Evidence Post-Resurrection

[jasphair]

Greetings all,

I’m struggling with my faith, and I think the one vital concept I need to accept and learn to place my hope in, is that of Christ’s resurrection.

All I know of His resurrection comes from The Bible, which I do accept as proof, though obviously somewhat biased, as it was compiled from his direct followers and their kin.

When Christ was resurrected, he proceeded to perform ministry for 40 days or so, correct? He was witnessed by thousands or more people? Is there any documents anywhere where someone who met Him, or heard of His presence (down the road, in the next town, etc) post-resurrection, journaled their knowledge of this event?

I’ve asked this question to members of the Parish I attended, and their only response is that people back then didn’t know how to read/write, so thus, nothing was documented.

What about the Romans? Surely they kept a log of prisoners they executed? There were no memos or anything regarding talk of Christ’s resurrections? Any information from the guards who were “scared” and “ran away” from His tomb? What happened to them? Did the Romans, out of fear that people would have renewed faith, decline to investigate His disappearance, and just forget about it?

 

[RosaryFan]

Greetings all,

I’m struggling with my faith, and I think the one vital concept I need to accept and learn to place my hope in, is that of Christ’s resurrection.

All I know of His resurrection comes from The Bible, which I do accept as proof, though obviously somewhat biased, as it was compiled from his direct followers and their kin.

When Christ was resurrected, he proceeded to perform ministry for 40 days or so, correct? He was witnessed by thousands or more people? Is there any documents anywhere where someone who met Him, or heard of His presence (down the road, in the next town, etc) post-resurrection, journaled their knowledge of this event?

I’ve asked this question to members of the Parish I attended, and their only response is that people back then didn’t know how to read/write, so thus, nothing was documented.

What about the Romans? Surely they kept a log of prisoners they executed? There were no memos or anything regarding talk of Christ’s resurrections? Any information from the guards who were “scared” and “ran away” from His tomb? What happened to them? Did the Romans, out of fear that people would have renewed faith, decline to investigate His disappearance, and just forget about it?

Yes - It is documented in the bible, as you said, down the road, in the next town, On the Road to Emmaus!

After Jesus’ ressurection, the Pharisees were sticking with the story that His body was stolen, even though they knew this to be false. I surmise that’s the reason Jews today don’t believe Jesus is the Messiah.

 

[jasphair]

So it’s a big mystery, surrounding the Roman soldiers put on duty to watch the tomb? These people would have been executed for abandoning their post, so surely they had a good reason to? What was it? What did they say to the Roman leaders, as far as what occurred?

I wish we had this information, to complete the story. There’s a lot of pot holes.

 

[choy]

the story has already been documented in the Bible
what more do you need?

its also questionable if the Roman Soldiers indeed saw Jesus resurrected. or if the tomb just opened up by itself which scared them away

 

[NHInsider]

This site’s author is not a Catholic but he has done a good job of summarizing the evidence and the arguments. Perhaps it will help you feel more confident. Ultimately, of course, we follow Jesus in faith, not proof . . . .

 

[AntiTheist]

All I know of His resurrection comes from The Bible, which I do accept as proof, though obviously somewhat biased, as it was compiled from his direct followers and their kin.

It’s worse than this because the first of the Gospels – according to even very conservative scholarly estimates – was not written down until at least several decades after the supposed events.

There is not a single contemporary eyewitness account of Jesus, and there is no good reason to think that the Gospels are eyewitness reports (they’re certainly not written like eyewitness reports, and some textual evidence suggests that the anonymous authors borrowed from other Gospels in some places). The stories we have are just that – stories. There is absolutely no way to ascertain whether or not they are true, and there is certainly no way to determine whether the supposed “miracles” in the stories really have a supernatural origin.

Now, this doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a Jesus. It just means that we have no evidence that he actually existed, and we have absolutely no evidence for his miracles.

Here’s the other thing: even if we had eyewitness testimony of his miracles or resurrection, that still wouldn’t be sufficient to demonstrate that those miracles actually had a supernatural origin.

To use an example I brought up on another thread, we have plenty of eyewitness testimony today for alien abductions – you can go and talk to alien abductees right now who will tell you their eyewitness accounts. Sometimes there are multiple abductees who claim to have been abducted together and tell similar stories – but their testimony is insufficient to establish such an extraordinary claim.

 

[choy]

It’s worse than this because the first of the Gospels – according to even very conservative scholarly estimates – was not written down until at least several decades after the supposed events.

