# 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:** 14
**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 30, 2011, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/261 "2011-08-30T14:25:59Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > Since I’m following the thread and we have several learned folks participating, I thought I’d take this opportunity to ask about Papias. To be clear, I’m an atheist, so this isn’t an attempt to meet the challenge in the OP. It’s just an interesting question. I spent some time about a decade ago reading up on early Christian history, trying to piece together a sense of how the story came together. If I tripped over Papias at the time, I didn’t notice. > > Anyhoo, [Papias](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis) was an early 2nd century bishop who wrote the following (no longer extant in its original form but only as quoted by others):Notice that Papias doesn’t claim to have spoken to eyewitnesses, only to those who had. But he does claim to have spoken to many of those. > > My question is what mainstream Bible scholars, both believers and skeptics, say about Papias. On its face, it should be pretty good evidence as historians measure such things for the validity of the Gospels. Indeed, if the latter hadn’t included magic claims (e.g., casting out demons, miraculous healings and of course the physical resurrection) I think most people would take it as very suggestive that Jesus existed and had said and done the things reported. Whether he was in fact the Son of God would be another thing, but that he had claimed to be probably would be accepted. Thoughts? Papias (at least what little of his writings survive as quoted by Eusebius) does not reference any of the supernatural claims made in the written Gospels, or show any awareness of the Canonical Gospels at all. Eusebius does quote Papias as describing a memoir dictated by Peter to one named Mark, and says that Matthew wrote a sayings Gospel in Hebrew, but neither of these descriptions matches the Canonical gospels, and he doesn’t quote from them, so later patristic identification of those descriptions with the Canonicals was basically grounded on nothing (Matthew and Mark were assigned those authorship traditions based on Papias. Papias did not actually make this identification himself). In any case, the fragments we have left from Papias don’t contain any claims about the resurrection or other miracles 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 30, 2011, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/262 "2011-08-30T14:34:03Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > The question at hand is whether there exist natural laws that are somehow inviolable by supernatural entities. That is really the question that needs answering. Is it possible for God to raise Jesus from dead or not. Where did you get that idea? That’s not at all the question. No one has even suggested it. I think we can just take it as a given, that if an all-powerful magic being exists, he could re-animate anybody anytime he wants, using his magic powers. ---
**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 30, 2011, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/263 "2011-08-30T14:35:34Z")
The apparent death theory is unnecessary since no evidence has yet been produced to show that anyone ever claimed to have seen Jesus walk out a tomb after being crucified (indeed, he is unlikely to have ever been placed in a tomb at all, but just left on the cross or dumped in a common grave), but it is still far more plausible than magic. I don’t get why apologists don’t seem to understand that trying to argue that something is unlikely does not open the door to supernatural explanations. Natural explanations, however unlikely, always trump magic. ---
**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 30, 2011, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/264 "2011-08-30T14:38:15Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > The question at hand is whether there exist natural laws that are somehow inviolable by supernatural entities. This is not the question at hand. The question at hand is whether anyone can produce any evidence that a dead body came back to life. The hows and whys are immaterial until you prove it happened. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/265 "2011-08-30T14:51:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The apparent death theory is unnecessary since no evidence has yet been produced to show that anyone ever claimed to have seen Jesus walk out a tomb after being crucified (indeed, he is unlikely to have ever been placed in a tomb at all, but just left on the cross or dumped in a common grave), but it is still far more plausible than magic. I don’t get why apologists don’t seem to understand that trying to argue that something is unlikely does not open the door to supernatural explanations. Natural explanations, however unlikely, always trump magic. Yes, this was my point with regard to the apparent death theory. Craig and other apologists typically try to jump the question of whether or not we should regard the NT as reliable - they take it as a given; ‘how do you explain the empty tomb’? But that’s like taking the lord of the rings text as a given ‘how do you explain Frodo’s quest to mordor if there was no ring of power’? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/266 "2011-08-30T15:08:09Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Craig and other apologists typically try to jump the question of whether or not we should regard the NT as reliable - they take it as a given; Indeed, it is just another instance of special pleading. Vespasians spit curing the blind? ‘Haha, utter nonsense!!’ Christ cures a lepar? [Eyes glazing over] ‘Aaah, a miracle!’[/Eyes glazing over] ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/267 "2011-08-30T15:16:52Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Indeed, it is just another instance of special pleading. > > Vespasians spit curing the blind? ‘Haha, utter nonsense!!’ > Christ cures a lepar? [Eyes glazing over] ‘Aaah, a miracle!’[/Eyes glazing over] By the way, Jesus did the same trick to cure a blind man by spitting in his eyes (Mark 8:22-25). ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/268 "2011-08-30T15:23:14Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > By the way, Jesus did the same trick to cure a blind man by spitting in his eyes (Mark 8:22-25). Copycat! Uhhmm, when was Mark supposed to have been written agian? ---
**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 30, 2011, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/269 "2011-08-30T15:29:25Z")
c. 70 CE is the consensus, but arguments can be made for later. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/270 "2011-08-30T15:30:50Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > c. 70 CE is the consensus, but arguments can be made for later. and Titus’ little stroll through Ierusalem was 71. OK. COPYCAT! ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/271 "2011-08-30T15:32:08Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > By the way, Jesus did the same trick to cure a blind man by spitting in his eyes (Mark 8:22-25). 😉 Yes, indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/272 "2011-08-30T15:34:10Z")
The other thing to think about is, who was more popular at the time? Jesus, or Vespasian? Also, this type of miracle (spit curing the blind) can be traced back to the ancient Egyptians. Maybe they were simply Satanic mimicry meant to dissuade the faithful? ---
**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 30, 2011, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/273 "2011-08-30T15:39:14Z")
Maybe the followers of Jesus collected all the different “miracle stories” and attributed them all to him. ---
**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 30, 2011, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/274 "2011-08-30T15:51:20Z")
The funny think about Mark’s story of Jesus healing the blind man is that it takes Jesus a couple of tries. He rubs spit in the blind man’s eyes, and the blind man says everything looks kind of blurry (“I see men as trees walking”), then Jesus rubs his eyes again, and then he can see clearly. You’d think JC would be more efficient than Vespasian. ---
**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 30, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/275 "2011-08-30T15:54:24Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Maybe the followers of Jesus collected all the different “miracle stories” and attributed them all to him. Some of the miracle stories appear to have been allusions to those of pagan deities. Changing water into wine, for instance, was the miracle of Dionysus, the god of the vine (an easy one to understand, actually. To the ancients, the grape vine really did appear to miraculously transform water into wine - or at least to quickly fermenting grape juice). ---
**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 30, 2011, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/276 "2011-08-30T16:37:20Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > This I think is confused on several levels. The question at hand is whether there exist natural laws that are somehow inviolable by supernatural entities. That is really the question that needs answering. Is it possible for God to raise Jesus from dead or not. Depends on the existence of God. However, given that 1) resurrection is naturally impossible and 2) we see no evidence of the supernatural in our world or in reliable recorded history we can ask for strong evidence that a supernatural resurrection ever happened. Which is the point of this thread. Such evidence, either direct, through contemporary accounts, or indirect, through the actions of the people close to the events, is lacking. Have any? > [@](#): > > First of all scientific empiricism assumes the existence of natural laws. Natural laws are not observed directly, their existence is simply assumed. Incorrect. Natural laws are tested all the time - there is nothing assumed. Every day, in everything we do, we make predictions based on natural laws, and they all happen. I have no idea what you mean by observing natural laws in the sense you are using this phrase. We observe them through their effects. When I want to see what a computer game does, or understand game law, I can read the code. We can’t read code for the universe. > [@](#): > > Secondly the key feature in dispute, the inviolability of natural laws also cannot be observed. Even assuming that natural laws do exist, these law are under-determined by empirical experiment. Given any finite set of data points an infinite number of functions can be made to fit those points. By convention we normally assume the “simplest” functional form, but there is no real reason why more complicated functions could not also be just as valid. Therefore by empiricism we will never with certainty what the true form of the natural laws are. Therefore it is impossible to determine through empiricism if a given event violates natural law because it is simply not certain what the actual law is. When someone throws a ball to you, you don’t just stand there assuming that the ball will suddenly veer 90 degrees. We all assume the inviolability of natural law since this has never been falsified, despite the efforts of a century’s worth of psychics. Yes, given 38 data