What evidence supports the theory of “resurrection”?

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:20 pm

Biblical reports indicate that a god-man was killed and was placed in a tomb for three days under guard, the body was missing when the tomb was opened, and the deceased was reportedly seen alive afterward.

A number of questions arise:

1. Was the person actually dead? How was death verified? Many cases of apparent death are cases of mistaken diagnosis or of deliberate falsification.

2. Would it have been possible for the tomb to have been entered or exited during the three days in question? Guards are not absolutely reliable and have been known to be distracted or bribed. A stone put in place by humans could be moved by humans. Is there any assurance that a substitution or some other slight-of-hand could not have taken place?

3. What impartial persons verified that the god-man lived after “arising from the dead”? Claims of associates, particularly close associates, to have seen the deceased living after death are not the most reliable source of truthful information.

If “resurrection” is not factual, is the basis of Christianity still valid?

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:53 am

When I read that the body of Jesus might have been eaten by dogs it occurred to me that, after a bit of repulsion, that it may not have mattered to those that had visions of Jesus as the Christ. They not so much saw him as a resurrected corpse but one exalted and glorified. The body was not important until the battle with Docetic heresy that said Jesus was just appeared as a human in the second century.
The Doceist such as Marcion forced the proto-orthodox to insist that Jesus was fully human while trying to maintain his being deity. The gospels especially John is examples of these battles while resurrecting Pauline thinking that had lost favor before the war with the assembly in Jerusalem. There were also Jews in Diaspora that called themselves the “pious ones” or “pure ones” we call Essenes. I always think of Jesus as a Nazarine the root going back to Nazarean Essenes, a group of Essene Jews who had communities in and around the now Nazareth area in Galilee and not Jesus of Nazareth.

Confused · Post by **Confused** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:04 am

achilles wrote:What if Jesus didn't die right then? What if he simply fainted? Would that work?

Depends. Scripture doesn't give a clear timeline of how long a period of time elapsed from the time He supposedly died (fainted) and the time He was taken off the cross to be sealed in His tomb. If it was a matter of mere minutes from the time He "fainted" to the time He was stabbed in the side with the spear, then His body would respond to the stabbing by going into shock. His body would immediately divert blood flow to the most important organs. If He was then removed from the cross (without breaking His legs which was the custom, odd isn't it) and taken to His tomb, one could conceivably tend to His medical necessities to help him recover. Now, in regards to a previous issue you raised, could one stab another through the side thorax with a spear, puncture the lungs and then have the spear enter the pericardial sac? It would likely require much force and even so, not really necessary. From the accounts of Scripture, there is no explicit passage that indicates it was a pericardial effusion. A pleural effusion is the most likely candidate in my view. In such a case, the spear would enter the pleural space and the gush of "water" and blood would be the release of the pleural effusion. In such a case, the lung need not be punctured, nor a pneumothorax or hemothorax need result. If anything, this "pleural tap" (we do all the time in the ICU to drain effusions) would make breathing easier by draining the fluid and allowing the lungs to fully inflate.

But all this is some pretty drastic speculation. Scripture isn't clear enough or consistent enough to provide any definitive answers and anyone who claims they can is either a liar or over egotistical.

TruthSeeker1 · Post by **TruthSeeker1** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:14 am

Achillies Wrote:

As I have said before, in many cases the non-theists have good points about junk evidence. On the other hand there are also many cases where the non-theist desregards evidence outright without critically examining it themselves. I feel that this is the case with much of what you offered. Hence I have created a new thread to discuss the history and implications of Papias further.

I can appreciate on some level that you hold firm to your convictions Achillies. However, I can't get past the notion that the credibility of a document first and foremost rests on the internal evidence within the document and not what people say about it decades and centuries after the fact. When I look for evidence, I look for facts, as without facts to turn to what evidence does someone really have?

No matter how many Church fathers you can quote from decades after "Mark" and the other Gospels were written, and no matter how many explanations you can give to explain inconsistencies with the Gospels, they will never change these facts:

1. The author of "Mark", "Matthew", "Luke", and "John" never identify themselves, thus they do not allow anyone to challenge their claims or asses their credibility.

