resurrection

[rosey]

I have never really given much thought if any unto the resurrection until recently... so I was wondering, what is the prevailing theory against the resurrection today from modern Atheists? Thanks.

(I realize that this might get put in random ramblings or something for lack of a clear debate topic, but it just wasn't getting a lot of traffic in the A room. So if the moderators could leave it up for like 24 hours (assuming it's against the rules to post this in here), that would be great.)

P.S. Haven, that was a great post.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Hold hard there, buddy. You don't believe them on the resurrection, but you do believe them on Nicodemus and Joseph. If you believe them on one thing, why not another? And if you don't believe them on one thing, why on another? What if it's the other way around?! What if they're lying about them being followers of Jesus, but not about the resurrection? Just askin'.

According to Buddhist legend, after his great enlightenment the Buddha possessed nearly unlimited spiritual powers. Many stories were told about the remarkable things that he was able to do. One such story told that the Buddha gathered a crowd together, then took a knife and cut off his own arms, legs and head, allowed the parts to fall into a pile, and then reassembled himself again without apparent ill effect. Now, consider the logistical problem of cutting off one's parts with the parts that are cutting off the parts. Did the Buddha actually exist? Well perhaps. He is generally considered to be genuinely historical. But that doesn't mean that all the stories of the Buddha should be given equal weight of fact. Did Jesus, Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus all exist? Maybe they did, and maybe they didn't. Yet there is nothing metaphysical in the claim of their existence circa the first century AD is there? And Christianity unquestionably did abruptly arise in the first century AD. Does that mean that we are forced to give stories of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus equal weight of plausibility with other parts of the story? No more than we would credit the truncated decapitated restored body of Buddha with any actual plausibility.

But wouldn't there have been quite a few people at the burial to witness him being put there? And the Pharisees probably would have had a few dudes there to check and make sure that it was Jesus, because they would have suspected the same thing you do.

According to the story the corpse of Jesus was taken to the new rock tomb of Joseph late Friday afternoon because it was conveniently close to the place where he was executed, and served, in accordance with Jewish law concerning holy days, as a convenient and out of open sight place to prepare the body. The next day, Saturday, was both Passover and the Sabbath recall; a high holy day. The priests did not become alarmed that a conspiracy might be at hand until SOMETIME THE NEXT DAY. So they sought and received permission to secure the tomb. But they DID NOT open and search the tomb, due to religious proscriptions for the holy day. So they secured the tomb by placing a guard, and then placing official seals on the rock door so that they could insure that the tomb remained secure until they were able to come back and inspect it. When would the first opportunity be? After the holy day had passed away, IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF SUNDAY. What does the story tell us at this point? The tomb proved to be empty at first light. The obvious conclusion is that the body was already gone when the priests secured the tomb. The conclusion that the corpse came back to life and ultimately flew away is a good deal less obvious.

Or enough to get them searched under suspicion of carrying a dead body around. I mean, maybe this is just me, but a bunch of ragtag disciples of a crucified leader carrying around something man sized that smelled heavily of EMBALMING SPICES just might attract some attention. But hey, I could be wrong. Maybe the pharisees couldn't smell.

Not entirely ragtag. Joseph is described as a "rich man," which he would necessarily have to be just to gain an audience with the Roman governor. And of course the governor didn't simply GIVE the body to Joseph because he was such a known sweetheart. A considerable gift would have been required. None of this story would even begin to be credible to any first century person without the understanding that Joseph was rich. And then there is the matter of 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes. These things were trade items, and hideously expensive. But with a rich sponsor we should expect that at least one animal drawn cart or wagon would have been involved, containing not only the heavily wrapped corpse of Jesus, but the traveling possessions of those journeying with the body back to Galilee, and a place for the dead man's mother to ride. A trip that would have taken a week or so to cover the roughly 90 miles. Jerusalem was filled with tens of thousands of pilgrims for the special passover cerebration. Who would even notice one more cart?

Let's assume your right for a minute (hard, isn't it Laughing ). Let's assume that they smuggled the body back to Galilee, and then disposed of it and made up resurrection stories. Just what exactly did they gain from this? Oh right, they got beaten, tortured, and martyred in some of the most horrible ways imaginable. If it had been one person doing all of this, then maybe you could say he was insane and would die for something he knew was a lie. But we're looking at least 20 people being in the loop. So you're arguing that they all went to terrible deaths, completely willing, for a lie that they knew was a lie, when just saying, "practical joke" would have saved them?!?

