ElShamah Ministries: Defending the Christian Worldview and Creationism
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah Ministries: Defending the Christian Worldview and Creationism

Otangelo Grasso: This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Evidence of the resurrection

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Evidence of the resurrection Empty Evidence of the resurrection Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:46 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Evidence of the resurrection

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1764-evidence-of-the-resurrection

Titus Flavius Josephus, Roman secular historian form the 1st century writes in Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII:
3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

For two thousand years the historicity of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection has been challenged on many grounds. But no one has ever produced evidence of the kind that brought President Nixon down—“a smoking gun,” that is, evidence that could contradict the biblical account. Is that not evidence of its veracity? Can you think of any other event in history that has been so thoroughly examined, has not been disproved, and yet some still disbelieve it? The consistent eyewitness testimony of the apostles and earliest believers to the reality of Jesus' bodily resurrection, given among those hostile to the claims of Jesus, clearly points to the resurrection as a historical reality.
Chuck Colson (from, The Faith: What Christians Believe, Why They Believe It, and Why It Matters)

The disciples had nothing to gain by lying and starting a new religion. They faced hardship, ridicule, hostility, and martyr's deaths. In light of this, they could never have sustained such unwavering motivation if they knew what they were preaching was a lie. The disciples were not fools and Paul was a cool-headed intellectual of the first rank. There would have been several opportunities over three to four decades of ministry to reconsider and renounce a lie. - J.P. Moreland

The real issue of the resurrection deals with its evidence. This evidence consists of the testimony of many people who stated that they had seen Jesus after His crucifixion and death. The same people who testified of the resurrection of Christ also gave up their social and economic security and put their lives on the line in order proclaim that Jesus had risen. Does it make any sense at all to say that they knew Jesus did not rise from the dead and had concocted an elaborate plan in order to deceive a great many people into believing that Jesus had risen? Why would they do that?  Does it also make any sense that they would continue in this lie while being persecuted, ostracized from family and friends, beaten, imprisoned, and finally killed for what they believed?  It makes more sense to believe that their actions were consistent with their teaching. In other words, they taught about self-sacrifice, dedication to truth, love, peace, etc., and they based it all on the risen Lord.  It was based upon the truth that they had seen.

“The Gospels were written in such temporal and geographical proximity to the events they record that it would have been almost impossible to fabricate events. Anyone who cared to could have checked out the accuracy of what they reported. The fact that the disciples were able to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem in the face of their enemies a few weeks after the crucifixion shows that what they proclaimed was true, for they could never have proclaimed the resurrection under such circumstances had it not occurred.

The Gospels could not have been corrupted without a great outcry on the part of orthodox Christians. Against the idea that there could have been a deliberate falsifying of the text, no one could have corrupted all the manuscripts. Moreover, there is no precise time when the falsification could have occurred, since, as we have seen, the New Testament books are cited by the church fathers in regular and close succession. The text could not have been falsified before all external testimony, since then the apostles were still alive and could repudiate any such tampering with the Gospels.

The miracles of Jesus were witnessed by hundreds of people, friends and enemies alike; that the apostles had the ability to testify accurately to what they saw; that the apostles were of such doubtless honesty and sincerity as to place them above suspicion of fraud; that the apostles, though of low estate, nevertheless had comfort and life itself to lose in proclaiming the gospel; and that the events to which they testified took place in the civilized part of the world under the Roman Empire, in Jerusalem, the capital city of the Jewish nation. Thus, there is no reason to doubt the apostles’ testimony concerning the miracles and resurrection of Jesus. It would have been impossible for so many to conspire together to perpetrate such a hoax. And what was there to gain by lying? They could expect neither honor, nor wealth, nor worldly profit, nor fame, nor even the successful propagation of their doctrine. Moreover, they had been raised in a religion that was vastly different from the one they preached. Especially foreign to them was the idea of the death and resurrection of the Jewish Messiah. This militates against their concocting this idea. The Jewish laws against deceit and false testimony were very severe, which fact would act as a deterrent to fraud.

