What evidence supports the theory of “resurrection”?

[Zzyzx]

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?

[TruthSeeker1]

The timeframe associated with the "legends and tales" is extremely early and is no where near the 4th century when Christianity became legal. I would agree that if these tales had popped up out of nothing even as much as 100 years later, they could easily be dismissed as myth. However, the Gospel of Mark was written around 62CE (I'll argue with you about this date later goat on another thread. How bout the one designated for dating Mark?). 62 CE is right around and probably within 30 years of the events in question. For Mark's book to be accepted by anyone, much less Jews within the Jerusalem city limits, it couldn't all be fairy tales and myths.

I call this the Christian apologetic myth myth. I don’t blame you because someone else started it.
We have many examples of myth today. Both of the Kennedy’s are two examples. One was shot on film in a room full of people and some still think Sirhan Bishara Sirhan didn’t do it.
We don’t have a copy of Mark’s supposed pre second century work so we don’t know when it was written. There were stories going around about the Caesars we find less then credible today. Some were sure Nero was coming back from the dead and there were some that said they were Nero returned. The legend ended up in Revelations.
Given Mark was written outside of Jerusalem by a gentile, who knows what they were thinking and there wasn’t any one around to question his story. We do have at least two other gospel writers that felt his story needed fixing at least 20 to 40 years later.

As you probably know I am with Law Enforcement. As such, I am required to testify A LOT.

How many visions and stories do you testifying about?
We are not talking about car accidents or crime scenes.

It prohibited it for Jews. Are you suggesting that the Romans were bound by Jewish laws?

No but the stories in the gospels say he had a Jewish trial first. Your question is meaningless and off.

Let us assume, for arguements sake, that we have sufficent evidence that Jesus existed, and was actually executed on passover by the romans. Except for some statements of faith written down decades after the fact, there is no evidence of a 'ressurrection'.

Three of the gospels have him executed on Passover; John has him killed on the day of preparation so he could be the “lamb of God” and sacrificed when they were doing the other sacrifices to fit his theology.

Papias writing about 100-110 CE. And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

This quotation clearly defines the author of the book associated with Mark. It also shows that the memories recorded in Mark are from one of Jesus innermost disciples. While this should close the book (pun intended) there are other factors identifying Mark as the author.

There are none of his writing left. You have hearsay regarding Papias and we have no reason to believe the Mark of the NT is the one referred to by Papias. It is interesting that Mark had such little regard for Peter as to make him look so stupid and cowardly. I would say that it was an anti-Peter community of gentiles that produced the writings and used them not Jewish Christians. Matthew comes along and makes Peter look a little better. Now Paul seems to have the same little regard for the pillars of the assembly. Why doesn’t Mark ever mention his time with Peter? Again we get this report from Papias from someone else. This is the same Papias that said John told him that Jesus told him that a single grape would be big enough to make many jars of wine and a seed would make many loaves of bread. Most scholars think Mark has he least amount of information and the worst of the writings. Maybe Peter mumbled a lot.

In every one of these ancient authorities Mark is regarded as the writer of the Gospel, which is looked upon at the same time as having Apostolic authority, because substantially at least it had come from St. Peter. In the light of this traditional connexion of he Gospel with St. Peter, there can be no doubt that it is to it St. Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, refers ("Dial.", 106), when he sags that Christ gave the title of "Boanerges" to the sons of Zebedee (a fact mentioned in the New Testament only in Mark 3:17), and that this is written in the "memoirs" of Peter (en tois apopnemaneumasin autou--after he had just named Peter). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm

This is a second attestation to Mark and Peter's influence on this book. There are more but I think the point is made. While Mark did not include a self addressed envelope for reader comments, it is pretty apparent who wrote this book, when, and with whom.

I remember reading that here Mark is using “Boanerges” with out explanation, as he usually tries to provide, to cover up the fact they were rebels or Zealots. It is not apparent who wrote Mark and it is still questioned.

Can you provide any alternative author? Can you provide any plausible reason to distrust and disregard Mark as the author? You not being sure of it is not a plausible reason to disregard the standard. You are the one questioning authorship. Tell us why we should question it.

We don’t know who wrote unknown or anonymous works.

Great points Cathar, and you are right to bring up the other things that Papias had to say. He said some even wilder beliefs that Christians would cringe at today so hopefully for Achillies sake he will check that out so he stops using Papias as a source to confirm Markian authorship.

