The Resurrection

[Sleepy]

I'm slowly working on this topic and have summarised some key aspects of this debate which are nicely truncated by the likes of Gary Habermas (the name should be familiar to all those who know of Anthony Flew) and some other authors. Let me first set the biblical and historical scene.

The eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

- All the Gospels in the bible refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus. This miraculous event is the pivot on which all Christianity turns

- Paul a previous critic and opponent of Christians became a contemporary eye witness claiming that the risen Jesus appeared personally to him. This was corroborated by another NT author in Acts.

- Paul refers to an oral tradition in 1 Cor 15:3-8 which claims Jesus appeared to numerous others of his followers, this tradition is estimated to date back to the first two years after the crucifixion (pre-Paul). Paul made trips to Jerusalem to check out the consistency of his gospel teaching with those who knew Jesus (Gal 2:1-10). Paul confirms the consistency (1 Cor:15:11-15). Many other similar creedal messages are found in many of the sermons in Acts

- James the brother of Jesus had previously been a skeptic of his brother. Suddenly after the resurrection appearances (one of which was to him according to the creedal message), James becomes the pastor of the Church of Jerusalem.

- The empty tomb has not been successfully doubted, this adds some support to the claim that the disciples saw the risen Jesus being that those around them could not just point to the tomb where Jesus body was. Interestingly, the bible sites women as witnesses (something remarkable to do in a culture that would not have allowed female testimony in a court of law), if it was a made up story men would have been used to add credibility. Jerusalem would be the least likely of places to claim Jesus tomb was empty unless it actually was being that people there would know where the tomb was. Jewish leaders at the time did not dispute the empty tomb.

- The disciples lives all radically transformed after the supposed the resurrection of Christ even to the point of the majority being killed for their faith, some brutally so. This is often put down to them trying to start up their own lie, compared to suicide bombers. However suicide bombers actually believe the lies fed to them by others. In the case of the disciples, these men would have had to make up the lie and make it plausible enough to start up a faith in an area where the evidence would have otherwise said to the contrary. These men who then would have known they were preaching a lie are not likely to have died by numerous methods having never recanted their faith.

- We know medically that groups of people do not experience the same hallucination, likewise the same hallucination appearing to different people at different times is even more implausible. Isolated hallucinations do not change lives. Paul and Jesus brother James would not have had any reason to have made up this hallucination. Putting this down to some sort of mass delusion would be ignorant.

All these reasons suggest that the disciples truly thought they had seen the risen Christ.
This is accepted among most scholars including many skeptical scholars, Ehrman, Koester, Ludemann etc...

Either the most likely explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead or the disciples were all wrong.

To do this successfully a more plausible explanation should be found...

My Question for debate - What plausible explanation for what happened to the disciples and Jesus body is there?

Jesus didn't really rise from the dead. What really happened was _____.

[AB]

What was their purpose?[/b]

• * Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
  * Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
  * Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
  * John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

These are relevent to when they went to see Jesus's burial and then later came back to the tomb after the burial. For example, Mark 15:47 equates to Matthew 27:61. Ok I have looked at 2 of the items of the mamoth list, and I must ask, where is the contradiction?

[achilles12604]

In Luke, Jesus was born during the Census when Cyrenius
was first govenor of Syria. This so happens to could only have occured after Juddah become part of the providence of Syria, and that happened at 6 CE.

Just to make sure I am clear. Is Cyrenius another name for Quirinius? Quirinius is who I read as governor of Syria at that time(Luke 2:2)

One is the greek writing of the name, the other the roman. Same person.

Awesome. I got to log off now. But, I am going to check this out and see the story. If there is a contradiction, I'll give it up to you.
Later.

This is very interesting. I didn't know about this Luke 2:2 dilema before. Although it really doesn't hit on any contradiction of the gospel, it does indicate that the author Luke may have mis-appointed when Jesus was born. Or better said, who was around doing during the time when Jesus was born... still not bridging into the Gospel.

