Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[WinePusher]

I understand that on the day of the supposed Resurrection Christ showed himself five times.... to Mary Magdalene, to devout women, to Peter, to two disciples on the way to Emmaus and then to the apostles, without Thomas.

Usually, this would be sufficient to confirm some event. But there are several questions, since the conclusion you wish to take is one involving something impossible. The obvious first thing to do would be to examine the witnesses.

Which is an impossible task since the claimed event is said to have occurred 2000 years ago.

Did they have a vested interest in saying what they saw?

From reading the biblical accounts, prior to the crucifixion of Jesus the apostles fled and were in hiding due to the fear of persecution from the Romans. Peter himself denied Christ 3 times, so none of the circumstantial evidence indicates that the apostles, least of which Peter, had a vested interest in proclaiming that Christ had risen only 3 days after his death on the cross.

Next we can look for an explanation other than miracle? Can we find any?

Yes, there are several non-miraculous explanations that are improbable when analyzing the story from a purely historical perspective, but that are more probable when analyzing the story from a purely scientific perspective.

Then we have to go back and ask, if Christ DID appear, presumably in possession of the clothes he was stripped of, was his a dead body resurrected or a body that had never died?

Yes, in the literature this is called the 'swoon hypothesis.' Again, from a purely historical perspective this explanation pales in comparison to the resurrection but from a purely scientific perspective any natural explanation automatically trumps a supernatural explanation.

[Zzyzx]

.

We know the identity of the Gospel writers with as good, if not even better, external evidence as we have for other secular works not disputed.

Kindly cite the external evidence that identifies gospel writers.

[Inigo Montoya]

The baptism of Jesus has been established with a high degree of certainty, even though the authors of the synoptic Gospels haven't been established.

In what way has the baptism been established to a high degree of certainty?

You have admitted that you've read nothing on this subject right? How can you hope to have a substantive debate on a subject that you admit you haven't read anything about? You see, if you would actually take the time to read a textbook on New Testament studies you would realize that the Baptism of Jesus is an event that virtually all scholars say occurred, including John Dominic Crossan, a liberal scholar.

A one note song, WP. I don't need to have read extensively, or by your standards, to show you where your reasoning fails you; where you're soft on the propositions you'd like to be true; where your biases steer you to a foregone conclusion; where your reckless blending of myth and history go apparently unnoticed by you. Appeal to my lack of pedigree a third time in refusing a head to head on it if you like.

By applying the historical critical method, scholars of both liberal and conservative tendencies concluded that the Jesus was actually baptized by John the Baptist at the Jordan river.

You don't say! I'm sure some scholars have, and I certainly didn't imply it was done by using tarot cards. I asked how these men and this method conclude the baptism. Talk out loud if you like. Ok, I'll go. The historical method is a process , not a person. The process concludes nothing. People do. People of all kinds and all with beliefs and biases. I can find my own, see. Do you need links to users of the same methods that concluded Jesus never existed? Then what? Your preferred and biased authors to my preferred and biased authors? Your reverence for history is noted, though I fear you think it's an autonomous process that makes conclusions without bias, and often in your favor in this case.

The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is indisputable

This is exceedingly sloppy.

Wait, how would you know? You have admitted to having read nothing on this subject so you are in no position to criticize anything I say.

How would I know a bad argument when I hear one? Let me highlight a second one, by you, for example, here.

Wow, what a terribly weak argument. Evolution has been disputed, there are entire CREATIONIST movements and literature on the dispute. Because your opinion is that the creationist movement has no traction is of no relevance. Understand how inane your argument is yet?

Good thing I wasn't sloppy enough to say evolution was indisputable then , ya? Thank you for pointing out the foolishness in such a statement.

Yourself and Goose are quiet on the posts I've asked you to address. I suppose add this one to the commentary if you can get around to it.

The post where you just ask a bunch of questions? Like I said, I'm not here to answer your little meaningless questions. If you want to have a question and answer session there is another subforum for that. If you want to have a debate session, try re-writing your little questions in some type of coherent argument and I'll respond.

