The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[Xavier]

"That Jesus was crucified [under Pontius Pilate] is as certain as anything historical can ever be" ~ John Dominic Crossan of the Liberal Jesus Seminar.

“the evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.” ~ Atheist turned Deist Antony Flew.

"That is why, as a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus Christ rose from the dead, leaving an Empty Tomb behind Him". ~ NT Scholar N.T. Wright.

"For not by wealth of money, not by wisdom of words, not by anything else of this kind, did the fishermen prevail; so that objectors must even against their will acknowledge that there was in these men a Divine power, for no human strength could ever possibly effect such great results." ~ Saint John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople.

The Argument for the Resurrection, which has persuaded many over the years, including former Atheists, is as follows: (1) There are 4 or 5 well-documented naturalistic historical facts that any historical theory must explain. These naturalistic facts are acknowledged or admitted by even most Secular Historians today. (2) the best explanation for these 4 or 5 facts is the one the eyewitnesses gave, i.e. the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

These 4 or 5 facts are as follows. (1) Jesus Christ was publicly crucified and died under Pontius Pilate in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius. (2) He was buried and then His Tomb was found Empty shortly thereafter. (3) His Apostles unanimously, soon after, from a manifestly sincere conviction, began to believe and to preach that He had Risen from the Dead. (4) The Apostles proclaimed this unwaveringly to their own deaths, preferring heroic martyrdoms to denying this Truth. (5) The best explanation of the above facts is that they, not e.g. the Pharisees who claimed "the Apostles stole the body" were telling the Truth.

Now, as the discussion progresses, I will cite more evidence for specific points. But, for sources, beside St. Paul and the Apostles, one can consult: (1) The Toledot Yeshu: a hostile Jewish account of the Life of Jesus Christ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu It admits His Parents were called Joseph and Mary. It acknowledges He professed to be born of a Virgin according to Isaiah (7:14) and was the Promised Messiah. It acknowledges Jesus Christ performed or was believed to perform miracles, attributing them to magic. It recognizes one of His Disciples was Judas Iscariot. It acknowledges His Tomb was found Empty. It confirms St. Matthew's statement in the Gospel that the Synagogue began to spread the claim that the Apostles had "stolen the body". It gives "the other side" of the story. (2) Tacitus on Christ: Tacitus confirms St. Luke's statement that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was Emperor. Tacitus is the official Roman biographer of the Roman Emperors, so his confirmation carries great weight. (3) Flavius Josephus on Jesus Christ: Flavius Josephus is admitted to recognize at least some basic facts of Christ's Life, like His public ministry to both Jews and Gentiles, His death under Pilate, and the fact that many continued to believe in Him even after His Death. He also mentions other Biblical figures like John the Baptist and St. James, the First Bishop of Jerusalem. Others like (4) Pliny the Younger confirm the Early Christians viewed Jesus Christ as God, something they hardly would have done without believing in His Resurrection.

Beside Jewish and Pagan sources, among Christian sources, we have (1) Saint Paul, or Rabbi Saul's, Epistles. Rabbi Saul was a former Jewish Rabbi of the highest repute in the Synagogue, having studied under Rabbi Gamaliel, whom the Jews to this day highly venerate as great teacher. We have many of St. Paul's letters, including those which the harshest critics have never denied is authentic. Most of them date from the ADs 40 to AD 60, i.e. about 5 to 25 years after Christ's Death. Yet, they confirm all the basic facts in the Life of Christ, His Davidic Descent, His being the Son of God, having died for sins, having rose from the dead etc. (2) The Testimony of St. Matthew, St. John, St. Peter etc and the Apostles: These Apostles, both in the Gospels they wrote or influenced (St. Mark's Gospel was influenced by St. Peter's proclamations, as many Early Church Fathers attest), as well as in their Epistles, repeatedly announce they believe Christ was risen, died for our sins, is the Son of God etc. (3) The Testimony of other disciples, and the Early Church Fathers: Beside the 12 Apostles, we have both the historical and Scriptural testimony of the other 70 (or 72) disciples of Jesus Christ, whom He sent out 2 by 2, as well as the testimonies of the Early Church Fathers, some of whom, like St. Ignatius of Antioch, were direct disciples of the Apostles of Christ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

