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?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I'm curious, what Bible did Paul study at this time?

That would be the Torah.

[Goat]

I see you are one of those people who assumes Elvis is dead, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

You mean, like his body?? That, and the fact people die all the time..

[revelationtestament]

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

Why do they mourn? because they were the nonbelievers - those who demanded evidence from God - those who get left behind.

In Jesus' day many people demanded evidence - they demanded a miracle be performed for them. Jesus did not oblige. Why? Because he knew most of these people wouldn't believe anyway. Many people had seen his miracles, and yet did not believe. They sought miracles for the wrong reason - for their own weakness - not for the blessing of others. Jesus always told these types of people that they would not receive any sign - except perhaps a cursing sign.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 33:

...
In Jesus' day many people demanded evidence - they demanded a miracle be performed for them. Jesus did not oblige. Why? Because he knew most of these people wouldn't believe anyway. Many people had seen his miracles, and yet did not believe.

It can't possibly be that Jesus knew he was a huckster, and didn't wanna be found out, could it?

They sought miracles for the wrong reason - for their own weakness - not for the blessing of others.

Bullfeathers. I remember as a young kid, praying for those I love, praying for those without, and Jesus, or God, or both turned a deaf ear.

Again we see the typical smear of those who refuse to accept claims just 'cause someone has a printer.

Jesus always told these types of people that they would not receive any sign - except perhaps a cursing sign.

He also said he'd be back.

We're still waitin' on that'n.

All I see in the referenced post is an attempt to slander and smear non-Christians. That an assumed human would take such slanders and apply them to any and all who reject their unfounded, specious, and sense assaulting claims indicates to me one who may have severe and irreparable physiological inversions, of which, decency forbids me to describe.

I'm so tired of hearing me and my fellow non-theists assaulted with such language.

I spit on your holy text. And your god too, if he put ya up to this.

(speling edit)

[Mithrae]

Note that the Wiki page begins by saying that he "may or may not be James the Just" - the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church for thirty years after his death. After three decades there's every possibility that she would be known more commonly as the mother of James than as the mother of God's Son. It might be your opinion that this is disrespectful, but I think you'd have a hard time showing that respect for Mary was a primary concern of the gospel authors or that she was even alive when they were written! On the other hand, as I've pointed out, John's gospel specifically includes a scene in which Jesus, however lovingly and respectfully, all but disowns Mary as his mother (19:25-27). The fact that later Christians ended up calling her Mother of God, Co-Redeemer and Queen of Heaven may go some way towards explaining why John, Mark and Matthew were hesitant to explicitly call her mother of the risen Christ.

We could certainly imagine that Mark saw fit to mention some otherwise unknown Mary at Jesus' cross who he identified as the mother of two sons with the same names as Jesus' oldest brothers. I'm simply pointing out that if you're speculating on alternative 'resurrection' scenarios, that's a rather weak point in the theory. More likely, whichever disciples perpetrated the hoax were fooling Jesus' mother along with the other women.

Mark 16:1 "And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him."

That's one of the problem with your theory. The author of Mark DOES NOT mention a Mary who happened to have two sons with the same names as the brothers of Jesus as going to the empty tomb on Sunday. He mentions a Mary who has a son named James. The name James, rather like the name Mary, was a very common name. Salome for example, also sometimes known as Mary Salome, was the mother of James and John. None of the Gospels specify that Mary the mother of Jesus was present at the empty tomb which they could have easily done had they wished to. Besides Jesus' brothers James, Joseph, Judas and Simon were the half brothers of Jesus from an earlier marriage by Joseph and was not the actual son of Mary at all, because as every good Catholic knows Mary remained a virgin to the end of her days and had no other sons but Jesus. I'm joking just so that you will know, but that does represent yet another reading of this material, and one that is maintained as canon by about a billion Catholics. One way or another, Mary the mother of Jesus is not represented by any of the four Gospels as being present at the empty tomb on Sunday morning. She is however clearly depicted at the crucifixion and then again as being with the disciples newly returned to Jerusalem in Acts.

