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.

[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?

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

Thats actually the Pauline position. From an unbiased perspective(which is the Jewish perspective), the death of Jesus Christ was a disgraceful & cursed death according to the Torah.

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.

The Holy Spirit aka God, can be prayed to, like any other entity of the Trinity. Really, this is basic Christianity. So giving a rebuttal that praying to "The holy spirit" is different than praying to God in any other entity, is not honest on your behalf.
Also, its not a matter of "abusing" scripture, as according to the 4 canonical Gospels, Jesus only made 1 prayer not to die, and if this prayer was rejected, that screams hypocrisy right in your face.

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.

It seems like your whispering one part of the verse, and screaming the other part out, you have to read the whole verse & be honest with yourself.
Lets analyse Luke 22:42 in detail:

"Father, if you are willing,

Meaning: "God if you want to"

take this cup from me

Meaning: "Take death from me"

yet not my will, but yours be done."

Meaning: "Ultimately, your in control, not me, and your decision will be done."

If Jesus' prayer was rejected, that means Jesus was a hypocrite for preaching 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?

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.

So is there a limit of what can be asked for in prayer?
Jesus asking God not to die, because he was crucified wrongly, isn't much to ask in my opinion, simply because he was the one that was wronged, and all he wanted was justice(which is his life).

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.

The 3 entity's make the Trinity, which is ultimately God. So, one could say the 3 entity's make God, its just a wording difference.

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?

Because you made the claim that the 'Holy Spirit' doesn't refer to God in Luke 11:13. The Trinity proves your claim 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.

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."

You are proving my point my friend, i never claimed Jesus made a "Complete Comparison", i only quoted what Jesus said himself. I'll help analyse & evaluate for you.
1)

A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign!
(Matthew 12:39)

Here, the Jews asked for a sign, which angered Jesus.

2)

NONE will be given it EXCEPT the sign of the prophet Jonah
(Matthew 12:39)

Now, read this verse, very, very carefully.
Jesus replied: NONE WILL BE GIVEN, meaning no miracles will be given, absolutely none, zilch, zero, nothing.
Then, he says: EXCEPT, so basically he makes an exclusion, then refers to the sign of Prophet Jonah.

3)

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
(Matthew 12:40)

Basically, the SAME way Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish. Jesus would be in the heart of the earth.


Evaluation of the points:
1) His reaction to the Jews asking for a miracle was negative.
2) Jesus blatantly destroys the doctrine of "resurrection", simply because he said no miracles would be given. He further on says: "Except the sign of prophet Jonah", & the sign of prophet Jonah was survival against all odds, with the prayer of God.
3) Basically, the same way Jonah escaped death for 3 days & 3 nights in the belly of the whale, so would Jesus in the belly of 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.

The conclusion is self-explanatory, im not doing any weird interpretation that Christians love to do(expecially when it comes down to the Trinity), furthermore im quoting Jesus' own words, so im sure you would give Jesus more authority over Paul.

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.

I disagree with you, and i think your belief is pre-conditioned with subjective opinion rather than accepting unambiguous facts that were concluded from Matthew 12:39-40.

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.

That would be off topic, but ill be happy to evaluate my belief very quickly & why i believe in it:
1) Jesus is not God, God does not exist in a Trinity, God(called 'Allah' in arabic) Exists as 1 perfect entity as in Judaism, but he may be reffered to with different names.
2) Jesus was the Messiah, but he was rejected by his people
3) Salvation can only be attained by work, not by God comitting suicide on a cross or by faith alone.
4) Jesus will have a second comming.
5) Muhammad(pbuh) was the seal of the prophets.

And yes, my belief is derived from the Quran, and here are a few verses to emphasize my position:

We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil).
(Quran 5:46-47)

“In blasphemy indeed are those that say that God is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against God, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every – one that is on the earth? For to God belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For God hath power over all things.�[Qur'an 5:17]

And they say: "The Most Beneficent (Allah) has begotten a son (or offspring or children), and the pagan Arabs say that He has begotten daughters (angels, etc.)."

