Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Gary]

I agree, that would be ludicrous. However, that's not what I'm demanding. When you propose possible explanations, you need to take the available evidence into account; theories controverted by the evidence are simply not viable. I'll take your ludicrous non-response to my post as proof that you can't, in fact deal with it.

If we eliminate the presence of Roman guards at the tomb, as this detail is not historical according to the scholarly consensus, then what additional "available evidence" are you referring to? I am including all the Christian "evidence" in my grave robber scenario other than Matthew's invented guards. So this is what MAY have happened:

1. Joseph of Arimathea places Jesus' body in his tomb.
2. Sometime after Arimathea has left the Garden and before Sunday morning, grave robbers move back the stone, and for any number of reasons, take the body. (necromancy; thinking the body has some monetary value; Jews who don't want Jesus' grave to be a Christian shrine; Romans who don't want Jesus' grave to be a Jewish nationalist shrine; Christians who want to keep the movement alive; family members who want to secretly bury the body in a family plot; teenagers out for a night of pranks; the mentally ill acting in a state of psychosis, and on and on goes the list of possible reasons.)
3. Sunday morning mourners come to the grave and find it empty.
4. The empty tomb triggers the belief that Jesus had been resurrected, just as he had prophesied.
5. In the ensuing excitement (hysteria), everyone and his uncle starts having vivid dreams and visions in which Jesus "appears" to them.
6. Several years later, a Creed is written mentioning Jesus' "appearances" to all the prominent (male) leaders of the early Christian Church. It was not meant as an all inclusive list of persons who had "seen" the resurrected Jesus. An additional detail of an unnamed group of people "seeing" Jesus at the same time is included in the Creed. Since no details are given regarding this crowd other than that most of them are still alive, we can not be sure of the historicity of this claim. It might simply be legendary, including in the Creed for theological purposes, similar to Matthew's guards and his dead saints roaming the streets of a major city.

[Gary]

So are you blind? Do you wear glasses or do you have 20/20 vision? Vision means vision. That which is seen.

I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout the countryside of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and do deeds consistent with repentance.

Analysis: Yes, the word "vision" can mean "eyesight" in one definition or usage of that word, but that is not the usage in this passage.

vision (noun)

1. the faculty or state of being able to see.

"she had defective vision"

2. an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition.

"the idea came to him in a vision"

It is clear to everyone with a high school education that Paul is using meaning #2.

[37818]

If we eliminate the presence of Roman guards at the tomb, as this detail is not historical according to the scholarly consensus, then what additional "available evidence" are you referring to? . . .

Try this:

[Gary]

Try this:

Your point is...

I just gave you one (of many possible) natural explanation. Now tell me why it "fails miserably".

[37818]

Your point is...

I just gave you one (of many possible) natural explanation. Now tell me why it "fails miserably".

Read the author who conceded that the guards per Matthew's account is not historically true.

His point as I understand is the Jews had made up the story that the body was stolen (Matthew 28:15). The Jews making this claim because there was an empty tomb. Matthew's claim of guards, being supposed. as merely an apologetic to counter the preexisting Jewish story.

[Gary]

Read the author who conceded that the guards per Matthew's account is not historically true.

His point as I understand is the Jews had made up the story that the body was stolen (Matthew 28:15). The Jews making this claim because there was an empty tomb. Matthew's claim of guards, being supposed. as merely an apologetic to counter the preexisting Jewish story.

I am not arguing the historicity of the empty tomb. I am arguing that there are many possible, natural explanations for an empty tomb.

"Matthew's claim of guards, being supposed. as merely an apologetic to counter the preexisting Jewish story."

How can you have any confidence in an author who makes up details to counter criticisms of the central claim of the story???

[37818]

I am not arguing the historicity of the empty tomb. I am arguing that there are many possible, natural explanations for an empty tomb.

"Matthew's claim of guards, being supposed. as merely an apologetic to counter the preexisting Jewish story."

How can you have any confidence in an author who makes up details to counter criticisms of the central claim of the story???

I do not believe that Matthew account to be a made up a story.

The problem you must deal with is not the claim of an empty tomb, but the claims of he appearance of the person Jesus after the empty tomb. The claim of Saul who became the Apostle Paul, had witnesses reported with him. And then there is this that Paul reports to the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 15:5-8 ". . . that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. . . ."

The "twelve" would include Matthias (Acts 1:26). All the Apostles would include, Joses called Barnabas (Acts 14:14).











