Can the Resurrection of Jesus be Defended

[Tired of the Nonsense]

There are no (Christians present) in actual point of fact. None that will support the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus as a point of "logic, reason and critical thinking." Unless there happens to be a Christian newbe present that I am unaware of who wishes to tackle the job. None of the Christian regulars here will defend the story of the resurrection beyond a "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," defense.

Not so. None is all. I would defend it gladly. Logic and reason reveals what is most evident and what the Bible reveals is absolutely most evident. Start the thread up if you dare. Bring your best arguments.

[Student]

But from what we know, James did not become radicalized or strike back in anger at all; he lived peacefully in Jerusalem until he was unlawfully killed c. 62CE. According to Paul in Gal. 2 his community of Jewish believers followed the law of Moses (unlike Peter), and were particularly concerned about providing for the poor. The only radical thing about James was his newfound belief that Jesus actually was the Messiah, which makes absolutely no sense after his execution - unless he'd somehow become convinced that Jesus rose from the dead.

Seriously, you cannot come up with another possible scenario in your mind? That's the "only" thing that makes sense to you?

How about popularity and power (with a specific group), or a change of employment?

Did you give this any thought?

Given Pauls conflict with the Jerusalem church, why didnt Paul draw attention to the similarity of his post passion conversion and the lateness of James supposed conversion?

Admittedly James was not included as one of the twelve but then, in the absence of any other information, that would be the natural conclusion regarding K"fas [from 1 Corinthians 15:5].

The idea of James post resurrection conversion presupposes the gospel account of the supposed rejection of Jesus mission by his mother, brothers and sisters. The fact that Paul makes no mention of it, which would have been of considerable advantage to Paul, suggests that James was not such a late convert.

[Nickman]

Can anyone on this thread tell me who Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John are? How about Paul? Can anyone tell me one specific attribute about any of these people? Can you tell me that these people have integrity? Can you tell me without doubt that these people whom you don't even know wrote these verses? Can you tell me with a truthful gesture that these people witnessed the resurrection? If not, then what do you really have?

[Clownboat]

Can anyone on this thread tell me who Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John are? How about Paul? Can anyone tell me one specific attribute about any of these people? Can you tell me that these people have integrity? Can you tell me without doubt that these people whom you don't even know wrote these verses? Can you tell me with a truthful gesture that these people witnessed the resurrection? If not, then what do you really have?

You would seem to have the one magic ingredient that all religions seem to have. And that is faith.

My problem with faith is this:
If you are capable of faith, you can literally choose to apply your faith to any religious belief out there and become a follower. This tells me that faith does not lead to truth.

[Nickman]

Can anyone on this thread tell me who Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John are? How about Paul? Can anyone tell me one specific attribute about any of these people? Can you tell me that these people have integrity? Can you tell me without doubt that these people whom you don't even know wrote these verses? Can you tell me with a truthful gesture that these people witnessed the resurrection? If not, then what do you really have?

You would seem to have the one magic ingredient that all religions seem to have. And that is faith.

My problem with faith is this:
If you are capable of faith, you can literally choose to apply your faith to any religious belief out there and become a follower. This tells me that faith does not lead to truth.

That is what I am saying here. The answer to each of my questions cannot be answered with certainty. It takes faith. Why accept faith? If I said that I will give a person a one dollar bill thats worth 1000 dollars wouldnt they check it out? There are 1 dollar bills worth that from the 1800s but they are rare.

[aglassdarkly]

Are there any neutral historians who report ANY of this alleged event?

Are there any neutral historians?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The problem is that none of the [three] accounts of Pauls conversion in Acts conform exactly to Pauls own account of his conversion in Galatians:

Ga 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,
1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

So, immediately after Pauls conversion he went to Arabia and only latterly did he return to Damascus.

No mention of any companions, blindness, or three days without food and water, and no mention of contact with Ananias, or anyone of flesh and blood.

So, whos account are we to believe? Lukes (Acts) three differing versions or that of Paul?

True. The Paul in Acts, written by his disciple Luke, boldly began to proclaim Jesus as the son of God immediately upon his recovery. Paul himself however suggests that upon leaving Damascus he essentially went out into the sticks for a time.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Are there any neutral historians who report ANY of this alleged event?

