Was Christ's Resurrection quite likely?

[rakovsky]

I think that God exists, that Jesus existed, that there is an afterlife, and that miracles happen. But my problem is that I have a lot of uncertainty about Jesus' transfigured resurrection, even though Christianity and our Church encourages us to think this. Certainly there is evidence to suggest that it happened.

First, ancient writings like Daniel 9 and Psalms 16 and 22 strongly suggest that the Messiah would be killed and resurrect.

Second, the disciples were full of morality and moral teachings, and were persecuted for their beliefs, so they should be reliable sources.

Third, It looks like the body escaped or was removed from the tomb, since otherwise the pharisees could point to it as proof that the person didn't resurrect.

Fourth, Christian miracles or other unusual events occasionally happen. For example, one lady made a prayer about Jesus, and then she photographed the sky as follows:

...

Fifth, Christ explained that the Atonement was necessary for salvation. God had to come down to earth and die in order to save people, He said. The world wants salvation, and so Christianity has spread around the world.

The problem is that a transfigured Resurrection is something next to impossible in our experience of the world. For a body to vanish and transfigure and appear to people, make physical contact with them, eat fish, disappear again is outside our knowledge of science or experience. It is so unusual for us that it would make the Resurrection extremely unlikely to have happened. There are plenty of planets in he universe, and it would be a small chance that God would pick ours to use for His only begotten incarnated Son, although I suppose Jesus could appear on different planets.

And also the evidence for the resurrection can be questioned: The Bible might have predicted it, but the predictions can be vague and the Bible might not always be right about every fact. Also, religious leaders with moral teachings like Joseph Smith and the Mormons, Scientology, and even some Christian pastors - can make things up, lie, or take advantage of people, even if they are persecuted for it. There were Christian gnostic groups that made up mythical, apocryphal gospels in the first two centuries.

People can hallucinate, so perhaps they hallucinated about Jesus. For example, thousands of Catholics have crowded to see the Virgin May in the sky, but part of the people there said they didn't see anything unusual, which suggests that other people might just have imagined that they did. Another possibility is that parts of the gospels about the resurrection were made up years later and added in separately.

Finally, it's true that the world wants salvation, but perhaps that doesn't mean that it happened in this way at this point in time. Jesus Himself said that God could do all think and asked the cup to be removed from Him. In the gospel story Jesus went through the suffering anyway, but perhaps Jesus was still right that God could have found a different way to achieve salvation. Besides, just because people need something, like water or food, doesn't mean that God has always provided it.

So my question is whether there is any way to have a pretty strong, well-justified, rational opinion about what happened? Certainly if you went back in time you could have a good idea. Perhaps you could watch what happened to Jesus' body at the tomb or you could follow the apostles around in their sightings of Jesus. Another way to tell would be if a clairvoyant could look back in time to see what happened. But, not being a clairvoyant, this seems unreliable. An even better way to know would be if Jesus appeared in a way that one could tell that it was probably Him instead of a hallucination - like how he appeared to St. Thomas.

Edited April 7, 2015 by rakovsky

[jamesjr191]

"Certainly there is evidence to suggest that it happened."

Wrong from the get go. Wheres the evidence, the Bible? Thats not evidence, sorry.

Edited April 7, 2015 by jamesjr191

[Imaginarynumber1]

"Certainly there is evidence to suggest that it happened."

Wrong from the get go. Wheres the evidence, the Bible? Thats not evidence, sorry.

I was gonna say the same. The bible is not evidence of anything. Modern day religion is based on faith, which by its very definition is belief without evidence.

[Aftermath]

Was Christ's Resurrection quite likely?

YES!

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

Biblical fiction, a bit like Harry Potter very entertaining but we all know Wizards and Witches don't exist..

[Dark_Grey]

Was Christ's Resurrection quite likely?

YES!

See, here's my issue with that belief *climbs on to soapbox*

If we are going to believe in supernatural events, aren't we then obligated to believe in all supernatural events? If the Son of God is killed and then resurrected as depicted in the Bible, then we have to assume that other ancient texts were describing real events as well. The Epic of Gilgamesh, Elijah riding a flaming chariot into the sky, giants, demons, dragons, Poseidon, etc etc

[Imaginarynumber1]

Biblical fiction, a bit like Harry Potter very entertaining but we all know Wizards and Witches don't exist..

Well hold on now, I think the lid has been blown off the whole wizard thing recently. They're out there...

