Historical Circumstances Not Proof the Resurrection Occurred (Proof of God's Existence)

[fhansen]

**When His Sacred corpse vanished from inside of His burial cloth, a very minute part of His body did not enter an alternate dimension, but instead its atoms dissolved into their elemental particles: protons and neutrons.
The thermal proton radiation caused the formation of the Shroud’s image. The thermal neutron radiation had a preservative effect on the Shroud’s linen fibers and also caused some of that linen’s nitrogen atoms to be converted to carbon 14.
That extra C-14 in the linen caused the radio-carbon dating of a corner of the Shroud to read to between 500 and 700 years old.
A sample taken from the center body image of the Shroud would have received a great deal more neutron radiation and, if carbon dated, will show a much younger age.
How much younger? The estimate is a future date! An impossibility that could only be explained by the disappearance of Jesus’ corpse.
That miraculous disappearance implies His resurrection.

Further testing of the Shroud of Turin will prove our Lord’s miraculous resurrection.
My opinion is that such is proven now given the great amount of evidence already recovered and analyzed. **

amazon.com/Test-Shroud-Mark-Antonacci/dp/0996430016

I would never base my faith on the shroud. Much as I’d love for it to be proven authentic, the jury’s still out at the point. Either way, if it turned out to be a fraud it would’nt concern me at all.

 

[ethereality]

Randy, you appear to be copy-pasting without regard for what has previously been said. For example, I already presented a possible explanation for why there might have been no corpse to display, but you declare “all they had to do was show it” as if this were a definite fact.

Indeed, given my previous questions, it’s not clear that they didn’t show it, and the Bible authors didn’t simply ignore it. The New Testament documents were written as propaganda, not as impartial testimony, and there are some declared to be ‘false teachers’ whose message is not presented. Perhaps these ‘false teachers’ were busy refuting the early Christians the same way Christians today are refuting the early Mormons. Again, I haven’t seen anyone present the full picture of what Jews were doing at this time.

You have given many arguments to believe, but it is not historical evidence to know. Indeed, some of these are even controversial, e.g. whether the women finding the tomb was a literary invention fitting So-and-So’s motif that only outsiders understood who Jesus was (Ehrman/Carrier). It’s not clear to me that the Bible’s account is entirely factual.

It appears to me that we believe the Bible’s Resurrection on faith, not something we know because history doesn’t make sense without it (e.g. the Treaty of Versailles). Again, knowledge is true, justified belief held with certainty. The Resurrection may be true and belief justified, but I have not seen enough information to be certain. (Of course I am talking about reasonable certainty, not absolute infallible certainty. It irritates me that I should even have to issue this clarification, but there are some in this forum …)

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

jeffrey, it is not clear to me (and to many) that the Shroud of Turin depicts the corpse of Jesus. What you later say about proton and neutron emission strikes me as incredible, given my understanding of radiation physics and radiation biology: Such emission would only damage cell nuclei; there would be no ‘protective effect’. (I am open to correction, if you can elaborate.) The bit about creating more C-14 is the logic of a conspiracy theorist. Declaring future carbon dating to reveal a future date seems absurd.
.

**There is a profession called forensic pathology. These medical doctors specialize in examining dead human bodies.
The universal conclusion of such experts who have studied the Shroud is that its images represent a corpse in a state of rigor mortis.

Nuclear physicists agree that a low level of neutron radiation will have a preservative effect on linen cloth.
It is also a well established nuclear physics principle that a thermal neutron flux through an organic material will cause some nitrogen atoms to convert to carbon 14.
And it is agreed that a low level of proton radiation would have a darkening effect on linen fibers.

Obviously some postulations are incredible: such as the idea that Jesus’ corpse could disappear into an alternate dimension. This is what makes the Shroud so special.
The evidence indicates that such is exactly what happened. His corpse did vanish from inside of that burial cloth.

The idea that the sacred corpse could have given off proton and neutron radiation when it vanished has been around for a while.
The scientists who did the carbon 14 dating in 1988 considered that possibility but decided that such beyond their scope as scientists to consider.

The history of the Shroud has now been documented back to the sixth century, and it has a legendary history that goes all the way back to the first century.
The real question is not “was the 1988 C-14 dating wrong,” but why was it wrong?

