The Evidence Skeptics would like to see for the Resurrection Claim

[Gary]

Christians often ask me what evidence would make me believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. Let me give you a scenario to demonstrate the kind of evidence that skeptics would like to see to consider this claim even remotely possible:

April, 33 AD

The Roman occupied lands of Judea and Galilee teeter on the brink of rebellion against Caesar. A man from Galilee named Jesus has crisscrossed Palestine preaching that a new "kingdom" is imminent and telling his immediate followers that he is the long awaited Jewish Messiah.

According to Jewish teaching, the Messiah will restore the ancient kingdom of Israel, sit upon the throne of David, and defeat all Israel's enemies. The armies of the world will bow before this great king.

Rome sees this man as an insurrectionist and as a traitor to Caesar. They are happy to learn that the Jewish leadership is not happy with Jesus either. The two groups conspire to arrest Jesus on the grounds of treason against Caesar and blasphemy against his religion. Jesus is arrested, tried for treason before the prefect, Pontius Pilate, and condemned to crucifixion. All of Judea turns out for the crucifixion of the "King of the Jews". The Romans brace for a riot. Caesar sends word to Pilate that under no circumstances is he to allow the situation to get out of control. Pilate sends emissaries to surrounding governors and rulers, asking for assistance if he should need it. The entire eastern Mediterranean is on edge.

Jesus is publically crucified. The Romans document the event. A letter is sent to Caesar documenting the execution and that all riots have been put down. The Jews document the event. Both parties state that Jesus died but that after dying a spear was plunged into his side to make sure he was dead prior to taking him off the cross.

Both the Romans and the Jews document that a Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body and placed it in a newly hewn tomb next to Golgotha. Both the Romans and the Jews document that the body was guarded at all times by a company of soldiers, the tomb was sealed, and guards were placed round the clock. The Jews also ordered some of their guards to stand by and watch the tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body.

However, three days later, the tomb was empty. Later that day, followers of Jesus began reporting that Jesus had appeared to them in the flesh. They even touched him and ate fish with him. These reports were initially seen as hysteria. However, then Jesus appeared to a large crowd in the temple. The Sanhedrin and the Pharisees witnessed the appearance and multiple members of the Sanhedrin documented the event. Then Jesus appeared to Pilate and his court. Then to Herod and his court. Both accounts were recorded by multiple members of the court and the testimonies corroborate.

Then Jesus appeared on the top of the temple after calling Pilate, Herod, the Sanhedrin, and all the people together to preach to them. At the end of his sermon, the entire crowd watched as he slowly ascended into the clouds. This event was recorded by multiple Romans, Jews, and Christians. The accounts all corroborate. A report was sent to Caesar by both Pilate and Herod of these events. The two reports corroborate the story. The Sanhedrin also documented these events and this report corroborates the reports of Pilate and Herod.

Gary: Now this would be incredible evidence. It would be very hard to refute. We have multiple, contemporary attestation from antagonistic sources. So why didn't Jesus do this? Why didn't he make his post death appearances to multiple non-believers and not just one---Paul? If Jesus really loves the world why wouldn't he do really spectacular appearances to prove to the world he is God the Creator?

Answer: Jesus wants people to believe by faith, not by miracles.

Huh? Then why do Christians point to miracles today as proof of Jesus' divinity?? Why do Christians make the claim that the reason that Jesus only heals a few of those who pray to him is to show his power and glory, not to heal? And why did Jesus do SO MANY miracles, in public, with huge crowds, in the Gospels, if miracles are not for the purpose of convincing people to believe???

Dear Christians. Don't you see? The reason that the Resurrection appearances were only to believers and to one non-believer on a dark, desert highway is because they didn't ever happen! These stories are most likely legends, or, inventions by the Gospel authors for theological purposes. Think, guys! The preponderance of evidence points to these miracle claims as being fiction.

[seanD]

There were angels that were in God's very presence that rebelled. So, no, no amount of evidence would convince everyone. On the flip side, there are many who believed with even less evidence that we have today. It apparently goes beyond just evidence.