0

[Bisto]

If we eliminate the presence of Roman guards at the tomb, as this detail is not historical according to the scholarly consensus, then what additional "available evidence" are you referring to? I am including all the Christian "evidence" in my grave robber scenario other than Matthew's invented guards. So this is what MAY have happened:

1. Joseph of Arimathea places Jesus' body in his tomb.
2. Sometime after Arimathea has left the Garden and before Sunday morning, grave robbers move back the stone, and for any number of reasons, take the body. (necromancy; thinking the body has some monetary value; Jews who don't want Jesus' grave to be a Christian shrine; Romans who don't want Jesus' grave to be a Jewish nationalist shrine; Christians who want to keep the movement alive; family members who want to secretly bury the body in a family plot; teenagers out for a night of pranks; the mentally ill acting in a state of psychosis, and on and on goes the list of possible reasons.)
3. Sunday morning mourners come to the grave and find it empty.
4. The empty tomb triggers the belief that Jesus had been resurrected, just as he had prophesied.
5. In the ensuing excitement (hysteria), everyone and his uncle starts having vivid dreams and visions in which Jesus "appears" to them.
6. Several years later, a Creed is written mentioning Jesus' "appearances" to all the prominent (male) leaders of the early Christian Church. It was not meant as an all inclusive list of persons who had "seen" the resurrected Jesus. An additional detail of an unnamed group of people "seeing" Jesus at the same time is included in the Creed. Since no details are given regarding this crowd other than that most of them are still alive, we can not be sure of the historicity of this claim. It might simply be legendary, including in the Creed for theological purposes, similar to Matthew's guards and his dead saints roaming the streets of a major city.

I'll only make these points.

About (2): No need to state the obvious: all things considered, each option you state is very unlikely in the setting, but yeah. It's not "impossible".

About (4), and its link with (5): Wright says that an empty tomb by itself (without Jesus appearing to anyone) would have ensued in no such resurrection belief. From everything we know, the disciples had no conception of an actual Resurrection, individually, before the end times. The gospels are consistent in showing the disciples didn't really understand his predictions. WHAT they actually understood is up to discussion, sure. Let me quote:

On the disciples' understanding of Jesus' predictions:

"The traditions themselves, and the evangelists when repeating them, maybe intend to tell the reader that the disciples assumed, on the one hand, that Jesus was talking of the future definitive resurrection, and (or), on the other hand, that he was talking metaphorically of the struggle for the restoration of Israel and the need to be prepared to risk everything in it. What they understood for "on the third day" and similar phrases is entirely open to conjecture; my own is that they thought it was a metaphor, but they had no clue of what could be its concrete referent. Thus, though these sayings resulted striking within the world of second Temple Judaism, they are at ease in it, because, like 2 Maccabees, they give solid proof of a belief in the bodily resurrection for those who died in obedience to the god of Israel. However, apart from the reference to the three days (by itself capable, of course, of echoing Hosea 6,2, but there is no trace of anyone pointing this out in the synoptic gospels), there is no insinuation at all of the innovations from within the Jewish tradition that we find in Paul and in other sides of primitive Christianity. Of course, when Christians told the story, and gathered and reviewed these sayings, they celebrated them in the belief that they had come true, more true than the disciples could have assumed at the time. But, apart from the revision of the third day saying, it seems they didn't make the passages more explicit." (p.510, "The Resurrection of the Son of God", Spanish version)

What this implies is that the assumption that the disciples expected the Res. is unwarranted.


On the interpretation of an empty tomb by itself:

"An empty tomb with no type of encounter with Jesus would have been a distressing enigma, but not a long term problem. It would have proved nothing; it would not have made anyone think about anything, except in the pretty common practice of grave theft. Certainly it would not have generated the phenomena we have studied so far in the present book. In the ancient world, grave robbery was frequent, which added insult and grievance to injury. Nobody in the pagan world would have interpreted an empty tomb as implying resurrection; the whole world knew this was impossible. Nobody in the ancient Jewish world would have interpreted it that way either; "resurrection" was not something anyone expected to happen to one individual while the world kept its course normally. Certainly the disciples didn't expect something like this to happen to Jesus --this is often overlooked by critics--. If the tomb had been empty, and no other unexpected thing had happened, nobody would have said that Jesus was Messiah or the lord of the world. Nobody would have imagined the kingdom had been inaugurated. No one, in particular, would have developed so fast and coherently a radical and remodelled version of the Jewish hope of the resurrection of the body. The empty tomb is, by itself, insufficient to give reason to the later indications. (p.837-8, "The Resurrection of the Son of God", Spanish version)

What this implies is that the empty tomb wouldn't have given rise to a Res. belief (much less self-confirming "visions" of it).


