Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[J13300]

Regarding the resurrection, what and where is the evidence? I'm not asking as if to say there is none, rather, I too would like to examine it, but am not sure where I would find it.

[jimwalton]

First let's talk about facts we know specifically. Here are some of them, to get us started:

1. Jesus was crucified and buried. Historians, both Christian and non-Christian, admit the evidence is strong of the historicity of his death and burial. Tacitus (AD 55-120): "Cristus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate..." Jesus' death under Pilate and his burial are attested enough in outside sources to make it reasonable, credible, and virtually assured.

2. The tomb was empty and no one ever produced a body. The easiest way to squelch the stories of alleged resurrection would be to produce a body. That was never done. The site of his tomb was known to Christians and non-Christians alike. If the tomb had not been empty, it would have been impossible for the movement called Christianity to explode into existence in the very same city in such a short time.

3. The lives of the people who claim to have seen Jesus in a resurrected form after his death were radically changed. Of the ones we know by name and about their lives, there was a distinctive difference in them after the "resurrection". We have seven ancient sources that the disciples lived lives of deprivation, persecution and suffering for their stance on the resurrection. We also have no evidence that the apostles were considered to be dishonest or mad.

4. The Church (Christianity) grew after the alleged resurrection, and it even began in the city of Jesus' execution. The people who turned to Jesus (to Christianity) would have been the same ones who had been exposed to his person and teaching while he was alive, and it's reasonable to assume that many of them had been witnesses to his death, since there were great crowds in Jerusalem at Passover.

Those are things we know for sure. What about the written records of the resurrection. We have about 8 that are reasonable:

1. Clement of Rome, in about AD 95, wrote, "[The apostles were] fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ." It's true that the apostles taught with confidence that Jesus had risen from the dead.

2. Polykarp, writing in about AD 125: "The one who raised Jesus from the dead will raise us also." It's an extrabiblical reference to the resurrection.

3. We have the gospel of Mark. Though skeptics question its author, its date of writing is generally admitted to be quite early (possibly late 50s-early 60s). Papias, in about AD 120, says that Mark wrote the memoirs of the apostle Peter. Most historians, even critics, agree with this assessment. There is evidence that Mark got his passion narrative from an earlier source that was written in the late 30s, just four years after Jesus' resurrection.

4. The gospel of Luke. Most scholars agree that he got his information from primary sources and was a traveling companion of Paul's. He records the resurrection, and his gospel is thought to be written in the late 50s.

5. The Gospel of Matthew. Though some scholars question his authorship (I think the evidence is in Matthew's favor), there is eyewitness testimony in the book.

6. The Gospel of John. Evidence is strong that it was written by John. There is an abundance of eyewitness testimony in the book.

7. The apostle Paul, a one-time hostile persecutor of Christians and a non-believer, converted to faith in Christ after claiming to see the risen Christ in a vision. He is a very early source to the resurrection narrative, and he knew Jesus' disciples.

8. Josephus (end of the 1st century): "...for he appeared to them alive on the third day..."

Or, to look at it from another angle, there are hypothetical reasons for why the resurrection might not have happened, and that's another side we must deal with. We're dealing with a cold case here, and we must approach it like cops, realistically—cops and detectives, lawyers and scientists (you probably watch some of the forensics shows on TV, as many do). We have some alleged eyewitness testimony that we have to evaluate, and some material evidence.

First, what do we have to know?

1. Was he alive at point "A"? Virtually every scholar believes that Jesus was a live human early in the 1st century.

2. Was he dead at point "B"? For Jesus' death we have 5 ancient sources outside the Bible corroborating the historicity of his death. The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the best-attested historical events of the ancient world. The weight of the historical and medical evidence is that Jesus was dead even before the wound to his side was delivered. Jesus’ death is practically indisputable.

