Resurrection Contradictions

[WinePusher]

In this thread we will be evaluating the alternative explanations for the events surrounding the Resurrection to see if they hold any validity.

Swoon Hypothesis: The Swoon Hypothesis refers to a number of theories that aim to explain the resurrection of Jesus, proposing that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but merely fell unconscious ("swooned"), and was later revived in the tomb in the same mortal body

Source

Vision Hypothesis: The vision hypothesis is a term used to cover a range of theories that question the physical resurrection of Jesus, and suggest that sightings of a risen Jesus were visionary experiences.

Source

Stolen Body Hypothesis: The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons.

Source

Question: Do these theories better explain the events surrounding the resurrection then the explanation that Jesus rose from the dead? Please explain and support with detail.

[flitzerbiest]

All four Gospels do record the resurrection.

Only if you aren't paying attention. Mark 16:6 was part of a late addition not in the original documents. Rookie mistake.

Tsk, tsk. Not reading the whole post. Rookie mistake.

Here's what bjs wrote about Mark

Mark 16:6, “"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.�

(Note: This is from the first half of chapter 16 of Mark, not the disputed verses 8-16)

And he's right too. The earliest and most reliable manuscripts end with a claim of resurrection.

Touché. No more posting from memory after the second martini.

[horiturk]

not eyewitness accounts of it....

they also don't agree when he was crucified

[kingdombuilder]

...
My personal belief is that Jesus was 'Cruci-ficted', but he didn't die. Death on a cross is a disgraceful death, because according to the Deuteronomy 21:23:

...anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse....

This is true, however...Galatians 3:13 says "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, 'cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)...

For example, Jesus says in Luke 11:9-11:

"So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead?

Again, this is true, however... keep reading because verse 13 says the following: "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" Clearly the context here has nothing to do with Jesus or the Him on the cross but rather is about the Holy Spirit being given to anyone who asks for Him.

While Jesus was on the cross:

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
(Luke 22:42)

Jesus was not on the cross when he said these words, He was in the garden of Gethsemane before being arrested and tried. Also note carefully the last part of the verse you posted here: "yet not my will, but yours be done."

If Jesus asked not to die, then his prayer was accepted according to Luke 11:9-11, and this would in effect fulfill his previous prophecy about Jonah:

No, this belief has been refuted two-fold: 1) Jesus prayer clearly stipulated a "yet" clause (see response immediately above). 2) Luke 11:9-13 has clearly been shown to be about the Holy Spirit being given to anyone who asks, not about Jesus asking not to die.

He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
(Matthew 12:39)
What was the sign of Jonah? Wasn't it survival against all adversity?

You unknowingly are more right on this than you may believe... read the very next verse for Jesus interpretes his own words for us: "For as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth." As you yourself just states above, Jesus was saying that he would "survive" since after 3 days and nights he would be resurrected!

In short, your belief can not be substantiated with your reasons given above since they are all either out of context or point to an opposite conclusion than you have reached.

See further responses immediately above

[flitzerbiest]

A friendly reminder: arguments from scriptural authority are worthless in this forum.

[Murad]

...
My personal belief is that Jesus was 'Cruci-ficted', but he didn't die. Death on a cross is a disgraceful death, because according to the Deuteronomy 21:23:

...anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse....

This is true, however...Galatians 3:13 says "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, 'cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)...

So...? How does that rebuttal the fact that death on a cross is disgraceful?

For example, Jesus says in Luke 11:9-11:

"So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead?

Again, this is true, however... keep reading because verse 13 says the following: "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" Clearly the context here has nothing to do with Jesus or the Him on the cross but rather is about the Holy Spirit being given to anyone who asks for Him.

This is where Christians love to play verbal gymnastics.
I thought the holy spirit was one with the Father(in the Trinity) ?
The context does not change the fact that Jesus is referring to GOD(in whatever entity does not matter).

While Jesus was on the cross:

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
(Luke 22:42)

Jesus was not on the cross when he said these words, He was in the garden of Gethsemane before being arrested and tried. Also note carefully the last part of the verse you posted here: "yet not my will, but yours be done."

So Jesus' prayer was rejected?

If Jesus asked not to die, then his prayer was accepted according to Luke 11:9-11, and this would in effect fulfill his previous prophecy about Jonah:

No, this belief has been refuted two-fold: 1) Jesus prayer clearly stipulated a "yet" clause (see response immediately above). 2) Luke 11:9-13 has clearly been shown to be about the Holy Spirit being given to anyone who asks, not about Jesus asking not to die.

