Are the Resurrection Accounts Credible?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Imprecise Interrupt
Apprentice
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 8:33 am

Are the Resurrection Accounts Credible?

Post #1

Post by Imprecise Interrupt »

The Resurrection of Jesus is often put forward as the proof of the legitimacy of Christianity. It is typically stated that there are multiple attestations of the event, thereby rendering it believable. It is the credibility of these several attestations that I intend to call into question. Please note that I am not rejecting ipso facto the idea of a dead body coming back to life. This was supposed to be a miracle, after all. Neither am I concerned with trivialities such as how many women went to the tomb. It is the credibility of the several accounts, and therefore the alleged fact of the resurrection, that I find lacking, for reasons other than simply the issue of a resurrection from the dead taking place.

The question for debate is therefore: Are the scriptural accounts of the resurrection of Jesus credible evidence that the resurrection took place?

User avatar
Imprecise Interrupt
Apprentice
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 8:33 am

Post #2

Post by Imprecise Interrupt »

There are five (or six?) scriptural accounts related to the resurrection of Jesus. As will be seen, they differ in significant non-trivial ways that jibe well with the discernible agendas of the individual authors. We should note that no one witnesses the resurrection event itself.

Paul

The earliest written account is given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul has Jesus appear to all of the apostles at various times and also to 500 other people at the same time. Since he was not present, this information would had to have come from the apostles that Paul spoke with from time to time. It is therefore most unusual that none of the Gospel writers include this elaborate story. These writers are alleged to have been either apostles themselves or those who spoke with eyewitnesses. Why is this account absent from the Gospels? We know that Mark at least would have known of Paul’s version from 1 Corinthians because he quotes from 1 Corinthians 11.

One solution is that Paul made it up. That Jesus was resurrected was plainly a well-known story prior to Paul since he references it frequently in his letters but never needs to explain it. But there were doubters. 1 Colossians 15 is an extended argument against those doubters that resurrection is possible. Without that possibility, Paul’s message of Jesus returning very soon to resurrect the faithful and give them eternal life falls apart, as Paul himself says. So how to prove that resurrection is possible? Witnesses. Lots of witnesses including important ones. That none of the Gospel writers chose to use Paul’s account points to it not being the ‘real deal’. It would appear that Paul made it up to back up his claim about resurrection being possible.


Mark

Mark’s account (Mark 16) not only does not have anyone see Jesus come out of the tomb, nobody sees the risen Jesus at all. Just someone who says Jesus rose from the dead and went to Galilee. The disciples should go there too. The End. Why such a minimalist (and suspicious) portrayal? We might note that Mark, who is all about having faith despite the unexpected delay in the return of Jesus, would probably not have seen this as suspicious but as an exercise in faith. But that is a topic in itself.

A number of passages in Mark come across as realistic representations of the religious, social and political environment in the region in the time of Pontius Pilate. This is a world that ceased to exist decades before Mark wrote. Yet these passages are often of negligible interest to post-Paul Christians. One example is the argument in Mark 7 over the Written Torah versus the ‘commandments of men’ being promulgated by the (obviously Shammai) Pharisees. This would be a head scratcher for the Gentile Christian who would not understand corban at all. This, and some other passages, sound very much like they are very early traditions about Jesus. This idea is bolstered by the occasional use of Aramaic phrases and the resemblance of Mark’s awkward Greek (especially in these passages) to Aramaic sentence structure. It would seem that these passages are not stories that Mark made up but were inherited from older traditions.

This raises the possibility that Mark’s abrupt ending is also an early tradition, that what really happened was that the woman went to the tomb to perform the burial rites that could not be performed because the Sabbath was approaching, found an empty tomb and were told by someone there that Jesus got up and left town. This just might be the real origin of the resurrection story. Notice that despite Paul’s mysterious ‘on the third day’ scriptural reference and Mark’s ‘after three days’ Mark’s story has Jesus in the tomb no longer than a day and a half. A made-up story would more likely agree with the third/three day theme.

Matthew

Matthew’s account (Matthew 28) is evidently a modification of Mark’s account, patching up what Matthew saw as problems with that account.

One obvious problem with Mark is that it sounds a whole lot like somebody stole the body of Jesus and left a shill to tell a tall tale about resurrection. The idea of resurrection was already in the air at the nominal time of Jesus due to popular Jewish apocrypha like 1 Enoch and more mainstream works like Daniel. Notice that Mark is the first writer to use Daniel’s ‘Son of Man’ phraseology. Another inheritance from earlier times? Matthew addresses this minimalist shortcoming by having guards at the tomb to prevent the body being stolen and a cover story of the missing body of Jesus nonetheless being the result of grave robbery while the guards slept. Matthew admits that the body snatching story was in fact making the rounds.