However, it does refer to the FIRST census during Quirinius. So, there was more than one census with Quirinus. Also, Quirinius was in the area taking care of the homanadensians from 10bc to 7bc. Quirinius could very well of had control of the Syria area at that time and a census performed. Plus, the Luke writings do not indicate that Herod was not prevalent at that time.. story of John the Baptist birth Luke 1:5. So, it appears in Luke's stroy Herod and Quirinius are present during that time.

On the surface, it really appears there is a contradiction. But, this contradiction appears to be within the book of Luke.. since Luke is bringing Herod and Quirinius prevelant at the same point of time. But, given Quirinius's influence in the Syria region at the time of Herod, I can see this.

There were two Quirinuses. Once ruled before the other.

Dr. John McRay comments on money with Quirinius inscription on it from 4BC. This means that there must have been someone named Quirinius ruling at that time. Since that name was common then, this is likely.

No problem.

[Goat]

In Luke, Jesus was born during the Census when Cyrenius
was first govenor of Syria. This so happens to could only have occured after Juddah become part of the providence of Syria, and that happened at 6 CE.

Just to make sure I am clear. Is Cyrenius another name for Quirinius? Quirinius is who I read as governor of Syria at that time(Luke 2:2)

One is the greek writing of the name, the other the roman. Same person.

Awesome. I got to log off now. But, I am going to check this out and see the story. If there is a contradiction, I'll give it up to you.
Later.

This is very interesting. I didn't know about this Luke 2:2 dilema before. Although it really doesn't hit on any contradiction of the gospel, it does indicate that the author Luke may have mis-appointed when Jesus was born. Or better said, who was around doing during the time when Jesus was born... still not bridging into the Gospel.

However, it does refer to the FIRST census during Quirinius. So, there was more than one census with Quirinus. Also, Quirinius was in the area taking care of the homanadensians from 10bc to 7bc. Quirinius could very well of had control of the Syria area at that time and a census performed. Plus, the Luke writings do not indicate that Herod was not prevalent at that time.. story of John the Baptist birth Luke 1:5. So, it appears in Luke's stroy Herod and Quirinius are present during that time.

On the surface, it really appears there is a contradiction. But, this contradiction appears to be within the book of Luke.. since Luke is bringing Herod and Quirinius prevelant at the same point of time. But, given Quirinius's influence in the Syria region at the time of Herod, I can see this.

No, it doesn't say 'first' census. It says 'When Quirinius was first governor of Syria'. There is not evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria before 6 C.E. (despite speculation), and there is no evidence that a census could be ordered by Augustus in an independent kingdom for the purposes of taxation.

Luke says nothing about the birth of Jesus being linked to Herod the King. He has it linked to the census in Judah that happened in 6 CE.

Matthew had the birth of Jesus during the King of Herod the King. He says nothing about a cencus, although he did have Herod going to kill all the male boys in Bethelham (a deed that is not recorded anyplace else)

That indicates to me at least that Luke did not know the nativity story in Matthew, and Matthew did not know about the nativity story in Luke. They are two, mutually exclusive stories.

[Lotan]

There were two Quirinuses. Once ruled before the other.

Two Quirinuses? But no evidence.

Dr. John McRay comments on money with Quirinius inscription on it from 4BC. This means that there must have been someone named Quirinius ruling at that time.

Of course! There "must have"...

From a review of Lee Strobel's 'The Case for Christ'...

"McRay also notes a papyrus dating from AD 48 that shows the whole family being involved. After this, though, Strobel brings up the biggest problem, that of Quirinius ruling in Syria. He is usually considered to have begun this in AD 6, whereas Herod died in 4 BC. McRay handles it this way:
"An eminent archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman has done a great deal of work in this regard. He has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing, or what we call 'micrographic' letters. This places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod. (101)"
Thus, McRay concludes, this is a different Quirinius. Strobel notes that, doing later research, he discovered that archaeologist William Ramsay used a few inscriptions to conclude that Quirinius had simply ruled in Syria on two occasions. Another possibility Strobel mentions is that some scholars indicate that the Greek text of Luke 2:2 as saying that the census took place prior to Quirinius' reign in Syria, which would likewise resolve the problem."