points you can plot a curve of order 38. But the purpose of a curve is to predict where future data points will lie, and the 39th almost certainly won’t be near it. BTW, this is exactly how “scientific” defenses of religion seem to work. They create a complicated natural explanation for events in the Bible, like the Flood, which inherently predicts future discoveries. When these falsify that theory, they invent a new one of higher order. You get a total mess when you reject the simplest explanation; that the Flood never happened. Here also the simplest explanation is that the resurrection never happened. And of course it is perfectly possible to show that an event violates a current understanding of natural law. The position of Mercury did. We need to create a new model which explains all the old observations, which is simple as possible, and which has good predictive power. > [@](#): > > Thirdly the non-deterministic nature of quantum mechanics also throws the existence of inviolable natural laws in doubt, because in quantum mechanics nothing is truly impossible. Quantum mechanics does not deal with possible or impossible, but with varying amounts of probability. So under quantum mechanics everything is technically possible, although some things are fantastically improbable. However if we are to take it is a principle that some things are strictly impossible because of natural laws it seems hard to define what low probability we would assign “impossible” to be. Strictly speaking 0 is the only true impossibility, but that would allow as possible all manner of weird things. There is plenty that is still impossible under the quantum physics model. c is still the speed of light. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle still holds. The bizarre behaviors possible due to this are inside laws, not outside of it. Particles popping into existence in the quantum foam are not only not in violation of these laws but are required by them. Our human lack of imagination about what is possible has nothing to do with what the laws say. > [@](#): > > You are also wrong about the gas laws. Statistical thermodynamics does not posit that the nature of the motion of gas particles is non-deterministic. Statistical thermodynamics is still a classical, deterministic theory. The reason that gas motions are treated statistically is not because they are not well defined, but because there are so many variables that treating them all gets you nowhere fast. Therefore a statistical framework is adopted as a tool for simplifying the deterministic system to something tractable. Deterministic as a mass, of course. But deterministic at the level of the individual molecule, not in any reasonable sense of the word. > [@](#): > > I have presented evidence for why I think a specific supernatural event, namely the resurrection has occurred. In that sense my claim is limited to that one specific supernatural event. For the purposes of this argument I have no claim over any other supernatural events, and so I have no burden of proof to show that they occurred. If you want to make the definite claim that the supernatural is in some way impossible, then as with all definite claims it is up to you to shoulder the burden of proof for that claim. Without a good reason to think that supernatural events are in fact impossible, then the possibility of them remains an open question. If you want to argue that it is closed, then you have to present arguments for that. Any evidence you’re presented has been pretty feeble, and you seem to be spending your time quibbling about the impossibility of the supernatural, not defending the evidence. I for one take the impossibility of the supernatural as a provisional law, like all laws are provisional, which would have to be shown to be untrue through significant evidence. Hundreds of years of close observation which has shown that all events are natural and that any events claimed to be supernatural have been disproved is plenty of reason to reject the supernatural hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![brocks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@brocks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brocks)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/277 "2011-08-30T20:51:10Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The funny think about Mark’s story of Jesus healing the blind man is that it takes Jesus a couple of tries. He rubs spit in the blind man’s eyes, and the blind man says everything looks kind of blurry (“I see men as trees walking”), then Jesus rubs his eyes again, and then he can see clearly. Dammit Jim, I’m a carpenter, not an optometrist! ---
**Author:** ![WILDJC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/cdc98d/32.png) [@WILDJC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WILDJC)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/278 "2011-09-02T00:01:38Z")
The Shroud of Turin? ---
**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:** [September 2, 2011, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/279 "2011-09-02T00:36:56Z")
> [@WILDJC](#): > > The Shroud of Turin? Even if it was authentic, it was obviously done when he was dead, so it is not very good evidence of the resurrection. Still, probably the best in this thread, anyhow. ---
**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:** [September 2, 2011, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/280 "2011-09-02T00:56:48Z")
> [@WILDJC](#): > > The Shroud of Turin? At least this is an attempt to prevent physical evidence. Ok, can you give a summary of how the Shroud offers evidence of the resurrection? How do you connect the dots there? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680.md?page=15)