Suppose that no resurrection or miracles occurred: how then could a dozen men, poor, coarse, and apprehensive, turn the world upside down? If Jesus did not rise from the dead, declares Ditton, then either we must believe that a small, unlearned band of deceivers overcame the powers of the world and preached an incredible doctrine over the face of the whole earth, which in turn received this fiction as the sacred truth of God; or else, if they were not deceivers, but enthusiasts, we must believe that these extremists, carried along by the impetus of extravagant fancy, managed to spread a falsity that not only common folk, but statesmen and philosophers as well, embraced as the sober truth. Because such a scenario is simply unbelievable, the message of the apostles, which gave birth to Christianity, must be true.

Belief in Jesus’ resurrection flourished in the very city where Jesus had been publicly crucified. If the people of Jerusalem thought that Jesus’ body was in the tomb, few would have been prepared to believe such nonsense as that Jesus had been raised from the dead. And, even if they had so believed, the Jewish authorities would have exposed the whole affair simply by pointing to Jesus’ tomb or perhaps even exhuming the body as decisive proof that Jesus had not been raised.

Three great, independently established facts—the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith—all point to the same marvelous conclusion: that God raised Jesus from the dead.”
― William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics

If you can disprove Jesus' resurrection, you will single-handedly be responsible for destroying Christianity. 
Craig Hazen

More: 
https://www.facebook.com/notes/vera-plechash/historical-and-textual-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus/10152654616884056



Last edited by Otangelo on Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:47 am; edited 7 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

2Evidence of the resurrection Empty Re: Evidence of the resurrection Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:41 am

Otangelo


Admin

The Martyrdom of the Apostles

http://www.bibleprobe.com/apostles.htm

Some atheists have suggested that the disciples, during the decades following His death, simply invented their accounts of Jesus. These Bible critics say that the disciples, in an attempt to enhance His authority, then published the story that Jesus claimed to be God and was resurrected. Any fair-minded reader should consider the historical evidence.

First, the apostles were continually threatened and pressured to deny their Lord during their ministry; especially as they faced torture and martyrdom. However, none of these men who spent time with Jesus chose to save their lives by denying their faith in Him.

Evidence of the resurrection YR8yYWP

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

3Evidence of the resurrection Empty Re: Evidence of the resurrection Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:51 am

Otangelo


Admin

The site of Jesus tomb

Evidence of the resurrection OP8xKNW

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

4Evidence of the resurrection Empty Re: Evidence of the resurrection Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:38 pm

Otangelo


Admin

The Resurrection of Christ-Alternative explanations fail!



0
What about some of the more recent attempts to explain away Christ’s resurrection?  Were the resurrection accounts legends that grew up around an ordinary man?  Did He not really die on the cross, as put forth in the book The Jesus Papers?  Was the tomb of Jesus actually found?
 
Let’s look at the facts:
Not legends
 

  • Early eyewitness testimony based on appearances is basis for the origin of the belief in the resurrection, not later legends arising.[sup][1][/sup]

  • There is no parallel historical case for legends developing so quickly after the events themselves.[sup][2][/sup]

  • Legends and stories would not have convinced persecutor Paul or skeptic James. Instead they would have suspected some sort of fraud.[sup][3][/sup]

  • Legends don’t explain the empty tomb.

  • Resurrection narratives do not contain the embellishments characteristic of later second-century documents. For example, one later Gnostic fabrication has a giant Jesus and a talking cross emerging from His grave.[sup][4][/sup]

  • There is evidence in the text that the disciples intended to convey real history.[sup][5][/sup][vl1]


The Jesus PapersThis was a popular book by Michael Baigent that claimed Jesus never died but was somehow resuscitated after being crucified. This idea is a wornout theory that should have been buried long ago.