Mary Magdalene, Salome and Mary the mother of James and Joseph were at the cross (15:40)
Mary Magdalene, Salome and Mary the mother of James were at the tomb (16:1)

While within the realm of possibility, it borders on the absurd to suppose that Mark meant a different Mary. In 15:47 he calls her Mary the mother of Joseph - or are we to suppose that Mary Magdalene was at the cross, the tomb on Friday and then the tomb on Sunday with three different and otherwise unknown Marys? What seems overwhelmingly more likely (and perhaps the subtext he intended to convey) is simply that he's not mentioning all her sons, most obviously Jesus. He introduced Mary the mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas as being Jesus' mother back in 6:3. Mary the mother of James and Joseph at Jesus' cross is clearly Jesus' mother, one of the same three women who visited the empty tomb.

Like I say, while an alternative is not impossible that's by far the most obvious reading of Mark, and we can even see other examples and a pretty good reason for the disassociation from Jesus. I dread to think what William of Ockham would have to say about multiplying Marys beyond necessity.

[Student]

The authors of the gospel account were clearly aware of the risks associated with daring to request the release of the body of a condemned rebel (let alone giving the body a decent burial). The Roman Prefect would himself have come under suspicion should he have acquiesced to such a request. He would also have to answer for failing to punish someone who clearly sympathised with a known rebel leader. The most likely outcome would have been for the petitioner to join the lately deceased on an adjacent cross.

Where is the evidence that Jesus was a rebel leader?

Anyone claiming to be the Messiah, would in effect be claiming to be the King of the Jews, and therefore, in the eyes of the Romans would be rebelling against their rule. If anyone was going to appoint a King of the Jews it was going to be Rome.

The Romans had considerable experience of Messianic claimants and knew that making a bid for national independence was something that was expected from the Messiah. Consequently they crucified quite a number of “Messiah’s� including Judas the Galilean in 6CE together with 2000 of his followers. Later his two sons, Jacob and Simon were arrested and crucified c.47CE on a similar pretext.

Jesus was arrested, probably after the disturbance at the Temple, and executed by the Romans because he was seen as a threat to their rule. The assault on the Temple would be seen as an attempt to disrupt the Roman revenue stream which would be committing an act of sedition and that could have only one outcome.

You seem to be ignoring what little evidence we have available and working with the idea that common practice may as well be considered universal practice.

I have not ignored the evidence. I have simply stated what history shows to be the normal Roman practice regarding the disposal of the bodies of rebel leaders.

The gospels (and Paul) portray Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet and religious teacher, highly critical of the Jewish religious status quo - both the Saducees and Shammai's Pharisees. If he'd gained even a fraction as much popular support as the gospels imply, then started causing disturbances in the temple during Passover, they could be expected to want to do something about him. They weren't allowed to execute anyone, but however insensitive he may have been to the nuances of Jewish religion can you really claim that Pilate would not have granted a request by the priesthood to nip a potentially unsettling situation in the bud? Was he so very concerned about justice that he wouldn't execute a two-bit rabble-rouser from Galilee? Or did he hate the priests so much that he'd leave them and this preacher to keep on agitating the crowds further?

The depictions of Jesus’ arrest, his trial before the Sanhedrin, and subsequently before Pilate, in the gospels accounts are almost certainly spurious. They flatly contradict all that is known of the order of the Sanhedrin at that time (as well as contradicting the depiction of the Sanhedrin later in Acts).

If Jesus had committed blasphemy he wouldn’t have made it out of Galilee let alone getting as far as Jerusalem. As for the claim that the Jewish authorities didn’t have the powers to execute Jesus, this is flatly refuted by their later execution of Stephen (Acts 7). The Romans certainly did not interfere in the execution of local religious laws.

As for Pontius Pilate, in the gospels he is seen as a just, kind, but somewhat weak man who simply gives in to the Jewish demands to execute Jesus, much against his better nature. In secular history he appears to have had an entirely different nature and wouldn’t have given a second thought to ordering the death of another Jewish peasant.

So why did the gospel authors depict Pilate in they way that they do. Why do they deny that the Jewish leaders had the authority to kill Jesus when evidently they did have the necessary powers to kill him by stoning?