2. The authors of the Gospels do not name their sources, thus eliminating the ability of people investigate or attempt to falsify the claims made.

3. Events such as dead people coming up from the grave, empty tombs, resurrections, and all the miracles of Jesus are not corroborated in secular writings. People who were healed by Jesus, or were fed by him from one fish and one piece of bread, never write down their story or tell another person to do so.

4. We find in the book of "Matthew" over 90% of the book of "Mark" yet the author of "Matthew" never cites using the Markian text, nor makes any explanation as to why he used so much of another source. Why would an eyewitness need to use 90% of another person's work?

5. Many of the events in the Gospels do not agree with each other. From the day of Jesus' death, to Jesus geneology and birth narratives, to who was the first to see the resurrected Jesus, and on and on.

6. We do not have any of the original copies of the Gospels, nor do we have the first copy of the originals, we have copies of copies of copies ect. We also have thousands of textual variances with the remaining copies of the Gospels. Some are minor and some significant, but the fact remains that the copies we do have are far from the original and thus it is hard to say exactly what the original manuscripts looked like.

7. The Gospels are not written in such a manner that is consistent with eyewitness testimony. Almost every line in the Gospels are written in the third person, which is not what one would expect from first hand accounts. Even the author of "Matthew" details the calling of Matthew in the third person and almost exactly to the word of how the author of "Mark" describes it. How can any reasonable person think that detailing your own calling from the God of the universe in the third person makes sense for an eyewitness account?

I have listed many facts about the lack of credibility inherent with the Gospels that will never change no matter how many quotes and explanations that you come up with Achillies. The great thing about facts in comparison to interpretations or possibilities is that facts can withstand critical scrutiny. I must ask you Achillies, in light of the deficiencies that I have cited and others have concerning facts with the Gospels, just what is it that makes the Gospels so credible to you? What facts do you have from the Gospels themselves and not just quotes from Church fathers that lead you to believe that the Gospels are credible? When you can please provide some facts from within the Gospels themselves that would make others conclude that the Gospels are credible, which a person would at least need to believe before making the huge leap in considering them to be divinely inspired texts.

I'll end with a quote from the 2nd President of the United States that sums up my feeling on why facts are so important when investigating truth, and I believe this quote fits perfectly with this discussion:

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
John Adams

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:57 am

TruthSeeker1,

That is an impressive discussion.

Thank you.

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 5:10 am

TruthSeeker1 wrote:1. The author of "Mark", "Matthew", "Luke", and "John" never identify themselves, thus they do not allow anyone to challenge their claims or asses their credibility.

John - The author writes the following which could plausibly indicate WHO the author was, and WHY he is a credible source.

4Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

Luke - The author and his credibility was already known to the recipient of the letter. I see no reason why the author should be held accountable for telling the rest of the world about himself.

Mark - Written as a compilation of notes based on the memories of an apostle. There is no reason why this should be expected to meet your specific criteria either.

You have yet to explain to me WHY these men should have been expected to fill out their names, date and proper headings before writing. You are creating an expectation which shouldn't logically be required.

Now if you are saying that this causes them to be untrustworthy to YOU personally, then fine. I have no issues with that. But in general you are committing a logical fallacy by inventing an expectation which otherwise wouldn't be required.

2. The authors of the Gospels do not name their sources, thus eliminating the ability of people investigate or attempt to falsify the claims made.

Possibly. However, if the writers were in fact eyewitnesses then there is no problem as they are their own sources. Luke does admit to using sources so you may have a point regarding him, but the others are supposedly eyewitness accounts requiring no further sources.

3. Events such as dead people coming up from the grave, empty tombs, resurrections, and all the miracles of Jesus are not corroborated in secular writings. People who were healed by Jesus, or were fed by him from one fish and one piece of bread, never write down their story or tell another person to do so.

Creating false expectations is big with you. Addressing your second sentence first, the people Jesus addressed were poor. They couldn't read nor write and they certainly didn't have the money to pay for their story to be written. As for the events, I personally reject some of them as literal, while accepting others so we would need to go over each on individually. I have a hunch you are referring to Matthew mostly. Also, I'm sure you are aware that there is indirect secular evidence for Jesus miracles although I am equally as sure you reject that outright as well so bringing it up here would simply pull us further off course.