  • The alleged papyrus documents are gone, and there is no translation or other authentication of them. Most likely they never existed. Dr. Craig Evans comments: “No papyrus buried in the ground in Jerusalem will survive two thousand years, period. . .Any archaeologist will tell you that. So there’s nothing to this.”[sup][6][/sup]

  • How would a severely injured, half-dead Jesus convince the disciples He was the risen Lord of glory? Most likely they would have wanted to take Him to a doctor.

  • The Romans were expert executioners; they knew a dead man when they saw one.

  • Baigent’s use of the Greek word soma to exclusively represent a living body is totally wrong.[sup][7][/sup]

  • Physicians and historians who have studied crucifixion have concluded that a person could almost never survive it, even in the unlikely event the Romans somehow took someone down from the cross alive.

  • Almost all scholars reject the Jesus Papers theory.[sup][8][/sup]


 
The Jesus tomb: There was a tomb, an ossuary or “bone box,” found  in Jerusalem in 1980 which reportedly had the names of a Joseph, Mary, Mariamne Mara (whom they took for Mary Magdalene) and a “Jesus son of Joseph.”A film documentary was made in 2007 by James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici suggesting it was the family tomb of Jesus. But practically no serious scholars give this idea any credibility because:

  • All the names inscribed in this tomb were very common. According to Licona,[sup][9][/sup] Mary was the most common woman’s name in Jerusalem, and Joseph was the second most common man’s name. One out of every eleven men was named Jesus. Licona spells out the implications of this: “As Cameron’s documentary said, finding the names of John, Paul and George is no big deal, but when you add Ringo to the pool, you may have something. The problem, of course, is that when you really examine things, there’s no equivalent of ‘Ringo’ in the Talpiot tomb.”[10]


 

  • According to calculations by physicist Randy Ingermanson, one out of every seventynine males in Jerusalem was Jesus, son of Joseph. Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III estimate that during the ninetyyear period in which ossuaries were used―from 20 B.C. to 70 A.D.―there were about eighty thousand males in Jerusalem. That means there were approximately a thousand men named Jesus who had a father named Joseph.”[sup][11][/sup] He goes on to say that even if all the other names found are taken into account approximately eleven men would still be in Jerusalem that fit this exact profile.

  • Furthermore, this does not take into account the fact that there is absolutely no credible evidence Jesus was ever married and much evidence He was single.[sup][12][/sup]

  • Also, the tomb may have included extended family members as well as immediate family. So the Mary or “Mariamne Mara” who was in the tomb could have been an aunt, cousin, etc.

  • DNA tests supposedly showed that “Jesus” and “Mariamne” were not related, and so it was automatically assumed they were married. But this is jumping to quite an unwarranted conclusion! She may have been married to one of several other men in the ossuary, or to none of them, since nothing there indicates who her husband was.[sup][13][/sup] Also, the ossuaries often held more than one skeleton, making it difficult to match up the names with the bones.[sup][14][/sup]

  • Lee Strobel quotes historian Paul Maier: “This is merely naked hype, baseless sensationalism, and nothing less than a media fraud.”[sup][15][/sup]


 
Again, “natural” explanations for the events of the resurrection require greater faith to believe than the resurrection itself; thus, the resurrection is as sure a fact as any history can be. And this is the fact Jesus used to prove He is who He claims to be, and so it follows that what He says about the authority of Scripture is absolutely true.




[1] Strobel, The Case for Christ, 298-299.
[2] McDowell, More Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 210-213.
[3] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 84-89.
[4] Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, 44-45.
[5] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 87-89.
[6] Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, interview with Dr. Craig Evans, 53.
[7] Ibid., 135, interview with Michael Licona.
[8] Ibid., 135.
[9] Ibid., 148-149.
[10] Ibid., 148-149.
[11] Ibid., 148-149.
[12] Ibid., 149-150.
[13] http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/04/so-called-jesus-tomb.
[14] Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, 151.
[15] Ibid., 151.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

5Evidence of the resurrection Empty Re: Evidence of the resurrection Mon Apr 10, 2023 6:42 am

Otangelo


Admin

Contradictions in the Resurrection narratives ?

