Evidence for the Resurrection

[Goose]

In my opinion, when determining the truthfulness of Christianity virtually everything is secondary in importance to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the Rez). Paul made this clear when he said in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "if Christ has not been raised, then our message means nothing and your faith means nothing." I believe the truthfulness of Christianity hangs primarily on the Rez.

I also believe there is a solid case for the Rez that meets a reasonable burden of proof for matters of history. Equal, at least, to that which we accept for other pivotal events in ancient history accepted as true and rarely questioned.

As indicated by the spectrum of the below quoted scholars and historians, I propose we can be reasonably certain some historical "facts" are probably true regardless of our philosophical predispositions. We can then look at theories that account for those facts.

The Methodology:

A "fact" shouldn't necessarily need to pass all of the listed criteria to be considered probable. Failing any one particular criterion does not necessarily make the fact false. Indeed very few, if any at all, ancient historical "facts" we rarely question would adequately pass all the requests of such a rigorous criteria as set out below. However, a fact that fails to pass a single criterion we would be justified in believing it to be improbable. Passing one or two should be sufficient to have the "fact" be at least considered probable. If a fact passes three I think we can be confident that it is very probable and so on. This methodology is not fool-proof of course as it is open to our biases and ultimately subjective to a degree. However, this seems to be the only way (I know of) to establish a reasonably objective treatment of evidence - i.e. pass the evidence through a standard set of criteria using a consistent methodology that can be applied to ALL ancient events. So, using criteria such as (but not limited to)...

• 1. Eyewitness attestation
  2. Early attestation (the earlier the better - written during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses is preferred)
  3. Multiple independent attestation (independent does not mean non-Christian, but rather independent from other sources)
  4. Enemy or neutral source attestation
  5. The Principle of Embarrassment (If it's embarrassing or harmful to the case it is very likely that it is authentic or actually happened. It's very unlikely to have been propaganda simply “made up”)

Marcus J. Borg, a liberal theologian and "fellow" of the Jesus Seminar wrote, "The logic is straightforward: if a tradition appears in an early source and in another independent source, then not only is it early, but it is also unlikely to have been made up." Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus (1999), p. 12.

Historian Paul Maier notes, "Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable." Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks a Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (1991), p. 197.


As a side note, I’m confident we can reconcile alleged contradictions in the NT, demonstrate traditional authorship of the Gospels/Acts (i.g. The disciple Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and so on. Just as we would for any other ancient document, see here ), and demonstrate the synoptics were written before 70AD. However, we'll forgo debate over the preceding to avoid rabbit trails and make it more of a challenge for the Rez theory. So, for the sake of argument in this thread we will assume:

• 1. The Bible is errant and not inspired by God. We'll consider it merely a collection of ancient writings.
  2. The Gospels/Acts are technically anonymous and may or may not be eyewitness accounts.
  3. The Gospels and other Christian/non-Christian accounts contain minor errors and contradictions in secondary details.
  4. The Gospels/Acts were written after 70AD, but no later than 100AD.
  5. Mark was the first Gospel written. The authors of Luke and Matthew used some of Mark as a source for their Gospels.

We could submit many, but to start, here are 5 "facts" that should pass enough of the listed criteria to be considered probable:

FACT 1. Jesus’ crucifixion and death

• a) Early (and enemy) attestation from the Apostle Paul - (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, 2:15; 1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:2 and early creedal passages in 1 Corinthians 15:3 - ca. 50-60AD)
  b) Multiple attestation in all four Gospels and the Book of Acts (ca. 70-100AD)
  c) Enemy/neutral attestation from Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18:64 - 96AD)
  d) Enemy/neutral attestation from Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15:44 - ca. 115AD)
  e) Enemy/neutral attestation from Greek satirical writer Lucian (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13 - ca. 150AD)
  f) Enemy/neutral attestation from Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a - ca. 200AD)
  g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the humiliating suffering and death of a supposed Messiah and the Son of God (as well as Principle of Dissimilarity from Jewish anticipation of a military type leader in the Messiah).

Atheist NT scholar Gerd Lüdemann acknowledged, "Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable." Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Christ, pg 50.

The critical NT scholar and Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan wrote, "Jesus’ death by execution under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For, if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus...We have, in other words, not just Christian witnesses but one major Jewish and one major pagan historian who both agree on three points concerning Jesus: there was a movement, there was an execution because of that movement, but, despite that execution, there was a continuation of the movement." John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, pg. 5

Crossan also said, "Despite the differences between the studied impartiality of Josephus and the sneering partiality of Tacitus, they agree on three rather basic facts. First, there was some sort of a movement connected with Jesus. Second, he was executed by official authority presumably to stop the movement. Third, rather than being stopped, the movement continued to spread. There remain, therefore, these three: movement, execution, continuation. But the greatest of these is continuation." John Dominic Crossan, The Essential Jesus, p. 7.

John P. Meier wrote, "For two obvious reasons practically no one would deny the fact that Jesus was executed by crucifixion: (1) This central event is reported or alluded to not only by the vast majority of NT authors, but also by Josephus and Tacitus...(2) Such an embarrassing event created a major obstacle to converting Jews and Gentiles alike...that the Church struggled to overcome..." (John P. Meier, "The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist during Jesus' Public Ministry?", Journal of Biblical Literature 116 [1997] p. 664–665).


FACT 2. The tomb was discovered empty.

