Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Dark Lion]

Are there any sources for the bibles claim of ressurection outside of the actual bible?

[jimwalton]

I'm not aware of any sources for Jesus's resurrection outside of the Bible, at least contemporary sources. Extra-biblical Christian sources start fairly soon (at the end of the first century), but nothing that I know of from the first half of the first century.

[Dark Lion]

I guess this is a huge reason why I can't really believe in Christianity. Last few days I think has cemented this.

[jimwalton]

A more pertinent question is: since we have 4 records of the resurrection, are there particular reasons to doubt them? I mean, why would an extra-biblical source be believable, but a biblical source is not? That seems prejudicial. We have four writers who examined the evidence and concluded it really happened. We have no record of any writers who examined the evidence and concluded it didn't. It seems odd to me that you think a source outside of the Bible would be more believable than what we have. Perhaps you can explain.

I believe in the resurrection because the evidence is convincing. It doesn't make sense to assume: (1) it's in the Bible, therefore it's false, but (2) anything outside the Bible would have more credibility. Given the evidence contained in the Bible, weighed against alternative theories, makes it more than plausible that the resurrection actually happened.

I wouldn't casually toss out Christianity because of a lack of extrabiblical sources for the resurrection. If you're sincere, I hope you've deeply researched it. Have you read any of the works by Gary Habermas, the world's foremost resurrection scholar? He has investigated it more than anyone on the planet (as far I know, more than anyone in history), and has concluded it's true.

[Dark Lion]

I mean the Bible wants to prove itself is right. So the Bible is biased. So with something life this yes the Bible is not a good source. It's like Hitler. He wanted to prove minorities were inferior. So if you read gis text that is what your going to get. Same with teh Bible. It is trying to prove itself so you do not get a non biased base from the Bible. Does that make sense?

What are these 4 records?

No. The Bible saying the ressurection happen does not make it more likely. That is what the Bible is supposed to say to prove itself.

I absolutely find the sources important. Maybe because I am a history person and so where information comes from is important to me. I honestly feel like UT should for everyone but maybe that's just me.

[jimwalton]

> I mean the Bible wants to prove itself is right.

No, this is inaccurate. There is no evidence that the four Gospels were written by co-conspirators trying to push a religious or political agenda. Two (traditionally) were apostles telling the story they experienced. One was a companion of Jesus's who was convinced Jesus was the Messiah (tradition says his was written first, so not trying to "prove the Bible was right." The fourth was a careful researcher who did scholarly investigation and gave his results. There is no evidence from the Bible or history that the writers skewed the content to push an agenda or just to self-authenticate.

> the Bible is not a good source

But if you're starting with a false premise (the Bible wants to prove itself right), you're obviously going to end with a false conclusion (the Bible is not a good source). That's circular reasoning. If you're truly interested ini reliable sources and right conclusions, you need to do better than that.

> It's like Hitler.

it's not Hitler at all. The two situations have nothing in common.

> What are these 4 records?

The four Gospels that were centuries later put under one cover. They lasted for 300 years as separate sources.

> The Bible saying the ressurection happen does not make it more likely.

Correct, but why would someone else saying it make it more likely? It's like this: We hear from the resistance in Hong Kong about what's going on over there. Well, I won't believe anyone from Hong Kong; I will only believe the story if it comes from an outside-of-Hong-Kong source. What makes that more credible than the report of the people who were there? The four Gospels are the report from people who were there. But you won't believe them? I don't get it.

> I absolutely find the sources important.

Oh, me too. The sources are very important.

> Maybe because I am a history person and so where information comes from is important to me.

Mike Licona wrote a 600-page volume called "The Resurrection of Jesus" that is a historiographical approach to the resurrection claims. Where information comes from, how it is used, and its reliability are not to be ignored. We Christians don't just close our eyes and say, "I BELIEVE!" The sources matter; the evidence matters; reliability matters.

[Dark Lion]

I'm sorry but the Bible is definitely a biased book with the intentions of getting you to believe in chrsitianity. It clearly is a biased religious text.

