Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

[Aetixintro]

I love discussing/debating arguments related to God's existence and Christianity, and I have a voice chat group I'm putting together to do that. Send me a PM if you're interested in participating or listening in.

Below is a brief summarized version of an argument. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
____
Resolved: The available evidence justifies our belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

I'll present three lines of evidence supporting this claim:

The NT documents were based on eyewitness testimony.
We have reliable copies of that testimony.
We can establish facts from that testimony that support the resurrection.

In support of the first point, that the NT documents were based on eyewitness testimony, I present the testimony of three extra-biblical authors who were contemporaries of the eyewitnesses and of the writing of the NT documents. These writers were Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Rome. These three men were well acquainted with the eyewitnesses (Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of John, and Clement was appointed to his position in Rome by Peter). They all also endorsed the NT documents through their many citations, quoting from every NT book except for 2 John and Jude. Finally, these men gave their lives for their faith (which speaks to their sincerity). The significance of this testimony cannot be understated. Three different men, well acquainted with the eyewitnesses, endorsed the NT documents through their many citations and died for their faith. Their writings justify our belief that eyewitness testimony provided the basis for the original NT documents.

Second, we want to know that we have accurate copies of those original NT documents. The NT stands head and shoulders above every other ancient work in this respect with over 5300 early copies and fragments in existence today. The next runner-up (Homer's Iliad) has just 643 copies and fragments. The New Testament manuscripts are also close to the originals, with many copies and fragments from the first few hundred years after the sources. Compare that to the next runner-up (again the Iliad), whose manuscripts are 500 years after the originals. There is also something to be said for the wide distribution of the documents. They were spread out over three continents and translated into multiple languages (with the earliest Latin translation going back to the 200s). The wealth of documents and their nearness to the originals give us good reason to believe we have accurate transmissions of the original documents.

Finally, we want to know what facts we can establish from the testimony. There are four facts critical to our consideration of the resurrection that we can consider:

Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.
The tomb was empty on the third day.
People, individually and in groups, reported post-mortem appearances of Jesus.
The disciples came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Multiple NT witnesses corroborate each fact. We can find individual support for these points as well. For example, Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin (the same group that condemned Jesus) and is therefore unlikely to be an early Christian invention. James (Jesus' brother and one of the people reporting a post-mortem appearance) met Paul in Jerusalem before Paul reported James's claim to a post-mortem appearance, indicating that Paul’s report of James’s claim to an appearance is firsthand.

I've supported the claim that eyewitness testimony provides the basis for the original NT documents and that our copies are accurate. I identified four facts that we can establish from that testimony, and those facts support the conviction that Jesus rose from the dead. We are, therefore, justified based on that evidence in the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

____
Sources:

Craig, William Lane. On Guard. David C Cook, 2010.

Holden, Joseph M. The Popular Handbook of Archeology and the Bible. Harvest House Publishers, 2013.

McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. 1999.

So, QFD: Does this argument above convince you that Jesus rose from the dead? Why? Why not?

[YahwhatIsBack]

The NT documents were based on eyewitness testimony.

Actually, the only account written from a firsthand eyewitness perspective is Paul in 1 Cor 15:8, 1 Cor 9:1 and Gal. 1:12-16 in regards to seeing/experiencing the Risen Christ. As for the gospels, the mainstream scholarly position is this:

"Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings." - Oxford Annotated Bible vol. 4, p. 1744

In support of the first point, that the NT documents were based on eyewitness testimony, I present the testimony of three extra-biblical authors who were contemporaries of the eyewitnesses and of the writing of the NT documents.

Notice how, instead of actually providing eyewitness testimony, he appeals to others claimed as "contemporaries" of the eyewitnesses which, at best, makes it second-hand removed from the original eyewitnesses.

These writers were Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Rome. These three men were well acquainted with the eyewitnesses (Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of John, and Clement was appointed to his position in Rome by Peter).

Unfortunately, the author gives no evidence for this assertion at all. There were 3 or 4 different "Johns" in the early church and even if Clement was appointed by Peter in Rome - so what? What is the evidence that Peter actually interacted with a person who was once dead and then resurrected?

They all also endorsed the NT documents through their many citations, quoting from every NT book except for 2 John and Jude.

This is simply a non-sequitur if the NT documents aren't reliable in the first place. This person is just taking for granted that they are without supporting that assertion with evidence.

Finally, these men gave their lives for their faith (which speaks to their sincerity).

Sincerity of beliefs doesn't make them true so another non-sequitur. Also, the claims for martyrdom are dubious at best given the poor quality of reliable sources in this regard.

Second, we want to know that we have accurate copies of those original NT documents. The NT stands head and shoulders above every other ancient work in this respect with over 5300 early copies and fragments in existence today. The next runner-up (Homer's Iliad) has just 643 copies and fragments. The New Testament manuscripts are also close to the originals, with many copies and fragments from the first few hundred years after the sources. Compare that to the next runner-up (again the Iliad), whose manuscripts are 500 years after the originals. There is also something to be said for the wide distribution of the documents. They were spread out over three continents and translated into multiple languages (with the earliest Latin translation going back to the 200s). The wealth of documents and their nearness to the originals give us good reason to believe we have accurate transmissions of the original documents.

