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]

Yes it sure can. The promoters of a new religion in the late first century wrote about the life of their messiah. Also one Jewish and a few Roman historians who were born after Jesus' life, made vague references to Jesus or his followers. And the same first century promoters of the new religion claimed that the witnesses to the events of Jesus' life were persecuted even to death for stating what they believed.

That about wraps it up. It is hard to understand why anyone would not be totally convinced that every written detail of Jesus' life was not literally true, with that kind of unimpeachable solid evidence. [Include reference to Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great].

I'm glad you see it my way . So, let's look at the points you raised.

1) Jesus of Nazareth died by Crucifixion and was laid to rest in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea (a Jew).
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.
3) The disciples claimed to have seen the risen Christ, and began a large campaign of evangelism across the Greco-Roman world in spite of persecution.

So, can these facts be better explained for in secular terms?

In this other Head-to-head debate Goose and ChaosBorders are debating whether the resurrection of Jesus is historical or not, and I have to say that so far there seems to be no unbiased evidence for it whatsoever.

Evidence that is considered bias means that it tilts in a single preference and is not impartial, the Gospels would fall into this category. Since I haven't read this debate in depth, as Goose appealed to the Gospels as evidence?

[Zzyzx]

.

1) Jesus of Nazareth died by Crucifixion and was laid to rest in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea (a Jew).

A preacher named Jesus died, perhaps by crucifixion.

A tale claims that his body was placed in a tomb furnished by someone whose identity is not known. Even the Catholic Church, producing agency of the bible, acknowledges that nothing is known of “Joseph of Arimathea� or the supposed donation of a tomb. Later splinter groups from Catholicism claim to KNOW more (perhaps from undisclosed sources?).

There is no information about the tomb itself, and no identification of a specific tomb as being involved.

2) The tomb was discovered empty.

So goes the unverified, unverifiable story (several versions of which differ from one another).

This is proven by the fact that the body of Jesus could not be produced,

Correction: Nothing is known about the body of Jesus being produced or not, except in bible stories (which cannot be legitimately cited to support themselves).

There are bible stories about a tomb being empty -- but no mention elsewhere.

There are many reasons why a body may not be available. It may never have been placed in a tomb. Scavengers may have consumed the body (as was evidently common for executed criminals during that era). The body may have been taken by any number of people. None of these can be ruled out as possibilities.

3) The disciples claimed to have seen the risen Christ,

Bible stories written long after the supposed event, by people who were NOT privy to the information directly or personally, CLAIM that followers CLAIM to have seen Jesus after death.

If more modern cult members CLAIM to have seen their leader / icon after he died, but can produce no evidence that they speak truth, are they to be believed by anyone other than the most naïve and gullible (and perhaps fellow worshipers)?

Would it increase the cult’s credibility if the writers of their tale could not be identified, if they could not be shown to have witnessed the event, if their sources of information were unknown, and if there was a long time lapse after the supposed event until the story was recorded?

and began a large campaign of evangelism across the Greco-Roman world in spite of persecution.

Is “persecution of disciples� recorded anywhere outside bible stories?

So, can these facts be better explained for in secular terms?

One better secular theory might be that a preacher died and decomposed, and later people embellished the tale through repeated retellings before it was recorded by unknown people decades or generations later.

If a similar “arose from the dead� story was promoted by a different religion for a different “god�, would you think that the proposed “secular theory� would be a better explanation for what might have occurred? Or, are you willing to grant the competing religion your belief in their unsubstantiated tale?

In fact, quite a few of the proposed “gods� or supernatural characters were said to have come back to life after being killed. Are they all worthy of belief – or is belief reserved for only some favorite “god� as told in some favored book?

Evidence that is considered bias means that it tilts in a single preference and is not impartial, the Gospels would fall into this category.

Thank you. That is the point. Those writing promotional literature are likely to be strongly biased. And, there is no other confirming source of information regarding a “risen Christ�.

[Lux]

Evidence that is considered bias means that it tilts in a single preference and is not impartial, the Gospels would fall into this category. Since I haven't read this debate in depth, as Goose appealed to the Gospels as evidence?

No, Goose has made a point of not using the Bible as a source in the head-to-head, which I think is a good choice.

I read the entire debate something like 3 months ago, so my memory is failing me here. As far as I recall, he has cited Peter, Clement and Paul (as enemy attestation, which I think is inaccurate). I apologize in advance if I have forgotten any other written sources in favor of the resurrection mentioned by Goose.

Mostly, he seems to have focused on attacking the assassination's credibility rather than feeding that of the resurrection.

