I had a conversation with an elderly scholar about evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. He claims, more from a scientific than a religious perspective, that there is more evidence than there ever has been that Jesus existed and that that he rose from the dead. He talked a lot about new documents that have been uncovered over that past 10 to 20 years. He also talked a lot about a scholar named N. T. Wright who I know very little about. Apparently, he is a expert on ancient texts and has written extensively about the life of Jesus.
Well?
I am Catholic and have always been taught that belief in the resurrection was a matter of faith. Now, I am being told it is a matter of fact (or that there is a lot of evidence for it). What’s up?!
For a long time, I concluded there is enough evidence to say that Jesus existed, but not enough to confirm any miracles.
The evidence of an historical Jesus can not be used as proof of any miracles or that the god of the Jews was involved; and that is because IMHO the evidence that Troy did exist would then lead us to say that the gods of Olympus (were) are real.
Please don’t search for proof of your faith. You might find it, and end up having knowledge instead of faith. Within its scope, knowledge is a great thing, and I don’t disparage it, or the search for it. But if you have faith, you are searching for a lesser thing, and finding it will test your faith, even if it is supportive of the facts you now believe.
Religion is a matter of public opinion, and doctrine in a matter of political power among religions, and religious leaders. Fortunately, faith is not subject to them, either. Make of your heart a dwelling place for the Lord. Seek Him there.
Tris
“And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” ~ 1 Corinthians 13:13
The two are not mutually exclusive. People can – and typically do – have faith in things for which there is evidence. You might have faith that your mother would lay down her life for you, for example. This faith would presumably be based on the evidence provided by her actions and deeds. Of course, you can never have absolute proof that she would do so, and that’s where faith comes in.
The New Testament writers certainly did not expect people to believe out of blind faith, without any evidence whatsoever. Consider the Gospel of Matthew, for example. Did the author say, “Ya just gotta believe, folks! Ya just gotta have faith!” Not at all! Rather, he appealed to Old Testament prophecies that Jesus supposedly fulfilled. Now, one might disagree (misguidedly, IMO) about whether Jesus fulfilled any prophecies, but that’s irrelevant. The point is that the Gospel of Matthew made an appeal to evidence. It did NOT expect people to simply believe, as a matter of blind faith.
Acts 17:17 says that Paul “reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshippers, and in the marketplace with those that happened to be there.” As for Simon Peter, he said, “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).
Heck, in Matthew 9:5-7, Jesus is shown healing a paralytic “that [the audience] may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins.” He did not expect people to accept his claim blindly; rather, he provided evidence for them to act upon. Despite the way Christianity is often caricatured, the gospels do not paint Jesus as someone who demands blind faith without any evidence.
I cannot imagine what could be considered scientific evidence of the resurrection, except maybe the Shroud of Turin. I wonder if that is the basis of the scientific “evidence” this person claims to support a resurrection?
The Shroud Of Turin can not be used as proof of the Ressurection of Jesus,it has been evaluated and was perhaps made hundreds of years later.
A man in (I believe it was Arizona) produced an image just like the shroud by exposing a figure to the sun. If one looks at the shroud one can see the fold area around the head which leaves just an imprint not leaving room for the head, Jesus would have to have a flat head. I wrote to the Catholic priest(years ago)who gave lectures on the shroud, and asked him why this was so, and that I had read that the head of people who were buried wrapped in a shroud had a separate head covering. He never answered me.
There is no more proof for Jesus ressurection than that of Osiris,who was ressurected by his wife Isis.(and he was chopped up). It must always just be taken on faith.
Monavis
I guess I was wondering if there were scientitsts like N. T. Wright who actually did believe that there is enough archealogical evidence (scrolls) to say that the resurrection is more likely than not likely.
What is this evidence?
This is not a personal religious issue for me. I am just interested from a scientific point of view.
That is a lie, and a damned lie, too.
I was not arguing that the shroud was anything but a fake, I was just speculating as to what the person mentioned in the OP might think is scientific evidence of resurrection. Sorry I wasn’t clear, I agree it’s a fake.
But of course there are still believers who think there were flaws in the tests that seemed to prove it was a fake, and the person mentioned in the OP may be one of those.
I find more that Christians demand blind faith in the gospels without evidence.
Just a slight correction: Not ALL Christians demand blind faith.
Many of us are quite aware of scientific methods coupled with God-given intelligence and reasoning, and do believe that faith and reason have to be mutually exclusive.
“Many” does not mean most or all. I’m just saying, we’re not all bible-pounding nutters.
Arrghh! My bad. See the bolded/caps above. That’s what I meant to type!
Just a note- N.T. Wright is not a scientist. He’s a Bible scholar, a theologian & an Anglican bishop.
Re the Resurrection of Jesus- There is no “evidence”, BUT there are arguments to support belief in it. While other apologists have written much about it, the best summary I’ve ever encountered in the traditional Easter message “The Resurrection” given by the late Dr. Gene Scott.
Or at least a difference of opinion.
Tris
I go with lie. Faith is nothing, if it is not founded on truth. It matters not whether jesus is god or was or was not resurrected. He spoke the truth.
No man has the right to persecute another for sin; that is for god alone. Render sins to god, crime (denial of peaceful pursuit) to the state. Those that believe in blind faith tend to persecute the sins of others.
Just look at America and the world today and you will see where blind faith leads.
In the Spirit
ItS
r~
In order to prove an outright miracle, a large amount of evidence would be required; a scroll or two wouldn’t be any better than the Bible for something like this. How much evidence would it take to scientifically prove that Medusa was real, and could turn people to stone with her gaze ?
Agreed; knowledge is far, far superior to faith in all ways. Faith, at best, is an act of desperation.
Premature burial is not resurrection.
Well I may have to start another thread on this because I am not being very clear with what I want.
I’ll try again. What is the circumstantial evidence that leads people like N. T. Wright to believe that the resurrection occurred without a doubt?
I suppose that an intelligent person such as him would logically pile up the evidence for a resurrection and the evidence against it. If the YES pile got very much higher than the NO pile than that may lead him to conclude that it actually happened.
I could read one of his books. I’m hoping to save some time here. Maybe some people out there have read his stuff or other like minded writers.
You may want to find out what Wright actually said before you try going much further. It is entirely possible that the commentator you read has mischaracterized (not necessarily with evil intent) what Wright actually intended.
For example, the brief essays I have read from Wright lead me to believe that he is a fairly conservative Christian with quite orthodox beliefs. Given that as a premise (and I might be mistaken), I could see his efforts addressing a rather different perspective. There has been a movement within Christian scriptural scholarship since the middle of the twentieth century, first expounded most clearly by Rudolf Bultmann and recently elaborated upon by Bishop John Spong that attempts to recast the Gospel stories as mythmaking (in the good anthropological sense, not as “making up fairy tales”). Concurrently, scholars such as those participating in the Jesus Seminar have attempted to pin down the “real” elements in the Gospels, separating them from the less likely narratives.
If, as I suspect, Wright is opposed to both movements, he may be making a case within the context of the Gospels to accept (more of) them at face value as literal recordings of events. In that case, he may not actually be appealing to any external evidence to ascertain the physical reality of the resurrection.
If the commentator whom you read did not make clear (or, possibly, understand) that distinction, he may have left you with a misunderstanding of exactly what Wright has claimed.