Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[psstein]

Can you give me a source, Stein, which quotes the majority of NT scholars as holding to the view that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the ONLY plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus, as is held by Nick?

No, because you don't seem to realize that nobody really keeps track of these things. It's not science, where we can do a meta analysis of works. If you want to find out a majority view, you have to trudge through thousands of pages of literature.

[psstein]

No. Evangelical scholars for the most part do. Many, even Christian scholars, just don't say anything about the matter.

Right, and although I disagree with evangelical scholars on a variety of things, many of them are darn good scholars (Keener and Wright especially).

Most NT scholars don't bother addressing anything after the Crucifixion. For example, John P. Meier is on the 5th volume of his A Marginal Jew, which is a hugely impressive series about the historical Jesus. He doesn't mention anything about the Crucifixion or the Resurrection.

I tend to be of the mindset that the historian acting ONLY as a historian (that is, neither presupposing or rejecting the existence of a God who performs miracles) can neither affirm nor deny the Resurrection.

[Adrift]

No, because you don't seem to realize that nobody really keeps track of these things. It's not science, where we can do a meta analysis of works. If you want to find out a majority view, you have to trudge through thousands of pages of literature.

Probably the closest we get is Habermas' survey on Resurrection Research from 1975 to 2005 in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 3.2 (2005), pp. 135-153.

[Adrift]

I tend to be of the mindset that the historian acting ONLY as a historian (that is, neither presupposing or rejecting the existence of a God who performs miracles) can neither affirm nor deny the Resurrection.

This has been repeated a number of times already. Guess it's not getting through.

[Gary]

No, because you don't seem to realize that nobody really keeps track of these things. It's not science, where we can do a meta analysis of works. If you want to find out a majority view, you have to trudge through thousands of pages of literature.

Let me tell you this: If the majority of NT scholars believed that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the ONLY plausible explanation of the early Christian belief in the Resurrection...Christians would be all over the internet with this information and you darn well know it! The obvious fact is that there is no known consensus that states that the majority of scholars believe such a claim and that is why you want to send me and other skeptics on another goose chase into scholarshipland.

[Gary]

Right, and although I disagree with evangelical scholars on a variety of things, many of them are darn good scholars (Keener and Wright especially).

Most NT scholars don't bother addressing anything after the Crucifixion. For example, John P. Meier is on the 5th volume of his A Marginal Jew, which is a hugely impressive series about the historical Jesus. He doesn't mention anything about the Crucifixion or the Resurrection.

I tend to be of the mindset that the historian acting ONLY as a historian (that is, neither presupposing or rejecting the existence of a God who performs miracles) can neither affirm nor deny the Resurrection.

So Nick's position regarding the source of the early Christian belief in a Resurrection is just his opinion, it is not a position based on scholarship?? Hmm. Nick continually harps on accepting scholarship, but I accept ALL consensus/majority positions of NT scholarship! So why does Nick want me to read more scholarship?? Answer: He wants me to read more scholarship until I accept his fringe position!

I accept the majority opinion of experts in all fields for which I am not an expert, including the study of the New Testament, the practices and beliefs of early Christians, and Near East studies. Therefore, unless I disagree with the majority opinion on any issue of NT scholarship, there is no need for me to read NT scholarship unless it is of interest to me. If Stein is right that most scholars don't address anything after the Crucifixion, this is proof that what Nick and his evangelical comrades really want is for me to read THEIR fringe scholarship that tries to prove the historicity of an alleged supernatural event.

Nick's claim that a bodily resurrection is the ONLY plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in the Resurrection isn't scholarship, folks. It's biased opinion and SCIENCE FICTION!

That is why most scholars don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole!

[Apologiaphoenix]

1. You ASSUME that Matthew's guards would verify that a body was still inside the tomb after Jesus brothers (and helpers) had rolled the stone back in place before taking off for Bethany with the body. Again, which is more probable in cumulative human history: A professional soldier making a rare careless mistake, or, a dead body levitating out of its sealed grave??

You know these mistakes resulted in their deaths. Right? Yeah. Put that in and you'll check.

Assumption, assumption, assumption! The stone was not yet sealed, so you have no idea if simply rolling the stone back would cause a great deal of noise. And who is going to hear? Jesus wasn't buried in the middle of an urban apartment complex. He was buried, in a garden (cemetery), outside the city walls.

Translation: I have no answer.

Yeah. You know Jerusalem was a major city in its day. Not just going removing a body, but the movement to take the necessary equipment to move a stone of that size as well.

Assumption!! You have no proof that the Sanhedrin gave a rat's behind about the small group of Galilean disciples of Jesus. Jesus was dead, and maybe that is all they cared about. You are INVENTING details to the story.