Like I said, I'm not aware of any non-biased sources for the resurrection existing. Do you know of any?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

1) Jesus of Nazareth died by Crucifixion and was laid to rest in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea (a Jew).
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.
3) The disciples claimed to have seen the risen Christ, and began a large campaign of evangelism across the Greco-Roman world in spite of persecution.

So, can these facts be better explained for in secular terms?

"Can these facts be better explained for in secular terms?" Yes in fact they can! Joseph of Arimathea is specifically described as being a "secret disciple" of Jesus. Nicodemus, another disciple of Jesus is also described as being involved. So who has control of the corpse of Jesus; HIS DISCIPLES. What do the Jewish leaders suspect that the disciples of Jesus intended to do with the corpse? " Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, 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." (Matt.27) They suspect that the disciples plan to use the empty tomb and missing corpse to proclaim that Jesus has "arisen." Now follow the path of evidence through the Gospels and Acts:

1. [41] "Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand." (John 19)

Joseph of Arimathea's brand new hand cut rock tomb was never intended to be the final resting place for the body of Jesus. It was used because it was close at hand and a convenient place to get the body underground and out of sight before the onset of the following day which was the Sabbath AND Passover, in accordance with Jewish law.

2.[39] "And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
[40] Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury." (John 19)

100 POUNDS OF SPICES AND ALOES, AND HEAVILY WRAPPED. This makes no sense as an effort to preserve the body, since it would NOT ultimately preserve the body, and it was never "the manner of the Jews" to preserve bodies anyway. This sort of preparation does make perfect sense however if the intention was to transport the body elsewhere, since it would serve to offset the stench of decay for a few days.
Where and why would one want to transport a body? For the same reason as today, TO TAKE IT TO IT'S FINAL RESTING PLACE. In most cases that would be HOME. In Jesus' case, BACK TO GALILEE.

3. [16] "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them." (Matt.28)

So where do the apostles go after the crucifixion? THEY JOURNEY BACK TO GALILEE. Notice also that "Mary the mother of Jesus" is specifically mentioned as being at the crucifixion, but NOT at the empty tomb on Sunday morning. Where do we next pick up "Mary the mother of Jesus" in the story?

[13] "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
[14] These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." (Acts 1)

About six weeks later there is "Mary the mother of Jesus" back in Jerusalem WITH THE DISCIPLES. And what happens next? The disciples begin to spread the story of the resurrected Jesus, JUST AS THE JEWISH LEADERSHIP SUSPECTED THEY WOULD.

So which is the MORE LIKELY? That a group of men with a personal agenda moved a corpse and then spread a false claim that the corpse had returned to life, or that a corpse became reanimated, wandered about for a few weeks, and then flew away? Try to be objective in your answer.

[ChristShepherd]

[2) The tomb was discovered empty. This is proven by the fact that the body of Jesus could not be produced

Christians usually make a point that ""the body of Jesus could not be produced""
IMO this is totally irrelevant.
The gospels were written more than 40 years after the events they supposedly report. Someone reading a gospel 40 years later would not even think to look for a body to refute a claim of resurrection. I doubt that anything identifyable would be left of the body 40 years later.
Without photographs, fingerprints, dental records, and DNA, how could anyone identify a corpse even after a few days. Even with modern technology, bodies are often unidentifyable.
If you ever have been to Jerusalem, you would know that to the east and south of the city are great wilderness dessert areas. You could hide a 747 out there and no one would find it. Look how long it took them to find the dead sea scrolles.

Here is another possibility.
John 6:53-54 (New American Standard Bible)
53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Perhaps some of Jesus' followers took Jesus literally, stole his corpse, and ate him.

Christ Shepherd

[ChristShepherd]

Just an observation on Joseph of Arimathea.
Luke 23:50-51 (New American Standard Bible)
50And a man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council, a good and righteous man
51(he had not consented to their plan and action), a man from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was waiting for the kingdom of God;

This passage from Luke's gospel says Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the council. [the Sanhedrin] and ""he had not consented to their plan and action.""

The assertion that Joseph of Arimathea ""had not consented to their plan and action,"" is contradicted by the account in Mark's Gospel.

Mark 14:64 (New American Standard Bible)
64"You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

When I find a contradiction, I suspect it is because of fiction.

Here is another interesting point.

Matthew 27:59-60 (New American Standard Bible)
59And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
60and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away.

Notice that Jesus was put into Joseph of Arimathea's own tomb. But Joseph was "a man from Arimathea, a city of the Jews" [Luke 23:51] Those of you who are familiar with Jewish burial practices know that when a man dies he must be buried that same day before sundown. It makes no sense to live in Arimathea and have your tomb in Jerusalem if you expect to be buried before sundown on the day you die. I smell fiction.