This is a terrible argument. If, 2000 years in the future we find more copies of the Book or Mormon than any other book, does that mean Mormonism must be true? The reason we have so many copies of the New Testament is because the medieval church had a bunch of Christian monks who made it their priority to copy it more than any other text!

Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.

If Jesus was buried at all, he was most likely placed in a designated criminal's grave and no one knew the location. The burial by Joseph in a rock hewn tomb with a "large" rolling stone door (a sign of wealth) conveniently fulfills Isa. 53:9 where the "suffering servant" is buried "with the rich."

Isa. 53:9 (NRSV)
They made his grave with the wicked
and his tomb with the rich

The tomb was empty on the third day.

Miraculous missing body stories were commonplace in ancient fictional literature about heroes and other deified figures. Thus, it is just expected that we would find a missing body story about Jesus even if it weren't historical. Since there is no verified independent attestation of the empty tomb (all gospels follow the same burial-discovery sequence that derives from the original Markan narrative), it's just as likely that the gospels would be employing the literary theme of a "miraculous missing body" as it is that they were reporting a historical fact. Thus, the story by itself cannot serve as evidence for its historicity. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristi ... s_were_an/

People, individually and in groups, reported post-mortem appearances of Jesus.

Again, only Paul's words are firsthand (1 Cor 15:8) and he seems to make it clear that he had a "revelation" - Gal. 1:16, not a physical encounter with a revived corpse. Acts 26:19 even calls the experience a "vision from heaven." So it would seem to follow then, that claims of "visions" (ambiguous experiences that may not necessarily have anything to do with reality) were accepted as "appearances" of the Risen Christ. Since Paul makes no distinction between his "vision" of Jesus and the other "appearances" in the earliest "eyewitness" list (1 Cor 15:5-8) then apologists cannot claim the other appearances were more physical/veridical than what Paul experienced. If these were all originally thought to be appearances of the exalted heavenly Christ, then it doesn't matter how many people Jesus "appeared" to. Moreover, the verb for "appeared" ὤφθη is the same verb used in the Septuagint for when God "appeared" to the Patriarchs in non-physical ways making the term insufficient to establish the physical appearance of an actual resurrected person was implied. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... E%B8%CE%B7

The disciples came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

And we can explain this without a miracle occurring. https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblic ... &context=3

Multiple NT witnesses corroborate each fact.

Isn't it funny how this "witness" testimony seems to grow in the telling as if a legend was evolving? https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristi ... over_time/

For example, Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin (the same group that condemned Jesus) and is therefore unlikely to be an early Christian invention.

On the contrary, the composer of the narrative needed someone in the position of power to go and request the body of Jesus from Pilate.

James (Jesus' brother and one of the people reporting a post-mortem appearance) met Paul in Jerusalem before Paul reported James's claim to a post-mortem appearance, indicating that Paul’s report of James’s claim to an appearance is firsthand.

Again, we do not have James' own firsthand words. All we have is Paul equating his "vision" of Jesus with the other "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8.

[TRANSPONDER]

Very good responses. There is a tendency to reiterate the Gospel claims (and some filling in the blanks like assuming that Paul meeting James in Jerusalem (which I tend to believe) means that James told Paul all about the Gospel resurrection. But that assumes they are true for James to tell Paul about them. If (for example) he merely knew that Jesus had been a nuisance to the Romans and was killed by them, but his spirit went to heaven and would come back in their lifetimes, that would fit better what Paul tells us.

I'd also repeat that there are doubts about the usual belief about locations of the Tomb, etc. In the 1st c AD Bezetha beyond the Hasmonean wall was a suburb and Herod Agrippa was have that enclosed with yet another city wall. All the old tombs there were being emptied and moved to the mount of Olives and any new tombs (including Arimathea's) would on Olivet, too. It follows that the Sepulchres are probably Hasmonean date and cannot be Jesus' actual tomb; and Golgotha cannot actually be there, nor can the Via Dolorosa be the actual route that Jesus took to crucifixion.

There's also the point that the idea of Jesus processing through Jerusalem on his donkey can't be right. If it really happened, it must be from Bethany down the descent of the Mt of olives, over Herod's bridge over Kedron vale and into Solomon's porch and the temple court.. In fact, with Pilate's Praetorium probably being the Antonia fortress, aside from Jesus being bussed over to the High priests'palace on the West wall of the city, all the action was between Bethany and the temple.

[1213]

...
So, QFD: Does this argument above convince you that Jesus rose from the dead? Why? Why not?

I think it is a good argument. But, I understand that it is not much for a person who doesn't want to believe. I think the essential question is, if it would be certain that Bible is true, would you live by what Jesus said? If not, there is no point in convincing you. If yes, the question is, why would you then live by his words? I think the teachings of Jesus are good and I would want to live by them anyway. This is why I think it is irrelevant to know surely that they are true.

Can you show the in the bible that Jesus actually said what he said?

