Jesus Christ and the Resurrection (what does the evidence reveal?)

Started by Alliance15 pages
Originally posted by Ushgarak
To be fair, Tacitus does directly state that the Christian's founder was put to death by Pilate, and Tacitus was not the sort of historian who would mention that just because it is something they said; he would have throught that factual.

Yes, it does lend credibility. However, its not well duplicated in other sources of the same period. Personally, I don't think Tacitus has malicious purpouses, i think he is either correct of ill informed.

However, sources like Josephus have no scholarly credibility as a historically accurate work.

Its my position that the Bible is a mythological sort of historical fiction. I don't think events and excetera were fabricated, I think its a gross overdramatization.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yes, it does lend credibility. However, its not well duplicated in other sources of the same period. Personally, I don't think Tacitus has malicious purpouses, i think he is either correct of ill informed.

However, sources like Josephus have no scholarly credibility as a historically accurate work.

Its my position that the Bible is a mythological sort of historical fiction. I don't think events and excetera were fabricated, I think its a gross overdramatization.

I concur. The Bible is not "true history"- nor is there any light where it can be viewed as the "most accurate and reputable historical document" of the ancient world. And of course Tacitus wrote before the Bible was put together, and some scholars question whether all the NT texts had even been written by this point in time - it lends credibility that Jesus actually lived and died like numerous other people at the time. That he had followers. But it doesn't support Christian claims of his divinity, or Biblical/OT claims.

It jusr doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and any realistic historical situations are usually buried in narratives with historical dramatisations which, unless one is a steadfast believer, have no proof to there validity.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
To be fair, Tacitus does directly state that the Christian's founder was put to death by Pilate, and Tacitus was not the sort of historian who would mention that just because it is something they said; he would have throught that factual.

That is absolutely correct. I tried to tell Imperial that. What the Bible doesn't stand up to is human denial. If you do not give the Bible the same fair scrutiny that you give everything else then you can never see the Truth. I have told you before that all you do is discount and deny the incontrovertible evidence contained in the Scriptures. I will wager that you have never read the gospel according to John from beginning to end. As I have aforestated, anyone that does will become a follower of Jesus.

Did ancient historians also write about Jesus?

Yes. Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, "is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world." 2 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."3 (In contrast, the Muslim Quran, written six centuries after Jesus lived, reports that Jesus was never crucified, though it is a fact confirmed by numerous secular historians.4)
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."5
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is concurrent with New Testament accounts.
Even the Jewish Talmud, again not a favorable source regarding Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."6
This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders. Yet ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans (who themselves were not ardent followers of Jesus) substantiate the major events that are presented in the four Gospels.

http://www.everystudent.com/za/features/bible.html (above article taken from this link)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That is absolutely correct. I tried to tell Imperial that. What the Bible doesn't stand up to is human denial. If you do not give the Bible the same fair scrutiny that you give everything else then you can never see the Truth. I have told you before that all you do is discount and deny the incontrovertible evidence contained in the Scriptures. I will wager that you have never read the gospel according to John from beginning to end. As I have aforestated, anyone that does will become a follower of Jesus.

And you have failed to listen to anything I have said.

The Bible has been given the same "fair scrutiny" as any ancient text, be it religious, biographical, philosophical or whatever.

What do we get from it?

1st - Religious doctrine
2nd - Mention of historical events in line with that religious doctrine.

This IS NOT considered historically accurate. No more then Iraqi school books from the Saddam period are - they mention real events, real places and all that jazz, but in an incorrect and non-verifiable time line - real events doctored to fit in with image the regime wants to present.

The Bible mentions this city or that person. They existed. But the Bible puts them in a Christian context, with God behind things - it is not right, now does it make it accurate. Unless you a firm believer that is prepared to discount all the historical and archaeological evidence that does not support the Bible's view of history or the world. As Alliance said - over dramatisation. Exaggeration. Pure fictions. And all the rest. The Bible is a useful text, that can tell us a lot, but to claim it is the most "accurate and reputable" historical text of the ancient world is so funny it hurts.

[B]Did ancient historians also write about Jesus?