3. Was he alive again at point "C"? There are several strands of evidence:

a. His tomb was empty. The site of his tomb was known to friends and enemies. If the tomb wasn't empty, it would have been an impossible story to maintain in the city where the death and burial occurred.

b. Women were the first to witness and report the resurrection. This is the last thing a fiction writer would want to claim in their culture. It would just ruin the credibility of their story.

c. Enemy attestation. The opponents of Jesus and his followers admitted the body was gone.

d. The disciples were absolutely and passionately committed to the conviction that Jesus had risen, and were willing to suffer for their story

But now we're left to try to explain it. Were they wrong? Lying? Delusional? Fooled? Influenced? Distorted? Or accurate?

Maybe they were wrong, and Jesus never died. Jesus had been beaten and scourged, too weak to carry his own cross. Then crucified. The soldiers didn't bother to break his legs, but they spear his side, bringing blood and water. he had circulatory shock, where the result is either pericardial effusion or pleural effusion—a sure sign of death. Joseph and Nicodemus wrap the body, working with it to prepare it for burial. With all this time they would have seen the mortis triad: algor mortis, rigor mortis, and lividity mortis. Is it reasonable to assume Jesus is not dead? No.

Maybe they were lying, and it was a vast conspiracy. A successful conspiracy needs factors of a low # of co-conspirators, only a short time to hold the conspiracy together, excellent communication between conspirators, strong relationships, and little or no pressure to confess. But in this case there were 11+, holding the conspiracy for 60 years, with little communication between them, unrelated to each other, with huge pressure to confess. A conspiracy is not reasonable.

Maybe they were delusional, and were subject to hallucinations or mass hysteria, as you suggest. Well maybe Mary Magdalene and Peter really really wanted a resurrection to happen, but what of James, Jesus' brother? What about Saul/Paul—did he want to see Jesus? Were the two on the road to Emmaus expecting to? The 10 disciples? The 500? It's not reasonable to assume mass hysteria or group hallucinations.

Maybe they were fooled, a look-alike walking around pretending it was Jesus, pulling off a grand fraud.If you're playing a character, you need to know more about the topic than the person you are trying to con, and fool the people who know him best. And you still have to be able to do miracles, like ascend into heaven. Would that play well in Jerusalem? Not reasonably so.

Maybe they were swayed. Mary and Peter got caught up in their hallucinations, and influenced the others. Are you kidding? Was Mary that influential in the group? Not likely. And Peter was NEVER alone in his sightings. Paul? Paul influences the 12? They didn't even TRUST Paul.

Maybe they were distorted. Maybe it's a legend that grew over time, or making it all up. That doesn't make sense given that it's historically verifiable that these stories were widely circulating within just a few years, and we have a chain of custody about the story.

Well, maybe it's just accurate, and the truth. Granted, this theory has a HUGE liability. It requires that supernatural things are reasonable. So the core under investigation is: Are supernatural events possible? If you are honestly investigating it, you can’t start with the presupposition that there is no such thing. If you start with “supernaturalism is not possible”, then no evidence will convince you. It’s called circular reasoning, when you are committed to your position before the investigation begins. There are only two choices: either Jesus rose from the dead, or he didn’t. But if your presupposition is that rising from the dead is impossible, then evidence never matters.
The resurrection hypothesis is significantly stronger than competing hypotheses. Historical investigation will never give you 100% certainty, but it does give reasonable certainty. Historians must choose the most probable explanation. The story of Jesus' bodily resurrection was circulating very quickly after the alleged event, and it can be virtually confirmed that it was a consistent narrative within a very short period of time.

When it comes down to it, I have examined the evidence in great detail and found it to be convincing.

[Sugar Baby]

> The only thing we have is a quote from Josephus, in the Testimonium Flavianum: "...For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly." While some of what Josephus wrote has been called into question, this piece is considered to be authentic. It can be wise to be skeptical, but not if it closes our eyes to legitimate evidence.

Josephus never lived when Jesus was alive. At best he had second hand accounts. I should believe in Bigfoot and aliens if i believe what Josephus says. Why are claims about god by josephus or the bible different then aliens, big foot, etc. The people that claim these things are right here in front of you. There is more evidence of aliens and Bigfoot then there is of any supernatural claim.