Another point about (6), sp. about the I Cor 15 Creed and the implications of its inclusion: as said before, everyone (or most of the audience) knew about the people mentioned therein, since Paul is talking in a polemical context to a Church whose members had questioned his authority, and he's going back to the agreed-upon basics. He does it precisely to bring up the reality of the Resurrection because some Corinthians had questioned it (v.12), so it would be nonsense for him to bring up a legend whose people they cannot check upon or talk to, at least some of whom they have already met. (I'm just repeating what Wright said about it and which should be self-evident if one reads the passage in context.)

[Gary]

I do not believe that Matthew account to be a made up a story.

The problem you must deal with is not the claim of an empty tomb, but the claims of he appearance of the person Jesus after the empty tomb. The claim of Saul who became the Apostle Paul, had witnesses reported with him. And then there is this that Paul reports to the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 15:5-8 ". . . that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. . . ."

The "twelve" would include Matthias (Acts 1:26). All the Apostles would include, Joses called Barnabas (Acts 14:14).











0

I do not doubt that Paul believed this list of witnesses to be genuine and accurate. The problem for your side, however, is that Paul clearly states that this information is, at the very least, second hand information. You cannot prove that Paul has verified any of these alleged appearances.

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d] 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

I Corinthians 15

[Gary]

I'll only make these points.

About (2): No need to state the obvious: all things considered, each option you state is very unlikely in the setting, but yeah. It's not "impossible".

About (4), and its link with (5): Wright says that an empty tomb by itself (without Jesus appearing to anyone) would have ensued in no such resurrection belief. From everything we know, the disciples had no conception of an actual Resurrection, individually, before the end times. The gospels are consistent in showing the disciples didn't really understand his predictions. WHAT they actually understood is up to discussion, sure. Let me quote:

On the disciples' understanding of Jesus' predictions:

What this implies is that the assumption that the disciples expected the Res. is unwarranted.


On the interpretation of an empty tomb by itself:

What this implies is that the empty tomb wouldn't have given rise to a Res. belief (much less self-confirming "visions" of it).


Another point about (6), sp. about the I Cor 15 Creed and the implications of its inclusion: as said before, everyone (or most of the audience) knew about the people mentioned therein, since Paul is talking in a polemical context to a Church whose members had questioned his authority, and he's going back to the agreed-upon basics. He does it precisely to bring up the reality of the Resurrection because some Corinthians had questioned it (v.12), so it would be nonsense for him to bring up a legend whose people they cannot check upon or talk to, at least some of whom they have already met. (I'm just repeating what Wright said about it and which should be self-evident if one reads the passage in context.)

"Wright says that an empty tomb by itself (without Jesus appearing to anyone) would have ensued in no such resurrection belief. From everything we know, the disciples had no conception of an actual Resurrection, individually, before the end times."

Unless you are a liberal Christian like Stein and do not believe that Jesus prophesied his death, and, his resurrection three days after his death, then you believe that the disciples would at least have been aware that Jesus had prophesied that a single man (himself) would be resurrected before the final resurrection, even if they did not understand it at the time that Jesus said it. However, once they discovered an empty tomb, they remembered this prophesy, started having visions of Jesus, and in their minds, the combination of an empty tomb and "appearances" of the dead Jesus proved, in the minds of the disciples, that the resurrection prophesy had been fulfilled.

Cognitive dissonance fully explains the early Christian belief in a Resurrection. The disciples were devastated by Jesus' death. Not only did they lose their beloved leader and friend but their hopes of ruling along side Jesus as princes in the New Kingdom had been shattered. The empty tomb gave them a glimmer of hope. The ensuing visions and vivid dreams of a resurrected Jesus sparked a movement that has lasted to this day.

[37818]

I do not doubt that Paul believed this list of witnesses to be genuine and accurate. The problem for your side, however, is that Paul clearly states that this information is, at the very least, second hand information. You cannot prove that Paul has verified any of these alleged appearances.

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d] 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

I Corinthians 15

Paul experienced seeing Jesus from Heaven himself. And at the writing noted some of the reported 500 were already "asleep" meaning they had gone on to be with the Lord. He knew this himself that some of the 500 had already died. So he knew of them. He of course knew Peter [Cephas], James and some, if not all the other apostles himself.

[Bisto]

"Wright says that an empty tomb by itself (without Jesus appearing to anyone) would have ensued in no such resurrection belief. From everything we know, the disciples had no conception of an actual Resurrection, individually, before the end times."

Unless you are a liberal Christian like Stein and do not believe that Jesus prophesied his death, and, his resurrection three days after his death, then you believe that the disciples would at least have been aware that Jesus had prophesied that a single man (himself) would be resurrected before the final resurrection, even if they did not understand it at the time that Jesus said it. However, once they discovered an empty tomb, they remembered this prophesy, started having visions of Jesus, and the resurrection prophesy appeared to have been fulfilled.

Cognitive dissonance fully explains the early Christian belief in a Resurrection.