Another problem is with the credibility of Mark’s ‘young man’ and his fishy sounding story. To address this, Matthew turns him into an angel making a dramatic entrance and opening the tomb to show it is already empty. This would be a perfect place to have Jesus make a glorious entrance from the tomb like all those religious Easter cards show. But no, the tomb is already empty. It is unclear how this is supposed to support the idea that Jesus rose from the dead. Also, the matter of the guards being bribed not to say what they saw is problematic. They saw an empty tomb and an angel. They did not see a resurrected Jesus. Apparently, the theme of an empty tomb was already so well established that Matthew could not contradict it. This supports the idea that Mark’s ‘empty tomb and no Jesus story’ is original.

The absence of witnesses of a risen Jesus in Mark is the next problem to be handled. As in Mark, the angel (Mark’s ‘young man’) tell the women that Jesus has risen and is on the way to Galilee. But immediately afterward, Jesus himself appears to them and tells them exactly the same thing. Now we got witnesses of a risen Jesus! Mark ends with the women being told to tell the disciples to go to Galilee. Matthew has them go there to meet Jesus, who apparently says goodbye to them. More witnesses although ‘some doubted’. (Mt 28:17)


Luke

Luke’s agenda is very noticeably about opposition to certain themes of Matthew, specifically Matthew’s position that Christianity is fundamentally Jewish and following Jewish Law is necessary to be a Christian, and his emphasis on Jesus as the Kingly Messiah in a worldly sense with its reminder of the disastrous Jewish Revolt inspired by radical messianism. This is a large topic in itself but one of the several prongs to Luke’s approach is refocusing the ministry of Jesus from being Galilee-centric to Jerusalem-centric. Galilee was the breeding ground of anti-Roman revolutionary movements from the tax revolt of 6 CE which was the beginning of the Zealot movement, to the Jewish War of 66-73 CE that left a million dead and Jerusalem in ruins and was instigate by the Zealots.

Concerning the tax revolt of 6 CE … Luke begins his story with saying that this took place in the time of Herod, but never mentions Herod again. Instead he has the tax census as part of his plot despite that fact that Herod was long dead by 6 CE. The mention of Herod would bring to mind Matthew’s story and the tax census immediately contradicts Matthew. Luke is telling the reader he is contradicting Matthew. Instead of Jesus being born the true King of the Jews in opposition to Herod the Great, the false Rome-appointed ‘king’, and worshipped by Magi, Luke has Jesus be born a poor peasant, visited by lowly shepherds. And as the tax revolt is warming up, Luke’s angels sing of peace. In other words, Jesus is not associated with the messianic inspired violence that led to the horrible War.

Matthew mentions Jerusalem in 11 passages, not always in direct connection with Jesus. For example, the Wise Men go to Jerusalem but Jesus is of course not there. Matthew also mentions Jerusalem as where the criticizing Pharisees came from.

Luke mentions Jerusalem in 30 passages, 20 of those before the entry to Jerusalem and of those 18 are in direct connection with Jesus. Luke connects Jesus with Jerusalem right from the very beginning in the presentation at the Temple. He also has Jesus visit Jerusalem at the age of 12 during Passover, a foreshadowing of his final pilgrimage and death. Luke has Jesus focus on Jerusalem as his destination fairly early in his ministry, with all the subsequent travels and preaching being in that context. Matthew does not have Jesus focus on Jerusalem until after extensive journeys.

In light of the above, it should come as no surprise that Luke totally discards the idea of the disciples going to Galilee after the resurrection. Instead they stay in Jerusalem. In fact, Jesus tells them to stay there. In short, Luke is intentionally telling a different story than Matthew for a discernible purpose. This is purpose-driven invention, not reporting.


John

John tells a somewhat different story again. The visit to the tomb by several women to complete the burial rites is replaced by Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb alone for some unstated reason. Recall that John has the burial rites already done before the burial of Jesus. Although it is stated that the visit to the tomb takes place on Sunday, it is not clear how many days have elapsed since Jesus was buried. Mark, Matthew and Luke all have Jesus crucified on the first day of Passover with the weekly Sabbath being the next day. (Except maybe not for Matthew, another story) That would put the crucifixion on Friday. John has Jesus crucified the day before Passover with the next day a ‘special Sabbath’. It is not clear whether that means it is the first day of Passover, which would entail Sabbath type rules, or just that the first day of Passover happened to fall on the weekly Sabbath. I suspect this is John’s way of avoiding the ‘on the third day’, ‘after three days’, ‘after three days and three nights’ versus a day and a half issue.