• a) Early attestation from Paul - he implies an empty tomb (1 Cor. 15:3-4)
  b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (the very early Pre-Markan Passion source probably contained the empty tomb)
  c) The disciples were accused of stealing Jesus’ body by unbelieving Jews - indirect enemy confirmation that the tomb was empty (Matthew 28, Christian apologist Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 108 - ca. 150AD; Christian apologist Tertullian De Spectaculis 30 - ca. 200AD)
  d) The principle of embarrassment applies to the empty tomb reported as having been discovered by women
  e) We have no record of Jesus’ corpse being produced only accusations that the disciples stole the body.
  f) Setting the stage for the empty tomb was the honourable burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimethea (another fact we could admit as number 6 - but won't as it isn't really necessary to do so). It is attested by all four Gospels. As well Paul mentions the burial of Jesus(1 Cor 15). It also is strengthened by the Principle of Embarrassment where a Jewish member of the council, rather than a disciple or family member, that condemned Jesus was reported as honourably burring Jesus. This would have been offensive to the disciples and as such is unlikely to be a fabrication.

Liberal theologian John A. T. Robinson commented on the burial of Jesus, "[it is] one of the earliest and best–attested facts about Jesus." John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (1973), p. 131.

William Wand, a past Oxford University church historian wrote, "All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favour [of the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other grounds than that of scientific history." William Wand, Christianity: A Historical Religion? (1972), p. 93-94

NT critic D. H. Van Daalen wrote, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." D.H. Van Daalen, The Real Resurrection(1972), p. 41.


FACT 3. The apostles sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and then appeared to them. So sincerely that some were willing to endure persecution and possibly even death because of this belief:

Claims of appearances to the disciples:

• a) Early (and enemy) attestation from Paul (1 Cor. 15:4-8)
  b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (even without the later addition of 16:9-20, early attestation in Mark's Gospel predicts the Rez and appearances in 8:31, 9:31, 10:34 and suggests there will be appearances made by Jesus 14:28, 16:6-7)
  c) Multiple attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 1-5, 10, 13, 17)
  d) Possible neutral/enemy attestation from Tacitus (he may be inadvertently providing evidence that the apostles at least believed Jesus appeared to them in Annals 15:44 when he says, "...[Christianity] thus checked for the moment [by the crucifixion of Jesus], again broke out not only in Judea...")
  e) Possible neutral/enemy attestation from Josephus (he may be reporting that the disciples at least believed Jesus appeared to them in Antiquities 18)
  f) The Principle of Dissimilarity applies to the notion of a man/Messiah resurrecting from the dead before the end of time was contrary to Jewish belief and therefore reduces the odds it was "made up."
  g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the evidence that some disciples at the first instance did not believe but had doubts that Jesus was alive (Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:36-38, John 20:24-25).

Persecution and death of some disciples:

• a) Early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 12 - death of James brother of John)
  b) Early attestation from Clement of Rome (1 Clement 5 - ca. 95AD)
  c) Attestation from Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3:2-3 - ca. 110AD)
  d) Attestation from Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9 - ca. 110AD)
  e) Attestation from Dionysius of Corinth (ca. 170AD - quoted by Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2:25:8)
  f) Attestation from Tertullian (Scorpiace 15 - ca. 200AD)
  g) Attestation from Origen (Contra Celsum 2:56,77 - ca. 230-250AD)

Atheist NT scholar Gerd Ludemann said, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus? A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, (1995) p. 80. (It should be noted Ludemann believes these were visions)

Paula Fredriksen, a sceptical historian and scholar of religious studies, said in an interview with Peter Jennings (ABC) entitled The Search for Jesus in July 2000, "I know in [the disciples] own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that's what they saw. I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something."



FACT 4. Paul, an enemy and persecutor of the church (Acts 8:3, 1 Cor. 15:9, Gal. 1:13) was transformed and became a prolific apostle because of his belief that a risen Jesus appeared to him. He was persecuted and reported as martyred.

Appearances of Jesus to Paul and his conversion:

• a) Early, multiple and eyewitness attestation from Paul himself (1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1, Phil. 3)
  b) Multiple and early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 9, 22, 26)

Paul’s suffering/martyrdom:

• a) Early, multiple and eyewitness attestation from Paul for his suffering (2 Cor. 11, Phil. 1)
  b) Multiple and early attestation from Book of Acts (ch. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23)
  c) Early attestation from Clement of Rome (1 Clement 5)
  d) Attestation from Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9:2)
  e) Attestation from Tertullian (Scorpiace 15 and also quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2:25:8)
  f) Attestation from Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170AD - quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:25:8)
  g) Attestation from Origen (Commentary on Genesis as quoted by Eusebius in EH 3:1)

FACT 5. James, brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and sceptic of His claims before the appearance of Jesus to him, was transformed and became a leader in the Church in Jerusalem. He was reported as martyred.

• a) Principle of Embarrassment applies as Jesus' own family and brother James were described as sceptical prior to appearances (multiply attested - Matthew 13:57, Mark 3:21, 6:3-4, John 7:4-5)
  b) Jesus appeared alive to James after His death (early and enemy attestation from Paul - 1 Cor. 15:7)
  c) James is later described as an apostle by Paul(Gal 1:19) and leader in the early church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9,12 and Acts 15)
  d) Suffered and martyred - Enemy/neutral attestation from Josephus (ca. 96AD - Antiquities 20), further multiple attestation from Hegesippus (ca. 160AD - as quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2:23), and Clement of Alexandria (ca. 180-200AD as quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:1).

Note that none of these 5 facts are supernatural or hard to believe on their own. They are all well attested with early and multiple sources. By any reasonable historical methodology these should be considered solid facts. Keep in mind on their own each fact presented does not build a strong case for the Rez. However, it is as a collective unit we must consider the evidence. We are looking for the best explanation that accounts for ALL the evidence. I posit the theory that God resurrected Jesus from the dead best accounts for ALL the evidence and combines explanatory power and scope given the context of Jesus' life and the claims made of Him and by Him.

