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?

[Furrowed Brow]

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 those who SAW Him are not reliable, pray tell....who would be? those who didnt see Him?

There are people today who see aliens, would you consider their testimony reliable?

we are not discussing aliens. if those who saw Him are not reliable testimony, would the testimony of someone who just heard about it be sufficient? please try to keep the question asked in mind. thanks, not trying to be rude, but answering like that is pointless....

I guess atheistic questions are going to just look disrespectful if you are a theist. But Cog has a point. Ok we are not talking about aliens. But the resurrection is out of this world. So the parallel is just.

[katiej49]

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 those who SAW Him are not reliable, pray tell....who would be? those who didnt see Him?

There are people today who see aliens, would you consider their testimony reliable?

we are not discussing aliens. if those who saw Him are not reliable testimony, would the testimony of someone who just heard about it be sufficient? please try to keep the question asked in mind. thanks, not trying to be rude, but answering like that is pointless....

I guess atheistic questions are going to just look disrespectful if you are a theist. But Cog has a point. Ok we are not talking about aliens. But the resurrection is out of this world. So the parallel is just.

you cant answer the question. eyewitnesses are not good enough for you. early historians are not good enough for you. second hand accounts certainly wouldnt suit you. you are unwilling to believe. thats the bottom line.

[katiej49]

I guess atheistic questions are going to just look disrespectful if you are a theist. But Cog has a point. Ok we are not talking about aliens. But the resurrection is out of this world. So the parallel is just.[/quote]


questions are not atheist or theist...they are just questions. just answer the one asked..if you can.

[Cogitoergosum]

you know the answer to that. so toss out the early historians. ok....who ELSE would be reliable? there is NO one you can say would be reliable enough. eyewitness accounts are not good enough, early historians are not good enough, second hand accounts wouldnt suit you....that leaves.....who?

Well you see, when you have no first hand independent accounts, no archeological or historical solid claims to truth, then maybe no one is reliable on that matter, like no one is reliable when it comes to alien sightings. When information is this shady, it is probably best to doubt it. When strong evidence presents itself then you can believe it.

[Cogitoergosum]

you know the answer to that. so toss out the early historians. ok....who ELSE would be reliable? there is NO one you can say would be reliable enough. eyewitness accounts are not good enough, early historians are not good enough, second hand accounts wouldnt suit you....that leaves.....who?

Well you see, when you have no first hand independent accounts, no archeological or historical solid claims to truth, then maybe no one is reliable on that matter, like no one is reliable when it comes to alien sightings. When information is this shady, it is probably best to doubt it. When strong evidence presents itself then you can believe it.

[katiej49]

When strong evidence presents itself then you can believe it.[/quote]



define strong evidence.

[Cogitoergosum]

When strong evidence presents itself then you can believe it.

define strong evidence.[/quote]

We always go back to the same arguments while debating with theists,
define strong evidence, define this, define that.
If i say a plausible evidence you would have said define plausible, if i had said if evidence presented itself you would have said define evidence.
let's define it as: beyond a reasonable doubt.
am i going to have to define all these words now?

[katiej49]

When strong evidence presents itself then you can believe it.

define strong evidence.

We always go back to the same arguments while debating with theists,
define strong evidence, define this, define that.
If i say a plausible evidence you would have said define plausible, if i had said if evidence presented itself you would have said define evidence.
let's define it as: beyond a reasonable doubt.
am i going to have to define all these words now?[/quote]


no. but its hard to answer because what is strong evidence to some means zip to others

[achilles12604]

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?

Very important questions. I was going to create this thread myself.

First I will discuss the various aspects of the resurrection itself. Then I will address common rebuttals. I am going to be using Mark for the account of the crucifixion and initial resurrection passages as Mark is widely thought to be very early and probably the first of the Gospels. Also the high Christology in Mark is significantly less than other books like John where high Christology of Jesus is rampant.


