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?

[East of Eden]

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.

Does that make non-religious people not brought up in a religious home somehow suspect also?

My wife and both parents are now devout Christians despite not being brought up in Christian homes. They found what is true to be important also.

[Student]

[Mithrae]

[Tired of the Nonsense]

If John intended to mention only three women, that means that the sister of Jesus' mother Mary was Mary, wife of Clopas. Let's call them MaryJ and MaryC. According to Mark 6:3 MaryJ's sons were Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon and Jude. The bishop of Jerusalem after James brother of Jesus was Simon son of Clopas (c62-107CE)... so MaryC's known children apparently were James, Joseph and Simon. Not uncommon names of themselves, but it's a pretty steep coincidence for two sisters to have the same names, and the same names for three of their sons. 2nd century Jewish-Christian church historian Hegesippus says that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, making MaryJ and MaryC sisters-in-law. That's still a pretty steep coincidence for the names of their sons, but at least it's possible. But to my mind the real question is whether Hegesippus knew this from other sources of information, or whether he was simply reconciling the problem of two Marys in the same family?

Some people do like to keep names in the family. I am named after my uncle, and I named my son after my grandfather. George Foreman has five boys, all named George. And a daughter named Georgetta. I can only suppose that he calls them all by a number.

[pax]

I would like to know something though. Do you attribute the resurrection to be a PHYSICAL body resurrection or that of assumed "spirit" only?

Now, if you want to claim that the event actually happened, the only one who claimed to be witness to be at the ACTUAL TOMB and see the jesus of nazareth character ACTUALLY rise, was Peter... who.. at the time.. also claimed to see a walking and talking cross (yes an animated wooden structure), with mountain sized jesus and angels.... (no doubt at least part of the reason Peter's works were left out of the Gospels - and no doubt why that particular account was left out of the story telling IN the "according to" gospels).

Of course the resurrection was physical.

What makes you think that Peter wrote those Gnostic and apocryphal texts?

I have the continuous witness of the Church that Peter wrote the 2 Epistles attributed to him, and that he dictated his Gospel to Mark before he suffered crucifixion on Vatican Hill in Rome.

I accept that authority.

Whose authority are you accepting?

[revelationtestament]

"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.

revelationtestament wrote:

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."

This anger obviously comes out of a deep hurt which I am sorry for. As a kid you obviously wanted very much to help someone you loved. Just because what you prayed for didn't come about doesn't mean God turned a deaf ear. God may have tried to speak to the heart of those you loved or may have tried to help them some other way. But everyone has a time here on earth, and we cannot heal someone through prayer if their time is up - even if they are wonderful people. Even the apostles prayers weren't always received the way they wanted. They asked Jesus why they weren't able to cast out evil spirits like He did, and found out that they needed to fervently fast and pray to gain the right spiritual power of God to be successful. Everyone also has a free will, and the right to exercise faith or not to. Christ healed based on the faith of those who asked for it - not based on someone who just wanted evidence that he was who he said - they would certainly have received their answer if they had faith enough to follow him, and watch him perform miracles. If this makes you want to spit on the Bible, then I have nothing to say to your ilk - it seems very disrespectful to demand evidence or be angry.

I have made no comment ever about atheists or non-theists. I have made a comment about those who demand evidence or they won't believe, and why they cannot find God that way. It's not the way God works. There is actually already lots of evidence, but it seems never enough. There is the evidence written by those who were there. There is the evidence of many modern people who have been healed. That will never be enough for those who are angry with God.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I have the continuous witness of the Church that Peter wrote the 2 Epistles attributed to him, and that he dictated his Gospel to Mark before he suffered crucifixion on Vatican Hill in Rome.

What church do you suppose has provided this "continuous witness" of yours? The church in Jerusalem did not survive the events of 70AD. By the second century Christianity was outlawed by the Romans, and Christians were worshiping in small groups and in secrecy and "the church" only existed in theory since no unified and uniform practice was possible. For two centuries there was no actual physical church; no established hierarchy except at the level of each secret congregation, and no uniform codex at all. Not even a uniform belief on exactly who Jesus was, or what he had represented. Was he purely physical or purely spiritual? Was he physically resurrected from the dead or only in spirit? Opinions varied widely. As many as 50 different Gospels were in circulation by the fourth century, not to mention many various Acts and Epistles. "The church" at that point was made up of disjointed groups of people scattered around the Mediterranean area and practicing in secret. By the end of the second century Irenaus reckoned the number of distinctly different varieties of Christians at about twenty. By the end of the fourth century Ephiphanius put the figure at about eighty. Which is why when Constantine legalized Christianity in the fourth century Christians fell almost immediately into vicious and deadly fighting amongst themselves over exactly who the true Christians were, and exactly which books were valid. It would take the fledgling Catholic Church, which only first came into being in the fourth century as a result of Constantine's direct orders, centuries to fully hammer out it's dogma. So who exactly was providing this unbroken string to establish a "continuous witness" you are claiming exists?

[99percentatheism]

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?

Yes. The Gospels are a record of historical events.

Is a bodily resurrection the "best explanation of the evidence?"

Yes. It is unlikely that Jews would lie so long about it.

Do you have an alternative explanation for what happened to Jesus' body?

None needed. The resurredction happened.

There have been billions and billions of people that have chosen to reject the New Testament's historical record.

Question: What right do you feel you have to question the independent choce of other people that believe that the events in the Gospels about the ressurection of Jesus are valid?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

None needed. The resurredction happened.

This is a bold statement. To make such an unequivocal statement on the truth of such an apparently absurd claim, shouldn't we reasonably expect that you might, at the very least, offer up some kind of supporting evidence derived from the time the "event" was supposed to have occurred? Is that to much to expect? Or is truth to be determined by the mere fact that you have declared it to be so?

[East of Eden]