1) If i say, "God forgive me, not my will but yours", and God doesn't forgive me, doesn't that still mean my prayer was rejected?
2) The trinitarian belief is that all 3 entity's make God, and the Christian faith teaches that a christian can pray to the Father, Son or the Holy Spirit; no matter what entity they pray to, they would be praying to God. Right or Wrong?

He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
(Matthew 12:39)
What was the sign of Jonah? Wasn't it survival against all adversity?

You unknowingly are more right on this than you may believe... read the very next verse for Jesus interpretes his own words for us: "For as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth." As you yourself just states above, Jesus was saying that he would "survive" since after 3 days and nights he would be resurrected!

No, that is wishful thinking on your behalf, and i advise you to re-read the book of Jonah.
Jonah was alive in the belly of the whale. And if Jesus made the same comparison, that means Jesus was also alive in the heart of the earth.
Did Jonah die & come back to life?
Or did it seem from the "outside" that Jonah was most likely dead, when infact he was alive all along.
Now what kept Jonah alive? His prayer to God:

From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the Lord his God. He said:
“In my distress I called to the Lord, and he answered me....
(Jonah 2:1)

Jesus also made a prayer to God(Luke 22:42), which kept him alive.

In short, your belief can not be substantiated with your reasons given above since they are all either out of context or point to an opposite conclusion than you have reached.

Just to make it clear, my belief is not based on the Bible in any way.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Stolen Body Hypothesis: The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons.

This is in fact the most obvious conclusion to the question of any missing corpse. Since the LEAST likely possibility is that the corpse came back to life and wandered away on it's own, the first and most obvious conclusion is that someone living moved it. Do the Gospels supply us with any candidates with a motive for moving the body? YES! In fact Matthew 27:64 tells us implicitly that the priests believed that the disciples planned to do that very thing. Did the disciples have the means to move the body? YES! Joseph of Arimathaea is specifically described as being a "secret disciple" of Jesus. Nicodemus, another disciple, is also depicted as being involved. The disciples therefore not only had the means to move the body, they had the body, given to them by the Roman governor. Did the disciples have the opportunity to move the body? YES! They didn't have to steal it, it was theirs to do with as they saw fit. Curiously, only Gospel Matthew mentions a guard being placed at the tomb. But Gospel Matthew also informs us that the guard wasn't placed until sometime THE NEXT DAY. Nor did they open the tomb at that time to verify that the body was in fact actually still there. The tomb was sealed, and a guard was set. The entire question of the resurrection can be settled by the simple assumption that the body had already been removed when the tomb was sealed.

As long as the most obvious solution, that the body of Jesus was moved elsewhere by his disciples, is the obvious answer, the least obvious possibility, that the body came back to life, is nothing more than an insupportable ancient superstition. It's exactly the nonsense that it appears to be.

[kingdombuilder]

...
My personal belief is that Jesus was 'Cruci-ficted', but he didn't die. Death on a cross is a disgraceful death, because according to the Deuteronomy 21:23:

...anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse....


This is true, however...Galatians 3:13 says "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, 'cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)..

So...? How does that rebuttal the fact that death on a cross is disgraceful?

Read Deut. 21:23 and Galatians 3:13 together. You do not see that this says Christ died, in your words: "disgracefully?"

For example, Jesus says in Luke 11:9-11:

"So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead?


Again, this is true, however... keep reading because verse 13 says the following: "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" Clearly the context here has nothing to do with Jesus or the Him on the cross but rather is about the Holy Spirit being given to anyone who asks for Him.


This is where Christians love to play verbal gymnastics.
I thought the holy spirit was one with the Father(in the Trinity) ?
The context does not change the fact that Jesus is referring to GOD(in whatever entity does not matter).

But notice the context is asking for the Holy Spirit and note what it is not saying or asking for. This scripture can not be abused to mean that what ever a person asks for they will recieve, this is not what this particular scripture you refered to means.

While Jesus was on the cross:

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
(Luke 22:42)


Jesus was not on the cross when he said these words, He was in the garden of Gethsemane before being arrested and tried. Also note carefully the last part of the verse you posted here: "yet not my will, but yours be done."


So Jesus' prayer was rejected?