Was Jesus wanted dead by the Jewish Authorities?
First let’s examine the plausibility of The Jewish authorities wanting Jesus dead. Mark writes

1Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him. 2"But not during the Feast," they said, "or the people may riot."

Is this likely to be historically accurate? In my opinion yes. We have numerous examples of "messiahs" arriving and the authorities rejecting them and siding with Rome. Josephus for example writes of Judas and Sadduc and their uprising. (XVIII - Chapter 1)

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm
[center]

Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.

[/center]

It is pretty clear that Roman's were in control of the Jews and that when an uprising occurred, they would punish anyone nearby. Uprisings created misery, tumults, and other hardships. In addition to this, any uprising sanctioned by the Jewish authorities would result in war, as happened leading up to the 70 AD destruction of the Temple.

Another reason why Jesus would have been hated by the authorities, is quite simply because his words were blasphemous, and very harsh with them. Many of Jesus teachings are recorded as being against the religious leaders. While the Gospels may or may not be totally accurate, a good number of these passages are probably correct. Even the findings of the Jesus seminar allow for these passages to be accurate. (The Five Gospels - Introduction) In addition to this you can turn to Josephus once again. While the Testimonium Flavianum could be used to support this point, we don't even need to use this controversial passage as the passage on James makes it clear Jesus was at least called "the Christ" by some. [center]

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James

[/center] This alone would have been enough to anger the Jewish authorities.

I think it pretty clear that Jesus was a wanted man by the authorities. After all they stoned Stephen, accounted by Josephus, for speaking words about God. What more would they do to someone claiming to be Christ?


Would the Roman Authorities have killed Jesus on the say so of the Jews?

Mark Writes

12"What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?" Pilate asked them.

13"Crucify him!" they shouted.

We have multiple account of Roman leaders, especially Pontous Pilate, who was especially brutal in putting down rebellions. There are multiple accounts of Pilate slaughtering anyone rising up and massing forces, especially in the name of a "messiah". While this record alone basically could answer the question above, we are left with a strange account of Pilate in the Gospels. I will get to this more later.

In addition to his track record, we can examine letters of other Romans, including the Historian Tactius who wrote [center]

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius

[/center]

Now Tactius was writing within about 80 years or so of the original events. While he could have simply been repeating what he heard Christians say, I doubt this was the case. I believe that being a respected historian, he had access to accounts and methods of investigation which would have rendered his accounts more accurate. In addition to this there are a few other reasons to believe his account was independent.

- Being a Roman historian who was friends with Pliny who regularly tortured Christians, makes it very unlikely that he would have believed their account of Roman History is it were not in fact accurate. If the Christians were incorrect, he would certainly have been the man to know.

- Syme, who was regarded as one of the foremost Tacitean scholars, says (Sym.Tac, 398) "the prime quality of Cornelius Tacitus is distrust. It was needed if a man were to write about the Caesars." He says Tacitus "was no stranger to industrious investigation" and his "diligence was exemplary."

- Wellesley (Dor.Tac, 65-6) remarks that investigation "very seldom shows him to be false to fact" and that archaeology has shown that "only once or twice is Tacitus found guilty of a small slip." He adds: "When the sources differ and the truth is hard to decipher, he takes refuge in ambiguous language or the balance of alternative and sometimes spiteful variants," rather than doing original research to determine which option is the truth. We may note that there is no such ambiguous language in the Christus cite.

- Mendell notes that in Annals 13, Tacitus quotes three divergent opinions from three different historians on a story involving Nero. (Mende.Tac, 208) He was concerned even about minor historical details in this regard. Mendell (ibid., 207) further notes Tacitus' citation of a fantastic story about one Drusus, "based only on persistent rumor, which he refutes by the application of logic." He writes: "In the Histories there are sixty-eight instances in which Tacitus indicates either a recorded statement or a belief on someone's part with regard to something which he himself is unwilling to assert as a fact; in other words, he cites divergent authority for some fact or motive." (ibid., 201) These instances "would seem to indicate a writer who had not only read what was written by historians...but had also talked with eye witnesses and considered with some care the probable truth where doubt or uncertainty existed...

