The Alleged Resurrection of Jesus

[Haven]

Evangelical Christian apologists often assert that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the "minimal facts" "evidence" -- the existence of Jesus, his preaching ministry, his execution, the empty tomb, and the post-resurrection "visions" of the apostles. Apologists point out that the majority of modern non-evangelical academic Biblical scholars who reject the resurrection (for instance, Marcus Borg and Bart Ehrman) accept these "minimal facts" events occurred. This so-called "minimal facts approach" is pushed by academics and fundamentalist apologists such as W.L. Craig, J.P. Moreland, Craig Blomberg, Mike Licona, and Gary Habermas, who claim only a physical resurrection could explain these facts. They point out (correctly, in my opinion) the flaws in popular naturalistic or pseudo-naturalistic hypotheses, such as the "stolen body view" (which states the disciples stole Jesus' body), the "visionary hypothesis" (which states God caused the disciples to have visions of a risen Jesus), the "Jesus myth view" (which states Jesus never existed), and the "hallucination hypothesis" (which attributes the resurrection appearances to mass hallucinations by the apostles).

However, even if we grant the apologists' "minimal facts," which are based on nothing but the interdependent, inconsistent religious writings known as the gospels, this is not the case for several reasons:

1) Apologists depend on an inerrant reading of the gospel accounts to defend their resurrection belief. They assume that the gospels accurately report on the "post-resurrection appearances" and the apostles' visions, when in fact, it is likely such visions and appearances were legendary accretions. Contrary to the claims of apologists, legendary accretion can occur in a relatively short period of time. For instance, legends about Elvis' survival sprung up within a year of his death, and numerous individuals have reported seeing Elvis alive over the past 35 years. As most scholars agree the gospels were written between 40 and 70 years after Jesus' execution, they could certainly contain legendary accretions. Additionally, the Elvis legends sprung up in the age of television, radio, telephones, and computers, when such legends would have been trivial to debunk, unlike the Jesus legends, which sprung up in the premodern era.

2) Even if the tomb was empty (which is disputed by many scholars), there exists a perfectly plausible explanation for the missing body. The tomb's owner, identified as "Joseph of Arimathea" in the gospels (this name is unlikely, as "Arimathea" was almost certainly a fictional location), did not desire to inter the body of an executed "criminal" in his family's gravesite. Therefore, he moved Jesus' body shortly after it was left there by the disciples. When Jesus' followers returned on "Sunday" (Saturday according to the gospel of John), they found the body missing and eventually surmised that he came back from the grave.

Debate question: Do you agree that these explanations explain the so-called "resurrection" of Jesus? Is a bodily resurrection the "best explanation of the evidence?" Do you have an alternative explanation for what happened to Jesus' body?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Apologists point out that the majority of modern non-evangelical academic Biblical scholars (for instance, Marcus Borg and Bart Ehrman) accept these events occurred.

Marcus Borg believes in a spiritual resurrection, not a physical one.
http://www.marcusjborg.com/2011/05/16/t ... -of-jesus/

Bart Ehrman does not buy it at all.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... n-and.html

Debate question: Do you agree that these explanations explain the so-called "resurrection" of Jesus? Is a bodily resurrection the "best explanation of the evidence?" Do you have an alternative explanation for what happened to Jesus' body?

The absence of any eyewitnesses to the resurrection itself and the presence of a stranger at the empty tomb saying that Jesus rose from the dead are not very confidence inspiring. The Gospels report Jesus performing all sorts of public miracles for the purpose of convincing people of his credentials. This is the payoff, the proof that Jesus was more than just another messiah wannabe who got executed for trouble making. And nobody sees it.

If the stranger at the tomb story is genuine and not an invention of Mark that everyone else copied, it sounds really suspicious. It sounds like maybe someone stole the body Saturday night (after the Sabbath so no problem) and left one of their party to start the resurrection story the next morning. They would have been expecting someone to come to complete the burial ritual that it was too late to do Friday night because of the Sabbath. We may note that none of the Gospels agree with each other on who saw Jesus when (except it is always followers of Jesus) and even contradict each other on major points. Example: Matthew has them go to Galilee. Luke has them stay in Jerusalem.

As Ehrman put it in the link provided above:

“From a purely historical point of view, a highly unlikely event is far more probable than a virtually impossible one�

My scenario does not even seem all that unlikely.

[Haven]

TGA, I'm sorry if I misspoke: I didn't mean to imply that Borg and Ehrman believed in a resurrection (they don't), I was implying that they believed in the "minimal facts" (Jesus' existence, ministry, crucifixion, and empty tomb). My mistake for not being more clear.

[ThatGirlAgain]

TGA, I'm sorry if I misspoke: I didn't mean to imply that Borg and Ehrman believed in a resurrection (they don't), I was implying that they believed in the "minimal facts" (Jesus' existence, ministry, crucifixion, and empty tomb). My mistake for not being more clear.