There is not a single contemporary eyewitness account of Jesus, and there is no good reason to think that the Gospels are eyewitness reports (they’re certainly not written like eyewitness reports, and some textual evidence suggests that the anonymous authors borrowed from other Gospels in some places). The stories we have are just that – stories. There is absolutely no way to ascertain whether or not they are true, and there is certainly no way to determine whether the supposed “miracles” in the stories really have a supernatural origin.

Now, this doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a Jesus. It just means that we have no evidence that he actually existed, and we have absolutely no evidence for his miracles.

Here’s the other thing: even if we had eyewitness testimony of his miracles or resurrection, that still wouldn’t be sufficient to demonstrate that those miracles actually had a supernatural origin.

To use an example I brought up on another thread, we have plenty of eyewitness testimony today for alien abductions – you can go and talk to alien abductees right now who will tell you their eyewitness accounts. Sometimes there are multiple abductees who claim to have been abducted together and tell similar stories – but their testimony is insufficient to establish such an extraordinary claim.

i don’t know why the timing of the documents/letters would change the facts when it happened. its not like they have Twitter or Facebook in the 1st centruy to immediately document an event. in fact, its a farily modern practice that events are documented as they happen. back then, a lot of the events are passed word of mouth and kept that way until someone actually writes them down, which may be hours, days, months years after. for one thing, not everyone was literate. also, the Jewish society is more on oral tradition than written. the documents weren’t necessitated until the time the Gentiles were being converted, and the Greeks wanted something in writting. the Jews were satisfied with the word-of-mouth accounts

 

[CAnnElizabeth]

If you read the scriptural accounts carefully, in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, I think you’ll find that the people who saw and interacted with the Risen Christ were able to do so only because of their faith. There are instances where they (apostles and disciples) did not recognize Jesus until their eyes were opened by the light of faith.

Scripture was not written in the same manner we document and videotape news stories today – even the “eyewitness accounts” were written in light of their faith in Jesus, and as statements of the overwhelming experiences they had of Jesus’ resurrection.

Jesus was barely a footnote in Roman history and you’re not going to find the corroborative evidence there that you’re seeking. In the first letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 15, Paul goes into great detail about the Resurrection and its meaning to Christians then and Christians now.

The Resurrection makes no sense without faith – who would believe such a story? But it is the cornerstone of our Christian faith, and the evidence is there in Scripture if you read it in the light of faith. Ask God for that light - He will give it to you (guaranteed).

God bless you.

 

[AntiTheist]

i don’t know why the timing of the documents/letters would change the facts when it happened.

It doesn’t really. But the point is that documents assembled decades later by non-eyewitnesses are obviously going to be more questionable in terms of accuracy than contemporary eyewitness accounts – and even contemporary eyewitness accounts are not sufficient to establish supernatural causes (as I demonstrated with the alien abduction example).

But more to the point, jasphair is correctly noting that there are some things that should have outside corroboration if they actually happened. For example, if Roman guards were appointed to protect the tomb of a recently executed enemy of the state – and these guards abandoned their posts under extraordinary circumstances (earthquake?) and the body went missing! – that is something that we would reasonably expect to see recorded somewhere, by somebody.

Then there are weird things like this (Matt. 27:51-13):

Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

What the heck? Dead people rose from the dead and went walking around in town?

If something even remotely like this had actually taken place, some contemporary source would have recorded that.

The bottom line is that the “evidence” we have is not sufficient to even confirm that the events happened as written, nevermind sufficient to confirm that these events actually had a supernatural origin.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Greetings all,

I’m struggling with my faith, and I think the one vital concept I need to accept and learn to place my hope in, is that of Christ’s resurrection.

All I know of His resurrection comes from The Bible, which I do accept as proof, though obviously somewhat biased, as it was compiled from his direct followers and their kin.

When Christ was resurrected, he proceeded to perform ministry for 40 days or so, correct? He was witnessed by thousands or more people? Is there any documents anywhere where someone who met Him, or heard of His presence (down the road, in the next town, etc) post-resurrection, journaled their knowledge of this event?

I’ve asked this question to members of the Parish I attended, and their only response is that people back then didn’t know how to read/write, so thus, nothing was documented.

