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?

[Goat]

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?

Including the vast amount of medical and empirical evidence that shows dead people who are rotting in the grave for three days do not come back?

[Haven]

Including the vast amount of medical and empirical evidence that shows dead people who are rotting in the grave for three days do not come back?

I understand that, but to make this statement is to assume the truth of naturalism in order to argue that supernatural events cannot happen. It's the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Christians argue that there is sufficient evidence for the resurrection. While I as an atheist obviously disagree with them, I recognize the valid point that you can't simply handwavingly dismiss miracle claims simply because they are miracle claims -- that's circular reasoning. I lack belief in the resurrection because I don't feel there is sufficient evidence to conclude it occurred, but I can't dismiss it a priori because I have a naturalistic bias.

Plus, the fact that some event E does not normally occur does not mean that E can never occur.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Christians argue that there is sufficient evidence for the resurrection. While I as an atheist obviously disagree with them, I recognize the valid point that you can't simply handwavingly dismiss miracle claims simply because they are miracle claims -- that's circular reasoning. I lack belief in the resurrection because I don't feel there is sufficient evidence to conclude it occurred, but I can't dismiss it a priori because I have a naturalistic bias.

Christians argue that there is overwhelming evidence for the resurrection and then they haul out as evidence the claim that more than 500 witnessed the resurrected Jesus on one occasion alone and call it "evidence." Which you not only can but should dismiss by pointing out that a story of 500 witnesses written by a man who wasn't even there is not the same thing as 500 witnesses at all. And the fact that no record exists of any resurrection from the dead at the time it was supposed to have occurred and that stories of it which didn't began to first appear until a good quarter of a century later are not overwhelming evidence of anything, other than human imagination at work. If this is not good enough to "dismiss it a priori, as human imagination at work, then trot out Matthew's "Night of the Living Dead" tale, (Matt. 27:51-52). If you feel that this is not enough reason for you either, then perhaps you should revisit your own personal emotional needs.

[Haven]

Christians argue that there is overwhelming evidence for the resurrection and then they haul out as evidence the claim that more than 500 witnessed the resurrected Jesus on one occasion alone and call it "evidence."

That's not the only piece of evidence Christians believe point toward the resurrection. Most academic Christian apologists (I know several) would point toward the early creed in 1 Corinthians, Paul's letters, the four gospels themselves, secular sources corroborating the crucifixion narrative, and the lack of any naturalistic explanation to explain the previous data.

Which you not only can but should dismiss by pointing out that a story of 500 witnesses written by a man who wasn't even there is not the same thing as 500 witnesses at all.

Paul didn't actually "write" the creed in 1 Cor, but he received it at a very early date, probably between 32 and 35 CE.

Still, I agree that a story of 500 witnesses is not the same as testimonies from 500 witnesses, which is one reason why I don't accept the resurrection.

And the fact that no record exists of any resurrection from the dead at the time it was supposed to have occurred and that stories of it which didn't began to first appear until a good quarter of a century later are not overwhelming evidence of anything, other than human imagination at work.

I agree that the evidence is insufficient to conclude a resurrection actually occurred.

If this is not good enough to "dismiss it a priori, as human imagination at work, then trot out Matthew's "Night of the Living Dead" tale, (Matt. 27:51-52).

I dismiss this story, not because it seems impossible, but because there is no evidence for it. There certainly would be contemporaneous writings on such an event had it actually occurred, but there are not. I should point out that many academic apologists, such as Mike Licona, also reject Matthew 27:51-52 as historical.

If you feel that this is not enough reason for you either, then perhaps you should revisit your own personal emotional needs.

I fail to see how pointing out what I feel to be errors in the treatment of this subject by many atheists is appealing to emotion. Keep in mind that I haven't actually argued for the resurrection on this thread, only against the common atheist appeals to naturalism and/or the "Christ myth theory."

[Mithrae]

Including the vast amount of medical and empirical evidence that shows dead people who are rotting in the grave for three days do not come back?

I understand that, but to make this statement is to assume the truth of naturalism in order to argue that supernatural events cannot happen. It's the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Christians argue that there is sufficient evidence for the resurrection. While I as an atheist obviously disagree with them, I recognize the valid point that you can't simply handwavingly dismiss miracle claims simply because they are miracle claims -- that's circular reasoning. I lack belief in the resurrection because I don't feel there is sufficient evidence to conclude it occurred, but I can't dismiss it a priori because I have a naturalistic bias.

Plus, the fact that some event E does not normally occur does not mean that E can never occur.

You've got a point, though I'm not sure the resurrection is the best example because, as noted, the evidence isn't exactly overwhelming. What I do consider to be a good example of this is biblical prophecy, the gospel of Mark being a case in point: Because Mark 13 predicts the temple's destruction, it seems virtually axiomatic in non-conservative scholarship to consider Mark a post-70CE work. It's a particularly striking example of the presupposition that any fulfilled prophecy must be ex eventu because when you look at it there's pretty much nothing truly predictive in the passage, just broad generalisations built around earlier prophecies like Daniel's foretelling of the temple's destruction in Dan 9:26.

Daniel 9 of course, depending on how one interprets it, could well be read as predicting that a messiah would be 'cut off' in the 30s CE (followed by the temple's destruction). Isaiah 53 speaks of a servant of God who'd die for others' sins but after his suffering would 'see the light.' Jeremiah 31 tells of a new covenant different from the one made at Sinai. This was going to be my point earlier if I'd had time: Standing alone, the alleged resurrection of Jesus is a remarkable claim which simply does not have remarkable evidence to back it up. But if it had in some way been foretold beforehand, and indeed some meaning or context for it given, might not the shortfall of contemporary evidence relative to our naturalistic expectations be met by the possibility of supernatural context implicit in such prophecies?

