Is Jesus' Resurrection Plausible?

[Biochemist]

Biochemist; Even though I'm on your side, I need to point out that all these folks are trying to say is; there is no proof that Christ was resurrected from the dead....

I do appreciate the sentiment, IF, but I was trying to offer a proof case for scientific discussion, not a faith position in any sense. The proof case was mainly in the link in post #17. I don't think anyone has responded to that post except C1ay. In that post, there are a number of credible evidenciary elements.

 

I contend that it is not consistent with fact to say there is no proof. It is perfectly reasonable for one to suggest that , based on one's understanding of the evidence, that the proof is not sufficient to make the case.

 

But I do not think it is reasonable to suggest there is no supportive evidence I thought I made my objective pretty clear in post #1. Perhaps I was mistaken.

 

Thanks again for the note.

[infamous]

I do appreciate the sentiment, IF, but I was trying to offer a proof case for scientific discussion, not a faith position in any sense. The proof case was mainly in the link in post #17. I don't think anyone has responded to that post except C1ay. In that post, there are a number of credible evidenciary elements.

 

I contend that it is not consistent with fact to say there is no proof. It is perfectly reasonable for one to suggest that , based on one's understanding of the evidence, that the proof is not sufficient to make the case.

 

But I do not think it is reasonable to suggest there is no supportive evidence I thought I made my objective pretty clear in post #1. Perhaps I was mistaken.

 

Thanks again for the note.

 

Thank you also Bio; I'm going to read this link over which you listed in post #17. After I've had sufficient time to study this material, I'll get back with you and maybe we can discuss weather or not there is any supportable evidence within this article. It's probably expecting to much for us to assume that all of those with an atheistic persuasion will also investigate this material with an open mind. There are however many members at Hypography that I believe would also be interested in taking a look at this material.

[infamous]

He writes in his Conclusion:

 

Finally, there are seriouis flaws in the arguments advanced by both sides. And even if those flaws were corrected, the arguments would still not constitute a strong apologetic for the resurrection. On the bases of the available evidence (and the arguments I've seen), I conclude that a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection.

 

As you already know, I am a believer and I hold Christ in my faith as Lord. However, if not from my own personal experience by his revelation, I would be not be persuaded to believe. What I am saying is; according to observable evidence, I would have to be an atheist or at least an agnostic. Evidence is not the same as faith. If you are looking for evidence to suport your faith, I think you are doomed to fail. I believe because the Lord has delt with me on a personal basis, not because someone has shown me any proof. Understand, I'm not scolding you, I just believe that my experience with my Lord is so personal that it is mine only. I can witness to those that want to here, but I'll never convince those that refuse to listen. In my conclusion; the last sentence of the above paragraph "I conclude that a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection" will not be recognized by a person of atheistic persuasion. The reply will go something like this: "Any rational personal will not accept something that cannot be supported with hard evidence". You cannot convince anyone to believe in something that is faaith based if they refuse to believe. Have a good one Bio, I'm still on your side.

[Queso]

"Finally, there are seriouis flaws in the arguments advanced by both sides."

 

i don't understand what flaws exist on the side that don't believe. we ask questions about what really happened....i don't see how that is a flaw.

[infamous]

"Finally, there are seriouis flaws in the arguments advanced by both sides."

 

i don't understand what flaws exist on the side that don't believe. we ask questions about what really happened....i don't see how that is a flaw.

 

I'm not the one to ask that question orbsycli; this quote is taken from the original text. This is the author's opinion and not necessarily mine.

[paultrr]

Biochemist; Even though I'm on your side, I need to point out that all these folks are trying to say is; there is no proof that Christ was resurrected from the dead. I believe by faith that he was as you also do, but without proof no one will be convinced. I think it would be more constructive to find positions of similar agreement upon which to build our discussions. I'm not saying that we should never disagree, but it would be more profitable to base our discussions on varifiable evidence. This is after all a Science Forum, and sceince is about finding evidence to support our understanding.