What about the Romans? Surely they kept a log of prisoners they executed? There were no memos or anything regarding talk of Christ’s resurrections? Any information from the guards who were “scared” and “ran away” from His tomb? What happened to them? Did the Romans, out of fear that people would have renewed faith, decline to investigate His disappearance, and just forget about it?

hmmmm If you are looking for a “non-biased” document from the time of Christ you will be disappointed.

First, I think you overestimate the importance that Christ’s ministry would have had to the Romans. Basically, they had bigger problems. They wouldn’t take time to investigate any “superstitious claims” (if they ever reached the ear of Caesar) of a man rising from the dead. Caesar or any officials may have been vehemently opposed to such views, or never even cared.

Second, as far as I know the Gospels and Epistles are the only and closest thing we have to any documentation on the resurrection of Christ. Sorry.

BUT there are some issues that are raised here.

First, do you know how many “messiah” figures arose during those times? And yet for some reason the “cult” started by this “Jesus of Nazareth” was the only one to gain footing. Not only that, but His followers, even the immediate ones, were willing to die for their beliefs. For the other “messiah” figures, their followers were scattered after their deaths, but for some reason Jesus’ followers weren’t. In fact they seemed to have become stronger.

Second, many ancient documents or histories were written centuries after the death of their subjects or end of the events. For instance I think the tale of Julius Caesar was written about…200 years after his death, and no one claims that these were frauds or that the time frame was unacceptable. In fact, the Gospels were written about 30 years after the ascension, more or less. For any kind of ancient document that was an **extraordinarily small **amount of time between the events that took place and they times they were written down.

So finally, I think at the end of the day you must ask yourself this, “why isn’t the bible enough for me?” I mean not to insult you, but this may be something you might want to ask yourself. It may be the key to your faith struggle.

 

[choy]

It doesn’t really. But the point is that documents assembled decades later by non-eyewitnesses are obviously going to be more questionable in terms of accuracy than contemporary eyewitness accounts – and even contemporary eyewitness accounts are not sufficient to establish supernatural causes (as I demonstrated with the alien abduction example).

But more to the point, jasphair is correctly noting that there are some things that should have outside corroboration if they actually happened. For example, if Roman guards were appointed to protect the tomb of a recently executed enemy of the state – and these guards abandoned their posts under extraordinary circumstances (earthquake?) and the body went missing! – that is something that we would reasonably expect to see recorded somewhere, by somebody.

Then there are weird things like this (Matt. 27:51-13): What the heck? Dead people rose from the dead and went walking around in town?

If something even remotely like this had actually taken place, some contemporary source would have recorded that.

The bottom line is that the “evidence” we have is not sufficient to even confirm that the events happened as written, nevermind sufficient to confirm that these events actually had a supernatural origin.

don’t you think its a little double standard? most scientists, historians, etc. would accept other writings about past events even if its was captured by non-eyewitnesses and written years after the fact. but immediately dismiss something thats in the bible. like i said, this appears to be more of the norm of the time, as on-time journalism wasn’t invented yet. as in the future the norm of delivering news will be more real-time that will make youtube, facebook and twitter look like caveman tools by standard. you just have to look at the age and see what the norm of their age. don’t compare the standards of today with the standards of their day. i’m pretty sure if this wasn’t about Jesus, many atheists would readily accept the books of the New Testament. many scientists seems to put a lot of weight on heretical texts such as the gnostic gospels, i wonder why they can’t accept the bible just as easily

and how do you know there aren’t other written events of what has transpired? since the Bible is a holy collection of inspired writings, better care was given to preserve these writings. what if the writings of the other events were lost in the various times Jerusalem was burned down or ransacked?

and like i said, it was a Jewish thing to pass these accounts word of mouth. its the Roman and Greek converts that wanted books to read. the Apostles never really needed written documents 'til much later

 

[thistle]

Greetings all,

I’m struggling with my faith, and I think the one vital concept I need to accept and learn to place my hope in, is that of Christ’s resurrection.

All I know of His resurrection comes from The Bible, which I do accept as proof, though obviously somewhat biased, as it was compiled from his direct followers and their kin.

When Christ was resurrected, he proceeded to perform ministry for 40 days or so, correct? He was witnessed by thousands or more people? Is there any documents anywhere where someone who met Him, or heard of His presence (down the road, in the next town, etc) post-resurrection, journaled their knowledge of this event?

I’ve asked this question to members of the Parish I attended, and their only response is that people back then didn’t know how to read/write, so thus, nothing was documented.