All in all, strong evidence. This evidence caused former Atheist, and investigative journalist Lee Strobel, to change his mind (https://relevantmagazine.com/current/lee...-happened/) and is summarized by the CE like this: "Briefly, therefore, the fact of Christ's Resurrection is attested by more than 500 eyewitnesses, whose experience, simplicity, and uprightness of life rendered them incapable of inventing such a fable, who lived at a time when any attempt to deceive could have been easily discovered, who had nothing in this life to gain, but everything to lose by their testimony, whose moral courage exhibited in their apostolic life can be explained only by their intimate conviction of the objective truth of their message. Again the fact of Christ's Resurrection is attested by the eloquent silence of the Synagogue which had done everything to prevent deception, which could have easily discovered deception, if there had been any, which opposed only sleeping witnesses to the testimony of the Apostles, which did not punish the alleged carelessness of the official guard, and which could not answer the testimony of the Apostles except by threatening them "that they speak no more in this name to any man" (Acts 4:17). Finally the thousands and millions, both Jews and Gentiles, who believed the testimony of the Apostles in spite of all the disadvantages following from such a belief, in short the origin of the Church, requires for its explanation the reality of Christ's Resurrection, for the rise of the Church without the Resurrection would have been a greater miracle than the Resurrection itself." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm

Thoughts? God Bless.

[Astreja]

Thoughts?

Pure unadulterated horseshit from biased sources.

People. Do. Not. Come. Back. From. The. Dead.  Grow the fuck up, Xavier.

[Xavier]

Naturalistically, yes, they do not. But for the supernatural Creator of the Universe, it is an easy thing to raise the dead, and thus demonstrate His Omnipotence as the Almighty.

If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, Astreja, there would have been no Christianity after His death; not one of His Apostles would have died for a dead Messiah who remained dead. We know this in the case of other 1st century claimed messiahs, some of whom are mentioned in the NT, and others known through history. After the leaders were killed, these other messianic movements scattered and all came to nothing. Not so with Christianity.

[Minimalist]

There was no grand plot to steal the 2020 election from Trump, either, but he said there was and 6,000 assholes stormed the capitol firm in the BELIEF that it was so.

People BELIEVE lots of silly shit.  Doesn't make it true.

[AutisticWill]

MOTHER OF FUCKING GOD -- BAN THIS TROLL ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!

MOTHER OF FUCKING GOD -- BAN THIS TROLL ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!

MOTHER OF FUCKING GOD -- BAN THIS TROLL ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!


Gettin real tiered of this shit......

[AutisticWill]

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...
Thoughts? ..

YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE -- GET OUT OF OUR HOUSE

[Paleophyte]

Naturalistically, yes, they do not. But for the supernatural Creator of the Universe, it is an easy thing to raise the dead, and thus demonstrate His Omnipotence as the Almighty.

No competent Creator needs, well anything, but certainly not to whelp a mortal and then torture and kill it.

If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, Astreja, there would have been no Christianity after His death

And that's precisely what happened. Christianity died on the cross with not one convert. The Jews knew that you can't be the Messiah if you're dead and the Gentiles didn't want to give up bacon or cut bits off their genitals. The last of its adherents perished in the revolt and destruction of the second temple a few decades later, assuming that any lived that long. What you worship has nothing to do with Christianity and was concocted by Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus. It gained traction as a mystery cult amongst the Greeks and Romans and became twisted into myth and legend long before anybody put any of the gospels to paper. Your religion was invented by somebody who never met Christ.