I was responding to what I thought "some apologists" said, not imputing anything to you. I should have been clearer. However in the link I provided, Ehrman is ambivalent about an empty tomb. He does not rule it out but neither does he insist on it.

Personally I think the "minimal facts" are probably correct. If the whole thing were made up from scratch it would be more convincing. For example there would have been eyewitnesses to the resurrection itself. As it is the NT strikes me as attempts to explain the uncomfortable fact that the 'Messiah' got killed instead of ushering in the messianic age as expected.

[Student]

The empty tomb is perhaps best explained by the likelihood that Jesus body never actually made it that far. For the Romans, to permit the victim of crucifixion a proper burial was very rare, and in most cases, such as for crimes of treason or rebellion, simply not permitted. To continue the humiliation the body was either left on the cross to rot or was it was dismembered and discarded on the city dump.

The whole point of crucifixion was to act as a salutary reminder to the general populace as to the likely consequences of rebellion against Roman rule. Therefore the body would remain on public display on the cross, long after death.

The possibility that the Romans would accede to a request to remove a body, in deference to Jewish sensitivities regarding the Sabbath, although unlikely, was possible, but only in the case of a common criminal. However, simply making a request, to give the body of a convicted rebel a decent burial, would be tantamount to an act of treason, and would more than likely end with the applicant joining the ranks of the recently crucified!

[Moses Yoder]

Just as a side note, I don't believe people are claiming the resurrection of Elvis. I think there is more of a tendency to claim he never died, or faked his death. I have never heard anyone proclaiming Elvis the Son of God, or the Messiah. Just thinking out loud.

[pax]

Let's see. The choice is between a bunch of eyewitnesses to an event, or a bunch of skeptics who lived 2000 years after the event.

Methinks this one is a no-brainer.

The eye's have it!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Goat]

Let's see. The choice is between a bunch of eyewitnesses to an event, or a bunch of skeptics who lived 2000 years after the event.

Methinks this one is a no-brainer.

The eye's have it!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Except of course, Pax can not show that there were any eye witnesses. The gospels he claims were eye witnesses were written decades later.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Evangelical Christian apologists often assert that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the "minimal facts" "evidence" -- the existence of Jesus, his preaching ministry, his execution, the empty tomb, and the post-resurrection "visions" of the apostles. Apologists point out that the majority of modern non-evangelical academic Biblical scholars who reject the resurrection (for instance, Marcus Borg and Bart Ehrman) accept these "minimal facts" events occurred. This so-called "minimal facts approach" is pushed by academics and fundamentalist apologists such as W.L. Craig, J.P. Moreland, Craig Blomberg, Mike Licona, and Gary Habermas, who claim only a physical resurrection could explain these facts. They point out (correctly, in my opinion) the flaws in popular naturalistic or pseudo-naturalistic hypotheses, such as the "stolen body view" (which states the disciples stole Jesus' body), the "visionary hypothesis" (which states God caused the disciples to have visions of a risen Jesus), the "Jesus myth view" (which states Jesus never existed), and the "hallucination hypothesis" (which attributes the resurrection appearances to mass hallucinations by the apostles).

Here is the link for the first of the seven part You Tube video where William Land Craig makes his case for the unavoidable truth that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. And of course it's RUBBISH.

Craig begins by asserting that most scholars today accept that the core story of the traveling rabbi who is accused, executed, and placed in a tomb which subsequently proved to be empty is likely historically accurate. I happen to agree with this analysis. The cult of the crucified carpenter appeared too abruptly and is too well formed to be completely mythological. Like other legends, King Arthur his knights for example who was probably historical, the legend of Jesus is best explained if centered on an actual historical person and some measure of actual events. And as with the magic elements associated with the legend of Arthur, it's not necessary to give all aspects of the story equal credibility.

Craig then asserts that it is "a fact which is universally acknowledged today by NT scholars" that individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death. Well horse hockey! It is most certainly NOT TRUE that "most" NT scholars accept this claim as undeniably true at all. It is a claim which is easily dispelled.

Far from hundreds of eyewitness claims to the appearances of Jesus after his death that Craig claims exist we have in fact only five claims: Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as Paul's account in 1 Corinthians.

Paul records in 1 Corinthians that the resurrected Jesus was witnessed by "above 500" of his followers on one particular occasion. Paul was NOT HIMSELF present at this "event" however. Paul did not convert to Christianity until some years after the execution of Jesus, never met Jesus personally, and was not a witness to any of the events detailed in the Gospels. Paul has provided us with A STORY of 500 eyewitnesses, but we have no such testimony from the supposed eyewitnesses themselves. The same may be said for the various "witnesses" recorded in the Gospels. First Corinthians, which was written by Paul circa 55 AD., represents the very earliest mention historically of the risen Jesus. Jesus was executed, according to the time frame established by the Gospels, circa 30 AD. In other words THE VERY FIRST mention of the risen Jesus does not occur until some quarter of a century after his death. And then is recorded by an individual who clearly was not present at the time. Rather than dozens or hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus, there is no information one way of the other concerning Jesus at all, for the first quarter of a century after he was supposed to have been executed. And specifically, there are no eyewitness accounts of a resurrected dead man AT ALL at the time it was supposed to have occurred. What we do have, years later, are records of what early Christians like Paul had come to believe.

