Resurrection Contradictions

[WinePusher]

In this thread we will be evaluating the alternative explanations for the events surrounding the Resurrection to see if they hold any validity.

Swoon Hypothesis: The Swoon Hypothesis refers to a number of theories that aim to explain the resurrection of Jesus, proposing that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but merely fell unconscious ("swooned"), and was later revived in the tomb in the same mortal body

Source

Vision Hypothesis: The vision hypothesis is a term used to cover a range of theories that question the physical resurrection of Jesus, and suggest that sightings of a risen Jesus were visionary experiences.

Source

Stolen Body Hypothesis: The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons.

Source

Question: Do these theories better explain the events surrounding the resurrection then the explanation that Jesus rose from the dead? Please explain and support with detail.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

You are arguing from silence. Jewish historians do note that Herod the Great, along with Herod Antipas, was a brutal dictator who had an affinity with power and the preservation of power and would do anything to protect himself and his crown, why else do you think he had the Masada built? Reasoning using silence to conclude that an event didn't occur is a fallacy.

In the 1951 film "The Day The Earth Stood Still," a flying saucer from outer space containing a humanoid man and a giant robot landed in Washington DC. There were no reports at the time of such a space ship actually landing in Washington DC though. That such a momentous "event" should go entirely unreported does in itself seem significant, but to argue that it never actually happened would be to argue from silence, since there was no mention of it at the time. Gospel Matthew (27:52-53) informs us that when Jesus died graves opened and dead people came up out of their graves and roamed the streets of Jerusalem. There are no other accounts of this incredible occurrence, and again Jewish historians argue that no such thing ever occurred since they have no record of it. But to argue that it didn't happen is to argue from silence. There are no accounts of the Earth being swallowed by a giant space worm, but to argue that it never happened is to argue from silence. Do I need to continue? The slaughter of hundreds or perhaps thousands of infant boys at Herod's order is too wrenching and too potentially a violence producing event to have gone unreported at the time. And yet there were no reports of it at the time. Arguing that it never happened is arguing with due reason.

We're beginning to confuse some facts here.

1) The census was an account of Luke, not Matthew.

Yes I had a lapse of memory on that one. It proves me human. It doesn't affect my dispute with your claim however.

2) Your dates are wrong. The census was held every 14 years and there was one around 23BC putting Luke's census around 9BC which is a probably date that is consistent with Jesus' birth. Also, consider the fact that Palestine was far away from Rome and the actual census probably wouldn't have reached this area until 6-7BC.
3) The Syrian Governor was Quirinius, which is consistent with what Luke reports.
4) Then, the strongest piece of evidence that destroys your case is a papyrus originating in Egypt, on it is written:

Quirinius became governor in 6 AD, taking over from Herod Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great. Herod the Great died in 4 BC, AFTER Jesus was born. Do the math. And once again you have failed to address the question of why the stories of the empty tomb and the resurrection should be considered to be anything other then the result of actions taken by the followers of Jesus after his death. Are you arguing from silence? Because the suspicion is growing that you are advancing an empty argument.

[Hawkins]

Scientifically speaking, history can hardly be proven no matter what your theory is. Conclusions even diffentiate among historians themselves. To simply put, you might say that everything is possible, however everything can hardly be proven especially from a scientific point of view.

So it all boils down to how your faith will choose. In your faith, is it the witnesses of the Bible more credible or the historians are more credible? Most people will not verfiy the evidence from the historians, they simply choose what is said by the historians by faith.

That said. I somehow develop a theory (like I said you need faith to swallow whatever is called a theory )

Death follow a defined process. And the characteristic of that process is well documented in the Bible, especially in the part where Jesus Christ's crucifixion is described. Such that everyone who really died will have to pass through that process to witness that Jesus Christ actually died a human death.

Moreover, even by the assumption that God doesn't exist, alternatively speaking even those who rejected the existence of God can still witness that someone must have died and returned to write those characteristic of death in the Bible.

To simply put, if the characteristics/process of death is documented in the Bible, then how? The conclusion is that, someone must truly died then returned in order to pass that piece of information to people still alive such that these characteristics/process can be written down in a book called the Holy Bible.

Spiritually speaking, everyone (every dead person) can thus witness that someone must have died and returned. And He who died and returned is Jesus Christ, whether you believe that He's God or a simple mortal.

