This is a follow up thread to my "what evidence would you require?" thread.

Many people posted that some sort of miracle that they witnessed would be sufficient for them to believe in God.

I believe that the resurrection of Jesus would fall under the type of miracle that most people were requiring. At least in the context of the NT. Meaning that if you had a very close friend that you watch die and knew was dead and then a couple of days later you saw knowing that it was the same person and did not look half dead but fully alive.

Now being that you would find it sufficient for you to believe, I am assuming that you would find it sufficient for others to believe as well. So what it comes down to is the reliability of the people in question claiming to have witnessed this event.

Now you might hold the position that you would not trust anyone else's judgment, and I guess that I can understand that to an extent (I feel that there are some underlying inconsistencies, but that it not the issue at hand). But what I can not understand is how you can make the claim that no one should trust anyone else's judgment.

I believe that Jesus was who he said he was and my evidence comes from the historical reliability of the synoptic gospels account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Now if you feel that it is reasonable to trust yourself and your experience (to an extent) in the miracle that you witness (hypothetically) then why would it be unreasonable for me to trust the Apostles (given the verification of historical reliability of the writings) when they make the claim that they saw Jesus die on the cross and rose from the dead on that third day?

This thread is not meant persuade anyone to change their beliefs about Jesus or shift what they consider enough evidence, only to show the reasonableness of holding the position that others did witness said event.

If you would like to argue that the only proper/reasonable position to hold would be that you (being the individual in question) must witness the event themselves then you can do that here as well.

This thread is not for people that believe no personal experience should be trusted no matter what. We will have a thread for you later. So don't post how you don't think anyone should trust personal experience.

There are many reasons these accounts could be false:

1. They were simply made up by people generations later who were not there, based on hearsay (or perhaps even based on pure fabrication). This would include alterations of authentic accounts to add in miracles.

2. They were indeed made by contemporaries of Jesus but they are wrong because:

a. they are lies
b. the witnesses were duped (happens all the time at revivals)



Given available evidence regarding the improbability of miracles it's a lot more likely that the accounts are false than that the miracles happen.


I also want to point out that your claim that you believe because of the historical evidence is almost surely false. (That is, unless you were previously a non-believer who was persuaded to become Christian by his historical researches, you're not telling the truth here.)

Also the claim that because some of the details in an ancient history are accurate that all of them probably are is patently false. Ever read any Suetonius?

I heard one theory a while ago, but I can't remember where, it could have been conveyed to me in this forum. I just don't remember.

But the question arises, did Jesus die when they said he did?
Crucifixions normally lasted days. According to the gospel, Jesus died after a few hours on the cross. Is it possible that they mistook him for being dead? This still happens in first world countries, so it is not too hard to assume that the same type of mistake was made during his time.

If I accepted that Jesus arose from the dead based on the historical accuracy and reliability of the given sources, then I would also have to assume that Gilgamesh had superhuman strength, that Muhammad had visions given to him by God and that Marjatta got pregnant because she ate a berry.

Yeah what's your point??

I don't think that this is really a possibility being that I feel someone who was close to him would have noticed that he looked half dead. I feel there would be a noticeable difference.

Now of course that is possible, that that is not really the point of the thread. What you are doing is arguing the historical accuracy. The question is that if we can come to the conclusion that the Gospels are historically accurate then the position that Jesus rose from the dead a reasonable one.

This boils down to the historical reliability of the individual texts. If you think that each one of the separate texts is equally reliable then yes you would have to come to that conclusion. But then I would have to say that you lack any knowledge of history or the texts in question.

I don't think that you can argue that all historical texts are on an equal level with respect to their reliability.

Well, then I would have to say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Feel free to post an argument.

Fwiw; I'd be very interested in seeing a solid case for why the NT is more historically accurate than the Quran.

I'll try not to derail this thread too much further, but I want to show you this article. It talks about a woman found alive in a morgue after a doctor pronounced her dead.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-1322541.html

My ability to believe in a claim I have not personally witnessed is directly proportional to how outlandish it is.

• If you told me you just ate a pizza, I'd think, ok he just ate a pizza

• If you told me you just ate 2x 16" pizzas and a tub of ice cream i'd be a little more skeptical - but if several people on this forum claimed to have seen you do it, again I'd prolly just assume you did.

• If you told me you just ate a lorry - every last bit of it, i dont believe any number of people, no matter how honest they were would make me believe it was so. Its something so foreign to my reality that short of seeing it with my own eyes i simply could not accept it.

I personally believe that no one should trust your claim to having just munched your way through a lorry, without first hand experience of you doing it. This is because there are many wild and outlandish claims by humans on this planet, and the vast majority of the time they turn out to be false. Why put your faith in the assumption that this one is true?