John then more or less follows Luke’s narrative, with Jesus appearing to the disciples in Jerusalem, where they stayed for at least one week. There is no mention of Galilee.

John 20 closes with what sounds like an end to the Gospel. Then comes John 21. It seems that John 21 was written after the author of the Gospel had died. It talks about him in the third person as the author in a context that suggests that he is dead. This is in an odd passage that has Jesus disavow the ‘not taste death’ promise as just a misunderstanding. The whole of John 21 is odd. The disciples are fishing in Galilee and happen to run into the resurrected Jesus who eats some fish with them. This does not fit in with the scenarios of either Matthew or Luke. But it does sort of smooth over the conflict between Matthew, where the disciples go to Galilee, and Luke/John where the disciples stay in Jerusalem.

------

The five (or is it really six) accounts of post-resurrection doings do not fit together at all. Paul’s story sounds like invention to boost his ‘resurrection is possible’ argument and does not jibe with any of the Gospels. Matthew is clearly an ‘adjustment’ of Mark’s minimalist story. Luke’s account is obviously a continuation of his general opposition to Matthew. John is different from all of the others in ways that suggest purposeful invention. They all disagree with each other in substantive ways that are mostly agenda driven. The only account that could very well be an accurate rendering of real events is Mark, where the women find an empty tomb and someone tells them that Jesus rose from the dead and went to Galilee. This just might be the origin of the resurrection story, inspired by the general theme of resurrection in the apocalyptic literature of the day.

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Post #3

Post by Overcomer »

I'm afraid I don't have time to address the questions you have asked, but Gary Habermas is considered the world's leading expert on the topic. You can find all kinds of information from him here:

http://www.garyhabermas.com/

User avatar
Imprecise Interrupt
Apprentice
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 8:33 am

Post #4

Post by Imprecise Interrupt »

Overcomer wrote: I'm afraid I don't have time to address the questions you have asked, but Gary Habermas is considered the world's leading expert on the topic. You can find all kinds of information from him here:

http://www.garyhabermas.com/

I am familiar with Habermas and his work.

Habermas sums up his case for the resurrection of Jesus in the following.

1. The disciples sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them.

The disciples clearly believed that Jesus was resurrected. But the only evidence that the disciples believed that Jesus appeared to them is 1 Corinthians 15. I have addressed 1 Corinthians 15 in my post above. That none of the Gospel writers took this story seriously is a big red flag. That it is just a little too convenient of a story to support Paul’s argument about the possibility of resurrection is another red flag. (500 witnesses at the same time? And the Romans and Jewish authorities did not notice?)

Habermas plays rather fast and loose with this. He states that almost all scholars, including skeptics, accept 1 Corinthians. The actual case is that almost all scholars, including skeptics, accept that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. But Habermas, by slick wording, conflates this with all those scholars accept that Paul was telling the truth.

2. A number of outside evidences support the truth of their belief in his resurrection.

The ‘outside evidences’ Habermas cites are Paul, the Gospels, and early writings by the Church fathers. These are not outside sources. They are all committed to the idea of the resurrection of Jesus. What they demonstrate is that there was an early belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

3. Since no opposing theories can adequately account for all of the historical evidence, then Jesus’ resurrection is the only plausible resurrection.

My post above is an opposing theory. It accounts for the original belief in the resurrection without there being an actual resurrection. It accounts for the original claims of there having been eyewitnesses without there having been any actual eyewitnesses. And it exposes the motivations behind the various conflicting reports.

Anyone care to criticize my arguments above?

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #5

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 4 by Imprecise Interrupt]
But the only evidence that the disciples believed that Jesus appeared to them is 1 Corinthians 15. I have addressed 1 Corinthians 15 in my post above.
Exactly. When it comes to the content of one's mind, what one actually believes, I will require something directly from them. I would not trust Overcomer on what it is that Imprecise Interrupt believes, and vice versa. What Overcomer says about Imprecise Interrupt would be hearsay.
At this point in time, I am the stage that I describe as "I do not know what it is the very earliest disciples, perhaps the famous 12 apostles (whoever they exactly were) believed". My own research over the years indicates that there were a plethora of claims and beliefs, there was no one overarching narrative right from the get go.
That it is just a little too convenient of a story to support Paul’s argument about the possibility of resurrection is another red flag.
The 500 witnesses thing is one line, from one person. That's it. No names are given, we can't go and check or ask these people, even if we were standing in front of Paul as he spoke that line.
So it's completely unsupported and thus, we can safely discard it. Hitchen's Razor.
A number of outside evidences support the truth of their belief in his resurrection.