My little question would reveal more than you care to admit, I think. You maintain the historical method reveals a case so strong about this story that it becomes the most likely explanation. Yet non-Christians don't for a moment agree history is on your side establishing a resurrection. But it's a neutral method, and purely historical...apparently. So whats the difference? You're a Christian and presuppose your god's existence. The historical method you laud acts as a pillar for what you've decided needs to be true in this case. How does one tell? Well, If you were not Christian, and weren't granting god's majicks, the same data would be insufficient for you, as it is insufficient to the other 5 billion people on this rock. Find me the atheist or non-Christian that defends a resurrection on purely historical grounds as the most likely explanation for these stories.

On a personal note, I'd like to offer a sympathetic ear if needed. Your posts this past year have been so full of venom and condescension I have to wonder if you aren't in some way troubled. Notice I didn't ask a question, little or otherwise. The offer seems like the Christian thing to do.

[WinePusher]

A one note song, WP. I don't need to have read extensively, or by your standards, to show you where your reasoning fails you; where you're soft on the propositions you'd like to be true; where your biases steer you to a foregone conclusion; where your reckless blending of myth and history go apparently unnoticed by you. Appeal to my lack of pedigree a third time in refusing a head to head on it if you like.

You said you have read nothing on this subject. People who haven't read anything on a subject know nothing about it. If you don't know anything about this subject, why do you try to comment on it? Don't you think it'd be wise to read up on a subject first before you try to debate it?

By applying the historical critical method, scholars of both liberal and conservative tendencies concluded that the Jesus was actually baptized by John the Baptist at the Jordan river.

You don't say! I'm sure some scholars have, and I certainly didn't imply it was done by using tarot cards. I asked how these men and this method conclude the baptism.

So you don't know how the historical critical method works and you'd like me to explain it to you? Is that it? Like I said, if you are unfamiliar with how the historical critical method works then try reading up on it.

Talk out loud if you like. Ok, I'll go. The historical method is a process , not a person. The process concludes nothing. People do.

Scholars use the historical method to reach conclusions, just as physical scientists use the scientific method to reach conclusions. Your arguments are so illogical.

People of all kinds and all with beliefs and biases. I can find my own, see. Do you need links to users of the same methods that concluded Jesus never existed? Then what?

You sound exactly like a creationist saying, "Hey! I can find a few creationist scientists who believe the Earth is 6000 years old! They also conclude that evolution didn't happen! Do you need links to users of the same methods that concluded evolution never happened?!!" You see, there's this thing called academic consensus. Do you know what that is? It's when the majority of academics is a certain field agree on something, like how the majority of biologists agree on evolutionary theory and the majority of ancient historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

Good thing I wasn't sloppy enough to say evolution was indisputable then , ya? Thank you for pointing out the foolishness in such a statement.

But your little illogical argument has been demolished. Do you see how yet? Citing a few fringe scholars to try and dispute the existence of Jesus is the same as citing a few fringe scholars to try and dispute the validity of evolutionary theory. Your illogical argument is the same one creationists invoke. Please try posting better argument if at all possible.

My little question would reveal more than you care to admit, I think. You maintain the historical method reveals a case so strong about this story that it becomes the most likely explanation. Yet non-Christians don't for a moment agree history is on your side establishing a resurrection. But it's a neutral method, and purely historical...apparently. So whats the difference? You're a Christian and presuppose your god's existence. The historical method you laud acts as a pillar for what you've decided needs to be true in this case. How does one tell? Well, If you were not Christian, and weren't granting god's majicks, the same data would be insufficient for you, as it is insufficient to the other 5 billion people on this rock. Find me the atheist or non-Christian that defends a resurrection on purely historical grounds as the most likely explanation for these stories.

I actually addressed this point a while back. I'll look it up and repost it in this thread when I have the time.

On a personal note, I'd like to offer a sympathetic ear if needed. Your posts this past year have been so full of venom and condescension I have to wonder if you aren't in some way troubled.

