Jesus' Life and Resurrection.

[LiamOS]

In his Head-To-Head debate with otseng, WinePusher claimed that Jesus' life and resurrection can be attested to with outside, objective evidence.

For debate:
Can the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ be supported with objective evidence? If so, please provide such evidence.

[WinePusher]

2) The tomb was discovered empty. This is proven by the fact that the body of Jesus could not be produced, and there is a wide concurrence of scholarship on this issue.

This appeal to a wide concurrence of scholarship does not impress me. There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of biblical scholarship.

1. Evangelical - conservative scholarschip - done in theology departments
2. Secular scholarship done in religious studies departments.

There are probably some people in camp 1 who concur that the empty tomb is a historical fact. Could you mention a scholar of the second category who made such a statement?

A Biblical Scholar at a southern baptist fundamentalist school is just as capable as a Biblical Scholar at Princeton Theological Seminary, is he not? But that is simply your own interpretation, my source said 75% of scholars, not evangelical scholars, accept the contention of an empty tomb.

[WinePusher]

Let's look at what you are really saying.
1) There were stories told by some people to other people about Jesus of Nazareth being crucified and laid in a tomb, which was later found empty. No body was ever found.

Thus an empty tomb. There were also stories about Caesar, and Alexander the Great, do you accept these? Or do you apply different standards to biblical history?

2) The actual witnesses to these events were never clearly identified and little about them is known.

Paul is considered a witness, and we know much about his life.

3) Some characters in the story-line claim to have observed the 'risen' Christ, believing he had come back from dead.
4) The stories about these matters were eventually recorded by others, also about whom little is known. Centuries later these stories were interpreted and promulgated in the Bible.

Yes, so you are saying that point 3 is a fact.

5) Some believers, indoctrinated into Christianity, claim these stories relate actual events, some do not. There is no present evidence either way.

Which is irrelevant. It does not matter how you or I interpret them, it only matters whether they can be verified to be true. And you seem to be agreeing that the empty tomb, and the disciples claim to have seen Jesus risen, and the crucifixion of Jesus are facts.

Winepusher, you referred to these stories as factual. Do you have any objective, verifiable evidence to corroborate these stories as actual/factual events, or are you simply choosing to believe these hearsay tales as factual based upon your own particular indoctrination and that of your chosen faith?

How do you know that I am indoctrinated into Christianity?

What I was contending was that those three contentions are facts, it is a fact that Jesus died by crucifixion, it is a fact that the tomb was foud empty, it is a fact that the Disciples sincerely believed that he rose from the dead. Do you agree that those are facts?

You also seem to be selective on your judgement, do you choose to reject these claims on the basis of hearsay, or on the basis of your beliefs?

[ChristShepherd]

it is a fact that Jesus died by crucifixion, it is a fact that the tomb was found empty, it is a fact that the Disciples sincerely believed that he rose from the dead.

Do you believe that the above "facts" are sufficient proof that Jesus rose from the dead?

Christ Shepherd

[d.thomas]

Thus an empty tomb. There were also stories about Caesar, and Alexander the Great, do you accept these? Or do you apply different standards to biblical history?

You can't be serious. We know who wrote about these men and who their sources were. We can verify enough to separate a good probability of factual material from what we cannot be certain about, and what was darn right made up. There is no comparison, to suggest we should accept these extraordinary stories of Jesus because of what we really do know of Caesar and Alexander is absurd and way over the top. You're argument is fallacious, it's certainly not based on sound reasoning.

[WinePusher]

And the claim of an empty tomb has been verified to be factual due to objective, corresponding evidence such as the inability for the Sanhedrin to produce the body.

Maybe the Sanhedrin just didn't care that some Galileans thought their crucified leader was risen and by the time christianity became significant enough to react upon the body was already decayed.

So you will completely write off the accounts in the Acts of the Apostles that tell us that the Sanhedrin scourged the apostles for preaching the risen Christ?

Maybe they couldn't find the body because it was eaten by dogs or was dumped in a mass grave. Since Paul's account of the resurrection does not require an empty tomb, it is also likely to other christians thought Jesus resurrection occured in heaven.

While Paul does not reuire an empty tomb, his account requires a risen Jesus.

He persecuted the Church, he was instrumental in the stoning of St. Stephen, and he hated Christians. Then we go from Saul (hating the Church) to Paul who preached alongside the Disciples. What was the turning point, what caused Saul's conversion? Well, he personally claims its the resurrection and if you're going to challenge a claim you should provide some reasons as to why its false.

