List of Proofs For vs. Proofs Against the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, & Ascension

[rakovsky]

I think God, Jesus, miracles, and the afterlife are real. I pray, am very familiar with the Bible, and attend Church. But I have uncertainty about Jesus’ main miracles: the Virgin Birth, Resurrection in a transfigured body, Ascension, and Sonship. I think that the issue comes down to the Resurrection, because there were so many alleged witnesses that it should be the easiest to establish and would be very strong evidence for the others.

So below I am listing the proofs for and against the Resurrection. Might you be able to briefly list others?

Proofs of the Resurrection

1. *]The Old Testament predicts that the Messiah would be killed and resurrect.
   But not everything in the Old Testament seems very trustworthy, like the world’s plants surviving a lengthy flood underwater.
   
   *]The Lord / Liar / Lunatic / Later fabrication dilemma
   C.S. Lewis laid the basis for this proof. None of the alternatives to Lordship are free from objection:
   If He was a liar, why did He choose to: emphasize God and morality, understand the prophesy of the Messiah being killed, and voluntarily meet martyrdom? Maybe he didn’t think Pilate would kill him because Pilate’s wife liked him and he was not actually stirring insurrection?
   If he and the early Christians were delusional, then what are we to make of the many miracles that go beyond simple delusions- like walking on water? The empty tomb would not be a delusion.
   If the miraculous parts of the gospels were a fabrication inserted later, then how were they so thoroughly intertwined through all four gospels and Acts by people so close to the 1st century Christian community?
   
   *]The apostles said that they saw Him resurrected in the flesh and His Ascension
   The apostles should be good witnesses for their claims because they taught morality, and were persecuted.
   But sometimes persecuted sects that teach morality - like the Mormons and early gnostic Christians with their apocryphal gospels - can fantasize or invent miracles or theology.
   
   *]The tomb was found empty with the grave clothes inside, suggesting resurrection
   But a sympathizer of the Christians could have stolen the body. The guard was put on the tomb only on Saturday after the Friday Crucifixion. Perhaps the guards could have been overcome and forcibly bribed if Jesus had at least 70 followers as recorded? The grave clothes could have been left there to make it look like resurrection.
   
   *]James, Jesus’ brother, becoming a leader in Christianity after originally being a doubter (John 7:5). So it looks like something changed his opinion.
   But maybe family members of other sects like the Mormons got pulled into the sects too after being doubters?
   
   *]Christian Miracles and signs that have happened after the resurrection
   eg. Weeping icons, Marian apparitions, healings, etc.
   But other religions claim miracles. And some Christians who attended some miracles like mass alleged Marian apparitions said that they did not see anything supernatural.
   
   *]The spread of Christianity in the world is very far
   But perhaps the spread of Christianity is explained because it meets a deep psychology need, not necessarily because it is factually true or not?
   
   Disproofs of the Resurrection
   1. *]The Virgin Birth, Transfigured Resurrection, and Bodily Ascension are outside our understanding of and experience in the natural world. Such occurrences are next to impossible, which is, after all, what makes them miracles. Granted, God can do anything, and so God could do this too, supposing of course that He is the kind of Being that would do such things as a Virgin Birth, etc. And besides that, all kinds of cosmic anomalies are possible although our current understanding of science does not expect them.
      
      However, it is not just a matter of whether such extremely rare events could happen, but whether they *did *happen in this particular time and place with this particular person out the many locations and moments in the universe.
      
      *]There are cases where sects are (1) persecuted, (2) teach God and morality, (3) claim miracles, and nonetheless (4) make up and fantasize stories. Examples include the 1st to 2nd century gnostic Christians who wrote fanciful apocryphal gospels combined with moral teachings and the Mormons who were sometimes killed for their fanciful claims. There are also Asian gurus, Bahais, and Sikhs who have moral, inspiring teachings, masses of followers, claims of miracles, and past persecution. So these qualities of the early Christian community did not dictate that their main supernatural claims were correct.
      
      Could you please briefly list other proofs of the Resurrection?
      
      Next I will list potential methods to ascertain the Resurrection.

 

[Rhubarb]

I guess it depends on what you mean by “a proof.” I mean, we can use the above to make deductive proofs, but they’re easy to attack as potentially unsound. I think your best bet will be to take what you find convincing as propose it as justification for the belief on those things and leave it at that. Outlining “proofs” will lend yourself to stricter scrutiny - a proof that doesn’t hold water, to me, is more convincing than a counter-argument against the claim.

 

[GEddie]

The issue surrounding the Resurrection is not that His friends were later persecuted for their teachings, but what became of His human body!

Persecution of those who teach something new is in itself, nothing new, sadly. But the Resurrection was not just a new teaching, it was a physical event, that if it were disproven, nobody would die for it.

And the alternatives to a resurrection are even harder to swallow. That men who had been too frightened to stand for Him earlier would defy a Roman guard to somehow open a sealed tomb, unwrap a heavy, bloody dead body, and move said body while escaping the eyes of that guard – and leave no trace of their activity – makes no sense.

