Christians: What is your best evidence for the literal, historical resurrection of Jesus

[Revenant_Threshold]

@ITR_champion

Actually it’s quite material. You say that Paul was an “admitted psychotic”. By definition of the word “admitted”, this can only be true if you can provide a quote where Paul uses the word psychotic, or some synonym thereof, to describe himself. Otherwise you may accuse him of having been a psychotic, but your claim that he was “an admitted psychotic” is factually wrong.

I don’t believe one must use the exact words that someone uses solely in order to define what someone claims to be. If I claim that, for example, I am a being such that I fulfil all characteristics of Homo Sapiens, I would not be annoyed if someone declared that I was an admitted human. If Paul admits to having the characteristics of being psychotic, it’s fair to say he’s an admitted psychotic. It’s not the most diplomatic of arguments, certainly, but the point is accurate.

After all, if we’re only going to go by exact words and synonyms, don’t we have to throw out quite a bit of the Bible, it not originally being English?

As to the main argument of the thread - i’m unconvinced that the arguments set forth by the person **ITR **cites are enough to overcome the “person coming back from the dead” problem. That requires major, major evidence. Massive evidence. Huge fucking evidence, in other words. And really, even in Dr. Wright’s essay, I don’t read of him (let alone do I draw myself) the kind of enormous confidence I would expect would be the result of the kind of incredible evidence that would be required. It seems like someone coming up to me, looking up at the sky, and then saying “You know, I guess it’s maybe possible the sky is blue.”

I find the claims therein suspicious too, given that we’re essentially requiring the evidence still to support the point. An alternate explanation - which seems more plausible than resurrection - would simply be that the Bible itself is flawed in its explanation of events, and that the inaccurate recounting of events is explanation for the seemingly at-odds reaction. Another explanation is that the continued cult (and I don’t use that word perjoratively; I mean solely Christianity as it was before it became a big hit) survived and thrived due to alternative reasons than truth; which again seems more reasonable, and in fact likely, considering a numbers game. There’s also the possibility that people took their cues, rather than from events, from oral history and then later the Bible and proto-Bible themselves, and as such created something of a cycle of reasoning.

If a strong enough point of evidence for resurrection (via truth) is that it, essentially, it convinced and had a lasting effect that would otherwise and by other examples not be indicated, we surely would have to grant credence to other religious figures. L. Ron Hubbard would be indicated, for example - you can round up any number of people who attempted to start up a cult with themselves in a seat of power, and failed, or who petered out. L. Ron Hubbard is a massive success - and a massive success in a more modern age, when people are generally both more cynical and more prepared with alternative answers to proposed truths, as well as with more means to divine truth. Isn’t it logical, via the same argument (and via** FriarTed’s **as well - Scientology has done more in a shorter time frame so far than Christianity) to accept Hubbard’s ideas as gospel?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@spiirit

Since truth is not a lie then true faith is not a lie and, this also can be proven and thus becomes a fact.

Therefore, you accuse all people of faith who believe in something differen to yourself not only wrong, but liars? Since, by your definition, it is a lie and therefore not true faith.

[polar_bear]

@ITR_champion

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.

This could be said about people who belief in UFO’s as well. I wouldn’t accept that as proof for extraterrestial life though.

[Latro]

@spiirit

Proof-

Proof is to cause belief by fact…
the application of something intangible called Faith.
Faith can be proven to be fact and fact is truth.
Since truth is not a lie then true faith is not a lie and, this also can be proven and thus becomes a fact..

Welcome to the board Tom.

I had to snip it as it seems to be a copy from a response on another board.
But this, to me, is the gist of your argument.
Am I correct?

[Meatros]

Despite what ITR might say, it’s not definite that Paul was talking about a physical resurrection. In fact, Paul doesn’t appear to refer to the physicality of it - or at least, it’s not obvious that he is doing so.

As to N.T. Wright, from here:

Q: Is it true that even N.T. Wright “comes close to conceding” your interpretation (n. 2, pp. 197-98) and even allowed “that God keeps a vast warehouse of new ‘bodies’ waiting for us in heaven, like some freakish android farm” (n. 165, p. 211)?