[JehovahsWitness]

1. Where and when did Jesus first appear?
   1. Mark 16:14-15 - appears to Mary Magdalena but its not clear where
   2. Matthew 28:8-9 - first appears near his tomb
   3. Luke 24:13-15 - first appears near Emmaus, several miles from Jerusalem
   4. John 20:13-14 - first appears at his tomb
2. Who saw Jesus first?
   1. Mark - appears first to Mary Magdalena then later to the eleven
   2. Matthew - appears first to Mary Magdalena, then to the other Mary, and finally to the eleven
   3. Luke - appears first to two, then to Simon, then to the eleven
   4. John - appears first to Mary Magdalena, then the disciples without Thomas, then the disciples with Thomas
3. The gospels agree that the empty tomb was found by women, but what did the women do?
   1. Mark 16:8 - The women were amazed and afraid, so they kept quiet
   2. Matthew 28:6-8 - The women ran away with great joy
   3. Luke 24:9-12 - The women left the tomb and told the disciples
   4. John 20:1-2 - Mary told the disciples that the body had been stolen
4. How did Jesus first behave?
   1. Mark 16:14-15 - Jesus commissions the eleven to preach the gospel
   2. Matthew 28:9 - Jesus lets Mary Magdalene and another Mary hold his feet
   3. John 20:17 - Jesus forbids Mary to touch him because he hasnt ascended to heaven yet, but a week later he lets Thomas touch him anyway
5. If Jesus rose from the dead, how did his disciples take the news?
   1. Mark 16:11, Luke 24:11 - Everyone doubts and/or is scared at first, but eventually they go along with it
   2. Matthew 28:16 - Some doubt, but most believe
   3. John 20:24-28 - Everyone believes but Thomas, whose doubts are eliminated when he gets physical proof
6. Jesus is said to have ascended to heaven. Where, when, and how did this happen?
   1. Mark 16:14-19 - While he and his disciples are seated at a table in or near Jerusalem
   2. Luke 24:50-51 - Outside, after dinner, and at Bethany and on the same day as the resurrection
   3. Acts 1:9-12 - At least 40 days after his resurrection, at Mt. Olivet

**WHICH CAME FIRST: Sequencing.

Many questions are rather liberal with the word "first"; it should be noted that this expression is rarely employed in the description of the resurrection events and even when it is, is not necessarily used in an absolute sense. It is not possible to give a definitive answer as to which events happened FIRST although an appraisal of all four gospels can provide a probable sequence of events. It's reported Jesus appeared on multiple occassions over a period of over a month to many different individuals and none of the accounts explicitly state nothing happened PRIOR to this event, thus questions with which event came "first" are largely redundant.

What time did the women visit the tomb?

Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

#ANSWER: Evidently, they set out just before the dawn and arrived as the sun rose.

Who were the women?

Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

#ANSWER: All of the above

What was their purpose of the trip?
Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

#ANSWER: All of the above


Was the tomb open when they arrived?

Matthew: No (28:2) *
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)

#ANSWER: Open ; [Matthew 28:2 says that

"Jehovah's angel had descended form heaven and [...] rolled away the stone" the past perfect use in english depicting an earlier event.

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)

#ANSWER: Depends on who "they" are and what time is being referred to - there was a lot of coming and going that morning (see above)

# Where were these messengers situated?

Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

#ANSWER: Angels are not immobile; where they were depends on what moment of the day it was; and who was witnessing the event


What did the women do [when they found an empty tomb]?

Mark 16:8 - The women were amazed and afraid, so they kept quiet
Matthew 28:6-8 - The women ran away with [fear and] great joy
Luke 24:9-12 - The women left the tomb and told the disciples
John 20:1-2 - Mary told the disciples that the body had been stolen

#ANSWER: All of the above; The women* were initially instructed to tell ONLY the disciples so they did not stop on the way and explain what they had seen. Mark's reference to their telling noone may well refer to "noone" outside of those authorized to know, namely , the 11 Apostles. The believers as a group following Jesus instruction NOT to publicize his resurrection to "non-Christians" until a later date.

*It seems that Mary Magdalene dashed off to get Peter and John after seeing the tomb empty, leaving her companions at the tombside.

Where and when did Jesus first appear?