Are there any neutral historians?

Would you consider ANYONE who did not consider the resurrection of Jesus from the dead to be an undeniable historical fact a "neutral historian?" If not, wouldn't that only leave confirmed Christians elegible for the title in your point of view?

Let's have a look at one of the great historians of the 20th century, Will Durant.


***
Will Durant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
" William James Durant (November 5, 1885 " November 7, 1981) was a prolific American writer, historian, and philosopher. He is best known for The Story of Civilization, 11 volumes written in collaboration with his wife Ariel Durant and published between 1935 and 1975."

"The Story of Civilization
The Durants strove throughout The Story of Civilization to create what they called "integral history". They opposed this to the "specialization" of history, an anticipatory rejection of what some have called the "cult of the expert". Their goal was to write a "biography" of a civilization, in this case, the West, including not just the usual wars, politics and biography of greatness and villainy, but also the culture, art, philosophy, religion, and the rise of mass communication. Much of The Story considers the living conditions of everyday people throughout the 2,500 years their "story" of the west covers. They also bring an unabashedly moral framework to their accounts, constantly stressing the repetition of the "dominance of strong over the weak, the clever over the simple". The Story of Civilization is the most successful historiographical series in history. It has been said that the series "put Simon and Schuster on the map" as a publishing house."

"Will and Ariel Durant were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1968 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Durant
***

So, how does Will Durant sum up Christianity?

"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the church; the Greek language having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual;the Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a devine trinity, the last judgement and a personal immortality of reward and punishment; from Egypt the adoration of the mother and child, and the mystic philosophy that made Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and obscured the Christian creed; there too, Christian monasticism would find it's exemplars and it's source. From Phrygia came the worship of the Great Mother; from Syria the Resurrection drama of Adonis; from Thrace, perhaps, the cult of Dionysus, the dying and saving god. From Persia came millenarianism, the Darkness and the Light; already in the Fourth Gospel Christ is the Light shinning in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.' The Mithraic ritual so closely resembled the eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass that Christian fathers charged the Devil with inventing these similarities to mislead frail minds. Christianity was the last great creation of the pagan world." (History of Civilization vol.3, "Caesar and Christ" by Will Durant, p.595).

Will Durant notes that Christianity is an amalgamation of the popular religions of the age, borrowing the most popular elements from each to make up a synchronist whole that would ultimately prove to be more popular than all of them individually. That is a very clear, candid and immensely erudite evaluation of the historical record and the facts at hand. How else SHOULD a "neutral historian" look upon the historical record? Excluding Christian claims, can you in fact name ANY established historical event or accepted fact which is predicated on the acknowledged occurrence of the miraculous or supernatural?

[Mithrae]

But from what we know, James did not become radicalized or strike back in anger at all; he lived peacefully in Jerusalem until he was unlawfully killed c. 62CE. According to Paul in Gal. 2 his community of Jewish believers followed the law of Moses (unlike Peter), and were particularly concerned about providing for the poor. The only radical thing about James was his newfound belief that Jesus actually was the Messiah, which makes absolutely no sense after his execution - unless he'd somehow become convinced that Jesus rose from the dead.

Seriously, you cannot come up with another possible scenario in your mind? That's the "only" thing that makes sense to you?

How about popularity and power (with a specific group), or a change of employment?

Did you give this any thought?

Of course we can speculate on any number of obscure motives for the actions of any figures and recorders of history, though I'm not sure it would be a particularly productive enterprise. Perhaps Tired himself is correct, and James was retaliating against the authorities for his brother's death in his own way of quietly following Moses' law and administering the local community of believers. It may be that this is more plausible than your suggested motives of greed or status at least, since (as has been previously pointed out) saying that the authorities had killed the Messiah obviously would have carried some risk, as suggested by the whipping and imprisonment of the apostles in Acts. And in fact James himself is one of the few early church leaders for whom we have particularly credible evidence of his death - killed under an unlawful verdict of the Sanhedrin, along with some others.

----------

Given Pauls conflict with the Jerusalem church, why didnt Paul draw attention to the similarity of his post passion conversion and the lateness of James supposed conversion?

Admittedly James was not included as one of the twelve but then, in the absence of any other information, that would be the natural conclusion regarding K"fas [from 1 Corinthians 15:5].