It probably doesn't make much difference though, Achillies arguments will work for his intended audience; that is believers who have some doubts. These people will accept arguments like Papias as a resource without much debate so Achillies won't have any problems with his efforts.

[Zzyzx]

This topic has raised a lot of discussion. However, I have yet to see anything that resembles evidence in support of the theory of "resurrection".

A few second or third hand accounts of "empty tomb" and "reappearance" are pretty weak substantiation for the entire basis of Christianity.

If there was no resurrection there is no basis for Christianity -- period. The "Christ" was then an imposter (or, more likely, a fictional character invented by church writers long after the supposed events were to have occurred)

[TruthSeeker1]

This topic has raised a lot of discussion. However, I have yet to see anything that resembles evidence in support of the theory of "resurrection".

A few second or third hand accounts of "empty tomb" and "reappearance" are pretty weak substantiation for the entire basis of Christianity.

If there was no resurrection there is no basis for Christianity -- period. The "Christ" was then an imposter (or, more likely, a fictional character invented by church writers long after the supposed events were to have occurred)

Your problem Zzyzx is you are asking for too much of people 2000 years ago. You want actual evidence and not just second hand-non verifiable accounts and that is just unrealistic. Even though the Gospel authors don't say who they are, or what their credentials or sources are, and despite the fact that there isn't much in secular history to confirm things like an empty tomb or resurrection sightings, you should just believe these unnamed and unknown authors.

Besides all this Zzyzx, the Gospels were divinely inspired by an all powerful and perfect God, so for you to expect them to include basic things like names of authors and sources is just unrealistic. How exactly would an all powerful and perfect God foresee that people would question documents that lack claims of authorship and verifiable sources? Why would you expect a perfect God to know these things and plan accordingly?

[achilles12604]

The timeframe associated with the "legends and tales" is extremely early and is no where near the 4th century when Christianity became legal. I would agree that if these tales had popped up out of nothing even as much as 100 years later, they could easily be dismissed as myth. However, the Gospel of Mark was written around 62CE (I'll argue with you about this date later goat on another thread. How bout the one designated for dating Mark?). 62 CE is right around and probably within 30 years of the events in question. For Mark's book to be accepted by anyone, much less Jews within the Jerusalem city limits, it couldn't all be fairy tales and myths.

I call this the Christian apologetic myth myth. I don’t blame you because someone else started it.
We have many examples of myth today. Both of the Kennedy’s are two examples. One was shot on film in a room full of people and some still think Sirhan Bishara Sirhan didn’t do it.
We don’t have a copy of Mark’s supposed pre second century work so we don’t know when it was written. There were stories going around about the Caesars we find less then credible today. Some were sure Nero was coming back from the dead and there were some that said they were Nero returned. The legend ended up in Revelations.
Given Mark was written outside of Jerusalem by a gentile, who knows what they were thinking and there wasn’t any one around to question his story. We do have at least two other gospel writers that felt his story needed fixing at least 20 to 40 years later.

As you probably know I am with Law Enforcement. As such, I am required to testify A LOT.

How many visions and stories do you testifying about?
We are not talking about car accidents or crime scenes.

It prohibited it for Jews. Are you suggesting that the Romans were bound by Jewish laws?

No but the stories in the gospels say he had a Jewish trial first. Your question is meaningless and off.

Let us assume, for arguements sake, that we have sufficent evidence that Jesus existed, and was actually executed on passover by the romans. Except for some statements of faith written down decades after the fact, there is no evidence of a 'ressurrection'.

Three of the gospels have him executed on Passover; John has him killed on the day of preparation so he could be the “lamb of God” and sacrificed when they were doing the other sacrifices to fit his theology.

Papias writing about 100-110 CE. And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

This quotation clearly defines the author of the book associated with Mark. It also shows that the memories recorded in Mark are from one of Jesus innermost disciples. While this should close the book (pun intended) there are other factors identifying Mark as the author.

There are none of his writing left. You have hearsay regarding Papias and we have no reason to believe the Mark of the NT is the one referred to by Papias. It is interesting that Mark had such little regard for Peter as to make him look so stupid and cowardly. I would say that it was an anti-Peter community of gentiles that produced the writings and used them not Jewish Christians. Matthew comes along and makes Peter look a little better. Now Paul seems to have the same little regard for the pillars of the assembly. Why doesn’t Mark ever mention his time with Peter? Again we get this report from Papias from someone else. This is the same Papias that said John told him that Jesus told him that a single grape would be big enough to make many jars of wine and a seed would make many loaves of bread. Most scholars think Mark has he least amount of information and the worst of the writings. Maybe Peter mumbled a lot.