- Benario (Benar.Tac, 87) tells us that Tacitus "chose judiciously among his sources, totally dependent upon none, and very often, at crucial points, ignored the consensus of his predecessors to impose his own viewpoint and his own judgment."

So I believe it is fairly easy to believe that Jesus was crucified by Pilate. While this account may not be exactly as described in the bible, we have no real reason to doubt that it was close and a great deal of reason to side with the assumption that Mark was accurate.


Will a person die from crucifixion?

35When some of those standing near heard this, they said, "Listen, he's calling Elijah."

36One man ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to take him down," he said.

37With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

Obviously, there are many historical accounts of individuals dying by means of crucifixion. But how possible is it that someone could survive?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=lw195
[center]

In such cases, victims may have avoided immediate asphyxiation, succumbing instead to cardiac failure, blood loss, shock or dehydration. Which of these causes of death predominated would depend to some extent on the state of the victim prior to crucifixion.

[/center]

There were a lot of ways to die from crucifixion. With the whipping of Jesus, we would have already lost a lot of blood so blood loss and shock were certainly possibilities, even if asphyxiation wasn't the primary cause.

http://www.everystudent.com.sg/right2reason/crucifixion

So it is certain that crucifixion causes death by various methods. By far the slowest of these would be asphyxiation so cardiac arrest, and shock both stop the heart's beating, and blood loss attacks the brain and ultimately leads to shock and stopping of the heart. Asphyxiation on the other hand attacks first the lungs and then reduces the oxygenation in the blood and increases acid in the blood to fatal levels. This process takes much more time than a heart attack.

With this in mind death by asphyxiation for a dog, with about 300cc of breathable air left takes about 7 min. As Jesus body was larger than a dogs, it would have required more oxygen and as his lungs would have been compressed, he would not have had the 300cc of spare O2 to breath, so Jesus situation would have been slightly worse than my example, but it was all I could find.

(Do not click on the link if you are squeamish)

http://www.charlydmiller.com/LIB/1949anoxicdeath.html


The average death of the dogs took about 7 min. When the dog was totally without O2, it took only 5 minutes. The human brain will die after approximately six minutes without oxygen. Brain damage can occur within 2 minutes without air. So the question is after Jesus passed out, thus causing all of his weight to press on his lungs, how long did he live physically before suffering severe brain damage and death?

Well consider that he has already lost a lot of blood, thus lowering the amount of oxygen flowing to his system. He is probably in shock from the nails and whipping. He has also been hanging for hours already and this has already caused him to have a very low oxygen level as asphyxiation doesn't occur all at once but rather over time. Lack of blood, shock and low levels of oxygen would have all hastened his time of death.

But for arguments sake, lets ignore all three of these factors. How long would it have taken for the guards to 1) notice he was dead, 2) decide to take down the bodies (because the tradition was to leave them up for birds to peck but they were removed early because of Jewish traditions), and then 3) remove the nails and pull him down?

1) Considering Jesus was killed with two robbers (no I don't have another source but does it really matter on this detail?), the guards would have had to wait until all three were clinically dead. Since Jesus received the beating first, but the other two probably did not as traditionally men were not tortured before crucifixion, Jesus would have passed out first, and thus would have had all of his weight slumping down for as long as the other two lived. This was probably quite a while as a person could be alive for hours and even days unless they succum to the pain and passed out, trapping their air and killing them.

2)

Giving the victim a proper burial following death on the cross, during the Roman period was rare and in most cases simply not permitted in order to continue the humiliation. Thus the victim was in many cases simply thrown on the garbage dump of the city or left on the cross as food for wild beasts and birds of prey. Juvenal, for example, writes that in Rome ‘the vulture hurries from dead cattle and dogs and crosses to bring some of the carrion to her offspring’
http://www.joezias.com/CrucifixionAntiquity.html

The Roman soldiers would not have been in any hurry to take down the body.