ICXC NIKA

 

[oldcelt]

The issue surrounding the Resurrection is not that His friends were later persecuted for their teachings, but what became of His human body!

Persecution of those who teach something new is in itself, nothing new, sadly. But the Resurrection was not just a new teaching, it was a physical event, that if it were disproven, nobody would die for it.

And the alternatives to a resurrection are even harder to swallow. That men who had been too frightened to stand for Him earlier would defy a Roman guard to somehow open a sealed tomb, unwrap a heavy, bloody dead body, and move said body while escaping the eyes of that guard – and leave no trace of their activity – makes no sense.

ICXC NIKA

There is the possibility, however painful to accept, that none of the resurrection story occurred. That the man Jesus remained in the tomb and his followers invented the story as a means to spread his teachings.

 

[GEddie]

There is the possibility, however painful to accept, that none of the resurrection story occurred. That the man Jesus remained in the tomb and his followers invented the story as a means to spread his teachings.

That makes even less sense. Nothing taught by our LORD was without existing precedent – other than His claims to divinity, which would go out the hatch if no resurrection occurred. Certainly there was nothing there, absent the resurrection, worth dying over.

ICXC NIKA

 

[oldcelt]

That makes even less sense. Nothing taught by our LORD was without existing precedent – other than His claims to divinity, which would go out the hatch if no resurrection occurred. Certainly there was nothing there, absent the resurrection, worth dying over.

ICXC NIKA

His teachings are remarkably different from the Old Testament. Compare Leviticus to Jesus…no similarities. Throughout history people have died for far less. Even as a Deist, I try to live in a way that I think Jesus would find pleasing. I fail often, but it is still a system of teaching that I find helpful.

John

 

[TomFromMD]

There is the possibility, however painful to accept, that none of the resurrection story occurred. That the man Jesus remained in the tomb and his followers invented the story as a means to spread his teachings.

If Acts can be believed at all, there was a Christian community right in Jerusalem. Is it really reasonable that they’d accept the story, and that nobody would say “but he’s buried over there”? If that were the case, you’d think that the place he was buried would be important to them. Rather than being swept under the rug, it would have been revered. It would also make a pretty big liar out of Paul, who is our earliest source for anything at all, and states explicitly that Christ was raised from the dead and appeared to a bunch of people, including himself (1 Cor 15).

 

[FreeEver]

There is the possibility, however painful to accept, that none of the resurrection story occurred. That the man Jesus remained in the tomb and his followers invented the story as a means to spread his teachings.

If your assumption is correct, why did the ten original apostles and other early Christians suffer martyrdom?

Was it for wealth? NO, all died penniless.

Was it for popularity, fame, or celebrity status? NO, other than the early written Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John which are with us today, the majority of others (individually named) who believed in Our Lord’s resurrection are forgotten footnotes in history.

Was it because they were mentally unbalanced? OK, perhaps a few as within any defined population (just speculating); however the vast, vast majority - NO.

God Bless and Peace to all.

 

[GEddie]

Arguments that the Resurrection was faked or the story confabulated are similar to Apollo moon-landing hoax stories, in that both theories require cooperation from those who had no reason at all to cooperate.

The Russians would have yelled foul if an Apollo hoax had occurred.

And if our LORD had remained in the tomb, the Romans would not have let the Resurrection narrative pass. A martyred resistance leader (as HE was believed) can be as much a headache as a breathing one. They wanted HIM **and **His following gone; if He remained in the tomb but was claimed having risen, they’d have cracked the tomb, wheeled out HIS bloody dead body, and that would have been the end.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[oldcelt]

If your assumption is correct, why did the ten original apostles and other early Christians suffer martyrdom?

Was it for wealth? NO, all died penniless.

Was it for popularity, fame, or celebrity status? NO, other than the early written Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John which are with us today, the majority of others (individually named) who believed in Our Lord’s resurrection are forgotten footnotes in history.

Was it because they were mentally unbalanced? OK, perhaps a few as within any defined population (just speculating); however the vast, vast majority - NO.

God Bless and Peace to all.

No, they were not mentally unbalanced. They truly believed in what Jesus taught. However, their teacher was gone and they wished to perpetuate those teachings.
So far as sacrificing your life for a cause…history records many…good and bad…

 

[oldcelt]

Arguments that the Resurrection was faked or the story confabulated are similar to Apollo moon-landing hoax stories, in that both theories require cooperation from those who had no reason at all to cooperate.

The Russians would have yelled foul if an Apollo hoax had occurred.

And if our LORD had remained in the tomb, the Romans would not have let the Resurrection narrative pass. A martyred resistance leader (as HE was believed) can be as much a headache as a breathing one. They wanted HIM **and **His following gone; if He remained in the tomb but was claimed having risen, they’d have cracked the tomb, wheeled out HIS bloody dead body, and that would have been the end.

ICXC NIKA.

The Romans do not mention the man. He was another of a long line of insignificant trouble makers to them. The remainder of your arguments are specious IMHO…a dead man is a far better martyr.
BTW, how many have died in the name of a very human leader in the last two centuries alone?