What time did the women visit the tomb?

The Gospel of Matthew states that "After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb" (Matthew 28:1, NIV). This account suggests that the women visited the tomb early in the morning, after the Sabbath day had ended.

The Gospel of Mark also indicates that "When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body" (Mark 16:1, NIV). This account also implies that the women visited the tomb after the Sabbath had ended, and they had purchased spices to anoint Jesus' body.

On the other hand, the Gospel of Luke seems to suggest a different timing. It states that "On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb" (Luke 24:1, NIV). This account appears to indicate that the women visited the tomb early in the morning on the first day of the week, possibly before the sunrise.

Lastly, the Gospel of John provides a slightly different perspective. It states that "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb" (John 20:1, NIV). This account suggests that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb while it was still dark, on the first day of the week.

The differences in timing among the Gospel accounts can be reconciled by considering the possibility that the women visited the tomb multiple times, at different times of the day, and that the Gospel writers may have focused on different aspects of the events. It's also worth noting that the Gospel writers may have used different cultural or linguistic conventions in describing time, and that the accounts were not meant to be precise chronological records, but rather testimonies of the resurrection event and its significance. Scholars and theologians have proposed various harmonizations and explanations for these differences, and ultimately, the focus of the Gospel accounts is not on the exact timing of the women's visit to the tomb, but on the central message of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is a cornerstone of Christian faith.

Was the tomb open, or closed?

According to the Gospel accounts, the state of the tomb of Jesus at the time of the women's visitation is described differently in different Gospels, and there appears to be some discrepancy or contradiction in this regard.

The Gospel of Matthew states that "There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it" (Matthew 28:2, NIV). This account implies that the tomb was initially closed with a stone, which was rolled away by the angel, allowing the women to see inside.

The Gospel of Mark also mentions that "They [the women] saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away" (Mark 16:4, NIV). This account suggests that the tomb was open, with the stone rolled away, when the women arrived.

The Gospel of Luke does not specifically mention the state of the tomb being open or closed at the time of the women's visit, but it does mention that the women "found the stone rolled away from the tomb" (Luke 24:2, NIV), which implies that the tomb was open.

The Gospel of John provides a different perspective. It states that Mary Magdalene arrived at the tomb and "saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance" (John 20:1, NIV). This account also suggests that the tomb was open, with the stone removed.

While there may be differences in the details provided by the Gospel writers, it's important to note that these accounts were written by different authors, with different perspectives, purposes, and audiences. It's also possible that the Gospel writers were focusing on different aspects of the events, and that the accounts were not meant to provide a precise, chronological description of the state of the tomb. Various harmonizations and explanations have been proposed by scholars and theologians to reconcile these differences. Nonetheless, the central message of the Gospel accounts is that Jesus' tomb was found empty, signifying the resurrection of Jesus, which is a key doctrine of Christian faith.

Who was in the tomb?

According to the Gospel accounts, when the women visited the tomb of Jesus, they did not find anyone inside the tomb. The Gospel of Matthew mentions that an angel of the Lord was present outside the tomb and spoke to the women (Matthew 28:5-7). The Gospel of Mark mentions that the women entered the tomb and found a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side (Mark 16:5). The Gospel of Luke mentions that two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside the women (Luke 24:4). The Gospel of John does not mention anyone being inside the tomb when Mary Magdalene visited (John 20:1-2).

The identities of the individuals described in the Gospel accounts as being present at the tomb vary among the Gospel writers, and there may be differences in their descriptions of the events. It's important to note that the Gospel accounts were written by different authors with different perspectives and purposes, and they may have chosen to emphasize different aspects of the events.

The angels were inside or outside of the tomb?

The Gospel accounts differ in their descriptions of where the angels were in relation to the tomb of Jesus.