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?


Additional considerations and requests:
1. Persons who side with the weight of evidence, what the evidence suggests, and cogent arguments supported by good evidence could be described as taking a rational position. We would be justified in deeming "irrational" a position that denies evidence with out good reason and opposes strong arguments to side with weak unsupported arguments. On this, we can all agree.

2. As history deals more with degrees of probability rather than absolute certainty I would suggest the following. A single theory that has explanatory scope and power, given the context of surrounding events, and accounts for ALL the evidence should be considered more probable over a compilation of several theories stacked upon one another in an ad hoc manner. Especially if those ad hoc theories are speculation rich and evidence poor.

3. Please supply the methodology/criteria for questioning any one of these 5 facts (or any other evidence one wishes to refute or admit for consideration). We can then apply this methodology to other ancient historical facts. This will help us determine if the objection has credibility or is merely stemming from a bias against either the supernatural or Christianity. Simply making the objection, for example, that we cannot trust anything written by a Christian because they were biased is very problematic. Applying that overly simplistic criterion to the rest of ancient history would call almost all of it into question (even most of modern history).

I'll look forward to reading the responses.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Duke, that's the way of ancient history.

There's a lot to reply to, but really... there isn't. It all comes down to what you quoted above and a very simple understanding:

Things that are impossible at face value aren't historical claims. They're either fictions or embelishments. Period.

If we had an account of Alexander The Great destroying an opposing army with eye lasers, we don't treat that as an historical claim. We treat it as an embelishment and the only reason we do so is because we have other sources for the existence of Alexander.

Where are your sources for the existence of Jesus? History is utterly silent at the time of his alleged life and we only hear about him later when a group of Jews is attempted to invent a new religion to "re-judify" Judea.

Goose, you're a dutiful worshipper of the late first century's equivalent of Mormonism or Scientology.

Ultimately...

1) Historical claims of impossible things are useless to us; they're false at face value.

2) If there is evidence the claims are embelishments of true claims then we can treat the claim as a myth; something untrue based on a truth. Without such evidence, the claim is a fiction; something invented by individuals for a specific purpose.

We know the Christ myth was invented to start a new religion and we know the early first century was devoid of any mention of a person who should have (had he existed) filled volumes.

The only tenable conclusion is that Jesus did not exist and was instead invented from a conglomerate of

• Jewish prophecy
• Pagan mythology
• A plethora of rabble rousing rabbi's and upstarts

• It is intuitively satisfying to think that someone was behind the towering legend. We do, after all, have Christianity, and it is hard to give credence to the idea that someone "just made-up" Jesus Christ and then managed to convince anyone else to believe that he had lived and died. In fact, one can reach the conclusion that "there must have been a Jesus" without any research at all, which of course is what most people do.
  ...
  No one "just made-up" Jesus. If we step around the centuries of fabrication and glorification which informs everyone's perception of Jesus Christ and closely examine the two hundred year gestation period of the current Lord and Saviour we can see a perfectly plausible and, indeed, convincing process by which, upon the legacy of earlier times and from piety and scripture alone, the Christian godman emerged into the light. Beliefs created the man; the man did not create the beliefs.

More info here: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/godman.html

[Goose]

Hey guys, I've been crazy busy for that last few days and haven't had a chance to respond. But as I've read through some recent posts there doesn't seem to be anything really all that different than what has already been addressed earlier in the thread. We seem to be covering old ground, but I'll respond for fun anyway.

[Goose]

I don't know, Duke. I got the impression your criteria was created with the sole purpose of proving Christianity false. But you've shown the criteria to also call into question a historical event that is considered rock solid in the process. Maybe the methodology is flawed. I've also notice that much of your criteria hangs on eyewitness testimony. The problem with that is much of ancient history is reported second hand. So you've obliterated a good portion if not most of ancient history with that. Alexander the Great wouldn't even get a foot in the door with that criteria.

Must be the reason not many people devote their entire lives to something totally dependent on Alexander the Great's, or Caesar's, alleged achievements, or other questionable historical accounts.

I'll bet 50 tokens Beto believes Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

Exactly! It is more than a bit sad that a person (Goose) goes to great lengths to argue that a perfect, all powerful, and all knowing being left evidence for His divinity that at BEST lines up with other ancient stories.

Truthseeker1 has intoduced the very same strawman argument he did in our debate here

Rather than repeat myself I'll quote that thread:

At the end of the day though, the most damaging point against your argument is this: You believe the Gospels are divinely inspired by a perfect, all powerful, and all knowing God. Yet, your main argument is that we shouldn't expect the Gospels to display any more credibility in regards to authorship than other works of antiquity written by mere humans. I find it odd that on one hand you would put forth that the Gospels are divinely inspired by a perfect being, and then turn around and belittle and rail against a person who (at the very most) asks for some evidence for the authorship of the Gospels that goes beyond the words of Church leaders decades and centuries after the fact. It seems strange that a perfect being wouldn't anticipate the future examination of his divinely inspired works and make an effort to have the Gospels rise above the little evidence for authorship that yourself and other Christian apologists are able to provide. Even more curious is why you would have such low expectations of evidence from a perfect and all knowing God which would then lead you to argue that the credibility of Gospel authorship should only be compared with mere human works from antiquity, and to expect anything more from divinely inspired works in somehow unreasonable.