Yes. Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, "is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world." 2 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."3 (In contrast, the Muslim Quran, written six centuries after Jesus lived, reports that Jesus was never crucified, though it is a fact confirmed by numerous secular historians.4)
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."5
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is concurrent with New Testament accounts.
Even the Jewish Talmud, again not a favorable source regarding Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."6
This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders. Yet ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans (who themselves were not ardent followers of Jesus) substantiate the major events that are presented in the four Gospels.

http://www.everystudent.com/za/features/bible.html (above article taken from this link) [/B]

[/b][/quote]

And I've been over this before.

Historians mention the Christians - because they were a group seen as causing trouble. They were facing opposition - it is not proof of Biblical claims that Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan about identifying Christians. It is not proof that God exists or Jesus did anything but die that Tacitus mentions Jesus.

One of the only historians to refer to Jesus in anything approaching recognition of Jesus "doing miracles" was Josephus - a historians whose account is doubted by the historical community - because it as seen as being doctored later by people trying to validate Christianity.

You seem incapable of recognising this. Tacitus mentions Jesus - OH MY GOD clearly all the claims in the new testament are correct despite the fact Tacitus only mentions Jesus as a way of defining Christians. Yet Livy mentions the Great Mother coming to Rome, others mention omens and miracles and the like - but this doesn't validate pagan religion - does it? Shows that people followed them, but the divine claims - ignored.

It is the height of hypocrisy that you are committing, claiming that a mention of Jesus, one that doesn't even support the claim he is divine, proves beyond a doubt that everything in the Bible is true (when there is plenty of evidence that isn't the case), yet similar mentions of other religions, mentioned in the same fashion, doesn't make them real.

Re: Jesus Christ and the Resurrection (what does the evidence reveal?)

Why I Believe in the Resurrection
by Chip Ingram

The answer to these questions begins with one central block, one foundation. If this central block is true, we’re set – if it is false, everything we believe in Christianity is a hoax. That central block is the resurrection.

The validity of our faith is held up by the intellectual feasibility of the resurrection. Put simply, if Christ didn’t die on the cross and come alive again three days later, our faith is worthless. Think I’m being over zealous? Consider what the Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:13-14, “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith is also in vain.”

The writers of scripture say that if the resurrection – the literal physical bodily resurrection of Jesus – isn’t true, Christianity doesn’t hold water. Why I Believe in the Resurrection briefly highlights six reasons why the resurrection is true and ultimately why we can put our faith in Jesus.

One: The Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is Airtight
Did He really exist? Did that really happen? Or is this like King Arthur? Is it myth, legend, or did Jesus of Nazareth historically live in space and time and walk upon the earth?

The reality of His historicity is airtight. The quality and quantity of the biblical manuscripts as well as first century Greek documents overwhelmingly demonstrate that He actually lived.

The New Testament is built on history. An example of this history stems from Luke 2:2 where we learn that at the time of Jesus’ birth a census was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. In the last 30 years an archeologist has found a coin with the name Quirinius on it placing him as proconsul of Syria from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod – confirming Luke’s account (Luke 2:1-2).

In the last thirty years archeologists have one after the other, after the other found specific archeological facts validating people in New Testament times. For example, in the gospel of John the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-15), the Pool of Siloam (John 9:7), Jacob’s Well (John 4:12) and the Stone Pavement near the Jaffa Gate (John 19:13) have all been located.

Two: The Works of Jesus Went Unchallenged
Stories and miracles; feeding five thousand people, raising people from the dead, lame men walking, blind men seeking, that’s pretty far out stuff, did Jesus really do that?

One of the most important things to note is that Jesus’ miracles were never disputed by his foes. His number one archenemy, the Jewish establishment, never claimed that His miracles ceased to occur. They attested to the feats Jesus had done, however they attributed His power to Satan (Matthew 12:24). Yet, Jesus disputed their claim immediately, saying, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?” (Matthew 12:25-26).

They never questioned the validity they only questioned the source; and Jesus knew how to deal with it. Boy, that’s powerful! He was making outrageous claims and He backed His statements up with miracles – power over nature, unprecedented teaching, divine insights into people, etc. He healed chronic illnesses in mere seconds, such as blindness and leprosy.

Three: The Identity of Jesus Was Confirmed
The third reason I believe that Jesus rose from the dead is the identity of Jesus was confirmed. Not only do we need to ask did He really exist? Did He do those works? But you have to ask, who did He claim to be? Did Jesus think He was God? Yes, He did, and not only did Jesus believe that He was God, but throughout the New Testament others refer to Him as God.