[One Bad Pig]

Dear Gary, we've been over this multiple times with you. Your fantasy's nice'n'all, but history doesn't work like that. Why not ask for video while you're at it? The preponderance of evidence points to cool wind in my hair.

[Gary]

There were angels that were in God's very presence that rebelled. So, no, no amount of evidence would convince everyone. On the flip side, there are many who believed with even less evidence that we have today. It apparently goes beyond just evidence.

And many, many people have believed that Mohammad received the true Word of God. The Koran. Many people have been deceived by "false" beliefs. Why wouldn't Jesus have made his message more real to prevent so many people from being deceived? Again, the answer will always be, "Jesus wants people to believe by faith".

I say, baloney!

If Jesus wanted people to believe by faith he wouldn't have done ANY public miracles.

See the obvious, folks: Miracles in Antiquity and today are never done in front of multiple, expert non-believers. Miracles are always performed in front of believers or in front of a few uneducated, superstitious non-believers. The evidence points to miracles not being real.

[One Bad Pig]

See the obvious, folks: Miracles in Antiquity and today are never done in front of multiple, expert non-believers. Miracles are always performed in front of believers or in front of a few uneducated, superstitious non-believers. The evidence points to miracles not being real.

The obvious is that you are not the open-minded skeptic you pretend to be, and that your characterization of the material from Keener's Miracles - which you seem to have abandoned reading, despite promises otherwise - is abysmally wrong.

Why did you start this new thread anyway? There is nothing new here - just yet another way of saying the same thing.

[Gary]

Isn't the following possible, guys?

The author of Mark is a Gentile Christian living in Antioch or Rome who had never stepped foot in Palestine; never knew Jesus; and had never met any of the Eleven or Paul. He was a devout Christian who wanted to spread the Good News of Jesus...as he knew it, based on the legends circulating about Jesus at the time in his region of the world.

In circa 75 AD, "Mark" writes a book about Jesus. It isn't meant to be a historical biography. It is meant as a first century version of a Jack Chick gospel tract with exciting stories and devious supernatural beings and spectacular supernatural events all for the purpose of extolling the virtues of Jesus of Nazareth. This is why Paul never mentions any of Jesus' miracles in any of his epistles: Because no one on earth in the 50's and 60's AD had ever heard of any miracles by Jesus!

Once "Mark" had invented Jesus performing miracles, subsequent "gospel" authors repeated his miracle claims and added new ones of their own invention!

Maybe there originally were no miracles, folks. Maybe the only original miracle was the resurrection, and this miracle belief arose not because of an empty tomb (another concept never mentioned by Paul) but due to vivid dreams, visions, and trances by a few of the disciples, one of them most likely Peter who is said to have seen a sheet floating in the sky full of animals, during the middle of the day!

This is why miracles never occur today in front of a panel of skeptical experts! Because miracles aren't real. They never were real! The miracles in the Bible were either legendary stories circulated by uneducated peasants, or, they were theological inventions for literary purposes only.

[37818]

I think the NT account better supports a 30 AD crucifixion than the now more commonly accepted 33 AD date.

[Gary]

I think the NT account better supports a 30 AD crucifixion than the now more commonly accepted 33 AD date.

Fine. 30 AD it is.

[One Bad Pig]

Isn't the following possible, guys?

<snip wild fantasy>

No.

(for those happening by, this is essentially a reboot of a conversation started here)

[Gary]

No.

(for those happening by, this is essentially a reboot of a conversation started here)

It is possible. Christians don't like to consider other possible explanations. They assume that the stories in the Gospels are eyewitness accounts and therefore suggesting possible alternatives is nothing more than make up silly claims based on no evidence. But the fact is, there is no proof that the miracle stories in the Gospels are any more real than my hypothetical story above.

Stop being silly, conservative Christians.

It is much more probable, based on the little evidence available, that the miracle stories in the gospel are just as fictional as the miracle claims today.