What about the Romans? Surely they kept a log of prisoners they executed? There were no memos or anything regarding talk of Christ’s resurrections? Any information from the guards who were “scared” and “ran away” from His tomb? What happened to them? Did the Romans, out of fear that people would have renewed faith, decline to investigate His disappearance, and just forget about it?

The Apostles (and many others) witnessed the resurrected Jesus.
Why would the Apostles let themselves be tortured and killed for something that did not happen.

People will die for something true.
Nobody will die for something they know to be false!

 

[mchale]

It’s worse than this because the first of the Gospels – according to even very conservative scholarly estimates – was not written down until at least several decades after the supposed events.

This is true, but it is also not uncommon for the earliest sources we have for some events being written decades after the fact.

There is not a single contemporary eyewitness account of Jesus, and there is no good reason to think that the Gospels are eyewitness reports (they’re certainly not written like eyewitness reports, and some textual evidence suggests that the anonymous authors borrowed from other Gospels in some places). The stories we have are just that – stories. There is absolutely no way to ascertain whether or not they are true, and there is certainly no way to determine whether the supposed “miracles” in the stories really have a supernatural origin.

There is evidence that Matthew and Luke used Mark and another source, but Mark and John may have been original works.

What we do know is that the fact that the Gospels actually differ slightly in details actually increases their credibility. Ask any Cop, they start getting suspicious if the witnesses’ stories are identical.

As for the miracles… either the Gospels were lying about them or telling the truth. If Jesus did heal the sick and raise the dead in a manner that was well beyond the science available to the 1st century world, I think it is a reasonable conclusion that they are supernatural.

Now, this doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a Jesus. It just means that we have no evidence that he actually existed, and we have absolutely no evidence for his miracles.

On the contrary, we have a great deal of evidence that Jesus existed. There are 4 gospels and other writings in the Bible that state that he existed. In addition there are literally dozens and dozens of non-canonical documents (epistles, gospels, other writings, etc.).

In addition, we know that there were Christians in Rome a mere 30 years after his death. We also know that the Apostles and Paul starting in the 30s AD started preaching about Jesus and that most of them ultimately were executed because of what they were preaching!

Now, you can dispute the interpretation made by the writers of these documents over the exact details as to what happened and what Jesus did and you can question the sanity of the Early Christians, but to say that there is no evidence that Jesus actually existed as a person borders on being intellectually dishonest.

In fact, even for an atheist, the safest approach is to claim that Jesus did exist as a person

Here’s the other thing: even if we had eyewitness testimony of his miracles or resurrection, that still wouldn’t be sufficient to demonstrate that those miracles actually had a supernatural origin.

To use an example I brought up on another thread, we have plenty of eyewitness testimony today for alien abductions – you can go and talk to alien abductees right now who will tell you their eyewitness accounts. Sometimes there are multiple abductees who claim to have been abducted together and tell similar stories – but their testimony is insufficient to establish such an extraordinary claim.

They may not be able to establish their claim to scientific standards, but it doesn’t mean there is no evidence for that claim.

–
Bill

 

[AntiTheist]

don’t you think its a little double standard? most scientists, historians, etc. would accept other writings about past events even if its was captured by non-eyewitnesses and written years after the fact. but immediately dismiss something thats in the bible.

It’s not a double standard because the claims are different. I would have no problem tentatively accepting an ordinary historical event on the basis of oral tradition written down much later – and indeed, I have no problem accepting that there probably was a Jesus upon whom the stories were based – but I have a big problem with accepting supernatural claims on that basis.

There are Roman histories that talk about omens and all sorts of supernatural things as being real historical events – I do not accept these accounts as evidence of the supernatural, either.

I also don’t accept eyewitness testimony as evidence of extraordinary events. For example, there are people today who have eyewitness testimony of their alien abduction – I do not think that this is sufficient evidence to demonstrate their extraordinary claim.

So there’s no double standard at all – extraordinary claims need better evidence than written documents, whether eyewitness or not.

and how do you know there aren’t other written events of what has transpired?

I don’t. I can only go on what we have, and all we have are a couple of stories written down decades after the supposed events. To me, this is insufficient to accept that supernatural things happened.

 

[AntiTheist]

What we do know is that the fact that the Gospels actually differ slightly in details actually increases their credibility. Ask any Cop, they start getting suspicious if the witnesses’ stories are identical.

