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?

[Haven]

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.

No, but it is almost impossible to prove a negative. To simply assume that supernatural events cannot occur is question-begging.

[Haven]

Upon what evidence do you make this claim?

Most scholars agree the 1 Cor. 15 creed was formulated no less than five years after Jesus' death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15

[Goat]

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.

No, but it is almost impossible to prove a negative. To simply assume that supernatural events cannot occur is question-begging.

In absence of any evidence FOR a supernatural occurrence that I can verify, and the fact that many supernatural occurrences have been shown to be stories , fakes and frauds, until someone comes with something better than 'it's in this book of scriptures', then I can safely say that 'no, it didn't happen'.

If someone actually provides some empirical evidence it could happen, even in theory, then that might be a different story.

[ThatGirlAgain]

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.

No, but it is almost impossible to prove a negative. To simply assume that supernatural events cannot occur is question-begging.

In absence of any evidence FOR a supernatural occurrence that I can verify, and the fact that many supernatural occurrences have been shown to be stories , fakes and frauds, until someone comes with something better than 'it's in this book of scriptures', then I can safely say that 'no, it didn't happen'.

If someone actually provides some empirical evidence it could happen, even in theory, then that might be a different story.

And the end result of that is that everyone walks away with exactly the same opinions as before. Questioning the other person's views in the context of their own beliefs is more likely to lead to results.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Most scholars agree the 1 Cor. 15 creed was formulated no less than five years after Jesus' death.

That would be what most Christian scholars, agree on, would it not?

"Geza Vermes defends the majority view in The Resurrection. Vermes says that the words of Paul are "a tradition he has inherited from his seniors in the faith concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus".[10] According Paul's Epistle to the Galatians he had previously met two of the people mentioned in these verses as witnesses of the resurrection: James the Just and Cephas/Peter:"

"Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie." (Galatians 1:18-20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15


All this does is inform us that Paul was in contact with certain of the individuals responsible for spreading the earliest rumor of the risen Christ at sometime prior to his first letter to the Corinthians. Specifically James the brother of Jesus in this statement. It doesn't specify a time when this occurred, so the earliest possible time frame is nothing more than hopeful guestamates by Christian scholars. How long after the crucifixion was Paul's conversion? About four years, based on the guestamates of Christian scholars. In other words, assumptions based on what could possibly, in their view, be true. Not that the time frame matters especially, because clearly Paul did not himself invent Christianity. Obviously he got his stories and his beliefs from others. I have been pointing out that the story of the resurrected Jesus is derived from a false rumor spread by his followers beginning soon after his execution. Acts 1:13 puts name to many of those individuals. Act 1:15 puts the total number of them at about 120. So, some forty days or so after the crucifixion (Acts 1:3), these individuals began spreading the rumor of the risen Christ. But only, according to them, after he flew away, off up into the sky. And so a quarter of a century after the crucifixion of Jesus Paul writes in his first letter to the Corinthians what has proven to be the first ever mention of the resurrection, based on the stories he was told by individuals responsible for spreading the rumor in the first place. And yes of course that is probably true.

[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. (Matt. 27:64).

Which proved to be an accurate assessment by the priests.

[pax]

Most scholars agree the 1 Cor. 15 creed was formulated no less than five years after Jesus' death.

That would be what most Christian scholars, agree on, would it not?

A Christian scholar is entirely subjective when talking about such a thing, but a non-Christian scholar is entirely objective when talking about such a thing.

I mean, that just stands to reason, doesn't it?

Would you not agree that the term "Christian scholar" is an oxymoron?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

A Christian scholar is entirely subjective when talking about such a thing, but a non-Christian scholar is entirely objective when talking about such a thing.

The objective in studying Christianity is to learn about and understand Christianity. This is true for Christians and non Christians alike. Non Christian scholars on the one hand study the facts of Christianity for what the facts tell them. Non Christians who have decided to make the effort to study Christianity tend to be objective in their attempt to understand Christianity. They consider and evaluate the facts. Christians on the other hand study the same set of facts for the purpose of sustaining a preconceived set of beliefs, and attempt to achieve this by discovering the deeper secrets and mysteries they assume are contained within the facts and which more fully explain the facts. Christians tend to be subjective in their approach to the study of Christianity by interpolating and making philosophical assumptions based on preconceived truths. In other words, much of the evidence that Christians consider fully valid tends to be the result of personal mental and emotional considerations rather than conclusions drawn strictly from the physical evidence... they make it up. So I agree with you.

Would you not agree that the term "Christian scholar" is an oxymoron?

An oxymoron is something which is self-contradictory. If it is your position that to be both a Christian AND a scholar is self-contradictory and are concepts which are incompatible with each other, then I would say that I am not prepared to argue against such a conclusion.

So let's put this conclusion to the test. I will ask you a simple question, and two equally simple follow up questions. .

1) A grave is discovered to be open and empty. Is the missing corpse more likely to be the result of (A) actions taken by the living... or the result of (B) actions taken by the corpse?

2) Is your answer objective or subjective?

3) Do you consider your answer to be completely honest?

[pax]

1) A grave is discovered to be open and empty. Is the missing corpse more likely to be the result of (A) actions taken by the living... or the result of (B) actions taken by the corpse?

2) Is your answer objective or subjective?

3) Do you consider your answer to be completely honest?