The idea of a medieval repair to the 1988 sample area has been disproven as have other contamination theories.
The Historically Consistent Hypothesis accounts for all of the Shroud’s unexplainable features including the corner of that cloth showing a C-14 age of between 500 and 700 years as well as the still pink color of its blood stains.
The projected date for a sample taken from the center of the main body image (where the neutron radiation would have been the greatest) is an incredible 8400 A.D.

I am not making this stuff up. Read Mark’s new book; that’s all I can say. **

amazon.com/Test-Shroud-Mark-Antonacci/dp/0996430016

 

[ethereality]

jeffrey, you would need to buy the book and mail it to me, because I am deeply impoverished to the US Department of Education. Even then, I am more interested in improving my life (e.g. employment and health, relationship with God) than I am in learning about this shroud. (An e-book would also be more convenient, since mailing to and storage in Japan is difficult.)

Please stay on topic (although I wish you would have elaborated on this supposed ‘protective effect’): The Shroud of Turin is only relevant as historical evidence for the Resurrection if we knew its image was produced by it, which you have not proven, and which it appears you would need to quote lengthy portions of that book to prove. I thank you for the recommendation, nonetheless.

 

[Nixbits]

Randy Carson:

IMO, the resurrection has explanatory depth and scope that is missing from other explanations.

Randy Carson:

The historical resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of these facts.

The resurrection of Jesus may be a sufficient explanation, but that’s not enough to be convincing. Any number of sufficient explanations may fit the supposed facts. What is required is that the explanation also be necessary, i.e. the only explanation that is credible, and this is where the problem lies in my opinion. Even if it’s the best explanation anyone can currently think of, it’s not conclusive unless we can eliminate all of the other possibilities, both the ones we’ve thought of and the ones we haven’t.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, you appear to be copy-pasting without regard for what has previously been said. For example, I already presented a possible explanation for why there might have been no corpse to display, but you declare “all they had to do was show it” as if this were a definite fact.

You misunderstand my reasons for posting all of the background. It is necessary to illustrate that:

• the gospels were written early
• the gospels were written by eyewitnesses
• the gospels were written by reliable men.

Determining that these things are true is required before we can take any accounts they contain seriously.

Now, are you REALLY referring to the idea that Jesus’ body was eaten by scavenger birds as stated in your OP? Or that wild dogs dug it up out of a shallow grave and dragged off?

If so, then you aren’t really paying attention because I pointed out to you five minimal facts which even ATHEIST scholars concede, and your “scavenger theory” fails to address all five of these facts adequately.

For example, if Jesus’ body was buried in a shallow grave and not in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, why do the gospel writers report that the women went to a tomb worried about moving a large stone? Your only answer to that is to question the validity of the gospel record…and that is precisely why I labored to demonstrate the historical reliability of the gospels BEFORE getting into specifics. If the authors are trustworthy, then the women did, in fact, go to a tomb. So much for the shallow grave theory.

But let’s ignore the gospel altogether for a moment, because you can be confident that the resurrection occurred WITHOUT THEM. Here’s how:

Assume that the Roman soldiers took Jesus’ body off of the cross and dumped it into a shallow grave. Please answer these questions:

1. • Why did the apostles believe and claim that they had seen Jesus alive?
   • Why did Paul, the enemy of the Church, suddenly become a believer?
   • Why did James, a life-long skeptic of his cousin, suddenly become a believer?

   Indeed, given my previous questions, it’s not clear that they didn’t show it, and the Bible authors didn’t simply ignore it.

   Do you have any ancient Roman or Jewish documents which refer to this public viewing of the body of Jesus after the Church had begun to preach the resurrection? Isn’t it true that the Jews continued to claim that the body had been stolen (and therefore was missing) for nearly 200 years after the fact? And isn’t it true that Josephus and Tacitus mention the crucifixion but say nothing about a showing of the body?
   

   The New Testament documents were written as propaganda, not as impartial testimony, and there are some declared to be ‘false teachers’ whose message is not presented. Perhaps these ‘false teachers’ were busy refuting the early Christians the same way Christians today are refuting the early Mormons. Again, I haven’t seen anyone present the full picture of what Jews were doing at this time.

   Why are the gospels “propaganda” and not merely reliable accounts of what happened? Are you implying that the Apostles knew they were lying and engaged in a conspiracy?
   

   You have given many arguments to believe, but it is not historical evidence to know. Indeed, some of these are even controversial, e.g. whether the women finding the tomb was a literary invention fitting So-and-So’s motif that only outsiders understood who Jesus was (Ehrman/Carrier). It’s not clear to me that the Bible’s account is entirely factual.