 

I've read before Tim's Book, "Evidence that demands a verdict", as well as, "More Evidence that demands a virdict." Discounting liberal attempts at trying to discount the resurrection, discounting the fact that while none of the proposed tombs actually can be shown to really date from the time of Christ, discounting all the other secular issues raised one of the strongest arguments I've personally ever seen for the resurrection would be the testimony and changed lives of the Apostles and other witnesses themselves if one accepted the Bible story as real and true to begin with. The problem you face there is most of us simply do not look at the Bible that way at all. At its best we see the Bible as an outline of the history of a certain people. We see the Bible as portraying their own religious perspectives which have themselves evolved over time. But we do not see the Bible as inspired of God, if such a being exists, anymore than any other religious book. As such its evidence value comes into suspect when it comes to its historical accuracy.

 

My actual point was something being echoed a bit before this. You believe. You have faith which is something by definition that should not actually require evidence in the first place. My point in mentioning Thomas out of the Bible was that the type of faith Thomas portrayed was not the solid real faith that Christ at least by his own recorded words was after. He was after faith that believes even when there is no evidence on the surface. That's the type of faith one sees in the story of Abraham willing to sacrifice his son. What I see today is mostly an organized religion that has all the forms of godliness without the real power of that kind of faith. If the Church was so secure in their belief there would be no reason to hold discourse and debate about evolution. According to the words of the Bible the Church holds to be inspired of God and without error this world was created by God(Father, Son, Holy Spirit)[the original text uses a plural noun when speaking of God]. He perfomed this creative act out of sure will and did so in a seven day period. The Hebrew word for day, Yom, actually really means an exapnse of time. However, after a point in the account with the placing of the sun and moon in the heavens above there can be no debate on the length of that expanse if one honestly believes the Bible is God's inspired and without error word.

 

That generally leaves all of the more modern attempts to try and admixture in evolutionary ideas with the Biblical story either pointing to the fact that all these modern believers really do not believe God's word is God's word, or they simply have strong questions about what they really do believe. There cannot be a middle ground on this if one honestly believes the Bible to be God's inspired and inerrant word. So the thing I was trying to point out is that trying to drum up evidence in one way or another is rather like saying out one side of you're mouth that you believe the Bible is God's word while saying that its not enough evidence in itself for anyone to believe.

 

I was also trying as many here have before to point out that if you really do believe and have faith that when it comes to that faith you have stepped out of the bounds of anything science can actually measure, qualify, etc. As such, while you're faith may or may not be valid even if it is valid it stands outside of the grounds of science's scope of gathering of evidence.

 

My own personal view on the way you come accross is that of some guy who has more trust in evidence, in the science of odds, etc than in the actual message of the Bible or the Gospel. You come across to me as someone who mentally acknowledges a Creator and strives very hard to prove to everyone else that you're position is valid. But when it really comes down to a definition of you're faith all you seem to be able to present is semi-logic based reasoning and very little of what the Bible portrays as faith. You sound very much like Thomas on the day of resurrection looking right at Christ and asking him for a sign that its really him. That type of Christian I think the world is rather tired of a lot. Perhaps if modern so-called Christians could actually go out and lay hands upon a blind man and that man actually was able to see we might have something in the way of hard evidence that does demand a virdict one way or another. And do not bother to mention all those fake faith healers out there. I well remember one who's first name was Ernest who used to stand on TV when I was young, lay hands on people who supposedly could not speak, tell them to say baby, and these people who speak sounding worse than most infants at their first attempt. If that is healing I'll go clear out a local hospital ward.

 

If a lot of us are tired of anything its this false type of intelectual faith that the Church in general has tended to go after in droves.You really cannot prove its a living faith by any normal means of doing so. However, some guy who used to be a public drunk, having his life changed around and walking up to some poor guy who has not walked a lick one in his life and telling the guy to rise in the name of Jesus and the guy gets up in front of God and country is something in the way of an event that one could actually attempt to study via scientific means. Its public, its witnessed, it would leave behind evidence in that man's body in the way of altered fixed body structure. Granted one could not expect to duplicate such. But the fact that the man who could not walk at all since birth was walking would be damn hard to argue around. There would have to be evidence worth investigating there.