4. We find in the book of "Matthew" over 90% of the book of "Mark" yet the author of "Matthew" never cites using the Markian text, nor makes any explanation as to why he used so much of another source. Why would an eyewitness need to use 90% of another person's work?

90% eh? Can you show me a source on that or were you simply throwing around numbers?

To answer your question there is a good reason why Matthew would use an account from Peter.

1) To assist him with his own memory as he was very aged at the time he would have written

2) Matthew was not one of the inner 3, Peter was so Peter's account would be even better than his own

3) If they experienced the same things, of course their accounts would be the same.

5. Many of the events in the Gospels do not agree with each other. From the day of Jesus' death, to Jesus genealogy and birth narratives, to who was the first to see the resurrected Jesus, and on and on.

I completed and posted Dan Barker's Easter challenge here before. I'd be happy to PM it to you personally if you wish.

6. We do not have any of the original copies of the Gospels, nor do we have the first copy of the originals, we have copies of copies of copies ect. We also have thousands of textual variances with the remaining copies of the Gospels. Some are minor and some significant, but the fact remains that the copies we do have are far from the original and thus it is hard to say exactly what the original manuscripts looked like.

Let me give you a little test to determine the validity of your statement.

An officer is interviewing several eyewitnesses after a crime spree.

Person one - They left in a purple car with license number ABC 123

Person two - They left in a maroon car with license number ADC 123

Person three - They left in a dark red car with license number ABC L23

Person four - They left in a dark colored car license number ABO 123

Ok now you tell me what should the police be looking for?

Now lets say you have 24000 witnesses all saying similar but not exactly the same thing. Do you think you could probably figure out what the originals looked like?

7. The Gospels are not written in such a manner that is consistent with eyewitness testimony. Almost every line in the Gospels are written in the third person, which is not what one would expect from first hand accounts. Even the author of "Matthew" details the calling of Matthew in the third person and almost exactly to the word of how the author of "Mark" describes it. How can any reasonable person think that detailing your own calling from the God of the universe in the third person makes sense for an eyewitness account?

Josephus recounting of the Jewish war is written like this, yet he witnessed much of it. What is the difference?

I have listed many facts about the lack of credibility inherent with the Gospels that will never change no matter how many quotes and explanations that you come up with Achillies. The great thing about facts in comparison to interpretations or possibilities is that facts can withstand critical scrutiny. I must ask you Achillies, in light of the deficiencies that I have cited and others have concerning facts with the Gospels, just what is it that makes the Gospels so credible to you? What facts do you have from the Gospels themselves and not just quotes from Church fathers that lead you to believe that the Gospels are credible? When you can please provide some facts from within the Gospels themselves that would make others conclude that the Gospels are credible, which a person would at least need to believe before making the huge leap in considering them to be divinely inspired texts.

My own personal reasons for accepting the Gospels would currently take more than 1629 posts to explain. My belief in the Gospels is rooted in the facts I uncover, the logic I find with the analysis of those facts, and the analysis of opposing arguments to my own analysis like yours.

For example, you have provided several points her which I'm sure you feel completely debunks the Gospels. But each one had certain flaws which causes me to fall back onto my prior understandings and research.

NOW, for a very recent example of how my views change from time to time, look at the Papias thread I started. Within 2 pages Cathar brought forth evidence which adjusted my thinking regarding Papias and his credibility.

No I didn't throw out all the analysis I had previously considered regarding this man, however his evidence was new, and so obviously correct that I had to adjust my thinking.

None of the points you offer above were new to me. And none of them were conclusive enough to warrant me ignoring the years of research and examination I have conducted on the matter to date.

Furrowed Brow · Post by **Furrowed Brow** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:42 am

Achilles wrote:My own personal reasons for accepting the Gospels would currently take more than 1629 posts to explain.

Nah! Take as long as you want.