[One Bad Pig]

It is possible. Christians don't like to consider other possible explanations. They assume that the stories in the Gospels are eyewitness accounts and therefore suggesting possible alternatives is nothing more than make up silly claims based on no evidence. But the fact is, there is no proof that the miracle stories in the Gospels are any more real than my hypothetical story above.

There's plenty. We have this idea called "scholarship" where we evaluate claims based on what we know of the times. You should check it out sometime (and by "check it out" I mean "read for understanding," not "skim for something I can twist into supporting my argument").

It is much more probable, based on the little evidence available, that the miracle stories in the gospel are just as fictional as the miracle claims today.

There's plenty of evidence for miracle claims today. That it does not tend to pass the bar you deliberately set sky-high to avoid anything passing it is well addressed by Mr. Keener. I have my doubts you'll actually read that far, however. Go on, surprise me.

[Gary]

There's plenty. We have this idea called "scholarship" where we evaluate claims based on what we know of the times. You should check it out sometime (and by "check it out" I mean "read for understanding," not "skim for something I can twist into supporting my argument").

There's plenty of evidence for miracle claims today. That it does not tend to pass the bar you deliberately set sky-high to avoid anything passing it is well addressed by Mr. Keener. I have my doubts you'll actually read that far, however. Go on, surprise me.

There is no such thing as a "miracle scholar", therefore your appeal to scholarship regarding the historicity of miracles fails miserably. Scholarship tells us:

-there most probably was a first century Jewish man named Jesus who taught a message of pacifism and a coming divine Kingdom of God. He got on the wrong side of Jewish authorities and was executed by the Romans. Soon after his death, his followers came to believe that he had been bodily resurrected from the dead.

That's about it.

No evidence for turning water into wine, feeding thousands of people with five loaves and two fishes, casting out demons, healing blindness, leprosy, lameness, irregular menstrual bleeding, and raising the dead. None.

And the standard for accepting miracle claims today by western science and medicine is not set by me but by panels of experts for each field of western medicine and science. I'm sorry that you don't like them, but that is the way it is.

[Sparko]

Christians often ask me what evidence would make me believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. Let me give you a scenario to demonstrate the kind of evidence that skeptics would like to see to consider this claim even remotely possible:

April, 33 AD

The Roman occupied lands of Judea and Galilee teeter on the brink of rebellion against Caesar. A man from Galilee named Jesus has crisscrossed Palestine preaching that a new "kingdom" is imminent and telling his immediate followers that he is the long awaited Jewish Messiah.

According to Jewish teaching, the Messiah will restore the ancient kingdom of Israel, sit upon the throne of David, and defeat all Israel's enemies. The armies of the world will bow before this great king.

Rome sees this man as an insurrectionist and as a traitor to Caesar. They are happy to learn that the Jewish leadership is not happy with Jesus either. The two groups conspire to arrest Jesus on the grounds of treason against Caesar and blasphemy against his religion. Jesus is arrested, tried for treason before the prefect, Pontius Pilate, and condemned to crucifixion. All of Judea turns out for the crucifixion of the "King of the Jews". The Romans brace for a riot. Caesar sends word to Pilate that under no circumstances is he to allow the situation to get out of control. Pilate sends emissaries to surrounding governors and rulers, asking for assistance if he should need it. The entire eastern Mediterranean is on edge.

Jesus is publically crucified. The Romans document the event. A letter is sent to Caesar documenting the execution and that all riots have been put down. The Jews document the event. Both parties state that Jesus died but that after dying a spear was plunged into his side to make sure he was dead prior to taking him off the cross.

Both the Romans and the Jews document that a Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body and placed it in a newly hewn tomb next to Golgotha. Both the Romans and the Jews document that the body was guarded at all times by a company of soldiers, the tomb was sealed, and guards were placed round the clock. The Jews also ordered some of their guards to stand by and watch the tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body.

