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]

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?

One piece of evidence is the rapid growth of Christianity itself, in a time period far too short for legendary stories to appear. In a hundred and fifty hears, Christianity spread very, very quickly. Tertullian wrote at the end of the second century, ‘We are but of yesterday and yet we already fill your cities, island, your palace, senate and forum, we have left to you only your temples.’ As C.F.D. Moule put it, the miraculous emergence of the church in the face of brutal Roman persecution “rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of the Resurrection.�

[Goat]

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?

One piece of evidence is the rapid growth of Christianity itself, in a time period far too short for legendary stories to appear. In a hundred and fifty hears, Christianity spread very, very quickly. Tertullian wrote at the end of the second century, ‘We are but of yesterday and yet we already fill your cities, island, your palace, senate and forum, we have left to you only your temples.’ As C.F.D. Moule put it, the miraculous emergence of the church in the face of brutal Roman persecution “rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of the Resurrection.�

I would love to see the actual evidence of this 'rapid growth' of Christianity, and backing up of the sources for this claim.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

One piece of evidence is the rapid growth of Christianity itself, in a time period far too short for legendary stories to appear. In a hundred and fifty hears, Christianity spread very, very quickly.

One could make the same claim for Mormonism, which in the course of 150 years went from an outlawed band to a 15 million person strong major religion. What's your opinion on the validity of belief in mysterious golden tablets and angels named Moroni? And do you want to know how they managed it? Mainly, it's known as reproduction. People reproduce, and they turn their offspring into little copies of themselves.

[Haven]

One piece of evidence is the rapid growth of Christianity itself,

Christianity may not have experienced "rapid growth." The gospels and Acts could have embellished the numbers of Jesus' followers and early church members in order to increase the importance of the Christian movement. Christianity likely remained a relatively small collection of religious sects during the second and third centuries CE, growing slowly but steadily in Rome, Greece and other Mediterranean countries during that time.

in a time period far too short for legendary stories to appear.

The 45-75 years between Jesus' death and the writings of the gospels were plenty of time for legendary stories to appear. For example, consider the legends surrounding the survival of Elvis Presley, who died in 1977 (35 years ago). Elvis sightings were reported within a year of his death, and numerous sightings have been reported over the past 35 years. If it took less than a year for Elvis legends to form, what leads you to believe Jesus legends couldn't form in 45-75 years?

Tertullian wrote at the end of the second century, ‘We are but of yesterday and yet we already fill your cities, island, your palace, senate and forum, we have left to you only your temples.’

Tertullian was a church father and a Christian apologist. He was obviously biased toward Christianity, so he had motive to embellish the position of the Christian church. He could very well have exaggerated the size of the early church.

As C.F.D. Moule put it, the miraculous emergence of the church in the face of brutal Roman persecution “rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of the Resurrection.�

Moule was an excellent scholar, but he was also a somewhat conservative Christian who held to a more-or-less literal interpretation of the Bible. As a believer, it makes sense that he believed the claims of the early church. Many secular Biblical scholars disagree with Moule's position on the resurrection.

[Goat]

One piece of evidence is the rapid growth of Christianity itself, in a time period far too short for legendary stories to appear. In a hundred and fifty hears, Christianity spread very, very quickly.

One could make the same claim for Mormonism, which in the course of 150 years went from an outlawed band to a 15 million person strong major religion. What's your opinion on the validity of belief in mysterious golden tablets and angels named Moroni? And do you want to know how they managed it? Mainly, it's known as reproduction. People reproduce, and they turn their offspring into little copies of themselves.

According to the stats, Christinatiy grew from several thousand in the first century to 3 million in the 4th.. a growth rate of 2.5 percent.

Such an explosive rate> :OH my
\

[pax]

in a time period far too short for legendary stories to appear.

The 45-75 years between Jesus' death and the writings of the gospels were plenty of time for legendary stories to appear. For example, consider the legends surrounding the survival of Elvis Presley, who died in 1977 (35 years ago). Elvis sightings were reported within a year of his death, and numerous sightings have been reported over the past 35 years. If it took less than a year for Elvis legends to form, what leads you to believe Jesus legends couldn't form in 45-75 years?

Can you name one person who preferred a horrific death by torture rather than say maybe they didn't see Elvis?

Tertullian wrote at the end of the second century, ‘We are but of yesterday and yet we already fill your cities, island, your palace, senate and forum, we have left to you only your temples.’

Tertullian was a church father and a Christian apologist. He was obviously biased toward Christianity, so he had motive to embellish the position of the Christian church. He could very well have exaggerated the size of the early church.

But, you, on the other hand, have no bias at all.

[Haven]

This post won't be popular here among my fellow atheists, but I think the Christians have a very valid point on one matter -- the circularity of atheists'/skeptics' arguments against the resurrection.

Almost every atheist I've talked to on this issue (at least the ones who do not accept the Christ myth theory) uses circular logic to argue against the resurrection. We assume a priori that naturalism is true, and from there we reason that the resurrection did not occur, even when the evidence seems to go against our claim. This, of course, is fallacious, committing the logical fallacy of begging the question, but atheists -- nearly without exception -- use this method of argumentation against the resurrection. We won't even consider the evidence in favor of the resurrection, which, when approached from a truly unbiased perspective, is at least somewhat substantial, we simply handwavingly dismiss the possibility that a "magic zombie Jesus" is possible.