 

The Bible says it well. By their fruits you shall know them. It gives very strong testimony to that type of fruit one of which is the ability to lay hands upon the sick and they will be healed. You my friend like it or not do not come across in all this intelectual argument and presentation as having that type of faith at all. If anything in general you actually tend to turn people even further off to the subject of both God and the Bible. Yes, most of the church out there is the type of Christian's fortold to be coming in the latter days. "They will have a form of godliness, but deny the power therein." However, anyone with a lick of sence at around the time of Christ watching just the early church evolve could have made that same prediction even back then. It does not take some God telling you it will turn out that way. It just takes understanding human nature itself. So even here there is no real evidence that demands a virdict.

 

So all in all if I was going to amen someone here it be the person I quoted above.

[paultrr]

If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then, no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon. The same goes in reverse. For one who assumes God exists then no amount of arguments to the contrary will change their view.

 

What I am trying to point out at the end of the day when you boil it all down is you're faith based upon an actual internal sence of communion with God or is it based upon a lot of what you see as evidence for God? If it all boils down to the first there is no honest way to apply scientific methods to such. If it boils down to the second then in essence you do not have at least what the Bible claims is the right stuff. You would then at the best(I think all of us could debate the merits of this)what would be termed an intelectual acceptance of God. You would be an intlectual believer in God simply because in you're view the evidence supports such. But, as many here have tried to point out in the end run all the debate about odds on both sides has a lot of yet to be determined variables simply because outside of the record in the earth none of us where there at that time period.

 

That brings us back in itself to the question about Jesus and the resurrection. For the historical critical the Gospels came well after the time of Christ. So most from that camp will tend to dismiss the Gospels as any solid evidence about Christ. Luke for example was not an eyewitness. He only claimed to report what he was told. Some anchient manuscripts support Mark in its entire wording while some do not. The linage of Christ is also a bit different in each account, especially as concerns certain relatives. In all, while the storyline generally runs the same cource, there are differences in the accounts given which does call into question at least part of the tale about the life of Christ as an historic person. But let's assume for the sake of avoiding an argument that he was an historic person for a moment.

 

Is there any historic evidence out there that scientists could actually study as relates to the resurrection? Forget changed lives, forget the fact that centuries later people still worship him. Is there any real evidence this man called Jesus really rose from the grave outside of the internal belief some have? I'm looking for hard core evidence one could actually examine in the field or in a lab.

[infamous]

Mat. 12:39......But he answered and said unto them, An evil and "adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

 

I seek after no sign, his revelation to my spirit is sufficient for my faith. But if one is trying to convert the atheist, evidence will need to be presented. Because there is no evidence that an atheist will accept, I believe that this effort will fail. My faith does not come from temporal evidence, it is given to me by the presence of the Holy Spirit. The evidence that bears witness with my spirit.

 

From my last post; "I believe because the Lord has dealt with me on a personal basis, not because someone has shown me any proof".

 

I don't believe anyone will ever be convinced by what some would call proof. Even if so called "proof" could be shown, those that refuse to believe will deny it's relevance. The cause for belief does't come from men's proof, it comes from the Holy Spirit himself.

[paultrr]

Mat. 12:39......But he answered and said unto them, An evil and "adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

 

I seek after no sign, his revelation to my spirit is sufficient for my faith. But if one is trying to convert the atheist, evidence will need to be presented. Because there is no evidence that an atheist will accept, I believe that this effort will fail. My faith does not come from temporal evidence, it is given to me by the presence of the Holy Spirit. The evidence that bears witness with my spirit.

