While there is some historical proof that a man named Jesus lived in the appropriate time and place, there is none (other than scripture, which is inherently biased because it was written by people who accept this premise) that gives details about him rising from the dead, ascending into heaven, etc.
There is also the early church fathers, which affirm that the apostles did teach that Jesus produced miracles, died, and rose from the dead. Some of the ECF were direct disciples of the apostles, so they should know what the apostles actually taught.
Then there a some non -Christian sources - Pliny the Younger, Tatian, Josephus, and the Talmud. The Talmud does not deny that the man Jesus was able to do extraordinary things, but the they attrbuted it to him being of the devil. But it is interesting that the Talmud does not deny that Jesus did these things.
Naturally, we would not expect the **non-Christians **to write that Jesus actually did rise from dead. If the non-Christian sources did believe that Jesus did rise from the dead, then they would be
Christian sources. But what this shows is that even early non-Christian sources attest to the fact that very early in the Church these things about Jesus were believed, not enough for a legend to develop. So if not a legend, then either the apostles were lying or telling the truth. But since most of the apostles were martyrs, it is hard to believe that they would die for a deliberate lie.
True, most of the sources for Jesus are in the scriptures. But you must understand that scriptures were not written my one man or even a group of men gathered in one room. These New Testament documents were written independently of each other for the most part, scattered throughout the Roman empire. They were not collected and canonized at 397 AD. Naturally, the Church would only canonize the documents that were written in the first century by those who believed in Jesus.
So the point is that even if one does not believe that they are God-inspired scripture, they are still reliable historical sources. They were written very close to the time of the events, within the first century. Contrast that with Julius Caesar, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle and the earliest sources we have of them, about one thousand years after the fact. And no one questions what these sources say about Julius Caesar, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
As for the issue of the missing body, we don’t even know where the apostles are buried (nor most folks who lived that long ago and who were, politically speaking, not very important), so this is a non issue.
First of all, we have at least the bones of Peter that I know of. Read The Bones of St Peter by John Walsh.
But besides that, you are missing my point, entirely. It is clear from the persecutions of Christians and the conflicts Jesus had with Jewish leaders (not to mention that he was crucified!) that Jesus had a lot of enemies. So maybe up in Rome, Jesus was not very important when He was crucified. But in Jerusalem, Jesus was VERY imporatant to His enemies. If He was not important they would not have crucified Him. So why did His enemies not produce the body in order to kill the Christian movement before it even started?
As for the “miracles” there are many sypernatural happenings, including healings, that defy scientists and not all are connected with Christianity, so that doesn’t hold up either. Ditto apparitions.
I am not sure what you are talking about, but even if there are non-Christian supernatural happenings, I do not think I would doubt the existence of them. As a Catholic, I believe there can be some truth in other religions, and I would not deny that God could reach out to other people of other religions. But then again, it could be from Satan. I guess I need to know what particular occurrence you are talking about to determine whether I thought it was from God or the Devil.
But even if it is of God, this does not prove anything except that God in His mercy could be reaching to people in other religions. This does not negate the evidence of the Marian apparitions. That is like trying to negate evidence against a man killing his wife by saying that they there are other men who killed their wives.
I don’t believe in the whole Satanic thing but if I did I’d suggest that it could be a Satanic trick of some kind.
Even if it was Satan, this still would prove something, it would prove the existence of the supernatural realm.
So lets say, for the sake of argument, that the anti-Catholic Protestants are right, that all the Marian apparitions (there are over 3,000 of them, I believe) are of the Devil. I doubt that there is another religion with with so many apparitions and so strong an evidence for them. So the question is this: why would Satan concentrate so much effort to deceving Christians unless he knows that Christianity is true? So even if this would probably invalidate Catholicsm, this would still validate the overall truthfullness of Christianity!
But, of course, since I am Catholic, I do believe that these Marian apparitions are from God and not from the Devil. I believe this because of Jesus’s response to His enemies, when they accused Him of being able to do miracles because of the Devil. Jesus argued back that Satan would not cast out Satan. Jesus was doing so much good, why would Satan want to do that?
In the same way, when I look at the apparitions of Mary, I also take notice what message she is is giving. Most of her message is that we need to pray more, we need to love more, we need to repent of sin, we need to trust God more, etc. All these things are something that most Protestants would agree. So why would Satan say these things? Would that not be counterproductive?
Or take the apparition of Our Lady Guadalupe in Mexico, where her image was miraculously placed on a tilma 500 years ago. Millions the Mexican natives came to see the tilma and were converted. This eventually wiped out the Aztec religion. Now why would Satan want to do that? The Aztecs were worshipping the Serpent God, and were performing 1,000 human sacrifices a day. Why would Satan want them to convert from that? Only the harshest anti-Catholic would believe that Satan would rather them be Catholic than to be human-sacrificing pagans!
I recall reading the Screwtape letters by CS Lewis. I agree with Lewis that Satan would prefer people not to believe in his existence. If people realized that the Devil existed, then they may then realize that God too must exist. The Devil would rather work covertly. So why would Satan expose himself through these Marian apparition? Take Fatima, for instance. Over 70,000 people saw the sun dance in the sky. Some of these people were hard-core atheists, since the Communist government at that time was atheistic. So why would Satan produce such a miracle that so many people would believe or be strengthened in their faith against the pressures from their atheistic government? It simply does not make sense.
Too much good has happened from these Marian apparitions, and too much of the message is undebatably good. Why would Satan work against himself?
I’m simply saying that these arguments wouldn’t wash with a non-Christian and why.
I admit that most non-Christians would not be converted by these arguments, but that says nothing about the validity of the arguments. Some of it is a moral problem, some people simply do want to believe because it means they would have to change their lives. Some of it is an intellectual problem, they have deeply ingained pressuposition that they may be unaware of that prevent them from see the validity of these arguments.
But there have been intellectuals who have been convinced of these arguments, or arguments similar to these - GK Chesteron, Evelyn Waugh and CS Lewis to name a few.