   I will address these points in my next post since it will require a few more characters than I have remaining here.

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Minimal Fact #5: The Tomb Was Empty

The Jerusalem Factor**

Jesus was publicly executed in Jerusalem. His post-resurrection appearances and the empty tomb were first proclaimed in the heart of Israel rather than in some small, remote village in Galilee. The significance of this is that it would have been impossible for Christianity to get off the ground in Jerusalem if the body was still in the tomb. His enemies would only have to produce the body and put it on public display in order for the hoax to be shattered. There is nothing but silence in the Jewish and Roman writings regarding anyone retrieving the body of Jesus from the tomb. Celsus, the second-century critic of Christianity, would have leapt at the chance to discredit the Church if such a story or rumor was available to him. Anything but an empty tomb would have been a devastating blow to the resurrection account.

Enemy Attestation

The scriptures attest to the empty tomb, but so do Jesus’ enemies, albeit indirectly. The gospels record that the Jews claimed that Jesus’ disciples stole the body—thus admitting that they tomb was empty. This is recorded by multiple independent sources (Mt. 28:12-13, Justin Martyr, Trypho 108, Tertullian, De Spectacullis 30). The theft of the body (and thus the empty tomb) is the only opposing theory offered by Jesus’ enemies.

The Testimony of Women

The gospel message spread by the early Church hangs upon the resurrection of Jesus. As Paul noted,

1 Corinthians 15
13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

And yet, the gospels are clear that the empty tomb was discovered not by Peter, James and John, the “pillars” of the Church but by Mary Magdalene and one or more other women. Thus, women are the primary or first witnesses of the empty tomb. In our day, this would pose no problem, but for the Jews and the Romans, this fact created enormous problems for the disciples seeking to spread the gospel message because in that culture and era, women had no legal standing whatsoever. In his work, the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus states plainly:

But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak the truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment. (Josephus, Antiquities, 4.8.15)

Both the Talmud and the Roman historian, Suetonius, express similar negativity toward the testimony of women. As a result, the idea that the disciples concocted a fanciful story about Jesus rising from the dead and then placing that story into the mouths of women whose testimony would not be received favorably by the very audiences that the disciples were hoping to persuade is unlikely.

The empty tomb of Jesus is, therefore, well-evidenced for historical certainty. Former Oxford University church historian, William Wand writes, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”

The empty tomb does not, by itself, provide evidence for the resurrection of Jesus because other theories may explain the cause of the empty tomb. However, taken together with the beliefs of the disciples, as well as Paul and James, that they had seen the risen Jesus, the empty tomb provides powerful support in favor of the resurrection.

 

[Randy_Carson]

jeffrey, you would need to buy the book and mail it to me, because I am deeply impoverished to the US Department of Education. Even then, I am more interested in improving my life (e.g. employment and health, relationship with God) than I am in learning about this shroud. (An e-book would also be more convenient, since mailing to and storage in Japan is difficult.)

Please stay on topic (although I wish you would have elaborated on this supposed ‘protective effect’): The Shroud of Turin is only relevant as historical evidence for the Resurrection if we knew its image was produced by it, which you have not proven, and which it appears you would need to quote lengthy portions of that book to prove. I thank you for the recommendation, nonetheless.

I seem to recall that you are a physicist…is that correct?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The resurrection of Jesus may be a sufficient explanation, but that’s not enough to be convincing. Any number of sufficient explanations may fit the supposed facts. What is required is that the explanation also be necessary, i.e. the only explanation that is credible, and this is where the problem lies in my opinion. Even if it’s the best explanation anyone can currently think of, it’s not conclusive unless we can eliminate all of the other possibilities, both the ones we’ve thought of and the ones we haven’t.

If you believe that “any number of explanations may fit the supposed facts”, then please name them, and we will examine together how good the fit of each really is one at a time.

Isn’t that the scientific approach?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You misunderstand my reasons for posting all of the background. It is necessary to illustrate that:

• the gospels were written early
• the gospels were written by eyewitnesses
• the gospels were written by reliable men.

Determining that these things are true is required before we can take any accounts they contain seriously.

Now, are you REALLY referring to the idea that Jesus’ body was eaten by scavenger birds as stated in your OP? Or that wild dogs dug it up out of a shallow grave and dragged off?

