Does Forensic Science Debunk The Resurrection Of Christ?

[SkyChief]

I say yes. Science easily debunks the (NT) claim that Christ wandered the Earth for 40 days after arising from death.

It is simply not possible for a person to become re-animated after death. Rigor mortis occurs within two to six hours after death, but Jesus was entombed for THREE DAYS before the angel pushed back the stone door and freed him.

A Christian friend argued that there was a possibility that Jesus was only "pretending" to be dead or possibly he was comatose from the excruciating pain, so it appeared that he 'arose from the dead' when he really didn't. There's a possibility that Jesus might have been buried alive, and he simply regained consciousness.

Of course, this is the classic Russel's Teapot argument - suggest that some event occurred and then say well, you can't prove that it didn't happen, so we must accept it.

So I conceded.

[elijahpne]

[Replying to post 1 by SkyChief]

Resurrection is a miracle that can only be attributed, directly or indirectly, to God. Being supernatural in nature, science can not prove or disprove it inasmuch as science's domain is the natural world. As Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering of MIT, Ian Hutchinson puts it: "Science offers natural explanations of natural events. It has no power or need to assert that only natural events happen." - http://www.veritas.org/can-scientist-be ... ypotheses/

God can restore to life anyone who could have been dead for millenniums (Acts 24:15). As such, forensic science, and particularly, rigor mortis is of no consequence.

The literal resurrection of Jesus is a cornerstone of Christian faith. With all due respect to your "Christian" friend, no one who rejects it for what it really is - a rising from the dead not from a pretend death - can rightly call himself a Christian. The apostle Paul at 1 Corinthians 15:14, 15 (KJV) puts it bluntly:

"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ."

If Jesus were only pretending to be dead then he would have pulled off the greatest, cruelest hoax perpetrated in human history for all his Apostles - eyewitnesses of his resurrection (1 Cor 15:3-8) - and countless others, willingly submitted to martyrdom in defense of their faith in a genuine resurrection. I doubt if any will be willing to die for a pretend event especially if he were contemporary to the said event. The only sensible conclusion is that it was a genuine resurrection.

Professor Ian Hutchinson, makes this argument more compelling when he said in his talk "Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection? Three Hypotheses (http://www.veritas.org/can-scientist-be ... ypotheses/):

"... the first disciples attested to a physical resurrection. How could an untruth logically support high moral character? How could it have sustained the apostles through the extremes of persecution they experienced founding Christianity?

"Contrary to increasingly popular opinion, science is not our only means for accessing truth. In the case of Jesus' resurrection, we must consider the historical evidence, and the historical evidence for the resurrection is as good as for almost any event of ancient history. The extraordinary character of the event, and its significance, provide a unique context, and ancient history is necessarily hard to establish. But a bare presumption that science has shown the resurrection to be impossible is an intellectual cop-out. Science shows no such thing."

He is backed up by Matt J. Rossano, Professor of Psychology Southeastern Louisiana University in his article "Does Resurrection Contradict Science" who said (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/does-res ... d_b_848577):

"Now, what convinces the believer that Resurrection merits such authority when other imaginative possibilities such as extraterrestrial life or time-travel do not? The answer here appears to be historical commitment. There's no record of people committing themselves to the point of martyrdom to other imaginative possibilities as they have to Resurrection. The earliest example of such commitment being found, of course, in the dramatic post-crucifixion turn-around of the Apostles. Such an astounding change of heart, followed by an unwavering commitment capable of altering human history demands a categorically unique explanation: Resurrection."

Moreover, the resurrection doctrine is certainly not lacking in scientific underpinnings. Scientists now have the ability to recreate or clone (remember Dolly the sheep) an individual or any organism based on DNA. Also, people sometimes preserve their dead loved ones through cryonics in the hope of being able to restore them back to life, preserving, not only their DNA, but the brain. Note what this recent article says:

"Using a technique developed three years ago, researchers from MIT and 21st Century Medicine have shown that it's possible to preserve the microscopic structures contained within a large mammalian brain. The breakthrough means scientists now have the means to store and study samples of the human brain over longer timescales - but the method could eventually, maybe, be used to resurrect the dead." - https://gizmodo.com/new-brain-preservat ... 1823741147

This lends credence to neurologist Richard M. Restak who commented about the human brain and its neurons. "All that we are and all that we have done could be read by an observer capable of deciphering the connections and circuits that have been established within our 50 billion nerve cells." - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101998029#h=74

This opens up the opportunity to recreate not only the body thru it's DNA but also the person's memory thru digitizing his brain connections and downloading it.

I'm not saying that this is how God will do it. What I'm saying is that science backs Him up - not that God needs its support.

Recreating an individual is a miracle now but it may be understood better in the future as the following quote suggests:

'As to miracles in the Bible, Akira Yamada, professor emeritus of Kyoto University in Japan, says: "While it is correct to say that [a miracle] cannot be understood as of now from the standpoint of the science in which one is involved (or from the status quo of science), it is wrong to conclude that it did not happen, simply on the authority of advanced modern physics or advanced modern Bibliology. Ten years from now, today's modern science will be a science of the past. The faster science progresses the greater the possibility that scientists of today will become the target of jokes, such as 'Scientists of ten years ago seriously believed such and such.' " - Gods in the Age of Science.' - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101998027#h=69

Peace mate!

