Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Gary]

Work with me here. In your posited scenario, grave robbery, you agree that Jesus was killed, yes? You agree, at least for the sake of argument here, that he was buried, yes? The sources attest, in agreement with standard practices of the time, that the body was wrapped in grave clothes. The onus is on YOU, in THIS scenario posited by YOU, to show that there were no grave clothes involved. Capiche?

No, OBP. The onus is one YOU to prove that the grave robbers who took the body of Jesus would take the time to remove the burial wrap, fold it neatly in a pile, and leave it in the tomb!!! I do not doubt that Jesus' body, if buried in the tomb as 70% of scholars believe, was wrapped in burial cloth. What I doubt is the story that the burial cloth was left behind by whomever took the body!

In the Gospel of Matthew there is ZERO mention of burial cloth left in the tomb.

Here is what the author of the Gospel of Luke says:

Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. 12 But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed at what had happened.[e]

The Gospel of John:



The Gospel of Mark, the first gospel written:



Gary: Notice how the first gospel, Mark, says nothing about the linens. Matthew says nothing about the linens. Luke says the linen were lying off to the side. John adds a lot more detail, telling us that the face cloth was folded neatly and lying apart from the other linens. Could this be true and Mark and Matthew just didn't think this detail was important to their "theme"? Sure! But isn't it more likely that the reason that the "magic folded linen" story is more detailed in the last gospel written is because the story had become more and more embellished??

Multiple attestation or embellishment, folks? Come on. Let's get serious.

[Adrift]

Nice try. Carrier did not write the Nazareth Inscription. The source of my copy and paste of this document is irrelevant unless you are claiming that the source has changed the wording of the document. Is that your accusation??

The edict is describing common grave robbery, which, as Habermas pointed out, likely does not refer to removing actual corpses. The Wiki page answers this rebuttal by citing Richard Carrier, an extreme fringe (and strongly anti-Christian) scholar who has a reputation for overgeneralizing, and fudging historical details concerning place, period and opportunity to suit his agenda. That Germanicus had in his possession the remains of human bodies for the purposes of curses tells us nothing about grave robbers in Jerusalem proper. This whole line of thinking raises far more questions than it answers.

[Gary]

Here's the bottom line, Readers: We skeptics are not obligated to prove an alternative explanation for the early Christian Resurrection belief. We are no more obligated to provide an alternative explanation for this supernatural claim as we are for why some people claim they have been abducted by space aliens and interrogated on far away planets! The onus is not on skeptics to disprove an extraordinary claim but on the proponents of the extraordinary claim! That is how it works in our culture folks! Imagine the chaos if society was obligated to disprove every wild haired fantastical claim ever made!

Our universe operates by very precise natural laws. There very well may be a Creator, but if there is, he/she/it/they ordained for the universe to operate according to these laws and not by chaotic supernatural events. Could the Creator occasionally supersede the laws of nature and perform a "miracle"? Sure! But if these events occur, they are the exception. However, even the existence of miracles does not in any way prove the Resurrection, as even the Bible states that prior to Jesus there had never, ever been a resurrection.

I have just demonstrated that with or without the Roman guards at the tomb, there are several plausible naturalistic/non-miracle explanations for all the evidence that the majority of experts agree upon, even including the empty tomb. So even assuming the existence and miracle powers of the Judeo-Christian God, Yahweh, the probability of a resurrection is extremely low as Yahweh has not performed this miracle at any other time. Therefore we are left with two choices: a once in history resurrection, or, multiple plausible explanations of causes, such as grave robbery, that have occurred in human history many, many, many more times than a resurrection.

Therefore, although it is true that neither I nor any skeptic can disprove the Resurrection, we can...AND I JUST HAVE...proven that alternative, naturalistic explanations are MUCH more probable to be the explanation of the early Christian Resurrection belief. The reason that most Christians do not see this is that they make a very serious error in logic: Begging the Question. Christians assume the divinity of Jesus a priori to assist in proving the Resurrection. This is bad reasoning, for it is the Resurrection that proves the divinity of Jesus! Without good evidence to prove the Resurrection, Jesus was just one in a long list of failed, false messiahs.

Stop the bad logic, folks. Accept the facts. The bodily resurrection of Jesus is HIGHLY improbable.

[Gary]

The edict is describing common grave robbery, which, as Habermas pointed out, likely does not refer to removing actual corpses. The Wiki page answers this rebuttal by citing Richard Carrier, an extreme fringe (and strongly anti-Christian) scholar who has a reputation for overgeneralizing, and fudging historical details concerning place, period and opportunity to suit his agenda. That Germanicus had in his possession the remains of human bodies for the purposes of curses tells us nothing about grave robbers in Jerusalem proper. This whole line of thinking raises far more questions than it answers.