Oh, I'm sorry that my posts get under your skin so much. If reading my posts causes you so much anger then don't read them? I certainly don't bother reading your posts unless you address one of them to me, in which case I do try to respond since your arguments are so easy to demolish.

[Inigo Montoya]

A one note song, WP. I don't need to have read extensively, or by your standards, to show you where your reasoning fails you; where you're soft on the propositions you'd like to be true; where your biases steer you to a foregone conclusion; where your reckless blending of myth and history go apparently unnoticed by you. Appeal to my lack of pedigree a third time in refusing a head to head on it if you like.

You said you have read nothing on this subject. People who haven't read anything on a subject know nothing about it. If you don't know anything about this subject, why do you try to comment on it? Don't you think it'd be wise to read up on a subject first before you try to debate it?

By applying the historical critical method, scholars of both liberal and conservative tendencies concluded that the Jesus was actually baptized by John the Baptist at the Jordan river.

You don't say! I'm sure some scholars have, and I certainly didn't imply it was done by using tarot cards. I asked how these men and this method conclude the baptism.

So you don't know how the historical critical method works and you'd like me to explain it to you? Is that it? Like I said, if you are unfamiliar with how the historical critical method works then try reading up on it.

Talk out loud if you like. Ok, I'll go. The historical method is a process , not a person. The process concludes nothing. People do.

Scholars use the historical method to reach conclusions, just as physical scientists use the scientific method to reach conclusions. Your arguments are so illogical.

People of all kinds and all with beliefs and biases. I can find my own, see. Do you need links to users of the same methods that concluded Jesus never existed? Then what?

You sound exactly like a creationist saying, "Hey! I can find a few creationist scientists who believe the Earth is 6000 years old! They also conclude that evolution didn't happen! Do you need links to users of the same methods that concluded evolution never happened?!!" You see, there's this thing called academic consensus. Do you know what that is? It's when the majority of academics is a certain field agree on something, like how the majority of biologists agree on evolutionary theory and the majority of ancient historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

Good thing I wasn't sloppy enough to say evolution was indisputable then , ya? Thank you for pointing out the foolishness in such a statement.

But your little illogical argument has been demolished. Do you see how yet? Citing a few fringe scholars to try and dispute the existence of Jesus is the same as citing a few fringe scholars to try and dispute the validity of evolutionary theory. Your illogical argument is the same one creationists invoke. Please try posting better argument if at all possible.

My little question would reveal more than you care to admit, I think. You maintain the historical method reveals a case so strong about this story that it becomes the most likely explanation. Yet non-Christians don't for a moment agree history is on your side establishing a resurrection. But it's a neutral method, and purely historical...apparently. So whats the difference? You're a Christian and presuppose your god's existence. The historical method you laud acts as a pillar for what you've decided needs to be true in this case. How does one tell? Well, If you were not Christian, and weren't granting god's majicks, the same data would be insufficient for you, as it is insufficient to the other 5 billion people on this rock. Find me the atheist or non-Christian that defends a resurrection on purely historical grounds as the most likely explanation for these stories.

I actually addressed this point a while back. I'll look it up and repost it in this thread when I have the time.

On a personal note, I'd like to offer a sympathetic ear if needed. Your posts this past year have been so full of venom and condescension I have to wonder if you aren't in some way troubled.

Oh, I'm sorry that my posts get under your skin so much. If reading my posts causes you so much anger then don't read them? I certainly don't bother reading your posts unless you address one of them to me, in which case I do try to respond since your arguments are so easy to demolish.

I don't think you understand what "indisputable" means, tiger. The rest is a tantrum that highlights that point.

As for the repost answering your presupposition, I'd enjoy reading it.

[WinePusher]

A one note song, WP. I don't need to have read extensively, or by your standards, to show you where your reasoning fails you; where you're soft on the propositions you'd like to be true; where your biases steer you to a foregone conclusion; where your reckless blending of myth and history go apparently unnoticed by you. Appeal to my lack of pedigree a third time in refusing a head to head on it if you like.