In the Gospel of Matthew, the angel of the Lord is mentioned as being outside the tomb, sitting on the stone that had been rolled away from the entrance (Matthew 28:2-7).
In the Gospel of Mark, the young man dressed in a white robe is mentioned as being inside the tomb, sitting on the right side (Mark 16:5).
In the Gospel of Luke, two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning are mentioned as standing beside the women, but it does not specifically mention whether they were inside or outside the tomb (Luke 24:4).
The Gospel of John does not mention any angels being present at the tomb when Mary Magdalene visited (John 20:1-2).

It's important to note that the Gospel accounts were written by different authors with different perspectives and purposes, and they may have chosen to emphasize different aspects of the events.  The differences in the descriptions of the angels' location do not necessarily represent contradictions, but rather different perspectives of the Gospel writers.

Were the angels seating, or standing ?

The Gospel accounts do not specifically mention whether the angels were seated or standing.

In the Gospel of Matthew, the angel of the Lord is mentioned as sitting on the stone that had been rolled away from the entrance of the tomb (Matthew 28:2-7).
In the Gospel of Mark, the young man dressed in a white robe is mentioned as sitting on the right side inside the tomb (Mark 16:5).
In the Gospel of Luke, the two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning are mentioned as standing beside the women, but it does not specify whether they were inside or outside the tomb (Luke 24:4).
The Gospel of John does not mention any angels being present at the tomb when Mary Magdalene visited (John 20:1-2).

The Gospel accounts provide varying details about the angels, and they do not always provide complete descriptions of their physical posture.  The absence of specific details about the angels' posture does not necessarily imply contradictions, but rather differences in emphasis and perspective among the Gospel writers.

Did Maria Magdalene recognize Jesus?

According to the Gospel accounts, Mary Magdalene did not immediately recognize Jesus after his resurrection.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary near the tomb, and they recognized him and worshiped him (Matthew 28:9).
In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, but she did not recognize him until he spoke to her (Mark 16:9-11).
In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, but they did not recognize him until he broke bread with them (Luke 24:13-35). There is no mention of Jesus appearing specifically to Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of Luke.

In the Gospel of John, Mary Magdalene initially did not recognize Jesus at the tomb, but thought he was the gardener. It was only when Jesus called her by name, "Mary," that she recognized him (John 20:11-18).
So, according to the Gospel accounts, Mary Magdalene did not immediately recognize Jesus after his resurrection, but rather had moments of confusion or lack of recognition until Jesus revealed himself to her in some way, such as speaking to her or calling her by name. The details may vary slightly among the Gospel accounts, but they all emphasize that Mary Magdalene eventually recognized Jesus after his resurrection.

Contradictions in the Resurrection narratives

The Gospel accounts, with varying views,
Tell of the tomb where Jesus they did lose.
But contradictions, subtle and clear,
In the details of the resurrection appear.

The women, they went to the tomb with care,
But when they went, it's not so clear.
Matthew and Mark, they both agree
The Sabbath day had come to be.
When it was over, they went to the tomb,
To find the stone rolled from the room.

But Luke and John, they tell a tale,
Of women who set out without fail,
While it was dark or very early,
To the tomb, so sad and burly.
Did they go at dawn or before the light?
The Gospel writers do not unite.

And what of the state of the tomb that day?
Was it open or closed, did it convey
The stone rolled back or still in place?
The Gospel accounts don't show a face
Of agreement in this detail,
As Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John unveil
Different views of the empty grave,
Which in their accounts they try to pave.

Matthew and Mark, they both agree,
The stone was rolled, the tomb was free
Of barrier, and the women saw
An angel outside, without a flaw.
But Luke and John, they do not state
The stone was rolled, a different fate
May have befallen the tomb that day,
As women arrived without delay.

And who was inside the tomb, if any?
The Gospel writers do not agree on many.
Matthew says an angel outside was there,
Mark says a young man, a different air.
Luke mentions two men with gleaming clothes,
John says nothing of any foes
Or friends inside the tomb that day,
Where Jesus' body once did lay.