Jesus said, (John 14:6). He also said, “If you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father” (John 14:9). It was clear that Jesus knew who He was and He was absolutely comfortable communicating about His deity to others.

Four: The Death of Jesus Was Undisputed
One of the central arguments used by critics claims that Jesus didn’t die. They argue that He was given special herbs and spices and it only appeared as though He had died or that He had faked His death. Theories such as these are just not possible. In The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel interviews Dr. Alexander Metherell on the evidence behind the crucifixion. The details are gory and, at the same time, remarkable. Much of the following information is taken from that interview.

The night before His death, Jesus stayed up all night praying in the garden of Gethsemane. He was under such stress that a medical abnormality caused by a high degree of psychological stress called, hematidrosis occurred – Jesus sweat blood. Luke 22:44 reads, “And, being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground.”

Flogging involves the use of a whip made of rawhide. In the middle of the rawhide are steel-like balls and at the very end of the rawhide are pieces of bone. The Roman executioners would put them on a pole and when flogging they would swing it so it would wrap around the body. The balls would hit and cause major contusions to the organs and then the pieces of bone would cut into the flesh. As it was pulled away it would rip the flesh right off.

Thirty-nine lashes was the legal limit because few individuals ever lived past thirty-nine lashes. Jesus received all thirty-nine and was within an inch of his life when the Roman guards beat Him with their fists.

He’s up all night, He’s within an inch of His life, and then He gets beat up. He’s in such a weakened condition that He can hardly carry the beam of His own cross, and then He was crucified (Matthew 27).

Crucifixion causes a person to die from suffocation rather than pain. As the criminal’s arms were up on the cross the executioners would bend his legs and put a nail between both ankles so that he could push up with his legs and pull himself up, but as he hung his arms would quickly dislocate.

Then tetanus would begin to happen and his arms would start to freeze. The criminal would pull himself up, as his internal organs would begin to slide down. Trying to get a breath compensated the pain of pulling himself up and he would ultimately suffocate.

It has been called historically one of the cruelest forms of torture and death ever devised. If that’s not enough, they didn’t break Jesus’ legs to ensure that He was dead, they instead took a spear and they gashed into His side, and what’s interesting is that it says when they gashed His side water and blood came out (John 19:34).

Five: The Burial of Jesus Was Public and Secured
As the evidence for Jesus’ divinity mounts critics try to disprove as many theories as they can. The two most popular stories critics use to invalidate the resurrection are that the disciples went to the wrong tomb and secondly, that the disciples stole the body.

First, let’s examine the facts. The tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin (the High Counsel), who was a dissenting vote on the decision to crucify Jesus. He was a high profile wealthy man whose tomb was prominent; people knew where it was. Foremost, the disciples would not have gone to the wrong tomb, because they were the very ones who wrapped Jesus’ body for burial and placed Him in the tomb (John 19:38-39).

Additionally, guards were placed at this tomb. Roman Guards were put there because the authorities had heard rumblings about Jesus’ teachings and that He claimed He was going to come back from the dead (Matthew 27:63-65). Roman guards knew their job as militia and, if they fell asleep on the job, their lives were at stake. In addition to the guards, the authorities put a seal on the tomb and breaking a Roman seal was an offense punishable by death. This was a very serious, very guarded, ‘follow all the right procedures’, burial and it has been said that, “never had a criminal give so much worry after his execution. Above all, never had a crucified man had the honour of being guarded by a squad of soldiers”.

His burial is convincing beyond a shadow of the doubt; convincing in that the preponderance of the evidence points to the fact that He was dead and that He rose from the dead? See the question is: are there hard facts, hard facts that you could put in any court of law then or now that really prove and demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt, or is this resurrection just wishful thinking? Let’s look at some more evidence.

Six: The Evidence for His Resurrection is Convincing
Old Testament prophets predicted both the resurrection and Jesus’ entire life – it wasn’t new. Hundreds of years prior to these events they were prophesied, predicted if you will. It was predicted that His side would be pierced (Zechariah 12:10, fulfilled John 19:34), His heart broken (Psalms 22:14 fulfilled John 19:34), His bones left unbroken (Psalms 34:20, fulfilled John 19:33) and that He would be buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9, fulfilled Matthew 27:45). These are just a few of over 300 Old Testament predictions that Jesus fulfilled.

