Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[1 or 3]

Would you believe supernatural claims from a person who can convincingly fake his death and ressurection in front of you?

I am assuming that Jesus is central to Christian faith and what he said is important largely because ressurection proves that he is god (some people also claim that he fulfilled prophecies — I am not sure if it's miraculous considering that he knew about those prophecies, but let's focus on ressurection for now)

With the above in mind — would you believe every supernatural claim from a person who later down the line you see killed and ressurected? Say the suffering is happening under the spotlight, you can observe his suffering from 3 meters away, see seemingly dead body and later see him alive.

This would ofcourse be absurd because every such account in history included look alikes, bribery and deception. No one would be absolutely convinced even if they saw it themselves.

So why would you believe a 3rd hand testimony about such event happening from the clearly more ignorant and uneducated crowd (who also believed in all kinds of random garbage fairy tales) from 2000 years ago majority of whom also really-really wanted to believe it and don't claim to have seen any of it themselves?

[jimwalton]

No. No one believes faked stuff when we know it's fake. That's quite the duh.

> I am assuming that Jesus is central to Christian faith

No greater understatement has ever been made.

> what he said is important largely because ressurection proves that he is god

The resurrection doesn't prove He's God. Everything He did was a sign of His divinity. The resurrection is a crowning miracle, for sure, but Jesus was proved to be God long before the resurrection: His turning water to wine, walking on the water, raising others from the dead, the feeding of the 5,000, the Transfiguration, etc.

> With the above in mind — would you believe every supernatural claim from a person who later down the line you see killed and ressurected?

If the evidence were convincing, yes.

> Say the suffering is happening under the spotlight, you can observe his suffering from 3 meters away, see seemingly dead body and later see him alive.

There's nothing "seemingly" about it. The man was flogged to within an inch of his life, then crucified; a spear plunged in his pericardium, then he was confirmed dead by the soldiers, then confirmed dead by the embalmers.

> So why would you believe a 3rd hand testimony about such event happening from the clearly more ignorant and uneducated crowd

We have first-hand testimony in Matthew and John. We have possibly first-hand or second-hand information from Mark. We have second-hand testimony from Luke

And what makes you assume the crowd is ignorant and uneducated? The Pharisees were some of the most educated people of the known world. All Jewish boys were taught how to read and write. They were successful businessmen, and they were literate.

> (who also believed in all kinds of random garbage fairy tales)

Another false assumption. The first-century Roman Empire was one of the most cynical and skeptical of the era. Where are you getting these fake facts?

> majority of whom also really-really wanted to believe it and don't claim to have seen any of it themselves?

Um, incorrect again. They didn't "really-really want to believe it." There was no expectation of a resurrection in their theology or in their daily lives. And when they heard about it they didn't believe it until there was evidence.
And they do claim to have seen Jesus multiple times resurrected in the flesh. He let them touch him; He ate in front of them, and He answered their questions.

[1 or 3]

Thank you for a detailed answer.