The evidence that Christ rose again is kind of a mish mash of internal/external. (To the Bible, of course.) Up until late in the last century, (I can never get used to saying that) almost everyone in the western world believed that the Bible, at least the New Testament, was basically true. Therefore, if the gospel writers said that Jesus raised from the dead, then he did. In fact C.S. Lewis tells the story about talking to an unbeliever acquitaince at Oxbridge who said something to the effect of “I would find it easy to not believe about Christianity, Rum thing about the Resurrection.” Meaning that it was common knowledge that Christ raised from the dead and that it is historically true, and if it is you have almost no choice other than to believe Christianity.
Fast forward to today. The historicity of the NT is now much more in doubt.
So here is my take on it:
The apostle Paul is almost certainly a independently verifiable historical figure. He said that if the resurrection was not true, we all might as well play golf on Sundays, or something to that effect. In that same passage, (I or II Corinthians 15) he says that we know it is true because 500 people saw him post resurrection, and some are still alive so you can verify it for yourself! So, if Pauls writings are his, and if he is a reliable journalist and if these people he mentions are reliable witnesses than the resurrection is true.
Of course you could prove Elvis is alive with the same standard of proof.
Well, David’s not around right now, so I’ll do my best.
And it’s not stretching incredulity to believe that someone came back from the dead? You’d rather believe that than that some people had a few visions? The gospels were not written until at least 40 years after J.C.'s death, right? A lot can happen to people’s memories in that time, particularly if you’re telling and retelling the stories to convert other people. A vision you had of Jesus become actually eating with him, and other people say, “yeah, I think I remember that too,” which eventually becomes “I was there.” I won’t snipe at your belief, but a 2000 year old anecdote written down 40 years after the actual event is not exactly a knock-down argument. I don’t believe in witches flying on broomsticks or people turning sticks into snakes, and there’s a lot of people 2000 years ago who saw that sort of stuff too. Why should I believe the gospel writers yet deny those who saw witches?
I don’t know…the Jews have a pretty strong point about their ancestors seeing God himself–if we’re going to take the gospel writer’s word for seeing Jesus, why not take the ancient Jew’s word for seeing God? And if you accept that, and God is unchanging, I kind of wonder why He pulled a U-turn and started emphasizing grace over following the Laws He originally gave.
BTW, there isn’t an actual tomb of Jesus anywhere that you can check to see if it was empty, right? It kind of makes the “His tomb is empty” a bit academic. Or, if you like, a matter of faith.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that She is pink; logically, we know She is invisible because we can’t see Her.
The dating of this epistle of Paul is listed as around 56 AD, or only 23 years after Christ resurrection. This particular passage is based on a creedal statement that may have had it origins to within 3-5 years of the event.
It goes on to list the people that the risen Christ has appeared to, that included Peter, the twelve apostles, 500 people (and said that some had died, but some are still alive), James and then to Paul on the road to Damascus.
This is a very early date. If there was any question as to the state of the tomb, they could go ask witnesses, they could examin then site, and see for themselves. They could ask those that didn’t believe.
What happened 26 years ago. Does anyone remember JFK’s death? Although there is legend about his death, there are witnesses that are glad to share their story of what happened on the grassy knoll. I’m sure that the same could be said to the over 500 people that saw a risen Christ.
Well, Nav, to begin with, there’s the worldwide flood that clearly never occurred and the fact that everybody on Earth didn’t speak the same language in 4000-or-so BCE.
We also have a film of JFK’s death, a medical report, and an actual corpse. Despite having a filled grave and a coroner’s report about Elvis, people still see him. 2000 years later, perhaps Elvisians will be pointing to The National Examiner of proof that Elvis was still alive after his supposed death. “Look at all these people who have seen him!” And people say they saw Elvis yesterday, not 40, or 23 even 3 or 5 years ago. And would you believe the account of people who saw witches and magic 2000 years ago? After all, if people questioned whether they had really seen witches, they could just ask the witnesses who had seen them, right?