The only way one could come to this conclusion (that his prayer was rejected) is if they think this prayer is ultimately asking for God to spare His life. But is it? Read it again, note that 2x Jesus is shown to be appealing to God's (the Father) will not his own will (Jesus'). Jesus is shown here to ultimately be praying for God's (the Father) will to be done and not that His life would be spared.

If Jesus asked not to die, then his prayer was accepted according to Luke 11:9-11, and this would in effect fulfill his previous prophecy about Jonah:


No, this belief has been refuted two-fold: 1) Jesus prayer clearly stipulated a "yet" clause (see response immediately above). 2) Luke 11:9-13 has clearly been shown to be about the Holy Spirit being given to anyone who asks, not about Jesus asking not to die.


1) If i say, "God forgive me, not my will but yours", and God doesn't forgive me, doesn't that still mean my prayer was rejected?

No, stop and think about what is ultimately being asked for here.

2) The trinitarian belief is that all 3 entity's make God, and the Christian faith teaches that a christian can pray to the Father, Son or the Holy Spirit; no matter what entity they pray to, they would be praying to God. Right or Wrong?

Let me stipulate before responding to this particular comment that I am not a trained theological scholar and have not, as of yet, recieved any formal instruction on the doctrine of the Trinity, but do consider myself well read in Biblical and Christian theological literature as well as the Bible itself. With that said, I believe you are not quite precise in this description. It is my understanding that The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not "make" God (as if one happened to not be in existence then God Himself would not be in existence), but rather that all 3 are the same God in essence.

With all that said, may I ask for clearification as to what this has to do with the immediate subject of wheather or not Jesus actually died?

He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
(Matthew 12:39)
What was the sign of Jonah? Wasn't it survival against all adversity?

You unknowingly are more right on this than you may believe... read the very next verse for Jesus interpretes his own words for us: "For as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth." As you yourself just states above, Jesus was saying that he would "survive" since after 3 days and nights he would be resurrected!


No, that is wishful thinking on your behalf, and i advise you to re-read the book of Jonah.
Jonah was alive in the belly of the whale. And if Jesus made the same comparison, that means Jesus was also alive in the heart of the earth.
Did Jonah die & come back to life?
Or did it seem from the "outside" that Jonah was most likely dead, when infact he was alive all along.
Now what kept Jonah alive? His prayer to God:

From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the Lord his God. He said:
“In my distress I called to the Lord, and he answered me....
(Jonah 2:1)

Jesus also made a prayer to God(Luke 22:42), which kept him alive.

While this may be true of Jonah, Jesus in this scripture does not intend to make a complete comparison of the account of Jonah and Himself, as He Himself limits what he means in the comparison when He says "as Jonah was in the fish 3 days and nights so to will the Son of Man be 3 days and nights in the earth." Only a person with a theological ax to grind against Christianity and what the Bible actually teaches would come to the conclusion you have. Besides that, this interpretation completely misses the context of everything else around the verse. Luke 22:42 has been sufficently responded to above. Jesus did not ultimately pray a prayer to save His life. Besides that, He says elsewhere that He willing lays it down.

In short, your belief can not be substantiated with your reasons given above since they are all either out of context or point to an opposite conclusion than you have reached.

Just to make it clear, my belief is not based on the Bible in any way.

Perhaps not, but your reasonings posted here come from there. How about sharing where your belief actually does come from (the Koran?) and why you believe it.

[kingdombuilder]

Stolen Body Hypothesis: The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons.

This is in fact the most obvious conclusion to the question of any missing corpse. Since the LEAST likely possibility is that the corpse came back to life and wandered away on it's own, the first and most obvious conclusion is that someone living moved it. Do the Gospels supply us with any candidates with a motive for moving the body? YES! In fact Matthew 27:64 tells us implicitly that the priests believed that the disciples planned to do that very thing. Did the disciples have the means to move the body? YES! Joseph of Arimathaea is specifically described as being a "secret disciple" of Jesus. Nicodemus, another disciple, is also depicted as being involved. The disciples therefore not only had the means to move the body, they had the body, given to them by the Roman governor. Did the disciples have the opportunity to move the body? YES! They didn't have to steal it, it was theirs to do with as they saw fit. Curiously, only Gospel Matthew mentions a guard being placed at the tomb. But Gospel Matthew also informs us that the guard wasn't placed until sometime THE NEXT DAY. Nor did they open the tomb at that time to verify that the body was in fact actually still there. The tomb was sealed, and a guard was set. The entire question of the resurrection can be settled by the simple assumption that the body had already been removed when the tomb was sealed.