[Cavebear]

Why do these theist fanatics keep coming here? We obviously aren't very subject to conversion. And they offer such nonsense in support of their superstitions. I mean, they detail a life and resurrection of a person they can't even actually prove existed at all.

And they attempt to prove things by circular logic. As in, using the bible to "prove" things that are only mentioned in the bible using the bible to prove what they say about the bible. And around and around they go.

I expect this new crazy theist will not stay around for long since he won't find much of an audience here. So I will mostly just leave him alone until he leaves. If he stays, I will reply to him then.

[Astreja]

Naturalistically, yes, they do not. But for the supernatural Creator of the Universe, it is an easy thing to raise the dead, and thus demonstrate His Omnipotence as the Almighty.

That's if and only if your "supernatural Creator of the Universe" actually existed.  I believe that it's fictional.

If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, Astreja, there would have been no Christianity after His death...

Not demonstrated.  The whole thing can easily be explained by "It's just a story."  In the case of Christianity, it's a story that makes alluring promises - the prospect of cheating death and living forever in paradise.  No actual Jesus is required.  The only thing that is required is credulity, and you're the poster child for "believes stupid things because he wants them to be true."

[Minimalist]

Why do these theist fanatics keep coming here?

They think they'll get bonus point in heaven from this jesus shithead.

[Reltzik]

These 4 or 5 facts are as follows. (1) Jesus Christ was publicly crucified and died under Pontius Pilate in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius. (2) He was buried and then His Tomb was found Empty shortly thereafter. (3) His Apostles unanimously, soon after, from a manifestly sincere conviction, began to believe and to preach that He had Risen from the Dead. (4) The Apostles proclaimed this unwaveringly to their own deaths, preferring heroic martyrdoms to denying this Truth. (5) The best explanation of the above facts is that they, not e.g. the Pharisees who claimed "the Apostles stole the body" were telling the Truth.

Taken in reverse order:

(5)  While the scenario of multiple people knowingly dying for a lie is implausible, that implausibility is reduced by two considerations.  First, that they might be dying for something they considered a noble lie, a myth that would, in their minds, lead people to be better people.  And second, the alternative (supposedly) being divine incarnation and resurrection.  Cult leaders doing some crazy suicidal stuff, however incomprehensible it might be, is an event that happens every few decades, and that means it's a more probable occurrence than something that, if Christianity is to believed, happened only once in all of history.

(4)  Okay, they believed it was the truth on faith.  That's different than knowing it's the truth.  For someone who actually new it was the truth you'd need to identify eyewitnesses, which even if we believe the Christian narrative gives us very few options.  (IDENTIFIED eyewitnesses -- Paul saying there were 500 unnamed witnesses doesn't count, especially when his basis for that claim is scripture.)  Also, while early Christian tradition loved telling stories of their heroes choosing death over abandoning the faith, this seems to be embellishment.  For example, Peter is believed to have been killed by Nero following the great fire of Rome, and is often presented as an example of this martyrdom-over-denial trope.  However, contemporary accounts indicate that Nero's purge of Rome's Christians was done to provide scapegoats following the fire, so that Romans would have someone to blame other than Nero for it.  It's unlikely that these scapegoats would even be offered the opportunity to recant their religion, or even to make any public statements at all.  There are no independent contemporary accounts of such an offer being extended, much less rejected, to any of the individuals that would supposedly have been eyewitnesses.  The only basis for this belief is Christian tradition.

(3)  We have no independent accounts of the first few decades of Christianity.  But sure, there were probably people preaching it, and they could easilly have called themselves apostles.

(2)  The only evidence for this, and I use the word loosely, is Christian tradition.  There are no independent accounts of Jesus's burial or resurrection.  Crucified criminals were almost always left to rot on the cross as part of the punishment and then disposed of in mass graves, and there's no reason beyond Church tradition to think that anything else would have happened to Jesus's body.