I believe the objective of the evangelists was to exonerate the Romans from all responsibility for executing Jesus so as to avoid alienating Rome, and potential Roman converts. So, the story goes, although the Romans certainly executed Jesus they really didn’t want to do it, the old softies. It was the naughty Jews, their leaders and general populace, who insisted, several times, that the Romans do it. In the end the Romans just had to give in and do the deed.

Someone had to take the blaim, so the Jews who had rejected the Pauline picture of Jesus as the Christ, were a convenient scapegoat.

[Moses Yoder]

I am here for two reasons. To entertain myself and to educate myself. The fact that you assume I am trying to convince you of the reality of the resurrection, which I know for a fact I wouldn't be able to do if I lived a million years, says something about your judgment of Christians.

Do you acknowledge then that the story of the flying reanimated corpse is a frankly rather absurd thing to believe in? And that your acceptance of it as true is based more on your lifetime of Christian indoctrination and your desire to be included in the club, rather than any real over concern whether it actually occurred or not?

Yes, I can see having doubts about it. Not believing it. Not everyone will believe. On the other hand, in spite of a very harsh childhood, my religion works for me. My father was an extreme hypocrite when I was growing up, which should have turned me off to the Christian religion but for some reason it did not. I don't believe my father is born again. I am not a Christian because I was born into it, I am a Christian because it works for me. I am happy, comfortable, and challenged. If it didn't work for me, I wouldn't be a Christian and I wouldn't be here.

[East of Eden]

The authors of the gospel account were clearly aware of the risks associated with daring to request the release of the body of a condemned rebel (let alone giving the body a decent burial). The Roman Prefect would himself have come under suspicion should he have acquiesced to such a request. He would also have to answer for failing to punish someone who clearly sympathised with a known rebel leader. The most likely outcome would have been for the petitioner to join the lately deceased on an adjacent cross.

Where is the evidence that Jesus was a rebel leader?

Anyone claiming to be the Messiah, would in effect be claiming to be the King of the Jews, and therefore, in the eyes of the Romans would be rebelling against their rule. If anyone was going to appoint a King of the Jews it was going to be Rome.

The Romans had considerable experience of Messianic claimants and knew that making a bid for national independence was something that was expected from the Messiah. Consequently they crucified quite a number of “Messiah’s� including Judas the Galilean in 6CE together with 2000 of his followers. Later his two sons, Jacob and Simon were arrested and crucified c.47CE on a similar pretext.

Jesus was arrested, probably after the disturbance at the Temple, and executed by the Romans because he was seen as a threat to their rule. The assault on the Temple would be seen as an attempt to disrupt the Roman revenue stream which would be committing an act of sedition and that could have only one outcome.

You seem to be ignoring what little evidence we have available and working with the idea that common practice may as well be considered universal practice.

I have not ignored the evidence. I have simply stated what history shows to be the normal Roman practice regarding the disposal of the bodies of rebel leaders.

The gospels (and Paul) portray Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet and religious teacher, highly critical of the Jewish religious status quo - both the Saducees and Shammai's Pharisees. If he'd gained even a fraction as much popular support as the gospels imply, then started causing disturbances in the temple during Passover, they could be expected to want to do something about him. They weren't allowed to execute anyone, but however insensitive he may have been to the nuances of Jewish religion can you really claim that Pilate would not have granted a request by the priesthood to nip a potentially unsettling situation in the bud? Was he so very concerned about justice that he wouldn't execute a two-bit rabble-rouser from Galilee? Or did he hate the priests so much that he'd leave them and this preacher to keep on agitating the crowds further?

The depictions of Jesus’ arrest, his trial before the Sanhedrin, and subsequently before Pilate, in the gospels accounts are almost certainly spurious. They flatly contradict all that is known of the order of the Sanhedrin at that time (as well as contradicting the depiction of the Sanhedrin later in Acts).

If Jesus had committed blasphemy he wouldn’t have made it out of Galilee let alone getting as far as Jerusalem. As for the claim that the Jewish authorities didn’t have the powers to execute Jesus, this is flatly refuted by their later execution of Stephen (Acts 7).

From an internet site:

http://www.voiceofjesus.org/Q-A_Files/q ... ephen.html

As for Pontius Pilate, in the gospels he is seen as a just, kind, but somewhat weak man who simply gives in to the Jewish demands to execute Jesus, much against his better nature. In secular history he appears to have had an entirely different nature and wouldn’t have given a second thought to ordering the death of another Jewish peasant.