So we are left with the empty tomb, and, as it is pointed out in the video, the fact that Christianity stands or falls on the truth of the resurrection. Now Craig does something telling. HE ATTEMPTS TO USE THE FORCE ON HIS AUDIENCE by briefly addressing the various alternate possibilities, including the possibility that the body was taken by the followers of Jesus, which he dismisses with a wave of his hand and an amusing anecdotal story of an exchange he once had with someone who tried to make a case that Jesus had an identical twin brother. And the audience had a good laugh as he moved on.

Well, not so fast. Let's have a look at what Craig glossed over. We have an empty tomb and a missing corpse. The first and most obvious conclusion is NOT that the corpse came back to live and wandered off on it's own, but rather that SOMEONE LIVING TOOK IT.

Actually a perfectly natural explanation for the story of the crucified and resurrected carpenter exists in the pages of the Gospels and Acts, if one simply takes the time to piece them together. According to the claims, the corpse of Jesus not only became reanimated, it ultimately flew away, up into the sky. For this perfectly absurd conclusion to have even the slightest potential for being true all possible natural explanations must be thoroughly ruled out. Since the most obvious cause for an empty tomb and a missing corpse is that it was the result of actions taken by the living, rather than actions taken by the corpse, we need to first determine from the story whether there were individuals with the means, motive and opportunity to have taken the body.

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 at the tomb until sometime THE NEXT DAY. Nor did the priests 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. Which is what proved to be true the next day. The tomb was EMPTY.

John 19:41-42
[41] Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

Joseph's new and very expensive family crypt was never intended to be the final resting place of Jesus. It was simply a convenient "nigh at hand" place prepare the body. And the body was very well prepared indeed, according to John 19:39-40, heavily wrapped and coated with ONE HUNDRED POUNDS of aromatic herbs and spices. Certainly enough to mask the scent of corruption on a journey of several days. A journey to where? Well, where does one normally transport a body for it's final resting place? Usually that would be HOME. Which for Jesus of Nazareth meant Galilee. And where did the eleven remaining apostles go immediately following the crucifixion?

Matt. 28
[16] Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

This mountain would presumably be Mt. Tabor which dominates the southern Galilee region and which is traditionally believed by Christians to be the site of the Transfiguration of Jesus.

Notice also that Mary the mother of Jesus is nowhere mentioned as being at the empty tomb. This is actually a very good bar bet. Most people would bet money that Mary the mother of Jesus was at the tomb on Easter Sunday morning. Not so. Although various Marys are mentioned, Mary the mother of Jesus IS NOT. She IS clearly indicated in the Gospels as being at the crucifixion. Where do we pick her up again?

Acts 1
"[12] Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
[13] And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
[14] These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."

There is Mary the mother of Jesus with the disciples, some six weeks or so (Acts 1:3) AFTER the crucifixion NEWLY RETURNED TO JERUSALEM. And it is at this point the disciples began to spread the rumor of the risen Jesus. But only after, according to them, the resurrected man flew off up into the sky. So FROM THE VERY BEGINNING the claim is an empty one, with no actual resurrected dead man on hand to verify the assertion.

So the question is this: which is the more likely? That a group of men quietly took the body of their dead friend and journeyed, along with the dead man's mother, back to the deceased man's family home for burial, and then later returned to spread the false and rather preposterous rumor that the man had returned to life? Or is it more likely the corpse actually became reanimated and eventually flew away? The answer is obvious of course. As long as the obvious answer to the missing corpse and the story of the resurrected Christ is that it was all the result of actions taken by the living, as one would normally suspect, rather that actions taken by the corpse, then there is no more reason to suppose that a corpse came back to life and flew away then there is to suppose that Santa actually has a team of flying reindeer, or that there is a place over the rainbow full of flying blue monkeys.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Let's see. The choice is between a bunch of eyewitnesses to an event, or a bunch of skeptics who lived 2000 years after the event.

Methinks this one is a no-brainer.

The eye's have it!!!!!!!!!!!!1

The problem with your claim of "a bunch of eyewitnesses" is that there really aren't any. There are actually only five sources for the claim of the resurrected Jesus, the four Gospels and 1 Corrinthians, and NONE of these sources is an unambiguous eyewitness source. 1 Corrinthians represents THE VERY FIRST WRITTEN REPORT OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS EVER, and it was written by Paul about a quarter of a century after the time Jesus was supposed to have been crucified, and Paul was not himself personally present for the events he describes. For the first quarter of a century or so after the crucifixion of Jesus there were no reports of any such resurrections at all, eyewitness or otherwise. Now ask yourself, how likely is a story of a corpse that comes back to life again and then flies off up into the sky to be true?