TruthSeeker1 · Post by **TruthSeeker1** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:18 pm

John - The author writes the following which could plausibly indicate WHO the author was, and WHY he is a credible source. 4Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

"Which could plausibly indicate who the author was..." What part of the definition of a fact has "plausibly" in it? Where in these verses is the author identified? "His testimony is true", do you believe everything you read in which an un-named person simply says, "it is true." Does it make it true just because someone says so? If not, then what in the text leads you to believe that his testimony is true?

Luke - The author and his credibility was already known to the recipient of the letter. I see no reason why the author should be held accountable for telling the rest of the world about himself.

The reason is because people in the Church decided to put Luke into a big book called the Bible, and then these same people tell everyone that Luke is a book inspired by the God of the universe. You are correct, if all Luke is meant to be is a personal letter from one guy to another then you have an excellent point. However, I'm assuming you believe Luke to be a divinely inspired text that is relevant to people today, as such objective observers need some idea of why his work is credible. Just tell me you don't think Luke is applicable to use today and that it is not divinely inspired and I'll drop my HUGE expectation of wanting to know his sources.

Mark - Written as a compilation of notes based on the memories of an apostle. There is no reason why this should be expected to meet your specific criteria either.

Remember what I said about facts and credibility, it is the details inside a document that give the best evidence for credibility and NOT another person's guesses and interpretations. You say Mark is written as a compilation of notes based on the memories of an Apostle. Where in Mark do you find this? Please provide the verses. Or, show us where in "Peter" that we find Peter referencing that he told his story to Mark. You would have us believe that Peter told his story to Mark, then wrote his own two books, and yet both people never mention this fact...opps, I mean, this possibility? Once again, you do not use the text to make a point, you use your own and other people's "possible" explanations to make your story fit. Not very convincing.

You have yet to explain to me WHY these men should have been expected to fill out their names, date and proper headings before writing. You are creating an expectation which shouldn't logically be required.

The why, is to be credible to more people than those who just accept the stories at face value. The why, is so objective observers can figure out which available holy texts are more credible than others. The why, is because people hold out the Gospels to be divinely inspired by a perfect and all powerful God, why wouldn't reasonable people expect to know who actually wrote them and what sources they used? You are right though, if I simply wanted to believe that the Gospels are credible documents then I'm creating an expectation which shouldn't be logically required, for me though logic involves looking at facts and not mere possibilities.

Possibly. However, if the writers were in fact eyewitnesses then there is no problem as they are their own sources. Luke does admit to using sources so you may have a point regarding him, but the others are supposedly eyewitness accounts requiring no further sources.

Yet another "possibly" and a big "IF". Try again to make a point with facts from the texts, I know it is hard to do with the Gospels but at least give it a shot. Where in the Gospels do we know that they are eyewitnesses, we know from Luke that he definitely wasn't and you freely admit that "Mark" wasn't, so exactly how do you know from the TEXT that "Matthew" and "John" are eyewitness accounts?

Creating false expectations is big with you. Addressing your second sentence first, the people Jesus addressed were poor. They couldn't read nor write and they certainly didn't have the money to pay for their story to be written. As for the events, I personally reject some of them as literal, while accepting others so we would need to go over each on individually. I have a hunch you are referring to Matthew mostly. Also, I'm sure you are aware that there is indirect secular evidence for Jesus miracles although I am equally as sure you reject that outright as well so bringing it up here would simply pull us further off course.

Having expectations of a text that Christians say that an all powerful and perfect God inspired is unreasonable? Noteworthy events happen to poor people everyday in our world and they are written about and observed. Are you telling me that our history books are only comprised of events that happened to rich and literate people? Besides, dead people rising from their grave and walking to Jerusalem would if true seemingly get some attention from people who could write. Or, an earthquake would seemingly get some attention from those who could write. Surely if 5,000 people (a huge number in that day) were fed from just ONE fish and ONE piece of bread there would be at least ONE observer that would document it from a non-religious perspective. On one hand Christians argue that these miracles are so amazing and profound, yet they then argue that it is unreasonable to expect that others would take note of these amazing events and write them down. Besides, a perfect God who can do anything he wants could have made sure some non-religious observers took note of these events, could he not? Sorry about that, I placed another unfair expectation on a perfect God...