But this presumes that they are eyewitness accounts, which is something that we’ve already noted cannot be demonstrated (and the documents certainly don’t read like eyewitness accounts). It seems more likely that they’re stories, and there’s nothing surprising about there being different versions of stories.

As for the miracles… either the Gospels were lying about them or telling the truth.

Or they’re mistaken or based on stories that acquired legendary aspects over the decades. It’s not so simple as “They’re either dirty liars or they’re divinely inspired and telling the truth!!!” That’s what’s called a false dichotomy. There are other options.

On the contrary, we have a great deal of evidence that Jesus existed.

Sorry, I meant “good evidence.”

Look, I have no problem accepting the claim that there was a guy upon whom the stories were based, but the guy in the stories – the magical guy who did supernatural things – there’s no evidence that he existed.

Now, is someone going to address the point about the zombies in Matthew?

 

[mchale]

But this presumes that they are eyewitness accounts, which is something that we’ve already noted cannot be demonstrated (and the documents certainly don’t read like eyewitness accounts). It seems more likely that they’re stories, and there’s nothing surprising about there being different versions of stories.

For someone who seems so concerned about the quality of evidence, you seem to like making judgments on texts based on what seems likely.

And, no, it does not presume that they are eye witness accounts. All it presumes is that they are based on eye witness accounts. Essentially the same standard that is used for Suetonius and Tacitus who tend to be our primary sources for information about the Early Roman Emperors (Despite the fact that neither one of them was born until the earliest emperors were long dead.

I would also point out that at least one of the Gospels (John) actually makes a claim at the end that it was written by the “Disciple whom Jesus Loved”.

Ultimately, your judgment about whether any of the Gospels is a first person account seems to be based on how you would write the first person account ignoring the fact that someone from a different culture and time might approach the subject in a different way.

Or they’re mistaken or based on stories that acquired legendary aspects over the decades. It’s not so simple as “They’re either dirty liars or they’re divinely inspired and telling the truth!!!” That’s what’s called a false dichotomy. There are other options.

You are taking me too literally here. By lie, I meant the opposite of truth, not, making moral judgment. My point was as follows. Either the events happened or they didn’t. If they did happen, there really is no logical argument that can explain the miracles that doesn’t invoke the supernatural. I.e, in the absence of modern medicine, how does one bring one back from the dead?

This is based on your argument that you don’t accept that the miracles happened, but even if they did happen, it doesn’t mean they are supernatural.

Sorry, I meant “good evidence.”

Good here of course being defined as whatever fits your world view.

Its really quite interesting how we have decided to judge the quality of evidence based on how extraordinary the claim is. The problem is that our view of how extraordinary the claim is, is also subjective.

Lets look at it from your repeated example: A person who has claimed to be abducted by space aliens. Now some people find these claims likely and others find them very unlikely. I am not sure how many people determine how likely the claims are. If they are perfectly rational about it, they probably use something akin to the Drake equation to determine how likely it is. The problem is, that the Drake equation is filled with variables, the value of which is currently unknown. Thus we have to supply our own answers. Some of the values we can assign can make it very plausible, others all but impossible.

Of course, if aliens land in Yankee Stadium next week and apologize for all the abductions, you are going to look pretty silly .

Look, I have no problem accepting the claim that there was a guy upon whom the stories were based, but the guy in the stories – the magical guy who did supernatural things – there’s no evidence that he existed.

Lets be intellectually honest here… there is no evidence that you find compelling. That fact that you reject evidence is not the same as there being no evidence.

Now, is someone going to address the point about the zombies in Matthew?

They wouldn’t be zombies to begin with.

–
Bill

 

[choy]

It’s not a double standard because the claims are different. I would have no problem tentatively accepting an ordinary historical event on the basis of oral tradition written down much later – and indeed, I have no problem accepting that there probably was a Jesus upon whom the stories were based – but I have a big problem with accepting supernatural claims on that basis.

There are Roman histories that talk about omens and all sorts of supernatural things as being real historical events – I do not accept these accounts as evidence of the supernatural, either.

I also don’t accept eyewitness testimony as evidence of extraordinary events. For example, there are people today who have eyewitness testimony of their alien abduction – I do not think that this is sufficient evidence to demonstrate their extraordinary claim.

