Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Gary]

You haven't been paying attention *at all*, have you? This is just the same list of suppositions you've already repeated ad nausaeum in this thread, without any corrections from what anyone has said. You even forgot that conceded the presence of the grave clothes left behind in the tomb. I'm getting a little bored with responding to the same thing over and over and over again, so forgive me for declining this time around.

I do not concede the presence of grave clothes left at the scene. It could be true that some form of burial wrap was found in the empty tomb, but it is also possible that the entire detail is one of many embellishments added to the original story. It does not appear in the first gospel only in later gospels and the details become more extravagant with each successive gospel written. It is obvious to me that this detail, similar to the detail of the disciples watching Jesus eat a broiled fish sandwich, were later embellishments to "beef up" the evidence for the believability of this fantastical, supernatural tale.

Here is the tomb scene from the original Gospel of Mark:

Look, there is the place they laid him.

So the young man (angel?) points to where Jesus had been laid, but ignores or fails to point out the neatly folded grave clothes and face napkin lying off to the side???

Give me a break!

Can you say: E-M-B-E-L-L-I-S-H-M-E-N-T?

[psstein]

I do not concede the presence of grave clothes left at the scene. It could be true that some form of burial wrap was found in the empty tomb, but it is also possible that the entire detail is one of many embellishments added to the original story. It does not appear in the first gospel only in later gospels and the details become more extravagant with each successive gospel written.

Arguments from silence get very dangerous when you're dealing with the gospels. The grave clothes are multiply attested.

However, there is always the counterargument that the criterion of multiple attestation is vulnerable to: a particular story or event could've become popular in the early church and then been copied.

[Gary]

Arguments from silence get very dangerous when you're dealing with the gospels. The grave clothes are multiply attested.

However, there is always the counterargument that the criterion of multiple attestation is vulnerable to: a particular story or event could've become popular in the early church and then been copied.

Very true and I am pleased that you, at least, are willing to admit it. Multiple attestation is very valuable if the multiple sources are independent. The overwhelming evidence that at least two of the later Gospels borrowed (plagiarized??) heavily from the first greatly diminishes the claim that four gospels are independent sources. It is possible that even the author of John used Mark as a template for his gospel, although he can't be accused of copying whole passages of the text, as did "Matthew" and "Luke".

The fact that the "grave clothes" story continued to be "fattened" with additional details with each successive gospel written indicates a strong possibility that this detail was a popular, later, embellishment that the author of Mark (and quite possibly the original disciples) would find a shocking claim.

[psstein]

Very true and I am pleased that you, at least, are willing to admit it. Multiple attestation is very valuable if the multiple sources are independent. The overwhelming evidence that at least two of the later Gospels borrowed (plagiarized??) heavily from the first greatly diminishes the claim that four gospels are independent sources. It is possible that even the author of John used Mark as a template for his gospel, although he can't be accused of copying whole passages of the text, as did "Matthew" and "Luke".

The fact that the "grave clothes" story continued to be "fattened" with additional details with each successive gospel written indicates a strong possibility that this detail was a popular, later, embellishment that the author of Mark (and quite possibly the original disciples) would find a shocking claim.

John is probably independent of Mark; there are sources behind John that don't appear anywhere else. There are some other reasons why I strongly suspect John is independent (which is the majority view by far these days).

Yes, Luke and Matthew probably depend on Mark. But, Matthew and Luke have independent material behind them, which is why Streeter proposed the Four-Source hypothesis.

[Gary]

John is probably independent of Mark; there are sources behind John that don't appear anywhere else. There are some other reasons why I strongly suspect John is independent (which is the majority view by far these days).

Yes, Luke and Matthew probably depend on Mark. But, Matthew and Luke have independent material behind them, which is why Streeter proposed the Four-Source hypothesis.

I don't doubt that there were multiple stories circulating about Jesus and that "Mark" may have not been aware of all of them or simply chose to leave some of them out. But are you 100% sure that the author of John had never read Mark, Luke, or Matthew? I will bet he did and therefore could base his story loosely, very loosely on the central story in these three previous books.