In every one of these ancient authorities Mark is regarded as the writer of the Gospel, which is looked upon at the same time as having Apostolic authority, because substantially at least it had come from St. Peter. In the light of this traditional connexion of he Gospel with St. Peter, there can be no doubt that it is to it St. Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, refers ("Dial.", 106), when he sags that Christ gave the title of "Boanerges" to the sons of Zebedee (a fact mentioned in the New Testament only in Mark 3:17), and that this is written in the "memoirs" of Peter (en tois apopnemaneumasin autou--after he had just named Peter). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm

This is a second attestation to Mark and Peter's influence on this book. There are more but I think the point is made. While Mark did not include a self addressed envelope for reader comments, it is pretty apparent who wrote this book, when, and with whom.

I remember reading that here Mark is using “Boanerges” with out explanation, as he usually tries to provide, to cover up the fact they were rebels or Zealots. It is not apparent who wrote Mark and it is still questioned.

Can you provide any alternative author? Can you provide any plausible reason to distrust and disregard Mark as the author? You not being sure of it is not a plausible reason to disregard the standard. You are the one questioning authorship. Tell us why we should question it.

We don’t know who wrote unknown or anonymous works.

Great points Cathar, and you are right to bring up the other things that Papias had to say. He said some even wilder beliefs that Christians would cringe at today so hopefully for Achillies sake he will check that out so he stops using Papias as a source to confirm Markian authorship.

It probably doesn't make much difference though, Achillies arguments will work for his intended audience; that is believers who have some doubts. These people will accept arguments like Papias as a resource without much debate so Achillies won't have any problems with his efforts.

Truth -

first off try not to assume you know who my intented audience is, or even if I have an audience. After all I am here right?

I have created a thread specifically to discuss Papias. Lets discuss it in detail there. I look forward to examining your reasons for doubt.

[TruthSeeker1]

Achillies Wrote:

Truth -

first off try not to assume you know who my intented audience is, or even if I have an audience. After all I am here right?

Achillies, I didn't assume who your target audience is, you told me and others on a different thread. You said this about why you are here:

Achillies Wrote:

I for one am not here to convert.....Instead I am here to learn the arguments of the atheists. I want to discover the history behind the arguments so that in the future I will be able to better defend newer christians against their arguments using the very tools they ascribe to.

Have you changed your position on why you are here? From your own words you say that you are here to "better defend newer Christians". As I pointed out your arguments will go over very well with "newer Christians" but your opinions are not so good for those who have looked into the issues more than "newer Christians" have.

Please correct me though if I have wrongly assumed from your own words who exactly your target audience is.

[achilles12604]

Achillies Wrote:

Truth -

first off try not to assume you know who my intented audience is, or even if I have an audience. After all I am here right?

Achillies, I didn't assume who your target audience is, you told me and others on a different thread. You said this about why you are here:

Achillies Wrote:

I for one am not here to convert.....Instead I am here to learn the arguments of the atheists. I want to discover the history behind the arguments so that in the future I will be able to better defend newer christians against their arguments using the very tools they ascribe to.

Have you changed your position on why you are here? From your own words you say that you are here to "better defend newer Christians". As I pointed out your arguments will go over very well with "newer Christians" but your opinions are not so good for those who have looked into the issues more than "newer Christians" have.

Please correct me though if I have wrongly assumed from your own words who exactly your target audience is.

Touché. Good point.

I have been accused before of only listening to and entertaining Christian ideas. I assumed your statement applied to this same line of thinking.

I also caught a hint of implication in your statement that the evidence was only good enough for those who have already made up their minds, implying that we would believe anything so long as it said what we wanted it too.

I simply wished to make clear I have no aversion at all to a total examination of the evidence to the point of discarding junk evidence. I in no way will continue to use evidence once it has been debunked. However my level of expectation for debunking evidence is the same level you expect from me to "prove" my point.

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.

[Confused]

Achilles:

Of all the posts thus far, I have yet to see any evidence that supports the theory of the resurrection. I have read flaws in accounts, medical impossibilities, varying accounts by different scriptures, but no evidence to support it. Now, knowing you, you have some. So lets hear it.