So there’s no double standard at all – extraordinary claims need better evidence than written documents, whether eyewitness or not.

i honestly think there is. there’s a subjective objection on your part when you think something is beyond what you have accepted as possible. once an account crosses that line, you will readily dismiss it, without being open to the possibility that all of the account is true

its very typical of skeptics. i know back where i come from, almost everyone has their own ghost stories. sure, anytime someone tells of a story, those who listen to the story are skeptical. i myself have my own experience. i know if i tell it to someone else, they wouldn’t believe me. but i was there and i know what i saw, felt and heard. if i write it down and you read it, you will dismiss it as myth. but i was there, i know what i saw, and i wrote down my own personal account.

I don’t. I can only go on what we have, and all we have are a couple of stories written down decades after the supposed events. To me, this is insufficient to accept that supernatural things happened.

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses, and Mark wrote in behalf of Peter, another eyewitness. there’s credibility in that.

same for Luke, he wrote based on testimonies of the other apostles, disciples and other people who were there. its widely believed he also had Mary as a source, as his Gospels contained a lot of the early years of Jesus.

 

[MarkInOregon]

It doesn’t really. But the point is that documents assembled decades later by non-eyewitnesses are obviously going to be more questionable in terms of accuracy than contemporary eyewitness accounts – and even contemporary eyewitness accounts are not sufficient to establish supernatural causes (as I demonstrated with the alien abduction example).

But more to the point, jasphair is correctly noting that there are some things that should have outside corroboration if they actually happened. For example, if Roman guards were appointed to protect the tomb of a recently executed enemy of the state – and these guards abandoned their posts under extraordinary circumstances (earthquake?) and the body went missing! – that is something that we would reasonably expect to see recorded somewhere, by somebody. There is no evidence that they weren’t other than the lack of a **preserved **document. Its not like we have a library full of documents relating to the life and rule of Pontius Pilate or King Herod etc etc. Heck there is not a lot of documentation for Julius Cesar and he was a somebody. Whats truly amazing is how many documents there are about Christ. It is unlikely that a fictional character or a man who actually died and was know by his closest followers to have really died–would have told such strange stories about his resurrection and been so willing to die for a myth. Why do they use women as witnesses to the resurrection–they have no legal standing? Why don’t they recognize the risen Christ? Obviously something has happened to the resurrected body–that they can’t explain. These are just two small things that lend some credibilty to the story because if you were making it up–that’s not how you’d make it up–its the truth is stranger than fiction thing.

Keep in mind they laughed at Schleimann (sp) wheh he took his copy of the Illiad and went in search of Troy–because all the experts and everyone else knew Troy never existed–it was just a city from a Greek myth. Turns out those experts weren’t so expert.

Then there are weird things like this (Matt. 27:51-13): What the heck? Dead people rose from the dead and went walking around in town?

If something even remotely like this had actually taken place, some contemporary source would have recorded that. Your view of the world 2000+ years ago seems to envision a world filled with cameras, telephones, printing presses, plentiful amounts of paper and pencils–where a literate citizenry wrote down everything and broadcast it far and wide. It is hard to believe that given the wealth of written evidence preserved from these towns that we don’t find mention of these events in the Capurnum Free Press or in the Jerusalem Daily News from that time period or in the volumes of minutes from the Nazareth and other towns town council meetings that have come down to us.

The bottom line is that the “evidence” we have is not sufficient to even confirm that the events happened as written, nevermind sufficient to confirm that these events actually had a supernatural origin. Given your requirements–there is not sufficient documentation or evidence to confirm most of accepted history. Oh wait when it comes to the limited written record we have–it is only the Bible that is suspect for accuracy–I get it now./quote]

Peace,
Mark

 

[AntiTheist]

All it presumes is that they are based on eye witness accounts. Essentially the same standard that is used for Suetonius and Tacitus who tend to be our primary sources for information about the Early Roman Emperors (Despite the fact that neither one of them was born until the earliest emperors were long dead.

And yet we don’t accept the accounts of omens and magic in Suetonius as being true.

People here seem to be missing an important point: I’m totally fine with accepting that certain individuals existed on the basis of some rather flimsy evidence; I’m not okay with accepting supernatural claims on the same basis.

[Note: as a side note, there is other corroborating evidence for emperors outside of those historians]

This is based on your argument that you don’t accept that the miracles happened, but even if they did happen, it doesn’t mean they are supernatural.

Documents are not sufficient to demonstrate that supernatural things happened. Even if a guy thinks he sees an act of magic and writes it down immediately, his account only tells us that he saw something that he can’t explain – his account tells us nothing about what actually caused what he saw (was he mistaken? dreaming? fooled?)