 

Then by definition you do have faith. Faith cannot be rationilized or proved out on any slide rule. It is after all a matter of the heart and soul, so to speak using the language of those who do believe. To try and present some logic rational based proof that something that by definition is the result of a miricle of a being whome believers accept is the Creator is frought from the beginning with error. If such a being as God does exist that being requires no proofs or sign of his or hers existances. At the same time that does not discount that there might be some evidence or signature left upon nature that points to such a being also. What it simply boils down to is one either believes or one does not.

 

Mat. 12:39......But he answered and said unto them, An evil and "adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: is a very apt quote when it comes to a lot of these modern attempts at trying to prove out God or a special creation. If God himself, according to the words Christian hold to be his words refused to give signs or proofs then why try and subvert the message into something it was never designed to be?

 

I'm not actually against faith. What one believes to me is a personal matter. I also do not fully discount what one might term the spiritual aspect of man. If I have any personal stance on the subject its that everything to do with faith is rather a bit outside of the relm of science and its ability to use scientific methods. At least when it comes to any full study of such. If it might interest some of you I do actually deep down find what could out of science be interpreted as some evidence when it comes to the start of this universe for an outside first cause. But notice the words INTERPRETED that I used. It actually does depend upon one's own point of view. However, I have never seen any solid hard core evidence for the same type of God that Christian's tend to think of. In fact, if I was going to side on the great God debate it would be more in line with Einstein's own thoughts than with anything else. However, even as a non-christian I can recognize by simply reading the Bible that a lot of what calls itself Christian today simply does not have the type of faith that Christ spoke of. What they seem to be after is an intelectual based faith that they think the whole world can be satisified with.

 

From my own reading and study in the past of the Bible that is not the kind of faith that will save anyone period. Its more akin to the type of faith based upon works out of the Bible where one has faith that if one acknowledges this or that then they are on the right path. I find it little different from the middle ages thought that one could buy indulgences for certain sins and thus gain through monitary means or by physical turmoil favor with God. Its a dead kind of faith that offers no real evidence and as such certainly does not forfill the further part of scripture that speaks of faith without works being dead. The works in that case was outward evidence in the lives of those believers that clearly pointed to a higher power than themselves in operation. Its a works that stems from the faith and not the other way around.

 

Maybe a lot of us evolutionists tend to be closed minded on the subject. I will not deny that fact. We are closed minded because having examined the evidence that is there via scientific methods and principles that is the case that we find to be true. But at least we are honest to our own methods and principles in the way we interpret that evidence. We grant there are unknows in all this and areas we simply may never know exactly unless we ever have the chance to study an environment that is exactly the same as when life first arose. At that point perhaps we do employ our own bit of faith by assuming that since the rest seems to fit the evidence then the other should follow. But at the very least we have some honest physical evidence in our favor whereas when it comes to the ID and Theistic camps it all boils down to faith in the end run or at least it should if the faith they claim to have is the same faith that Christ spoke of.

 

Again, and the application fits, "An evil and "adulterous generation seeketh after a sign(Proof).

[Biochemist]

He writes in his Conclusion:

Finally, there are seriouis flaws in the arguments advanced by both sides. And even if those flaws were corrected, the arguments would still not constitute a strong apologetic for the resurrection. On the bases of the available evidence (and the arguments I've seen), I conclude that a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection.

As you already know, I am a believer and I hold Christ in my faith as Lord. However, if not from my own personal experience by his revelation, I would be not be persuaded to believe. What I am saying is; according to observable evidence, I would have to be an atheist or at least an agnostic.

Thanks, IF. I appreciate you spending time on the material.

[Biochemist]

...one of the strongest arguments I've personally ever seen for the resurrection would be the testimony and changed lives of the Apostles and other witnesses themselves...

I agree.

What I see today is mostly an organized religion that has all the forms of godliness without the real power of that kind of faith.

Generally true.

However, after a point in the account with the placing of the sun and moon in the heavens above there can be no debate on the length of that expanse if one honestly believes the Bible is God's inspired and without error word.

