The Resurrection

[Sleepy]

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

The eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AB]

It makes as much sense as anything else. Hallucinations can be powerful things.

Sorry. Look at what took place with Paul and what he endured after that event. A hallucination(before you claimed he just lied) caused this? And really, it wasn't a hallucination. He was blinded. Logically, given Pauls ministry(check out what he did before actually traveling and speaking!), chalking it up to a hallucination(or "just lied") doesn't make sense.

I have not seen any real evidence that the resurrection happened. I have seen how a hallucination can strongly effect someones behavior.

Your hallucination premise still does not carry any weight. And really, it is quite comical.

You are claiming that John and Matthew were eyewitnesses. However, the vast majority of Christian biblical scholars will admit that the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Matthew are pseudographical works written decades after the fact. They will admit that no one really knows who wrote those Gospels.


Yes, there is a minority of very conservatives who think they are written by the person whose name the gospel bears, but there is no real evidence they were, and a lot of evidence they were not.

Meanwhile, you ignore the evidence against the other. Nice.

Stories told decades later are often exaggerated. I am sure they were relating an oral legend, or copied another , earlier gospel. However, that doesn't make their claims any more true.[/quote]

Well, read the 4 gospels. They never contradict and they all confirm the same thing.

[Goat]

It makes as much sense as anything else. Hallucinations can be powerful things.

Sorry. Look at what took place with Paul and what he endured after that event. A hallucination(before you claimed he just lied) caused this? And really, it wasn't a hallucination. He was blinded. Logically, given Pauls ministry(check out what he did before actually traveling and speaking!), chalking it up to a hallucination(or "just lied") doesn't make sense.

I have not seen any real evidence that the resurrection happened. I have seen how a hallucination can strongly effect someones behavior.

Your hallucination premise still does not carry any weight. And really, it is quite comical.

You are claiming that John and Matthew were eyewitnesses. However, the vast majority of Christian biblical scholars will admit that the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Matthew are pseudographical works written decades after the fact. They will admit that no one really knows who wrote those Gospels.


Yes, there is a minority of very conservatives who think they are written by the person whose name the gospel bears, but there is no real evidence they were, and a lot of evidence they were not.

Meanwhile, you ignore the evidence against the other. Nice.

Stories told decades later are often exaggerated. I am sure they were relating an oral legend, or copied another , earlier gospel. However, that doesn't make their claims any more true.

Well, read the 4 gospels. They never contradict and they all confirm the same thing.

[/quote]

So? I have read the 4 gospels. They do contradict each other in details. The fact they wrote from a common oral tradition (decades after the alledged account) doesn' tmake the story any more believable.

[AB]

So? I have read the 4 gospels. They do contradict each other in details. The fact they wrote from a common oral tradition (decades after the alledged account) doesn' tmake the story any more believable.[/quote]

Please provide one example of contradiciton. Please write it out. Let's get down to business on this claim.

[Goat]

So? I have read the 4 gospels. They do contradict each other in details. The fact they wrote from a common oral tradition (decades after the alledged account) doesn' tmake the story any more believable.

Please provide one example of contradiciton. Please write it out. Let's get down to business on this claim.

[/quote]

Fine

How did Judas die?

When was Jesus Born?

Answer me that without trying to get in a long confusing mush mash of twisted explaination.

[AB]

So? I have read the 4 gospels. They do contradict each other in details. The fact they wrote from a common oral tradition (decades after the alledged account) doesn' tmake the story any more believable.

Please provide one example of contradiciton. Please write it out. Let's get down to business on this claim.

Fine

How did Judas die?

When was Jesus Born?

Answer me that without trying to get in a long confusing mush mash of twisted explaination.[/quote]

Hold on! I asked for an example of contradiction of the Gospels. "how did Judas die?", "When was Jesus born?' doesn't fulfill this. You are putting the owness on me to explain something.. what I am not sure. Come on back . Give a specific example where there is contradiction in the stories from the 4 gospels.. Can't do it can you? Sorry, getting a little aggressive here. But, I am tired of hearing the unfounded claims there is contradiction in the Gospel Narrative.

[Goat]

So? I have read the 4 gospels. They do contradict each other in details. The fact they wrote from a common oral tradition (decades after the alledged account) doesn' tmake the story any more believable.

Please provide one example of contradiciton. Please write it out. Let's get down to business on this claim.

Fine

How did Judas die?

When was Jesus Born?

Answer me that without trying to get in a long confusing mush mash of twisted explaination.

Hold on! I asked for an example of contradiction of the Gospels. "how did Judas die?", "When was Jesus born?' doesn't fulfill this. You are putting the owness on me to explain something.. what I am not sure. Come on back . Give a specific example where there is contradiction in the stories from the 4 gospels.. Can't do it can you? Sorry, getting a little aggressive here. But, I am tired of hearing the unfounded claims there is contradiction in the Gospel Narrative.

[/quote]

Don't you know the Gospels?

Ok. Let me explain on of them.

In Matthew, Jesus is born during the reign of Herod the King, since there is the story that Herod the King orders all the baby boys killed in Bethlham. This puts the latest that Jesus could be born at 4BCE, since Herod the Kind died in 4 bce.

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

Therefore, Matthew had Jesus being born before Herod the king died, and Luke had Jesus being born 9 years after Herod was dead. The common explaination that Cyrenius might have been govenor twice does not cut it for two reasons. The first is that there isn't any evidence that he was govenor twice, and second is that even if he was, the Roman Empire could not have ordered a cencus for tax purposes in Juddah before Herod the kings death. At that time, Juddah was it's own kingdom... and the roman empire didn't have the authority to order a cencus to tax directly.

[AB]

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

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

[Goat]

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

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

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

[AB]

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

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

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

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

[bernee51]

Please provide one example of contradiciton. Please write it out. Let's get down to business on this claim.

OK here is a few - go to work... (Dan Barker's Easter Challenge)


What time did the women visit the tomb?

• * Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
  * Mark "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
  * Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
  * John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?

• * Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
  * Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
  * Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
  * John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?

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

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

• * Matthew: No (28:2)
  * Mark: Yes (16:4)
  * Luke: Yes (24:2)
  * John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

• * Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
  * Mark: One young man (16:5)
  * Luke: Two men (24:4)
  * John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?

• * Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
  * Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
  * Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
  * John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?

• * Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
  * Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
  * Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
  * John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?

• * Matthew: Yes (28:8)
  * Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
  * Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
  * John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

• * Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
  * Mark: Yes (16:10,11[23])
  * Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
  * John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?

• * Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
  * Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10[23])
  * John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

• * Matthew: Yes (28:9)
  * John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?

• * Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
  * Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14[23])
  * Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
  * John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
  * Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?

• * Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
  * Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14[23])
  * Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
  * John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?

• * Mark: No (16:13[23])
  * Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at that first appearance?

• * Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
  * Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19[23])
  * Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
  * John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?

• * Mark: No (16:19[23]) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
  * Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
  * John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
  * Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?

• * Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
  * Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19[23])
  * Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
  * John: No ascension
  * Paul: No ascension
  * Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)