[Donray]

Remember the god is a wizard and a wizard (even an invisible one) can do anything through MAGIC.

So one cannot debate this magic unless one can prove that an invisible wizard does not exist. One does not need to prove the wizard does exist.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by SkyChief]

You can't debunk a God myth using science. The reason should be obvious. The God in the myth is supposed to be the creator of all that exists, and therefore he could override anything humans think they know about how the universe works.

And there are even scientists today who are talking about the possibility that the universe might be some kind of computer simulations. If you know anything about computer simulations you should know that the programmer can easily override anything within the simulation causing it to ignore the rules of the simulation overall. I've done this myself when programming simulations and I can assure you that it's a piece of cake.

So you can't disprove a "God myth" by claiming that miracles would violate the laws of physics. Theists most certainly don't care about this objection because from their perspective overriding the laws of physics is well within the capabilities of their mythological God.

So to effectively expose the absurdities of these myths you need to address them from a different perspective. You need to point out how utterly absurd it would be for a God to do these things in the first place. Never mind any arguments about whether he "could" do them. Instead point out the absurdities associated with why he "would" do them even if he could.

I don't need science to dismiss Hebrew mythology as being utterly absurd, self-contradictory, and downright ignorant. I can allow that there could exist an all powerful God who can do anything and still make sound rational arguments for why no such being would ever behave as ignorantly as the God of Hebrew mythology.

Not only this, but the doctrine contains clear self-contradictions even if we allow that its God can do anything. There are far too many to mention here as this mythology shoots itself in the foot in just about every chapter contained within it. But that's how we can dismiss Hebrew mythology.

Trying to show that science wouldn't permit an omnipotent God from doing anything is a futile argument. If the universe truly is a computer simulation then the laws of physics are meaningless. All they would be at that point are computer instructions that could easily be overridden at any moment by the master programmer.

There is nothing preventing an omnipotent God from violating the laws of physics at his whim. The real question is why would he do so in such an ignorant fashion as Hebrew mythology has him doing? Not to mention the myriad of self-contradictions contained in the descriptions of this God supposed character and behavior.

You can hardly claim that a God is all-wise, all-loving, and all-righteous and then turn around and having him doing ignorant hateful unrighteous things. Yet this is the main theme of the Hebrew Bible. Their God behaves like a completely clueless idiot who can't solve the simplest of problems wisely. That violates what this God is supposed to be right there.

[SkyChief]

God can restore to life anyone who could have been dead for millenniums (Acts 24:15). As such, forensic science, and particularly, rigor mortis is of no consequence.

You're using biblical scripture (ACTS 24:15) as evidence that rigor mortis "is of no consequence".

This is a huge problem because I don't believe the bible is true.

Professor Ian Hutchinson, makes this argument more compelling when he said in his talk "Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection? Three Hypotheses (http://www.veritas.org/can-scientist-be ... ypotheses/):

Professor Hutchinson makes this statement in Hypothesis #1:

"We’re not talking about a literal resurrection."

But in this discussion, we ARE talking about a literal resurrection.

I do appreciate your thoughtful response - I can tell you invested time and effort into writing it.

With biblical accounts, I always ask myself "Is this plausible?"

Pontuis Pilate ordered that Christ be crucified on a cross. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plausible? Sure.

Christ lives for approx 6 hours on the cross and dies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Plausible? Sure.

Christ's dead body was placed in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. . . . . . . . Plausible? Sure.

After 3 days, Christ is freed by an angel, and wanders the Earth for 40 days. . . .Plausible? No.

[Donray]

Christ's dead body was placed in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. . . . . . . . Plausible? Sure.

Actually this is not plausible. The Romans would have left Jesus on the cross and then buried in a month or so the bones in mass grave with all the other codified.

Can anyone give an explanation why the Romans would teat Jesus any different than any other criminal?

[Difflugia]

Christ's dead body was placed in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. . . . . . . . Plausible? Sure.

Can anyone give an explanation why the Romans would teat Jesus any different than any other criminal?

The available evidence (which is admittedly fragmentary) is that immediately offering bodies to family and friends for proper burial was not uncommon and was perhaps the norm in the context of an execution during a time of peace.

Capital Punishment and Burial in the Roman Empire by Mark D. Smith (chapter 21 of Bethsaida in Archaeology, History and Ancient Culture edited by J. Harold Ellens):

...the extant evidence for the disposal of the bodies of the executed demonstrates that in some situations the Romans engaged in corpse abuse, exposure of bodies, and dumping of bodies into the Tiber. In other situations, they handed the bodies over to family and friends for proper disposal by cremation or burial, or carted them off to places reserved for mass burial or cremation.

...

Virtually every historical narrative of execution followed by non-burial took place in a violent context. Conversely, over the course of two centuries, we do not have evidence of a single case of corpse abuse or exposure of executed bodies under peaceful circumstances, save for the few victims of the sack wending their way down the Tiber. Therefore, we can draw an important conclusion: non-burial of the victims of capital punishment is far more probable in a context of violence, and burial is far more probable in a context of peace.

,,,

We can take this conclusion a step further by combining the evidence from Philo, Josephus, the victims of execution at Giv’at ha-Mivtar, the broken legs of the Gospel of John, and the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, as recorded in all of the canonical Gospels as well as other early Christian texts. All of these pieces of evidence come from near the same time, all from the eastern empire, all from a Jewish context, and most importantly, all agree. From the perspective of over two centuries of evidence in the Roman Empire, there is nothing surprising about how Pilate handled Jesus’ execution or his burial, for unlike the bloody proscriptions of Sulla, and unlike the slave rebellion led by Spartacus, and unlike the Jewish war, or the homicidal rage of Nero, this execution took place in time of peace.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by SkyChief]

Nothing can debunk the resurrection of Christ, just as nothing can debunk the idea of Intelligent Design being involved in the creation of all things. Can Science explain exactly how the universe came into existence? Can it explain how the first living cell came to be out of non-living matter? Can it explain exactly how life began? Any honest person would say "no." This leaves room for the contemplation of the possibility of an Intelligent Designer.

So, if an Intelligent Designer, a Creator, brought the entire universe and living things on this planet into being, why is it so difficult to imagine that this Creator can bring back a man from the dead?

If the Creator cannot, all mankind that has ever lived is without hope. But we have received a guarantee, because Christ was raised from the dead, that we also will be raised up after our own deaths, at the time of the Resurrection "in the last day." (John 6:40)

[elijahpne]

[Replying to post 5 by SkyChief]

If you reread Prof. Hutchinson's paper, you will notice in the second paragraph that he debunks the myth in the first paragraph that the resurrection was not a literal resurrection although he used the term "physical" in lieu of "literal". But they mean the same thing don't they?

Hypothesis one: We're not talking about a literal resurrection. Perhaps it is just an inspiring myth that served to justify the propagation of Jesus' exalted ethical teachings. A literal resurrection contradicts the known laws of nature. Maybe scientists can celebrate the idea of Jesus' spirit living on, while his body remained in the grave.

But the first disciples attested to a physical resurrection. How could an untruth logically support high moral character? How could it have sustained the apostles through the extremes of persecution they experienced founding Christianity? And is celebrating a myth consistent with scientific integrity?

By the way I used Acts 24:15 merely to show that God has the power to resurrect any who could have been dead for thousands of years as Abraham, Jacob and Isaac (Luke 20:37, 38). Jesus body could have undergone rigor mortis hours after his death but that doesn't matter to God. God can recreate a person from his DNA and life pattern stored in his brain - the scientific basis of resurrection. God who created Adam from dust would just as easily recreate an individual from his DNA, which is why cloning is possible.

In any case, Jesus was resurrected as a spirit not as a human again (1 Peter 3:18 "he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit"). God does not need his DNA only his memory.

rigor mortis: the progressive stiffening of the muscles that occurs several hours after death as a result of the coagulation of the muscle protein. - Webster's New World Dictionary

Thanks for responding to my post. Hope to hear from you again.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 8 by onewithhim]

Nothing can debunk the resurrection of Christ, just as nothing can debunk the idea of Intelligent Design being involved in the creation of all things. Can Science explain exactly how the universe came into existence? Can it explain how the first living cell came to be out of non-living matter? Can it explain exactly how life began? Any honest person would say "no." This leaves room for the contemplation of the possibility of an Intelligent Designer.

Yes ... this leaves room for the contemplation of an intelligent designer, but it in no way supports the actual existence of such an entity. From a science perspective, there is no support for an intelligent designer as there is no physical evidence for such an entity. Of the thousands that humans have contemplated not one has ever been physically seen or heard, or shown itself in any definitive way such that it can be said to actually exist. They only exist as entities that are hypothesized, contemplated, inferred, etc.

Open scientific issues like the ones you mentioned (origin of the universe, and life) are just that ... problems still to be solved. It is not scientifically legitimate to conclude that just because science has yet to solve a problem that the answer is therefore due to some supernatural event or being. That does not follow. And with zero physical evidence to support the existence of things like gods there is no reason, from a science perspective, to expect them to exist in any form or fashion.

God beings of various types have been used since humans first evolved the capability to contemplate them to explain things that could not be explained otherwise. As scientific knowledge progressed over time, the majority of "god did it" explanations have been shown to be false (eg. as the cause of earthquakes, famines, plagues, etc.). There is every reason to expect that science will eventually answer the "origins" questions (universe, life) in the same manner as it has for the many prior phenomena that were once attributed to the action of gods of various types. The fact that science may not yet have an answer for something in no way means the default answer is action by a deity.