Judas Iscariot killed himself. James the brother of John was executed by Herod Agrippa. That is all the NT has to say about the deaths of the Apostles. According to Acts5:18 they were imprisoned, but escaped. Acts 5:40 says they were beaten. That is pretty much the end of the physical abuse they endured. At the end of Acts 7 Stephen, not an apostle, is killed by a mob. In Acts 8:4 the Apostles scattered. Acts 11:19 recapitulates this. In Acts 12 Peter is imprisoned but escapes. Afterwards he finds it convenient to go "into another place." At this point Acts becomes almost entirely the Paul story. The various "martyrdom" tales ascribed to the apostles are derived from later centuries, and have no real historical value. Peter IS mentioned late in Acts. Otherwise, most of the apostles have disappeared from the story and from history.

What did they have to gain from continuing the practice, started with Jesus as their leader, of traveling about telling stories?

Acts 4:
[34] "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Given how extraordinarily physically taxing, not to mention potentially deadly, their lives had been as fisherman, or that most hated of professions, tax collecting, traveling about telling stories and living off of their audience must have been like an extended vacation in the Bahamas. And a life they had become accustomed to during their travels with Jesus.

Uhh, I think it's time for a new theory.

Uhh, I thought you were an atheist?

[McCulloch]

Death is the permanent cessation of all biological functions that sustain a living organism. All known living organisms experience death. It is a biological imperative.

Thus the burden of proof is on those who deny that death is permanent. The proof has not been presented.

[Goat]

From the OP:

Resurrection. Proof against.

Run on down to the cemetary there, and see how many folks you see clawing their way up out their graves.

The alleged resurrection of Jesus goes against what we know, thus it is most reasonable to conclude the story is at best a myth, and at worst yet another example of a human lying to try to gain some sort of advantage.

I propose that tales of resurrection are an otherwise mundane occurrence in the history of mankind. How remarkable would it be to ancient, less scientifically literate folks for them to see someone they've given up for dead, suddenly stir "back" to life?

I contend that the most reasonable thing to conclude here is that resurrection tales should abound. They should be evident (as tales or claims) in our history. And they are. Not just for Jesus, but for others as well.

Actually, that doesn't prove anything. If people were always rising from the dead, then Jesus' resurrection (if it happened) wouldn't be anything special. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the resurrection was kind of s'posed to stand out, as well as defy the laws of nature.

Either that, or , it COULD be a story to explain to followers what otherwise would be a devastating blow to their faith... that their leader was executed. And, in the preliterate days, a simple story grew with the telling, so a simple 'He died saving us from the romans and went to heaven' , became 'he died for our sins, and came back from the dead'.

[Quath]

I have never really given much thought if any unto the resurrection until recently... so I was wondering, what is the prevailing theory against the resurrection today from modern Atheists? Thanks.

I can list several of the views I have seen from other atheists.

• Jesus never existed - He was a combination of other deities and god-men and never existed. So therefore, he never died and was resurrected.
• His followers lied - They hid his death and pretended that he was resurrected. Some may ask why would people martyr themselves for a lie. One possible response is that only a few made up the lie and they did not die for the lie or think they would die for the lie.
• Jesus just went into a coma - People thought he died when he really didn't. There are lots of stories nowadays about people who were thought dead but were not like this link.
• The body was lost - Jesus was buried in a mass grave as was expected and not in a special tomb by a sympathetic politician. When his followers opened the tomb, they did not see a body and assume he was resurrected.
• Jesus had powers, but not divine ones - This is a fringe case, but I have heard it. The idea is Jesus was a time traveler or saved by a time traveler. Or Jesus was an alien or was saved by one. Or he was a super hero mutant like in comic books. The overall idea is that these scenarios appear more likely than the religious one.
• Jesus was a magician - This is another fringe view. The idea is that Jesus managed to pull off a stunt like Uri Geller or David Copperfield could have.

Personally, I tend to favor the lost body, never existed and coma views in that order.

[McCulloch]

I can list several of the views I have seen from other atheists.