As long as the most obvious solution, that the body of Jesus was moved elsewhere by his disciples, is the obvious answer, the least obvious possibility, that the body came back to life, is nothing more than an insupportable ancient superstition. It's exactly the nonsense that it appears to be.

And the psycological motivation especially when they did not even expect Him to rise again from the dead? How does this explain the claimed appearences to some of the most skeptical and even hostile opponets and persecutors of the 1st disciples of Jesus (such as "doubting" Thomas, Saul/Paul, James, and other early followers)?

This solution is not so "obvious" once one actually considers it for any period of time. It simply raises more questions (such as the sampling of one's above), like the other naturalistic theories do. Besides, this theory along with the others have been widely discredited within scholarly circles, even among most skeptical scholars during the 20th Century.

[flitzerbiest]

Stolen Body Hypothesis: The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons.

This is in fact the most obvious conclusion to the question of any missing corpse. Since the LEAST likely possibility is that the corpse came back to life and wandered away on it's own, the first and most obvious conclusion is that someone living moved it. Do the Gospels supply us with any candidates with a motive for moving the body? YES! In fact Matthew 27:64 tells us implicitly that the priests believed that the disciples planned to do that very thing. Did the disciples have the means to move the body? YES! Joseph of Arimathaea is specifically described as being a "secret disciple" of Jesus. Nicodemus, another disciple, is also depicted as being involved. The disciples therefore not only had the means to move the body, they had the body, given to them by the Roman governor. Did the disciples have the opportunity to move the body? YES! They didn't have to steal it, it was theirs to do with as they saw fit. Curiously, only Gospel Matthew mentions a guard being placed at the tomb. But Gospel Matthew also informs us that the guard wasn't placed until sometime THE NEXT DAY. Nor did they open the tomb at that time to verify that the body was in fact actually still there. The tomb was sealed, and a guard was set. The entire question of the resurrection can be settled by the simple assumption that the body had already been removed when the tomb was sealed.

As long as the most obvious solution, that the body of Jesus was moved elsewhere by his disciples, is the obvious answer, the least obvious possibility, that the body came back to life, is nothing more than an insupportable ancient superstition. It's exactly the nonsense that it appears to be.

And the psycological motivation especially when they did not even expect Him to rise again from the dead? How does this explain the claimed appearences to some of the most skeptical and even hostile opponets and persecutors of the 1st disciples of Jesus (such as "doubting" Thomas, Saul/Paul, James, and other early followers)?

Amazingly illogical. In hopes of demonstrating that the resurrection is more probable than a naturalistic solution, you cite the reactions of apostles and evangelists to the resurrection. In other words, if you assume the resurrection to be fact, then it becomes probable.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

How does this explain the claimed appearences to some of the most skeptical and even hostile opponets and persecutors of the 1st disciples of Jesus (such as "doubting" Thomas, Saul/Paul, James, and other early followers)?

What did the priests tell Pilate that they suspected the disciples intended to do? Take the body of Jesus and then spread the story that he had risen from the dead! "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." (Matthew 27:64). And some six weeks after the execution we find the disciples doing that very thing; spreading the story of the risen Jesus. (Acts 2). But only after the reanimated corpse of Jesus flew up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds. (Acts 1:9). Saul/Paul's conversion was some years later by the way, and he was not a personal witness to any of the events detailed by the Gospels.

This solution is not so "obvious" once one actually considers it for any period of time.

Joseph's new rock tomb was used as a place to prep the body of Jesus because it was conveniently close to the place where Jesus had been crucified. (Ref. John 19:41-42). Joseph's brand new hand hewn and very expensive family tomb was never intended to be the final resting place for the corpse of Jesus. The followers of Jesus, who had been given possession of the body of Jesus by the Roman governor and therefore had every right to bury it at a place of their choosing, simply relocated it elsewhere after it had been thoroughly prepped. This would have left the tomb empty, obviously, wouldn't it? Or do you consider this possibility to be completely unlikely, while and the same time accepting the story of a flying reanimated corpse to be perfectly "obvious?"

Besides, this theory along with the others have been widely discredited within scholarly circles, even among most skeptical scholars during the 20th Century.

Christians do testify to and fully acknowledge the truth of their own claims it would seem. That much at least is obvious.