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?

[pax]

Name one single historical account EVER, which is predicated on the acceptance of a metaphysical supernatural event which is generally accepted by modern historians as historically valid?

The Resurrection.

The resurrection is not accepted by modern historians as historically valid. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of academic historians who accept the resurrection of Jesus as fact, and all of them are devout Christians who were likely raised in the faith. If they were not raised Christian, they probably would not believe in the resurrection.

You are probably right, but it was such a funny come-back I just couldn't resist. I know you will find this hard to believe, but I do have a wicked sense of humor (and I don't mind being the brunt of a good joke as long as it is funny and not purile or insulting).

[Tired of the Nonsense]

(I know that one-liners are verbotten here, but that one-liner really is an appropriate answer to the above assertions. After all, thousands upon thousands of people were not willing to die rather than deny any of the other events so specified, nor did any of the other events have eyewitness accounts written within after the event within the lifetimes of those who witnessed the event, meaning that if these accounts were not factual there is a good chance that some one of those eyewitnesses would have said so. People don't die horrible deaths at the hands of inhuman torturers for myths, nor are myths written with a few years of the event in question.)

Clearly people do sometimes choose to die for reasons that are less then valid to the rest of us. The Heaven's Gater's are the best and most recent example of this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s ... s_group%29
--if you are unfamiliar). Virtually all of the Christian martyrs consisted of individuals who had no more first hand knowledge of Jesus than you do, but who believed anyhow.

That Christianity was outlawed by the Romans during the second and third centuries and that Christians were being heavily persecuted by being thrown to wild animals is a matter of historical record. Whether these "martyrs" resembled anything you today would considered Christian however is a very pertinent question. Various groups calling themselves "Christians" proliferated during the first during the early centuries of the of Christian formation. Irenaeus estimated the number of distinct variant forms of Christian beliefs and practices to be about twenty by the end of the second century. By the late forth century Epiphanius set the figure of variant Christian groups at about eighty.

"When, about 190, the Roman proconsul Antonius persecuted Christianity in Asia Minor, hundreds of Montanists, eager for paradise, crowded before his tribunal and asked for martyrdom. He could not accommodate them all; some he executed; but most of them he dismissed with the words: "Miserable creatures! If you wish to die are there not ropes and precipices?" The Church banned Montanism as a heresy, and in the sixth century Justinian ordered the extinction of the sect. Some Montanists gathered in their churches, set fire to them, and let themselves be burned alive." ("The story of Civilization," vol 3, "Caesar and Christ," by Will Durant, Chapt 23, Page 605).

These were people who considered themselves to be fully Christian for reasons which made sense to them and who died willingly for their beliefs, and yet even the Catholic church, which did not itself come into existence until the forth century, eventually branded the Montanists as heretics. These were the sorts of Christians who were being thrown to the lions during the second and third centuries, since the Romans didn't discriminate between one person who claimed to be a Christian or another. So, do mindless zealots committing suicide for their ignorant superstitious beliefs impress anyone? "Impress" would not be the term I would use, no.

The bottom line is you first reject it because it is miraculous, and then build your case around that initial rejection.

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.

I reject the story of the truncated decapitated fully restored body of Buddha out of hand much as I reject the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus out of hand; because they are ridiculous. Which is a good place to start when considering any claim.


On a side note, kudos to you for hanging in there and actually defending your beliefs. Most Christians would have bailed entirely by this point.

[Mithrae]

I reject the story of the truncated decapitated fully restored body of Buddha out of hand much as I reject the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus out of hand; because they are ridiculous. Which is a good place to start when considering any claim.

Of course, it behooves sceptical thinkers to question everything. What, for example, might be a reasonable distinction to draw between these two stories?

An interesting line of thinking is that:
- Given a monistic view of the universe, there's no good reason to think that its nature is physical rather than mental, spiritual or something else (and in fact, I'm not sure there can be any meaningful difference)
- A reasonable concept of God, as source of the universe (first cause and all that), and reality which accounts for our observations (increasing size & complexity, problem of evil etc.) is that this is a learning process for that Being; we're God's dreams, thoughts or the like
- It would not be unreasonable to imagine that this Being might wonder what it's like to experience reality as one of these mortal lesser beings, and even perhaps death, inasmuch as it were possible to do so
- So some folk might say that a Creator's incarnation, death and resurrection is a considerably more plausible motiff than someone cutting off their own arms, legs and head

[Tired of the Nonsense]

- It would not be unreasonable to imagine that this Being might wonder what it's like to experience reality as one of these mortal lesser beings, and even perhaps death, inasmuch as it were possible to do so.

That would explain why many of the various ancient deities underwent death and resurrection in ancient times I suppose. I guess even deities need their kicks. They must have gotten the urge out of their system though, it would seem. We don't notice these sorts of things occurring today. And it does make the Buddha's abilities all the more unique. Of course Jesus, being fully God, could have performed Buddha's truncated decapitation trick with ease had he chosen to do so. And if such a thing were recorded in the NT, then the true believers would be adamant that of course Jesus did that. Who could even deny it, praise the Lord?.