You are now trying to move from a historical argument to a philosophical or theological one. Whether or not I believe the Bible to be the inerrant and inspired word of God is irrelevant to historical enquiry. You've built another strawman. At NO point in this debate have I asserted the bible to be inspired, nor am I assuming it while interacting with you. I'm looking at the Bible like any work from history written by men. You are invoking this tactic because the historical evidence in favour of traditional authorship when placed on a level playing field is clearly against you. The main mistake you're making is that you believe the Bible need to be inerrant and inspired and therefore be perfect in order for Christianity to be true or for one to becaome a Christian. This is a fallacy. One does NOT need accept inerrancy/inspiration to base one's faith soundly in Christianity. Nor does the Bible nedd be inerrant for CHristianity to be true. Your fan Rayson is an example this. Clearly he is a liberal, but still a Christian. And most likely a good one.

A reminder from the OP

So, for the sake of argument in this thread we will assume:
1. The Bible is errant and not inspired by God. We'll consider it merely a collection of ancient writings.2. The Gospels/Acts are technically anonymous and may or may not be eyewitness accounts.
3. The Gospels and other Christian/non-Christian accounts contain minor errors and contradictions in secondary details.
4. The Gospels/Acts were written after 70AD, but no later than 100AD.
5. Mark was the first Gospel written. The authors of Luke and Matthew used some of Mark as a source for their Gospels.

That should make you very happy TruthSeeker1.

You see folks, people like TruthSeeker1 don't like to look at the Bible using any standard historical methodology. They like to apply "special" rules and evaluate the bible in vacuum because if they use a standard historical criteria they know that the evidence for Christianity is as strong as anything else from the ancient world, probably even better. So, am I lowering the bar, or are you arbitrarily raising it for Christianity?

BTW, why don't you take a crack at the OP. Your buddy Beto doesn't seem to be interested. Maybe you can show him how it's done.

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?

[Goose]

Steven thinks the word "garbage" is in the bible. I'd like to see where Paul calls his former Pharisaiacla beliefs "garbage" in Galatians.

Goose thinks Paul kept to his former Pharisee beliefs, such as the importance of circumcision, keeping days, eating kosher food etc etc.

Steven doesn't know the difference between the uniquely held Pharisee doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and the Mosaic Law.

Shows you how much Goose has read of Paul, if he thinks Paul did not abandon Pharisee beliefs.

Steven needs to read more than just verses in the Pauline letters where he thinks Paul is scoffing at people that believe in the resurrection of the dead. He should start with Acts 23:6-8.

I mistyped.

I meant Philippians 3:7, where he trashes his former beliefs as a Pharisee.

Steven doesn't tell us that Paul only "trashes" the LAW, because Paul realizes it can not save us, only faith in Christ can. Paul doesn't trash his Pharisee beliefs in the resurrection of the dead.

Steven must think that when Paul later in Philippians 3:10-11 says he wants to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and one day hopes to experience the resurrection from the dead he didn't really mean that but meant something else because according to Steven, Paul had called the belief in the resurrection of the dead "garbage" a few verses previous.

Steven must also think that when Paul later in this chapter says Jesus will transform our earthly body when we die into a body like His glorious body, that Paul didn't really mean to say body but rather meant to say spirit.

Steven must also think that when Paul says he believes there will be a resurrection of the dead in Acts 24:15 he didn't mean to say that either but meant to say something else because according to Steven, Paul thinks that the resurrection of the dead is "garbage".

So where is your evidence that Jesus rose from the grave?

Steven has already forgotten about the OP. Steven thinks the only evidence we have is Paul.

Goose tells us not to look at what the early Christians believed, ignore the fact that neither James nor Peter wrote one word about a corpse rising from the grave, and look at anonymous works written decades later....

Steven has his argument from silence bass ackwards. James and Peter are confirming the bodily resurrection of Christ because they don't expressly deny it. Steven should also read the first 5 verses of chapter 1 of 1 Peter and Acts chapter 2 and 3 again.

But let us account for ALL the data.

Why did people convert to Jesus-worship in Corinth and still scoff at the idea that God would choose to raise a corpse?

Why was the church in Thessalonia worried about their fellow Christians who had become corpses?

Steven thinks that if converts doubted or were confused about the nature of the resurrected body then the Rez is false.

Can you imagine Goose writing the same thing if early converts to Mormonism had scoffed at the idea of Joseph Smith translating Golden Plates?

What if they did? Converts are NEVER in a position to know the truth. Steven doesn't seem to get this.

Why had these people converted to Jesus-worship?

As Goose read Acts 17, which claims that people converted to Jesus-worship because they were told about corpses rising.

Steven thinks that when Acts 17 says that a great multitude joined them because of Paul's preaching that Christ had to die and rise again from the dead, that this doesn't really mean Christ rose from the dead, it means something else.

Just looking at letters written by Christians to other Christians (indeed Christians that Paul calls 'enriched in every way', 'not lacking in any spiritual gift'), shows that early converts accepted that Jesus was still alive, but scoffed at the idea that God would choose to raise a corpse.

Steven can't get away from the argument that converts where some how in a position to know the truth. I guess by this logic any convert that died for Christ proves that Christianity is true, eh Steven?

Paul reassures these people not to worry about the earthly body being destroyed.

They will get a heavenly body.

No, their earthly body will be transformed into a heavenly compatible body.

2 Corinthians 5
Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.

Notice the 'tent' analogy.

We currently live in one building. At the resurrection , we will move into a different building, an eternal one.


Resurrection is a moving from one building to another , in Paul's analogy.

No it's not. Paul says, if the earthly tent we live in is torn down or destroyed, we have a building in heaven that comes from God, an eternal house not built by human hands. Paul yearns to PUT ON this heavenly dwelling. He says "put on" (or become clothed in it) NOT "move into". It involves a change, or more precisely an addition, an enhancement. Paul then says if we do put it on, we will NOT be found without a body. Just like 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 Paul says we must PUT ON incoruption and PUT ON immortality.