If so, then you aren’t really paying attention because I pointed out to you five minimal facts which even ATHEIST scholars concede, and your “scavenger theory” fails to address all five of these facts adequately.

For example, if Jesus’ body was buried in a shallow grave and not in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, why do the gospel writers report that the women went to a tomb worried about moving a large stone? Your only answer to that is to question the validity of the gospel record…and that is precisely why I labored to demonstrate the historical reliability of the gospels BEFORE getting into specifics. If the authors are trustworthy, then the women did, in fact, go to a tomb. So much for the shallow grave theory.

But let’s ignore the gospel altogether for a moment, because you can be confident that the resurrection occurred WITHOUT THEM. Here’s how:

Assume that the Roman soldiers took Jesus’ body off of the cross and dumped it into a shallow grave. Please answer these questions:

1. • Why did the apostles believe and claim that they had seen Jesus alive?
   • Why did Paul, the enemy of the Church, suddenly become a believer?
   • Why did James, a life-long skeptic of his cousin, suddenly become a believer?
   Your scavenger theory accounts for only two of the five facts: the crucifixion and the empty tomb. The resurrection theory, however, accounts for all five.
   
   Do you have any ancient Roman or Jewish documents which refer to this public viewing of the body of Jesus after the Church had begun to preach the resurrection? Isn’t it true that the Jews continued to claim that the body had been stolen (and therefore was missing) for nearly 200 years after the fact? And isn’t it true that Josephus and Tacitus mention the crucifixion but say nothing about a showing of the body?
   
   Why are the gospels “propaganda” and not merely reliable accounts of what happened? Are you implying that the Apostles knew they were lying and engaged in a conspiracy?
   
   I will address these points in my next post since it will require a few more characters than I have remaining here.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, you appear to be copy-pasting without regard for what has previously been said. For example, I already presented a possible explanation for why there might have been no corpse to display, but you declare “all they had to do was show it” as if this were a definite fact.

BTW, I should have mentioned that your scavenger theory accounts for only two of the five facts: the crucifixion and the empty tomb.

The resurrection theory, however, accounts for all five.

IOW, the resurrection theory has more explanatory depth and scope in terms of the five facts than the scavenger animals theory.

 

[PRmerger]

Pilate was a harsh ruler who was insensitive to Jewish laws and customs…Josephus, among others, described him as such.

What others?

And do you apply the same degree of skepticism to Josephus’ accounts as you do to the gospel narratives?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, you have confused certainty with credibility. The Resurrection is reasonable to believe (and I never disputed this), but it is a belief. It appears we cannot know it (justified, true, certain belief) apart from private revelation.

Hmm… I don’t think I have, but I’m open to hearing why you think so.

I think I would reply that the statement “Jesus is the Son of God” is an assertion that brings into play ‘belief’, but the statement “Jesus was resurrected from the dead” is not a belief-statement. Rather, it’s a statement about an event in history. We might disagree over whether sufficient and reasonable evidence has been provided in order to demonstrate the truth of the statement… but nevertheless, it’s a truth-claim, not a belief-claim. Vis-a-vis the ‘illative sense’, we still have a question of whether you think a sufficient case has been made (which may yield a different answer than the question of whether I think a sufficient case has been made), but still, we’re talking about ‘fact’, not ‘belief’. I think your ‘justified, true, certain’ approach is the oldie-but-goodie about what the definition of ‘knowledge’ is, so I’m not certain that it works here…

 

[eddie_too]

first, the christian does not have proof of the Resurrection in the sense that mathematical theorems can be proven.

i am not sure how the OP defines the word proof. if he is looking for proof in the scientific sense, i doubt anyone is going to provide it.

if he is looking for proof in the legal sense of beyond a reasonable doubt, that proof will be contingent upon who is or what is reasonable. thus requiring an entire prior discussion of who is reasonable after which the available evidence can be weighed. this techniques is probably not going to satisfy many.

historical circumstances and testimony and subsequent consequences down through history are not so much proof as they are evidence.

let us leave aside the question of whether or not we can prove the Resurrection in a mathematical, scientific or legal sense and concede that such proof has not been provided to us.

instead let’s examine what we do have available. let us mean by proof the consequence of using all available evidence (including the use of right reason and logic as well as the history of mankind prior and subsequent to the Resurrection) and contrasting that evidence for the Resurrection with the evidence (including right reason, logic, etc.) for a non-resurrection event; and further, let us contrast the evidence for the Resurrection to alternative explanations of human existence and history.