Translation: I have no answer. Sorry Gary, but if the group wanted to make sure that the claims weren't taken seriously, yeah. They'll check. Especially if it's only three days.

Strawman!! I have never said that a miracle has never happened, only that the documentation for said miracle is weak or non-existent.

Translation: Dang it! I got caught again! I'd better yell "Straw man!" and hope no one notices! We constantly see, "Which is more probable?" and every time it's said we can't go with the miracle option.

5. I love it when Christians claim that hypothetical, natural explanations for the belief in a Resurrection are "ad hoc". Try to answer this question, my Christian friends, without using "ad hoc" explanations: Please describe exactly how Jesus body was brought back to life. Did God the Father simply speak the word; did he "breath" on the body; did he anoint Jesus' head with oils; did God the Father warm Jesus body to normal human core temperature to revive the tissue that the disciples would later touch and believe to be real, human flesh, not that of a ghost???

You have no idea!

Yep. But hey, if I believe God can speak a universe into existence, causing a dead body to come to life is a no-brainer.

I can't tell you how my mind is working to freely type these sentences right now. So what?

And how did the resurrected body get out of the tomb? You have no idea! So we both must resort to hypotheticals (ad hoc) possible explanations to explain the development of this belief.

Your logic is absurd!

Nor do I need to know.

Christians cannot explain what happened to Jesus' body between the time that the stone was rolled in front and the moment he appeared to the women...or to Mary Magdalene alone, depending on which version of this tale you read...(and maybe to no one that Sunday if we believe the original Gospel of Mark!) Christians must make up ad hoc explanations to explain how Jesus body was revived and how his body got out of a sealed tomb without moving the stone. So if you want to talk about ad hoc stories...

If we want to go with ad hoc stories, we look at what you say.

Wait one minute! "The majority accept my data" meaning that they accept your claim that the Resurrection is the ONLY plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection??? PROVE IT!

Good night. The flights of illogic that you take. You could apply for frequent flyer miles.

You can't and you know it. Your assertion if only asserted by the very fringe of scholarship which makes you a member of the fringe, Nick.

And another point: If the Bible is true, Jesus had been preaching that he would be killed and three days later he would be raised from the dead! If Jesus' followers were having visions of him after his death, the most likely thing they are going to envision is a "raised or resurrected" Jesus...because that is what Jesus said was going to happen...and that is what they WANTED to happen!!!

They wanted to? Do you have any evidence? If the Gospels are true, they were expecting Jesus to be crowned king immediately in Jerusalem. They had no place for a death.

People see things that they want to see! His disciples did NOT want to "see" Jesus in the Bosom of Abraham, that would mean Jesus had been wrong about them ruling with him over the re-established kingdom of Israel. They wanted to see the King of Kings! They wanted to see a Jesus with supernatural powers, a Jesus who could walk though doors, teleport between cities, and fly off into the clouds. THAT is the Jesus the disciples wanted to "see"...and that is exactly what they said they "saw"!

And did they see that? Nope. They saw Jesus just being with them eating fish and walking on a road beside them. Not what you saw.

Way to undermine your own mines.

[Gary]

You know these mistakes resulted in their deaths. Right? Yeah. Put that in and you'll check.



Translation: I have no answer.

Yeah. You know Jerusalem was a major city in its day. Not just going removing a body, but the movement to take the necessary equipment to move a stone of that size as well.



Translation: I have no answer. Sorry Gary, but if the group wanted to make sure that the claims weren't taken seriously, yeah. They'll check. Especially if it's only three days.





Translation: Dang it! I got caught again! I'd better yell "Straw man!" and hope no one notices! We constantly see, "Which is more probable?" and every time it's said we can't go with the miracle option.



Yep. But hey, if I believe God can speak a universe into existence, causing a dead body to come to life is a no-brainer.

I can't tell you how my mind is working to freely type these sentences right now. So what?



Nor do I need to know.



If we want to go with ad hoc stories, we look at what you say.



Good night. The flights of illogic that you take. You could apply for frequent flyer miles.

You can't and you know it. Your assertion if only asserted by the very fringe of scholarship which makes you a member of the fringe, Nick.



They wanted to? Do you have any evidence? If the Gospels are true, they were expecting Jesus to be crowned king immediately in Jerusalem. They had no place for a death.



And did they see that? Nope. They saw Jesus just being with them eating fish and walking on a road beside them. Not what you saw.

Way to undermine your own mines.

1. "You know these mistakes resulted in their deaths. Right?"

There were no guards, Nicky. It was one of Matthew's many embellishments, at least that is the opinion of many NT scholars. I suppose now you want to tell me that the "guard story" is the majority scholarly position?? It is a claim made in ONE anonymous book, by the same anonymous author who claimed that dead people were walking the streets of Jerusalem the day of the alleged Resurrection.

If you are going to allege that the guard story is historical fact, then you really are on the fringe of scholarship.

2. "Not just going removing a body, but the movement to take the necessary equipment to move a stone of that size as well."

What are you babbling about, Nick? How do you know how big the stone was? Equipment? What equipment? A bulldozer?? Are you alleging that in first century Palestine, once the stone was moved in front of a tomb, it took "equipment" to move it away? Then exactly how did Jesus move the stone away from Lazarus tomb?? Did Jesus use a bulldozer or a backhoe??

Your imagination is running amok.

3. "if the group wanted to make sure that the claims weren't taken seriously, yeah. They'll check."

Assumptions!! First, you assume there were guards. Next, you assume they rolled the stone away to verify it still contained a body! But maybe the guards thought like you, Nick. Maybe they knew they didn't need to roll the stone away and verify the body was still inside because...they knew the disciples didn't have access to "heavy equipment"...like a bulldozer or backhoe to move that big ONE TON stone!!!

I believe that this assumption just took a nose-dive in believability thanks to your extensive knowledge of first century tomb...stones.

4. "Which is more probable?" and every time it's said we can't go with the miracle option."

Calm down, Nick. You're getting hysterical. You are now making unfounded, rash accusations. I have never said "you can't go with the miracle option". I have only asked that you to consider the plausibility of more probable, naturalistic explanations. But you have refused to even acknowledge that there are plausible, naturalistic explanations. How more fundamentalist can you get??

5. " But hey, if I believe God can speak a universe into existence, causing a dead body to come to life is a no-brainer."

I never asked you to deny the plausibility that your God caused a dead body to come back to life. I only asked you to admit the plausibility of other, non-miracle explanations for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection. I am being reasonable. You are not.

6. "If we want to go with ad hoc stories, we look at what you say."

I've given you possible explanations for an empty tomb. You state that I have no evidence to allege that these explanations are possible ("they are ad hoc"). Would you then please give your explanation of how the body exited the sealed tomb, using evidence, of course, not possible scenarios (ad hoc)?

7. "If the Gospels are true, they were expecting Jesus to be crowned king immediately in Jerusalem. They had no place for a death."

If the Gospels are true....

Prior to the crucifixion, the disciples were expecting to attend Jesus' coronation as the King of the Jews and victor over Rome. After the crucifixion, they were shell-shocked, their hopes and dreams had been shattered. They were in hiding and frightened. After false sightings (someone sees "Jesus" in the distance, when it is someone else) and/or visions of Jesus, they remembered that Jesus said that he would be killed, buried, and rise again. They then understood what Jesus was teaching: Jesus wasn't going to establish the kingdom when he was alive, but after he died, and after his raising from the dead. Their beliefs regarding the teachings of Jesus changed. They had hope again, and confidence that they really were about to reign with Jesus in the New Kingdom.

8. "They saw Jesus just being with them eating fish and walking on a road beside them. Not what you saw."

You need to re-read your Bible, Nick.

The two disciples on the Emmaus road saw Jesus disappear in front of their eyes. The disciples in the Upper Room saw Jesus appear in their midst when the door was locked. Those are claims of miracles/magic. Human beings do not appear and disappear in front of people's eyes.

[Leonhard]

I'm curious Gary, you object to being identified as an atheist, what do you call yourself?

[Apologiaphoenix]

1. "You know these mistakes resulted in their deaths. Right?"

There were no guards, Nicky. It was one of Matthew's many embellishments, at least that is the opinion of many NT scholars. I suppose now you want to tell me that the "guard story" is the majority scholarly position?? It is a claim made in ONE anonymous book, by the same anonymous author who claimed that dead people were walking the streets of Jerusalem the day of the alleged Resurrection.

Wow. So we keep going back and forth on the guards. At one point you accept them for the sake of argument. At the next, you don't. I see also you're going with anonymous author and you still don't know I have no firm position on the resurrected saints. Besides, it's a horrible argument to say "I can't trust this guy in one place, therefore I don't trust him anywhere." That would kill ancient history for us all.

If you are going to allege that the guard story is historical fact, then you really are on the fringe of scholarship.

Not sure how you could determine that since you don't read scholarship. My case for the guards is that the phrase "to this day" is used which means that was a story that was going around. Second, I think the guards would not be mentioned elsewhere for the shame aspect. The guards would be there not just to prevent robbery, but to prevent mourning. Family was not allowed to come and mourn at the death of a criminal and yes, the Sanhedrin could check on that easily enough. All they'd need to do is have a gofer be checking.

2. "Not just going removing a body, but the movement to take the necessary equipment to move a stone of that size as well."

What are you babbling about, Nick? How do you know how big the stone was? Equipment? What equipment? A bulldozer?? Are you alleging that in first century Palestine, once the stone was moved in front of a tomb, it took "equipment" to move it away? Then exactly how did Jesus move the stone away from Lazarus tomb?? Did Jesus use a bulldozer or a backhoe??

Your imagination is running amok.

No. I just know something about burial practices.

3. "if the group wanted to make sure that the claims weren't taken seriously, yeah. They'll check."

Assumptions!! First, you assume there were guards. Next, you assume they rolled the stone away to verify it still contained a body! But maybe the guards thought like you, Nick. Maybe they knew they didn't need to roll the stone away and verify the body was still inside because...they knew the disciples didn't have access to "heavy equipment"...like a bulldozer or backhoe to move that big ONE TON stone!!!

I believe that this assumption just took a nose-dive in believability thanks to your extensive knowledge of first century tomb...stones.

Then we have to ask how was it the stone was rolled away when the women arrived? Did the guards come and guard a tomb that was not sealed? So that meant the robbers robbed the tomb by rolling away the stone, then rolled it back, then somehow it got rolled away again when the women arrived?

Calm down, Nick. You're getting hysterical. You are now making unfounded, rash accusations. I have never said "you can't go with the miracle option". I have only asked that you to consider the plausibility of more probable, naturalistic explanations. But you have refused to even acknowledge that there are plausible, naturalistic explanations. How more fundamentalist can you get??

Oh baloney. Every single time you go against the miracle option and make it clear that we have no documented cases of miracles. Sorry Gary, but your worldview isn't as open as you think it is. You say you are open to a miracle, but when evidence is presented of them, you ignore it.

Read Keener yet?

Yeah. I thought so.

5. " But hey, if I believe God can speak a universe into existence, causing a dead body to come to life is a no-brainer."

I never asked you to deny the plausibility that your God caused a dead body to come back to life. I only asked you to admit the plausibility of other, non-miracle explanations for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection. I am being reasonable. You are not.

No. I am considering the plausibility and showing the problems that I see. All you point to at that is probability. That's not how it works.

6. "If we want to go with ad hoc stories, we look at what you say."

I've given you possible explanations for an empty tomb. You state that I have no evidence to allege that these explanations are possible ("they are ad hoc"). Would you then please give your explanation of how the body exited the sealed tomb, using evidence, of course, not possible scenarios (ad hoc)?

Already have. The resurrection. If a body can be raised, the moving of a stone is a simple matter and why was it rolled away? So Jesus could get out. Nope. So others could easily get in.

7. "If the Gospels are true, they were expecting Jesus to be crowned king immediately in Jerusalem. They had no place for a death."

If the Gospels are true....

Prior to the crucifixion, the disciples were expecting to attend Jesus' coronation as the King of the Jews and victor over Rome. After the crucifixion, they were shell-shocked, their hopes and dreams had been shattered. They were in hiding and frightened. After false sightings (someone sees "Jesus" in the distance, when it is someone else) and/or visions of Jesus, they remembered that Jesus said that he would be killed, buried, and rise again. They then understood what Jesus was teaching: Jesus wasn't going to establish the kingdom when he was alive, but after he died, and after his raising from the dead. Their beliefs regarding the teachings of Jesus changed. They had hope again, and confidence that they really were about to reign with Jesus in the New Kingdom.

This relies on a notion that the disciples were grieving after the death of Jesus. Maybe they were. Maybe they weren't. What else could they be doing? They could be angry. This person cost them about three years of their lives and turned out to be just another phony at the end. Further, if you take a late date of the Gospels, this makes even less sense. Why would this be written when Jesus didn't get enthroned in Jerusalem? Why is it that Peter was traveling in the Gentile world if he thought he was going to reign in Jerusalem?

8. "They saw Jesus just being with them eating fish and walking on a road beside them. Not what you saw."

You need to re-read your Bible, Nick.

The two disciples on the Emmaus road saw Jesus disappear in front of their eyes. The disciples in the Upper Room saw Jesus appear in their midst when the door was locked. Those are claims of miracles/magic. Human beings do not appear and disappear in front of people's eyes.

Yeah. I know that. My point was they didn't see what you said they saw. They didn't see Jesus reigning. At most, they saw him appearing and disappearing. That's not the same as sitting on a throne and they had seen miracles before as well. Also, as I said in my review, there is no theological exposition of the resurrection in the account and there is no case of, especially in Matthew, "This was done to fulfill the Scriptures that...."

Again, it's still weak.

[Gary]

I'm curious Gary, you object to being identified as an atheist, what do you call yourself?

---a non-supernaturalist agnostic regarding a Creator god or gods
---a Yahweh atheist.

[Gary]

1. "My case for the guards is that the phrase "to this day" is used which means that was a story that was going around. Second, I think the guards would not be mentioned elsewhere for the shame aspect. The guards would be there not just to prevent robbery, but to prevent mourning. Family was not allowed to come and mourn at the death of a criminal and yes, the Sanhedrin could check on that easily enough. All they'd need to do is have a gofer be checking."

It is obvious to many skeptics that Matthew was a master of scouring the Old Testament for any possible prophecies he could tie to Jesus. The phrase "to this day" was most likely borrowed from the anonymous authors of the Pentateuch who also liked that phrase. What proof do we have of any of these "to this day" statements? None.

2. "There is nothing in there that says Jesus moved the stone. Just the opposite. The they would refer to the crowd there and there would be a sizable crowd there. After all, when someone died, people came from around to take part in mourning."

Stop with the assumptions, Nicky! You have no idea how large the crowd was! You have no idea how large a group of men was needed to roll the stone away. How do you know that five men couldn't do it? You don't!

3. "Then we have to ask how was it the stone was rolled away when the women arrived? Did the guards come and guard a tomb that was not sealed? So that meant the robbers robbed the tomb by rolling away the stone, then rolled it back, then somehow it got rolled away again when the women arrived?"

Very easy to explain: IF there were guards:

Sunday morning the women enter the garden at dawn. In the garden they see a man..."It's Jesus!" but before they can catch up to him, he vanishes from sight. They rush to tell the disciples that they had just seen Jesus. On their way, they tell others of the news. Someone reports this to the Roman guards at the tomb. They break the seal, roll back the stone...NO BODY (Jesus family had taken it prior to the guards arriving at the tomb). The guards flee knowing they are in big trouble.

In the meantime, the disciples do not believe the women. "You saw the gardener!"

The women return and find the stone rolled back and the tomb empty...and the story begins....

[Apologiaphoenix]

It is obvious to many skeptics that Matthew was a master of scouring the Old Testament for any possible prophecies he could tie to Jesus. The phrase "to this day" was most likely borrowed from the anonymous authors of the Pentateuch who also liked that phrase. What proof do we have of any of these "to this day" statements? None.

Oh good grief. What reaching this is. First off, to this day has a perfectly reasonable meaning in the context. It means "to this day." You don't have to find some hidden prophecy. Also, when Matthew goes to prophecy fulfillment, he uses a fulfillment formula. He doesn't do that at all here.

Stop with the assumptions, Nicky! You have no idea how large the crowd was! You have no idea how large a group of men was needed to roll the stone away. How do you know that five men couldn't do it? You don't!

Dude. When someone died, that would gather people around. It happened. The point was it said they moved the stone. How do we know how big a stone was? Simple. We have found burial tombs and the stones used. The stones would weigh about a ton and you would have to push upward.

Want to find me five men who can push a one-ton stone upwards?

[Gary]

Nick: "Already have. The resurrection. If a body can be raised, the moving of a stone is a simple matter and why was it rolled away? So Jesus could get out. Nope. So others could easily get in."

Gary: Ad Hoc. You have no evidence how the body left the tomb. A "resurrection" does not explain how the body got out of a sealed tomb. You are assuming that God *poofed* Jesus out of there with magic.

Prove it. You have ZERO evidence of how the body left the tomb.

[Gary]

Oh good grief. What reaching this is. First off, to this day has a perfectly reasonable meaning in the context. It means "to this day." You don't have to find some hidden prophecy. Also, when Matthew goes to prophecy fulfillment, he uses a fulfillment formula. He doesn't do that at all here.



Dude. When someone died, that would gather people around. It happened. The point was it said they moved the stone. How do we know how big a stone was? Simple. We have found burial tombs and the stones used. The stones would weigh about a ton and you would have to push upward.

Want to find me five men who can push a one-ton stone upwards?

"When someone died, that would gather people around. It happened. The point was it said they moved the stone. How do we know how big a stone was? Simple. We have found burial tombs and the stones used. The stones would weigh about a ton and you would have to push upward. Want to find me five men who can push a one-ton stone upwards?"

Ok, Nick, enough of your assumptions and generalizations. Please give me a source that says that the stone in front of Jesus tomb weighed a ton and could only be rolled back with "equipment" or a very large crowd.