[Mithrae]

- It would not be unreasonable to imagine that this Being might wonder what it's like to experience reality as one of these mortal lesser beings, and even perhaps death, inasmuch as it were possible to do so.

That would explain why many of the various ancient deities underwent death and resurrection in ancient times I suppose. I guess even deities need their kicks. They must have gotten the urge out of their system though, it would seem. We don't notice these sorts of things occurring today. And it does make the Buddha's abilities all the more unique. Of course Jesus, being fully God, could have performed Buddha's truncated decapitation trick with ease had he chosen to do so. And if such a thing were recorded in the NT, then the true believers would be adamant that of course Jesus did that. Who could even deny it, praise the Lord?.

Off the top of my head I'm not aware of any other death/resurrection stories of a deity who became a human, and I believe that some Jesus mythicists overdraw the comparisons a great deal more than is warranted, but that's the general idea yes. The idea of a god becoming human and or a dying/resurrecting god is a fairly common religious motiff, and when it's distinct from solar deities and the winter solstice it seems a rather unusual concept to occur across so many cultures (to the extent that it does, of course; I haven't looked into it much). In other words, granting truth to your premise we must conclude either that each of these cultures independantly developed these curious beliefs, or that they all borrowed from each other (certainly likely to an extent in the near-east/mediterranean region) or that, perhaps, their notions of divinity were all influenced by the same Mind which might have tried that little experiment.

You're probably correct that the extreme conservative end of Christian believers would stand by anything and everything found in their scriptures, even if it flew in the face of logical possibility. But I'm not sure that is a valid basis on which to consider one story equal in plausibility with the other; plenty of Christians question Matthew's night of the living dead, as you call it, and with good reason. However some concept of the resurrection is the central element of Christianity (according to Paul, at least), not some trivial side incident like turning water to wine or the Buddha's dismemberment trick. That this central element could also be a theme common to many other cultures also, and that it also could be very much in keeping with what we might speculate regarding a hypothetical First Being's curiousity and learning process, surely should give us pause to think rather than dismissing it out of hand.

Or, at the very least, I think it represents a noteworthy difference between the two stories which you've highlighted.

Edit: Incidentally, it occurs to me that many people perceive the God of the Tanakh as harsh, judgemental or uncaring compared with the God of the New Testament: Might we speculate that God learned a thing or two from his experiment with a human life?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Edit: Incidentally, it occurs to me that many people perceive the God of the Tanakh as harsh, judgemental or uncaring compared with the God of the New Testament: Might we speculate that God learned a thing or two from his experiment with a human life?

Yes, these are the sorts of things that have always puzzled me about religion. How can an omniscient God learn anything? Why would an omniscient God ever become angry and frustrated over the way things turn out? Why condemn humans and serpents for for doing and being no more or less than they were created to do and be? And why must divine blood be spilled to forgive humans for following what was clearly God's plan from the very beginning? We've got robots on Mars for Pete's sake! How can people in the 21st century REMAIN THIS IGNORANT? That's the nonsense I am tired of.

[pax]

Edit: Incidentally, it occurs to me that many people perceive the God of the Tanakh as harsh, judgemental or uncaring compared with the God of the New Testament: Might we speculate that God learned a thing or two from his experiment with a human life?

Yes, these are the sorts of things that have always puzzled me about religion. How can an omniscient God learn anything?

He does not as He already possesses all knowledge.

Why would an omniscient God ever become angry and frustrated over the way things turn out? Why condemn humans and serpents for for doing and being no more or less than they were created to do and be?

"Anger" and "frustration" are anthropomorphisms used to convey a message to humans.

And humans were not created to act in the ways they act. They were given free-will and did not choose wisely.

And why must divine blood be spilled to forgive humans for following what was clearly God's plan from the very beginning?

The offense against God's majesty was an infinite pffense which required an infinite atonement which was made by Jesus on the Cross.

We've got robots on Mars for Pete's sake! How can people in the 21st century REMAIN THIS IGNORANT? That's the nonsense I am tired of.

"Robots on Mars are insignificant when compared to the power of the Force!" [Darth Vader]

[Tired of the Nonsense]

"Anger" and "frustration" are anthropomorphisms used to convey a message to humans.

Yes God once conveyed His message so strongly that He killed every living thing on earth, except what managed to get crammed into the Ark. And the fishes, presumably. On another occasion He killed exactly 50,070 people because someone dared take a peek inside the Ark of the Covenant. That is an anthromorphism for one serious hissy fit. At least Indy got the message and closed his eyes when the time came.

And humans were not created to act in the ways they act. They were given free-will and did not choose wisely.

Humans can have all the free will they want, but they can never do one jot more, or less, than God knew they would before they were ever created because God is omniscient. He knows everything, including all outcomes. God, being also omnipotent, got exactly the result He intended to get when He created humans. The same may be said for serpents. They are precisely what they were created to be. Then he brought both humans and serpents together in the Garden, allowed both sides to do what they were created to do from the beginning and got precisely the result He expected to get. No more and no less. Then after everything went according to His plan, he condemned both sides. But eventually God gave humans a chance to be forgiven by the shedding of God's own blood through the agony of Jesus' time on the cross. Why? God's plan, God's rules! At least humans are able to be forgiven. Satan is scheduled to burn for eternity for his role in carrying out God's plan, and there is no possibility of parole. No wonder he seems to be in such a perpetually bad mood. And here's the thing! Jesus suffered for a few hours to fulfill his role in God's plan. Satan will suffer for an eternity, which he knows full well, and yet he dutifully continues to carry out his role. What a guy!