let us begin with the admission that christians’ belief in the Resurrection is supported by right reason, logic and history, but that is not the same as proof in popular understandings of the word proof.

christian belief by its very definition means accepting through faith that which cannot be proven. on the other hand, christian belief by its very definition does not require suspension of reason, logic or factual knowledge. in fact, christian belief is based on the best accumulation of analysis by right reason and logic as well as the best analysis of the facts, particularly the historical facts surrounding the tenet believed, in this case the bodily Resurrection of our Lord.

what will result may not be proof in the sense the OP seems to define it; but rather an answer to a similar but different question. that question is how our belief in the Resurrection (remember that our belief in the Resurrection is not a solitary independent belief, but a belief that is intimately and integrally connected to a host of other beliefs, it is not meant to stand alone and to try and address our belief in the Resurrection as a stand alone event is contrary to reality simply because the Resurrection is not the only event of or the entirety of reality) contrasts with other popular schools of belief or even with the beliefs that reject the existence of, within this reality, anything that is not part of the physical universe.

when this exercise is performed, the gathering of all available evidence and the application and of right reason and contrasting it with all of the other systems of belief including the rejection of a spiritual realm with in reality, we will then be better able to judge what is the truth about all the various claims made by all the various people down through human history.

ultimately, no historical event can be proven in the mathematical, scientific or legal sense of the term. knowing that proves what? in a tongue in cheek sense, does it prove that history did not occur?

human beings are always forced to end up believing instead of simply putting together formulas that allow them to avoid the very human condition of having to believe, something. it is unavoidable.

obviously, this post has gone on for a great length and i am not going to make it longer by going in to the process i describe above of contrasting the available evidence, based on right reason, logic and history, for the myriad of human beliefs and human belief systems. let it suffice to say, that i personally have employed that process for myself and i rest in complete confidence that my belief in the Resurrection is the most supportable, logical and reasonable belief have i have encountered.

not all of us humans have the same intellectual gifts and capacities, some of us may not have all that is necessary to engage fruitfully in the process of which i wrote above. that explains one aspect of our Lord’s proclamation to the Apostle Thomas, that blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. we may not have put our fingers in His wounds or our hand in His side, but we have, as can anyone, experienced the joy and fruits that come from our placing Jesus in the center of each of our lives.

finally, i will conclude by acknowledging that christian belief is not a result of the process i proposed above. it is first and always a gift from our Creator through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. in others words, we do not prove ourselves in to christian belief although we do rejoice in knowing that what we believe is the most reasonable belief available.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We must assume that the Gospel writers are reliable.

Agreed. And I think we can assume their reliability for several reasons. Here, I’m going to provide you with some information written by J. Warner Wallace, author of Cold-Case Christianity:

As a cold-case detective who examines eyewitness accounts every day, I investigated the [gospel] accounts in my book,** Cold-Case Christianity; A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels**. My investigation led me to conclude the New Testament gospels should be considered eyewitness accounts for four reasons:

1. Eyewitness Authority Was Affirmed By the Gospel Authors
The authors of the Gospels proclaimed their authority as eyewitnesses (or as chroniclers of the eyewitnesses), and the earliest believers embraced the traditional authorship of the eyewitnesses. The Gospel authors (and their sources) repeatedly identified themselves as eyewitnesses:

2 Peter 1:16-17
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

John 21:24-25
This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

2. Eyewitness Authority Was Confirmed By the First Believers
The early believers and Church Fathers accepted the Gospel accounts as eyewitness documents. Papias, when describing the authorship of the Gospel of Mark, for example, said, “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.” In addition, Papias, Ireneaus, Origen and Jerome affirmed the authorship of Matthew’s Gospel by the tax collector described in the account, written for the Hebrews in his native dialect.

3. Eyewitness Authority Was Foundational to the Growth of the Church
The eyewitness authority of the Apostles was key to the expansion of the early Church. The apostles were unified in the manner in which they proclaimed Christ. They repeatedly identified themselves, first and foremost, as eyewitnesses:

Acts 2:23-24, 32
“This man (Jesus) was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him… God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.”