William Lane Craig often posits that one of the big pieces of evidence in favour of Jesus have risen from the dead is the empty tomb. Let's accept for the sake of the argument that there was a tomb, and it was indeed empty. Why is that evidence for anything other than the fact that there was no body in the tomb. History is filled with fans spiriting away bodies right from under people's noses: Evita Peron, Charlie Chaplin. I'm sure some more time on google will unearth others.

We can easily come up with perfectly natural explanations for why a body might go missing: so is there any value to this claim?

iirc even as recently as the 1800s there were cases of people being buried alive because people thought they were dead. that was 200 years ago, so it is very possible that 2000 years ago that could have happened

No. He watched the other Jesus get killed then he went to Kashmir.

This is a question revolving around the historical accuracy of the Gospels. Can we trust that what the Apostles claimed to see is what they saw. If so, is this a reasonable position to hold.

If you want a good case for the historical reliability of the Gospels then read Boyd's book "The Jesus Legend"

Do you really think that the shape Jesus would have had to have been in after the whole process, it would have been convincing to anyone that he "rose" from the dead?

When you hold up the historical reliability of the Gospels I assume you're saying something like "wow, lots of the details check out, seems like these were written by actual people who contemporaries of Jesus".

How do you go from that to the leap that "everything they say, including miracles, must be true"?

You think humans do not constantly provide inaccurate testimony, whether by fraud or confusion or faulty recollection?

dude, no...its not. its an explanation for an empty tomb. arouet granted you accuracy already.

he's saying, even if the gospels are accurate, who cares if there is an empty tomb?

This is how legends are born.

A half-dead guy crawls out of his grave one morning and by nightfall people in the tavern the next village over are talking about how burst through the ground and flew ten feet into the air with background music provided by a chorus of angels.

Traditionally, it was thought that the Canonical Gospel of Matthew was authentic. It was believed to be composed in Hebrew by Matthew and to be the first gospel written. Modern biblical research has shown that this is not the case.

There was a strong tradition in the early church, vouched for by Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, that Matthew had written the gospel in the Hebrew language. Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Jerome identify the Gospel of the Hebrews with this Hebrew gospel of Matthew.

The presentation in the Gospel of the Hebrews is simple, thoughtful, lifelike; for the most part it shows its primitive character by the absence of the marvelous and fantastic which adorn the apocryphal gospels. The gospel does not bear the marks of having been constructed to inculcate any particular theological tenets, except possibly in its Jewish view as to the origin and nature of Christ. It is, in the main, a simple historical narrative whose purpose seems to have been to preserve the living, evangelical tradition for present and future use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews

The rivalry between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians brought about the intentional destruction of Hebrew texts. The doctrinal reason centered on Adoptionism. This theology was a minority Hebrew Christian belief that Jesus was merely human, being born of a physical union between Joseph and Mary.

In fact, Jesus had brothers.

There was no story of a Virgin Birth. Jesus became one with God at his baptism.

Didymus actually held The Gospel of the Hebrews to be more authoritative than the Scriptures. He explains that there are many people with two names. Scripture calls Matthew “Levi” in the Gospel of Luke, but they are not the same person. Rather Matthias who replaced Judas, and Levi are the same man with a double name. This is obvious in the Gospel of the Hebrews.

I think that there is a lot more that just an empty tomb in question. I know WLC focus on that, but I he usually follows up with other arguments.

If you were correct and the only piece of evidence, or the only thing we had to go on was an empty tomb, I would agree that there are far more plausible explanations than Jesus rose from the dead.

The claims of the Apostles and their lives post resurrection event is what needs to be accounted for.

lol, seriously.

i dunno why theists have such a difficult time understanding this incredibly simple concept.

that a pre scientific, mostly illiterate culture might exaggerate a tale or two is just out of the realm of possibility! it has to be real!

no offense, but this an internet forum. what exactly are you looking for? dealing with their lives post-resurrection would take a 300 page book.

arouet made a very fair point, and youre just tossing it aside.

Interestingly both the theists AND atheists on this forum don't get this. They refuse to acknowledge that the probability that the Jesus story is true is highly related to whether someone like Uri Gellers claims are ever true. Just goes to show once again that poker players are smarter than philosophers.

I am sorry if you feel that I was tossing it aside, but I thought that I addressed that in my second post. If not maybe you can clarify and I will attempt another response.

As far as a 300 page book goes. You are most certainly right. Which is why I am not trying to discuss whether or not the Gospels can be considered reliable, but what are the implications if we can consider them reliable.

Basically, if X then is Y a reasonable position to hold.