You said you have read nothing on this subject. People who haven't read anything on a subject know nothing about it. If you don't know anything about this subject, why do you try to comment on it? Don't you think it'd be wise to read up on a subject first before you try to debate it?

By applying the historical critical method, scholars of both liberal and conservative tendencies concluded that the Jesus was actually baptized by John the Baptist at the Jordan river.

You don't say! I'm sure some scholars have, and I certainly didn't imply it was done by using tarot cards. I asked how these men and this method conclude the baptism.

So you don't know how the historical critical method works and you'd like me to explain it to you? Is that it? Like I said, if you are unfamiliar with how the historical critical method works then try reading up on it.

Talk out loud if you like. Ok, I'll go. The historical method is a process , not a person. The process concludes nothing. People do.

Scholars use the historical method to reach conclusions, just as physical scientists use the scientific method to reach conclusions. Your arguments are so illogical.

People of all kinds and all with beliefs and biases. I can find my own, see. Do you need links to users of the same methods that concluded Jesus never existed? Then what?

You sound exactly like a creationist saying, "Hey! I can find a few creationist scientists who believe the Earth is 6000 years old! They also conclude that evolution didn't happen! Do you need links to users of the same methods that concluded evolution never happened?!!" You see, there's this thing called academic consensus. Do you know what that is? It's when the majority of academics is a certain field agree on something, like how the majority of biologists agree on evolutionary theory and the majority of ancient historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

Good thing I wasn't sloppy enough to say evolution was indisputable then , ya? Thank you for pointing out the foolishness in such a statement.

But your little illogical argument has been demolished. Do you see how yet? Citing a few fringe scholars to try and dispute the existence of Jesus is the same as citing a few fringe scholars to try and dispute the validity of evolutionary theory. Your illogical argument is the same one creationists invoke. Please try posting better argument if at all possible.

My little question would reveal more than you care to admit, I think. You maintain the historical method reveals a case so strong about this story that it becomes the most likely explanation. Yet non-Christians don't for a moment agree history is on your side establishing a resurrection. But it's a neutral method, and purely historical...apparently. So whats the difference? You're a Christian and presuppose your god's existence. The historical method you laud acts as a pillar for what you've decided needs to be true in this case. How does one tell? Well, If you were not Christian, and weren't granting god's majicks, the same data would be insufficient for you, as it is insufficient to the other 5 billion people on this rock. Find me the atheist or non-Christian that defends a resurrection on purely historical grounds as the most likely explanation for these stories.

I actually addressed this point a while back. I'll look it up and repost it in this thread when I have the time.

On a personal note, I'd like to offer a sympathetic ear if needed. Your posts this past year have been so full of venom and condescension I have to wonder if you aren't in some way troubled.

Oh, I'm sorry that my posts get under your skin so much. If reading my posts causes you so much anger then don't read them? I certainly don't bother reading your posts unless you address one of them to me, in which case I do try to respond since your arguments are so easy to demolish.

I don't think you understand what "indisputable" means, tiger.

So this is the problem then, you don't understand what indisputable means. Evolution is indisputable and the existence of Jesus is indisputable. You know why? Because the consensus among academics, those who actually read up on the subject, is that evolution occurred and that Jesus existed. Like I said, your weak attempts to argue that Jesus didn't exist by citing a few fringe scholars is the same thing creationists do. You keep dodging this point because you have no counter.

The rest is a tantrum that highlights that point.

In other words, you aren't capable of refuting any of my points because your arguments are illogical and aren't based on anything factual. Thus, you're reduced to just posting a one liner response. Why do you keep begging for a head to head debate when you can't even successfully debate/rebut my arguments here?

[Inigo Montoya]

So this is the problem then, you don't understand what indisputable means. Evolution is indisputable and the existence of Jesus is indisputable. You know why? Because the consensus among academics, those who actually read up on the subject, is that evolution occurred and that Jesus existed. Like I said, your weak attempts to argue that Jesus didn't exist by citing a few fringe scholars is the same thing creationists do. You keep dodging this point because you have no counter.