The ‘outside evidences’ Habermas cites are Paul, the Gospels, and early writings by the Church fathers.
So the people who made the original claims...are the evidence to support their own claims...?
Since no opposing theories can adequately account for all of the historical evidence, then Jesus’ resurrection is the only plausible resurrection.
By sheer dint of having been proposed...? Gary needs a heck of a lot more than that for his argument to stick.
What if I propose that aliens with advanced technology only made it look like there was a resurrection? Notice that like with Gary, I'm not producing said aliens for inspection, like he does with an actual resurrected Jesus. It's just something I'm proposing. If I go into detail, I can "adequately account" for everything. Can I then claim victory, claim mine is the "only plausible" account?
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Imprecise Interrupt
Apprentice
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 8:33 am

Post #6

Post by Imprecise Interrupt »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 4 by Imprecise Interrupt]
But the only evidence that the disciples believed that Jesus appeared to them is 1 Corinthians 15. I have addressed 1 Corinthians 15 in my post above.
Exactly. When it comes to the content of one's mind, what one actually believes, I will require something directly from them. I would not trust Overcomer on what it is that Imprecise Interrupt believes, and vice versa. What Overcomer says about Imprecise Interrupt would be hearsay.
At this point in time, I am the stage that I describe as "I do not know what it is the very earliest disciples, perhaps the famous 12 apostles (whoever they exactly were) believed". My own research over the years indicates that there were a plethora of claims and beliefs, there was no one overarching narrative right from the get go.
Note that I am not denying that the early disciples believed that Jesus rose from the dead. That idea was already known in at least some of the places Paul wrote to before he contacted them. Paul did not invent that. It is only the claim that these disciples saw the risen Jesus that I find questionable after examining the evidence.
rikuoamero wrote:
That it is just a little too convenient of a story to support Paul’s argument about the possibility of resurrection is another red flag.
The 500 witnesses thing is one line, from one person. That's it. No names are given, we can't go and check or ask these people, even if we were standing in front of Paul as he spoke that line.
So it's completely unsupported and thus, we can safely discard it. Hitchen's Razor.
More than that, it is the all too convenient appearance of this information when the resurrection claim was challenged. Paul apparently never mentioned the witnesses when he first visited Corinth and never mentions them in any other letter. And as noted in my earlier post, none of the Gospel writers include it even though we know that at least Mark read 1 Corinthians. That is, not only does Mark not know of any such thing from the early traditions about Jesus he includes, but he does not take Paul’s story seriously,
rikuoamero wrote:
A number of outside evidences support the truth of their belief in his resurrection.

The ‘outside evidences’ Habermas cites are Paul, the Gospels, and early writings by the Church fathers.
So the people who made the original claims...are the evidence to support their own claims...?
Not exactly. If a significant number of people repeated an earlier claim, the fact of the repetition could be used as evidence supporting the veracity of the claim. But if the original claim is itself not credible by virtue of the reports of it being visibly agenda-driven, and if those repeating the claim had an agenda of wanting the claim to be true, then their repetition of the claim is no longer credible evidence.

We should also keep in mind that Mark, who appears to be in possession of early traditions about Jesus not filtered through the Pauline lens, does not have any witnesses to the risen Jesus.
rikuoamero wrote:
Since no opposing theories can adequately account for all of the historical evidence, then Jesus’ resurrection is the only plausible resurrection.
By sheer dint of having been proposed...? Gary needs a heck of a lot more than that for his argument to stick.
What if I propose that aliens with advanced technology only made it look like there was a resurrection? Notice that like with Gary, I'm not producing said aliens for inspection, like he does with an actual resurrected Jesus. It's just something I'm proposing. If I go into detail, I can "adequately account" for everything. Can I then claim victory, claim mine is the "only plausible" account?
If the version of the story with the best claim to being original had no mention of aliens, but later versions did mention aliens and those authors had ideological reasons for including aliens, then it is reasonable to discard the alien stories.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Are the Resurrection Accounts Credible?