The idea of James post resurrection conversion presupposes the gospel account of the supposed rejection of Jesus mission by his mother, brothers and sisters. The fact that Paul makes no mention of it, which would have been of considerable advantage to Paul, suggests that James was not such a late convert.

As far as I'm aware we don't know precisely how soon or late James converted, but Paul's list suggests that it was around the same time as the resurrection appearances to Peter and the rest of them. Acts does not imply that he was a particularly prominent member of the church initially, but by the council in ch. 15 James appears to have become a leader, arguably eclipsing even Peter. This meshes well with Paul's version in Galatians, where James is placed ahead of Peter and appears to have more conservative views vis a vis the Mosaic law even than Peter did.

--------

While it is true that the testimony of "mere" women was not allowed in court, we have no testimony of any "mere" woman to consult, because they left none.

This does not explain why women would be chosen as the first witnesses, either as decades-later fiction or in your conspiracy theory.

When approaching the question of what might actually have occurred, I often as myself, "What would I have done in a similar situation had I been calling the shots?" If we really are talking conspiracy here, then choosing the women to bring attention to the empty tomb was brilliant. That the followers of Jesus were probably responsible for his missing corpse would be obvious to everyone, but who would accuse "mere women" of moving the great stone and hauling off the body? And it wasn't just that the women were spreading the story of the risen Jesus, they were spreading the story, on the third day as promised, of the empty tomb for all interested parties to come and witness for themselves.

Mark wrote that women were the first to visit the tomb [and to discover it empty], not for reasons of historical accuracy, but out of narrative necessity:

Firstly, he [Mark] wrote that the women were the only disciples to witnesses where Jesus was buried; the male disciples had run away, so were not at the crucifixion and they would not have known where to find the tomb.

Secondly, the pretext for the womens visit was to anoint Jesus body with herbs and spices; this was womens work - to tend the body of the deceased, to wash it and to anoint it with herbs and spices. It would have been considered unthinkable [in first century Judaea] for men to carry out this duty. Any version of events which involved men undertaking this kind of work would have scandalised Marks readership and have resulted in the account being rejected out of hand as being too ridiculous to contemplate.

Mark ends his account by relating that the women ran away and told no-one nothing so neatly avoiding any issue of the women being unreliable witnesses, and providing the reason for the lack of any early tradition for the empty tomb.

The fact that the subsequent evangelists felt at liberty to vary the number / names of the women illustrates that they were unconstrained by any earlier tradition i.e. they [the women] were Marks literary invention.

If the Gospel was really made up they could have easily changed it to have men witness the empty tomb first.

But that wouldn't explain why the empty tomb was such a late tradition. Had Paul known of it he would certainly have mentioned it in 1 Corinthians.

And what pretext could Mark possibly construct to account for the men visiting the tomb? He already had them run away at Jesus arrest, so by what means could he devise to have them know where the supposed tomb was located. Another dream sequence, or would Mark have them just casually pass the graveyard and happen to notice and investigate an empty tomb?

Washing and anointing the body of the recently deceased was the work of women and women alone. There was no possible reason for men to visit the tomb at any time immediately after the interment.

Consequently, any account of men visiting the tomb to anoint the body would have been totally incongruous to a first century CE Jewish audience.

Paul does specify that Jesus was buried, which doesn't particularly imply "thrown into a mass grave and his body lost track of." After saying Jesus died, was buried and rose on the third day, I'm not sure why we should particularly expect him to add "and the tomb was empty."

John had no problem either with having some disciples at the cross, nor with having men anoint Jesus' corpse. While the latter might be more problematic if Mark had a Jewish audience (which I believe he did not), there's still no reason he couldn't have found ways to ensure male witnesses.

[Student]

Given Pauls conflict with the Jerusalem church, why didnt Paul draw attention to the similarity of his post passion conversion and the lateness of James supposed conversion?

Admittedly James was not included as one of the twelve but then, in the absence of any other information, that would be the natural conclusion regarding K"fas [from 1 Corinthians 15:5].

The idea of James post resurrection conversion presupposes the gospel account of the supposed rejection of Jesus mission by his mother, brothers and sisters. The fact that Paul makes no mention of it, which would have been of considerable advantage to Paul, suggests that James was not such a late convert.