Indeed you have brought forth (said) a terrible evil thing.

Whereby the heavens are almost torn, and the earth is split asunder, and the mountains fall in ruins.
(Quran 19:88-90)

If you wish to ask questions, please post it in "Questions About a Belief" or "Questions for a Specific User", as i do not want to take this thread off topic.

[Lux]

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

Jesus was left on the cross for a much shorter time than usual. He was taken for dead relatively fast (only 6 hours after being crucified according to Mark, compared to as much as a day or two for other victims of a similar crucifixion). Furthermore, roman custom was to leave the dead victims of crucifixion hanging on their crosses as a way of dissuading possible criminals, and also to further dishonor them (Source). This was not the case for Jesus.

It is very unlikely for a person to survive a crucifixion such as Jesus'. However, it is not impossible in this particular case. He could have lost consciousness (possibly due to some sort of pulmonary trouble, a common effect of crucifixions). If after that he had been left hanging on the cross, he would have surely died, either due to further damage to the lungs or infection of his many wounds. But he was taken down. He could have been assumed to be dead due to the terrible shape he was undoubtedly in, and after being buried regained function of his lungs. I don't think it is crazy to assume that he received some care for his wounds, even if he was assumed to be dead, given his disciples by all indications loved him, or at least respected him a great deal. I can't imagine that they wouldn't have wanted to honor his body as much as possible (for comparison, people even nowadays tend to clean up the bodies of their loved ones before their burials). This could have reduced the risk of fatal infections, or at least postpone severe infections for a bit - say, for instance, about 40 days?

Clearly, all this is unlikely. All we need to consider it a valid alternative hypothesis, though, is for it to be more likely than a dead man spontaneously coming back to life.

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

Not impossible given the possibility of post-traumatic stress in some of the disciples. I think it's more likely that most of the Jesus-sightings were made up, either by the seers themselves or by later writers. Perhaps one person actually had a vision of a risen Jesus, and the others claimed they'd seen him too, out of jealousy or because they thought it was a good idea to have everyone believe that Jesus was still up and about - which it was. Jesus' death must have been a severe blow to the story of his disciples whether true or not. "You should have seen him, he was amazing. Too bad he died" is not too impressive.

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

And this I think is the most likely hypothesis of all. Jesus dies on the cross and his body is taken and buried by his disciples. In that single sentence there is harm for two groups: the disciples and the roman soldiers.

The disciples have their story quite harmed. Jesus died a terrible death, and even if his reasons were good, they are now left without the Messiah and with a story of a guy who was very awesome but is now gone, and they don't even have anything to verify his works. How were they supposed to "spread the word"? Who would be convinced of the divinity of Jesus, or of his importance, if he died the most dishonorable death available at that time and that was it? They had left their homes and lives to follow Jesus, and now there was no more Jesus. I think the disciples had more than enough motive to steal Jesus' body and spread a resurrection story.

The roman soldiers, on the other hand, had the body of a condemned person nicked from under their noses, and what's more, they had given him sepulture (reminder: in Rome, victims of crucifixion were denied proper burial). They could have very well decided to take Jesus' body and give it a... less honorable... sepulture.

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.

Yes, I think so. Even though these hypothesis may seem far-fetched, they are in fact more likely than a dead man coming back to life, which can't even be shown to be possible without modern medical techniques and tools. If a resurrection in ancient times can't even be shown to be possible, then it can't be considered the most likely explanation.

[kingdombuilder]

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.

Strawman, no such "reactions" were cited. I see you ignored the bold part as well.

[Goose]

Swoon Hypothesis:

…It is very unlikely for a person to survive a crucifixion such as Jesus'. However, it is not impossible in this particular case.