Christ Shepherd

[McCulloch]

I'm glad you see it my way . So, let's look at the points you raised.

1) Jesus of Nazareth died by Crucifixion and was laid to rest in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea (a Jew).
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.
3) The disciples claimed to have seen the risen Christ, and began a large campaign of evangelism across the Greco-Roman world in spite of persecution.

So, can these facts be better explained for in secular terms?

But those are not the facts.
The facts are

1. There is one late first century claim that Jesus of Nazareth, who was killed by crucifixion was laid to rest in a tomb provided by someone known as Joseph of Arimathea, who is otherwise unknown to history.
2. There are numerous claims, again originating in the late first century, that this tomb was discovered empty.
3. There is no evidence of any large scale Christian evangelism campaign in the Greco-Roman world until after 70 CE, decades after these alleged events.

[WinePusher]

"Can these facts be better explained for in secular terms?" Yes in fact they can! Joseph of Arimathea is specifically described as being a "secret disciple" of Jesus. Nicodemus, another disciple of Jesus is also described as being involved. So who has control of the corpse of Jesus; HIS DISCIPLES. What do the Jewish leaders suspect that the disciples of Jesus intended to do with the corpse? " Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, 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." (Matt.27) They suspect that the disciples plan to use the empty tomb and missing corpse to proclaim that Jesus has "arisen."

So which is the MORE LIKELY? That a group of men with a personal agenda moved a corpse and then spread a false claim that the corpse had returned to life, or that a corpse became reanimated, wandered about for a few weeks, and then flew away? Try to be objective in your answer.

If you are going to quote scripture, Matthew 27:64 clearly states that Pilate placed guards before the tomb to prevent the body from being stolen. This implies that a tomb was provided by Joseph of Arimathea, and that Jesus' body lay in it.

And if you're going to go off the idea that the Disciples stole the body and created a legend, that would assume that the story in the Gospels we have today is a legend/fictional. So, let's go through the contradictions of this story.

If we're going off the story presented to us, it states that women disciples were the first to discover the tomb empty and the tomb was provided by a Jew. As William Lane Craig points out, it is unlikely that if the disciples created their own myth, that they would include a Jew as a hero-type character because they would have viewed the Jews as the people who killed their savior. It is also unlikely that women, would be the first to discover the tomb empty rather then men.

If the disciples did this, they would know that Jesus' resurrection is a lie because they manufactured that lie. However, they are beaten by the Sanhedrin and persecuted by the Roman Empire without denouncing this. So, their deep conviction in this story (proven by their martydom) cancels out the theory that they stole the body and created a legend.

Let's bring Paul into the mix. A persecutor of the Church and of Christians, it is recorded that he converted to Christianity. What prompted this conversion?

[WinePusher]

Christians usually make a point that ""the body of Jesus could not be produced""
IMO this is totally irrelevant.

Why? The fact that the body could not be produced mens that the tomb was empty.

The gospels were written more than 40 years after the events they supposedly report. Someone reading a gospel 40 years later would not even think to look for a body to refute a claim of resurrection. I doubt that anything identifyable would be left of the body 40 years later.

The fact that it was only 40 years after the events took place is considered good evidence for the historical reliability of the Gospels. Many other ancient texts that have been written centuries later after the event, and don't have many manuscripts to go off of are accepted as factual. But the Gospels aren't, could this be a historical double standard?

Without photographs, fingerprints, dental records, and DNA, how could anyone identify a corpse even after a few days. Even with modern technology, bodies are often unidentifyable.

This is irrelevant. The recognizable nature of the body would not matter because of the clear-cut wounds on the body that could be identified.

[WinePusher]

I'm glad you see it my way . So, let's look at the points you raised.

1) Jesus of Nazareth died by Crucifixion and was laid to rest in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea (a Jew).
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.
3) The disciples claimed to have seen the risen Christ, and began a large campaign of evangelism across the Greco-Roman world in spite of persecution.

So, can these facts be better explained for in secular terms?

But those are not the facts.
The facts are

1. There is one late first century claim that Jesus of Nazareth, who was killed by crucifixion was laid to rest in a tomb provided by someone known as Joseph of Arimathea, who is otherwise unknown to history.

How is that not a tautological repetition of my first point? The factuality of the claim is what matters, and that specific claim is considered a fact by many scholars.

[*]There are numerous claims, again originating in the late first century, that this tomb was discovered empty.

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.

[*]There is no evidence of any large scale Christian evangelism campaign in the Greco-Roman world until after 70 CE, decades after these alleged events.[/list]

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.