Christ's Resurrection: A Historical Fact.
- Thread starter XavierJesusLovesIndia
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
.
Josephus mentions Jesus' resurrection, but only as hearsay. He was born too
late to see Jesus in person, or to be a reliable witness of either his execution
or his resurrection. From what I gather; Josephus wrote about Jesus'
resurrection as an alleged event rather than something he knew for himself.
We today are no better off historically than Josephus. We too allege Jesus'
crucified dead body was restored to life; which is something we believe, but
in reality not something we know for ourselves, nor something we can prove
beyond a hint of sensible doubt.
* It would've helped the resurrection's credibility quite a bit had Jesus gone
into Jerusalem after his resurrection and shown himself alive to Pontius
Pilate and the Jews' religious authorities instead of keeping his recovery
private.
_
Josephus mentions Jesus' resurrection, but only as hearsay. He was born too
late to see Jesus in person, or to be a reliable witness of either his execution
or his resurrection. From what I gather; Josephus wrote about Jesus'
resurrection as an alleged event rather than something he knew for himself.
We today are no better off historically than Josephus. We too allege Jesus'
crucified dead body was restored to life; which is something we believe, but
in reality not something we know for ourselves, nor something we can prove
beyond a hint of sensible doubt.
* It would've helped the resurrection's credibility quite a bit had Jesus gone
into Jerusalem after his resurrection and shown himself alive to Pontius
Pilate and the Jews' religious authorities instead of keeping his recovery
private.
_
Very interesting thread... here are some things to think about:
1.) A man CAN be acquitting by merely saying he didn't commit the crime... if there is no reliable evidence to the contrary.
It takes evidence to make a case against something.
If someone is AGAINST the bible, but they have no specific EVIDENCE against the bible... they need to sit down.
2.) "The Bible cannot be used as evidence to prove itself true"... this statement is extremely problematic:
A. Actually that is EXACTLY how historical documents are proven to be reliable - the text is examined in many different ways, to see if it corresponds with historical facts. Any historical book is indeed examined to "prove itself true."
- If the document corresponds with historical facts, and it comes with some reasonable history of authorship and transmission, then it is assumed to be "historically reliable."
- This may not prove every word is 100% true, but it IS how historians determine reliability of any historical document.
B. If someone claims the Bible is unreliable, then they are making a claim, and they retain the burden of proof in giving evidence for that claim.
(No one can just claim the Bible, or any historical document, is unreliable, without giving evidence of such.)
C. Many biblical books are considered authoritative, and reliable, by the MAJORITY of SECULAR EXPERTS.
The common atheist argument that "No religious books can be trusted because they're biased".... is nonsense.
All books contain bias... every single one.
So historians EXAMINE books to see if they're "historically reliable."
D. To recap: There are many different types of evidences, internally and externally, to show the biblical documents giving account of the resurrection are historically reliable. Furthermore, secular historians use many biblical books, regularly, as reliable historical documents. If someone wants to claim certain Biblical documents are unreliable, then they have to PROVE that.
3.) COMPELLING ARGUMENTS:
Dr. Gary Habermas makes VERY COMPELLING historical arguments for the resurrection, using ONLY the biblical books that SECULAR HISTORIANS consider RELIABLE by their own secular standards.
Religious bias of the books, is therefore, not an issue.
Gradual corruption over time, is therefore, not an issue.
Authorship, is therefore, not an issue.
No secular argument against the scripture, in the Habermas method, is an issue.
4. Historical Evidence does not require the same criteria as Mathematical Evidence.
A. It is a mistake to say any historical event (such as the resurrection) is "uncertain" because it cannot be proven with 100% mathematical certainty.
B. NO HISTORICAL EVENTS are judged for 100% mathematical certainty... that isn't how historical research is assessed.
C. We "know" many things from history, although nothing in history can be proven with 100% mathematical certainty.
If you want "perfect mathematical certainty"... I don't think you can even prove you are reading this right now.... not with with perfect mathematical certainty.
But we have OTHER KINDS OF CERTAINTY, and OTHER KINDS OF EVIDENCES... and ALL OF THESE ARE CONSIDERED RELIABLE.
* And so, in similar ways... we have many "reliable" and "rational" evidences for the resurrection, in the Biblical records.
* According to the principles of historical research, the resurrection meets all criteria of an historical event.
5. When Jesus told Thomas, "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed"... let's not PRESUME this meant things it didn't say.