> Here are some of them, to get us started: Jesus was crucified and buried. Historians, both Christian and non-Christian, admit the evidence is strong of the historicity of his death and burial

Ask a muslim and see what they say. Also, there were countless people crucified. But I'll let this slide since it doesn't have to do with the main point. Just thought you should know not everyone agree with this.

> The site of his tomb was known to Christians and non-Christians alike. If the tomb had not been empty, it would have been impossible for the movement called Christianity to explode into existence in the very same city in such a short time.

Where is the tomb now? Also the accounts of the tomb being opened are different in the gospels. What if there was a story before the events in the gospels and the body was moved. There is also such a thing as grave robbers.

> The lives of the people who claim to have seen Jesus in a resurrected form after his death were radically changed. Of the ones we know by name and about their lives, there was a distinctive difference in them after the "resurrection"

The lives of people that meet L. Ron hubbard was changed dramatically as well.

> All the authors not in the bible

Again they didn't ever witness Jesus. Where are the stories from people that actually witnessed it. Jesus performed miracles and no one wrote about it. Does that seem a little odd?

> The authors in the bible The books in the bible were put together by man. Some books were left out. Why were some books in and some left out. How did man know which stories were inspired by god. Is it possible that man put the stories in that made there story look good.

> If you start with “supernaturalism is not possible”, then no evidence will convince you. It’s called circular reasoning,

I try my best not to do that. I look at the evidence and i dont see supernatural claims being proven so i say i have not seen anything that is supernatural.

The rest is too long to comment about, but i do appreciate the effort.

I don't believe the evidence of the resurrection because of a few issues. The accounts don't match and like you said everyone knew. So it would be very easy for someone to go there and remove the body and let another group discover it empty. There are too many ifs in my mind. There are so many things an all powerful god can do and he does something that could be seen so easily as fake. It doesn't make any sense to me.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for your honest and thoughtful reply. It's always good to converse with someone who's thinking. As far as the evidences of the resurrection, "to each his own." It's no different than many other things. Astronomers debate findings; paleoanthropologists debate the skulls and their characteristics; historians debate the final record of Masada; everyone debates the resurrection. Some people even debate Bigfoot and alien visitations.

You're right that Josephus was never alive during the lifetime of Jesus, and was writing second-hand (at best) information. The question is whether or not it's accurate. Some of the things he wrote are discarded, some are debated, and many are accepted. We each weigh the evidences according to our sense of reason and make our own decisions. Time will tell who is right.

I know not everyone agrees with the historicity of the Jesus' crucifixion. Each person, again, has to weigh in his own mind. Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to Jesus' crucifixion by Pilate to be authentic. Josephus also mentions Jesus' crucifixion as a matter of historical record. But you believe what you deem to be correct. We all live by faith, don't we?

> Where is the tomb now?

No one knows now, but then it was well-known. Based on the gospel records, it had to have been within a stone's throw of the crucifixion site, and having been in Jerusalem, it makes sense.

> grave robbers

Since we are being logical, we have to weigh the reasonableness of your proposal. It was a hostile environment for Jesus and his disciples. The crucifixion was a joint venture of Roman and Jewish authorities. The Romans would have nothing to gain by stealing the body, but only more insurrectionist headaches. The Jews would have nothing to gain by stealing the body, but only fueling the fires of "Jesus-ism", what they considered to be a dangerous sect. The followers of Jesus had scattered in fear, and the disciples were in hiding. An armed guard was posted at the site. The sepulcher itself was in solid rock with only one entrance. Who are you positing that was motivated to steal the body, had the means, was impelled to take the risk—and for what gain? It doesn't make sense to me. Remember, even when the disciples preached the resurrection, they were scorned and martyred for it. Your explanation has to make sense.

> they didn't ever witness Jesus

There are good evidences that Matthew and John (especially John) were witnesses of Jesus. I have done deep research on gospel authorship and found the traditional authorship to be the most convincing. John's gospel is FILLED with eyewitness elements; Matthew's has only 2. Mark is credibly said to have gotten his account from Peter, and it also has many eyewitness elements in it. These are the stories from people who actually witnessed it.

