resuurection

[rosey]

I have never really given much thought if any unto the resurrection until recently... so I was wondering, what is the prevailing theory against the resurrection today from modern Atheists? Thanks.

[Haven]

Hi Rosey ,

In my opinion, this is a problematic issue from the atheist perspective. Most atheists simply appeal to naturalism, saying that "people don't normally rise from the dead, so Jesus cannot have come back from the dead." However, I feel this is circular reasoning, because it assumes the truth of naturalism in order to argue against a supernatural event, which is fallacious (I started a thread on this exact subject in the 'Christianity and Apologetics' forum a few days ago).

Another popular atheist theory is that Jesus never existed, and he was a mythical creation of Paul and the early Christians, who based the "Jesus" character on pagan parallels. This hypothesis is completely absurd and is almost universally rejected by historians and critical (secular) Bible scholars. There is an overwhelming amount of historical evidence that Jesus really existed. The "Jesus never existed" claim is absurd, ludicrous, ridiculous.

Other atheistic hypotheses include the stolen body view, which says that Jesus' disciples stole his body, the alternate stolen body view, which says that someone other than the apostles stole Jesus' body, the 'soma' view, which states that the empty tomb was not historical and the original Christian opinion was that Jesus' resurrection was spiritual. These are only a few of the views on what explains the resurrection evidence.

Personally, I think all these views have flaws and shortcomings, and I'm agnostic as to what actually happened surrounding the events of Jesus' alleged resurrection. The atheist views are, unfortunately, unsatisfying, and this is an often overlooked issue where the Christians really do have some good arguments and points against us. Still, I'm not ready to throw rationality out the window and conclude a man really did rise from the grave and fly away into the sky.

[Jake]

Rosey, the problem is you're shifting the burden of proof to the atheists. It isn't our job to disprove resurrection for two reasons:

1) We aren't the ones making the claim. Anyone who makes the claim that resurrection is possible needs to prove it. Rejecting a claim until it is proven is just called being a skeptic.

2) Atheism has nothing to do with resurrection. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. I'm sure some atheists believe in resurrection.

[ThatGirlAgain]

I have never really given much thought if any unto the resurrection until recently... so I was wondering, what is the prevailing theory against the resurrection today from modern Atheists? Thanks.

The commonly raised appeal to naturalism argument – that dead people stay dead – is not a valid one because it rejects the possibility of the event on ideological grounds without consideration of the evidence. This is ironic in that naturalism places great value on examination of the evidence.

Here is an alternative that takes the evidence into account.

In the scriptures, the entire point of the resurrection was that it was impossible by natural law and that supernatural influence was necessarily involved. In particular, it was to demonstrate that the tradition that there would be a general resurrection and a judgment of everyone who ever lived to right the wrongs of history was a true promise. Since resurrection of the dead would be such an extraordinary event, substantial evidence would need to be presented to lend it credibility.

And so let us look at the evidence presented to support the alleged fact of the resurrection of Jesus. The Gospels each present the story of the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.

The empty tomb stories differ in various details but all contain a common core. Women go to the tomb on Sunday morning and find it empty. They are told by a stranger that Jesus has risen from the dead. The differing details in these narratives can be ascribed to the fact that none of the Gospel writers personally witnessed this, but got it second hand. It would not be unreasonable to accept the empty tomb story as essentially factual.

The post-resurrection appearances of Jesus are another matter. Each author tells a completely different story. These stories not only differ from each other in every detail but they substantially contradict each other as well. In addition, it is always only believers who see Jesus. And we even have instances of people not recognizing Jesus.

The Gospels have Jesus perform many public miracles to demonstrate his authority and the truth of his message. Yet when the payoff comes, the promised and all important resurrection, nobody sees it happen. None of the canonical Gospels have anyone witness the resurrection itself. Would it not have made sense to have lots of witnesses, including followers of Jesus, some of those incredulous Pharisees and Sadducees and even some high ranking Romans on hand? That would have left a lot less doubt about what happened. But missing that opportunity, would it not have made sense to at least appear to a bunch of those non-believers after the fact?

Summary:

It is believable that people saw an empty tomb and a stranger who told them that Jesus rose from the dead, a point all the Gospels agree on.

Due to the disagreements and even contradictions among the several post-resurrection accounts, and the very limited number of witnesses, all of whom were already believers, these stories lack any meaningful credibility.

If a resurrection were in fact to take place, it would most likely have been arranged to have a maximum number of witnesses, including hostile ones. Likewise the post-resurrection appearances. Did not happen.

Bottom Line:

Even when the evidence presented by believers is taken into account, and not worrying about natural law at all, the resurrection of a dead Jesus is simply not credible. All that we seem to have is an empty tomb. Various possible explanations exist for this short of the resurrection of a dead person.



I am not looking to debate this here, as this is not a debating forum. Simply presenting a theory as was requested. If anyone wishes to debate the above, let me know and I will create a thread in an appropriate place.