As with the gospel of John, so far it seems to me that in the case of Hebrew Daniel (chapters 8-12, and perhaps ch1) the balance of evidence favours authenticity rather than the prevailing scholarly view - and if so, it somewhat validates the dying messiah prediction and perhaps to an extent even the concept behind some other core 'prophecies' on which Christians rely. But if my guesses in these respects are correct - and related somewhat to your point - it seems that sceptics relying on (and often going beyond) the 'scholarly consensus' are playing with a stacked deck almost as much as the conservatives relying Josh McDowall and his ilk. If the accepted criteria for evidence includes appeal to a gist of scholarship which is perhaps not entirely objective, the results will be similarly tainted.

Furthermore I'd add that a problem afflicting all parties in the discussion (myself also) is a tendency of wanting answers, rather than a 'possibly' or 'probably' result. It's most obvious with the "Jesus didn't exist" or "There's no reliable evidence Jesus existed" crowd of course; the answer that he most probably did by the criteria we apply to other ancient teachers, but many details of his life can not be similarly assured, somehow doesn't seem satisfactory. An 'unlikely, but just maybe' answer to the resurrection question just doesn't seem to fly with folk on either side of the discussion. So for my part I try to keep things in perspective by comparison; there's less evidence for the resurrection than that Jesus existed, less evidence even than that he came from Nazareth or was baptised by John, but more evidence than for his feeding of 5000. On the other hand, from what I know there seems to be more evidence for Jesus' resurrection than for the very existence of Hillel the Elder - but the latter isn't an extraordinary claim. And let's not forget cultural biases; if I were Sri Lankan I might be arguing about the Buddha vs. Krishna.

On the resurrection, the one extreme is easy to summarise - supposedly no witnesses, and definitely known contradicitions and embellishments - as is the other extreme. But it's hard to find a reasonable middle ground, and less satisfying to pick our answer if we decide that a death and maybe even resurrection of a messiah was predicted beforehand, and we may even have the written testimony of two determined witnesses that this actually happened. The hoax theory is barely any more fulfilling than the goddidit theory, if we allow ourselves to consider those possibilities.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Paul didn't actually "write" the creed in 1 Cor, but he received it at a very early date, probably between 32 and 35 CE.

Upon what evidence do you make this claim?

[Mithrae]

Paul didn't actually "write" the creed in 1 Cor, but he received it at a very early date, probably between 32 and 35 CE.

Upon what evidence do you make this claim?

That's all you got out of Haven's post? Questioning the precise period in which Paul 'received' his information? If it was sometime from 36-39CE, that would make it significantly less plausible?

Or are you suggesting the possibility that Paul did not receive information from an earlier source?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

That's all you got out of Haven's post? Questioning the precise period in which Paul 'received' his information? If it was sometime from 36-39CE, that would make it significantly less plausible?

Or are you suggesting the possibility that Paul did not receive information from an earlier source?

Did you get all of that from my eight word sentence? I asked Haven for the source of his claims. Simple enough.

[ThatGirlAgain]

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?

Including the vast amount of medical and empirical evidence that shows dead people who are rotting in the grave for three days do not come back?

That is exactly the point of the resurrection story; that it could only happen by a miracle, a suspension of the laws of nature indicating divine intervention. The resurrection story was taken to be ‘proof’ that the promise of a future resurrection and a judgment of everyone who ever lived was a valid one. This was how the injustices of the ages were finally to be brought into balance. Why did the good suffer and the wicked prosper? Don’t worry. It will all be taken care of down the road. The last shall be first and the first shall be last.

As Haven notes, pre-emptively ruling out the possibility of the story because “it ain’t natural� is not a valid argument against the possibility of the story. (Pace Goat) It is not supposed to be natural. That is the whole idea.

But such an extraordinary event would seem to require extraordinary evidence. As I have already argued in this thread there are serious problems with even the evidence presented.

No witnesses to the resurrection itself.
In the Gospels, Jesus does lots of public miracles to establish his authority. But this one, the big payoff, is done in secret? Instead we have a stranger sitting by the tomb telling the visitors: “Jesus? Not here. He rose from the dead". Like stealing the body stories are not going to start?

All the witnesses to the resurrected Jesus are already believers.
If you want the world to believe, show yourself to non-believers. Otherwise people are going to be suspicious.

The post-resurrection stories are contradictory in many details, including major ones.
Who saw Jesus when and where? And why does he several times not get recognized by people who knew him?
A big one: They all went to Galilee. Uh no, they all stayed around Jerusalem.
And the earliest version of the earliest Gospel (Mark) does not even have post-resurrection witnesses. Except that stranger at the tomb.

And considering what I wrote above, a new criticism. The expectation of a future resurrection as part of the teachings of Jesus sounds like a good reason for stealing the body and turning a disaster (What??? The Messiah got killed???) into a victory (See! The promise of resurrection is real!).

Even the 'official' story has got real credibility problems.

[Goat]

Including the vast amount of medical and empirical evidence that shows dead people who are rotting in the grave for three days do not come back?

I understand that, but to make this statement is to assume the truth of naturalism in order to argue that supernatural events cannot happen. It's the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Well, do you have any tangible evidence ANY PLACE that ANY supernatural action can happen?? The claim FOR supernatural occurrence seems to defy any verification.