I am not sure how many people determine how likely the claims are.

By virtue of what we know about the universe. We know, for example, that dead people don’t just get up and start walking around, so we would correctly label this as an extraordinary claim.

Lets be intellectually honest here… there is no evidence that you find compelling. That fact that you reject evidence is not the same as there being no evidence.

To be clear, I have been rather sloppy with my terminology.

There is some very poor evidence for the magical aspects of the Jesus story. Certainly not sufficient evidence to accept that magical things happened.

MarkInOregon:

There is no evidence that they weren’t other than the lack of a preserved document.

My claim is that there is insufficient evidence to accept these parts of the story. You are accurately noting that there is a lack of evidence, which would mean that I am correct.

Your view of the world 2000+ years ago seems to envision a world filled with cameras, telephones, printing presses, plentiful amounts of paper and pencils–where a literate citizenry wrote down everything and broadcast it far and wide.

It’s not that I’m expecting modern journalism – it’s that I would expect such an extraordinary and world-changing event like the dead getting up and walking around and talking to people to have gotten around and to have been written down by somebody.

The fact that no one outside of the Bible has recorded this event leads me to doubt that it actually happened.

Now, seriously, you really believe that the dead got up and started walking around?

 

[choy]

And yet we don’t accept the accounts of omens and magic in Suetonius as being true.

People here seem to be missing an important point: I’m totally fine with accepting that certain individuals existed on the basis of some rather flimsy evidence; I’m not okay with accepting supernatural claims on the same basis.

[Note: as a side note, there is other corroborating evidence for emperors outside of those historians]

thats being subjective

if writer X says person Y existed, and then supernatural even Z happened, you would believe person Y existed just because you believe persons exist, while dismissing supernatural event Z because you don’t believe in the supernatural

so whats the use of eyewitness accounts then if everything documented for you is still subject to your own personal beliefs?

comments like this make be believe more in the Resurrection, that the reason not everyone was converted at that time is because of attitudes like this. no matter how much proof you put on one person, if they do not want to believe, there is no changing their minds

Documents are not sufficient to demonstrate that supernatural things happened. Even if a guy thinks he sees an act of magic and writes it down immediately, his account only tells us that he saw something that he can’t explain – his account tells us nothing about what actually caused what he saw (was he mistaken? dreaming? fooled?)

there are many things we see that we can’t explain. i don’t think there’s any mistaking if a man has come back to life. doesn’t matter if you cannot explain the exact process of how he came back to life, fact is he was dead and is now alive. what further proof is needed?

By virtue of what we know about the universe. We know, for example, that dead people don’t just get up and start walking around, so we would correctly label this as an extraordinary claim.

To be clear, I have been rather sloppy with my terminology.

There is some very poor evidence for the magical aspects of the Jesus story. Certainly not sufficient evidence to accept that magical things happened.

its not magic. its a miracle. the difference being, magic is just a trick. you can’t trick people into seeing someone risen from the dead, many time, for 40 days. maybe once, twice, kind of like Elvis sightings. but the same guy to the same group of people several times in 40 days, there’s no denying that

MarkInOregon: My claim is that there is insufficient evidence to accept these parts of the story. You are accurately noting that there is a lack of evidence, which would mean that I am correct.

It’s not that I’m expecting modern journalism – it’s that I would expect such an extraordinary and world-changing event like the dead getting up and walking around and talking to people to have gotten around and to have been written down by somebody.

The fact that no one outside of the Bible has recorded this event leads me to doubt that it actually happened.

Now, seriously, you really believe that the dead got up and started walking around?

what if everyone else at that time were skeptics like you? they saw it, the evidence was there, and still chose to reject it

fact is this, most people back then were illiterate. not many can read and write. the account of this happening has spread by word of mouth. the fact that the account made it into scripture and was accepted by the people of its time means there are people who have been witnesses to this and attested to it to the other people of the time. there’s no document because there was no one to document it. and perhaps people of the times didn’t have the same appreciation that we do right now that we want to capture history as it happens. today everyone has a still and video camera on their cellphones, and everyone’s a wannabe journalist. when something happens, we take photos and videos and upload it to youtube or some other site. back then many people just take things as they happen and tell other people about it. thats their way of keeping record of history, through story telling. like i mentioned before, you have to look at their culture and their time and see how they handle things like this. you can’t demand for something that is not part of what they do in their everyday lives