Additionally, in my opinion, few of the secular explanations have the explanatory power of the evidence that the resurrection hypothesis possesses. Either they break down at key points (e.g., what would be the motive for the disciples stealing the body) or they contradict known evidence (e.g., Jesus never existed, but we have sufficient evidence to conclude that he was historical). I'm starting to realize that there may not be a good secular explanation for the resurrection narrative (the Joseph of Arimathea body relocation theory and ToTN's story about Jesus' family going to Galilee to bury Jesus appear the most plausible to me), and that is troubling to me.

We should be able to come up with a decent refutation of the resurrection that accounts for all the evidence, correct?

[Haven]

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.

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.

Student, your theory is brilliant, but I have a few issues I think I can advance against it.

1) If Jesus never made it to the tomb, then why are there three probably independent accounts (the synoptics, John, and Paul) of Jesus' burial? The tomb story is unlikely to be a total fabrication for reasons Mithrae highlighted earlier (the lack of a witness to the resurrection, the women as the first witnesses to the empty tomb, the Jewish custom against leaving corpses out on the Passover, etc.).

2) How would Jesus' disciples conclude that he was resurrected if his body simply hung on the cross for weeks before it was moved to a mass grave? Any claims of resurrection would be quickly refuted by pointing to Jesus' body hanging on the cross. Are you arguing the disciples believed the resurrection was purely spiritual?

[pax]

This post won't be popular here among my fellow atheists, but I think the Christians have a very valid point on one matter -- the circularity of atheists'/skeptics' arguments against the resurrection.

Almost every atheist I've talked to on this issue (at least the ones who do not accept the Christ myth theory) uses circular logic to argue against the resurrection. We assume a priori that naturalism is true, and from there we reason that the resurrection did not occur, even when the evidence seems to go against our claim. This, of course, is fallacious, committing the logical fallacy of begging the question, but atheists -- nearly without exception -- use this method of argumentation against the resurrection. We won't even consider the evidence in favor of the resurrection, which, when approached from a truly unbiased perspective, is at least somewhat substantial, we simply handwavingly dismiss the possibility that a "magic zombie Jesus" is possible.

Additionally, in my opinion, few of the secular explanations have the explanatory power of the evidence that the resurrection hypothesis possesses. Either they break down at key points (e.g., what would be the motive for the disciples stealing the body) or they contradict known evidence (e.g., Jesus never existed, but we have sufficient evidence to conclude that he was historical). I'm starting to realize that there may not be a good secular explanation for the resurrection narrative (the Joseph of Arimathea body relocation theory and ToTN's story about Jesus' family going to Galilee to bury Jesus appear the most plausible to me), and that is troubling to me.

We should be able to come up with a decent refutation of the resurrection that accounts for all the evidence, correct?

A little humor for you from GK Chesterton:

I take the most obvious instance first, the case of miracles. For some extraordinary reason, there is a fixed notion that it is more liberal to disbelieve in miracles than to believe in them. Why, I cannot imagine, nor can anybody tell me. For some inconceivable cause a “broad� or “liberal� clergyman always means a man who wishes at least to diminish the number of miracles; it never means a man who wishes to increase that number. It always means a man who is free to disbelieve that Christ came out of His grave; it never means a man who is free to believe that his own aunt came out of her grave.

Orthodoxy, ch. 8

[Mithrae]

This post won't be popular here among my fellow atheists, but I think the Christians have a very valid point on one matter -- the circularity of atheists'/skeptics' arguments against the resurrection.

Almost every atheist I've talked to on this issue (at least the ones who do not accept the Christ myth theory) uses circular logic to argue against the resurrection. We assume a priori that naturalism is true, and from there we reason that the resurrection did not occur, even when the evidence seems to go against our claim. This, of course, is fallacious, committing the logical fallacy of begging the question, but atheists -- nearly without exception -- use this method of argumentation against the resurrection. We won't even consider the evidence in favor of the resurrection, which, when approached from a truly unbiased perspective, is at least somewhat substantial, we simply handwavingly dismiss the possibility that a "magic zombie Jesus" is possible.

Additionally, in my opinion, few of the secular explanations have the explanatory power of the evidence that the resurrection hypothesis possesses. Either they break down at key points (e.g., what would be the motive for the disciples stealing the body) or they contradict known evidence (e.g., Jesus never existed, but we have sufficient evidence to conclude that he was historical). I'm starting to realize that there may not be a good secular explanation for the resurrection narrative (the Joseph of Arimathea body relocation theory and ToTN's story about Jesus' family going to Galilee to bury Jesus appear the most plausible to me), and that is troubling to me.

We should be able to come up with a decent refutation of the resurrection that accounts for all the evidence, correct?

I wouldn't say it's circular. On the one hand there's the evidence that millions, billions of people have gone to their grave and stayed there. On the other hand, there's the evidence provided by the gospel stories: Even if John was a disciple and Mark was Peter's interpreter and Paul had indeed been told by someone else that there were 500 witnesses, it's still not very strong evidence for a remarkable claim (and it doesn't take a commitment to naturalism to acknowledge that it is a remarkable claim). The apostles dying for their faith may add some weight to that, but of course sceptics question that also...

gtg now, sorry