These contradictions, though they abound,
Do not discredit the truths profound
Of Jesus' resurrection, the central theme
Of Christian faith, a glorious gleam
Of hope and victory over death,
A miracle that took Jesus' breath.
Though Gospel accounts may differ in part,
The resurrection lives in every heart.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

6Evidence of the resurrection Empty Re: Evidence of the resurrection Sat Apr 15, 2023 5:11 am

Otangelo


Admin

What are the main reasons that corroborate and confirm the resurrection of Jesus?

 
The empty tomb: The fact that the tomb of Jesus was found empty by his followers is often cited as evidence of the resurrection. This is mentioned in all four of the gospels and is not disputed by scholars. However, it is important to note that an empty tomb by itself is not necessarily proof of a resurrection, as there are other possible explanations for why the tomb might have been empty.
 
The post-resurrection appearances: According to the gospels, Jesus appeared to his followers on multiple occasions after his death, and these appearances are often cited as evidence of his resurrection. These appearances are mentioned in all four gospels and in some of the letters of Paul. However, some scholars have questioned the reliability of these accounts, noting that they were written decades after the events they describe and may have been influenced by legendary or mythological elements.
 
The transformation of the disciples: The fact that the disciples went from being fearful and disillusioned after the crucifixion to being bold and confident in their message of the risen Christ is often cited as evidence of the resurrection. This transformation is mentioned in the gospels and is not disputed by scholars. However, some have suggested that the disciples may have been influenced by group psychology or other factors that can lead to changes in behavior.
 
The growth of the early church: The fact that the early Christian church grew rapidly in the decades following the crucifixion is often cited as evidence of the resurrection. This growth is seen as evidence that the early Christians were convinced of the truth of their message and were willing to suffer and even die for it. However, it is important to note that there are other possible explanations for the growth of the early church, such as the appeal of Christianity's message or the social and cultural conditions of the time.
 
The conversion of skeptics: The fact that several early skeptics and opponents of Christianity, such as Paul and James, reportedly became believers in the wake of the resurrection is often seen as evidence that something significant happened to convince them.
 
The growth of the early Christian movement: The fact that the early Christian movement grew rapidly and spread throughout the Mediterranean world is seen by some as evidence that the resurrection story was believed by a significant number of people and had a powerful impact on their lives.
 

What are the main objections that Jesus indeed rose from the dead?

 
Lack of empirical evidence: Skeptics argue that there is no empirical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. They claim that the only evidence we have is the testimony of the disciples, which cannot be verified.
 
Response: It's important to recognize that historical events cannot always be confirmed through empirical evidence in the way that scientific experiments can. However, this doesn't mean that we cannot assess the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The evidence for the resurrection comes from a variety of sources, including the testimony of the disciples, the early Christian church, and non-Christian sources such as Roman historians. While this evidence cannot be empirically verified, it can be evaluated based on its reliability, consistency, and coherence. Additionally, we can examine the evidence for alternative explanations of the events surrounding Jesus' death and resurrection, such as the conspiracy theory or the swoon theory, and assess their plausibility in light of the available evidence. It is important to recognize that there is significant historical evidence for the resurrection and that dismissing it solely on the basis of a lack of empirical evidence may not be a fair assessment of the available evidence.
 
Hallucination hypothesis: Some skeptics argue that the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus were not real, but were instead hallucinations experienced by the disciples.
 
Response: Group hallucinations are extremely rare: While it's possible for an individual to experience a hallucination, the idea that an entire group of people could have the same hallucination is highly unlikely. Hallucinations are typically a symptom of an individual's mental or physical state, and it's not clear how such a state could be shared by a group of people.
 
The appearances were experienced by different people in different contexts: The post-resurrection appearances were not limited to just the disciples, but were also experienced by individuals like Mary Magdalene, the women at the tomb, and Saul (who later became the apostle Paul). These appearances occurred in a variety of contexts, including indoors, outdoors, in groups, and in private.
 
The appearances were physical and tangible: The gospel accounts describe the post-resurrection appearances as physical and tangible experiences. For example, Jesus ate food with his disciples and allowed them to touch his wounds. This is not consistent with the idea of a hallucination, which is an entirely subjective experience.
 