That is why Paul never mentions any corpse rising from the grave. and never gives any eyewitness details of what resurrected body is like

Steven still thinks that when someone says resurrection from the dead this means something other than a person was resurrected from the dead.

--------------------------------------

GOOSE
I always thought seeds changed into plants - an enhanced and glorified form of the seed and are physical in nature. I must be wrong.

CARR
You are. Plants germinate from seeds. Something emerges from the case of the seed, which is discarded.

Steven thinks the thing that emerges is a spirit. But it's not. It's a plant. It has the same genetic material as the seed. It's only in a different and glorified form. Steven will use semantics and fancy wording to avoid this, but deep down he knows Paul meant a physical resurrection. If Paul meant a spiritual Rez then Paul meant that seeds produce plants that are spirits and no one thinks that, that's just silly.

Paul uses the words 'naked seed'. The seed has no material.

How can a seed have no material? You just said the seed discards a case. If it's naked why does it have a case to discard in the first place?

Paul goes on to say that God gives it a body.

Paul says you don't put in the ground the plant. Nobody does that. You put in the ground the seed. Paul thought that God decides a head which seed brings forth which plants, not that God gives the seed another body in the ground.

When the body of Jesus was buried in the ground, did God give it a body? I thought Jesus already had a body.

Exactly! So God changed the body into a glorious body. Like a seed changes into a glorious plant. That's why verse 51 says we will be changed. It's a change, not exchange.

Paul says that the seed dies.

Paul says the plant that comes out alive doesn't come out unless you put the seed in the ground first so it can die. Paul thought the seed had to die first.

That is why the Corinthians were idiots to wonder how a corpse could rise. Paul tells them that the corpse is dead, and God will give them a body.

No, Paul says God will transform the earthly body. They weren't idiots, some were confused about the nature of the resurrected body. Paul uses physical analogies to demonstrate different kinds of glory, he's not speaking of heaven but the heavens. Just like the resurrected body will change from coruption to incoruption, from dishonour to glory, from weakness to power, a natural oriented body to a spiritually oriented body. Our earthly body goes into the ground perishable and decaying and comes up imperishable and immortal.

A spiritual body, not made of flesh and bones like Adam's body, but one made of heavenly material.

Rather a supernatural body transformed from the same flesh but non-the-less physical.

And it doesn't say "flesh and bones", it says "flesh and blood". There's a big difference. "Flesh and blood" is a Semitic term for human frailty. Human frailty and corruption can't get into heaven. That's why our body needs to be changed into incorruptible, glorified, powerful, spiritually oriented, immortal, bodies.


------------------------------------

It is also interesting that all the earliest Christian creeds, as found in Paul's letters, make no mention of a resurrected Jesus walking the earth.

Steven thinks the very early creedal passage in 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't say that Jesus died and rose from the dead and was seen by individuals and groups, even though that's what it says.

--------------------------

The peculiar thing about Goose's arguments is the way he contradicts his Lord and Saviour.

Goose thinks the people opposed to Christianity would convert if they saw a resurrected Jesus.

Steven thinks it matters what the people opposed to Christianity thought. I think it matters what the people that were possible witnesses and closest to the events thought.

Luke 16:30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

Luke 16:31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'

IOW, if people wouldn't even listen to the prophets they probably wouldn't be convinced by the dead returning to life either. A modern analogy - if someone isn't even open to the possibility of the supernatural, there's no point in presenting the evidence for the Rez to them.

Jesus taught of himself:
Mark 8:31

Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man would have to suffer a great deal and be rejected by the elders, the high priests, and the scribes. Then he would be killed, but after three days he would rise again.

Jesus said of himself:
Mark 9:31

for he was teaching his disciples and saying to them, "The Son of Man will be betrayed into human hands. They will kill him, but after being dead for three days he will be raised."

Jesus predicted his own death and resurection.

Guess the Bible is debunked one more time.

Steven thinks if he can debunk parts of the bible he has debunked the Rez hypothesis.

You need a lot more than what you've offered so far in this thread I'm afraid.

[Goose]

At the end of day, ancient claims (and some modern) are unsupported to a degree.

1) The claim of the rez requires considerable evidence considering A) it happened in the equivalent of that era's blogger community and B) requires us to believe things we know to be impossible.

We're going around in circles. You keep shooting yourself in the foot when you make these remarks "requires us to believe things we know to be impossible." How do you know BEFORE we've seen the evidence?

2) I'm sorry to say, but your opening paragraph smacks of cop-out. We have considerable evidence of Ceasar including but not limited to coins bearing his image, busts made by sculpters during Ceasar's lifetime, written accounts, indirect accounts and other artifacts.

Those claims about Caesar, where is the support? At some point it regresses back to someone that may not have support. Yes these things are true about Caesar. However, a bust or coin helps show that someone existed. It doesn't prove what they DID. It's disingenuous to say we have busts and coins of Caesar but we don't for Jesus. Should we expect there to be such things for Jesus? No. The Jews didn't make busts. The Jews under Roman rule did not have the authority to commission coins. And I highly doubt the emperor would have placed a portrait of a Jew who was crucified like a common criminal on one of his coins, even if a few Jews did think Jesus was a king. The written accounts you refer to for Caesar are Roman and therefore biased. If you can admit those as evidence I see no reason why Christians can't admit Christian writings. The first written biography for Caesar comes, as I've said, 120-170 years after Caesar. So if you'll accept those why not the NT?

Stating "ancient claims are unsupported" is an attempt on your part to lower the bar.

Am I lowering the bar or are you raising the bar arbitrarily for Christianity and supernatural claims?