So you reject the martydom of Peter, James, the imprisonment of John, and the death of Paul? However, the amount of time that elasped between the actual events and the persecutions as no relevance, unless the persons mentioned in the actual events were not persecuted and martyed, they were though.

Martyrdom does not prove the truth of the belief of the martyr, only that the martyr was convinced of his belief.

Absolutely, I agree with this. Thus, we can consider it a fact that the martyr sincerely believed in Jesus' resurrection.

[Druijf]

So you will completely write off the accounts in the Acts of the Apostles that tell us that the Sanhedrin scourged the apostles for preaching the risen Christ?

Our disagreement is basically the result of a disagreement about how we valuate the Gospels & Acts as historical sources. I think you are too credulous, but you probably think I am way too skeptical.

The reason why I don't hold the historical accuracy of Acts in high regard is that it conflicts with the data the Paul provides us in his letters. Let me mention 2 points.

1. The events surrounding the conversion of Paul
2. The target group of Paul.

1. In Acts Paul visits Jerusalem (10:26), just after he left Damascus. According to Paul, he did so after three years. (Gal 1:18), also the statement of Paul that he "was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ" does seem to contradict Acts 10:27-28.

2. In Acts, the pattern is this: Paul addresses the Jews first, and they often reject Paul message, and then he goes to the Gentiles. See for example Acts 13:46. But Paul writes that he agreed that he would go to the Gentiles, and Peter to the circumcised (Gal 2). In Rom 11, Paul hopes he can convert Jews by making them jealous of the faith of the Gentiles. In other words, Paul does not address Jews directly, because he is an apostle to the Gentiles.

While Paul does not reuire an empty tomb, his account requires a risen Jesus.

His account requires a vision of the Risen Jesus. But this doesn't need Jesus to have been risen from the dead. Visionary experiences occur. And while it is extraordinary that a former persecutor converts to Christianity, it is not something that is unthinkable without a supernatural intervention. Needless to say, I think the story of the road to Damascus is a legendary account. We don't know the circumstances in which Paul saw Jesus.

Absolutely, I agree with this. Thus, we can consider it a fact that the martyr sincerely believed in Jesus' resurrection.

The idea that the apostles deliberately lied about the resurrection is not something I would argue or any serious scholar of today I know of.

[LiamOS]

A Biblical Scholar at a southern baptist fundamentalist school is just as capable as a Biblical Scholar at Princeton Theological Seminary, is he not? But that is simply your own interpretation, my source said 75% of scholars, not evangelical scholars, accept the contention of an empty tomb.

Whether Christian scholars accept it or not isn't entirely relevant to whether or not it really happened.

Thus an empty tomb. There were also stories about Caesar, and Alexander the Great, do you accept these? Or do you apply different standards to biblical history?

With the stories about Caesar and Alexander the Great, I don't believe them, but I think they're likely to be true.
In the case of one book of dubious origin stating that a guy got up after being crucified and went for a walkabout, I certainly want a lot of people to testify to that.

[Druijf]

A Biblical Scholar at a southern baptist fundamentalist school is just as capable as a Biblical Scholar at Princeton Theological Seminary, is he not? But that is simply your own interpretation, my source said 75% of scholars, not evangelical scholars, accept the contention of an empty tomb.

I don't agree with that. Scholarship in the Religious Studies departments is lacking apologetic concerns that I often see in conservative Biblical Scholarship.

Can you give me a quotation of your source? I suspect your source is W.L. Craig, the cherrypicking apologist.

[Druijf]

Thus an empty tomb. There were also stories about Caesar, and Alexander the Great, do you accept these? Or do you apply different standards to biblical history?

When I hear arguments like this, I always wonder... what would happen if evangelicals would apply their standard towards canonical literature to other comparible documents, such as non-canonical Jewish and Christian literature, or pagan religious literature? There are some striking inscriptions about healings done by Asclepius. There are prophecies by Moses about events in the first century.

And no, I don't accept every story about Alexander in antiquity. For instance, it is said that Philip dreamed he sealed up the womb of his wife Olympias, and that the seal bore a lion device. Seriously doubt if that really happened. And I don't believe he was the son of Zeus either.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

So you will completely write off the accounts in the Acts of the Apostles that tell us that the Sanhedrin scourged the apostles for preaching the risen Christ?