True, it is not impossible. Nothing is truly impossible unless it is logically impossible. But as you’ve said the Swoon Hypothesis is unlikely. The Journal of the American Medical Association seems to agree:

Jesus of Nazareth underwent Jewish and Roman trials, was flogged, and was sentenced to death by crucifixion. The scourging produced deep stripelike lacerations and appreciable blood loss, and it probably set the stage for hypovolemic shock as evidenced by the fact that Jesus was too weakened to carry the crossbar (patibulum) to Golgotha. At the site of crucifixion his wrists were nailed to the patibulum, and after the patibulum was lifted onto the upright post, (stipes) his feet were nailed to the stipes. The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion was an interference with normal respirations. Accordingly, death resulted primarily from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. Jesus’ death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier’s spear into his side. Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross. (JAMA 1986;255:1455-1463)

Vision Hypothesis:

Not impossible given the possibility of post-traumatic stress in some of the disciples. I think it's more likely that most of the Jesus-sightings were made up, either by the seers themselves or by later writers.

This is always a possibility. But this scenario doesn’t explain Paul’s conversion or the sceptic James’ conversion. You’ll need additional ad hoc hypotheses to explain those conversions. Not to mention, you need to explain why these folks would make up a lie in the first place. Explain why and how all the evidence that Jesus wasn’t raised to life was suppressed.

Stolen Body Hypothesis:

And this I think is the most likely hypothesis of all... I think the disciples had more than enough motive to steal Jesus' body and spread a resurrection story.

Really? So basically, the disciples were not only liars, but thieves too.

Don’t you think it more likely the disciples would just find some reason to forget about Jesus and return to their old life considering they all ran away at the time of Jesus' death anyway? Don't you think that more likely than the idea that the disciples overnight turned from fleeing cowards into brave enough men to mount some great scheme to steal Jesus’ dead body? Then run around telling everyone in the same city where Jesus was killed that he was alive depsite the threat of possible death?

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.

Yes, I think so. Even though these hypothesis may seem far-fetched, they are in fact more likely than a dead man coming back to life, which can't even be shown to be possible without modern medical techniques and tools.

False. Daniel Ekechukwu.

If a resurrection in ancient times can't even be shown to be possible, then it can't be considered the most likely explanation.

To show you a resurrection in ancient times is possible would require a time machine.

[kingdombuilder]

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.

Still does not explain how/why he (Saul/Paul) could have come to believe in a resurrected Jesus after being one of early Christianity's biggest persecutors. Not only did he come to believe in it, he claims to have seen the resurrected Jesus himself. Thus, turning himself from one of the most loved and feared persecutors of Christians into one of the most hated and persecuted persons for the Christian message. This fact can not simply be ignored or swept under the rug as appears to be the case so far in this thread by more than one participant.

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?"

1) How and why would Paul and other skeptics come to believe in a resurrected Jesus? Note that it was not the empty tomb that converted these people but their claim to have actually seen the resurrected Jesus. Do you actually think Saul and some of the Pharisees would have been convinced of only an empty tomb? As you state above, this theory is not new and they would have known this possibility better than anyone else.

2) The stolen body theory is a discredited theory, even by most critical scholars in part due to the fact that a)there is no hint in the historic records that the early disciples where in the frame of mind to do such a thing. They were fearful and we see nothing but them wanting to distance themselves from Jesus while he was on trial and being crucified and b) even if it could be shown that they did do such a thing, this does not explain the fact they they willingly were alienated, persecuted, and even put to death for a lie that they knew about. For these 2 reasons and others most critical scholars has discounted this theory.

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.

Strawman, "most skeptical/critical scholars" discredit this theory; not just those scholars who are Christians who believe that Jesus was physically resurrected.