4. Eyewitness Authority Was Used to Validate New Testament Writings
Even Paul understood the importance of eyewitness authority. He continually referred to his own encounter with Jesus to establish the authenticity of his office and writings. Paul also directed his readers to other eyewitnesses who could corroborate his claims:

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

The Gospels were written as eyewitness accounts within the long and rich evidential tradition of the early Christian community. The early Church placed a high value on the evidence provided by Jesus and the authority of the apostles as eyewitnesses. The Gospels were accepted and affirmed due to their status as eyewitness accounts. This authority was inherent to the Gospels, commissioned by Jesus, affirmed by the Gospel authors, confirmed by the first believers, foundational to the growth of the Church and used to validate the New Testament canon. There are good reasons to accept the gospels as eyewitness accounts.​

Taken from:
4 Reasons We Should Accept the Gospels As Eyewitness Accounts
coldcasechristianity.com/2016/4-reasons-we-should-accept-the-gospels-as-eyewitness-accounts/

 

[Randy_Carson]

…there are some declared to be ‘false teachers’ whose message is not presented. Perhaps these ‘false teachers’ were busy refuting the early Christians the same way Christians today are refuting the early Mormons.

Perhaps, but I think this argument actually works in favor of the reliability of the NT. Why do I say this?

You are contending that the Early Church evaluated the writings of a variety of authors and made judgments about which books would and would not be included in the canon of scripture.

Wow. Doesn’t this suggest, then, that the earliest believers were not gullible fools who could be easily taken in by any charlatan claiming to have tales to tell about Jesus?

To the contrary, the Early Church carefully compared which accounts were true to the eyewitness testimony of those who had seen and heard Jesus before and after His resurrection and were still alive at the time the gospels were written. These living witnesses were in a position to say, “That’s not what happened,” or “Yes, this is the way it was.” Any books that did not meet the approval of those eyewitnesses were rejected.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John passed that test.

 

[Efraim]

The fact that so many apostles’ were martyred is sufficient proof for me that they at the very least believed themselves to have seen Jesus Christ risen from the dead & that this has made such an impact on them as to rather be executed by the roman authorities than to retract their witness. If it was the case of a sect conspiring to make some kind of gnostic esoteric myth they wouldnt have had that kind of attachment to this narrative. Also, hallucinations rarely happen to several people in the exact same way & is unheard of to have happened to so many people who was in different places when he appeared to them. To me, the best explanation is that they really did see Jesus Christ risen from the dead - the fact that he was crucified is a pretty sure fact of history. Cuz again, if it was hallucination to severa hundreds of people, 8 of whom we know were martyred according to the early fathers.

One can never be 100% sure but has to give inference to the best available explanation, which is the traditional narrative IMHO. From there we can only take it on faith & ask God to increase our sincerity & show us a sign.

I also struggled with this issue from time to time.

 

[Nicene]

After I declared every argument I’ve seen for God’s existence to be uncertain or false, Randy asked: I’m saying every argument I’ve seen (and I think I’ve seen most), not all. I have already given examples in earlier posts (see my post history). Let’s talk about the Resurrection. (I am an amateur, a physicist, not a historian, so I do welcome any correction.)

The main problem is that it is ancient history: The further removed we are from an event, the more evidence reason requires for certainty. We don’t have sufficient evidence to know what happened surrounding Jesus: We must assume that the Gospel writers are reliable. Likewise, we don’t even know how many disciples there were or how they all died: We must assume Church tradition is accurate declaring that they were martyred for their witness. Regarding the missing body, historian Bart Ehrman has argued* it is possible that Jesus was buried in a common grave after being picked by scavenger birds left on the cross for days, common for victims of Roman crucifixion.

How did Christianity get started if the Resurrection didn’t actually happen? Does Mormonism not demonstrate the answer? This cult of Joseph Smith gained traction despite apparently not having the claimed miraculous origin, together with witnesses testifying to it like the Apostles. It is worth noting that the Roman Empire was in decline and religion in flux. The same is true of America today; perhaps a thousand years from now Mormonism will have grown in strength similarly, and people then will declare, “It never would’ve gotten started if it wasn’t true!”

In summary, the argument from the Resurrection for the existence of God is uncertain, because it rests on the uncertain premise that the Gospels (and New Testament miracle accounts) are true literal history.

Please answer this rebuttal. I would like to be proven wrong. Please cite sources for claims of fact.

• See his debates on YouTube.

To be quite frank, that’s why it’s called faith. I’ll give another example of the same. As a physicist, more than likely you believe in String theory. The problem with believing in string theory is that it is 100% umprovable. So you believe in something you can’t see and can’t prove? So as a physicist, why do you (assuming you don’t ascribe to loop quantum gravity) believe it? However loop quantum gravity suffers from the same problem, namely provability.

