This is just out-of-curiosity.
The last time I was at a church, the pastor quoted two different theologians on the resurrection of Jesus. One I can't recall, but I remembered the other was B.F. Westcott, and I dug up the quotation:
"Indeed taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no single historic incident better or more variously supported than the Resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."
The other quotation said that there is more evidence for the resurrection than there is for the existence of the Roman Empire.
Now, the pastor showed these two quotes, but didn't say what any of the evidence was. Can anyone give it to me? That and more evidence supporting it than the existence of the Roman Empire?
2006-11-07 06:46:26 · 12 answers · asked by angk 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Please read the actual question bit. One quote stated that there was more evidence for the resurrection than for the Roman Empire, and the Westcott statement implies it, in that it says there is more evidence than for ANY other historical event. I'm looking for that much evidence. I'm just trying to see how valid this pastor's ideas were--I don't like presenting ideas without facts to back it up.
2006-11-07 06:58:22 · update #1
It's hooey.
And if you really want to know why it has to be hooey read Hume 'On Miracles' and associated commentaries.
Edit:
The only evidence is eye-witness testimony recorded some hundred years or so after the event. It would get laughed out of a small claims court.
2006-11-07 06:47:42 · answer #1 · answered by fourmorebeers 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
"Indeed taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no single historic incident better or more variously supported than the Resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it." <--- that is a quote of someone claiming validity of something. that isnt proof of that event actually happening. that is much as a christian saying, the bible says it happened so that means it happened.
2006-11-07 14:49:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is mostly circumstantial evidence. One line of reasoning goes, what else would so inspire the cowardly disciples of Jesus so much that they would later be willing to be tortured to death for their faith? If it were a conspiracy cooked up by the early apostles to conceal the truth, then wouldn't at least one of the liars recant his story to save his own skin?
The other line of reasoning goes along the lines that if the Gospels and the other stories in the New Testament were just made up myths dreamed up centuries later by people who had never been to Jerusalem (before the Romans destroyed it in 70 AD), or any of the other places mentioned, then the details of the places described in these stories (such as the location of the pool of Bethesda near a certain gate of the Jewish Temple, for example), should not match what we find in the archaeological record. On the other hand, if archeology confirms that the layout of the city is the same as what the stories suggest, then obviously these stories were written during a certain time period, since later generations would not have access to old city plans of Jerusalem or Ephesus after these cities were abandoned or destroyed. This could give a clue as to whether the books contained in the New Testament really were eye witnesses accounts, as they claim, or just heavily edited legends dreamed up by later generations. Try reading "Who Moved the Stone?" by Frank Morrison, a British lawyer and self professed atheist who converted to Christianity.
2006-11-07 15:18:15 · answer #3 · answered by Randy G 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The fact that Christ was seen by others should be sufficent, and also there were graves opened and saints resurrected and seen by many in Matthew 27 verses 51 thru 53.
2006-11-07 14:52:54 · answer #4 · answered by judy_derr38565 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
An empty tomb is evidence. The testimony of hundreds that saw Jesus after His death.
It is a belief that has stood the test of time. Can you imagine that if it weren't true how after 2000 years so many people accept it as true?
The greatest evidence perhaps, is the millions and millions of changed lives demonstrated by those who surrender all they are and ever will be to Him, Jesus Christ.
2006-11-07 15:00:22 · answer #5 · answered by Doug H 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The Apostles, the women with them, and 500 other witnesses saw the resurrected Christ. Most of the Apostles and thousands of other believers died at the hands of the Romans when all they had to do was say "Hey, we were just joking,". No one did.
2006-11-07 14:51:14 · answer #6 · answered by Paulie D 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A christian will tell you that it is written in the bible and the bible was written by god and therefore the resurrection must be true. What more proof could you possibly need? Hehe.
2006-11-07 16:44:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I went to church with my ailing grandma 6 months ago....
The Preacher told me that Mohamed wasn't God....
Any idiot already knew this....
However, The entire congregation yelped A-Men!!
I could also say that Jimmy Carter is not the Pope!! Would I get an A-Men!!
Sheeple yes sheeple!!
2006-11-07 14:51:09 · answer #8 · answered by Queen Bee 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
EVIDENCE:....Up to today there are thousands or million MIRACLES.APPARATIONS,and OTHER DIVINE PROOF of JESUS CHRIST around the WORLD.
If HE is not resurrected,...means he is not SUPERBLY divine,...HOW HE STILL CAN MAKE MIRACLES UNTIL TODAY?
Ps: My cousin just cure from cancer,....also my auntie.
2006-11-07 14:53:07 · answer #9 · answered by the withness 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I am alive and well and right here. Were you missing me or something?
2006-11-07 14:48:09 · answer #10 · answered by Jesus 1 · 3⤊ 2⤋