Is there any real proof of the Resurrection?

I believe Jesus rose from the dead because of my faith.

But if I did not have faith and had to be convinced 100% by hard evidence there are simply to many reasons to not believe it at the very least open up the door of doubt and other possibilities.

1 Like

What specific miraculous events are you referring to in these religions that are comparable to the resurrection?

Mmmm not really. First of all a month later there would be no body. Literally only bones and some flesh so.

How long sending guards to guide it? For ever. If he hide it and then he started seeing christians saying he ressirected why didnt he do somehing about it later ? He could have wrote or say something along the lines of " Hey remember that guy. Yeah he never reay raised up. I just hide the body. Also how does that explain the mater appereancesm

Those same faiths are full or miracles, souls transferring to about being and remember past lives, and so many other things. Tales of people seeing smokeless fire beings saving and killing.

1 Like

Try it this way.

Can you prove that those that seem him did not lie?
Can you prove that Pilate sent guards there period and that the body was never even protected and that’s just a gospel lie?

I don’t believe we can prove that. But we can have faith that the gospel is true.

1 Like

But are any of those other claims of miracles either so pivotal, or central, to those faiths as is the resurrection to a Christianity? the risen Lord is precisely what the apostles were proclaiming, and the sole motivation that compelled them to so proclaim it, no? There are other miracles across the Old and New Testament, but none are remotely so comparable or central, pivotal, or foundational as is the resurrection of Christ, no?

As the OP rightly observed,

similarly, C S Lewis observed that the Christian faiith is entirely based on “one grand miracle.” There are various miraculous stories of the Christian faiths throughout both testaments, that are of perhaps in relatively the same importance as the ones you are thinking of in Islam and Buddhism. But neither faith rests entirely on the reality of one particular miracle, as does Christianity, to my understanding.

As Lewis so sagely observed…

One is very often asked at present whether we could not have a Christianity stripped, or, as people who ask it say, ‘freed’ from its miraculous elements, a Christianity with the miraculous elements suppressed. Now, it seems to me that precisely the one religion in the world, or, at least, the only one I know, with which you could not do that is Christianity. In a religion like Buddhism, if you took away the miracles attributed to Gautama Buddha in some very late sources, there would be no loss; in fact, the religion would get on very much better without them because in that case the miracles largely contradict the teaching. Or even in the case of a religion like Mohammedanism, nothing essential would be altered if you took away the miracles. You could have a great prophet preaching his dogmas without bringing in any miracles; they are only in the nature of a digression, or illuminated capitals. But you cannot possibly do that with Christianity,

Facing death and lie? Ive only seen this in extremist muslims

I dont have to answer that because of the later apperances of Christ

Not for lack of trying on the part of some modernist figures like Jefferson and the deists of his time, or more recently the Jesus seminar folks. It is interesting that the one thing that provokes embarrassment among liberal theologians of recent centuries is the one thing that rescued the early disciples from a humiliating end and compelled them to start a church.

3 Likes

If extremist muslims and other cults have done that then why is not not possible that early Christians did?

So what’s the historical proof that anyone saw Jesus beyond the death and burial of Jesus? There is not the kind of proof we have for many more recent historical figures.

All I’m saying is that to believe that the gospels is true is to have faith. To believe that early Christians did not have extremists like some others also requires faith.

1 Like

I would say that paradigm is based off of a Christian perspective. To Buddhists, those miracles are extremely important .

1 Like

They did but a bit later. In the begining christianity was seen as a weak riligion or cult

There’s a difference between extremist Muslims who believe strongly what they were told but didn’t themselves witness and the apostles and other early Christians who witnessed Jesus’s death, resurrection, and ascension and were willing to die for that belief.

The extremist Muslim is in the same position we modern Christians are in - believing what we read in our sacred text. The early Christians, according to the NT, were there witnessing things. So if these things didn’t happen, it would be strange for them to die for that, knowing it was all a lie. The extremist Muslim believes their faith. They aren’t dying for something they know to be a lie.

3 Likes

Just to be clear.

The post asked a straight forward question.

Is there proof of the resurrection. When you ask for proof I’m assuming you’re meaning 100% concrete proof without any speculation or self projection.

The answer is no. We have no evidence for it and the testimonies of the Bible only carry weight if you’re a believer.

If you’re not a believer, and you know Christ never came back from the dead and miracles never existed and the Bible is just man made stories then quoting the Bible is meaningless.