Has anyone ever disputed evolution? Or that Jesus existed?

What's that? They have ?

Then they are not indisputable.

What's next?

[WinePusher]

So this is the problem then, you don't understand what indisputable means. Evolution is indisputable and the existence of Jesus is indisputable. You know why? Because the consensus among academics, those who actually read up on the subject, is that evolution occurred and that Jesus existed. Like I said, your weak attempts to argue that Jesus didn't exist by citing a few fringe scholars is the same thing creationists do. You keep dodging this point because you have no counter.

Has anyone ever disputed evolution?

Yes, young earth creationists who have an erroneous understanding of science and who haven't read modern biology texts.

Or that Jesus existed?

Yes, SOME atheists who have an erroneous understanding of history and who haven't read modern New Testament texts. Atheists in real life and liberal scholars like Bart Ehrman do not question the existence of Jesus.

What's that? They have ?

Then they are not indisputable.

It's indisputable that the Earth is round. Wait, what's that? Some people dispute the fact that the Earth is round. Some people say the Earth is flat, really? Then the shape of the Earth is disputable because a few people who have an erroneous understanding of science say otherwise. Again, do you see how illogical your arguments are?

And please understand the difference between a noun and an adjective. The word indisputable is an adjective and can't be negated by appealing to a few opinions belonging to unqualified people.

What's next?

Try coming up with a rebuttal to my post instead of just a one liner. As of now your position isn't tenable and is based on very weak and illogical arguments. Try citing your sources, try using logical arguments based on historical information and we will have a productive debate.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I posted this earlier in this string (post #196). No one responded to it. Perhaps either Goose or WP would like to take a crack at it.

*****


TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM ACTS AND THE GOSPELS THEMSELVES, HERE IS A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE EMPTY TOMB WHICH PROVIDES A COMPLETELY NATURAL EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE MYTH OF THE RESURRECTED JESUS. NO FLYING REANIMATED CORPSES ARE REQUIRED.


John 19:
[31] The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
[32] Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
[33] But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

When was Jesus executed? ON THE DAY OF PREPARATION. In other words, on Friday, the day before the Sabbath which was also the time of the main Passover services.

Matthew 27:
[46] And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
[47] Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
[48] And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
[49] The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
[50] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

What time did Jesus die? Sometime in the NINTH HOUR, on the day of preparation. Nine hours after sunrise. Approximately 3:00 PM.

John 19:
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.(John 19:42)

And so who now has possession of the body of Jesus? HIS DISCIPLES! After receiving permission from Pilate to take possession of the body of Jesus the disciples took the body to Joseph's brand new tomb, because it was "nigh at hand," as a convenient out-of-sight place to prepare the body in accordance with the requirement that all bodies had to be out of sight on the holy day. And they prepared it well, according to John 19:39-40. Joseph's personal tomb was never intended to be the final resting place of Jesus. It was simply a convenient place to take the body to wash and prepare it.

Matt. 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[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.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

When did the priests go to Pilate and request a guard at the tomb? Sometime THE NEXT DAY. That would be on Saturday, the holy day. And what does Pilate say to them?

"YOU have a guard. Go ahead and make it as secure as you can." Pilate gave them permission to guard the tomb using their own men. Who "set the guard." The priests set the guard. They used their own men. "You have a guard," Pilate pointed out to them. They used members of their personal body guard who would have already been there, right at hand. No mention of Romans guards is given at all.

And so the priests went out to the closed tomb, sealed it with seals consisting of cords and wax or clay embossed with an official seal, and then set a guard of their own men. But they did not open it to inspect it for the body of Jesus, due to the nature of the day and the prohibition of their own laws. Their actions according to Matthew 27:66 tell us SPECIFICALLY that they were uncertain if the body was still inside. If the priests had known for a certainty that the body was still in the tomb, no seals would have been needed. Posting the guard would have been enough. Being unsure if the body was inside necessitated the placement of official seals, to insure that whatever the condition inside the tomb was, it would remain exactly in that condition until the priests could come back and inspect the tomb for the body. And the earliest that could be accomplished would be the next morning... SUNDAY MORNING. Placing seals on the tomb insured against the possibility of the guards taking a bribe and allowing the body to be taken, since the priests had no way of knowing if the body had even been inside in the first place. Since the priests DID set seals, then clearly they were unsure if the body was inside. And since the tomb proved to be empty the next morning, then OBVIOUSLY the tomb was empty when the priests took possession of it on Saturday, as they were afraid it might be. Concluding that the corpse came back to life and left on it's own is pretty FAR FROM OBVIOUS!