(1)  Many people were crucified, and some had names like Yeshua or the like.  It's plausible.  But without being able to identify which (if any) of the patchy historical accounts of people crucified was actually Jesus there's no independent corroboration.

So I'll grant you point 1 as plausible and point 3 as probable.  Points 2 and 4 don't have any basis I can see beyond the Church saying "trust me, bro", and no, I don't trust the Christian Church.  Point 5 I flatly disagree with.

Skimming through your additional sources:

There's pretty good evidence that the gospels were not written by the people they are traditionally attributed to and are, instead, anonymous.  Paul, by his own admission, was not a witness of Jesus's life, death, or resurrection.  In any event, relying on Paul and the Gospels require us to take the Church at its word, without corroboration.  Same with Ignatius.  Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger were born too late to be witnesses, and their historical accounts were compiled a generation or so after the purported events and cannot be considered contemporary.  And the authorship of the Toledot cannot be confidently placed to any date in the first millennium.

If we cite a bunch of ex-Christians who deconverted after examining the evidence, would you take that as persuasive in the way you seem to think we should take Strobel's conversion as persuasive?  If not, then why do instances of atheists switching to Christianity prove anything when instances of Christians switching to atheism do not?

[SaxonX]

Lee Strobel claims he was atheist we have zero proof of that and it's exactly what lying Christian apologist (Lee Strobel is no way shape or form an investigative anything ) So using him as an argument for anything is pointless. 

[SaxonX]

Also serious ban this guy for thread spamming already

[Deesse23]

This sermon is so fucking wrong, on every conceivalbe level....
Can we please ban this preacher? How long will this guy be allowed to throw shit at the wall, while pretending to be "open for discussion"? What good are forum rules for if they are not enforced?

[SaxonX]

Agreed

[Xavier]

How extremely rude. Abuse and insult me like anything, I don't respond in kind, then try to get me banned. So much for Atheists being kind and charitable or logical and relying only on reasoned argument. Its just words. If I'm wrong, it's nothing. If I'm right, then Heaven is at stake. Anyway, do what you want.

[SaxonX]

How extremely rude.

Wanting to kick out a useless preachy troll who spams threads isn't rude 

Abuse and insult me like anything,

You have no way shape or form been abused you big baby and insults are warranted 

I don't respond in kind,

Again you are preachy troll wasting everyone's time that insulting enough 

then try to get me banned. 

Yup I'm trying to get a preachy thread spamming troll banned as any good forum samaritan  would. Your presence her is a joke and bad one at that so spare me your pearl clutching. 

So much for Atheists being kind and charitable or logical and relying only on reasoned argument.

We are which is why you not being here makes sense as you have no interest in any of that you just wan to preach and spam threads and troll those are not conducive to ant logical or reasonable argumentation . Kindness has limits and merely letting be here and make threads was charity enough  I think you stretched both to the breaking point. 

Its just words. If I'm wrong, it's nothing. If I'm right, then Heaven is at stake.

No it's preaching which isn't allowed here this is not a church go preach there it has no place here the same goes for your trolling and thread spam take it elsewhere. 

 Anyway, do what you want.

Right now for you to leave as you have shown your colours and you are of no use here and your presence is of no value.

[1Sam15]

Naturalistically, yes, they do not. But for the supernatural Creator of the Universe, it is an easy thing to raise the dead, and thus demonstrate His Omnipotence as the Almighty.

If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, Astreja, there would have been no Christianity after His death; not one of His Apostles would have died for a dead Messiah who remained dead. We know this in the case of other 1st century claimed messiahs, some of whom are mentioned in the NT, and others known through history. After the leaders were killed, these other messianic movements scattered and all came to nothing. Not so with Christianity.

Why can jesus magically rise from the dead but has to rape Marry to become human?

[Deesse23]

How extremely rude. Abuse and insult me like anything, I don't respond in kind, then try to get me banned. So much for Atheists being kind and charitable or logical and relying only on reasoned argument. Its just words. If I'm wrong, it's nothing. If I'm right, then Heaven is at stake. Anyway, do what you want.