However, three days later, the tomb was empty. Later that day, followers of Jesus began reporting that Jesus had appeared to them in the flesh. They even touched him and ate fish with him. These reports were initially seen as hysteria. However, then Jesus appeared to a large crowd in the temple. The Sanhedrin and the Pharisees witnessed the appearance and multiple members of the Sanhedrin documented the event. Then Jesus appeared to Pilate and his court. Then to Herod and his court. Both accounts were recorded by multiple members of the court and the testimonies corroborate.

Then Jesus appeared on the top of the temple after calling Pilate, Herod, the Sanhedrin, and all the people together to preach to them. At the end of his sermon, the entire crowd watched as he slowly ascended into the clouds. This event was recorded by multiple Romans, Jews, and Christians. The accounts all corroborate. A report was sent to Caesar by both Pilate and Herod of these events. The two reports corroborate the story. The Sanhedrin also documented these events and this report corroborates the reports of Pilate and Herod.

Gary: Now this would be incredible evidence. It would be very hard to refute. We have multiple, contemporary attestation from antagonistic sources. So why didn't Jesus do this? Why didn't he make his post death appearances to multiple non-believers and not just one---Paul? If Jesus really loves the world why wouldn't he do really spectacular appearances to prove to the world he is God the Creator?

Answer: Jesus wants people to believe by faith, not by miracles.

Huh? Then why do Christians point to miracles today as proof of Jesus' divinity?? Why do Christians make the claim that the reason that Jesus only heals a few of those who pray to him is to show his power and glory, not to heal? And why did Jesus do SO MANY miracles, in public, with huge crowds, in the Gospels, if miracles are not for the purpose of convincing people to believe???

Dear Christians. Don't you see? The reason that the Resurrection appearances were only to believers and to one non-believer on a dark, desert highway is because they didn't ever happen! These stories are most likely legends, or, inventions by the Gospel authors for theological purposes. Think, guys! The preponderance of evidence points to these miracle claims as being fiction.

lets assume that many of jews and romans did witness the empty tomb and Jesus walking around doing miracles. Then they would believe in the resurrection and become Christians at which time you would dismiss anything they wrote and claim that there is no evidence for the resurrection. oh wait, that IS what happened and why the church began to grow by the thousands immediately.

I guess this thread is done. next?

[psstein]

Gary, read this before you keep babbling on about Paul not knowing anything about Jesus' miracles or ministry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-_...ntext_cultures

Oral cultures (like the Mediterranean World in the 1st century) are high context by nature. Written cultures, like the 21st century US are low context by nature.

[seanD]

And many, many people have believed that Mohammad received the true Word of God. The Koran. Many people have been deceived by "false" beliefs. Why wouldn't Jesus have made his message more real to prevent so many people from being deceived? Again, the answer will always be, "Jesus wants people to believe by faith".

I say, baloney!

If Jesus wanted people to believe by faith he wouldn't have done ANY public miracles.

See the obvious, folks: Miracles in Antiquity and today are never done in front of multiple, expert non-believers. Miracles are always performed in front of believers or in front of a few uneducated, superstitious non-believers. The evidence points to miracles not being real.

Please note that I'm not in debate with you on this topic, but really just responding for the sake of others that might be curious about it.

Making the evidence "more real" is an arbitrary statement. There are those that have been given far less evidence that even we have today that were willing to be thrown to lions for their belief, and it's not really based on intelligence as most of the Christians here are just as intelligent, if not more so, than you are as a skeptic. Many of us have debated many skeptics on this board in the past years, presenting skeptical arguments of every flavor and every angle. For me, personally, evidence in favor of the faith has never become more reinforced and clarified as a result. So, evidence is subjective. Some believe with less evidence, others don't believe with more evidence. Evidence can be a driving force towards belief, but like I said, there is apparently other rebellious elements that are determining factors towards belief. From a purely theological perspective, there are biblical passages that imply varying degrees of judgement that are determined by one's exposure to evidence. I obviously don't have specifics about how that will pan out in the end because specifics aren't given. But evidence given to some more than others that are more rebellious in nature might even be shown to have been a form of mercy to them on the day of judgement.