The supernatural by definition just like history cannot be subjected to the scientific process.

This is a gross and all too common misunderstanding that I will allow Richard Dawkins to explain.

[Theists] are apt to quote the late Stephen Jay Gould's 'NOMA' — 'non-overlapping magisteria'. Gould claimed that science and true religion never come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of discourse:


To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.

This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis — by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared...

Poor Richard. Do you see what is happening here? Richard realizes that his precious pseudo-religion of science is limited and therefore handicapped by it's own making. So to solve this dilemma he tries to fool his readers into thinking that God should just show up and end the debate. You see, poor Richard must move from his beloved scientific realm into the murky world of the philosophical to present an argument. Notice, Richard asserts having a creator deity is a scientific hypothesis. He does NOT provide any reason what-so-ever for us to think this other than "imagining." He then switches from a scientific question to a philosophical question. He is trying to fool us into thinking this is a scientific issue by presenting a philosophical argument. The argument essentially runs - "God should just show up and let us sceptical science folk run some repeatable laboratory tests, so we can be convinced by our own standards of enquiry and believe and not have to go to hell and burn for eternity." Poor Richard, he just doesn't get it. Even the example of prayer in the quote can be boiled down to a theological or philosophical position - don't put God to the test. God's never going to let you put Him in a test tube. Also, this has little to with the Rez. Remember, the Rez hypothesis is that God acted in space and time to raise Jesus, not that He acts in space and time to raise people all the time in a repeatable way.

To see the disingenuous hypocrisy of religious people who embrace NOMA, imagine that forensic archeologists, by some unlikely set of circumstances, discovered DNA evidence demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin mother and had no father. If NOMA enthusiasts were sincere, they should dismiss the archeologists' DNA out of hand: "Irrelevant. Scientific evidence has no bearing on theological questions. Wrong magisterium." Does anyone seriously imagine that they would say anything remotely like that? You can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the skies.

Richard is now whining in the above paragraph. That argument cuts both ways. If there was scientific, historical, theological, philosophical, or what ever proof that Jesus didn't rise it would be trumpeted as well. Ironically, Dawkins tries to use philosophical arguments in his the God Delusion to disprove God's existence.

Either Jesus had a father or he didn't. The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be used to settle it. The same is true of any miracle... "

Sure, but that's not what we are looking at. We're looking at a possible supernatural claim, not the biological lineage of Jesus. Dawkins' quote has little to with the Rez hypothesis.

So, when you state the supernatural cannot be subjected to scientific inquirty you're (at best wrong) or (at worst) being dishonest...

You've made a fallacious jump and another non-sequtuir. You use the example of establishing a persons lineage using science, which you're right, I think science can play a role in that. You, or I should say Dawkins, then jumps from using science to establish lineage to establishing whether or not God raised Jesus from the dead 2000 years ago.

(BTW, the tell-tale sign your opponent in a debate has nothing of substance left to argue is when they just resort to calling you dishonest)

...The truth is the supernatural claims in the rez are scientific claims which lack support. Understand that any question that has a definite answer that's true for everyone everywhere is a scientific question. Be careful not to confuse a limit of technology with a limit of science.

Truth is a universal question for everyone everywhere that has a definite answer, it either exists or it does not. Now use the scientific method to prove that truth exists.

You went on to accuse me of using the Genetic Fallacy. It's quite clear from the examples you provided** this is not the case. The context of the statement I made is summarized thusly: You're attempting to ignore the supernatural claims made by the individuals you're quoting. This has nothing to do with an irrelevant origin. Instead, it has to do with arguing honestly...

That's meaningless. I could reverse that and say the opposite about you. You're attempting to ignore the supernatural claims made by the individuals that have been quoted.

...The Christian tactic appears to be:

Ignore all supernatural claims from the gospels. "Nevermind all that stuff about walking on water and coming back from the dead."

Attempt to prove the claims made in the gospel are historically accurate. "The people who claimed the stuff you're neverminding, they saw somethin'."

Subtely re-introduce the supernatural claims. "Remember all that stuff you're supposed to nevermind?..."

It's more like, let's use a standard historical methodology. Let's look at facts that are not supernatural (so our sceptical friends can't say we are using supernatural claims as evidence for supernatural claims) and are well attested and meet a reasonable burden of proof. Then let's look for the best explanation for those facts. If it's a natural one, fine. If it's a supernatural one, that's fine too. You want to dismiss the testimony because it comes from people that believe a supernatural event took place as though we can't trust them. That's the genetic fallacy. You haven't given any reason at all for us not to trust the testimony of those quoted.

EDIT:

Well, it appears a massive chunk of my post was eaten by the interweb. *grumbles* At least it didn't get it all.

The bottom line here is the criteria from your op allow any eyewitness account to be considered "probable" no matter how improbable or outright impossible it may be. UFO's? Bigfoot? Loch Ness Monster? There are accounts of all of these things from alleged eyewitnesses. According to your criteria, we should believe these things exist right? After all, no piece of evidence has to meet all the criteria and so long as it meets one, we're good.

We can determine if those things are true by looking at a case by case basis. That would be rational wouldn't it? Then we can look for the best explanation of those facts. Duke, the criteria I used is standard historical methodology used by historians. I didn't invent it. If you have a problem with the criteria, you should take it up with your history professor, not me.

It's quite obvious you've created a special set of rules for Christian evidence which you're unwilling to apply to anything except Christianity.

Say what? I've offered to apply this methodology to other events many times. You see Duke, I'm not afraid of other instances of the supernatural being shown true by the methodology in the OP. In fact, I'd be pumped if other supernatural claims were verified. That would simply be further evidence the supernatural exists. Supernatural events can take place out side of God's direct influence, even though God is sovereign, yet still be compatible with Christian belief.