So, maybe there weren't two Quiriniuses after all?

Anyway, you cited McRay, and McRay cited Vardaman and his 'micrographic' letters. You must know all about these since you use them as evidence. After all, you always check your sources right?

Let's see what others have to say...

Vardaman's credentials check out, even if he's the sort of 'Biblical Archaeologist' that a skeptic like myself might unfairly charge with bias...

"Dr. E. Jerry Vardaman has served for 45 years in the academic classroom. He was the founding director of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University (1973) and served there also as Professor of Religion until his retirement in 1994. He is a graduate of Baylor University (Ph.D. 1974), and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (Th.D. 1957). He taught Biblical Archaeology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for 14 years before joining the Mississippi State University faculty as Professor of Religion, and Director, Cobb Institute of Archaeology, in 1973. He has participated in various Near East excavations – Bethel; Shechem; Ramat Rachel (where Jehoakim built [Jer. 22] “the house of vermillion”); Caesarea: Ashdod, Machaerus (where John the Baptist died) and Elusa (where Hagar was expelled), and is the author of 6 books or dissertations, plus numerous scholarly articles and studies. His most recent research has been in the field of New Testament Chronology."

But what about those 'microletters'? Let's ask that Internet Infidel (and Columbia Historian) Richard Carrier...

"What Vardaman means by "micrographic letters" (he usually calls them "microletters") are tiny letters so small that they cannot be seen or made without a magnifying glass and could only have been written with some sort of special diamond-tipped inscribers. He finds enormous amounts of this writing on various coins supporting numerous theses of his."

So, the ancients put teeny weeny inscription on their coins (totally unattested as a practice in any ancient source) that also happen to support Vardaman's theories. Fantastic!

Let's see what else Carrier has to say...

"...nonsense on stilts."

"His evidence is so incredibly bizarre that the only conclusion one can draw after examining it is that he has gone insane."

How can that be? Is Carrier completely blinded by his atheist bias?

"The photo used in my original SKEPTICAL INQUIRER artide faithfully indicates the nature and extent of the coin's wear, but it is clear from the new photograph how a delusional mind could be led to see microletrers in grit, oxidation, and numerous cracks and abrasions. Indeed, I observed the coin to be heavily patinated. Most of the scratchy lines and squiggles visible here are the green patina of oxidized bronze, not a part of the original coin as cast. I took great care under high magnification to try and see ho w Vardaman's letters might be interpreted, but to no avail. There is nothing even resembling what he claims, despite ample fuel for the imagination."

Apparently Vardaman found the Roman letter 'J' from centuries before it was even invented! But there's more...

"...it is extremely rare to find any specimen of ancient coin that is not heavily worn from use and the passage of literally thousands of years, in which time the loss of surface from abrasion and oxidation is inevitable and significant. Even if such microscopic lettering were added to these coins as Vardaman says, hardly any of it could have survived or remained legible. Yet Vardaman has no trouble finding hundreds of perfectly legible words on every coin he examines."

"...the sorts of things Vardaman finds are profoundly absurd, and rank right up there with Erich von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods."

Oh no! That's not good. Surely Vardaman's colleagues at the Cobb Institute will stand by him...