The tomb proved to be empty the next morning, which tells us specifically without need of speculation THAT THE PRIESTS AND GUARDS TOOK POSSESSION OF AN EMPTY TOMB. This is known as closing the barn door after the horse is already gone.

So who was ACTUALLY in possession of the body of Jesus? Well, WHO WERE THE LAST ONES WITH IT?

JOHN 19:
[38] And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

And the answer would be that HIS DISCIPLES got PERMISSION FROM THE ROMAN GOVERNOR to take possession of the body of Jesus and were therefore the last ones to be clearly in control of it. And the body was legally theirs to do with as they saw fit! We last read of the body of Jesus, in the tomb, being prepared by his followers. Heavily wrapped with ONE HUNDRED POUNDS of aromatic spices mixed into the wrappings. If they had been intending to take the body on a journey of many days, they could hardly have prepared it any better.

Matthew27:
[59] And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
[60] And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

Since the tomb proved later to be empty, if only fair to consider that the body of Jesus, now clean and heavily prepared, began it journey to it's final resting place at this point. And where would that be? As a manner of common practice of that age, Jews traditionally buried their dead with other deceased family members. So, where is the obvious place one would transport a corpse for burial? And that would be HOME. And where was Jesus from? That would be GALILEE!


And where DID the followers of Jesus journey following his execution?

Matthew 28:
[16] "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them."

They went to the dead man's home region, Galilee. A week's journey on foot of some 80-90 miles to the north east of Jerusalem. Presumably the mountain in question would be 1886 foot high Mt. Tabor, which dominates the southern plain of Galilee, and is traditionally believed by Christians to be the site of the Transfiguration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt_Tabor

Mountain caves were commonly used as burial sites. And we know that the apostles, at least, journeyed back to the dead man's home region right after his death. The dead man's mother also disappears from the story during this period. She is at the crucifixion, but NOT at the empty tomb on Sunday morning. Where do we next pick her up? WITH THE DISCIPLES SOME SIX WEEKS LATER, NEWLY RETURNED FROM GALILEE. (Acts 1:12-14).

So what conclusion can be reached from these facts? First and most important, that the tomb was discovered to be empty, not because the corpse came back to life and wandered away, but because the priests had secured AN EMPTY TOMB. And it was empty because the followers of Jesus had already moved the body. Moved it where? Where did the apostles go immediately after the crucifixion? GALILEE! The dead man's home. They took the body back to his home and his family to be laid in it's final resting place.

Keep in mind that on that Passover weekend Jerusalem was filled with pilgrims for the celebration of the holy day. One million, according to Josephus. That number is almost certainly a vast overestimate, but even a quarter of that number would have been a huge amount of people, moving around inside and outside of the city. With the body of Jesus loaded into an animal drawn cart, and how ELSE would it have been transported, once the group traveling with the body had mixed in with the throngs of people, they were essentially gone. When Joseph and Nicodemus, along with the remaining apostles and some few other of the followers of Jesus who might have been secretly involved, had finished prepping the body they simply packed up and left, loading the heavily wrapped body into what was probably the same cart they would have used to transport the body to the tomb from Calvary in the first place, and disappeared out into the throngs of pilgrims, closing the tomb behind them to keep out the unwanted. By Sunday they were just one group moving towards Galilee out of thousands of groups undertaking the return trip home after the celebration. No great trick or slight or hand involved, but no flying reanimated corpse either.