Not only that but Jesus predicted openly and numerously that He would die on the cross and rise again three days later (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 17:9, Matthew 17:22-23, Matthew 20:18-19, Mark 9:10, John 2:18-22, Luke 9:22-27). It was public, it was known. Jesus made this claim and held onto His intentions.

Resurrection not Easter is what should be celebrated in April.

He also appeared twelve different times to well over five hundred witnesses after He rose from the dead. He appeared to Mary Magdalene (John 20:14), the women returning from the tomb (Matthew 28:9-10), Peter (Luke 24:34), the Emmaus disciples (Luke 24:13-33), the apostles (John 20:26-29), James (1 Corinthians 15:7), and to the group of 500 believers on a Galilean mountain (1 Corinthians 15:6) just to name a few.
Seven: What’s it All Mean?
The resurrection is a historical fact, verifiable in the same manner and by the same means that we verify any other historical fact. There’s as much substantiated evidence and history and confirmation that Jesus is all He said He was, did all He said He did, and rose from the dead, as there is of any man who was president twenty years ago.

The implications of this history are threefold. One, it validates Jesus’ claim; “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6). Second, it gives absolute hope for the future in that we have freedom here on earth (Romans 6:7-8). Third, Jesus died, He rose again, He is at the right hand of the Father and He has prepared a place for every single person who would look at the evidence and, by faith, receive the gift of eternal life (John 3:16).

John 3:16-17 says, “For God so loved the world,” that means you, “that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.”

God’s not down on people, He didn’t send Jesus to point out what a jerk everybody is. He sent Jesus to forgive.

List of Recommended Books:
The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel
The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel
Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell
Jesus Among Other Gods, Ravi Zacharias
Letters From a Skeptic, Gregory A. Boyd
Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis
More Than a Carpenter, Josh McDowell
The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis

Excerpted from Why I Believe, a booklet by Chip Ingram; based on the series Why I Believe.
Used with permission. Copyright 2004 by Chip Ingram. All rights reserved.
About the author: Chip Ingram is President of Walk Thru the Bible in Atlanta, GA, and Teaching Pastor of Living on the Edge, a national radio ministry.

Walk Thru the Bible partners with the local church worldwide to teach God’s Word in relevant ways for lasting life change. To fulfill this mission, Walk Thru the Bible creates and distributes high quality, award-winning resources in a variety of formats, helping individuals “walk thru” the Bible with greater clarity and understanding. Walk Thru the Bible seminars are taught in over 45 languages by more than 50,000 men and women in over 90 countries; Living on the Edge radio ministry broadcasts on more than 800 radio outlets reaching nearly one million listeners a week; and more than 100 million devotionals have been packaged into daily magazines, books and other publications that reach over five million people each year. Walk Thru the Bible was founded in 1976 and is based in Atlanta, GA.
Thursday, March 25, 2004

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Living_on_the_Edge/Article_Archives.asp

http://www.tbn.org/index.php/8/1.html
(click on above link then scroll down for downloadable link entitled, "Hal Lindsey, The Resurrection on Trial)

Resurrection not Easter is what should be celebrated in April.

Stop trying to prove that God exists.

JIA - you can't use the bible to prove the bible. If the people you are trying to convince don't believe the bible, it is not likely to be a credible source in proving itself. Neither are writers who are so very obviously for what you believe.

The bible, as you are talking about it, is not a historical document. The atmosphere is historical, the original languages of Greek and Hebrew are historical, the parchment on which the bible was written is historical. That's where you make the leap of faith, I believe, to actually believe what's put on the parchment.

However. The people you're trying to convince aren't Christians, so the arguments that you're using (from Christian sites, backed up by the bible) don't work. If you're in a historical argument, you have to use historical evidence. The bible, as in its stories, are not, they haven't been proven. Otherwise, what would faith be about? If you knew it was history, well history, you know is real. You can't have faith about something that you know is real, you know that for a fact... so where would the whole mystery of God have gone?

So true.Not to mention the many prophets and godmen who supposedly roamed earth before Jesus is even said to existed.When you discover stories from the Bible are in fact,part of much older tradition on top of the fact that their is very little to lend any historic evidence in defence of earily Christianity,it's easy to see why trying to prove the bible with the bible realy holds no water.