"..., Joe D. Seger, current director of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University, wishes to clarify that the "professional staff and colleagues of Vardaman at the Institute had fully disassociated themselves from his micro-letter theories long before his retirement in 1993." Though I made no claims or inferences about their views or involvement in this affair, it should be noted that Seger's statement is not backed up by any public document to my knowledge, and when asked for articles where Institute scholars criticized or disavowed Vardaman's theory, none were provided. I also received a private communication from Professor Stephen Williams, author of Fantastic Archaeology (1991) and a Harvard emeritus, who apparently was one of a few outside experts called in by MSU in the 1970s to evaluate Vardaman's claims. The consultants gave a resounding condemnation, but the only action taken appears to have been the removal of Vardaman as director of the Cobb Institute in 1981. He remained a professor there, and nothing was published on the matter. All this was in essence confirmed by Seger. It would appear that MSU was embarrassed by Vardaman but was happy to sweep the whole affair under the rug."

No problem.

That's for sure!

Read all about it...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... l#Vardaman

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... 85959/pg_1

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_88826384

http://www.xanga.com/Naos_ton_Biblion

[Goat]

There were two Quirinuses. Once ruled before the other.

Two Quirinuses? But no evidence.

Dr. John McRay comments on money with Quirinius inscription on it from 4BC. This means that there must have been someone named Quirinius ruling at that time.

Of course! There "must have"...

From a review of Lee Strobel's 'The Case for Christ'...

"McRay also notes a papyrus dating from AD 48 that shows the whole family being involved. After this, though, Strobel brings up the biggest problem, that of Quirinius ruling in Syria. He is usually considered to have begun this in AD 6, whereas Herod died in 4 BC. McRay handles it this way:
"An eminent archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman has done a great deal of work in this regard. He has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing, or what we call 'micrographic' letters. This places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod. (101)"
Thus, McRay concludes, this is a different Quirinius. Strobel notes that, doing later research, he discovered that archaeologist William Ramsay used a few inscriptions to conclude that Quirinius had simply ruled in Syria on two occasions. Another possibility Strobel mentions is that some scholars indicate that the Greek text of Luke 2:2 as saying that the census took place prior to Quirinius' reign in Syria, which would likewise resolve the problem."

So, maybe there weren't two Quiriniuses after all?

Anyway, you cited McRay, and McRay cited Vardaman and his 'micrographic' letters. You must know all about these since you use them as evidence. After all, you always check your sources right?

Let's see what others have to say...

Vardaman's credentials check out, even if he's the sort of 'Biblical Archaeologist' that a skeptic like myself might unfairly charge with bias...

"Dr. E. Jerry Vardaman has served for 45 years in the academic classroom. He was the founding director of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University (1973) and served there also as Professor of Religion until his retirement in 1994. He is a graduate of Baylor University (Ph.D. 1974), and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (Th.D. 1957). He taught Biblical Archaeology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for 14 years before joining the Mississippi State University faculty as Professor of Religion, and Director, Cobb Institute of Archaeology, in 1973. He has participated in various Near East excavations – Bethel; Shechem; Ramat Rachel (where Jehoakim built [Jer. 22] “the house of vermillion”); Caesarea: Ashdod, Machaerus (where John the Baptist died) and Elusa (where Hagar was expelled), and is the author of 6 books or dissertations, plus numerous scholarly articles and studies. His most recent research has been in the field of New Testament Chronology."

But what about those 'microletters'? Let's ask that Internet Infidel (and Columbia Historian) Richard Carrier...

"What Vardaman means by "micrographic letters" (he usually calls them "microletters") are tiny letters so small that they cannot be seen or made without a magnifying glass and could only have been written with some sort of special diamond-tipped inscribers. He finds enormous amounts of this writing on various coins supporting numerous theses of his."

So, the ancients put teeny weeny inscription on their coins (totally unattested as a practice in any ancient source) that also happen to support Vardaman's theories. Fantastic!

Let's see what else Carrier has to say...

"...nonsense on stilts."

"His evidence is so incredibly bizarre that the only conclusion one can draw after examining it is that he has gone insane."

How can that be? Is Carrier completely blinded by his atheist bias?