[Aftermath]

See, here's my issue with that belief *climbs on to soapbox*

If we are going to believe in supernatural events, aren't we then obligated to believe in all supernatural events? If the Son of God is killed and then resurrected as depicted in the Bible, then we have to assume that other ancient texts were describing real events as well. The Epic of Gilgamesh, Elijah riding a flaming chariot into the sky, giants, demons, dragons, Poseidon, etc etc

What's wrong with The Epic of Gilgamesh? I rather enjoyed reading that as well.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Well, given that God wrote the system codes for reality, him leaving himself either a backdoor or some cheat codes handy makes perfect sense.

Noah's ark's too small for everything? Fiddle with the relative dimensions.

Jesus needs to resurrect? bring him back to life then.

The Star of Bethlehem? Just going to move this star around because I can.

[Dark_Grey]

Well, given that God wrote the system codes for reality, him leaving himself either a backdoor or some cheat codes handy makes perfect sense.

Noah's ark's too small for everything? Fiddle with the relative dimensions.

Jesus needs to resurrect? bring him back to life then.

The Star of Bethlehem? Just going to move this star around because I can.

There's your simulation theory: the Universe is built on code and God is the programmer. The laws of nature are like play-dough to him.

[Podo]

I think that the entire OP is flawed because the Bible is being used as "evidence" of anything written in it having happened, when in reality this is just not true. If a person takes the bible as a historical source, they may as well consider every book ever written a historical source. Bagavad Gita? Krishna totally stopped time and held a moral debate with his buddy. Mabinogion? Tuatha de Dan'an definitely existed and fought the Formians for decades. Dragonriders of Pern? Humans sent a colony into space and genetically engineered dragons to burn magical space-worms out of the sky.

It just doesn't hold up.

[Border Collie]

It's circular reasoning. Not evidence. Believe what you want but don't present that as evidence. And lol at the photo.

[Aftermath]

"Certainly there is evidence to suggest that it happened."

Wrong from the get go. Wheres the evidence, the Bible? Thats not evidence, sorry.

I think that the entire OP is flawed because the Bible is being used as "evidence" of anything written in it having happened, when in reality this is just not true.

As a Christian, I'm ok with what you believe (i.e., the Bible is not evidence). But you know, the Bible as evidence is good enough for me, I have faith, and that's all there is to it. I think for you to write: "...in reality this is just not true." is wrong - the Bible and everything in it is true.

[Podo]

As a Christian, I'm ok with what you believe (i.e., the Bible is not evidence). But you know, the Bible as evidence is good enough for me, I have faith, and that's all there is to it. I think for you to write: "...in reality this is just not true." is wrong - the Bible and everything in it is true.

The great thing about truth is that it isn't subjective. You don't have to believe in it for it to be the case. If you believe that everything in the bible actually happened, that's fine, as is it fine that you consider the bible as "evidence". But please understand the difference between what you consider evidence and the actual definition of the word. The bible's word can not PROVE anything observably or empirically. As such, it isn't evidence, it is anecdotal. If that's good enough for you, that's great, but that does not make it evidence in any way, shape, or form. I don't "believe" the bible isn't evidence, because it isn't my opinion; it isn't evidence of the truth of its own claims by the basic definition of the term evidence.

(From dictionary.com)

Evidence noun

1.

that which tends to prove or disprove something;ground for belief; proof.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Podo

[Aftermath]

Right, the Bible is evidence for me as it proves God. I call it purple, you call it Berry Jam, she calls it Vigorous Violet - - and we all think we're right.

That's the point and that's the problem.

[rakovsky]

I thought people here gave good answers. Unfortunately I am still in a rut, because I need a basis to decide one way or the other. I wish I had that.

Some people say they believe the Bible. This has some reasoning. The Bible is evidence. If you find a book with a story about a meeting your great grandfather had with an Indian chief, then the book is evidence. If the story sounds like the kind of things your ancestor would say and the chief would say, you can think that it probably happened, even if you couldn't find confirmation outside that book. Text scholars look at the Bible and found details that the authors wouldnt want to make up, for example women being the first ones at the tomb, so they know that it probably has a basis in real events.

But the critics have at least a claim here- a meeting with a chief is a much more normal thing, and therefore more believable. When the Bible says things that are extremely unlikely by themselves, then a person can want confirmation outside the Bible too. I think that there are such confirmations like miracles, but still they are debated, other religions have them supposedly, I want something that is reliable. For example, if your old book said that your grandfather resurrected people who had their heads cut off, you would want a LOT more evidence. So sure, the Bible is good evidence when it talks about normal things, or even some unusual things, since the authors write a lot about morality and God. But the Bible by itself leaves me with uncertainty.

