Are you religious?

[Galant]

This resurrection thing has been going back and forth on the theft issue, if I may put things back into perspective.

I am writing this to show the historical evidence and case for the resurrection of Jesus. Tha aim is to show that those elements of the Christian religion which seem far-fetched are in fact reasonable and carry the weight of historical evidence.

The resurrection is a central, foundational doctrine within Christianity. Without it Christianity does not stand. It may seem a scary thought for Christians to put so much on such a 'hard to believe' event, yet if you do not out of hand deny the existence of God and the possibility of his being able to do the miraculous (which I would suggest is the correct attitude of an open mind and honest logical investigation), then it can be seen that the resurrection is not only possible but history suggests that it did in fact occur.

There are three main points to consider. Points which history will testify to. First there is an empty tomb, second there is the growth and resilience of Christianity in the face of those trying to destroy it, thirdly there are the lives and witnesses of the disciples following the 'resurrection'.

Regarding the first point. We have said that Jesus was a real man who lived and preached and was executed. That he was buried, but that three days later his body was not in the tomb. We have talked about potential theft and I think shown that the historical evidence and reaoning does not support that theory. A few others remain.

There is the possibility that the women who first reported the empty tomb could have seen the wrong one!

However, owing to the fact that Jesus' tomb was that of a wealthy and respected individual - Joseph of Arimathea - he would have identified the right tomb in no time, as would the Jewish and Roman authorities who would have wanted to dismiss the claims. Also, after the women's accounts the disciples who then went to see for themselves would also have had to make the mistake of going to the wrong tomb.

So evidence and reason would reject the idea that people looked in the wrong tomb.

Next there is the theory that Jesus wasn't dead in the first place, he just fainted with pain and looked dead.

There are several reason to discount this notion also. Firstly, the Romans who crucified knew their job, the accounts tell of them checking to make sure he was dead. Assuming they had been mistaken, you then have the problem of Jesus being buried according to custom. That custom included his being wrapped in linen with various spices. All in all historians believed that would come to about 100lbs of materials tightly wound. A weakened Jesus would have had a very, very difficult (if not impossible) time unwrapping himself. In addition, the tomb would have been very cold, conditions not favouring a recovery from near death. Finally, if he did revive and get out of the linen he would then have had to single handedly move the very, very large stone closing the entrance. A flogged, beaten, and recently crucified man would have not been able to move that stone.

Did the disciples help him out? You have all the guard problems once again. The ensuing Roman authority problems, and the disciples still lying about the account from there on out. Again, history refutes this possiblity.

History supports the emptiness of Jesus' tomb. What's more it is entirely silent on where his body did show up - except for the accounts of people seeing him alive and 'resurrected'.

Looking at those accounts what you had was disciples bearing witness to Jesus' resurrection. They were doing this in many places but of note is Jerusalem. In the face of the Jewish and Roman leaders, people were speaking of Jesus' resurrection. Paul a number of years later wrote a letter which includes the information that Jesus appeared to 500 people on one occasion. He then states that most of those are still alive and available for questioning.

Historical documents show Jesus dead, they show his tomb empty, and they show Jesus appearing after those events. They do not anywhere show his dead body showing up. So, the question now is what to do with these accounts?

It's easy to just say people were lying, or they were mistaken, or they hallucinated, however:

If they were lying they were (as said before) willing to suffer horribly and die for that lie. Some were willing to give up good lives to live that pain inducing lie. Paul for example who is recorded as a chief Christian killer would choose to put himself in the firing line of those who was leading because of that lie, or mistake. What's more, the idea of their lying would run contrary to everything they would be believing in and teaching, and they would not recieve anything but a life of harship and cruel death for that lie. Had any one of them decided to 'fess up' I imagine there would have been a big reward waiting with the Jewish leadership who would have leaped right on it. In that hostile crowd, no hostile witnesses were found.

Hallucinations?

The accounts go against the psycholgical principles governing hallucinations. Those who were to have experienced them were not expecting Jesus' appearance, they were hiding and in disbelief. Accounts also show some who were doubting and demanding a closer look. Not people who would experience a hallucination or be taken in. Where there are large groups that makes hallucination even more unlikely.

------

Signing off for the evening, more tomorrow.

[Knoxville]

I have no proof but I'm sure I remember something or other from sunday school about a roman general hating him, I may be wrong , its just a theory tbh.

[Big RICHARD]

Didn't the Jews crucify Jesus because the Romans asked them to?

Surely that was the usual form of punishment for people who went aroung claiming they were God's son?

If someone walks around today claiming to be God's son then they would be given a nice new jacket that lets you cuddle yourself and be thrown into a room with nice comfortable walls..... This is our way of dealing with these kind of people.

Why haven't we seen any miracles since the times of the bible?

[nichomach]

Other way around, Big RICHARD. It was the Romans who performed crucifixions. Pilate didn't want to crucify Jesus; he had to keep the Sanhedrin and Herod sweet, however, so he gave in. Oh, and there wasn't a "usual form of punishment" since despite what the Python boys'd have you believe it wasn't exactly a regular occurrence.