Post #7

Post by marco »

Imprecise Interrupt wrote:

The question for debate is therefore: Are the scriptural accounts of the resurrection of Jesus credible evidence that the resurrection took place?
Many people have spent their lives digging through language and literature to establish a glorious Resurrection. There's a book about "Who Moved the Stone?" by someone who sought to ridicule and ended up affirming a resurrection. Perhaps there is an element of self-aggrandisement in feeling one has inhaled a mystery and then exhaled truth. Paul seems to have convinced himself that, having been a fighter against, he is now a fighter for, after his fit. And he can explain mysteries with the ease of an archangel.

Mark is probably close to some sort of truth. It is surprising that when the young man in the tomb is mentioned, he is never explained. The frightened women, alas, did not wait for an explanation and caused poor Mark to break off at the most important part of his narrative.

Jesus hobbling to Galilee is amusing, but Mark has prepared us earlier for this fact, since Jesus says: "But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee." Then the boy - possibly the naked escapee in the garden - reminds the women what Jesus had said, but they weren't listening; yet we know the direct speech of the lad in the tomb. The problem is that deceit is best concealed inside truth, as with Macbeth and the witches.


Mark certainly seems to suggest NO resurrection but lots of plotting and planning. The major play behind the scenes will perhaps never be known. Too many cathedrals have been built and three deities have risen where once there was one.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Are the Resurrection Accounts Credible?

Post #8

Post by Jagella »

Imprecise Interrupt wrote:The question for debate is therefore: Are the scriptural accounts of the resurrection of Jesus credible evidence that the resurrection took place?
I don't find those accounts to be convincing. For one thing, they aren't really accounts of the actual resurrection but only the aftermath early the next morning. Moreover, those accounts are merely stories for which we have no solid or independent evidence. If God raised Jesus from the dead, then it seems reasonable to me that he would display Jesus for all to see including the Jews who allegedly instigated his execution. Instead, Jesus was said to have only appeared to his closest followers, people that others may have difficulty believing.

I am one of those "others." I ask what's more probable:
  • A. Jesus really rose from his grave only to appear to a handful of his zealous followers and then went floating off into the sky.
    B. The resurrection story was made up by the first Christians.
Since I usually believe claims based on what I know, I'd say B is more probable. I know of nobody being raised from the dead, but I do know that people make up stories.

The resurrection accounts are then not credible.

User avatar
Imprecise Interrupt
Apprentice
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 8:33 am

Post #9

Post by Imprecise Interrupt »

marco wrote:
Imprecise Interrupt wrote:

The question for debate is therefore: Are the scriptural accounts of the resurrection of Jesus credible evidence that the resurrection took place?
Many people have spent their lives digging through language and literature to establish a glorious Resurrection. There's a book about "Who Moved the Stone?" by someone who sought to ridicule and ended up affirming a resurrection. Perhaps there is an element of self-aggrandisement in feeling one has inhaled a mystery and then exhaled truth. Paul seems to have convinced himself that, having been a fighter against, he is now a fighter for, after his fit. And he can explain mysteries with the ease of an archangel.
Frank Morisson, the author of “Who Moved the Stone?�, rejects the idea of the body of Jesus being stolen out of hand, basically because ‘the Apostles would not do that’ and that ‘somebody would have spilled the beans’. Jesus had a significant number of followers in his traveling band, as suggested by a number of passages in the Gospels. Nobody said it was any of the twelve Apostles who were involved. But other followers would more likely have been responsible. You don’t tell the boss about these things, especially when you want the boss to be convinced of it as well. And the story that the body was stolen was making the rounds, as Matthew tells us. Maybe someone did blab, or at least was suspicious.

Morisson seems willing to take scripture at face value without considering why it might have been written that way or how the several accounts differ. I am very suspicious of his claim that he became a Christian because of his research.
marco wrote: Mark is probably close to some sort of truth. It is surprising that when the young man in the tomb is mentioned, he is never explained. The frightened women, alas, did not wait for an explanation and caused poor Mark to break off at the most important part of his narrative.
In Mark 16, there is no indication that the young man had anything else to say to the women. He told them to go.

Mark 16
5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.�
marco wrote: Jesus hobbling to Galilee is amusing, but Mark has prepared us earlier for this fact, since Jesus says: "But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee." Then the boy - possibly the naked escapee in the garden - reminds the women what Jesus had said, but they weren't listening; yet we know the direct speech of the lad in the tomb. The problem is that deceit is best concealed inside truth, as with Macbeth and the witches.
Mark 14:28 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.