The critics here gave an opposite viewpoint. They said that if we accept the Bible,

we have to assume that other ancient texts were describing real events as well. The Epic of Gilgamesh, Elijah riding a flaming chariot into the sky, giants, demons, dragons, Poseidon, etc etc

But there is a big difference between some of these. Dragons really exist in Indonesia, but zoologists disbelieved the claims of them for a long time. Granted, those dragons don't fly, although poison (instead of fire) comes out of their mouth.

Poseidon is supposedly a sea deity. Since I don't see a basis in dividing divine beings by what they oversee (love vs. the ocean, etc.), I don't really believe there is a separate sea deity called Poseidon. In other words, for some ancient claims there is more basis for belief than others and more of a basis in reality (eg. dragons dripping poison from their mouths exist, but not breathing fire)

When you look at the Bible, some of the strange claims could have a basis in reality. There is a city of Sodom, apparently, that was destroyed in a quick moment, perhaps by a massive fire. Also, there are amny stories of massive ancient floods throughout world cultures. And the difference with the Epic of Gilgamesh is that the apostles were witnesses writing about things they claimed that they witnessed. In other words, the Bible is not the kind of document that is instantly incredible. Further, some evidence that the Bible mentions makes its claims more credible - if 70 apostles claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus, then it makes the claim more believable.

So, I see room for doubting the Bible's claim of His resurrection because of how miraculous it would be, but I see at least some basis for the claim too.

For me, the problem is not really whether the claim is doubtful, but whether I can have a strong opinion about it when the evidence points both ways (Bible + miracles + prophecies + historical confirmation like Josephus + successful spread of Christianity + empty tomb, etc. etc. VS. how it sounds scientifically unlikely.) Some things sound unlikely based on our experience, and ye science later revealed it. It's mind boggling that right now there are radio and TV waves going through our brains we cant see and if we turn on a radio someplace it can pick those signals up Electricity is also strange as a harnassed power in wires for someone 300 years ago to believe in. There is even such thing as a Tesla coil where electicity passes through air invisibly and can turn on lights. So just because something sounds impossible (or next to it) scientifcally doesn't mean that it did not happen.

In other words, I see room for major doubt because of science, but should one have a strong opinion that it did NOT happen? How could someone have a good enough basis for deciding one way or the other?

Edited April 8, 2015 by rakovsky

[rakovsky]

Four ways I can think of to get an answer:

1. Time Travel - we don't seem to have that power yet

2. Clairvoyance - it seems unreliable and maybe the church (Old Testament) bans that

3. Turin Shroud- maybe something could be uncovered in it to show that it's a very miraculous object made when Jesus resurrection in the grave. But scholars seem to argue over the shroud a lot. It looks like it goes back to the 6th century or earlier.

4. Jesus' Appearance - He could show up in physical form like He did to the apostles before the Ascension. Then you would know that He is still in a physical, transfigured form. Also, it looks like the Ascension is an explanation why He is not still walking around physically like He was in the weeks after the resurrection.

[+Hammerclaw]

Sorry, OP, there is no emperical evidence. As a poster has already stated, Religion is based on Faith. Faith is belief in the absence of absolute knowledge. Now, there are a lot of things we assume to be true without certain knowledge, even in science, but religion is the biggest of all. I'm afraid you'll just have to make that "leap of Faith" with the rest of us believers.

[Podo]

Right, the Bible is evidence for me as it proves God. I call it purple, you call it Berry Jam, she calls it Vigorous Violet - - and we all think we're right.

That's the point and that's the problem.

But...no, you don't seem to get it. Even if you THINK it proves god, it doesn't, because it doesn't provide concrete, testable proof that your god exists. It might be good enough for you to base your belief on, but this is not proof by any English definition of the word. It might be good enough for you to believe it, and if that's the case that's okay, but that does not magically change the definition of proof to include your definition.

It's as I said in my original comment. If the bible is "proof" of god then the Dragonriders of Pern are proof of dragons, the Bagavad Gita is proof of Krishna, and the Mabinogion is proof that the Tuatha de Da'nan actually fought the Formians. Just because it is written down does not mean it is proof, and the bible is nothing more than another book.

[Podo]

I thought people here gave good answers. Unfortunately I am still in a rut, because I need a basis to decide one way or the other. I wish I had that.