You left out

• Stories of his resurrection were greatly exaggerated. They did not surface until decades after his death and the earliest stories were more about visions of him in heaven. The bit about a physical resurrection came later

[pax]

Jesus had powers, but not divine ones - This is a fringe case, but I have heard it. The idea is Jesus was a time traveler or saved by a time traveler. Or Jesus was an alien or was saved by one. Or he was a super hero mutant like in comic books. The overall idea is that these scenarios appear more likely than the religious one.

The overall idea is that these scenarios appear more likely than the religious one?



I know that is not your own position, but do you have any insight as to why those scenarios mentioned have more plausability that Jesus just being the plain old Son of God?

[Quath]

Jesus had powers, but not divine ones - This is a fringe case, but I have heard it. The idea is Jesus was a time traveler or saved by a time traveler. Or Jesus was an alien or was saved by one. Or he was a super hero mutant like in comic books. The overall idea is that these scenarios appear more likely than the religious one.

The overall idea is that these scenarios appear more likely than the religious one?



I know that is not your own position, but do you have any insight as to why those scenarios mentioned have more plausability that Jesus just being the plain old Son of God?

My guess is that time traveling seems like it could be scientifically possible. A god sounds more like magic like using a genie or faerie to explain something.

[pax]

Jesus had powers, but not divine ones - This is a fringe case, but I have heard it. The idea is Jesus was a time traveler or saved by a time traveler. Or Jesus was an alien or was saved by one. Or he was a super hero mutant like in comic books. The overall idea is that these scenarios appear more likely than the religious one.

The overall idea is that these scenarios appear more likely than the religious one?



I know that is not your own position, but do you have any insight as to why those scenarios mentioned have more plausability that Jesus just being the plain old Son of God?

My guess is that time traveling seems like it could be scientifically possible. A god sounds more like magic like using a genie or faerie to explain something.

I agree that "a god" does sound like that.

I am glad that I do not believe in "a god".

I am glad that God is the One in whom I put my trust.

[ThatGirlAgain]

I can list several of the views I have seen from other atheists.

You left out

• Stories of his resurrection were greatly exaggerated. They did not surface until decades after his death and the earliest stories were more about visions of him in heaven. The bit about a physical resurrection came later

The first written reference to the resurrection of Jesus is most likely in 1 Thessalonians. This “likely the first of Paul's letters, probably written by the end of AD 52, making it, so far as is now known, the first written book in the New Testament." (Ref)

Near the beginning Paul says:

1 Thessalonians 1
7 And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. 8 The Lord’s message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia—your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, 9 for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

The idea of a resurrected Jesus and the identification of Jesus as some kind of savior is already “out in the world� by 52 CE.

In 1 Corinthians, written sometime between 53 and 57 CE (Ref), Paul mentions witnesses to the resurrected Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

The Gospel of Mark, which “most contemporary scholars now regard… as the earliest of the canonical gospels� and was “written in Greek shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70� (Ref) contains the earliest resurrection narrative. But in its original form it mentioned no eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus except a stranger sitting in the tomb. Ref Mark appears to be based on much older traditions. “Some of the material in Mark, however, goes back a very long way, representing an important source for historical information about Jesus.� (Ref)

Later Gospels do tell of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus (not many and all believers) but disagree on numerous details: who saw what and when, and very importantly whether or not that all went to Galilee or stayed around Jerusalem. They sound more like authorial elaborations than factual accounts.

The absence of eyewitnesses in what seems to be the oldest tradition (Mark) and the greatly varying descriptions of who saw what in other sources cast grave doubts on their having been any such eyewitnesses in reality. However the oldest tradition (again Mark) and all of the other Gospel narratives do agree on one point. The tomb was empty on Sunday morning and a stranger(s) said that Jesus rose from the dead. The tradition of the resurrection seems to appear very early in proto-Christianity. Put Mark’s ‘empty tomb, end of story’ in that context and it sounds like the empty tomb part could be real and the rest invented. This would then explain the diversity of opinions about physical versus spiritual resurrection. It depended on how the individual author wanted to present it and/or the folklore they are incorporating.

[EduChris]

...The absence of eyewitnesses in what seems to be the oldest tradition (Mark)...

The Gospel of Mark seems to have lost its original ending (and perhaps also its beginning) and so it cannot be used as evidence against eyewitnesses. The earliest gospel material is not Mark, but Q.

Moreover, the notion of resurrection preceded Paul, and Paul converted perhaps only three to five years after the crucifixion.