Matthew 28:8-9 - first** appears near his tomb
Mark 16:14-15 - appears to Mary Magdalena but its not clear where
Luke 24:13-15 - first** appears near Emmaus, several miles from Jerusalem
John 20:13-14 - first** appears at his tomb

** See above
[comment: Matthew does not use the term "near" the scripture only indicates somewhere between the tombsite and where the disciples were located]

#ANSWER: Probably appeared first to the women (excluding Mary Magdalene) somehere between the tomb site and where the Apostles Peter and John were at the time, some time on Sunday morning. Please note that none of the accounts explicitly state exact times and none of the individual accounts state that this was his "first"** appearance or that Jesus had not appeared to anyone previously

Who saw Jesus first? This question will be ignored since no references have been provided PLEASE PROVIDE SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES
NB in the meantime please not answer above - a more exact answer will be provided
Matthew - appears first to Mary Magdalena, then to the other Mary, and finally to the eleven
Mark - appears first** to Mary Magdalena then later to the eleven
Luke - appears first** to two, then to Simon, then to the eleven
John - appears first** to Mary Magdalena, then the disciples without Thomas, then the disciples with Thomas

** see above

# How did Jesus first** behave?

Matthew 28:9 - Jesus lets Mary Magdalene and another Mary hold his feet
Mark 16:14-15 - Jesus commissions the eleven to preach the gospel
John 20:17 - Jesus forbids Mary to touch him because he hasnt ascended to heaven yet, but a week later he lets Thomas touch him anyway

#ANSWER: It's most likely that Mary Magdalene saw Jesus "first" the commission recorded in Mark was given in Betheny after a trip to Galilee (where he initially instructed his disciples to go) so it is extremely unlikely this is the first thing he did.

# Did Jesus let anyone touch him?

Matthew 28:9 - Jesus lets Mary Magdalene and another Mary hold his feet
Mark 16:14-15 - Jesus commissions the eleven to preach the gospel
John 20:17 - Jesus forbids Mary to touch him because he hasnt ascended to heaven yet, but a week later he lets Thomas touch him anyway

#ANSWER: The greek expression used by John regarding Mary is literally "to cling" and is employed in the continuous tense ("stop clinging to me"), so overcome by emotion Mary did "touch" the resurrected Jesus and evidently didn't want to let him go. The above passages clearly show Jesus let all his disciples touch his resurrected body.



# [...] how did his disciples take the news [of Jesus resurrection]?

Matthew 28:16 - Some doubt, but most believe
Mark 16:11 [...] Everyone doubts and/or is scared at first, but eventually they go along with it
Luke 24:11 - Everyone doubts [...] but eventually they go along with it
John 20:24-28 - Everyone believes but Thomas, whose doubts are eliminated when he gets physical proof

#ANSWER: All of the above. As with any major event, people reacted differently as different times. Matthew reports Jesus' appearance in Galilee (Northern Territories) nearly a month after his initial appearance to the Apostles. By this time the report of his resurrection had reached multitudes of disciples so the "some" that doubted evidently did not by this time include to the Apostles.

Mark, Luke and John here refer to the Apostles who initially doubted the women's reports (evidently Thomas was not present for Jesus' the early encounter with the Apostles). [Please note: Mark 16:11 & Luke 24:11 do NOT refer to feeling "scared" although no doubt this may well have been an emotion felt by one or more of the disciples at some time or other in relation to something connected to the events].[/i]

[JehovahsWitness]

# Where, when, and how did [did the ascencention take place]?

Mark 16:14-19 - While he and his disciples are seated at a table in or near Jerusalem
Luke 24:50-51 - Outside, after dinner, and at Bethany and on the same day as the resurrection
Acts 1:9-12 - At least 40 days after his resurrection, at Mt. Olivet

#ANSWER: Jesus ascended to heaven was 40 days after his resurrection from Bethany (near Jerusalem) at the Mount of Olives. Luke gives no timeframe for his statement that Jesus [quote] "But he led them out as far a Bethany" [end quote] so we don't know if he (Luke) is referring to Jesus final encounter with this disciples (in Chap 24:50-53) or another such occassion. Luke does not say that the Bethany event was "after dinner"; his reference to "the eleven" may well have been used in as a title rather than a reference to how many people where in the room (since evidently on the occassion when Cleopas and his companion report their encounter, Thomas was not present).

[East of Eden]

Stolen Body Hypothesis: The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons.