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean with that?

[1213]

...they would agree that the facts have been fiddled by Pauline Christians not only to turn Jesus into God... ...so, on what basis do you reject this direct dictation to Muhhammad ...

I reject it, because they don't even know what is said in the Bible and still dare to call it false. It is not Pauline Christianity to think Jesus is God because:

...For though there are things that are called "gods," whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many "gods" and many "lords;" yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

[Goat]

Can you show the in the bible that Jesus actually said what he said?

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean with that?

Jesus never wrong a single book or anything down. The writings closest in time to Jesus was written by someone who did not know him. In fact, I don't remember Paul quoting anything he thought Jesus said.

The Gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, by people who did not know him 'in the flesh' so to speak. Mark is alleged to have been written by a disciple of Peters. Matthew and John were written by people who used very sophiciated Greek language, and copied passages from Mark, and Luke said he traveled around with paul in his youth... which makes him non-contemporary with Jesus.

So, since none of the gospels or writings about Jesus were written by people who knew Jesus, how do you know he said that?

[TRANSPONDER]

...they would agree that the facts have been fiddled by Pauline Christians not only to turn Jesus into God... ...so, on what basis do you reject this direct dictation to Muhhammad ...

I reject it, because they don't even know what is said in the Bible and still dare to call it false. It is not Pauline Christianity to think Jesus is God because:

...For though there are things that are called "gods," whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many "gods" and many "lords;" yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

I don't think you can honestly accuse Muslim scholars of not knowing what is in the Bible, though I do agree that they seem to do what they like or prefer with it. I have argued with them that they say "They lie who say that God has had a son." Are they saying that God couldn't do that if he wanted to? There's nobody like a Theist for telling God what to do.

That said, I agree that Paul did not think that Jesus was God (though I think that he saw the messianic spirit as a divine emanation from heaven) but what I call 'Pauline Christians' who were (or so I argue) taking his ball and running with it, Did see Jesus as first (in Mark) God's spirit trundling Jesus about like a sock -puppet, and later (in John) a radiant God shining through a near transparent human Jesus.

[1213]

...
I don't think you can honestly accuse Muslim scholars of not knowing what is in the Bible...

I agree, but if they claim the message is from the God, I think it is fair to assume God would know better.

[1213]

...
So, since none of the gospels or writings about Jesus were written by people who knew Jesus, how do you know he said that?

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I don't think we know anything about history, we can only believe. And I believe Bible has accurately what Jesus told to people.

And claims like "The Gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, by people who did not know him 'in the flesh' so to speak" are to me also just matters of belief, I don't think that can be proven correct.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
I don't think you can honestly accuse Muslim scholars of not knowing what is in the Bible...

I agree, but if they claim the message is from the God, I think it is fair to assume God would know better.

But that's the point isn't it? There have long been doubts about the man Jesus being God (Paul apparently doesn't think so) and Jesus resurrecting from death (I don't think so). So you can't automatically reject Islamic teaching as being wrong because it could be the Gospels that are wrong. Maybe God (Allah) does know better.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
So, since none of the gospels or writings about Jesus were written by people who knew Jesus, how do you know he said that?

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I don't think we know anything about history, we can only believe. And I believe Bible has accurately what Jesus told to people.

And claims like "The Gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, by people who did not know him 'in the flesh' so to speak" are to me also just matters of belief, I don't think that can be proven correct.

I know that accurately dating the gospels is difficult. I have some balpark figures, like ...
Actual events. 30 AD. Paul from 36 AD (escape from Damascus) collecting for the famine (45 AD) council of Jerusalem (51 AD) and the end of the story 60 AD.
The original Jesus story is revised by Christians into the form common to all 4 gospels after the Jewish war, end of the 1st c AD John (Ryland fragment) dated to some time in the 2nd c. The edited synoptic gospel incorporating material like the feeding of 4,000 and the syrio -Phoenecian woman (not in Luke) was edited by Mark and Matthew some time late 2nd - early 3rd c - as I say, ballpark figures based on layers of evolution of the gospels.

Luke's Gospels and Acts during 3rd c AD using Paul's letters and Josephus. Matthew for instance, didn't know that the disciples didn't go to Galilee but stayed in Jerusalem to found the Church. Luke knew that from Paul's letters and adapted the Gospel story accordingly. At this time, they also added a nativity (which John didn't do) and a resurrection -story (which John did do). Later on even, later 3rd c an even 4th, a 'resurrection' was added to Mark - two goes they had at that and the final scene of the disciples in Galilee was added to John (not in the earliest Gospels, so an expert on my former board tells me) and of course the woman taken in adultery was a 'Floating story' (1)they couldn't decide whether to put in Luke or John.
And of course latest of all the Gospel of Peter which uses elements of both Luke and Matthew.

Ballpark. but demonstrably not all written at the same time shortly after Jesus' death, not by eyewitnesses, not correct, not consistent and not reliable.0

(1) Floating stories is a half -hypothesis that may explain some real Gospel puzzles, like why Luke doesn't have the walking on water.