[40] "And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
[41] And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name." Acts 5

Outside of the execution of James and imprisonment of Peter, this is the worst "persecution" that the apostles experienced according to Acts, and ultimately they were released. That they were "scourged" is your interpretation.

Chapter 12 of Acts relates the execution of James the brother of John by Herod Agrippa and the imprisonment of Peter. After his escape from jail Peter finds it convenient to go "into another place." In other words he left the area. After this point Acts becomes almost exclusively the Paul story. We are told relatively little about Peter and his activities, and virtually nothing about the activities of the other apostles. Paul never met Jesus, nor was he a personal witness to any of the events detailed in the four Gospels. Paul was spreading a story he personally believed to be true, just as you are.

As for the "martyrdom" of the apostles, scripture is entirely silent on that point, save for James as I previously mentioned. In the second century both Polycarp and Papias indicated that Peter and Paul helped found the church in Rome. In the third century Origen asserted that Peter had been executed in Rome, crucified upside down at his own request as being unworthy of being executed in the same manner as Jesus. In the fourth century the bishop of Rome would use these second and third century traditions that Peter had been executed and buried in Rome to promulgate the claim that the church in Rome was literally built upon Peter's grave and enabling him to assert his own position of primacy over all of Christendom, based on Matthew 16:18. According to the third century apocryphal "Acts of Andrew," the apostle Andrew was crucified on an X shaped cross, again at his own request and for the same reason as Peter. And wasn't it accommodating of the Romans to honor the requests of condemned men in this way! In the second century work the "Acts of Thomas," the resurrected Jesus appears to Thomas and commands him to go to India to spread the gospel. When Thomas refuses, Jesus sells Thomas into bondage to a group of merchants on their way to India. So off Thomas goes to India, where he heals the sick, raises the dead, and is eventually martyred by being pierced with arrows. But you see, these traditions represent the stories that later generations of Christians were circulating concerning the glorious deaths they imagined the apostles must certainly have undergone in the name of their faith, just as you are doing. Such traditions should NOT be confused with actual historical evidence however, for which there is NONE. The place and manner of the deaths of Peter, Paul and the rest of the apostles is recorded nowhere in scripture. The later traditions which arose concerning the place and manner of their deaths have no historical value. The fact is we don't really know how when or WHERE any of them actually died. So there is no basis for your argument that the apostles were uniformly persecuted unto death for claiming that Jesus had been resurrected.

Returning to your original question as to whether the story of the resurrection of Jesus can be better explained in secular terms, we are confronted with a story of an empty tomb and a missing corpse. The least likely explanation is that the corpse returned to life and wandered away under it's own power. The most obvious explanation is that SOMEONE MOVED THE CORPSE. Does the story provide us with anyone who had the means, motive and opportunity to relocate the body? YES IT DOES! The disciples not only had the means motive and opportunity, THEY HAD THE BODY, granted to them Friday afternoon by Pilate. Sometime the next day, Saturday, the Jewish priests went to Pilate and got permission to secure the closed tomb, which they did by setting a seal and posting a guard. Since they were unable to immediately inspect the tomb for the body of Jesus, placing a seal on the tomb was the best they could do, since it would ensure that the tomb remained closed until they could return to inspect it for the body. When was the earliest opportunity for them to return to inspect the tomb? After the Sabbath and Passover had passed away; SOMETIME IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF SUNDAY. When the women went out to visit the tomb at earliest light on Sunday morning, THE TOMB WAS OPEN, IT WAS EMPTY, AND THERE WAS NO GUARD. Guarding an already empty tomb would be a pretty useless endeavor at this point, wouldn't it! And of course the women were just the perfect choice to "discover" the empty tomb! With the apostles "in hiding" and no where to be found, too discouraged to act, according to prevailing Christian tradition, surely no mere group of women could have rolled away the great stone and carried off the body. And of course THEY DIDN'T!

All of this is easily explained if the tomb was ALREADY EMPTY when the priests arrived on Saturday to secure it. The body of Jesus, along with some of his disciples and apostles, including Mary the mother of Jesus, were already on their way back to Galilee for the burial. Which is exactly where Gospels Matt. and Mark place them after the crucifixion, no speculation required. Then some six weeks later, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, they turn up back in Jerusalem spreading the story of the "risen" Jesus. Again, no speculation required. It's right there in Acts.

With a perfectly viable "secular" explanation right in front of you, do you still consider that least viable of options, the reanimation of a corpse, to be the most probable explanation? And again, please attempt to be objective in your answer.