Paultrr- I do appreciate your point, but I do not agree at all. Among concervative Christian scholars, almost none contend that the Bible does not use simile, metaphor, hyperbole, phenomenal language, poetry, allegory, idiom, or sarcasm. These are all items of normal usage. There is nothing that precludes a conservative Christian from believing the Bible is absolutely true, and believing in any evidenciary elements surfaced via the scientific method. All truth is God's truth (to quote Francis Schaeffer). I think a discussion of interpretation of Genesis 1 is beyond the scope of this forum, but I have never thought, for example, that anything in Genesis 1 is contradicted by anything in evolutionary theory. Evolution rises and/or falls on its own merits. If anyone wants to start a thread on this, I would be happy to participate.

There cannot be a middle ground on this if one honestly believes the Bible to be God's inspired and inerrant word.

As I outlined above, I really don't think this is true.

My own personal view on the way you come accross is that of some guy who has more trust in evidence, in the science of odds, etc than in the actual message of the Bible or the Gospel. You come across to me as someone who mentally acknowledges a Creator and strives very hard to prove to everyone else that you're position is valid. But when it really comes down to a definition of you're faith all you seem to be able to present is semi-logic based reasoning and very little of what the Bible portrays as faith.

I appreciate your point, but I have intentionally avoided any discussion of faith at all in this forum. Others have brought it in. I have been trying to stay consistent with my intent as described in post #1. I have not even brought up any theological constructs, other than those that are directly related to the scientific method (e.g., I really think that belief in the absence of free will calls into question the validity of observation under the scientific method) and then only to plumb others for consistency.

The Bible says it well. By their fruits you shall know them.

Good point.

You my friend like it or not do not come across in all this intelectual argument and presentation as having that type of faith at all. If anything in general you actually tend to turn people even further off to the subject of both God and the Bible.

Again, I appreciate your honest appraisal. Although as I said above, I was intending to avoid any discussion of faith.

[Biochemist]

Then by definition you do have faith. Faith cannot be rationilized or proved out on any slide rule.

Goodness. These threads seem (to me) to go significantly off topic after about a dozen posts. I feel some responsibility for this discussion because I started the thread. This thread (per post 1) had a VERY NARROW explicit purpose, and it was explicitly NOT to prove that God exists, or that Jesus was God, or to examine any faith relationships. It was only meant to suggest that the resurrection is plausible, based on historical evidence. Most of that was presented in the link on post 17. I have admittied that my ulterior motive for the thread is that some (even on this site) regard belief in God as irrational. I think that position is fundamentally unfounded.

 

There is little doubt that most (if not all) folks that seek God do so for reasons unrelated to factual support. But that does NOT mean that they abandon reason to acquire faith, or that their decisions are irrational.

But at least we are honest to our own methods and principles in the way we interpret that evidence.

And I contend, specifically, that an atheistic position adds bias, and as such is at odds with the scientific method. An agnostic position probably does not add bias.

[paultrr]

Like I said, I'm not without some system of belief myself. But I've managed down through the years to learn to divorce the two from each other. I was at one time trained after a fashion to think the way a lot of Christian's do today. I was trained to argue about the evidence, to give a rational logical presentation of why one should believe. I was trained to jot all my tittles, so to speak and to decern proper doctrine. Before I entered that training I probably had more real faith than I ended up with. I learned to take apart things so well that in the end run faith rather departed to the wayside. But I also remember very well what I discovered in all this. That type of intelectual based faith is a dead faith. If I rather tend to admire anything out of the Bible, even if we can all debate weither those words where spoken by Christ or not, its the basic message that one can do anything by faith. How one believes does influence how one lives one life. The ability for faith to aid the body in healing during a time of illness is well documented by those of the medical profession, even by those who themselves are not believers. Faith does work irrespective of the fact that one cannot in the end run fully explain such by scientific methods, except perhaps that the mind of man has its own ability to control the body.