The disciples were initially skeptical: The gospel accounts suggest that the disciples were initially skeptical of the resurrection, and it was only after experiencing the appearances of Jesus that they became convinced of its reality. This suggests that they were not simply projecting their own beliefs onto their experiences.
 
Conspiracy theory: Some have argued that the story of the resurrection was a deliberate fabrication by the disciples, who wanted to create a new religion and gain power and influence.
 
Response: The disciples had nothing to gain from perpetuating a lie: The disciples were not wealthy or powerful individuals who stood to gain from creating a new religion. On the contrary, they were largely poor and marginalized, and faced persecution and even death for their beliefs. This makes it unlikely that they would have risked everything to perpetuate a lie.
 
The accounts of the resurrection were not written with an eye towards gaining power: The gospel accounts of the resurrection do not read like propaganda designed to gain followers or influence. Rather, they describe the events in a straightforward and matter-of-fact way, without attempting to appeal to the emotions or manipulate the reader.
 
The early Christian community was diverse and decentralized: The early Christian community was not a monolithic entity with a single hierarchy or leadership structure. Rather, it was a diverse and decentralized movement that spanned different regions and cultures. This makes it unlikely that the story of the resurrection was a deliberate fabrication by a small group of individuals.
 
The empty tomb: The fact that the tomb was empty on the third day after Jesus' death is difficult to explain if the story of the resurrection was a deliberate fabrication. If the disciples had invented the story, they could have simply pointed to the body in the tomb as proof that Jesus had not risen from the dead.
 
Swoon theory: This theory suggests that Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but instead was only unconscious. According to this theory, he was later revived and escaped from the tomb.
 
Response: Crucifixion was a brutal and deadly form of execution: Crucifixion was a particularly brutal and painful form of execution, and it was designed to kill the victim slowly and agonizingly. It is unlikely that Jesus would have survived the ordeal, particularly given the severity of his injuries, which included being whipped, beaten, and pierced with a spear.
 
The Roman soldiers were experts in execution: The Roman soldiers who conducted the crucifixion were experts in their field, and they were trained to ensure that the victim was dead before removing the body from the cross. If Jesus had only been unconscious, it is unlikely that the soldiers would have failed to notice this fact.
 
The medical evidence supports the idea of death: The medical evidence, based on the gospel accounts, supports the idea that Jesus died on the cross. For example, John's gospel describes the release of blood and water from Jesus' side when a soldier pierced him with a spear, which is consistent with a post-mortem wound.
 
The empty tomb does not support the swoon theory: The fact that the tomb was empty on the third day after Jesus' death is difficult to explain if he had only been unconscious. If he had escaped from the tomb, it is unlikely that he would have been able to remove the large stone that covered the entrance or evade the guards stationed outside.
 
Naturalistic explanations: Some skeptics argue that there may be naturalistic explanations for the events surrounding Jesus' death and resurrection. For example, they may argue that the body was stolen or that the tomb was empty due to a mistake or misunderstanding.
 
Response: The tomb was heavily guarded: It is unlikely that the body could have been stolen from the tomb, given that it was heavily guarded by Roman soldiers. If someone had attempted to steal the body, they would have had to overcome the guards and move a heavy stone that covered the entrance to the tomb.
 
The empty tomb was discovered by women: In the culture of the time, the testimony of women was not highly valued or trusted. If the story of the empty tomb had been fabricated, it is unlikely that the disciples would have made women the primary witnesses to the event.
 
The disciples were transformed by their experiences: The disciples went from being a frightened and disillusioned group of followers after Jesus' death to becoming bold and courageous preachers of the gospel. It is difficult to explain this transformation if they had simply been mistaken or deceived about the resurrection.
 
The appearance of Jesus to his disciples: According to the gospel accounts, Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection. These appearances were not just subjective experiences or visions, but were tangible and physical, with Jesus eating and speaking with his disciples.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum