according to natural law is simply false. Existence from nothing isn’t impossible. Again, virtual particles. But in any case, I’m not a physicist, and you aren’t going to find rock solid proof of God in any physical model that people much more expert and more specialized than you have overlooked. > [@](#): > > So given that this is genuinely a point of contention even amoung atheist philosophers I think what I am asking is entirely reasonable. If Diogenes wants us to accept that natural inviolable laws really do exist then he has to give us some reason for thinking that is true. It is entirely hypocritical to assert that I have to give evidence for the entities that assert exist, and then himself assert that questionable things exist without any evidence or reason and expect as to just accept it. Your whole argument here is based on assumptions. Your assumptions are wrong. See how easy it is? > [@](#): > > Secondly, your ridiculous examples of living chairs get us nowhere and I can only assume brought up because you have no real argument to offer. I brought it up because it is the same argument you are using. You accept nonsense when it involves the God you believe in (and I assume not the Gods you don’t believe in). Yet you reject nonsense when it doesn’t benefit you by reinforcing the religious beliefs that give you comfort. > [@](#): > > It is clearly a contrived example and one that is not all that hard to really investigate. If the chair did come alive are there any records from the time that talk about it? As it happens, [there is a testament to it happening](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14188433&postcount=191). It is very sacred to my family. > [@](#): > > Were there any people at the time that believed it? Yes. My grandmother. > [@](#): > > Is there any physical evidence of this alleged chair? You’ve seen chairs before, right? It’s like one of those. It was revered for like five years, and then it was lifted into heaven. Weird, that. > [@](#): > > Of course if you just state it I don’t believe you, because it is clear that you just made it up on that spot. That has nothing to do with the resurrection which has not just one individual claim going for it, but several accounts and a whole early community that believed it. Stop for a second and listen to what you’re saying. The chair is fake. But the resurrection is true. The difference is, decades after Jesus’ supposed death some guys wrote conflicting accounts of his life and magic powers. Doesn’t it bug you that you have to devolve to such wretched gymnastics in order to buttress your religion? > [@](#): > > If you are going to argue by analogy at least make sure that the situations that you use are actually analogous. > > Calculon. They are perfectly analogous. You simply have a delusional devotion to the one and not the other. It’s perfectly obvious to anyone watching. You want Jesus to be magic so no matter what anyone says, he’s magic. ---
**Author:** ![Megas\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Megas\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Megas_P)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/203 "2011-08-27T07:01:16Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Speaking only for me, I have to say that you’re overlooking some viable possible sources of compelling evidence. The discovery of a letter that passes all the evidenciary sniff tests from a Roman centurion to his wife that expresses “HOLY SHIT! You WILL NOT believe what I fucking saw yesterday…”, or better yet several such discrete letters, from a variety of eyewitnesses who have no stake in teh Gospels’ accuracy, or a long-lost diary of Pontius Pilate (again, duly authenticated) or some such. That would put a cork in my bunghole, wouldn’t it? You’re not quite being fair in painting Biblical skeptics as refusing to validate any and all evidence, I think. I’m willing to specify exactly what would constitute powerful evidence to me, at great length if you’d like, and to comment that to date there is no such evidence on display. As we are discussing resurrection here, it is highly unlikely to find a pagan reference to it, as someone who witnessed such a spectacular event will most probably become a Christian, therefore invalidating his account. Pontius Pilate, never knew about the resurrection either, so if a lost journal was found it could not provide us with any information. Remember we are not discussing whether Christ existed or not but if He resurrected. If biblical skeptics what to question resurrection, they have science to back them up. People cannot resurrect once they’ve been dead for three days. Period. There is no need to make statements such as ‘There is no evidence the disciples believed in resurrection’, which is absurd. Actually it is very unlikely to assume that even one did not believe in resurrection. But I would be very interested in seeing what you consider validate evidence of resurrection. ---
**Author:** ![Megas\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Megas\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Megas_P)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/204 "2011-08-27T07:08:36Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Patrocles was a fictional character. Is that an okay answer? Well, not so much. First of all, Troy is real its been excavated. So is the Trojan war. Who can say that Patroclos did not really existed? But all the above are immaterial as I deprive you of the one and only source that mentions Patroclos and besides the question was not if he was fictional or not but how he ended in Troy. Taking your only source away and asking you to prove what I asked you is a neat trick isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Megas\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Megas\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Megas_P)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/205 "2011-08-27T08:38:34Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I know what they were theoretically. The problem is that we can’t really identify what specifically came from any authentic oral tradition and what was created later. The most likely artifacts of oral tradition are generally thought to be a common sayings tradition (basically sayings and parables attributed to Jesus), but we pretty much don’t have squat for an early oral tradition regarding the resurrection. Paul’s appearance formula arguably represents an earlier sayings tradition, Paul himself denies that. Paul’s formula also contains elements that are unlikely to have emerged from any original oral tradition. I am not so clear about what you mean by ‘Paul’s formula’. Paul teachings are also part of Oral Tradition (the ones that were not documented in Epistles) Also, I completely disagree with your premise that we have nothing for an early tradition regarding resurrection. Think about it for a minute. Resurrection is the single most important act Jesus performed. It is the very foundation of Christianity. Death was defeated and Life triumphed. Through Jesus death and resurrection the whole mankind was saved. Resurrection is a vital element in Christianity. If Christ was not God he could not come back to life and he could not abolish our sins. This is the mythology of Christianity. It is very clear. Now, I don’t know at what date you believe John’s gospel was written but let’s say late first century or early second? Am I approximately right? What you are saying is that for a Hundred years or so, Christians where not taught or knew this vital piece of information, what will be the corner stone of Christianity in years to come. Please remember this is a vital piece of information there and not a trivial matter. We are also aware that when people convert to a religion they feel very strong about it and try to absorb its teachings to the max. A hundred years time is not so much in the largest scheme of things, but if my grandfather and father and all the people I associate with teach me something and believe in it fiercely and then out of the blue someone told me something else, a vital piece of information was withheld from me, I would be very reluctant to accept it. Nevertheless we know that resurrection was accepted through the ancient Christian world. Taking to account the fact that Paul (and presumably other Apostles) were visiting the people they converted to Christianity and preaching to them on a number of occasions, if resurrection was never in the menu for a hundred years or so and then someone started serving it, people might get suspicious as to the validity of the statement. By the first century the Church was sort of organized with Bishops and whatnot and there was communication between Christians from different towns. How did the Gospels became so wide spread and popular if there was something in them completely new to what they have learned? Even if some town decided to become ‘heretics’ and teach bogus stuff, the other Christians would call them on it. And once more this is not a trivial matter, it is something of vital importance to Christianity. Early Church had very VERY strict rules about what they believed and excommunicated everyone who deviated from that. Do you have any reasonable explanation first as to HOW and secondly as to WHY someone a hundred years or so afterwards decided to include resurrection in the teachings and somehow get away with it, in all Christianity from Asia Minor all the way to Rome? ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/206 "2011-08-27T10:18:04Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The laws of physics and chemistry preclude corpses returning to life. > > True, your argument is anything but academic. It’s simply handwaving and wishful thinking. > > Every proton in your left leg could degrade at once. It’s unlikely, but it could happen. You however, are not coming back from the dead. > > Like God? Or virtual particles? > > What this argument shows is you are easily fooled by nonsense. > > Existence from nothing isn’t impossible. Again, virtual particles. But in any case, I’m not a physicist, and you aren’t going to find rock solid proof of God in any physical model that people much more expert and more specialized than you have overlooked. > > Your whole argument here is based on assumptions. Your assumptions are wrong. See how easy it is? > > I brought it up because it is the same argument you are using. You accept nonsense when it involves the God you believe in (and I assume not the Gods you don’t believe in). Yet you reject nonsense when it doesn’t benefit you by reinforcing the religious beliefs that give you comfort. > > As it happens, [there is a testament to it happening](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14188433&postcount=191). It is very sacred to my family. > > Yes. My grandmother. > > You’ve seen chairs before, right? It’s like one of those. It was revered for like five years, and then it was lifted into heaven. Weird, that. > > Stop for a second and listen to what you’re saying. The chair is fake. But the resurrection is true. The difference is, decades after Jesus’ supposed death some guys wrote conflicting accounts of his life and magic powers. > > Doesn’t it bug you that you have to devolve to such wretched gymnastics in order to buttress your religion? > > They are perfectly analogous. You simply have a delusional devotion to the one and not the other. > > It’s perfectly obvious to anyone watching. You want Jesus to be magic so no matter what anyone says, he’s magic. If you are not interested in debating honestly, then I have better things to do with my time than to respond to someone that is not interested in an actual debate. It is obvious that you, nor no-one else believes in your contrived chair. Your own posts in this thread contradict your story about the chair. All that is being demonstrated by this is how you don’t really have any serious argument against my position, and so have to resort to stupid tricks. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/207 "2011-08-27T10:48:40Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > If you are not interested in debating honestly, then I have better things to do with my time than to respond to someone that is not interested in an actual debate. It is obvious that you, nor no-one else believes in your contrived chair. Your own posts in this thread contradict your story about the chair. All that is being demonstrated by this is how you don’t really have any serious argument against my position, and so have to resort to stupid tricks. How is the chair any more stupid than God? All you are doing is ignoring the obvious comparisons he is making so you can handwave anything he says away. You make ridiculous claims; he makes a ridiculous claim and asks how that’s any more ridiculous than what you are saying; but that’s a question you don’t dare address. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/208 "2011-08-27T11:58:33Z")
> [@Megas\_P](#): > > Well, not so much. First of all, Troy is real its been excavated. So is the Trojan war. Who can say that Patroclos did not really existed? > > But all the above are immaterial as I deprive you of the one and only source that mentions Patroclos and besides the question was not if he was fictional or not but how he ended in Troy. > > Taking your only source away and asking you to prove what I asked you is a neat trick isn’t it? Not my job, or anyone’s, to say if Patrocles really existed. Based on the evidence we have at present, he did not. End of story. He must be discussed, if at all, as a fictional character. What Pilate knew or didn’t know about the resurrection, or what a Roman witness to it later became is immaterial–the point is that that these are bits of evidence for your case. So far, you have none, and all the handwaving in the world doesn’t give you any. So what, Troy actually existed? I’m surprised you don’t build a case for Jesus on the fact that Jerusalem actually existed. ---
**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 27, 2011, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/209 "2011-08-27T14:58:32Z")
> [@Megas\_P](#): > > If biblical skeptics what to question resurrection, they have science to back them up. People cannot resurrect once they’ve been dead for three days. Period. There is no need to make statements such as ‘There is no evidence the disciples believed in resurrection’, which is absurd. Not at all. It’s a stone fact that we don’t have any evidence that anyone who knew Jesus ever claimed he had been physically resurrected. If you wish to dispute this, please tell us what that evidence is. ---
**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 27, 2011, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/210 "2011-08-27T15:21:25Z")
> [@Megas\_P](#): > > I am not so clear about what you mean by ‘Paul’s formula’. His appearance recitation in 1 Corinthians. Scholars refer to it as a “formula” because of its rote construction. > [@](#): > > Paul teachings are also part of Oral Tradition (the ones that were not documented in Epistles) Cite? > [@](#): > > Also, I completely disagree with your premise that we have nothing for an early tradition regarding resurrection. All you have to do is show the evidence then. > [@](#): > > Think about it for a minute. Resurrection is the single most important act Jesus performed. > It is the very foundation of Christianity. Moroni giving Joseph Smith Golden Tablets was the very foundation of the LDS Church. Therefore it must have happened? > [@](#): > > Now, I don’t know at what date you believe John’s gospel was written but let’s say late first century or early second? Am I approximately right? > What you are saying is that for a Hundred years or so, Christians where not taught or knew this vital piece of information, what will be the corner stone of Christianity in years to come. > Please remember this is a vital piece of information there and not a trivial matter. Forty years or so until the empty tomb, and we don’t know what they believed, exactly, but the movement could function just fine with a spiritual resurrection. That actually wasn’t the most important thing in the beginning anyway. Originally, it was an apocalyptic movement. The most important thing appears to have been the imminent return of Jesus (which Jesus had promised would happen in their lifetimes), the reversal of the social order and the advent of the “Kingdom of God.” > [@](#): > > We are also aware that when people convert to a religion they feel very strong about it and try to absorb its teachings to the max. > A hundred years time is not so much in the largest scheme of things, but if my grandfather and father and all the people I associate with teach me something and believe in it fiercely and then out of the blue someone told me something else, a vital piece of information was withheld from me, I would be very reluctant to accept it Joseph Smith’s claims must be true then. > [@](#): > > Nevertheless we know that resurrection was accepted through the ancient Christian world. Not for the first several decades, we don’t, at least not for a physical resurrection. > [@](#): > > Taking to account the fact that Paul (and presumably other Apostles) were visiting the people they converted to Christianity and preaching to them on a number of occasions, if resurrection was never in the menu for a hundred years or so and then someone started serving it, people might get suspicious as to the validity of the statement. Paul only said that Jesus had “appeared” to people. The hook was not the appearances, but the promise that he was about to come back. > [@](#): > > How did the Gospels became so wide spread and popular if there was something in them completely new to what they have learned? New to who? Christianity was a splintered movement from the start. Paul himself was a splitter. Some group somewhere eventually literalized the resurrection, but this didn’t happen until after the original Jerusalem movement had disappeared in the Jewish-Roman war. > [@](#): > > Early Church had very VERY strict rules about what they believed and excommunicated everyone who deviated from that.