Good grief.

The fact that Caesar had to threaten the death penalty for grave robbery demonstrates that grave robbery did occur during this time period in Palestine. The fact that we have evidence that some people of that time period were necromancers and possessed dead bodies is proof that SOME people in that time period robbed graves AND stole bodies.

We skeptics do NOT have to prove that such activities occurred in Jerusalem itself on the night of April 15, 33 AD for it to be POSSIBLE that this is the explanation for the empty tomb of Jesus. (sarcasm, not meant to assert an exact date)

Good grief!

[Adam]

I never conceded your denial of the proof in the Shroud of Turin, backed up by the Sudarian of Oviedo. I am quite convinced, even though I am no longer Roman Catholic.

[One Bad Pig]

No, OBP. The onus is one YOU to prove that the grave robbers who took the body of Jesus would take the time to remove the burial wrap, fold it neatly in a pile, and leave it in the tomb!!!

The "grave robbers" theory is yours, not mine. The onus is on you to prove it.

I do not doubt that Jesus' body, if buried in the tomb as 70% of scholars believe, was wrapped in burial cloth.

Thank you.

What I doubt is the story that the burial cloth was left behind by whomever took the body!

Of course - that would put your theory in doubt.

In the Gospel of Matthew there is ZERO mention of burial cloth left in the tomb.

Here is what the author of the Gospel of Luke says:

Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. 12 But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed at what had happened.[e]

The Gospel of John:



The Gospel of Mark, the first gospel written:



Gary: Notice how the first gospel, Mark, says nothing about the linens. Matthew says nothing about the linens. Luke says the linen were lying off to the side. John adds a lot more detail, telling us that the face cloth was folded neatly and lying apart from the other linens. Could this be true and Mark and Matthew just didn't think this detail was important to their "theme"? Sure! But isn't it more likely that the reason that the "magic folded linen" story is more detailed in the last gospel written is because the story had become more and more embellished??

Multiple attestation or embellishment, folks? Come on. Let's get serious.

There is, naturally, no pleasing you. If it were in all four gospels, you'd claim they were just copying from the first writer, who made it up. If it were only in the first two, you'd claim that the others obviously didn't think it important enough to copy, so we shouldn't think it was either. The fact of burial clothes being left in the otherwise empty tomb is attested by two independent sources (I don't know of anyone who claims Johannine dependence on Luke). Deal with it.

[Gary]

I never conceded your denial of the proof in the Shroud of Turin, backed up by the Sudarian of Oviedo. I am quite convinced, even though I am no longer Roman Catholic.

Here are four very strong pieces of evidence for any reasonable person to consider regarding these two Catholic relics:

1. Catholics at one time or another in history have claimed to have in their possession every imaginable relic related to Jesus, including enough slivers of the cross to reconstruct Noah's Ark, and, Jesus' very foreskin! One pope even authenticated the claim of authenticity of Jesus' foreskin, kept in a glass box in a church in Italy! What does this all prove? Answer: Any educated, reasonable person should consider as highly likely that the "relics" of the Catholic Church are blatant fakes invented for the purpose of deceiving silly peasants.

2. In the thirteen century (when the fraudulent Shroud of Turin was created), a pope stated that is was NOT authentic.

3. Scientists were given access to the Shroud in the 1980's and it was proven to be a fake!

4. No pope or Church council has EVER claimed that the Shroud is genuine.

Enough said.

[Gary]

The "grave robbers" theory is yours, not mine. The onus is on you to prove it.

Thank you.

Of course - that would put your theory in doubt.

There is, naturally, no pleasing you. If it were in all four gospels, you'd claim they were just copying from the first writer, who made it up. If it were only in the first two, you'd claim that the others obviously didn't think it important enough to copy, so we shouldn't think it was either. The fact of burial clothes being left in the otherwise empty tomb is attested by two independent sources (I don't know of anyone who claims Johannine dependence on Luke). Deal with it.

Where did I claim that Jesus' body was stolen by grave robbers?

So what you are saying is that if two difference sources repeat the same claim then that claim is true? Do you have a scholarly source that supports this position?

[Gary]

The "grave robbers" theory is yours, not mine. The onus is on you to prove it.

Thank you.

Of course - that would put your theory in doubt.

There is, naturally, no pleasing you. If it were in all four gospels, you'd claim they were just copying from the first writer, who made it up. If it were only in the first two, you'd claim that the others obviously didn't think it important enough to copy, so we shouldn't think it was either. The fact of burial clothes being left in the otherwise empty tomb is attested by two independent sources (I don't know of anyone who claims Johannine dependence on Luke). Deal with it.

The idea that I must prove that grave robbers stole the body of Jesus...just to propose that grave robbery is a POSSIBLE explanation for the empty tomb...is preposterous! If we once again use the alien cow abduction analogy, it would be like suggesting to the believer of the alien cow abduction that it is POSSIBLE that milk cow thieves stole the cow...and being told that we must PROVE that the cow was stolen by milk cow thieves...just to suggest that cow theft is a possibility!

That is ludicrous!

[37818]

The idea that I must prove that grave robbers stole the body of Jesus...just to propose that grave robbery is a POSSIBLE explanation for the empty tomb...is preposterous! If we once again use the alien cow abduction analogy, it would be like suggesting to the believer of the alien cow abduction that it is POSSIBLE that milk cow thieves stole the cow...and being told that we must PROVE that the cow was stolen by milk cow thieves...just to suggest that cow theft is a possibility!

That is ludicrous!

On the premise that the body of Jesus was stolen. What of all the claimed appearances? What of the group experiences reported? ". . . And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. . . ." -- Acts 9:7?

[Gary]

On the premise that the body of Jesus was stolen. What of all the claimed appearances? What of the group experiences reported? ". . . And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. . . ." -- Acts 9:7?

Vivid dreams/visions and rumors of unidentified crowds "seeing" Jesus, which over decades became legends that were embellished.

If you read the books of Acts, in one passage Paul says that his companions saw something and heard nothing. In another passage, he says that the saw nothing and heard something. I would bet that these details were all part of Paul's vivid dream, not reality.

[37818]

If you read the books of Acts, in one passage Paul says that his companions saw something and heard nothing. In another passage, he says that the saw nothing and heard something. I would bet that these details were all part of Paul's vivid dream, not reality.

Evidently you do not understand those two texts - both by the same writer of Acts. And it was not a dream. The men with Saul believed the event so they would take the then blinded Saul to the church leader as requested by Saul.

[psstein]

Exactly how does grave robbery as the reason for the empty tomb "conflict with all the evidence". It may conflict with all your assumptions, but not actual evidence. Please prove otherwise.

So what if some of the supernatural claims have multiple attestation and in a few cases, the criterion of embarrassment! Do these facts PROVE the historicity of the events, or only make them more plausible than a claim without these features???

No, Gary. The criterion don't "prove" anything. Proof only exists in mathematics. An event that is multiply attested and fulfills the criterion of embarrassment is more likely to be historical than an event that does not.

If you posit grave robbery, you need to a) figure out who robbed the grave and b) why he wasn't noticed. The grave was a commonly used site, where bodies were laid until they decomposed. They were then placed in an ossuary, often in the same place. I think Dale Allison's book on the Resurrection, while not favorable to any one point of view, convincingly demonstrated the stupidity of the grave robbery hypothesis. Also, you have to postulate why the robber stole the body, which would've been highly unusual.

[psstein]

Here are four very strong pieces of evidence for any reasonable person to consider regarding these two Catholic relics:

1. Catholics at one time or another in history have claimed to have in their possession every imaginable relic related to Jesus, including enough slivers of the cross to reconstruct Noah's Ark, and, Jesus' very foreskin! One pope even authenticated the claim of authenticity of Jesus' foreskin, kept in a glass box in a church in Italy! What does this all prove? Answer: Any educated, reasonable person should consider as highly likely that the "relics" of the Catholic Church are blatant fakes invented for the purpose of deceiving silly peasants.

2. In the thirteen century (when the fraudulent Shroud of Turin was created), a pope stated that is was NOT authentic.

3. Scientists were given access to the Shroud in the 1980's and it was proven to be a fake!

4. No pope or Church council has EVER claimed that the Shroud is genuine.

Enough said.

The Catholic Church didn't "create" these relics to fool peasants, Gary. Any historian of the period will tell you that there was a flourishing trade in "relics" by a number of so-called "relic merchants," most of whom forged them then sold them to unsuspecting people. But why read history when you can come up with your own nonsense?

With regard to the cross, Calvin was wrong. You should read de Fleury's work on the dimensions of the cross and how much of it we actually have.

[psstein]

The edict is describing common grave robbery, which, as Habermas pointed out, likely does not refer to removing actual corpses. The Wiki page answers this rebuttal by citing Richard Carrier, an extreme fringe (and strongly anti-Christian) scholar who has a reputation for overgeneralizing, and fudging historical details concerning place, period and opportunity to suit his agenda. That Germanicus had in his possession the remains of human bodies for the purposes of curses tells us nothing about grave robbers in Jerusalem proper. This whole line of thinking raises far more questions than it answers.

You're being too nice. Carrier is an incompetent hack whose works verge more on apologetics than on actual history. Apologetics is fine, but it's not a substitute for critical scholarship (hence my general disagreement with many of McGrew's arguments about the gospels).