[stevencarrwork]

Steven must think that when Paul later in Philippians 3:10-11 says he wants to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and one day hopes to experience the resurrection from the dead he didn't really mean that but meant something else because according to Steven, Paul had called the belief in the resurrection of the dead "garbage" a few verses previous.

Can Goose read?

Paul had described his pharasiacal beliefs as garbage.

Paul taught that Christians lived on in new heavenly bodies

See 2 Corinthians 5

Steven must also think that when Paul later in this chapter says Jesus will transform our earthly body when we die into a body like His glorious body, that Paul didn't really mean to say body but rather meant to say spirit.

He doesn't say 'transform'.

It is vague, and Paul goes into more detail in 1 Corinthians 15 where he says flat-out that Jesus became a spirit.

And 2 Corinthians 5 gives more detail.

Steven must also think that when Paul says he believes there will be a resurrection of the dead in Acts 24:15

Acts is not by Paul, and is putting words in Paul's mouth.

Still, Goose laps up anything in the Bible as being true.

Steven has his argument from silence bass ackwards. James and Peter are confirming the bodily resurrection of Christ because they don't expressly deny it.

This is the funniest thing Goose has written so fat.

No it's not. Paul says, if the earthly tent we live in is torn down or destroyed, we have a building in heaven that comes from God, an eternal house not built by human hands. Paul yearns to PUT ON this heavenly dwelling.

Not even Goose can turn black into white here.

Not even Goose can even pretend that the building in heaven that comes from God used to be the earthly tent that was torn down or destroyed.

It is a different thing.

He says "put on" (or become clothed in it) NOT "move into". It involves a change, or more precisely an addition, an enhancement. Paul then says if we do put it on, we will NOT be found without a body. Just like 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 Paul says we must PUT ON incoruption and PUT ON immortality.

'We' must put on....


When the corpse of Jesus came out of the grave, what was put on what?

What was underneath the thing that was put on?

Paul's metaphor makes absolutely no sense to describe the Gospel's account of a resurrection where nothing was 'put on' the corpse of Jesus , except spices.

It is a change. Paul describes it as a change of clothing.

When you change clothes, you take off the old clothes and put on new ones.

This means that the old clothes are left behind. The earthly body of Jesus was left behind.

How do you 'put on' something without 'moving into' it?

How can you destroying one building and having another building ready as not 'moving into' the new building?


Goose's desperate attempts to rewrite Paul fail miserably.

Paul uses all the analogies we would expect of somebody claiming a corpse was left behind and a new body was given to it by God.

A 'naked' seed, to which God gives it a body.

A change of clothing, earthly building destroyed and heavenly buildings.

Becoming naked (after the earthly tent was destroyed), leaving something which then was clothed in something else.

But the Gospels never have a 'naked' Jesus, divested of a body , who was then clothed in immortality.

Paul's writing just trashes the Gospels idea of a resurrection.

And this is Goose's best witness! Somebody who cannot give one detail of one person's experience with a raised corpse!

[stevencarrwork]

They weren't idiots, some were confused about the nature of the resurrected body.

Paul uses physical analogies to demonstrate different kinds of glory, he's not speaking of heaven but the heavens.

Goose says they were not idiots. Paul calls them idiots for even discussing how a corpse can become a resurrected being.

These Christian converts just scoffed at the idea that God would choose to raise a corpse.

And Paul reminds them that heavenly beings are as different from earthly beings as a fish is different from the moon.

'Paul uses physical analogies to demonstrate different kinds of glory'

Notice how Goose simply cannot help changing Paul.

Paul wrote 'All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.'

He is telling those idiot Corinthians that a corpse is made of one thing, and a resurrected being is made of another.


'47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.'





No wonder they were idiots for discussing something which would have been as absurd as discussing how a fish can turn into the moon.

But no matter how plainly Paul corrects the mistaken view that somehow a corpse can turn into a resurrected being, no matter how many analogies Paul makes to the two things being like a man and a bird, Goose will maintain that Paul claims that resurrected beings are made from the dust of the earth that corpses become.

And it doesn't say "flesh and bones", it says "flesh and blood". There's a big difference. "Flesh and blood" is a Semitic term for human frailty. Human frailty and corruption can't get into heaven. That's why our body needs to be changed into incorruptible, glorified, powerful, spiritually oriented, immortal, bodies.

And Paul knew perfectly well that such a body was not made from the flesh that the Gospels claim Jesus's resurrected body was made from.

Paul's world remained unchanged after conversion.

When writing to those Greeks in Corinth, he still knew that 'flesh and blood' was a good metaphor for frailty. Flesh and blood was frail. It perished. The corpse was made of flesh and blood - so, by definition, it was frail. The corpse could not inherit the kingdom of God.

The resurrection had made absolutely no difference to Paul's worldview where 'flesh and blood' meant corruption and frailty. A corpse perished.


GOOSE - 'That's why our body needs to be changed'?

CARR - Really? You write elsewhere that our body just needs to 'put on' something.

When Jesus walked out of the tomb, what was underneath the thing that was 'put on'?

[TruthSeeker1]

Goose: I'll bet 50 tokens Beto believes Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

We know Caesar ended up in Rome, we have coins, and many other artifacts. Care to explain how Caesar could have ended up in Rome without crossing the Rubicon?

Exactly! It is more than a bit sad that a person (Goose) goes to great lengths to argue that a perfect, all powerful, and all knowing being left evidence for His divinity that at BEST lines up with other ancient stories.