[.qute] > We don’t know this at all about the pre-Pauline church, and we also know that there were many different versions of Christianity. > Do you have any reasonable explanation first as to HOW and secondly as to WHY someone a hundred years or so afterwards decided to include resurrection in the teachings and somehow get away with it, in all Christianity from Asia Minor all the way to Rome? They weren’t inventing a resurrection, just literalizing it to make a better story. Some groups liked that bette, some didn’t. Eventually the physical resurrection group won. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/211 "2011-08-27T20:13:04Z")
Calculon said: > [@](#): > > When considering historical questions a proper historical method is to appeal to what is the “best explaination”. Which explaination accounts for all of the facts and ties it together in a way that is not contrived. When considering all possible explainations I think the best one is that Jesus really did rise from the dead. That explains how the early Christian community came to believe in the resurrection and makes sense of the gospel accounts. Just appealing to the fact that resurrection is “physically impossible” as Diogones and his followers does refuses to engage with the evidence and is ultimately circular. To argue that the resurrection did not happen you would have to come up with a better explaination of the data points that we have. This is the weakest part of your argument, Calculon. I can think of a much, much better explanation off the top of my head that takes into account all the facts (I’m not disputing them for the purposes of this post): Jesus was the Criss Angel of his day. Everything you say is true, except that instead of being crucified and rising from the dead, he FAKED being crucified and buried (through any number of methods that are more plausible than actually rising from the dead) and then returned three days later. Maybe he hung out in the tomb in the meantime. But the point is, even an elaborate, technologically advanced (for the time) scheme is pretty much infinitely more plausible than him rising from the dead. I’m not saying this is what happened. I’m saying your “best explanation” is wrong, because I have a way better one. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/212 "2011-08-27T20:25:59Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Jesus was the Criss Angel of his day. Or in this case, the Christ Angel… ---
**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 27, 2011, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/213 "2011-08-27T20:32:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Calculon said: > > This is the weakest part of your argument, Calculon. I can think of a much, much better explanation off the top of my head that takes into account all the facts (I’m not disputing them for the purposes of this post): > > Jesus was the Criss Angel of his day. Everything you say is true, except that instead of being crucified and rising from the dead, he FAKED being crucified and buried (through any number of methods that are more plausible than actually rising from the dead) and then returned three days later. Maybe he hung out in the tomb in the meantime. > > But the point is, even an elaborate, technologically advanced (for the time) scheme is pretty much infinitely more plausible than him rising from the dead. > > I’m not saying this is what happened. I’m saying your “best explanation” is wrong, because I have a way better one. I can top that-Someone told a good tall tale, people bought it, and the story grew in the telling. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/214 "2011-08-27T20:43:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I can top that-Someone told a good tall tale, people bought it, and the story grew in the telling. Well, that just explains Paul. I believe that for the Jesus story there is a kernel of actual history. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2011, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/215 "2011-08-28T05:59:09Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The Song of Deborah is just as likely a poem about an entirely different god, written by an entirely different group of people, with their god’s name scribbled out and Yahweh’s written over it. To follow up on this statement: > **[Deborah,%20Jael%20and%20Canaanite%20Mythology.pdf](https://www.mountsaintagnes.org/uploadedFiles/Resources/Research_Papers/Deborah,%20Jael%20and%20Canaanite%20Mythology.pdf)** Just one person’s personal theory, of course, but the point is that it is a perfectly reasonable and plausible theory. The fact that the Israelites were probably not yet anything like a kingdom during the 12th century BC makes it, in fact, more likely than any alternative where Deborah was an Israelite. ETA: At least three people’s theory, actually: > **[Reading the Women of the