1). The corpse in question told me well ahead of time that He was going to be put to death, then be resurrected on the third day. So, a few days later, sure enough, He is put to death. Then on the third day I go to the tomb and it is empty. Then a few days later I meet Him on the beach and He invites me to eat some fish with Him.

I am pretty sure at this point that (1) the corpse is not missing, and (2) the actions of the living have nothing to do with the empty tomb.

2). Objective. The facts are the facts.

3). Honest.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

1). The corpse in question told me well ahead of time that He was going to be put to death, then be resurrected on the third day. So, a few days later, sure enough, He is put to death. Then on the third day I go to the tomb and it is empty. Then a few days later I meet Him on the beach and He invites me to eat some fish with Him.

I am pretty sure at this point that (1) the corpse is not missing, and (2) the actions of the living have nothing to do with the empty tomb.

2). Objective. The facts are the facts.

3). Honest.

Do you notice that instead of answering the question that I asked, you simply made up your own question that you were more comfortable with and answered it instead? I posed a question about a corpse. Just a corpse. Nothing special about a corpse, there have been tens of billions of corpses over the course of human history. Which means that we have a good deal of experience with corpses. Given that experience, which is the more LIKELY, that the answer to this particular and entirely HYPOTHETICAL corpse having gone missing is a result of actions taken by the living, or the result of actions taken by the corpse? Is the question to hard for you? Or is there some other reason that you prefer not to answer it?

Now, to address the question you posed for yourself to answer:

1) No "corpse in question" has ever in fact told you anything. Nor did the corpse of Jesus ever tell you "that He was going to be put to death, then be resurrected on the third day." Others long after his death said that about him, but in fact Jesus wrote NOTHING himself and therefore left NO RECORD of what he personally actually said. Nor have you ever met or sat down to a fish dinner with a corpse, especially not the corpse of anyone who lived two thousand years ago. Except perhaps subjectively, in your mind. But I did not ask you a question about Jesus. I asked you a question about a corpse. Is a missing corpse more likely to be the result of actions taken by the living or the result of actions taken by the corpse? Is that to complicated for you?

2) Your answer was entirely subjective since you first made up your own question to answer in a manner that you found personally satisfactory.

3) You have dodged the question and therefore have been completely dishonest in your reply. Why is that? It was really a simple enough question. Would you care to give it a second try?

[pax]

1). The corpse in question told me well ahead of time that He was going to be put to death, then be resurrected on the third day. So, a few days later, sure enough, He is put to death. Then on the third day I go to the tomb and it is empty. Then a few days later I meet Him on the beach and He invites me to eat some fish with Him.

I am pretty sure at this point that (1) the corpse is not missing, and (2) the actions of the living have nothing to do with the empty tomb.

2). Objective. The facts are the facts.

3). Honest.

Do you notice that instead of answering the question that I asked, you simply made up your own question that you were more comfortable with and answered it instead? I posed a question about a corpse. Just a corpse. Nothing special about a corpse, there have been tens of billions of corpses over the course of human history. Which means that we have a good deal of experience with corpses. Given that experience, which is the more LIKELY, that the answer to this particular and entirely HYPOTHETICAL corpse having gone missing is a result of actions taken by the living, or the result of actions taken by the corpse? Is the question to hard for you? Or is there some other reason that you prefer not to answer it?

Now, to address the question you posed for yourself to answer:

1) No "corpse in question" has ever in fact told you anything. Nor did the corpse of Jesus ever tell you "that He was going to be put to death, then be resurrected on the third day." Others long after his death said that about him, but in fact Jesus wrote NOTHING himself and therefore left NO RECORD of what he personally actually said. Nor have you ever met or sat down to a fish dinner with a corpse, especially not the corpse of anyone who lived two thousand years ago. Except perhaps subjectively, in your mind. But I did not ask you a question about Jesus. I asked you a question about a corpse. Is a missing corpse more likely to be the result of actions taken by the living or the result of actions taken by the corpse? Is that to complicated for you?

2) Your answer was entirely subjective since you first made up your own question to answer in a manner that you found personally satisfactory.

3) You have dodged the question and therefore have been completely dishonest in your reply. Why is that? It was really a simple enough question. Would you care to give it a second try?

I will be more than happy to clarify my answer for you.

1). The Person who would later be identified as the corpse in question told me well ahead of the time before He actually became the corpse that He was going to be put to death, then be resurrected on the third day. So, a few days later, sure enough, He is put to death and becomes the corpse in question. Then on the third day I go to the tomb -- which was guarded -- and it is empty. The corpse in question is not there. Then a few days later I meet the Person who would be identified as the corpse in question on the beach and He invites me to eat some fish with Him.

I am pretty sure at this point that (1) the corpse is not missing as the Person who would later be identified as the corpse in question is now alive and breathing and eating fish on the beach (ergo, there is no longer any corpse to speak of), and (2) the actions of the living had nothing to do with the empty tomb, for while it is possible they may have done some mischief with the corpse in question, it is highly unlikely they re-animated the corpse in question, as their technology in that particular department was somewhat lacking, and besides, there is no longer a corpse to speak of as the living breathing Person who became the corpse is now once again a living breathing Person.

[I hope that clarifies things for you.]

2). Objective. The facts are the facts.

3). Honest.

Others long after his death said that about him

And you know this how?