A: Yes. Wright wrote the following:

Though Moule is no doubt right that Paul can envisage here the possibility of ‘exchange’ (losing one body, getting another one) rather than ‘addition’, as in 1 Corinthians 15, we should not lose sight of the fact that even if such an ‘exchange’ were to take place the new body would be more than the present one. (N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003: p. 367)

Wright thus admits that Moule’s understanding of what Paul could mean (which corresponds to mine) is no doubt right, and then fully allows that 1 Corinthians 15 can indeed be interpreted that way, though he does not assert it should be. Hence Wright concludes that even if that’s what Paul meant, our “new body” would still be “more than the present one.” That is absolutely clear and unambiguous: Wright is saying point blank that this interpretation is acceptable even if not certain, and that even 1 Corinthians 15 can mean ‘exchange’. All Wright wants to add is that even if we accept this, Paul is still saying the new body will be substantially better than the one we have now, which is exactly my view. Thus, Wright clearly comes as close to conceding my argument as he can without actually endorsing it.

That Wright appears to assert entirely contradictory things elsewhere in his book (e.g. Wright, p. 358) only demonstrates that his book was not coherently written and lacked a competent editor. For there is no other way to interpret his words on p. 367 than as accepting Moule’s (and my) argument as potentially correct. On the very next page he confirms this attitude when he says (emphasis added) that Paul “looks forward to eventual bodily resurrection, to a new body which will have left behind the decay and corruption of the present one, and which will function in relation to present life like a new and larger suit of clothes to be put on over the existing ones” (Wright, p. 368). A new body, leaving the present one behind. Wright does not challenge or criticize this conclusion, but practically affirms it.

There’s more if you follow the link and of course I’d recommend that everyone read the book as it’s quite thorough and Carrier makes a good case.

@ITR_champion

Paul makes it clear that it’s the same body in two different conditions, not one body vanishing and another taking its place. He likens it to sowing seeds, which proves the point because there’s continuity from the seed to the plant, likewise in Paul’s vision there’s continuity from the original to the heavenly body.

Unfortunately it’s not that clear, from here:

Q: When Paul compares our present bodies with a seed that is planted (1 Corinthians 15:36-37), implying our new bodies are the plant that blooms, doesn’t this entail that they are the same thing, since a seed merely transforms into a plant? After all, the seed and the plant aren’t separate things, but the same thing!

A: That is not true, as I already explain on pp. 146-47. The “seed” that you see going into the ground is actually the shell–the actual material that becomes the plant is hidden inside that shell. The shell you see (and sow) is thus the “outer man” while the hidden kernel inside it is the invisible “inner man” that rises to new life. The shell itself dies and is cast off. It does not become the new plant, so there was no continuity between them. As accomplished agriculturalists, the ancients knew all about this. And as a gardener myself, I have physically seen it, in some cases picking off the discarded shell of a seed that was still stuck to its kernel’s sprout as it rose above the soil (usually that shell remains buried and decomposes). That is the apparent point of Christ’s metaphor that in the end God will separate “the wheat from the chaff” (Matthew 3:12; Luke 3:17) and burn the chaff away while keeping the wheat for himself, hence alluding to the firey apocalypse (see my discussions: p. 136, with n. 160, p. 211; and pp. 143, 150), where the “outer body” (the chaff) will be burned away and the “inner body” (the wheat), a body which only the saved have, will be freed and raised to new life. To make the same point, Origen used the analogy of casting off the placenta (see my discussion on pp. 143-44), just as Paul used the analogies of moving from one house to another and removing one coat and donning another (2 Cor. 5:1-8, with my discussion on pp. 137-40, esp. with nn. 180 and 181, pp. 212-13).

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@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.

I Corinthians 15: 3-8, 14-18 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Sephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once: of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen of James, then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me alone, as of one born out of due time…

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raided: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain: ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@New_Deal_Democrat

I Corinthians 15: 3-8, 14-18 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Sephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once: of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen of James, then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me alone, as of one born out of due time…

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raided: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain: ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

Like I said - no eyewitness testimony. Paul never met Jesus, and we have no surviving writing or testimony from those who did.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@New_Deal_Democrat

is not Christ raided.