As far as I'm aware we don't know precisely how soon or late James converted, but Paul's list suggests that it was around the same time as the resurrection appearances to Peter and the rest of them. Acts does not imply that he was a particularly prominent member of the church initially, but by the council in ch. 15 James appears to have become a leader, arguably eclipsing even Peter. This meshes well with Paul's version in Galatians, where James is placed ahead of Peter and appears to have more conservative views vis a vis the Mosaic law even than Peter did.

Paul lists the sequence in which certain individuals and groups experienced encounters with the resurrected Jesus. There is absolutely no indication that this sequence bears any relationship to when these individuals / groups came to be followers of Jesus. Unless of course you can provide any evidence to the contrary.

While it is true that the testimony of "mere" women was not allowed in court, we have no testimony of any "mere" woman to consult, because they left none.

This does not explain why women would be chosen as the first witnesses, either as decades-later fiction or in your conspiracy theory.

When approaching the question of what might actually have occurred, I often as myself, "What would I have done in a similar situation had I been calling the shots?" If we really are talking conspiracy here, then choosing the women to bring attention to the empty tomb was brilliant. That the followers of Jesus were probably responsible for his missing corpse would be obvious to everyone, but who would accuse "mere women" of moving the great stone and hauling off the body? And it wasn't just that the women were spreading the story of the risen Jesus, they were spreading the story, on the third day as promised, of the empty tomb for all interested parties to come and witness for themselves.

Mark wrote that women were the first to visit the tomb [and to discover it empty], not for reasons of historical accuracy, but out of narrative necessity:

Firstly, he [Mark] wrote that the women were the only disciples to witnesses where Jesus was buried; the male disciples had run away, so were not at the crucifixion and they would not have known where to find the tomb.

Secondly, the pretext for the womens visit was to anoint Jesus body with herbs and spices; this was womens work - to tend the body of the deceased, to wash it and to anoint it with herbs and spices. It would have been considered unthinkable [in first century Judaea] for men to carry out this duty. Any version of events which involved men undertaking this kind of work would have scandalised Marks readership and have resulted in the account being rejected out of hand as being too ridiculous to contemplate.

Mark ends his account by relating that the women ran away and told no-one nothing so neatly avoiding any issue of the women being unreliable witnesses, and providing the reason for the lack of any early tradition for the empty tomb.

The fact that the subsequent evangelists felt at liberty to vary the number / names of the women illustrates that they were unconstrained by any earlier tradition i.e. they [the women] were Marks literary invention.

If the Gospel was really made up they could have easily changed it to have men witness the empty tomb first.

But that wouldn't explain why the empty tomb was such a late tradition. Had Paul known of it he would certainly have mentioned it in 1 Corinthians.

And what pretext could Mark possibly construct to account for the men visiting the tomb? He already had them run away at Jesus arrest, so by what means could he devise to have them know where the supposed tomb was located. Another dream sequence, or would Mark have them just casually pass the graveyard and happen to notice and investigate an empty tomb?

Washing and anointing the body of the recently deceased was the work of women and women alone. There was no possible reason for men to visit the tomb at any time immediately after the interment.

Consequently, any account of men visiting the tomb to anoint the body would have been totally incongruous to a first century CE Jewish audience.

Paul does specify that Jesus was buried, which doesn't particularly imply "thrown into a mass grave and his body lost track of." After saying Jesus died, was buried and rose on the third day, I'm not sure why we should particularly expect him to add "and the tomb was empty."

John had no problem either with having some disciples at the cross, nor with having men anoint Jesus' corpse. While the latter might be more problematic if Mark had a Jewish audience (which I believe he did not), there's still no reason he couldn't have found ways to ensure male witnesses.

I assume you are using the royal we.
Paul does not mention a tomb, empty or otherwise. If he were to reflect the significance assigned to the empty tomb in the gospels, he would surely have mentioned it as proof of the resurrection.

The fact that John had no problem either with having some disciples at the cross, nor with having men anoint Jesus' corpse only serves to prove that g.John is an unreliable historical account and that it was written long after the time when these inaccuracies would be noticed. The close proximity of Jesus friends and family, to the cross and having men anoint Jesus corpse are both flatly contradicted by the Synoptics and by the socio/historical record.