[Lux]

True, it is not impossible. Nothing is truly impossible unless it is logically impossible. But as you’ve said the Swoon Hypothesis is unlikely. The Journal of the American Medical Association seems to agree:

Jesus of Nazareth underwent Jewish and Roman trials, was flogged, and was sentenced to death by crucifixion. The scourging produced deep stripelike lacerations and appreciable blood loss, and it probably set the stage for hypovolemic shock as evidenced by the fact that Jesus was too weakened to carry the crossbar (patibulum) to Golgotha. At the site of crucifixion his wrists were nailed to the patibulum, and after the patibulum was lifted onto the upright post, (stipes) his feet were nailed to the stipes. The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion was an interference with normal respirations. Accordingly, death resulted primarily from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. Jesus’ death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier’s spear into his side. Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross. (JAMA 1986;255:1455-1463)

I agree, nothing is impossible unless logically so, and Jesus surviving his crucifixion is very unlikely. I still think it's more likely than someone coming back to life after 3 days dead, unless of course divine intervention could be proven to have brought it about.

One thing I consider to be in favor of this hypothesis is that it fits well with the conversion of Paul and the witnesses claiming to have seen Jesus after his burial.

This is always a possibility. But this scenario doesn’t explain Paul’s conversion or the sceptic James’ conversion. You’ll need additional ad hoc hypotheses to explain those conversions. Not to mention, you need to explain why these folks would make up a lie in the first place. Explain why and how all the evidence that Jesus wasn’t raised to life was suppressed.

Evidence that Jesus wasn't raised? I really doubt anybody would keep journals about how many people coming back to life they have not seen. People hearing the story of a resurrected Jesus wouldn't have known whether or not it was true just because they hadn't seen him themselves, and especially if his body was indeed missing. If they couldn't go to his grave and verify that he was there, dead, how could they offer any evidence that he was?

Paul's conversion could subtract from this hypothesis.

As for them making it up, I've already explained why I think they had enough motive.

Really? So basically, the disciples were not only liars, but thieves too.

Don’t you think it more likely the disciples would just find some reason to forget about Jesus and return to their old life considering they all ran away at the time of Jesus' death anyway? Don't you think that more likely than the idea that the disciples overnight turned from fleeing cowards into brave enough men to mount some great scheme to steal Jesus’ dead body? Then run around telling everyone in the same city where Jesus was killed that he was alive depsite the threat of possible death?

Josephus took Jesus' body down from the cross, which was illegal, so I suppose at least he wasn't such a coward. He risked being executed with the only purpose of not letting Jesus rot on a cross. I admit this is the first time I hear a christian call the disciples cowards

I don't know whether or not they were liars. If they were willing to leave everything and follow Jesus around in the first place, then they either believed he was quite special or were after some sort of reward. Either of those motives wouldn't vanish after Jesus' death. And why would they need much courage to steal a body? Was the tomb guarded?

Again, it's more likely that a group of people made up a lie because they couldn't or didn't fancy going back to their old lives than a dead man spontaneously coming back to life after being dead for 3 days.

There's also the possibility that it was stolen by the roman soldiers in charge of his crucifixion, or guarding the crucified bodies. They could have gotten in trouble if it was discovered that Jesus' body was taken away and given proper sepulture.

False. Daniel Ekechukwu.

The link is not working for me. I googled him, and found that his resurrection is as disputed as it is supported, if not more. In any case, he received modern medical care after being in the car crash.

To show you a resurrection in ancient times is possible would require a time machine.

You mean you don't have one!?

You know what I mean, though It hasn't been shown that a person resurrecting without receiving advanced medical care is possible.

[WinePusher]

@ WinePusher

There are numerous theories that are 'historically' possible, but the one you pointed out is the most popular, i also gave a biblical rebuttal in our head-to-head debate, that shows the very real possibility of Jesus surviving.

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:

This is a case where biblical verses won't suffice. You're stating the mainstream Islamic Belief that Jesus did not die on the cross which would be based off of the Qur'an:

We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise

Qur'an, sura 4 (An-Nisa) ayat 157-158

Now, any biblical case you construct to disprove Jesus' death would be defeated by the fact that the Bible itself claims that Jesus died, the Gospels all say that Jesus "breathed his last" meaning that he did die so a "biblical argument" would be moot.