I don't believe that it can be proven that any of the last three Gospels were fully independent, therefore to claim that multiple attestation of any event attributed in these books greatly increases the probability of the event's historicity is much, much weaker than if the four sources were truly independent of one another.

[psstein]

I don't doubt that there were multiple stories circulating about Jesus and that "Mark" may have not been aware of all of them or simply chose to leave some of them out. But are you 100% sure that the author of John had never read Mark, Luke, or Matthew? I will bet he did and therefore could base his story loosely, very loosely on the central story in these three previous books.

I don't believe that it can be proven that any of the last three Gospels were fully independent, therefore to claim that multiple attestation of any event attributed in these books greatly increases the probability of the event's historicity is much, much weaker than if the four sources were truly independent of one another.

I think there are very good reasons to suppose that the author of John was not dependent on any of the gospels. He may have been vaguely familiar with Mark, but very possibly only through preaching. The books to read on this are D. Moody Smith's John Among the Gospels and Raymond Brown's The Community of the Beloved Disciple. Bauckham's Testimony of the Beloved Disciple is also rather good. I tend to agree with Brown's argument that John was familiar with some of the Lukan traditions and that Mark and John shared similar pre-gospel material.

The Johannine Community seems to have had a different theology than other parts of early Christianity. It is largely thought that the gospels circulated in certain communities (i.e. Matthew primarily with Jewish Christians, Luke with Gentile Christians, etc.). Hence, I don't really think that John based his story on anything in the other gospels. I think John is largely an independent tradition.

There's material behind Luke and Matthew that is demonstrably independent of Mark. It's rather creatively called M and L.

[Gary]

I think there are very good reasons to suppose that the author of John was not dependent on any of the gospels. He may have been vaguely familiar with Mark, but very possibly only through preaching. The books to read on this are D. Moody Smith's John Among the Gospels and Raymond Brown's The Community of the Beloved Disciple. Bauckham's Testimony of the Beloved Disciple is also rather good. I tend to agree with Brown's argument that John was familiar with some of the Lukan traditions and that Mark and John shared similar pre-gospel material.

The Johannine Community seems to have had a different theology than other parts of early Christianity. It is largely thought that the gospels circulated in certain communities (i.e. Matthew primarily with Jewish Christians, Luke with Gentile Christians, etc.). Hence, I don't really think that John based his story on anything in the other gospels. I think John is largely an independent tradition.

There's material behind Luke and Matthew that is demonstrably independent of Mark. It's rather creatively called M and L.

This is an interesting topic but we have gone far afield of the original discussion.

Do you, Stein, believe that it is possible that the original Resurrection belief arose from some of the disciples having vivid dreams in which Jesus appeared to them, in the same sense that angels "appeared" in dreams to Joseph, the husband of Mary, and the disciples took these appearances, in dreams, as seriously and as real, as Joseph took the appearance of angels from God to him?

If Joseph was willing to marry a pregnant woman and move to a foreign country all due to the appearance, in a dream, of a divine being, then why should we be surprised if the disciples responded in similar dramatic fashion to seeing the resurrected Jesus (a divine being), in their vivid dreams??

[One Bad Pig]

Let's limit the discussion to events known to abide by the natural laws of the universe and events that have regularly occurred in the natural world (eliminating theft by flying pink unicorns). And let's make it even simpler: Is it possible or is it impossible that a human grave robber stole the body of Jesus?

Congratulations, you've now eliminated the possibility of life on Earth.

And how do you know that flying pink unicorns are impossible? O you of little faith. All you have to do is dye a horse pink, glue a horn on its forehead, and set off a large explosion under it! Voila, we have a flying pink unicorn, in AD 0.

[Gary]

Congratulations, you've now eliminated the possibility of life on Earth.

And how do you know that flying pink unicorns are impossible? O you of little faith. All you have to do is dye a horse pink, glue a horn on its forehead, and set off a large explosion under it! Voila, we have a flying pink unicorn, in AD 0.

You are desperately attempting to avoid answering a very simple question:

Is it possible or is it impossible that human grave robbers stole the body of Jesus?