 

I mentioned healing before. This is a true event from my own youth. There was a girl I was rather close to then who came down with a extreme form of cancer. I had read the scripture passages about where ever two or more shall agree upon anything and determined to put that into practicle by asking several believers to pray for her to be healed. The next day, while preping her for surgery every bit of that cancer was gone. Now perhaps there was a medical expliantion for such. I really do not know. But to me at that point I saw faith in action not matter the physical explination of such. But I've also in my life witnessed people of other faiths doing the same. Some Christians would account for such as a product of the power of the devil. But I'm sorry according to Christ that cannot be the case: "A House divided cannot stand."

 

So I've learned that faith tends to work no matter the religion of the believer. I cannot fully explain such with science and have rather learned over the years to quit trying. Its just one of those things we do not have answers on at this time. I suspect, even with God in the equation, that there is a natural explination for such. That makes me not an athiest at all, nor actually and agnostic either. I simply believe in a higher power weither that power turns out in the end run to be nature itself or something else does not matter in the least. I trust my science where it applies and I trust my faith where it applies. I just do not try and mix the two together.

[paultrr]

.And I contend, specifically, that an atheistic position adds bias, and as such is at odds with the scientific method. An agnostic position probably does not add bias.

 

Actually it doesn't, at least as far as the agnostic position goes. In general, I suspect guys like say Hawking fit more in that line considering he's at least willing in pop science books to discuss the subject of God. I would also agree that I have seen athiestic presentations that do display a bias. But not everyone who see things that way is that biased. I'd say that generally the most vocal out of both the athiest camp and out of the religious camps tend to be the most biased either way. That's one reason I personally would never rely upon the most vocal from either camp as any sort of real evidence in itself. I think things have to be taken in their entire scope as far as what the evidence is out there either way. But I also still think its possible to fully stand with science and yet have a belief at the same time. Granted science tends to change one's views when it comes to the Bible story and about who or what God really is. But the two do not fully exclude the other.

[UncleAl]

My intent is to offer a case that it is reasonable to suggest that Christ's resurrection is plausible.

 

It's crap. It has no more empirical basis than Hindus' 360 million gods (36 crores). It is religious blather, a testament of faith that thrives on proffered disbelief. 5000 year of gods across the planet did not result in a flush toilet. Dont tell me there wasn't a need,

 

http://www.restrooms.org/page03ar.html

http://www.cromwell-intl.com/toilet/

Those with the most gods have the worst toilets. Test of faith!

 

The Shroud of Turin is particularly egregious. It is physically impossible to project a positively curved surface (Semitic face) upon a plane (flat cloth) without distortion or dissection. Ty it with a flat map of the curved Earth.

[lindagarrette]

 

I mentioned healing before. This is a true event from my own youth. There was a girl I was rather close to then who came down with a extreme form of cancer. I had read the scripture passages about where ever two or more shall agree upon anything and determined to put that into practicle by asking several believers to pray for her to be healed. The next day, while preping her for surgery every bit of that cancer was gone. Now perhaps there was a medical expliantion for such. I really do not know.

 

So I've learned that faith tends to work no matter the religion of the believer.

Your healing anecdote is interesting and you may have been convinced that prayer was a factor at the time you witnessed it but that is absolutely impossible. If god answered prayers, there would be statistical evidence but there is none. There are cases where people have been cured from a misdiagnosis and cases where suggestion has been used to cause and treat symptoms but there have been no corroborated cases where any cure has resulted only from prayer. An acquaintance went to Lourdes for the holy water so his ailing mother would be cured, but she died. That's my anecdote.

[BEAKER]

but I have never thought, for example, that anything in Genesis 1 is contradicted by anything in evolutionary theory.

Take a closer look. Some people are so bent on trying to get the Bible to fit into the evolutionary scenario (so they will have credibility with those who "profess themselves to be wise..."); you know the rest of that verse.

 

The only way both can be true is a rationalization found in your mind.