[Sugar Baby]

> We all live by faith, don't we?

Not sure how you define faith but I try my very best not to use faith but instead trust.

> Since we are being logical, we have to weigh the reasonableness of your proposal. It was a hostile environment for Jesus and his disciples. The crucifixion was a joint venture of Roman and Jewish authorities. The Romans would have nothing to gain by stealing the body, but only more insurrectionist headaches. The Jews would have nothing to gain by stealing the body, but only fueling the fires of "Jesus-ism", what they considered to be a dangerous sect. The followers of Jesus had scattered in fear, and the disciples were in hiding. An armed guard was posted at the site. The sepulcher itself was in solid rock with only one entrance. Who are you positing that was motivated to steal the body, had the means, was impelled to take the risk—and for what gain? It doesn't make sense to me. Remember, even when the disciples preached the resurrection, they were scorned and martyred for it. Your explanation has to make sense.

Grave robber was just an example. But Jesus's followers had enough time to get back together and open the grave themselves. That would spread the message even more.
The other alternative is that the grave was never found, which is why there are different accounts of witnessing the grave open.

Sorry. If you can direct me to a site with the info of Jesus's grave being empty not in the bible and first hand. The reason I think first hand is important is because if you write sometime else's words no matter how honest you are they are not your words and its hard to trust them.

> There are good evidences that Matthew and John (especially John) were witnesses of Jesus. I have done deep research on gospel authorship and found the traditional authorship to be the most convincing. John's gospel is FILLED with eyewitness elements; Matthew's has only 2. Mark is credibly said to have gotten his account from Peter, and it also has many eyewitness elements in it. These are the stories from people who actually witnessed it.

I'm not sure I trust a book that was put together by people with what seemed to be a purpose. How did the composers of the bible know which stories to include and which to not include? There were multiple books that didn't make the cut. How did they know God didn't inspire those?

Maybe I'm biased (probably am, who isn't), but it seems like the composers had a narrative they wanted to portray and the stories that fit it got up in.

If I had evidence to believe Jesus was God I would. But I see no reason to do so.

I need evidence or at least evidence that is confusing to me and I just haven't seen it yet. Eyewitness accounts are difficult to corroborate. And the problem is that there are more eyewitness accounts of aliens then there were for Jesus's resurrection. I'm not sure why I would trust one group person and not the other.

[jimwalton]

Great comments. Thanks for the discussion.

> But jesus's followers had enough time to get back together and open the grave themselves. That would spread the message even more.

First, Jesus's followers were not expecting a resurrection, and so would not have orchestrated one. Thus there was no motive. Second, they were desperately afraid, ran away from the arrest scene, lied at the midnight fire, and were in hiding for fear of their lives. Third, there was an armed guard at the tomb, and only one of Jesus' followers was a Zealot (and possibly a trained fighter). The rest were tax collectors, fishermen, and the like, and no match for Roman soldiers. This option doesn't make sense.

> The other alternative is that the grave was never found

The burial site in western Jerusalem is in the same vicinity as the crucifixion site. The two places were probably within view of each other. We also know from the Gospel account that the Jewish leaders knew where Jesus was buried (Mt. 27.62-66), the Romans knew where Jesus was buried (Mt. 27.66), and Jesus' followers knew where he was buried (Mt. 27.51; Mk. 15.47; Lk. 23.55). It was a public site and publicly known. If you are going to argue otherwise, you need to produce evidence and not mere speculation.

> I'm not sure I trust a book that was put together by people with what seemed to be a purpose

Of course they’re biased; they have an agenda. John is explicit about his bias (Jn. 20.31). Every historian writes because they are interested in the subject. But bias doesn’t mean you’re wrong. If it were, then we can’t believe any Jewish historian who writes on the Holocaust or any African-American writing about antebellum slavery. Too many elements of the gospels don’t come across as having been invented for the sake of bias (the disciples' lack of faith, the testimony of women on resurrection, Jesus' claiming his father had forsaken him, etc.). But elements in the gospels also show they are trying to report accurate history. Richard Dawkins has an objective, an agenda. Gerd Ludemann has an agenda. The Egyptians writers (eyewitnesses) about the Egyptian revolution of a few years ago had a purpose. We don't reject writings because the authors have an agenda, but because the arguments are insufficient. Even we as readers are biased, as you yourself admitted you may be.

