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]

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'?

No, I’m not alleging that the entire contents of all four gospels are fictional just that all four accounts contain fiction.

As for the “authors� of the gospels demonstrating the veracity of their accounts by being prepared to die for them, well you’ll first have to identify who the authors of the gospels were and then prove that they were actually eye-witnesses to the events that they relate. You will then have to further demonstrate where and when these ‘evangelists’ were put to death defending their beliefs.

[Mithrae]

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 . . . ."
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.

Explaining a perceived disregard for the minor wife of Clopas in John is all well and good, but then you're left with the disregard for Jesus' own mother in Matthew and Mark. That interpretation has John mention three women at the cross - Magdalene, wife of Clopas, and Jesus' mother - while Matthew and Mark mention Magdalene, wife of Clopas and Salome!?

If you're curious I had an interesting (albeit off-topic) discussion on the subject with S-word a while back. I was actually doing some more reading up on it again earlier today, thanks to our discussion - quite an interesting subject, I feel.

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?

If the latter then Hegesippus' information on that point has very limited value, and I'd say it's more probable that John intended to mention four women at the cross - Mary Magdalene, Mary wife of Clopas, Jesus' mother, and his mother's sister. Apparently the Greek, strictly speaking, refers to three women; but John's Greek wasn't exactly perfect, and translations Syriac render it as four women. This interpretation explains quite a few things:

• - Obviously it solves the remarkable coincidence of MaryJ's sister-in-law MaryC also having sons named James, Joseph and Simon; without Mark 15:40 her only certain son (that I can remember at least) was Simon
  - Linguistically, the connection between Alphaeus and Clopas seems to be tenuous at best; this removes the need to suppose that there was one
  - It explains why Salome (Mark 15:40) the mother of Zebedee's sons (Matthew 27:56) was at the cross; she was Mary's sister, Jesus' aunt
  - Further it explains James and John's presumptuousness (Mark 10:35ff, which Matthew 20:20ff attributes to Salome) in asking honoured places beside their cousin in the afterlife, and also Jesus entrusting his mother's well-being to his cousin John (John 19:27)
  - It's much easier to understand why Mary of Clopas was not singled out by Mark and Matthew among the other women near the cross, than to understand why they would not mention Jesus' own mother as John did. John mentioned Mary of Clopas because by the time he wrote, Simon son of Clopas had been the church's leader in Jerusalem for nigh on three decades

If you consider John's Greek grammar to be reliable (which from what I've heard it isn't) and if you consider him to be as reliable a source as Mark (which as a disciple writing a work of theology I very, very tentatively do - not sure what your views on authorship are)... I agree that a rather tentative case can be made that he mentions three women at the cross, omitting Salome, and Mark and Matthew also mention three women - for some as-yet unknown reason failing to mention Jesus' own mother.

But unless Hegesippus had independant information that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, I'd say it's considerably more likely that John simply wanted to mention a fourth woman whose son, by the time he wrote, had been a leader of the church much longer than when the others wrote.

The fact that this fits in with the most obvious interpretation of Mark makes it all the more plausible, to my mind. As far as I can tell the simple fact is that Mark's readers would have been most familiar, both from his gospel and from church tradition, with two Jameses; Jesus' brother James the Just (Mark 6:3) who'd been the most prominent 'pillar' of the church (Gal. 2:9) 'til his death in 62CE, and the apostle James 'Boanerges' (Mark 3:17) who'd been one of Jesus' three closest disciples (Mark 9:2ff, 10:35ff) and the church's second martyr. When Mark says Mary the mother of James and Joseph, one of those is ruled out but the other is very much highlighted to the observant reader - especially since by then calling her mother of Joseph and then mother of James, he emphasises that he's omitting some sons (hint hint).

--

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.

What did the temple have to do with Roman taxation? I was not aware of this.

That aside, if Jesus had a following as large as the gospels imply there'd probably be a lot of merit to your view. But I think most of us are at least a little sceptical of the thousands of followers he supposedly had, considering the only certain 1st century non-Christian reference is a passing comment on his brother's death. I imagine that the Jews weren't alone in chafing under Roman rule, and I'd be surprised if they went chasing after every person who seemed to represent nationalistic hopes.

Did Jesus claim to be King of the Jews? Did he even publicly proclaim himself to be Messiah? Mark's messianic secret notwithstanding, the gospels suggest at least that some people thought he might be the Messiah. It is possible that the governor had him crucified of his own initiative, but if so the (questionable) evidence at our disposal would imply that it would have been more a case of nipping a possible problem in the bud, rather than some big issue of a "condemned rebel leader" which would endanger his comrades' lives and Pilate's own job if he gave them the body.

However, since I agree that the disturbance at the temple seems likely to be the biggest contributing cause of his arrest (which John therefore moves to the front of his gospel), pending information on how this directly affected the Roman government I'd say it's more likely that the Jewish authorities were the ones to act.

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.

Normal Roman practice would be a significant factor if there was some big fuss to be made about this "rebel leader." But you can't have a rebel leader without a rebellion, and we have no evidence of that. What we do have, as previously mentioned, are oddities like the fact that there's no claimed witnesses of the actual resurrection ('til gPeter, at least) and women as the first witnesses of the empty tomb, which suggest that the story was not concoted from scratch. Playing a probability game (in the order of a 1 in 20 chance, did we agree?) is not the same as assessing evidence.

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?

You believe that the portrayal in Acts of the Sanhedrin being driven to murderous rage by Stephen's noble testimony is a reliable source for their authority to execute people? If anything, the author is implying that they violated conventions of justice and Stephen was thoroughly innocent (certainly quoting Daniel was not blasphemy!). Moreover it's my understanding that Josephus records concerning the death of Jesus' brother James that a high priest was deposed, when some prominent Jewish citizens complained about it, for presuming to execute someone without the governor's consent. It's certainly plausible, as East of Eden's site suggests, that the Romans may have turned a blind eye at times if Jewish piety got the occasional nobody blasphemer or adulteress killed. But I don't think I've ever seen anyone saying they had the right to do so - quite the opposite - so I'd appreciate a better source for that claim than Acts 7.

That said, both the temple incident and the general character and teachings of Jesus portrayed by the gospels and Paul imply friction with the Jewish authorities rather than Roman. Certainly, the gospels' portrayal of events is coloured by their agenda - Pilate probably nodded through the priests' request in a minute, because his job was to keep the peace. But, in that scenario, we have little reason to suppose that he'd be any more reluctant to hand the body over to the fellow's followers... 'cos his job was to keep the peace.

In my opinion painting Jesus as a rebel leader opposed by Roman authority, rather than a religious teacher opposed by Jewish authority, both lacks any real evidence and raises more questions than it answers.

[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]

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'?

No, I’m not alleging that the entire contents of all four gospels are fictional just that all four accounts contain fiction.

As for the “authors� of the gospels demonstrating the veracity of their accounts by being prepared to die for them, well you’ll first have to identify who the authors of the gospels were and then prove that they were actually eye-witnesses to the events that they relate. You will then have to further demonstrate where and when these ‘evangelists’ were put to death defending their beliefs.

By that double standard, you could question the existence of King Tut:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7791