[achilles12604]

Achilles:

Of all the posts thus far, I have yet to see any evidence that supports the theory of the resurrection. I have read flaws in accounts, medical impossibilities, varying accounts by different scriptures, but no evidence to support it. Now, knowing you, you have some. So lets hear it.

Ok perhaps you could elaborate on what you mentioned.

What flaws in which accounts?

We discussed medical impossibilities. I know you are a nurse. I also know that the sources I cited are well respected medical opinions so why should I discount them?

What scriptures did I cite which vary?

[Confused]

Achilles:

Of all the posts thus far, I have yet to see any evidence that supports the theory of the resurrection. I have read flaws in accounts, medical impossibilities, varying accounts by different scriptures, but no evidence to support it. Now, knowing you, you have some. So lets hear it.

Ok perhaps you could elaborate on what you mentioned.

What flaws in which accounts?

We discussed medical impossibilities. I know you are a nurse. I also know that the sources I cited are well respected medical opinions so why should I discount them?

What scriptures did I cite which vary?

Not just scripture in which you cite. But for the books of the NT, the accounts of the death and resurrection of Christ differ. That is what I refer to when I state flaws in accounts or varying accounts. I am not saying that you specifically cite these, but various poster have pointed them out.

I am not attempting to discount the medical opinions you cited. I also never claimed they weren't possible. Nor do I claim miracles aren't possible. Apparently we lost interpretations in my posts. The point I was making was that the hypotheses I presented are in no way more or less credible than those of your sources. Neither are they more or less probable. They are simply facts. Alternatives. No human body responds the same to disease, injury, etc.... There are hundreds of ways a person can respond to MRSA (methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus). However, the severe issue with the account of the death of Christ are the inconsistencies in which it was reported. Such as what happened to all the prophets (saints/Holy men?whathaveyou) released into town at the moment of Christs death etc, why do not all apostles write of this, why does one apostle have His last words as "Father, why have you forsaken me" (or something like that) while another says His last words included asking for a drink.

One thing that is certain is that scripture doesn't allude to enough time passing from the time Christ was arrested to the time of His death for Christ to be alert enough to speak with the two He was crucified with at length, then ask for water, then suddenly die. One isn't conscious then dead without having some sort of severe illness etc... or lapsing into a coma first. There is no evidence Christ suffered illness, blood loss, malnutrition, significant injury, etc... for Him to up and die.

[achilles12604]

Achilles:

Of all the posts thus far, I have yet to see any evidence that supports the theory of the resurrection. I have read flaws in accounts, medical impossibilities, varying accounts by different scriptures, but no evidence to support it. Now, knowing you, you have some. So lets hear it.

Ok perhaps you could elaborate on what you mentioned.

What flaws in which accounts?

We discussed medical impossibilities. I know you are a nurse. I also know that the sources I cited are well respected medical opinions so why should I discount them?

What scriptures did I cite which vary?

Not just scripture in which you cite. But for the books of the NT, the accounts of the death and resurrection of Christ differ. That is what I refer to when I state flaws in accounts or varying accounts. I am not saying that you specifically cite these, but various poster have pointed them out.

Oh.

I am not attempting to discount the medical opinions you cited. I also never claimed they weren't possible. Nor do I claim miracles aren't possible. Apparently we lost interpretations in my posts. The point I was making was that the hypotheses I presented are in no way more or less credible than those of your sources. Neither are they more or less probable. They are simply facts. Alternatives. No human body responds the same to disease, injury, etc.... There are hundreds of ways a person can respond to MRSA (methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus). However, the severe issue with the account of the death of Christ are the inconsistencies in which it was reported. Such as what happened to all the prophets (saints/Holy men?whathaveyou) released into town at the moment of Christs death etc, why do not all apostles write of this, why does one apostle have His last words as "Father, why have you forsaken me" (or something like that) while another says His last words included asking for a drink.

Oh.

One thing that is certain is that scripture doesn't allude to enough time passing from the time Christ was arrested to the time of His death for Christ to be alert enough to speak with the two He was crucified with at length, then ask for water, then suddenly die. One isn't conscious then dead without having some sort of severe illness etc... or lapsing into a coma first. There is no evidence Christ suffered illness, blood loss, malnutrition, significant injury, etc... for Him to up and die.

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