Now, go back and review what I said about ignorant.

[Mithrae]

Edit: Incidentally, it occurs to me that many people perceive the God of the Tanakh as harsh, judgemental or uncaring compared with the God of the New Testament: Might we speculate that God learned a thing or two from his experiment with a human life?

Yes, these are the sorts of things that have always puzzled me about religion. How can an omniscient God learn anything? Why would an omniscient God ever become angry and frustrated over the way things turn out? Why condemn humans and serpents for for doing and being no more or less than they were created to do and be?

That depends on what we mean by omniscience; does it mean knowing everything that is? Does it also mean knowing everything that will be? Does it even mean knowing all that is possible to be?

This is what got me thinking about the reasoning above: Some folk accuse this Creator of not having made a perfect world - but how exactly would it know what a 'perfect' world is meant to look like? I can only guess that it would be by considering the various possibilities. But before any world exists, what is the difference between the thoughts of a God and 'reality'?

I wrote up a big addition to my post above, but decided it was best posted in a different thread. You may be interested in it nonetheless. Here's a brief snippet:

It seems to me that a lot of non-theist debaters are content merely with pointing out the shortcomings, inconsistencies and shortfall of evidence with regards to traditional religious claims. 'course, since we're all here primarily to enjoy ourselves that's all fine and dandy if that's what floats your boat. But for my part I also enjoy finding opportunities to expand my horizons of speculation about possibility and reality - or put differently, to question non-theistic positions as much as I do traditional religion.

Is it possible that there's a God? The Christian omni- traits of God are questionable to my mind, omni-benevolence most notably being both incoherent and hindered by the problem of 'evil'; but given that, it seems to me that the fundamental nature and reason for reality might just as likely be personal and volitional as impersonal and causal. Given the limits on human knowledge, for all intents and purposes it may as well be 50/50 odds, as outlined briefly in this post.

But are we constrained to think or talk about theism solely in the terms defined by religious conservatives? Because their claims of perfect and complete divine revelation to a single culture seem lacking at best, should we presume 'til further notice that our coin has landed on the impersonal/causal side?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Is it possible that there's a God?

These are two big thoughts, what is possible, and God. What we observe about the universe we live in is that there are limits to what is possible which we refer to as the laws of physics. If God exists however then all limits are off, and anything is possible. Because God by definition is without limitation and can do anything. So is it possible that there is a God? Yes of course, IF ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. That is not what we directly observe about the universe however. We directly observe that there are limitations on what is possible. We can IMAGINE a Being without limitations, but we don't actually observe the conditions for it at all.

The Christian omni- traits of God are questionable to my mind, omni-benevolence most notably being both incoherent and hindered by the problem of 'evil';

Only physical objects exist. Evil is not a physical object, therefore it doesn't exist. Events occur, and humans struggle to put meaning to them because humans have a need to quantify and make sense of events. Is an event good, is it bad, is it righteous, is it evil? These are opinions formed by the point of view of how the event positively or negatively effected the lives of each individual, or could potentially effect the lives of each individual. Majority opinion if it is widespread enough can serve to make the answer to any given question appear to be immutable. Split decisions on the other hand often lead to war. The American civil war over slavery is a perfect example. For most of human history slavery was a perfectly natural condition. Modern opinion has rendered it unacceptable. Opinions change because they are NOT immutable. I am not knocking opinions. I certainly have my share. I'm just pointing out that opinions are not physical, and therefore they only exist in the abstract.

Given the limits on human knowledge, for all intents and purposes it may as well be 50/50 odds, as outlined briefly in this post.

Given the limits of human knowledge do you consider the possibility of flying reindeer to be 50/50? No, because we don't appear to live in a universe in which anything is possible. God can only exist if anything is possible. If anything is possible then an infinite number of things could be true, including God and flying reindeer. The odds are therefore 1/infinite. Somewhat less likely then your approximation of the odds.

But are we constrained to think or talk about theism solely in the terms defined by religious conservatives? Because their claims of perfect and complete divine revelation to a single culture seem lacking at best, should we presume 'til further notice that our coin has landed on the impersonal/causal side?

OK, allow me to suggest that in the interest of learning the truth we should try to remember to always keep an open mind. And yet knowledge is an exercise in discerning what is valid, and winnowing it out from all that is invalid. We can only gain in knowledge if we are willing to put the invalid, those things that were based on incorrect assumptions and baseless conjecture behind us. The iron age opinion on the nature of how the universe works was largely based on assumption and myth which was incorrect. No great surprise there, but we have moved on in knowledge since then and we should be able to put ancient iron age beliefs behind us. Hanging on to ignorance is the definition of ignorant.