So why did the gospel authors depict Pilate in they way that they do.

Because the Gospels are an accurate history?

I believe the objective of the evangelists was to exonerate the Romans from all responsibility for executing Jesus so as to avoid alienating Rome, and potential Roman converts. So, the story goes, although the Romans certainly executed Jesus they really didn’t want to do it, the old softies. It was the naughty Jews, their leaders and general populace, who insisted, several times, that the Romans do it. In the end the Romans just had to give in and do the deed.

Someone had to take the blaim, so the Jews who had rejected the Pauline picture of Jesus as the Christ, were a convenient scapegoat.

The Pauline picture of Christ was no different that Jesus'.

You are alleging the Gospel accounts were fiction, then said authors of the fiction went on to knowingly die for a lie? Wouldn't ONE person from back then have revealed this 'fraud'?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

While within the realm of possibility, it borders on the absurd to suppose that Mark meant a different Mary. In 15:47 he calls her Mary the mother of Joseph - or are we to suppose that Mary Magdalene was at the cross, the tomb on Friday and then the tomb on Sunday with three different and otherwise unknown Marys? What seems overwhelmingly more likely (and perhaps the subtext he intended to convey) is simply that he's not mentioning all her sons, most obviously Jesus. He introduced Mary the mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas as being Jesus' mother back in 6:3. Mary the mother of James and Joseph at Jesus' cross is clearly Jesus' mother, one of the same three women who visited the empty tomb.

Mary of Clopas
"According to some interpretations, the same Mary was also among the women that on Easter morning went to the tomb to anoint Jesus' body with spices. Matthew 28:1 calls her "the other Mary" to distinguish her from Mary Magdalene, while Mark 16:1 uses the name "Mary of James", most probably derived from James the Less. The Latin version of that name, Maria Iacobi, is often used in tradition. Stephen S. Smalley (1982) says that it is "very probable" that Mary of Clopas is Mary the mother of James son of Alphaeus. Both "Clophas" and "Alphaeus" may be Greek spellings of the Aramaic name Hilfai."

"In John 19:25 Mary of Clopas appears immediately after the expression "His mother’s sister". Therefore, Mary is often seen as the sister of Jesus's mother, despite the awkwardness of having two sisters bearing the same name. However, other interpretations distinguish between two different persons, one being "His mother's sister" and the other being "Mary of Clopas". Still, other interpretations make Mary of Clopas not the sister but the cousin of Jesus' mother, as Hebrew or Aramaic had no specific word for cousin, or her sister-in-law, as Clopas was considered the brother of Joseph."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Clopas

One couldn't throw a pebble in ancient Jerusalem, it would seem, without striking someone named Mary. And in fact it is widely "supposed" that this "other Mary" was Mary wife of Clopas, who, along with Mary Magdaline and Salome, are known as "the Myrrhbearers." And this serves to rather nicely explain the rather dismissive reference to her as "the other Mary" in Gospel Matthew, and the disregard for her entirely in Gospel John. This Mary, the wife of Clophas, was considered a minor figure. Mary the mother of Jesus is not to be found at the empty tomb on Sunday morning in any of the accounts and I stand by that assessment.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Yes, I can see having doubts about it. Not believing it. Not everyone will believe. On the other hand, in spite of a very harsh childhood, my religion works for me. My father was an extreme hypocrite when I was growing up, which should have turned me off to the Christian religion but for some reason it did not. I don't believe my father is born again. I am not a Christian because I was born into it, I am a Christian because it works for me. I am happy, comfortable, and challenged. If it didn't work for me, I wouldn't be a Christian and I wouldn't be here.

I notice that you weren't born into Islam, or Buddhism. You were born into Christianity and so, to no real surprise, you are a Christian. You were trained all your life to be a Christian and so Christianity works for you. It makes you happy and gives you a comfortable and supportive social network. All you have to do is set your mind and just believe it. Whether it is true or not isn't relevant and so makes little or no difference in your life. For most of us on this forum however, what is true and what isn't makes ALL the difference, and is in fact the only thing we find important. A friendly word of warning. It might just begin to make a difference to you too at some point.