Goose: You see folks, people like TruthSeeker1 don't like to look at the Bible using any standard historical methodology. They like to apply "special" rules and evaluate the bible in vacuum because if they use a standard historical criteria they know that the evidence for Christianity is as strong as anything else from the ancient world, probably even better. So, am I lowering the bar, or are you arbitrarily raising it for Christianity?

Who invented "standard historical methodology"? What standard historical methodology do I not like to use, and is the only relevant methodology the one you make up?

Is it really applying "special rules" when I would like to know these very basic things about the Gospels before I believe everything in them like you do:

Who wrote them?
What sources did the authors use?
Were the motives of the authors to record history or simply tell a story that may or may not be true?
Do secular historians back up the major claims of the Gospels?

It is ironic that you say I "raise the bar" for Christianity by simply asking for a few basic items before believing everything the unknown Gospel authors have to say.

Do you honestly believe that you are not lowering the bar for Christianity when accept everything that the unknown Gospel authors have to say, and yet you would most likely demand more evidence for comparatively unimportant questions such as what car to buy or what computer to purchase. You would never accept the opinion of a car review without the very basic things the Gospels lack, yet you dedicate your life to Christianity based on the old, many times translated, written words of unknown authors with no mention of sources.

Goose: why don't you take a crack at the OP. Your buddy Beto doesn't seem to be interested. Maybe you can show him how it's done.

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?

In order to address your question I would have to agree with your claims of "ALL the evidence". So far I don't think you've presented credible evidence to account for. You've presented the supernatural claims of unknown people from thousands of years ago with no physical evidence to support the claims. The equation is simple, yet I don't think you grasp it: Claims do not equal evidence.

I don't think much about supernatural claims today, (do you?) so why should I address your supernatural claims from thousands of years ago? If you possess more than claims and have actual evidence to deal with then I'll be happy to engage your questions.

[bernee51]

FACT 1. Jesus’ crucifixion and death

Yep - someone called Jesus or someone who came to be known by that name was crucified and died.

So what?

FACT 2. The tomb was discovered empty.

You are assuming the person known as Jesus was actually placed in a tomb and not dumped on the garbage heap for the wild dogs to eat.

How do you know he was placed in the tomb? Let me guess...the gospels!!!

FACT 3. The apostles sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and then appeared to them. So sincerely that some were willing to endure persecution and possibly even death because of this belief:

Performative utterances.

This 'fact' is only known from biblical sources. The writers obviously believed what they had been told and were writing was true. Doesn't make it so.

FACT 4. Paul, an enemy and persecutor of the church (Acts 8:3, 1 Cor. 15:9, Gal. 1:13) was transformed and became a prolific apostle because of his belief that a risen Jesus appeared to him. He was persecuted and reported as martyred.

The source of this 'fact'. Could it be the bible?

Paul was an hysteric, a misogynistic misanthrope who hijacked the story, a story which he no doubt believed, for his own ends.

FACT 5. James, brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and sceptic of His claims before the appearance of Jesus to him, was transformed and became a leader in the Church in Jerusalem. He was reported as martyred.

The 'existence' of James is attested where - let me guess - the gospels? Certainly a reliable historical source.

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?

Who started the myth? Could it have been Mark - the first author of the wonderful advenures of the god/man. Nothing in Mark indicates that he actually knew Jesus in person. Any real acquintance would have been legible and discernable in Marks writngs - it is not. He credits Jesus with an existence in the same way one who witnesses a desert mirage honestly believes in the reality of the palm trees in the oasis. Mark relates in very much the writing style of the period a fiction whose authenticity he attests to in good faith.

The gospel is written with conversion in mind aimed squarely at the folk who need convincing. The devices used a common currency of such works of propoganda - a fall back on the miraculous. It is a rehash of the literary style of the ancients - one which took it for granted that to transform a mortal into a crowd-pleasing prophet and indeed saviour the use of embellishment was a given.

Jesus was a concept, a construct - a distillation of the aspirations of a turbulent time. The gospels are examples of what John Langshaw Austin termed performative utterances - simple declaring something is true creates its truth. The gospels writers, and for that matter Paul, did not set out to deceive - they said what they believed was true and and believed the truth of what they said. None of them met with the physical Jesus. They credited the fiction which was Jesus with a real existence. After that - the very human trait of self interest did the rest

May you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful.

[stevencarrwork]

None of them met with the physical Jesus.

Correct.

Even when faced with the question of what a resurrected being is like, Paul cannot find one personal detail from his own or anybody else's experience.

Suppose somebody had asked Joseph Smith what the Golden Plates looked like, and he replied along the lines that they must have been golden, and we all know plates are heavy, because even clay tablets are heavy, and they would have had writing on them, probably incised, and the writing might have been worn in places, because things do wear out.

If Goose was a Mormon , he would then start telling us that Smith must have seen these Golden Plates, while everybody else would be amazed at how vague this description is.

Paul uses analogies and first principles, and very strange circomlocutions like 'we must put on incorruption'.

How vague can you get? Nobody had the first idea of what a resurrected being was like , hence stuff like 'this perishable must put on inperishability'.

What else could he say? He had no idea what he was talking about, because nobody had seen a resurrected flesh-and-blood being with wounds and who ate flesh.

Even at his vaguest though, Paul refuses to say that perishable bodies must change.....

All he knows is that the present body will be destroyed.

When faced with the nature of the resurrected body, Paul cannot say that the resurrected Jesus ate fish.

In fact, Paul tells the converts to Christianity that God will destroy both stomach and food (1 Corinthians 6:13) So much for stories of an immortal Jesus eating fish!

But not even this utter contradiction between Paul and the Gospels will have any effect on Goose.....