Im not impressed by your fake humilty. I am also not impressed by your fake civility. Pick a topic, stick to it. Engage in honest discourse, not the fundamentally dishonest tactics* you are using here. Accept when you are proven to be wrong (when was the last time you had to accept that you were wrong?**) and stop spamming the forum with new threads instead. Its painfully obvious what you are doing here, so stop pretending. Climb down from your cross.

Show respect and you will, in return rewarded with respect. Show up, flood the forum with bullshit, bigotry, lies, fallacies and falsities, not engaging in honest discussion, not admitting to your numerous mistakes about the most basic stuff, but instead douublig down thats rude.

Just one piece of evidence for your utter ignorance, and for the fact that you wont, ever, admit to being wrong: You dont even understand why Pascals wager is stupid: If you are wrong, you may go to muslim hell, and make us go to muslim hell too!

Its just words. If I'm wrong, it's nothing. If I'm right, then Heaven is at stake.

* cherry picking, to which you already admitted, but cant see any wrong with it. Or associating people in here with North-Korea or communism.
** like your complete lack of understanding of cosmology, math and science, when pointed out by people who are educated in these fields.

[brewerb]

How extremely rude. Abuse and insult me like anything, I don't respond in kind, then try to get me banned. So much for Atheists being kind and charitable or logical and relying only on reasoned argument. Its just words. If I'm wrong, it's nothing. If I'm right, then Heaven is at stake. Anyway, do what you want.

I might feel sorry for you and these attacks if you weren't such a huge fucking moron.

You brought this on yourself, time to put your big girl pants on and own it.

[Gwaithmir]

Historians and writers contemporary to Jesus:

Philo of Alexandria c.20 BCE-c.50 CE
Florius Lucius 5 BCE-55 CE
Geminus 10 BCE-50 CE
Phaedrus 15 BCE-50 CE
Titus Livius 59 BCE-17 CE
Marcus Velleius Paterculus 19 BCE-31 CE
Pomponius Mela 15 BCE-45 CE
Valerius Maximus 10BCE-57 CE
Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4-65 CE
Hero of Alexandria 10-70 CE
Appolonius of Tyana 15-106 CE
Gaius Musonius Rufus 20-101 CE
Pliny the Elder 23-79 CE
Silius Italicus 28-101 CE
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus 35-100 CE
Martial 38-102 CE

If Jesus' life and death were so historically important, why did all of these writers have NOTHING to say about him? 

[Deesse23]

How extremely rude.

Rude let me tell you whats rude!

Creating an account on AF, spamming it with the same script as you did here*, getting some final warnings to change your behaviour, not adapting your behaviour, then getting banned and after that creating (how many? 10-20?) sock puppets.

You are talking about being polite. Yet, you couldnt be arsed to be honest about even your identity(ies) on AF.

Thats rude.

* evidencing that you are a preacher, unable to listen, to learn, to admit of ever being wrong

[CapriMark1]

"That Jesus was crucified [under Pontius Pilate] is as certain as anything historical can ever be" ~ John Dominic Crossan of the Liberal Jesus Seminar.

Xavier,

This is why people get angry at religion.  This is a fabrication - an outright lie!  There is no independent verification of ANYTHING in the Bible.  But there are things in the Bible that are clearly wrong historically.

Look at the reaction you got above.  People hate being lied to - especially if it is so obvious.

And the person posting the lies loses credibility.

Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Capri

[Dānu]

If Jim Jones weren't divinely ordained, a couple hundred people wouldn't have killed themselves for him.

[Cavebear]

If Jim Jones weren't divinely ordained, a couple hundred people wouldn't have killed themselves for him.

What? Am I misunderstanding you somehow? Are you saying that if some minor crazies killed themselves at the command of a major crazy, that validates the major crazies belief?

Please tell me that your post was some unusually obtuse snarky joke.