Historically, this claim by the Qur'an should be automatically disregarded. It was written centuries after the fact, with no supporting evidence other then divine revelation by a man who was not an eye-witness to the event.

[Goose]

I agree, nothing is impossible unless logically so, and Jesus surviving his crucifixion is very unlikely. I still think it's more likely than someone coming back to life after 3 days dead, unless of course divine intervention could be proven to have brought it about.

But then the resurrection is possible too if anything logically possible is possible. Your personal opinion regarding what you believe to be more likely is noted. But the bottom line here is that to argue the Swoon Theory you’ll need to argue against JAMA.

One thing I consider to be in favor of this hypothesis is that it fits well with the conversion of Paul and the witnesses claiming to have seen Jesus after his burial.

Not only does this makes Jesus a liar it doesn’t have enough explanatory power. A nearly dead Jesus dragging himself around the streets of Jerusalem would hardly be enough to convert Paul or James or cause the disciples to change from cowards to heroes.

This is always a possibility. But this scenario doesn’t explain Paul’s conversion or the sceptic James’ conversion. You’ll need additional ad hoc hypotheses to explain those conversions. Not to mention, you need to explain why these folks would make up a lie in the first place. Explain why and how all the evidence that Jesus wasn’t raised to life was suppressed.

Evidence that Jesus wasn't raised? I really doubt anybody would keep journals about how many people coming back to life they have not seen. People hearing the story of a resurrected Jesus wouldn't have known whether or not it was true just because they hadn't seen him themselves, and especially if his body was indeed missing. If they couldn't go to his grave and verify that he was there, dead, how could they offer any evidence that he was?

Anyone, such as Luke, making an enquiry could talk to witnesses and so on. If it had all been a hoax there are good odds that eventually someone would say something.

Paul's conversion could subtract from this hypothesis.

Yes, Paul’s and James’ conversion make this hypothesis unlikely.

As for them making it up, I've already explained why I think they had enough motive.

I think they had greater motive to walk away if they didn’t really believe Jesus rose rather than bothering to make up tales that would get them persecuted and maybe even killed.

Really? So basically, the disciples were not only liars, but thieves too.

Don’t you think it more likely the disciples would just find some reason to forget about Jesus and return to their old life considering they all ran away at the time of Jesus' death anyway? Don't you think that more likely than the idea that the disciples overnight turned from fleeing cowards into brave enough men to mount some great scheme to steal Jesus’ dead body? Then run around telling everyone in the same city where Jesus was killed that he was alive depsite the threat of possible death?

Josephus took Jesus' body down from the cross, which was illegal, so I suppose at least he wasn't such a coward. He risked being executed with the only purpose of not letting Jesus rot on a cross. I admit this is the first time I hear a christian call the disciples cowards

Couple of inaccuracies here. First a minor quibble. It wasn’t Josephus it was Joseph of Arimathea. More importantly, he didn’t take the body off the cross. And he didn’t risk execution in his case because he asked for permission from Pilate to have Jesus’ corpse. If he wasn’t worried about the repercussions of just walking in and taking Jesus’ body why did he bother to ask permission?

I don't know whether or not they were liars.

Then you shouldn’t build hypotheses that require them to be.

If they were willing to leave everything and follow Jesus around in the first place, then they either believed he was quite special or were after some sort of reward. Either of those motives wouldn't vanish after Jesus' death.

They might not vanish but those motives wouldn’t necessarily lead them to steal a body and then lie about it when there was a possible penalty of death attached if they were caught.

And why would they need much courage to steal a body?

Nazareth Inscription – apparently capital punishment was the Roman penalty for tampering with graves in that region. Add to this Jesus had just been crucified and his disciples weren’t exactly in the good books. Would you steal a dead body under those circumstances?

Was the tomb guarded?

Possibly.