A. It does NOT say, "blessed are they that HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND."
B. It does NOT say, "blessed are they that HAVE NO EVIDENCE, BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY."
C. It does NOT say, "blessed are they that BELIEVE BY BLIND FAITH, AND JUST HOPE REALLY HARD IT'S TRUE"
D. It does NOT say any of those things.
E. It does NOT indicate that future believers will HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND, it only indicates they WILL NOT SEE CHRIST FIRST HAND, WITH THEIR OWN EYES.
F. The testimony of multiple eyewitnesses... IS EVIDENCE.
G. The "inner witness of the holy spirit".... IS EVIDENCE.
H. I could go on, but you get the point: we DO HAVE EVIDENCES... just not the same evidences as Thomas.
.
1.) A man CAN be acquitting by merely saying he didn't commit the crime... if there is no reliable evidence to the contrary.
It takes evidence to make a case against something.
If someone is AGAINST the bible, but they have no specific EVIDENCE against the bible... they need to sit down.
2.) "The Bible cannot be used as evidence to prove itself true"... this statement is extremely problematic:
A. Actually that is EXACTLY how historical documents are proven to be reliable - the text is examined in many different ways, to see if it corresponds with historical facts. Any historical book is indeed examined to "prove itself true."
- If the document corresponds with historical facts, and it comes with some reasonable history of authorship and transmission, then it is assumed to be "historically reliable."
- This may not prove every word is 100% true, but it IS how historians determine reliability of any historical document.
B. If someone claims the Bible is unreliable, then they are making a claim, and they retain the burden of proof in giving evidence for that claim.
(No one can just claim the Bible, or any historical document, is unreliable, without giving evidence of such.)
C. Many biblical books are considered authoritative, and reliable, by the MAJORITY of SECULAR EXPERTS.
The common atheist argument that "No religious books can be trusted because they're biased".... is nonsense.
All books contain bias... every single one.
So historians EXAMINE books to see if they're "historically reliable."
D. To recap: There are many different types of evidences, internally and externally, to show the biblical documents giving account of the resurrection are historically reliable. Furthermore, secular historians use many biblical books, regularly, as reliable historical documents. If someone wants to claim certain Biblical documents are unreliable, then they have to PROVE that.
3.) COMPELLING ARGUMENTS:
Dr. Gary Habermas makes VERY COMPELLING historical arguments for the resurrection, using ONLY the biblical books that SECULAR HISTORIANS consider RELIABLE by their own secular standards.
Religious bias of the books, is therefore, not an issue.
Gradual corruption over time, is therefore, not an issue.
Authorship, is therefore, not an issue.
No secular argument against the scripture, in the Habermas method, is an issue.
4. Historical Evidence does not require the same criteria as Mathematical Evidence.
A. It is a mistake to say any historical event (such as the resurrection) is "uncertain" because it cannot be proven with 100% mathematical certainty.
B. NO HISTORICAL EVENTS are judged for 100% mathematical certainty... that isn't how historical research is assessed.
C. We "know" many things from history, although nothing in history can be proven with 100% mathematical certainty.
If you want "perfect mathematical certainty"... I don't think you can even prove you are reading this right now.... not with with perfect mathematical certainty.
But we have OTHER KINDS OF CERTAINTY, and OTHER KINDS OF EVIDENCES... and ALL OF THESE ARE CONSIDERED RELIABLE.
* And so, in similar ways... we have many "reliable" and "rational" evidences for the resurrection, in the Biblical records.
* According to the principles of historical research, the resurrection meets all criteria of an historical event.
5. When Jesus told Thomas, "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed"... let's not PRESUME this meant things it didn't say.
A. It does NOT say, "blessed are they that HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND."
B. It does NOT say, "blessed are they that HAVE NO EVIDENCE, BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY."
C. It does NOT say, "blessed are they that BELIEVE BY BLIND FAITH, AND JUST HOPE REALLY HARD IT'S TRUE"
D. It does NOT say any of those things.
E. It does NOT indicate that future believers will HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND, it only indicates they WILL NOT SEE CHRIST FIRST HAND, WITH THEIR OWN EYES.
F. The testimony of multiple eyewitnesses... IS EVIDENCE.
G. The "inner witness of the holy spirit".... IS EVIDENCE.
H. I could go on, but you get the point: we DO HAVE EVIDENCES... just not the same evidences as Thomas.
.
-
1
- Show all