This is in fact the most obvious conclusion to the question of any missing corpse. Since the LEAST likely possibility is that the corpse came back to life and wandered away on it's own, the first and most obvious conclusion is that someone living moved it. Do the Gospels supply us with any candidates with a motive for moving the body? YES! In fact Matthew 27:64 tells us implicitly that the priests believed that the disciples planned to do that very thing. Did the disciples have the means to move the body? YES! Joseph of Arimathaea is specifically described as being a "secret disciple" of Jesus. Nicodemus, another disciple, is also depicted as being involved. The disciples therefore not only had the means to move the body, they had the body, given to them by the Roman governor. Did the disciples have the opportunity to move the body? YES! They didn't have to steal it, it was theirs to do with as they saw fit. Curiously, only Gospel Matthew mentions a guard being placed at the tomb. But Gospel Matthew also informs us that the guard wasn't placed until sometime THE NEXT DAY. Nor did they open the tomb at that time to verify that the body was in fact actually still there. The tomb was sealed, and a guard was set. The entire question of the resurrection can be settled by the simple assumption that the body had already been removed when the tomb was sealed.

As long as the most obvious solution, that the body of Jesus was moved elsewhere by his disciples, is the obvious answer, the least obvious possibility, that the body came back to life, is nothing more than an insupportable ancient superstition. It's exactly the nonsense that it appears to be.

And the psycological motivation especially when they did not even expect Him to rise again from the dead? How does this explain the claimed appearences to some of the most skeptical and even hostile opponets and persecutors of the 1st disciples of Jesus (such as "doubting" Thomas, Saul/Paul, James, and other early followers)?

Amazingly illogical. In hopes of demonstrating that the resurrection is more probable than a naturalistic solution, you cite the reactions of apostles and evangelists to the resurrection. In other words, if you assume the resurrection to be fact, then it becomes probable.

And if you assume the resurrection to be impossible, it becomes improbable. IF God exists, the resurrection is no big deal.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 123:

And if you assume the resurrection to be impossible, it becomes improbable. IF God exists, the resurrection is no big deal.

If.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

And if you assume the resurrection to be impossible, it becomes improbable. IF God exists, the resurrection is no big deal.

IF your omnipotent God exists then you can make absolutely any outrageous claim you choose to, can't you, and then simply declare that "God can do anything." End of story. It's "God did it, I believe it, that settles it," dogmatism. There is no real room for debating dogmatism, is there? In fact I posted you two rather detailed notes on the "Explain my lack of understanding of Jesus" thread on Jan. 17 which you failed to respond to. Have you given up debating or have you just run out of effective arguments?

[East of Eden]

IF your omnipotent God exists then you can make absolutely any outrageous claim you choose to,

There is enough evidence for the resurrection that it is silly to say the claim is outrageous. You are free to reject it, but many very intelligent people have become Christians by honestly looking at the evidence.

can't you, and then simply declare that "God can do anything." End of story. It's "God did it, I believe it, that settles it," dogmatism. There is no real room for debating dogmatism, is there? In fact I posted you two rather detailed notes on the "Explain my lack of understanding of Jesus" thread on Jan. 17 which you failed to respond to. Have you given up debating or have you just run out of effective arguments?

Never saw the posts you refer to. As grossly overrepresented as skeptics are here it's hard for me to keep up with the nonsense, especially with a demanding job that keeps me travelling the US about three months a year.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 126:

There is enough evidence for the resurrection that it is silly to say the claim is outrageous.

I hear ya. I remember Grammaw hopped up out of a week old grave. We like to never got her put back down.

You are free to reject it, but many very intelligent people have become Christians by honestly looking at the evidence.

Argumentum ad a whole heap o' folks.

This "honestly looking at the evidence" is nothing more than poisoning the well by implicating those who reject unproven claims do not do so honestly.

Never saw the posts you refer to. As grossly overrepresented as skeptics are here it's hard for me to keep up with the nonsense...

Nonsense? That's rich, coming from one who so often declares to know the properties of a god he admits he can't even show exists.

...especially with a demanding job that keeps me travelling the US about three months a year.

You gotta try it full time - it's evidence of both heaven and heck. Seriously though, in all 'ernesty', I understand how so much travel can limit other endeavors. I'm fortunate though - got injured and lost my ability to work that grind LOL.

[East of Eden]

I hear ya. I remember Grammaw hopped up out of a week old grave. We like to never got her put back down.

So because you've never seen it, it can't have happened? That's all you've got?

This "honestly looking at the evidence" is nothing more than poisoning the well by implicating those who reject unproven claims do not do so honestly.

I didn't mean to say that's true of you, but IMHO for some it's a problem of the will, not the intellect.

http://news.iskcon.org/node/2637

You gotta try it full time - it's evidence of both heaven and heck. Seriously though, in all 'ernesty', I understand how so much travel can limit other endeavors. I'm fortunate though - got injured and lost my ability to work that grind LOL.

Sorry to hear that, now I get it how you're everywhere on this forum.