4. We find in the book of "Matthew" over 90% of the book of "Mark" yet the author of "Matthew" never cites using the Markian text, nor makes any explanation as to why he used so much of another source. Why would an eyewitness need to use 90% of another person's work?

90% eh? Can you show me a source on that or were you simply throwing around numbers?

Great question! I might actually be making a difference with you. I love that you have asked me for a source to back up my information, this is a reasonable expectation for you to have. I'm overjoyed that you are a bit critical in wondering if I'm simply throwing around numbers. This is a positive development, and I would encourage you to apply your same desire for sources and critical analysis when you read the Gospels, it is healthy.

Back to the question at hand though. Here is my source....The Bible! Go through "Mark" and take note of how many verses there are, then go through "Matthew" and take note of how many of the same verses you find. You will find over 90% of "Mark" in "Matthew". It's great when you can use the text itself to make a point, no reason to rely on words from Church fathers decades after the "fact".

To answer your question there is a good reason why Matthew would use an account from Peter.

1) To assist him with his own memory as he was very aged at the time he would have written

2) Matthew was not one of the inner 3, Peter was so Peter's account would be even better than his own

3) If they experienced the same things, of course their accounts would be the same.

"Matthew" used an account from Peter? Where in your explanation did you site the evidence for this from the text? What verses tell you that "Matthew" used and account from Peter? Remember, facts are what make good evidence, so is your explanation a fact gleaned from inside the text of "Matthew" or is it just another "possibility" passed down from people that lived decades and centuries after "Matthew" was written?

Let me give you a little test to determine the validity of your statement.

An officer is interviewing several eyewitnesses after a crime spree.

Person one - They left in a purple car with license number ABC 123

Person two - They left in a maroon car with license number ADC 123

Person three - They left in a dark red car with license number ABC L23

Person four - They left in a dark colored car license number ABO 123

Ok now you tell me what should the police be looking for?

Is this really what we have in the Gospels? Once again, go directly to the text and you will see that there are many verses that even modern Bible translations admit were not in the earliest manuscripts. Much more of a difference than the mere color of the car, we are talking about entire doctrines being believed based on verses that are not in the earliest manuscripts. Try this sometime, look at the last verses of "Mark" and then think about the current believers who hold snakes and drink poison (with some dying), do you think it might be a bit more important than the difference in the color of a car for them to know that these verses are not in the earlier manuscripts?

7. The Gospels are not written in such a manner that is consistent with eyewitness testimony. Almost every line in the Gospels are written in the third person, which is not what one would expect from first hand accounts. Even the author of "Matthew" details the calling of Matthew in the third person and almost exactly to the word of how the author of "Mark" describes it. How can any reasonable person think that detailing your own calling from the God of the universe in the third person makes sense for an eyewitness account?

Josephus recounting of the Jewish war is written like this, yet he witnessed much of it. What is the difference?

Just so I understand you correctly. You have no issues with all the Gospel authors writing in the third person including one who according to you is describing being called by the God of the Universe and doesn't add any personal touches, all because Josephus recounted the Jewish war in third person? Anything from the text that helps with your opinion? Is this an example of your tough standards of credibility and years of research?

My own personal reasons for accepting the Gospels would currently take more than 1629 posts to explain. My belief in the Gospels is rooted in the facts I uncover, the logic I find with the analysis of those facts, and the analysis of opposing arguments to my own analysis like yours.

I do wonder; if the Gospels are indeed credible documents and show themselves to be directly from the text why would it take so long to explain this?

None of the points you offer above were new to me. And none of them were conclusive enough to warrant me ignoring the years of research and examination I have conducted on the matter to date.

We agree here Achillies; none of the points I offered were new to you. The reason for this is simple, my points came from the text itself and as such my points haven't changed for over 1000 years. I try my hardest to deal with facts from the texts and not interpretations or guesses as to why something is the way it is. In the end, it is certainly possible that the Gospels are exactly the way you and certain Church fathers claim them to be, but by directly examining the text it is not probable to me that the Gospels are credible documents.