This is during the Last Supper scene. There is good reason to think this entire scene is invention. This is clearly a Passover Seder, but the description is of a Seder as practiced in the Diaspora, not in Jerusalem. The bread is plainly what would later be called the afikomen, a substitute for the Temple sacrificed lamb not available outside of Jerusalem. It is as described by Paul in 1 Corinthians.

By making this scene a Passover Seder requires that the Sanhedrin conduct a trial, with witnesses available, on the first night of Passover! The availability of the witnesses, and the fact that the elders were gathered, show that it was planned this way. No way. (John would later recognize the problem and move the Last Supper to the previous night and omit all Seder references.) But Mark making it a Seder allowed all sorts of symbolism to be incorporated – a story in itself.

In short, there is really no reason for “I will go before you into Galilee� to be considered as anything other than Mark foreshadowing his ending.

The boy in the garden the night Jesus was arrested is IMO part of Mark’s clever use of garments throughout his Gospel as ‘heads up’ indicators of something important being said. But again, another story.
marco wrote: Mark certainly seems to suggest NO resurrection but lots of plotting and planning. The major play behind the scenes will perhaps never be known. Too many cathedrals have been built and three deities have risen where once there was one.
Regardless of exactly what happened back then, my point in the OP is still that the several accounts of the resurrection of Jesus do not constitute credible evidence for the resurrection having taken place, even if one allows the possibility of miracles.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #10

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 9 by Imprecise Interrupt]
Frank Morisson, the author of “Who Moved the Stone?�, rejects the idea of the body of Jesus being stolen out of hand, basically because ‘the Apostles would not do that’ and that ‘somebody would have spilled the beans’.
Even supposing for a moment somebody did spill the beans...how would we, 2000 years later, know of it? Would the earliest Christians, themselves believing that Jesus died and rose, promote what the whistle-blower is saying? Would they copy his words, using up valuable parchment and the valuable time of trained writers?
Or more than likely, would they not have expunged said whistle-blower, and continued on with their own claims? Remove him from the record?
Jesus had a significant number of followers in his traveling band, as suggested by a number of passages in the Gospels. Nobody said it was any of the twelve Apostles who were involved.
Perhaps it was the Joseph of Best-Disciple-Town, he who waltzes into the narrative precisely when the body of Jesus needs to get away from Pontius Pilate and into a tomb that it can escape from, and then disappears just as quickly...?
Oh for the Christians on this site, perhaps they should ask themselves just how much of a disciple Joe of A really was...he was a member of the Sanhedrin, and according to Mark 14 "The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?� he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?�

They all condemned him as worthy of death."
That's right! Just like in my Moral Question for Christians, even the supposed direct disciple(s) of Jesus were literally condemning him to death! I'm cackling as I write this.
The only way out of this that I can see is to suggest that Joe of A is a plot device, an invention, and that no-one (at the time the Gospels were written) noticed that Mark was saying that Joe would have had to, by virtue of being a councillor of the Sanhedrin, have had to have been part of the unanimous vote that found Jesus guilty and that he should be put to death.
I just find it it hilarious that the people from the religion that lecture the rest of us on murder and lying in court...laud as their heroes people who do just that.
In Mark 16, there is no indication that the young man had anything else to say to the women. He told them to go.
THIS is (part of) the great evidence for Jesus's resurrection? An unnamed man, literally never before seen or since, just says that the tomb occupant isn't here, go to this other place and you'll see him...and that's enough to establish resurrection?
This is during the Last Supper scene. There is good reason to think this entire scene is invention.
Have you read the Gospel John version? Read that, read the non-reactions of the disciples towards one of them literally being called a traitor...and then ask Christians why with that in their holy book, we should look to the apostles as being wise men, consider the gospel accounts credible at all.
The boy in the garden the night Jesus was arrested is IMO part of Mark’s clever use of garments throughout his Gospel as ‘heads up’ indicators of something important being said. But again, another story.
I invite you to read a post I made regarding Peter's denying Jesus three times.
viewtopic.php?t=35142

Long story short - the way the story is written, Peter has no organic motivation to deny Jesus. It all looks to be a plot device to show off Jesus's divine foreknowledge.
Regardless of exactly what happened back then, my point in the OP is still that the several accounts of the resurrection of Jesus do not constitute credible evidence for the resurrection having taken place, even if one allows the possibility of miracles.
If one allows the possibility of miracles, why the privilege of looking at Christian claims alone? Why start there? Why can't we start with some other religion. Maybe there's true miracles in Hinduism...? Maybe Zeus and the other gods live in an invisible temple on Mt. Olympus?
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

Post Reply