Friend, I don't deny those predictions: please go back to my previous post and read the quotes. You are free to claim what you just did, but in historical matters about 1st century Jewish disciples of Jesus, I respect Mr. Wright's word on what they might have believed or not in that situation more than yours.

[Gary]

I'll only make these points.

About (2): No need to state the obvious: all things considered, each option you state is very unlikely in the setting, but yeah. It's not "impossible".

About (4), and its link with (5): Wright says that an empty tomb by itself (without Jesus appearing to anyone) would have ensued in no such resurrection belief. From everything we know, the disciples had no conception of an actual Resurrection, individually, before the end times. The gospels are consistent in showing the disciples didn't really understand his predictions. WHAT they actually understood is up to discussion, sure. Let me quote:

On the disciples' understanding of Jesus' predictions:

What this implies is that the assumption that the disciples expected the Res. is unwarranted.


On the interpretation of an empty tomb by itself:

What this implies is that the empty tomb wouldn't have given rise to a Res. belief (much less self-confirming "visions" of it).


Another point about (6), sp. about the I Cor 15 Creed and the implications of its inclusion: as said before, everyone (or most of the audience) knew about the people mentioned therein, since Paul is talking in a polemical context to a Church whose members had questioned his authority, and he's going back to the agreed-upon basics. He does it precisely to bring up the reality of the Resurrection because some Corinthians had questioned it (v.12), so it would be nonsense for him to bring up a legend whose people they cannot check upon or talk to, at least some of whom they have already met. (I'm just repeating what Wright said about it and which should be self-evident if one reads the passage in context.)

"Another point about (6), sp. about the I Cor 15 Creed and the implications of its inclusion: as said before, everyone (or most of the audience) knew about the people mentioned therein, since Paul is talking in a polemical context to a Church whose members had questioned his authority, and he's going back to the agreed-upon basics. He does it precisely to bring up the reality of the Resurrection because some Corinthians had questioned it (v.12), so it would be nonsense for him to bring up a legend whose people they cannot check upon or talk to, at least some of whom they have already met. (I'm just repeating what Wright said about it and which should be self-evident if one reads the passage in context.)"

I don't believe that Paul thought that the Early Creed was a legend. I don't believe that any of the early Christians believed that the Witness List in the Early Creed was a legend. I believe that early Christians sincerely believed that every person mentioned in the Creed had received an "appearance" by Jesus. I believe that early Christians believed that some unnamed group of five hundred Christians had received an "appearance" by Jesus. The question is, however: What exactly were these appearances???

I can't prove they were vivid dreams and you can't prove that they were literal appearances of a dead man. We have to look at the evidence and decide which is more probable: a miracle or a natural phenomenon which Christians mistakenly, but sincerely, believed to be a miracle.

That is the issue.

My position is that TENS OF THOUSANDS of people have claimed to have seen dead people. Tens of thousands of people have claimed to see a dead person at the same time in the same place within the last one hundred years! Most (Protestant) Christians doubt the historicity of these claims. So why should we believe that similar claims made 2,000 years ago are any more credible???

[Gary]

Paul experienced seeing Jesus from Heaven himself. And at the writing noted some of the reported 500 were already "asleep" meaning they had gone on to be with the Lord. He knew this himself that some of the 500 had already died. So he knew of them. He of course knew Peter [Cephas] and many, if not all the other apostles himself.

How do you know that Paul "saw" Jesus in heaven? First of all, Paul never says he saw Jesus in the "third heaven", he only mentions hearing things that he could not repeat. Secondly, even Paul states that he was not sure if this experience was a literal bodily experience or only an experience in his mind (a vision or vivid dream).

How did Paul know that some of the five hundred were "asleep"? Had he attended their funerals? Or was Paul simply repeating more second hand information? You have no proof that Paul knew any of the five hundred "witness" nor do you have any proof that Paul discussed the "appearances" of Jesus to the Eleven. For all we know, if Paul did discuss appearances with the Eleven, they all agreed that all they had all seen was a talking, bright light!!!

Isn't it possible that the Early Creed is historical, documenting "appearances" of Jesus (which occurred in vivid dreams and visions) to the persons listed, but the Resurrection stories in the Gospels, written decades later, were highly embellished additions to the original story???

[Gary]

Friend, I don't deny those predictions: please go back to my previous post and read the quotes. You are free to claim what you just did, but in historical matters about 1st century Jewish disciples of Jesus, I respect Mr. Wright's word on what they might have believed or not in that situation more than yours.

How can you be 100% sure that the disciples believed and acted exactly as Wright, writing twenty centuries later, believes they believed and acted? I don't think you can. Even if there is just a ten percent chance that Wright is wrong, that is much better odds than a once in history miracle resurrection.