So the question is, would it have taken more than a maximum of 7 minutes (more likely about 3), for all three to die, the Romans to decide to take down the bodies against the tradition, and then to physically climb up, release the bar and the nails and rope, and bring the body down?

I say not a chance. And even if somehow this is what happened, Jesus certainly would have suffered significant brain damage, and physical damage to his body, leaving him a cripple. He certainly could not have appeared strong and able, if he survived. But I'll get more into this later.

Was Jesus placed into the tomb?

42It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

This will be the point where I think the most attacks will come. The figure of Joseph of Arimathea, only appears in the Gospel accounts and then later in accounts of the spread of Christianity to Great Britain.

There are no non-biblical accounts of him taking Jesus body and placing it into the tomb.

However, this section can be implied fairly well if you examine the next section carefully.

Was the tomb empty?

1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"

4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

8Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Was the tomb really empty? The best way to answer this question without referring to the bible as a source and thus arguing in a circle, is with logic.

1) What would have probably happened if Jesus body was still in the tomb, or was never placed into the tomb in the first place? (See back to the previous subject) Well the first problem would have been the disciples. They were in hiding and with good cause since their leader has just been killed and they were wanted men as his close followers. So for these same men to come out and begin to preach that Jesus was no longer dead, would have been foolhardy without very good cause. In addition to this, the body, if still in the tomb, could have easily been examined by the authorities to stop any further "Jesus" movements. In fact there is really no good reason why the authorities couldn't have stopped Christianity dead if the body was still there.

2) If Jesus body was still in the tomb, it would have been impossible for the sect known as the Nazarenes to have started. These Jewish men lived in and around Jerusalem during the time of Jesus. Their "heyday" was right after Jesus death (37-80CE). These people were in a position to KNOW the facts, not believe them. Lotan and I went rounds on this subject here

Correct me if I am wrong Lotan, but I believe we left it at a stalemate where we both concurred the Nazarenes believed in the resurrection, but that I believed it to be a physical resurrection whereas you held that it was purely spiritual. But in any case, these individuals believed in a resurrection and they were in a position to KNOW, not believe.

Both of these points account for time within 3-5 years of the death of Jesus. This is WAY before even Paul and his letters, or even the creeds quoted by Paul which were even earlier, and these dated to 40's and early 50's.

Now answering the objections put forth already in order.

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

Covered. You do the math on how long it takes to die and then compare it to how long it would have taken for all three to die, the guards to be convinced to remove the bodies, and then the actual act of taking down the bodies. Jesus didn't swoon.

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?

Decent points. Could the tomb have been entered? Yes. But it would have taken many men to move the stone. From my understanding, when a tomb was sealed the stone was rolled DOWNHILL into a wedge, thus securing it. To remove the stone, it would have required rolling it out of the wedge and then up hill. This would have required MANY men, along with a very great desire to move the body. Remember that touching a dead body would make a person unclean in Jewish beliefs, so absolutely no one wanted to voluntarily touch a dead body unless absolutely necessary. Could guards be bribed? Sure. But if they were caught, they were executed. Period. That is a high price to pay, especially on a high profile case like the most recent Messiah's rebellion and his death. But it is possible.

I however, don't personally think that there were guards, so I'll remove that obstacle right off the bat.

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.

Appearances, while useful are not necessary to support a resurrection. Rather than start a side debate about these, I will simply let this point drop and focus on the resurrection itself only for now.

[Goat]

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 those who SAW Him are not reliable, pray tell....who would be? those who didnt see Him?

How come no one who actually saw him wrote about it? We get claims that there wre eye wittnesses from people writing decades later, but nothing from the alledged eye witnesses.