Again, it's more likely that a group of people made up a lie because they couldn't or didn't fancy going back to their old lives than a dead man spontaneously coming back to life after being dead for 3 days.

Maybe. But then you must argue they were liars then to support your position. This will need substantial positive proof to establish.

There's also the possibility that it was stolen by the roman soldiers in charge of his crucifixion, or guarding the crucified bodies. They could have gotten in trouble if it was discovered that Jesus' body was taken away and given proper sepulture.

I’m not following here. The Romans stole Jesus’ body?

False. Daniel Ekechukwu.

The link is not working for me. I googled him, and found that his resurrection is as disputed as it is supported, if not more.

I think you are confusing disputing with refuting. If you can prove the account false, I’d like to know.

In any case, he received modern medical care after being in the car crash.

I saw no reference to medical care before or after his resurrection.

It hasn't been shown that a person resurrecting without receiving advanced medical care is possible.

Yes it has. I gave an example and you haven’t refuted it. So now you are simply repeating your assertion in the face of conflicting evidence. Now you are merely arguing by assertion.

[Lux]

But then the resurrection is possible too if anything logically possible is possible. Your personal opinion regarding what you believe to be more likely is noted. But the bottom line here is that to argue the Swoon Theory you’ll need to argue against JAMA.

Yes, the resurrection is not impossible, however it's far from the most likely explanation, and that's not really personal opinion, given it hasn't been proven that a resurrection in such conditions is even medically possible, whereas Premature burial, for example, is something that is known to happen, especially before modern methods to determine if one is actually dead came to be.

Not only does this makes Jesus a liar it doesn’t have enough explanatory power. A nearly dead Jesus dragging himself around the streets of Jerusalem would hardly be enough to convert Paul or James or cause the disciples to change from cowards to heroes.

How do you figure? "Half-dead", assuming he looked that way, or not, he appeared to be back from the dead. How's that not impressive enough?

Anyone, such as Luke, making an enquiry could talk to witnesses and so on. If it had all been a hoax there are good odds that eventually someone would say something.

Somebody would say something like what? "I haven't seen any dead people coming back to life lately, so clearly none have"? That would be pretty much the same as me denying the existence of pandas because I've never seen one. It's possible some people testified that they had not seen Jesus after his death, but that is not really meaningful, is it? Jesus could have simply not been around that person's general area of residency. Proving that Jesus was not resurrected is impossible, it's proving a negative.

Couple of inaccuracies here. First a minor quibble. It wasn’t Josephus it was Joseph of Arimathea. More importantly, he didn’t take the body off the cross. And he didn’t risk execution in his case because he asked for permission from Pilate to have Jesus’ corpse. If he wasn’t worried about the repercussions of just walking in and taking Jesus’ body why did he bother to ask permission?

My bad on the name, I was in a hurry. Sorry.

About asking for Jesus' body, I'm rather surprised. It seems highly unlikely that such a wish would be granted by the romans, who had a few reasons not to take crucified bodies down. Why would they grant Jesus that special privilege?

Then you shouldn’t build hypotheses that require them to be.

Why not? It's a possible alternative explanation, and since everybody lies, whereas it can't be shown that anyone can come back from the dead on their own, I think the idea that the disciples might have simply lied has an advantage over the resurrection hypothesis.

They might not vanish but those motives wouldn’t necessarily lead them to steal a body and then lie about it when there was a possible penalty of death attached if they were caught.

Nazareth Inscription – apparently capital punishment was the Roman penalty for tampering with graves in that region. Add to this Jesus had just been crucified and his disciples weren’t exactly in the good books. Would you steal a dead body under those circumstances?

It seems clear to me that the disciples were either truly devoted to Jesus or seeking to gain something substantial from following him.

If the former, they would have wanted to spread the message even if that was punishable by death. They knew Jesus, but other people didn't, and how were they supposed to spread the word if they no longer had Jesus with them? Like I said, the damage Jesus' death did to their story was probably so substantial that I'd say it constitutes enough motive to make up a story, whether with good intentions or not.