 

[Larry1700]

The Romans do not mention the man. He was another of a long line of insignificant trouble makers to them. The remainder of your arguments are specious IMHO…a dead man is a far better martyr.
BTW, **how many have died in the name of a very human leader in the last two centuries alone?/**QUOTE]

True, many have died for a human leader. It happens in every war.

However, the REASON they followed Jesus–to their deaths–is because they firmly believed He was the Son of God. Had he not risen from the dead, they would have concluded that he could not have been what he said he was.

They had Judaism already, so they would have concluded that he was not the Messiah, and returned to their former Jewish religion, in expectation of the real one.

 

[oldcelt]

oldcelt;12910137:

The Romans do not mention the man. He was another of a long line of insignificant trouble makers to them. The remainder of your arguments are specious IMHO…a dead man is a far better martyr.
BTW, how many have died in the name of a very human leader in the last two centuries alone?/

QUOTE]

True, many have died for a human leader. It happens in every war.

However, the REASON they followed Jesus–to their deaths–is because they firmly believed He was the Son of God. Had he not risen from the dead, they would have concluded that he could not have been what he said he was.

They had Judaism already, so they would have concluded that he was not the Messiah, and returned to their former Jewish religion, in expectation of the real one.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Jesus radically reworked Judaism. What his followers believed is irrelevant…many people believe many things. His resurrection was not necessary to validate his core teachings

 

[SonOfMan]

If your assumption is correct, why did the ten original apostles and other early Christians suffer martyrdom?

Was it for wealth? NO, all died penniless.

Was it for popularity, fame, or celebrity status? NO, other than the early written Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John which are with us today, the majority of others (individually named) who believed in Our Lord’s resurrection are forgotten footnotes in history.

Was it because they were mentally unbalanced? OK, perhaps a few as within any defined population (just speculating); however the vast, vast majority - NO.

God Bless and Peace to all.

It is said that none of the apostles suffered martyrdom and the stories about them being martyred are all legendary.

Say they were actually killed though, how do you know that they were not simply assassinated/executed as opposed to dying as willing martyrs?

 

[AyJSimon]

oldcelt;12910137:

The Romans do not mention the man. He was another of a long line of insignificant trouble makers to them. The remainder of your arguments are specious IMHO…a dead man is a far better martyr.
BTW, how many have died in the name of a very human leader in the last two centuries alone?/

QUOTE]

True, many have died for a human leader. It happens in every war.

However, the REASON they followed Jesus–to their deaths–is because they firmly believed He was the Son of God. Had he not risen from the dead, they would have concluded that he could not have been what he said he was.

They had Judaism already, so they would have concluded that he was not the Messiah, and returned to their former Jewish religion, in expectation of the real one.

Muslims have Judaism AND Christianity - yet they still gladly die, martyr themselves, and kills others for the belief that Muhammad was the last true prophet of God and flew to heaven on a winged horse.

 

[oldcelt]

It is said that none of the apostles suffered martyrdom and the stories about them being martyred are all legendary.

Say they were actually killed though, how do you know that they were not simply assassinated/executed as opposed to dying as willing martyrs?

How indeed?

 

[oldcelt]

Larry1700;12910165:

Muslims have Judaism AND Christianity - yet they still gladly die, martyr themselves, and kills others for the belief that Muhammad was the last true prophet of God and flew to heaven on a winged horse.

One of the many examples that I had in mind…thank you.

 

[TomFromMD]

Larry1700;12910165:

Muslims have Judaism AND Christianity - yet they still gladly die, martyr themselves, and kills others for the belief that Muhammad was the last true prophet of God and flew to heaven on a winged horse.

I think there’s a difference here in that the Muslims you’re talking about are hundreds of years removed from Muhammad. They don’t actually have claimed to have seen him on the horse, and they have no physical evidence that he didn’t. For the apostles and the first generation of the Church, we have a different case. We have early attestation that it occurred, from a time when it could have been disproved.

 

[FreeEver]

The Muslim martyrdom example is way off. I’ve read accounts where family members of suicide bombers are financially rewarded. None of the early Apostles or martyred Christian family members were financially rewarded.

Furthermore, the early Apostles and Christians did not deliberately take other lives as they were being put to death for Christ. Muslin suicide bombers are a different matter, sadly ask many U.S. military personal or their families who have been injured and killed by these acts of “so called” martyrdom.

God Bless and Peace to all.

 

[NormalBeliever]

Larry1700;12910165:

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Jesus radically reworked Judaism. What his followers believed is irrelevant…many people believe many things. His resurrection was not necessary to validate his core teachings

Actually,his Resurrection played a large role in terms of vindicating him.

He was crucified.And crucifixion for Romans meant a man is no longer a good man,he is forsaken by the gods.And for Jews,being crucified,especially by pagans,was a sign that the man was forsaken by God and every status as a good man would be instantly over once crucifixion started.

The Resurrection,however,was God himself vindicating Jesus,thus reversing his shame and prooving the accuracy and authenticity of his claims.