> How did the composers of the bible know which stories to include and which to not include?

As far as the Old Testament, little evidence exists of any disagreements about its content. We have no way of knowing how they were finally compiled, though tradition ascribes the task to Ezra. Early evidence of the acceptance of the present canon may be found in the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the New Testament itself. In other words, there is no debate about the books of the OT.

The process by which the NT came together is different than the OT, but not what is claimed by the skeptics. There were 3 stages:

1. The Apostolic Fathers (100-140 AD). There was immediate and unanimous recognition of the books of the NT. The Fathers freely quote from them as recognized and authoritative. There are no lists, presumably because there was no disagreement, and therefore no need to make lists. We find clear and concordant agreement that these books are the Word of God. Although the sparse evidence we have of such list-making leads to a positive conclusion and not negative ones. In other words, the NT as we know it was recognized.

2. The period of Gnostic Opposition (AD 140-220). The Gnostics, much later than the NT, wrote books of contradictory information, bizarre narratives, and heterodox teachings. Needless to say, the propagation of falsehoods spurred the church to clarify what was reliable and what was not. Lists start to be made. The evidence from this period show that only a few books were matters of controversy.

3. Final solidification (AD 220-400). The list-making continued in response to attacks and disputes. The controversies largely centered around apostolic authorship (James, Hebrews, 2 Peter), not legitimacy as God's word. Athanasius (367) made the list that we know today, and it was so obvious, approved, and widely recognized and accepted that it was affirmed at Rome (382) and Carthage (397).

> There where multiple books that didn't make the cut. How did they know God didn't inspire those?

Those books were rejected because they contained false doctrine and absurd, fanciful narratives, fraudulent authorship claims and late writing dates. They were never accepted by the church as being truthful and reliable accounts of what happened.

The deliberations of the church during this time involved recognizing the books given by God to His people rather than deciding what books to include in the Bible.

[Math Guy]

Do you go through this process with every bit of the Bible before believing it, or do you generally trust that the Bible is historically accurate? And do you think that you are (potentially subconsciously) prone to confirmation bias, listing only the arguments that favour your preconceived opinions and beliefs (or that are the social norm) when you evaluate the evidence, while tending to disregard any opposing conjectures? That's not to say that I don't believe in Jesus' resurrection, just that it's such a controversial topic that it's practically impossible to have a detached, objective analysis of the evidence: there are many arguments on either side, so ultimately one's own opinions, even if not consciously, will inform your conclusions to as great an extent as the evidence itself - a more cynical me would say that each side is just (although they don't themselves perceive it as this) cherry-picking the evidence that supports their point of view.

I guess this is why it's important to be able to challenge people about what they believe and for everyone to be able to give reasons for why they believe what they believe.

I should also say thanks for the brilliantly detailed post with evidence for the resurrection, I appreciate the time you've taken to put it together.

[jimwalton]

Everybody has presuppositions, and everyone has bias. We try as best as we can to operate without it, to study objectively, and to conclude fair-mindedly. Some are able to achieve this to a greater extent than others.

I cannot escape my upbringing as a Christian, but there were times in my life when I was troubled, ready to toss the whole thing, and investigating from a skeptical vantage point.

Every historian has bias, and interprets the limited facts before them. There's no way around it. We only have a small amount of information (given all of what is really involved), and we have to make the best with what we have. So we go with weight of evidence, not on certainty. I have investigated the Bible, read contrary accounts, conversed with skeptics and atheists, and investigated the history for myself. We do everything possible to avoid confirmation bias, but to be objective intead. Not everyone does that, but hopefully many try. I have come to conclusions based on research and reason; others conclude differently. Each must weigh the evidence and draw their own conclusions, often a mixture of presuppositions, experience, evidence, and bias. We do the best we can.