If the latter, the motive becomes even clearer. They had invested years of their lives, leaving everything else behind to follow Jesus. Now Jesus was gone, what did they have?

Maybe. But then you must argue they were liars then to support your position. This will need substantial positive proof to establish.

People lie. It can't be proven that the disciples were liars, much like it can't be proven that Jesus was resurrected, so I don't know about you, but I'm going to go with what's more likely until proven wrong. It's more credible, unless we assume god, that the disciples made up a story than it is for someone to survive a crucifixion, or for a dead person to come back to life. I doubt we can ever prove what happened to Jesus' body, the real question here is why is the resurrection, a supernatural event that defies the laws of nature, accepted as the most likely explanation.

I think you are confusing disputing with refuting. If you can prove the account false, I’d like to know.

I'm not confusing it, I'm pointing out that the case you provided is far from being evidence in favor of spontaneous resurrections, since that man's resurrection is not proven. All there seems to be out there is the testimony of his wife and several blog posts praising or disputing his resurrection. That's not too credible.

I saw no reference to medical care before or after his resurrection.

Everything I found seems to agree that he was taken to a hospital, and then to another hospital in an ambulance. Are we to assume that he received no medical care whatsoever in none of those three instances?

[Goose]

But then the resurrection is possible too if anything logically possible is possible. Your personal opinion regarding what you believe to be more likely is noted. But the bottom line here is that to argue the Swoon Theory you’ll need to argue against JAMA.

Yes, the resurrection is not impossible, however it's far from the most likely explanation, and that's not really personal opinion, given it hasn't been proven that a resurrection in such conditions is even medically possible,…

Surely you see how you contradict yourself here. The resurrection is not impossible but it is impossible because it hasn’t been shown to be possible. If it is possible as you concede there is no logical reason for me to prove it possible in order to show it is at least possible.

…whereas Premature burial, for example, is something that is known to happen, especially before modern methods to determine if one is actually dead came to be.

JAMA seems to disagree.

Not only does this makes Jesus a liar it doesn’t have enough explanatory power. A nearly dead Jesus dragging himself around the streets of Jerusalem would hardly be enough to convert Paul or James or cause the disciples to change from cowards to heroes.

How do you figure? "Half-dead", assuming he looked that way, or not, he appeared to be back from the dead. How's that not impressive enough?

If he just managed to revive he would look nearly dead, recently beaten and crucified. Picture the scenario of Jesus emerging from the tomb and dragging himself around the streets of Jerusalem till he found his disciples. Then saying, “Hey, guys, pay no attention to all the blood, I’m the Risen Lord! Now go preach it in the streets that I have risen!... Uh, by the way does anyone have a first aid kit handy?� Would that impress you enough to risk death for it? I think it more likely the disciples would be sympathetic to Jesus’ state and try to help him. But it would hardly be enough to get them to preach his resurrection in the face of possible death. Certainly not enough to convert Paul an enemy of the church or James a sceptic.

Anyone, such as Luke, making an enquiry could talk to witnesses and so on. If it had all been a hoax there are good odds that eventually someone would say something.

Somebody would say something like what?

Like one of the disciples saying it was hoax.

Couple of inaccuracies here. First a minor quibble. It wasn’t Josephus it was Joseph of Arimathea. More importantly, he didn’t take the body off the cross. And he didn’t risk execution in his case because he asked for permission from Pilate to have Jesus’ corpse. If he wasn’t worried about the repercussions of just walking in and taking Jesus’ body why did he bother to ask permission?

About asking for Jesus' body, I'm rather surprised. It seems highly unlikely that such a wish would be granted by the romans, who had a few reasons not to take crucified bodies down. Why would they grant Jesus that special privilege?

Red Herring. This is a diversion off the point and you are now just hand waiving aside evidence. Whether or not Joseph was actually given Jesus’ corpse is irrelevant because the point remains that Joseph didn’t just take the body. He knew there would be repercussions if he did. He asked permission first.