So one must assume you take it on faith, which by scientific standards is irrational.

If you are going to argue from circumstantial evidence (effect due to likely cause) then you are doing the same thing as those who believe in God, the resurrection and the gospels.

Just something to think about.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[clmowry]

Every time I see “Proof” (or “Not Proof”) it always begs the question what would the questioner accept as “Proof”.

Let us pretend that rather than the ancient testimony of eyewitnesses we had the same set of circumstances, the same witnesses and it happened yesterday. Would you accept their account as “proof”?

If they had a video, would that be “proof”?

If you had been one of those witnesses and then put your hand into His side and felt the holes in His hands, would that be “proof” (to you or to anyone else)?

Once your inquiry goes beyond math can one have “proof” of anything?

Chuck

 

[ethereality]

The Minimal Facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus’ disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
5. Jesus tomb was found to be empty

Any attempt to explain the transformation of the apostles and the growth of the early Church must account for all five of these facts adequately. IMO, the resurrection has explanatory depth and scope that is missing from other explanations.

your scavenger theory accounts for only two of the five facts: the crucifixion and the empty tomb.

The resurrection theory, however, accounts for all five.

IOW, the resurrection theory has more explanatory depth and scope in terms of the five facts than the scavenger animals theory.

As you know, a situation is sometimes explained by more than one event. To be clear, the Resurrection does not explain all five facts, either, but rather only the empty tomb. Facts 2-4 are explained by other events, namely, Jesus’ post-mortem appearances.

As an aside, it’s not clear to me what you mean by “scope” as a criterion for preferring an explanation if not explanatory depth: The ability for a theory to be applied to more things does not make it any more likely to be true.

But we must first take a step back and ask how we know those are all facts. For example, why should we believe the Bible’s testimony that James was initially skeptical of Jesus? James even could have been a type of L Ron Hubbard, looking to build up a family member for profit of some sort, we have such little historical record of him if the Bible isn’t trusted. Saul suffering a bad mental event (e.g. stroke) could explain his temporary blindness and change of behavior, with the others either hearing a voice or seeing a light based on his own unreliable testimony rather than theirs.

Then the final fact to be explained is how Jesus’ disciples came to believe that He rose and appeared to them. It seems this fact is speculation if not assumption: If we don’t assume the Bible is reliable, then we don’t know how many of the Disciples actually came to believe; we don’t know how many of them were martyred for the faith; I don’t know that what I’ve been told from Catholic Answers is true, that disciples of a failed messiah simply gave up and looked for another one: Perhaps what skeptics have said is probable, that, being impressed with Jesus’ wondrous healing and inspirational teaching, they searched the Scriptures and found an explanation, with accounts of Jesus eating fish on the shore, miracles and mass conversions in Acts being propaganda.

My point isn’t that these natural explanations are to be preferred to assuming the Bible is true and assuming the Church’s tradition is true. My point is that it’s not clear from this point in time which set of explanations is actually true. Modern miracles don’t help me because they’re always remote and unverifiable. For example, recently in my Facebook newsfeed was a report of a 2013 Eucharistic miracle confirmed by the Church in Poland. It’s in Poland, not in my city; the investigation is not published for me to review like other scientific articles are; even if the study is done well, there’s no way to verify the Host was submitted for analysis rather than heart tissue from a cadaver. Fraud does occur, and people do atrocious things. So it seems that every miracle cited as evidence of the Church’s truthfulness and authority must likewise be believed on faith, which results from circular reasoning: One chooses to believe the Church, and then one chooses to believe the miracle because one has chosen to believe the Church.

I don’t understand why God values choosing to believe without reason or evidence – and please don’t miss my point: At a certain step in every argument leading to God that I have seen, there is at least one step that must be blindly assumed, even if there is evidence before or after that point. (For example, archeological evidence corroborating the Bible’s claims about places existing and people living there does not demonstrate that the events occurred there as described.) Why does God create us so finite, give us reason, insist that we rely on it for survival, and then take pleasure in our rejecting it to believe claims about Himself? Finally, my problem is that my suffering tips the balance against Christianity: On one end of the scale is a set of assumptions (in this case, that the Bible reliably presents history), and on the other end is the question of why my Heavenly Father is silently letting me suffer and not directly communicating with me (together with all the other problems in the world). The suffering makes the assumptions on which my faith is based look like wishful thinking.