So sure, the Bible is good evidence when it talks about normal things, or even some unusual things, since the authors write a lot about morality and God. But the Bible by itself leaves me with uncertainty.

In other words, I see room for major doubt because of science, but should one have a strong opinion that it did NOT happen? How could someone have a good enough basis for deciding one way or the other?

The thing that I don't think you get is that the existence of a book written by humans is no basis, one way or another. The bible is just a story, a collection of philosophy. We don't need basis to think that the events in it didn't happen for the same reason I don't need basis to think that the events of Winnie the Pooh didn't happen; it's a story, and I don't need to disprove it. Now, if someone came up and started claiming that the events in Winnie the Pooh DID happen, it would be up to them to prove their claims, not up to me to disprove them. It's the exact same with the bible. I don't need to come up with facts proving that the events didn't happen, since we have no factual reason to believe that they did. Instead, it is the job of those making the claims to prove that the events took place.

It's not so much that I think the bible's events didn't happen, it's more that I don't see it as relevant because it's a story and of course the events in stories don't happen. If I get evidence on the contrary, I'm willing to believe otherwise, but so far that's never happened. The punchline here is that a 2000-ish year old book, gone through many revisions, translations, and different authors that describes impossible things is evidence of nothing beyond the type of philosophy adhered to by those around at its writing. It provides no proof or evidence for the events it has declared have happened.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Podo

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

But...no, you don't seem to get it. Even if you THINK it proves god, it doesn't, because it doesn't provide concrete, testable proof that your god exists.

I don't think anyone is saying it is, even the believers in this thread.

It is what it is at the end of the day and as others have already stated, just pure faith.

Edited April 8, 2015 by shaddow134

[Podo]

I don't think anyone is saying it is, even the believers in this thread.

It is what it is at the end of the day and as others have already stated, just pure faith.

Religion is nothing but pure faith, I understand this and agree with you. But I'm not really sure how else to take the statement "Right, the Bible is evidence for me as it proves God."

He is literally stating that the bible proves god. Proves. I dunno, maybe I'm reading too deep into it.

[docyabut2]

I do believe Jesus a great teacher and a comforter did survive the cross but not for long, other wise his story would have never taken off.

[eight bits]

rakovsky

You seem to have given the question a lot of thought. So, allow me to recommend adding a bit of method to your thinking.

Step 1 in real-world thinking about an uncertain proposition is to consider "What are the realistic specific alternatives?" At a minimum, think about "What is one realistic specific alternative?"

Example "Jesus didn't rise from the dead" is a realistic alternative, but it isn't at all specific. "Space aliens transported Jesus' body from the tomb" is a specific alternative, but it is not realistic. "Somebody stole the body" is both realistic and specific enough to be useful.

Then the next step is to compare how likely the things you've confidently observed are under the assumption that one alternative is true compared with how likely those observed things are under the assumption that the other is true.

If you've observed it, then it's evidence. Forget "The Bible isn't evidence." Of course it is, if the world were different, it would say different things. Forget also baloney like "You need proof before you form a belief." This isn't mathematics, you're not finding truth, you're comparing one thing with another. There will never be proof worthy of the name, there is only more likely or less likely among two or more alternatives, according to your best judgment.

Grave robbery is not my favorite alternative hypothesis, and people will differ what is more "realistic" to them than something else. This cannot be helped, so soldier on with your own investiagtion. I'll stay with grave robbery as an example.

The next step is to "make the case(s)" for the alternative(s). That is, go looking for features of the world which fit better or worse if the alternative is true

Example If I were making the case for "somebody stole the body," then I'd be interested in whether people did steal bodies in those days (yes, they did, enough so that there were laws about it), and why they did that (to steal the contents of tombs, bodies are often tossed aside to make working easier, or for magical operations). Then I'd see if what I learned applied to this case (according to John, a king's ransom of unguents was entombed with Jesus, as to magic, people who died violently, especially criminals, provided the best raw materials).

The final step is to compare overall: "Which is more likely, based on what I believe about the world,: Jesus rose from the dead, or this alternative, somebody stole his body?" That's a personal matter. Nobody actually knows.

[Border Collie]

We don't need basis to think that the events in it didn't happen for the same reason I don't need basis to think that the events of Winnie the Pooh didn't happen; it's a story, and I don't need to disprove it. Now, if someone came up and started claiming that the events in Winnie the Pooh DID happen, it would be up to them to prove their claims, not up to me to disprove them.

What????! You can't say that about Pooh Bear! My seconds will call on you dawn tomorrow.

Pooh! Has this place no standards?