[Mithrae]

Given Pauls conflict with the Jerusalem church, why didnt Paul draw attention to the similarity of his post passion conversion and the lateness of James supposed conversion?

Admittedly James was not included as one of the twelve but then, in the absence of any other information, that would be the natural conclusion regarding K"fas [from 1 Corinthians 15:5].

The idea of James post resurrection conversion presupposes the gospel account of the supposed rejection of Jesus mission by his mother, brothers and sisters. The fact that Paul makes no mention of it, which would have been of considerable advantage to Paul, suggests that James was not such a late convert.

As far as I'm aware we don't know precisely how soon or late James converted, but Paul's list suggests that it was around the same time as the resurrection appearances to Peter and the rest of them. Acts does not imply that he was a particularly prominent member of the church initially, but by the council in ch. 15 James appears to have become a leader, arguably eclipsing even Peter. This meshes well with Paul's version in Galatians, where James is placed ahead of Peter and appears to have more conservative views vis a vis the Mosaic law even than Peter did.

Paul lists the sequence in which certain individuals and groups experienced encounters with the resurrected Jesus. There is absolutely no indication that this sequence bears any relationship to when these individuals / groups came to be followers of Jesus. Unless of course you can provide any evidence to the contrary.

Paul differentiates his own encounter with Jesus "as to one born out of time" from memory (can't access the bible at work). Again, this meshes well with Luke's suggestion that Jesus appeared to many before ascending to heaven, and Paul's experience was later.

But that wouldn't explain why the empty tomb was such a late tradition. Had Paul known of it he would certainly have mentioned it in 1 Corinthians.

And what pretext could Mark possibly construct to account for the men visiting the tomb? He already had them run away at Jesus arrest, so by what means could he devise to have them know where the supposed tomb was located. Another dream sequence, or would Mark have them just casually pass the graveyard and happen to notice and investigate an empty tomb?

Washing and anointing the body of the recently deceased was the work of women and women alone. There was no possible reason for men to visit the tomb at any time immediately after the interment.

Consequently, any account of men visiting the tomb to anoint the body would have been totally incongruous to a first century CE Jewish audience.

Paul does specify that Jesus was buried, which doesn't particularly imply "thrown into a mass grave and his body lost track of." After saying Jesus died, was buried and rose on the third day, I'm not sure why we should particularly expect him to add "and the tomb was empty."

John had no problem either with having some disciples at the cross, nor with having men anoint Jesus' corpse. While the latter might be more problematic if Mark had a Jewish audience (which I believe he did not), there's still no reason he couldn't have found ways to ensure male witnesses.

I assume you are using the royal we.
Paul does not mention a tomb, empty or otherwise. If he were to reflect the significance assigned to the empty tomb in the gospels, he would surely have mentioned it as proof of the resurrection.

John assigns significance to the burial wraps left in the tomb; Mark has the women invited to "come and see the place they laid him"; Matthew has soldiers and earthquakes... don't remember Luke off the top of my head. When there's angels and (except perhaps in Mark, unless there was a lost original ending) direct encounters with a risen Jesus, I think it's a bit of a subjective call to say that the gospels assign such significance to an empty tomb that Paul's brief overview should be expected to mention it - especially to folk who already believed.

The fact that John had no problem either with having some disciples at the cross, nor with having men anoint Jesus' corpse only serves to prove that g.John is an unreliable historical account and that it was written long after the time when these inaccuracies would be noticed. The close proximity of Jesus friends and family, to the cross and having men anoint Jesus corpse are both flatly contradicted by the Synoptics and by the socio/historical record.

The synoptics say that the disciples abandoned Jesus on the evening he was arrested, and they do not give a location for them on the afternoon he died. John is not flatly contradicted by the synoptics on that point at all. In other respects John obviously isn't an historical work of course, but that is quite beside the point that if John felt free to have at least one disciple return in time to see Jesus' death and presumably burial place, there is no reason why Mark would have been constrained against doing the same, if he wanted to invent male witnesses of Jesus' resurrection.

I suspect that it is easy to explain why Paul would omit any mention of an early tradition of female witnesses, than to explain why Mark would invent them in spite of Paul's earlier witness list.