[Gary]

You see, folks. If it is possible that grave robbers stole the body of Jesus, and, if it is possible that the alleged post-death appearances of Jesus were vivid dreams then it is very probable that Jesus was not resurrected. Christians may believe that this scenario is implausible, but as long as it is possible, it is not impossible. And if it is not impossible, these natural explanations, are much more probable to be the explanation for the early Christian Resurrection belief than a once in history literal, bodily, resurrection. The reasoning for this is simple: even if we accept that Yahweh exists, is all-powerful, and performs miracles, the fact that Yahweh had never performed a resurrection prior to Jesus demonstrates just how low a probable event a resurrection is. Unless one assumes a priori Jesus' divinity, it is impossible, mathematically, to claim that a Resurrection is more probable than grave robbery and vivid dreams of dead people.

This evidence proves that Christians can no longer claim that a literal, bodily resurrection is the most plausible explanation for the early Christian resurrection belief.

[One Bad Pig]

You see, folks. If it is possible that grave robbers stole the body of Jesus, and, if it is possible that the alleged post-death appearances of Jesus were vivid dreams then it is very probable that Jesus was not resurrected. Christians may believe that this scenario is implausible, but as long as it is possible, it is not impossible. And if it is not impossible, these natural explanations, are much more probable to be the explanation for the early Christian Resurrection belief than a once in history literal, bodily, resurrection. The reasoning for this is simple: even if we accept that Yahweh exists, is all-powerful, and performs miracles, the fact that Yahweh had never performed a resurrection prior to Jesus demonstrates just how low a probable event a resurrection is. Unless one assumes a priori Jesus' divinity, it is impossible, mathematically, to claim that a Resurrection is more probable than grave robbery and vivid dreams of dead people.

This evidence proves that Christians can no longer claim that a literal, bodily resurrection is the most plausible explanation for the early Christian resurrection belief.

How can you manage to get so much wrong in so little space? "Vivid dreams", indeed.

[Gary]

How can you manage to get so much wrong in so little space? "Vivid dreams", indeed.

Is it possible or is it impossible that human grave robbers stole the body of Jesus?

Why are you so afraid to answer this question???

[Gary]

You see, folks. This is what happens when your belief system is more important to you than the truth: You desperately attempt to avoid admitting the obvious:

1. It is possible that grave robbers stole the body of Jesus.
2. It is possible that the alleged post-death appearances of Jesus were vivid dreams.

Christians need to face that facts. Even if Yahweh exists, is all-powerful, and does perform miracles, he had never previously resurrected anyone in all of human history. To make the claim that a bodily resurrection of Jesus is more plausible than any natural explanation, Christians need to prove that the odds of grave robbery and vivid dreams confused with reality occurred less often in first century Palestine than a never heard of before resurrection.

The Christian argument has been disproved.

Millions of people believe in miracles, believe in Yahweh, and believe that Yahweh does occasionally violate the rules of nature to perform miracles. These people are called...Jews.

One can still believe in God and in miracles and reject the very weak evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

[psstein]

The post death appearances of Jesus were likely not vivid dreams.

I don't tend to think of vivid dreams as having transformative power. You'd also have to reckon with the fact that Paul mentions 500 eyewitnesses, whom he implies can be questioned at any point.

I think it vastly more likely that the empty tomb is a Markan fiction and the appearances hallucinations/visions than vivid dreams causing the belief in the Resurrection. Grave robbery is also not a particularly likely theory on its own as well... but why bother with facts?

The "it's possible, so..." argument needs to end as well. It's possible that Caiaphas actually hid Jesus away (because they were long lost brothers or something) and a doppleganger was sent to be crucified by the Romans. It's possible that Josephus wrote all four gospels. It's possible that William Lane Craig is a space mutant who was sent to ready the Earth for pacification. Now, all of these ideas are absolutely ludicrous, but why should we discount them? They are possible after all!

[One Bad Pig]

Is it possible or is it impossible that human grave robbers stole the body of Jesus?

Why are you so afraid to answer this question???

You're a terrible mind-reader.