So everybody whose corspe is not in a grave is proof of a resurrection? Man, the messiahs must be plentiful as blackberries. First, not many people will check such a thing out, and a missing corpse is not proof of resurrection anyhow. Heck, perhaps the Romans took the corpse out to show those stubborn Christians that He really was dead, but the Christians did not accept it 'cause one moldering corpse looks pretty much like another. Second, I wonder why Peter, Paul and the rest never said exactly where the tomb was so that people could check it out. Third, there’s a lot of fantastic things happening in that time period, with various proof offered to bear it out. A claimed “empty tomb” is not the most solid argument I’ve ever seen. ::shrug:: I don’t expect to convince you, certainly, but as I’ve said before, a 2000 year old anecdote of an incredible event written down years after the actual event is not the most compelling thing. The Jews and romans, heck, most people at the time didn’t think the “empty tomb” was proof enough, yet we’re supposed to accept this extraordinary event 2000 years later, when people have found out how many of the amazing things reported in that time period (witches, unicorns, dragons) are frankly false?
So the Romans took the body, after they sealed the tomb. Set a guard on the tomb. I don’t see much motivation for that, the Romans would not care much for a crucified criminals corpse.
So maybe the Jews took the body. They knew that Jesus said he would rise again in three days more so than Jesus’ disciples did. There motivation was that he remain in the tomb. And they asked for a Roman guard to assure that it did.
So maybe the disciples stole the body. (that is the first explanation offered in scripture even). Why would they then proclaim a risen Lord to the death?
You answers and my answers will be different, of that you are right. But something that needs to be said, is those events did happen.
There is documentary evidence outside of scripture that Jesus lived, was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and that his followers believed him raised from the dead. Some of the documentary writings are as cynical as your responces have been.
Maybe someone stole the body? Stolen it in order to “fulfill” the prophecy? (Or maybe someone was a necrophiliac… :eek (I’m not accusing anyone in particular, I’m speculating, frankly.) Anyway, an empty tomb is not very good evidence that Jesus walked away or levitated or whatever. When confronted with an empty tomb, my first thought is “Grave robbers!”
Incidentally (and attempting to cast no aspersions upon the faithful) but I find it amusing that the number of people who saw X miraculous event in a religion goes up the longer ago it happened. Mormons: a few people saw the golden plates. Christians: 500 saw Jesus after His death. Jews: thousands and thousands saw God. It reminds me of the way the distance that my Dad walked to school kept getting longer and longer each time he told the story. I never checked to find out the actual distance to the school, although I suppose I could have. Still, I’d tell his story as truth to anybody else…
If anyone took the body, (though I believe he was resurrected, btw) then it was most likely the zealots that took the body in order to forment unrest. (And it was not a Roman guard, but a Jewish Temple guard.)
My only evidence for this would be that Simon the zealot is not listed in the disciple list in Acts.
(The zealots were a radical revolutionary group that were fanatically trying to get rid of the Romans.)
I would like to know more about this. According to what I’ve read/seen on the subject, the only thing documentary evidence outside of scripture can prove is the existence of Pontius Pilate. Nothing in Roman records indicate the existence of Jesus, or his death. The same goes for records of other countries in the area.
InkBlot
The first is a FAQ which addresses many of the sources mentioned in Navigator’s first link. The second, a collection of further links on the same subject.
Now, before anyone replies, please note this: I’m not posting these links directly to refute Navigator. I haven’t totally read his links, or my own. I’m not making any claims that I, personally, believe what’s behind my links or am completely discrediting Navigator. This is just what I found for the opposing viewpoint after a brief search.
Once I’ve looked into both sides, I may have more comments to post. I tend to the sceptical side, myself. But with the quantity of educated opinion out there, that’s probably all any of us can make at this point.
Thanks for posting those. I’ve read through them too.
I didn’t find them particularly devastating to the case I presented. But in fairness there is always another side to an argument.
It comes down I think to is there enough evidence to make a faith decision. Some require so much evidence that they would like God to appear and violate their volition. I do think, however, that if you are seeking, there is enough evidence to answer your questions.
The gospels were not written until at least 40 years after J.C.'s death, right? A lot can happen to people’s memories in that time, particularly if you’re telling and retelling the stories to convert other people. A vision you had of Jesus become actually eating with him, and other people say, “yeah, I think I remember that too,” which eventually becomes “I was there.” I won’t snipe at your belief, but a 2000 year old anecdote written down 40 years after the actual event is not exactly a knock-down argument. I don’t believe in witches flying on broomsticks or people turning sticks into snakes, and there’s a lot of people 2000 years ago who saw that sort of stuff too. Why should I believe the gospel writers yet deny those who saw witches?