The Bible is biased so it is not a good source. The Bible of course proves itself. The real question is does anything else outside of the Bible itself prove what is in the Bible.

You don't even realize you prover my point. When looking at something like something happening in Hong Kong it is absolutely important to look at all the sources including outside one's. Here is another example. Afghanistan. Those who are now in power are of course going to give a bias answer to what is going on over there. That is why different sources would help to paint a full (more true) picture of what is actually happening.

Yet you have no real sources. Just the Bible. The source that again is trying to prove to you its telling the truth.

[jimwalton]

> I'm sorry but the Bible is definitely a biased book with the intentions of getting you to believe in chrsitianity. It clearly is a biased religious text.

This is what's worthy of discussion. it's obviously NOT so clear. I would kindly ask you to present your evidence of such bias that makes the text unreliable.

> When looking at something like something happening in Hong Kong it is absolutely important to look at all the sources including outside one's.

I didn't prove your point. Of course we look at all the evidence we have. But suppose we don't have any external evidence? Let's take instead North Korea. The only evidence we have of what's going on in NK is from those on the inside. So do we not believe them if there are no corroborating outside sources?

> Yet you have no real sources. Just the Bible.

As a scholar and careful researcher, you can't just claim this and that makes it true. You must substantiate your claim by showing me both a credible and plausible case that (1) the Bible is an unreliable source, and (2) its only trying to prove to you its telling the truth. I say you have no such case. Let's please see it. Without evidence to substantiate your case, you are doing exactly what you illegitimately excoriate the Bible for.

[Dark Lion]

Well the whole point of the book is to make you believe in Jesus. Any stories in there at all that go against Jesus being the son of god? Especially in the new testimony?

Well that's the thing. Outside sources actually back up what we already know. So again we are using outside sources. What would be a bad idea is just using what n Korea says. Which is the equivalent of just using the Bible.

the Bible is a religious text meant for you to listen to Christianity. 2) what evidence do you have to a claim that a person ressurected himself? That a much higher claim that needs evidence. I am simply saying the evidence is not there. Heck I'm not even saying it did not happen. Just that there is no unbiased evidence that it did.

[jimwalton]

> Well the whole point of the book is to make you believe in Jesus.

There's no problem with this. Every writer writes from a vantage point to make a point. It's fundamental to good writing. “Good scholarship is about convincing others to espouse our view instead of merely asking them to do so.”

> What would be a bad idea is just using what n Korea says. Which is the equivalent of just using the Bible.

No, what's a bad idea is just using some sources we have and ignoring others that we want to ignore. That's more like NK. The Bible, by contrast, urges us to examine EVERY source at our disposal.

> the Bible is a religious text meant for you to listen to Christianity.

No problem with this. And the Washington Post is an alleged news text meant for you to listen to their perspective. A history textbook is meant for you to read and subscribe to their interpretation of history.

> what evidence do you have to a claim that a person ressurected himself?

This is the crux of the matter. Examine all of the evidence available. The writers of the Bible didn't suppress evidence that wasn't favorable to their case. Look under every rock; examine every angle. If it's truth, there's no fear of detailed scrutiny. So go for it. That's what Habermas's writings do.

> I am simply saying the evidence is not there.

We have four separate records, which is more than we have for most ancient events. Suetonius's history of the Caesars—w4e just have one copy, but this is used with great import. We don't ignore it because there's only one. We have two works from Tacitus, the earliest copies 900 years after they were written. Yet people believe him.

In the Bible, the evidence is there. We have four separate records, written by four separate authors from four separate perspectives. Any detective or lawyer will espouse the value of different perspectives. The evidence is there for examination.

> Just that there is no unbiased evidence that it did.

It's not bias if the writers became convinced of its truth on examination of the evidence. If so, that would forbid any black man to write about slavery because they might be biased, any Jew to write about Hitler, or any woman to write about sexual predation and sexual abuse. They're biased because they experienced it, feel strongly about it, and have a position to take because of their experiences. But this is a beneficial bias. We want to hear what the blacks, the Jews, and the women have to say. And yet it's on the same grounds that you refuse to give the time of day to the Gospel writers. I tend to think you are biased.