As to why we're seeing no-one living performing miracles, well, until the Son of God returns you wouldn't expect to, would you? Since they were performed through his agency.

[Big RICHARD]

I thought God performed miracles?

[Stewart]

Channel 5 continues to broadcast, years after its launch. A miracle that puts even the walking on water trick to shame, I think you'll agree.

[nichomach]

Channel 5 continues to broadcast, years after its launch. A miracle that puts even the walking on water trick to shame, I think you'll agree.

I tend to regard that more as evidence of the essential frailty of humanity...

[Grey M@a]

We're all entitled to our opinions I guess. What made you decide that the bible is historically inaccurate?

What proof do we have that it ever happened apart from the stories? As far as we know it could just be travellers stories just collated into a book. There is nothing else to say otherwise is there.

[nichomach]

I thought God performed miracles?

Yes; but dependent upon your belief (if you're a Christian) the Son of God was given power directly by God, or indeed was an aspect of God (God being comprised of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit). All miracles do or did come from God (well, maybe not the Channel 5 thing... ), it's just that the agency by which they occurred (the presence of the Son in human form) hasn't recurred since and won't recur until the last days. That said, God still can perform miracles, and still does; it's just that He's not here as a living breathing human so that you can point to Him and say "Look! That's the bloke! Over there...yes, the one walking ON the water...".

[nichomach]

What proof do we have that it ever happened apart from the stories? As far as we know it could just be travellers stories just collated into a book. There is nothing else to say otherwise is there.

Well, as far as the New Testament is concerned, there's extremely good supporting evidence from multiple sources; Roman among others (they documented the activities of Yashuah ben Joseph fairly extensively, and those of the Apostles). The Old Testament is more problematic; I tend toward the view that a lot of Genesis for instance is more parable than documentary, and a lot of it is more guidance or worship than documentary (Proverbs, or Psalms), but the supporting evidence for other parts from other sources is good - there's arguing over dates, but locations and people are pretty well confirmed. Besides which, we accept single-source accounts as being at least partially accurate with regard to other periods of history; we only have one account of the Persian invasion of Greece which led to Thermopylae and Plataea (Herodotus) but we accept that though his numbers might be a bit skew-whiff the essential story is true.

[Galant]

Okay, well this isn't quite 'tomorrow', but I hate to not follow through when I said I'd do something and I need to give credit where it is due.

So, we were working on the assumption that to decide upon the veracity of historical acts we must look at the available information, documents and sources, and having weighed the evidence, come to a conlusion. I had been attemption to show that the evidence of history lies in favour of a resurrection - leaving skeptics with very large questions to answer and problems to explain.

I don't intend to drag this out much longer, but wanted to first acknowledge Josh McDowell as an author from whom I've borrowed much information, and some of the sources he has cited.

Secondly, I wanted to add some further weight to the points previously made by adding some quotes from historians and others who have looked at or spoken on this issue of the resurrection.

First of all, with regards to the Bible, particularly the New Testament, being a reliable historical document:

"There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias."

Clark Pinnock
Mcmaster University

"If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."


F. F. Bruce
Manchester University

"For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."

A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian

Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.

"By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.

Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.""


Some may ask - how do we know it's true, it could just be...

The same way we come to conclude that any other historical document is true. Using the same processes. We can say, "but it could just be..." all day long, out of ignorance of the evidence, but the evidence and research and reasoning is there, for those who actually want to know.


Next, regarding the content of the accounts given in the New Testament about the resurrection etc.:

Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago."

"Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth Jeshu." Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine.""

When looking at the resurrection it's important to remember that it didn't just happen in secret or in a place where no-one knew or was interested. Jesus didn't just secretly plan to fake his own death. He was killed by those who disliked him, who wanted rid of him. He hadn't been planning it all out, nor his disciples. What's more the same people who had him killed made efforts to prevent his returning to life - or any scheme to make things look that way - and were he to come back, those same people would do anything to quiet it down, stop it, or kill him again. For the skeptic, there is the fact that at that time then there were those prepared to work as skeptics - to disprove it, prevent it, and to ultimately provide the case that the skeptic would want to hold - that it did not happen.

That environment is a hostile environment and is a significance regarding the whole issue of the occurence and historicity of the resurrection.

Finally, regarding the general historical evidence in favour of the resurrection:


Paul Maier observes that " . . . if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement."

"Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.""

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University

"There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias."

Clark Pinnock
Mcmaster University

Put simply, the argument is that if we can know of any fact in ancient history then we know of the resurrection. For by the same methods of evidencing all other historical events, we see that the resurrection is historical. Perhaps then, the main reason it is disregarded is because people do not wish to deal with what it might mean - or because they unscientifically disregard the possibility of certain things out of hand.

So then whatever youmay choose to believe, know that the accounts of the resurrection cannot be dismissed as myth or pipe-dreams, for they carry the weight of bearing up under historical scrutiny.