Jesus had a small close network of a dozen or so people and at least one of them tried to kill him and stole from him. It’s very easy to reasonably see the conclusions that:

  1. The apostles lied and never knew it would turn into the persecution it was becoming and was too ashamed to turn face. They went to far to turn back. We see that happen nowadays.

  2. The guards were paid off to remove the body of Jesus and lie.

  3. The guards were never even actually there. We don’t see lots of evidence of them doing that kind of thing and we don’t see romans mentioning Jesus being killed in general from any external sources.

  4. The guards were told by Pilate to remove the body and hide it hoping to prevent someone else from destroying it or from hiding it and claiming he came back. Pilate has others above him. There was others looming in the background with more power who could have told them to do it and as long as the Romans knew where the bidy was they could care less what the Jewish and Christians thought.

  5. Someone else stole the body because there was no guards there. Maybe someone stole it because they heard rumors of it having magic powers or whatever. Then the apostles got there and there was no body and so they screamed resurrection.

Plenty of plausible stories that are more easily digestible than he csme back from the dead and two involve flying beings rolled a stone out of the way and he walked through walls, floated away, and disguised himself with spiritual powers for 50 days.

Now I believe in the last few sentences I wrote. I believe because of faith. Someone that does not truly believe won’t be convinced by the evidence being presented.

1 Like

Now if you were to ask me the speculative reasons and ways I interpret various forms of evidence through the lens of faith as a reason of why I believe in an answer that and it’s very different from answering as solely using hard 100% definite proof.

1 Like

Thats now how the human works. Im not gonna let someone kill me over a lie.

By whom and why? The peasents of Jesus? Or Joseph of Arimathea ? Becaise as we know theu were dead poor (expect joseph)

Some romans historians do. But yeah this adds to mt questiom that never got amswerred. Where is the report of the roman guards that they saw something ?

The 4 one i gave an answer already

Later appereances of Jesus

I know ressurection is a matter of faih. But all of those above are pretty strawman if you ask me ,with all due respect. My only concern would be where is the report that the giards wrote they have seen the angel who blinded them

2 Likes

There are about 10 or 11 other resurrection stories in the Bible. The fact that Christ rose bodily again (which I believe) seems less important to me (other than keeping his word to do so) than that He is of the Father and showed us what He is like, along with salvation.
One can argue that one of the reasons Christianity spread in the Roman Empire was emphasis on individual worth in God’s sight, rather than a vast subjugation to the divine military machine of Rome.

The difficulty of arguing the resurrection from the gospels is that the account still boils down to what his supporters say about him…they could have invented the whole or any part of the story. So we run into mazes of their making.

1 Like

Viv…good questions but Carrier is a non-objective source. The concept of resurrection as a thing that will occur at the end of time – was part of ancient belief, specifically Jewish (maybe others) at that time. The belief, within the Judaism of the 1st centuries BC and AD, that a Jewish man would one day come and be both Messiah and God — was prevalent within that era. But the idea that a Jewish man would come and be both Messiah and God and also crucified and resurrected – that might not have been entirely the expected thing amongst people of that era. …Whatever the original disciples of Jesus may have thought about Him while He was alive and preaching, they do not --by the sources we have – seem to have expected Him to be crucified, and they all seem to have bugged out, out of fear, when He was arrested…except for His mother and a few other women.
So the issue is partly a matter of what happened to these disciples that they changed so dramatically after their Rabbi was crucified – a death that was deemed both humiliating but also a sign of being cursed by God. The few outside sources that we have, not all friendly, note at least that Jesus was believed by His disciples to have risen physically from the dead…whether or not resurrection (if believed at all) was considered to embody a physical being, is another issue…and part of the discussion.
It seems reasonable, at any rate, to ponder why people who might have expected FULLY that their rabbi was Messiah and God…and then fled and feared authorities when He was taken away…should have had such a radical change ----and enough of one that many or most of the original disciples (aside from Judas Iscariot) were willing to die for their faith in that very thing…

The question is raised as to why the body of Jesus was turned over to Joseph of Arimathea…since Joseph was a prominent and affluent Jewish man, he had the means and the obligation, as well as opportunity, to procure burial in a tomb for a fellow Jew. It was his duty as a Jewish man and civic leader of some rank, as well, in his case, a way of showing final respects.

I think the reason Joseph wanted the body is that he was a secret disciple of Jesus (as the scriptures record), but I understood the question to be “why would Pilate agree?”

He was a wealthy man of some renown, apparently. Why would Pilate want to offend him by denying his request? We already know he was into appeasing the Jews!