[Sugar Baby]

> First, Jesus's followers were not expecting a resurrection, and so would not have orchestrated one. Thus there was no motive. Second, they were desperately afraid, ran away from the arrest scene, lied at the midnight fire, and were in hiding for fear of their lives. Third, there was an armed guard at the tomb, and only one of Jesus' followers was a Zealot (and possibly a trained fighter). The rest were tax collectors, fishermen, and the like, and no match for Roman soldiers. This option doesn't make sense.

OK, fine, I will give you my best point: I have no reason to trust the bible. Probably a little different, but mostly for the same reasons you don't believe other religious texts.

> We don't reject writings because the authors have an agenda, but because the arguments are insufficient. Even we as readers are biased, as you yourself admitted you may be.

Fair enough

> We find clear and concordant agreement that these books are the Word of God. Although the sparse evidence we have of such list-making leads to a positive conclusion and not negative ones. In other words, the NT as we know it was recognized.

How was it validated. Did God directly tell them?

> The deliberations of the church during this time involved recognizing the books given by God to His people rather than deciding what books to include in the Bible.

That's my point. How do you actually determine that? How do you know something is a false doctrine? Is it possible that god also wanted to mention that computers are sin (or what ever was considered a false doctrine)? I see it as picking because they have a bias toward what truth is, and if the books don't fit that truth then it isn't worthy.

What really needs to be done is to prove that the bible is actually accurate. and outside the bible there just isn't any first hand accounts. Honestly even if there were more evidence i would need a lot of evidence since it is more then believing something like gravity.

[jimwalton]

Thanks again for the reply. We finally get down to the core issues.

> How was it validated?

The books of the NT gained immediate recognition from the Church and the various leaders and Fathers of the Church because of their authorship by the apostles or their close associates. It's like today, if a paper is written by Stephen Hawking, it doesn't have to be validated. This is Hawking we're talking about! No validation is required when there is instant recognition of authority. There is unanimous and unchallenged recognition of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the authors of the gospels, of Paul as the author of the epistles, and the rest of the NT as well. The earliest Christian writings after the Apostolic Age freely quote the books that comprise our NT as authoritative. From Clement of Rome, who lives in the late first century, to Ignatius, Papias, and Polycarp, we find clear recognition that these books are the Word of God.

> How do you know something is a false doctrine?

As you know, Christians' view of epistemology is a reformed approach, where we recognize science, reason, evidence, and empiricism, but also the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, as the Bible teaches. We use evidence to show others; we use evidence as verification, but our belief is not completely evidentiary. If Christianity is true, God is capable of giving us a personal spiritual experience of Himself. Atheists can’t say that—they can’t have a personal experience of atheism; they are totally dependent on material evidence, which is an incomplete perspective on knowledge, even without consideration of God.

> even if there were more evidence i would need a lot of evidence

The problem is in looking to evidence as the only source of knowledge. By it you disregard other valid sources of knowledge: intuition, memory, and reason. If evidence is the only source of knowledge, you disregard the validity of disciplines such as jurisprudence, economics, mathematics, politics, music, art, literature, and even history.

Most things we know in life are not subject to evidence such as scientists practice: I like apple pie, I forgive you, I felt chilly yesterday, I saw a beautiful sunset 5 days ago, I have a stomachache, Bill is my friend, I feel differently about Jennifer than I did last week, I'm afraid of heights, I prefer rock music to open, I think Jimmy Fallon is funny, and 10,000 more things. There are realities we know exist that we can't touch, taste, feel, hear, or see: time, peace, justice, love, memory, reason, and values.

As it turns out, probably most of what we know is not subject to scientific experiment, empirical verification, supported by evidence (like gravity) or can be considered scientific knowledge. It is both illogical and unreasonable to apply scientific reasoning to any of these matters—so also to the existence of God, the veracity of miracles, and the reliability of the Biblical text. While we can bring some scientific thinking to bear as we evaluate them, they are just as much outside of the purview of science as "I forgive you."