From the movie, “Raiders of the False God.”

[Der_Trihs]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

From the movie, “Raiders of the False God.”

Jesus: “Snakes. Why’d it have to be snakes?”

Adam: “I blame my wife.”

[Meatros]

@New_Deal_Democrat

I Corinthians 15: 3-8, 14-18 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Sephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once: of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen of James, then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me alone, as of one born out of due time…

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raided: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain: ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

That passage is not saying what you think it’s saying - or at least, it doesn’t definitively say that. I think you are misinterpreting it. You are interpreting it through 2,000 years of Christian physical body ‘eyes’ (so-to-speak). If you look at it through the lens of Pauline scripture only, it becomes a lot less clear. In fact, I think it becomes obvious that Paul wasn’t talking about a physical resurrection - but that’s my opinion on the matter.

If Christ wasn’t raised then the preaching is in vain - but what sort of resurrection? Spiritual or Physical? Either fit the passage.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

From the movie, “Raiders of the False God.”

If you quote me, quote me accurately.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Like I said - no eyewitness testimony. Paul never met Jesus, and we have no surviving writing or testimony from those who did.

Paul claimed to have seen Jesus after the Resurrection. He claimed to have talked to others who did also.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@New_Deal_Democrat

If you quote me, quote me accurately.

I beg your pardon?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@New_Deal_Democrat

Paul claimed to have seen Jesus after the Resurrection. He claimed to have talked to others who did also.

He claims Jesus “appeared” to him, but doesn’t say how and says that Jesus also “appeared” to others, but doesn’t say how. Neither of those things is a claim for a physical resurrection, and we have no eyewitness testimony at all for the open tomb story, or for Jesus walking around in a physical body. I have no problem believing that Paul had visionary experiences of Jesus, but that’s not the same as a witness of a physical resurrection.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@New_Deal_Democrat

If you quote me, quote me accurately.

He accurately quoted your typo.

You also spelled Cephas wrong in that same post.

[spiirit]

@Latro

Welcome to the board Tom.

I had to snip it as it seems to be a copy from a response on another board.
But this, to me, is the gist of your argument.
Am I correct?

---

Thanks for the comment-

The dissertation I gave was extemperaneous in it’s entirety. I never debate by the way. In this torrid environment, I open the door… throw something out and ,quickly slam the door… LOL!

Tom W.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@spiirit

Proof-

Proof is to cause belief by fact… but I precieve that your mind is made up and you don’t want to be confused by any fact’s.

Your answer is to be found in your own conversion by the application of something intangible called Faith. Faith can be proven to be fact and fact is truth. Since truth is not a lie then true faith is not a lie and, this also can be proven and thus becomes a fact.

This is gibberish. faith is belief without evidence. Belief without evidence is neither “truth,” nor “fact.” Your attempted chain of logic here is ludicrous. It boils down to 'it’s true because I believe it."

Since neither true faith nor fact are viable without tangible evidence of support, your fact’s have no more weight than true faith

I have no use for faith, but in point of fact, demonstrable fact DOES have considerably more weight than faith, which is empirically worthless.

Now… you have your decisions by fact only and true faith has been ignored as a factor. How can you think to have reached any conclusions when a factor has been left out of the equasion?

Because it’s not a factor. Faith has no probative value.

Your conversion by the omitted factor of true faith will open your eyes by the Holy Spirit to recieve your answer.

If your ghost wants to show me actual proof, I’m all ears.

In conclusion I must say that your use of facts alone has pushed you into a corner and so you have to turn outside yourself to seek answers from others.

I’m not seeking answers. I know the answer to this question. I’m just calling somebody out on a specific assertion.

I have appealed to your logic, common sense and your heart that you might break free from this dilemma.

You haven’t appealed to either of the first two, and an appeal to the heart could not be more worthless to the discussion.

You are stalled out…

No, I’m not. You’re the one spinning your wheels here.

[Czarcasm]

@spiirit

---

Thanks for the comment-

The dissertation I gave was extemperaneous in it’s entirety. I never debate by the way. In this torrid environment, I open the door… throw something out and ,quickly slam the door… LOL!

So what you’re saying is that you have an open mind, but in only one direction-ideas get thrown out haphazardly, but you are careful to never let other ideas in.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Meatros

That passage is not saying what you think it’s saying - or at least, it doesn’t definitively say that. I think you are misinterpreting it. You are interpreting it through 2,000 years of Christian physical body ‘eyes’ (so-to-speak). If you look at it through the lens of Pauline scripture only, it becomes a lot less clear. In fact, I think it becomes obvious that Paul wasn’t talking about a physical resurrection - but that’s my opinion on the matter.

If Christ wasn’t raised then the preaching is in vain - but what sort of resurrection? Spiritual or Physical? Either fit the passage.

I think it should be obvious from I Corinthians, Chapter 15 that St. Paul believed in a physical resurrection. At the same time, his personal encounter with Jesus seems to have been a spiritual vision. Keep in mind that the Ascension was supposed to have already happened.

I have read The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. I have also read about Joseph Smith. I am confident that he was a religious charlatan. He was not deluded. He was certainly not a prophet.

I have read the Bible from cover to cover in seven English translations. I do believe that St. Paul was sincere. He was telling what he believed to be the truth. That does not necessarily mean that it was the truth.

It is clear to me that soon after Jesus died on the cross the belief spread that he had risen from the dead. I can think of three possibilities. First, after dying, his body came back to life, as the gospels claim. Second, he appeared to those who loved him as a sentient ghost.

The third is that many who loved him imagined that they saw him, the way that many Elvis Presley fans imagine that they have seen him since his funeral. A number of years ago I read a poll that indicated that eleven percent of the American people believed that Elvis Presley was still alive, and that five percent claimed to have seen him since his funeral. Four percent claimed to have seen him before his funeral.

Many, perhaps most Jews during the first century AD expected a Messiah to come, but they expected the Messiah to lead a successful revolt against Rome, and perhaps conquer the Roman Empire. Many, perhaps most followers of Jesus expected him to be the war leader who would restore David’s Empire. For them the Crucifixion would have been shocking, and inexplicable. Many of these people would have been predisposed to see Jesus in crowds, and so on.

Although I am a practicing Christian, my theological beliefs are close to agnosticism, so I am able to consider various possibilities.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@New_Deal_Democrat

I think it should be obvious from I Corinthians, Chapter 15 that St. Paul believed in a physical resurrection.

No, Paul says no such thing, denies that physical resurrections are possible and draws no distinction between Jesus’ appearances to the disciples and to himself.

I have read the Bible from cover to cover in seven English translations. I do believe that St. Paul was sincere. He was telling what he believed to be the truth. That does not necessarily mean that it was the truth.

I think paul probably believed most of what he said too, but then again so did david Koresh. So what?

It is clear to me that soon after Jesus died on the cross the belief spread that he had risen from the dead.

This is a belief that lacks any basis. The first claim for a physical resurrection cannot be traced before Matthw’s Gospel, written 50 years after the alleged event by a non-witness and demonstrable fabulist.

I can think of three possibilities. First, after dying, his body came back to life, as the gospels claim. Second, he appeared to those who loved him as a sentient ghost.

The third is that many who loved him imagined that they saw him, the way that many Elvis Presley fans imagine that they have seen him since his funeral. A number of years ago I read a poll that indicated that eleven percent of the American people believed that Elvis Presley was still alive, and that five percent claimed to have seen him since his funeral. Four percent claimed to have seen him before his funeral

The third possibility is very plausible - that some people claimed to have had visionary experiences of him after his death and began to believe that he would return in Glory as the Messianic “Son of Man,” so often alluded to by Jesus.

Many, perhaps most Jews during the first century AD expected a Messiah to come, but they expected the Messiah to lead a successful revolt against Rome, and perhaps conquer the Roman Empire. Many, perhaps most followers of Jesus expected him to be the war leader who would restore David’s Empire. For them the Crucifixion would have been shocking, and inexplicable. Many of these people would have been predisposed to see Jesus in crowds, and so on.

All very true and plausible, but not evidence for claims of a physical resurrection as described in the Gospels.