Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

OT: Rebelious reopening of locked topic 26-Aug-2010 At 1:30:05 AM dave h.

Message

On 26/08/2010 simey wrote:
>What genuine proof is there that Jesus rose from the dead? I'm sure there
>are all sorts of potential scenarios. I will look forward to hearing what
>you put forward.

I think that we will disagree as to what constitutes "genuine proof." If you're looking for absolute proof then it's not there. But then absolute proof would be a standard of proof applied to no other historical question (because history can't ever provide proof to that standard). If you want absolute proof then a lot of ancient history goes up in smoke.

I'd make the following points:

1) The idea that a prophet or teacher would be resurrected bodily was one foreign to the Jews of the first century. Similarly it was not something which either the Greeks or Romans had any expectation of.

2) The belief that Jesus was resurrected can be dated to circa 33 AD. (We know this because there is a copy of a letter Paul wrote to the Corinthians which dates to the mid 50s. In the letter Paul quotes a Creed, which Paul says he received at his conversion - IE in the mid 30s. The Creed affirms Jesus' divinity, his death, and his resurrection).

So if you accept that #1 & #2 are true, I think you have reasonable grounds for accepting that Christians believed in the resurrection from the very beginning. (Obviously this is different to proving that their belief was correct). So, what reasons can be advanced for believing that this belief are correct?

3) The empty tomb. Extrabiblical historical sources confirm the Biblical account of tension between the Jesus and the Pharisees (a Jewish sect whose authority was threatened by Jesus' popularity and teaching). If you don't know the story, the Biblical gospels teach that it was the Pharisees who orchestrated Jesus' execution at the hands of the Romans. The point is, had the Pharisees wanted to disprove the Resurrection, which they certainly would have, they could simply have gone down to the tomb, seen Jesus' body rotting there, and then shown the people the fraud the disciples were attempting to perpetrate. They didn't. Instead they argued that the disciples had stolen Jesus' body.

4) There are a number of eyewitnesses who, the Bible says, saw/met/spoke to the resurrected Jesus. Again Paul's letter to the Corinthians details a number of these (1 Corinthians 15:3-8 if you care to check).
a) The gospels indicate that women were the first eyewitnesses. This is significant because, in Jewish antiquity, women's testimony was not admissible in a court of law. If the authors of the gospels were fabricating their story, why would they choose such unreliable (to their mind) witnesses? If you were inventing a story, surely you'd choose witnesses who would be regarded as reliable by your intended audience.
b) Paul's readers could have checked with the people whom Paul alleges saw the resurrected Jesus. Paul would know they could check. Evidently he thought the people he designates as eyewitnesses would corroborate his claim.
c) The disciples were individuals in a position to know whether or not the resurrection of Jesus occurred. They were either convinced that it occurred, or were willing to die for a lie they had helped construct.

And after you changed your reply:
>Like I said earlier, the whole notion that you need to believe this sort of stuff to attain life after death (if >such a thing exists) is stupid. A good and just God isn't going to judge people based on their beliefs. >Christianity is silly because it simply contradicts itself.

Well that's a sophisticated argument. Quite frankly, people have been trying to tear down Christianity for 2000 years. Demonstrating some sort of internal inconsistency or contradiction would be a pretty good way to do it, and so far no-one has succeeded. But don't let that deter you - so, what exactly is contradictory about Christianity?