Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ

Based solely on the fact that the New Testament and the Christian religion (with its particular history) exist (regardless of whether or not their claims are the truth), we can conclude with great certainty that Jesus' resurrection is an actual historical fact.

NOTES:

The argument does not assume that the New Testament is true. Only the first two theories assume it is accurate from the authors' perspectives, since the theories hold that they were deceived themselves either by Jesus only appearing to die or by hallucinations. Theories 3 and 4 do not assume that the accounts are historically accurate.

Regarding the myth theory - If Jesus was really worth mythologizing and celebrating to such a great extent, I'd think there would be some historical account of the "non-miraculous" Jesus. It isn't a bulletproof claim, but I think it does carry some weight. We can historically trace the mythologizing of the Buddha, for example, in a way we can't with Jesus.

Regarding the 1 Peter quote - remember, we're refuting the idea that the apostles 'benevolently' mythologized Jesus' life. This quote demonstrates that the New Testament authors really wanted people to believe that they were recording historical facts, not simply writing allegorical spiritual works. This means that the benevolent myth theory ends up being re-routed back to the conspiracy theory, which argues that they were deceivers.

The conclusion is based on the proposition that there are only 5 ways in which one could possibly answer the question if Jesus really rose from the dead. We think the list is pretty comprehensive... either the authors of the NT were deceived themselves (swoon, hallucination), they themselves deceived or perhaps were misunderstood by the rest of the world (conspiracy, myth), or Jesus really rose from the dead.

Regarding Jesus conquering all the sin, negativity, and murderous cruelty the world could muster - He conquered it by rising from the dead and returning with the message "peace be with you". The cross represents the negativity and cruelty of the world - Roman crucifixion is among the most cruel and dehumanizing forms of torture ever used in history. Jesus endured this and then showed His power over it by rising from the dead and returning in forgiving love. He showed us that this is the only way to break the cycle of violence and negativity. Though not everyone has followed this revelation in the 2k years since, it still stands as a beacon for those who choose to see it. Only through self-sacrifice for others can we conquer darkness. Of course this doesn't just mean 'tolerance' of everyone as-is, but truly desiring the greater good of the other.

-DCMission

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• God
• Jesus
• Christ
• resurrection
• Christianity
• Catholicism
• theology
• apologetics
• dcmission
• history
• reason
• bible
• new testament
• gospels

[dcmissionvideo]

@shockoflogic,

Skepticism is good! Faith is not the enemy of skepticism. Faith lies on the far side of skepticism, not the shallow side. We (DCMission) have another video entitled "Is Belief Reasonable?" in which this topic is discussed. One cannot reasonably believe in something unless they have sufficient reason to do so. We accept many scientific truths on faith - not blind faith, but faith based upon reasonable evidence.

[dcmissionvideo]

Or take, for example, Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived from 56-117 AD: "Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome" (Annals 15:44)

[dcmissionvideo]

@shockoflogic,

Other "theologians and historians" will strongly disagree. Take Flavius Josephus for example, a Jewish historian who lived from 37-100 AD: "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus ... They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion” (Antiquities 18:3) Cont'd...

[shockoflogic]

@dcmissionvideo i'm not trying to be difficult, it's just that i'm a skeptic and my atheism is a product of my skepticism. i'd be more than happy to accept any claim if sufficient evidence were to be provided.

[shockoflogic]

@dcmissionvideo you need to provide evidence of jesus' existence before you can give credence to any of those people's claims.

even theologians and historians admit that there is little to no evidence of the christ from the bible ever existing.

[dcmissionvideo]

St. Peter's martyrdom is attested to by Clement around 90 AD: "Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." (1 Clement Chapter 5). It is also attested to by Tertullian, Origen, and others.

[dcmissionvideo]

@shockoflogic,

I'm disappointed with this response. For your comparison of the martyrdom of the first Christians with those of Zoroastrianism to hold any weight you would need to demonstrate that the first Zoroastrians were killed for claiming to be eyewitnesses of Mithras' resurrection. This is clearly impossible. You must now address why the first Christians would die for something they knew to be a lie. Cont'd...

[shockoflogic]

@dcmissionvideo oops... sorry. lol. i forgot to respond. i had to go to work.

anyhows... unfortunately, much of the avesta has been lost over time, but the claims of zoroastrianism remain. you can google it and find it's beliefs, martyrs and the alleged actions for which they were killed.

there are no credible sources which give credence to the claims of zoroastrianism, but the same goes for christianity's. this is why i believe neither.

[dcmissionvideo]

... still waiting on that source. "Bearing witness" is not the same thing as being an "eyewitness". If someone is an eyewitness of an event, either the event happened or the person is lying and knows it. If the person is lying and knows it then it's ridiculous to think that they would die for their lie.

[dcmissionvideo]

@shockoflogic,

For claiming to be /eye/witnesses? You can't blame me for wanting to see a source on that.