But to answer you quickly there are many reasons Pilate would grant this request. I’ll give two. Firstly, Pilate wasn’t granting this to Jesus he was granting it to Joseph a wealthy and highly respected member of the Jewish Council. Pilate wanted decent relations with the Jews. So there’s no good reason he would deny the request if he was willing to execute Jesus in the first place because of the priests lobbying him to do so. Secondly, a more practical reason, by giving the body to Joseph the Romans no longer needed to worry about Jesus and the disposal of his body.

Then you shouldn’t build hypotheses that require them to be.

Why not?

Because by your own admission you don’t know if they were lying. It is a serious accusation and the burden of proof falls on you.

It's a possible alternative explanation, and since everybody lies, whereas it can't be shown that anyone can come back from the dead on their own, I think the idea that the disciples might have simply lied has an advantage over the resurrection hypothesis.

No, no. You need to prove they were lying. Insinuation isn’t enough. And it has been shown people can come to life on their own, more argument by assertion.

It seems clear to me that the disciples were either truly devoted to Jesus or seeking to gain something substantial from following him.

Even if they were trying gain something, though you haven’t quite told us what that would be, this doesn’t give enough motive to risk death.

If the former, they would have wanted to spread the message even if that was punishable by death.

They didn’t need to risk death by stealing Jesus’ body, then make up a big whopper about him coming back from the dead just to spread his message. Occam’s Razor seems to shave that away.

They knew Jesus, but other people didn't, and how were they supposed to spread the word if they no longer had Jesus with them?

Well in the case Jesus rose from the dead they didn’t have Jesus with them per se either while they preached so this seems to be a moot point.

If the latter, the motive becomes even clearer. They had invested years of their lives, leaving everything else behind to follow Jesus. Now Jesus was gone, what did they have?

Several years of experience and good teaching under a rabbi. Why wouldn’t they just go back to what they were doing before and wait for the next Messianic claimant? Why steal a dead body, making up lies, and risk death? I would just go home and chalk it up to experience, wouldn’t you?

Maybe. But then you must argue they were liars then to support your position. This will need substantial positive proof to establish.

People lie. It can't be proven that the disciples were liars, much like it can't be proven that Jesus was resurrected, so I don't know about you, but I'm going to go with what's more likely until proven wrong.

That’s fine. I think the resurrection is more likely.

It's more credible, unless we assume god, that the disciples made up a story than it is for someone to survive a crucifixion, or for a dead person to come back to life. I doubt we can ever prove what happened to Jesus' body, the real question here is why is the resurrection, a supernatural event that defies the laws of nature, accepted as the most likely explanation.

You conceded earlier that anything that isn’t logically impossible is possible. Therefore, the supernatural (and God’s existence for that matter) is possible as they are not logically impossible. If Jesus rising from the dead is the best explanation that combines scope and explanatory power and the supernatural is at least possible, on what grounds would you reject the resurrection hypothesis?

I think you are confusing disputing with refuting. If you can prove the account false, I’d like to know.

I'm not confusing it, I'm pointing out that the case you provided is far from being evidence in favor of spontaneous resurrections, since that man's resurrection is not proven.

Of course it’s evidence. You can dispute if you wish and not believe it. But asserting it isn’t proven isn’t evidence that it isn’t proven.

All there seems to be out there is the testimony of his wife and several blog posts praising or disputing his resurrection. That's not too credible.

There’s a little more than that. But what you personally find credible is irrelevant to the point which is that your assertion has been shown false by evidence.

I saw no reference to medical care before or after his resurrection.

Everything I found seems to agree that he was taken to a hospital, and then to another hospital in an ambulance. Are we to assume that he received no medical care whatsoever in none of those three instances?

Well you are welcome to assume whatever you’d like. But there’s no mention of medical care at all. He arrived at the hospital already dead.