"The photo used in my original SKEPTICAL INQUIRER artide faithfully indicates the nature and extent of the coin's wear, but it is clear from the new photograph how a delusional mind could be led to see microletrers in grit, oxidation, and numerous cracks and abrasions. Indeed, I observed the coin to be heavily patinated. Most of the scratchy lines and squiggles visible here are the green patina of oxidized bronze, not a part of the original coin as cast. I took great care under high magnification to try and see ho w Vardaman's letters might be interpreted, but to no avail. There is nothing even resembling what he claims, despite ample fuel for the imagination."

Apparently Vardaman found the Roman letter 'J' from centuries before it was even invented! But there's more...

"...it is extremely rare to find any specimen of ancient coin that is not heavily worn from use and the passage of literally thousands of years, in which time the loss of surface from abrasion and oxidation is inevitable and significant. Even if such microscopic lettering were added to these coins as Vardaman says, hardly any of it could have survived or remained legible. Yet Vardaman has no trouble finding hundreds of perfectly legible words on every coin he examines."

"...the sorts of things Vardaman finds are profoundly absurd, and rank right up there with Erich von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods."

Oh no! That's not good. Surely Vardaman's colleagues at the Cobb Institute will stand by him...

"..., Joe D. Seger, current director of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University, wishes to clarify that the "professional staff and colleagues of Vardaman at the Institute had fully disassociated themselves from his micro-letter theories long before his retirement in 1993." Though I made no claims or inferences about their views or involvement in this affair, it should be noted that Seger's statement is not backed up by any public document to my knowledge, and when asked for articles where Institute scholars criticized or disavowed Vardaman's theory, none were provided. I also received a private communication from Professor Stephen Williams, author of Fantastic Archaeology (1991) and a Harvard emeritus, who apparently was one of a few outside experts called in by MSU in the 1970s to evaluate Vardaman's claims. The consultants gave a resounding condemnation, but the only action taken appears to have been the removal of Vardaman as director of the Cobb Institute in 1981. He remained a professor there, and nothing was published on the matter. All this was in essence confirmed by Seger. It would appear that MSU was embarrassed by Vardaman but was happy to sweep the whole affair under the rug."

No problem.

That's for sure!

Read all about it...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... l#Vardaman

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... 85959/pg_1

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_88826384

http://www.xanga.com/Naos_ton_Biblion

I will also point out about the 'Vardaman' coins is that the only record we have of it is .. tada'.. a hand drawing by Vardaman. There is no phsyical coin to be looked at, nor is there even a photograph of the coin to be looked at.

Imagine that.

[Lotan]

I will also point out about the 'Vardaman' coins is that the only record we have of it is .. tada'.. a hand drawing by Vardaman. There is no phsyical coin to be looked at, nor is there even a photograph of the coin to be looked at.

Hey! You gave away the punchline!

Don't worry. Considering achilles' strong feelings against spreading bad information on the net, I'm sure he'll have a perfectly good explanation...

[Goat]

I will also point out about the 'Vardaman' coins is that the only record we have of it is .. tada'.. a hand drawing by Vardaman. There is no phsyical coin to be looked at, nor is there even a photograph of the coin to be looked at.

Hey! You gave away the punchline!

Don't worry. Considering achilles' strong feelings against spreading bad information on the net, I'm sure he'll have a perfectly good explanation...

I think you might do Achilles a disservice there. After all, he acknowledged the point that we have a contemporary reference to Alexander the great.. written in Alexander's own lifetime. For that matter, the document is a clay tablet , and not even a copy...

[Lotan]

For that matter, the document is a clay tablet , and not even a copy...

But are there any micrographic letters on it?

There must be...

[FiredUp4jesus]

For that matter, the document is a clay tablet , and not even a copy...

But are there any micrographic letters on it?

There must be...

How did we get off the resurection and onto the incarnation?

[Easyrider]

I will also point out about the 'Vardaman' coins is that the only record we have of it is .. tada'.. a hand drawing by Vardaman. There is no phsyical coin to be looked at, nor is there even a photograph of the coin to be looked at.

Sort of like your mythical pet "Q" manuscripts, huh? ROTFLOL!