But what of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts of the risen Jesus? The fact is THEY DON'T EXIST!!! Far from hundreds of eyewitnesses attesting to the appearances of Jesus after his death that Christians proclaim exist we have in fact only five sources which provide any information concerning the "risen" Jesus: Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke (who also write Acts of the Apostles), and John, as well as information taken from Paul's letters. There is also mention in passing of the resurrection in 1 Peter, but no details are given. This is the basis for the claim that Jesus arose from the dead. Not taken from hundreds of eyewitness accounts at all, but from five individuals in accounts written decades after the event in question was supposed to have occurred, taken from five sources which either cannot be accurately identified (Matthew and John) or who very clearly were not personally present to witness what they claim occurred (Mark, Luke, and Paul). What do they claim occurred? A corpse came back to life and flew away. Is that a credible claim? In no way is that a credible claim.

Paul records in 1 Corinthians 15:6 that the resurrected Jesus was witnessed by "above 500" of his followers on one particular occasion. Paul was NOT HIMSELF present at this "event" however, and no accounts by the "above 500" themselves exist, or have ever been known to exist. Nor are there any other accounts which would serve to support Paul's claim of the "above 500." Paul did not convert to Christianity until some years after the execution of Jesus, never met Jesus personally, and was not a personal witness to any of the events detailed in the Gospels.

The problem here of course is that no one mentioned ANY OF THIS at the time it was supposed to have occurred. The most significant event in human history, at least according to Christians, went entirely unrecorded at the time it was supposed to have occurred. The very first mention of the resurrected Jesus ever does not occur until Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, written about a quarter of a century (55 AD) after the time frame established even later by the Gospels for the execution of Jesus, by a man, Paul, who was clearly not personally present TO WITNESS ANY OF IT!

Matt.27:64
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.

And this is EXACTLY what occurred. Joseph's tomb proved to be empty, and forty days later the disciples returned from Galilee and began spreading the rumor that Jesus had arisen from the dead. Who saw the "risen" Jesus? The disciples and only the disciples. And where was the risen man NOW? He bodily lifted off from the ground, flew up into the sky, and disappeared into the clouds. And who saw this amazing thing occur? The disciples and only the disciples. Undeniably true? HARDLY! In fact it was a ridiculous story then, largely dismissed by the very people in the best position to have known what actually occurred, the Jewish population of Jerusalem. And it's still a ridiculous story today.

[Inigo Montoya]

So this is the problem then, you don't understand what indisputable means. Evolution is indisputable and the existence of Jesus is indisputable. You know why? Because the consensus among academics, those who actually read up on the subject, is that evolution occurred and that Jesus existed. Like I said, your weak attempts to argue that Jesus didn't exist by citing a few fringe scholars is the same thing creationists do. You keep dodging this point because you have no counter.

Has anyone ever disputed evolution?

Yes, young earth creationists who have an erroneous understanding of science and who haven't read modern biology texts.

Or that Jesus existed?

Yes, SOME atheists who have an erroneous understanding of history and who haven't read modern New Testament texts. Atheists in real life and liberal scholars like Bart Ehrman do not question the existence of Jesus.

What's that? They have ?

Then they are not indisputable.

It's is indisputable that the Earth is round. Wait, what's that? Some people dispute the fact that the Earth is round. Some people say the Earth is flat, really? Then the shape of the Earth is disputable because a few people who have an erroneous understanding of science say otherwise. Again, do you see how illogical your arguments are?

And please understand the difference between a noun and an adjective. The word indisputable is an adjective and can't be negated by appealing to a few opinions belonging to unqualified people.

What's next?

Try coming up with a rebuttal to my post instead of just a one liner. As of now your position isn't tenable and is based on very weak and illogical arguments. Try citing your sources, try using logical arguments based on historical information and we will have a productive debate.

Yea.... I still don't think you get it, bud. Unable to be challenged. That's what the word means. Consensus on the existence of Jesus (which I think is likely by the way) is not synonymous with indisputable.

TotN has asked you to respond to him and you ought to. I'm bored and tired. Also having a baby in the morning so send your prayers.