Bible](https://books.google.com/books?id=0EOS8Xaak9QC&pg=PT524&lpg=PT524&dq=song%2Bof%2Bdeborah%2Banat&source=bl&ots=y0XAi1Pj0B&sig=XVTK_D-FSg4-b71GjtcADP44iDg&hl=en&ei=xdlZTuf6A-TZiAKoqtmoCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result)** > > Reading the Women of the Bible takes up two of the most significant intellectual and religious issues of our day: the experiences of women in a patriarchal society and the relevance of the Bible to modern life. [http://related.springerprotocols.com/lp/de-gruyter/deborah-and-anat-a-study-of-poetic-imagery-judges-5-v1ebcnhKK0](http://related.springerprotocols.com/lp/de-gruyter/deborah-and-anat-a-study-of-poetic-imagery-judges-5-v1ebcnhKK0) ---
**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 28, 2011, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/216 "2011-08-28T06:09:42Z")
Yeah, a lot of the Psalms were derived from Ugarit literature as well, and other OT literature too. The Ugarit discovery reveals a lot about the Canaanite origin of Israelite religion and literature. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2011, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/217 "2011-08-28T06:28:07Z")
A lot of the debate over Jesus or the Exodus or whatever misses the big picture issue that there’s sufficient evidence that Judaism is, clearly, a man-made invention. Jesus may have been a real person who existed, but if he had a private line to God, that god’s name was El and El wasn’t anything like a monotheist – he ruled over a pantheon of gods largely translatable between Egyptian and Grecian gods of the same time period. That Jesus preached otherwise demonstrates that he didn’t have any particular knowledge beyond what anyone else of his time did, just the same as Paul or Joseph Smith Jr. ---
**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 28, 2011, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/218 "2011-08-28T06:43:35Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I can top that-Someone told a good tall tale, people bought it, and the story grew in the telling. I’d like to see evidence that the small number of Christians living in Jerusalem believed in the resurrection. They were remarkably unsuccessful about spreading their cult there - those further away did much better. You’d think that a city full of people hearing about this miracle would be more receptive. ---
**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 28, 2011, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/219 "2011-08-28T06:46:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’d like to see evidence that the small number of Christians living in Jerusalem believed in the resurrection. They were remarkably unsuccessful about spreading their cult there - those further away did much better. You’d think that a city full of people hearing about this miracle would be more receptive. This idea that the further out in time and distance a story travels, the more accurate it is, just doesn’t sit right with me. ---
**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 28, 2011, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/220 "2011-08-28T06:54:52Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > No, what I am asking is for you to demonstrate that these laws actually exist. You claim that you can’t believe anything exists without evidence. OK then, where is the evidence that inviolable natural laws really exist? What about quantum mechanics? If the laws of quantum mechanics are truely non-deterministic, then how does that factor into your assertion that the laws of physics are inviolable? Just merely stating that the laws “are what they are” is not an arguement. It appears that you don’t know what a physical law is. From [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law) > [@](#): > > A physical law or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behaviour (i.e. the law of nature [1]). Laws of nature are observable. Scientific laws are empirical, describing observable patterns. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiment and observation, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. So, by definition natural laws exist since they have been observed. Like anything else in science, they can change with evidence. And there is nothing that says laws must be deterministic - see the gas laws, which are statistical. > [@](#): > > Whether or not it is the “null” whatever that means is debatable. However it is definately the conclusion that you are trying to draw. If you assume the conclusion of your argument going in, then your argument is circular. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? You’re still wrong. There is plenty of evidence that dead people don’t come back. > [@](#): > > In sort, the causal agent of magical events is the person themselves. The causal agent of a miracle is a supernatural entity. If a person causes a rabbit to appear in a hat, it is magic. If God causes a rabbit to appear in a hat it is a miracle. > Of course, this raises the question what, in your view, is the difference between magic and natural law? Why is two masses moving together because of some mysterious force of gravity entirely logical, but something appearing because of a generated soundwave pattern (saying a particular spell) obviously illogical and ridiculous. Without you laying out exactly what natural law is, and what the causal agent of natural law is, then I don’t think that you can assert that natural law is not simply everyday magic. All you have to do is to show us evidence that this so-called supernatural stuff ever happened. Or happens. You not understanding what a law of physics is in no way implies that the rest of us don’t, or that the concept is fuzzy in some way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680.md?page=12)