Originally posted by docb77
Urizen,

As far as Christ's suffering goes, Crucifixion was pretty much the worst form of torture ever created. And if that was all that He suffered he could definitely empathize with with all the pains you listed. Thing is, in Christian belief the crucifixion was the least of the pain Jesus endured. The real pain came from taking on Himself the punishment for all the sins in the world, past, present, and future. In Mormon belief we even believe he took upon himself all the other pains and infirmities of everyone who will ever have lived. In other words, he know intimately every pain you mentioned. He doesn't downplay others pain, He empathizes perfectly.

1) Crucifixion is not the worst form of torture in History. People throughout history have been skinned alive, burnt alive, eaten alive, dismembered, quartered, castrated, etc.

There are forms of torture far more intense than crucifixion.

2) Your beleif that Jesus felt all the pain and suffering of the past, present, and future is simply your beleif. If you can prove it to me that what you beleive is true, then I will take back what I say...but until then, as far as I know, Jesus Christ was just a man who suffered like any other tormented person had before or since.

Crucifixion is pretty bad. I wouldn't be able to tell if it's worse than being skinned alive, but the Romans had it down to an art.

Originally posted by docb77
Secularly speaking

You really think you can?

Originally posted by Devil King
You really think you can?

That's what the girl at the cannery said.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
1) Crucifixion is not the worst form of torture in History. People throughout history have been skinned alive, burnt alive, eaten alive, dismembered, quartered, castrated, etc.

There are forms of torture far more intense than crucifixion.

Being ate alive, burnt alive, dismembered, quartered, or castrated really aren't as painful or tormenting as crucification. The nail through the ulnar nerve is the where the phrase "excruciating pain" come from... skinning alive sounds worse to me however...

Re: Jesus Christ and the Resurrection (what does the evidence reveal?)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
if Christ didn’t die on the cross and come alive again three days later, our faith is worthless.
JIA, what do you have to say to the evidence that people have not died from a crucifixion, instead become into a coma and then healed?

Or that Jesus didn't come out of the tomb alive, instead his body was stolen by a necrophile or Judas?

Originally posted by lord xyz
JIA, what do you have to say to the evidence that people have not died from a crucifixion, instead become into a coma and then healed?

Ah, the classic "Swooning Christ" scenario.

With a Christ who survived the crucifixion, one has a Christ who is alive but not raised. He's wounded, bleeding all over, and in considerable pain. Supposing that he managed to summon the strength to move the stone, his followers wouldn't have been like, "Lord, Lord! You have returned!" They would have been like, "Holy shit, let's get this guy to a hospital."

Originally posted by FeceMan
Ah, the classic "Swooning Christ" scenario.

With a Christ who survived the crucifixion, one has a Christ who is alive but not raised. He's wounded, bleeding all over, and in considerable pain. Supposing that he managed to summon the strength to move the stone, his followers wouldn't have been like, "Lord, Lord! You have returned!" They would have been like, "Holy shit, let's get this guy to a hospital."

It is possible to survive crucifixion. As for the stone, it could've worn away, after all we don't know what it was made of.

Originally posted by lord xyz
It is possible to survive crucifixion. As for the stone, it could've worn away, after all we don't know what it was made of.

For one thing, I never said it wasn't impossible to survive crucifixion. For a second, do you realize just how much reaching you did? The stone "could have worn away"? That's...that's not a valid argument.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Being ate alive, burnt alive, dismembered, quartered, or castrated really aren't as painful or tormenting as crucification.

How would you know ? 😬

Originally posted by Nellinator
The nail through the ulnar nerve is the where the phrase "excruciating pain" come from... skinning alive sounds worse to me however...

Being eaten alive sounds worse than crucifixion to me

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
How would you know ? 😬

Generally, death would result from exsanguination fairly quickly in the cases Nellinator listed. Being burnt alive usually took, at the most, an hour, and, while very painful, was not the same as enduring for days at a time. And, though castration is painful, it doesn't necessarily result in such a degree of agony. Think, for example--God, I can't believe I'm discussing this with you--if you your penis was lopped off. Which would hurt more: a cut made at the base, or a cut made at the head (the medical term eludes me at the moment)?