by jimwalton » Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:55 pm
That's an odd question, and shows a prejudice. Suppose we read some writings of Egyptians who were at the rebellion in Cairo a few years back and wrote about their experiences. Would be throw out their writings because they know what they saw and believed what they saw? Of course not. But that's what the Bible is: the report of people who know what they saw and came to believe because of what they saw. You're looking for non-Christian evidence, but that's a bit of nonsense when you stop to think about it. Suppose we had a person who said "I saw Christ after his death, he definitely rose from the dead, and I talked to him, but I don’t believe any of it," we'd think he was a moron. But this seems to be what you are asking for.
Clement of Rome, in about AD 95, tells us that the apostles were convinced Jesus had physically, literally, and historically risen from the dead.
Polykarp, around AD 125, acknowledged the resurrection. Papias, around the same time, affirmed the Gospel of Mark.
Paul (whom we know as the apostle), was a first a deeply convicted non-believer and a persecutor of Christians. He was a hostile source. But upon the presentation of evidence he becomes a very early source of belief that Jesus rose from the dead.
The truth is (and it makes sense) that people who had interaction with Jesus after the resurrection believed in the resurrection. But you want to reject all that out of hand, prejudicially, and insist on evidence from people who saw but didn't believe. You're not asking for something reasonable. People who saw believed, and that's the record we have. Why should it be rejected?
That's an odd question, and shows a prejudice. Suppose we read some writings of Egyptians who were at the rebellion in Cairo a few years back and wrote about their experiences. Would be throw out their writings because they know what they saw and believed what they saw? Of course not. But that's what the Bible is: the report of people who know what they saw and came to believe because of what they saw. You're looking for non-Christian evidence, but that's a bit of nonsense when you stop to think about it. Suppose we had a person who said "I saw Christ after his death, he definitely rose from the dead, and I talked to him, but I don’t believe any of it," we'd think he was a moron. But this seems to be what you are asking for.
Clement of Rome, in about AD 95, tells us that the apostles were convinced Jesus had physically, literally, and historically risen from the dead.
Polykarp, around AD 125, acknowledged the resurrection. Papias, around the same time, affirmed the Gospel of Mark.
Paul (whom we know as the apostle), was a first a deeply convicted non-believer and a persecutor of Christians. He was a hostile source. But upon the presentation of evidence he becomes a very early source of belief that Jesus rose from the dead.
The truth is (and it makes sense) that people who had interaction with Jesus after the resurrection believed in the resurrection. But you want to reject all that out of hand, prejudicially, and insist on evidence from people who saw but didn't believe. You're not asking for something reasonable. People who saw believed, and that's the record we have. Why should it be rejected?