Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Gary]

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!

Yes, allowing for the supernatural ANYTHING is possible. However, I am not making an outrageous claim as you insinuate. I am comparing the probability of one bodily resurrection with the probability of the combination of two, known, natural events: grave robbery and vivid dreams. You can claim that they are unlikely, but you can't claim that these explanations are impossible. And I would bet that most educated people would guess that there was more than just one or two robbed graves in Jerusalem in the first century and that there were at least a few first century Jews who confused vivid dreams with reality, or at least took their vivid dreams to be as significant as reality.

I'd love to hear your take on why Joseph, husband of Mary, believed that the message from an angel "appearing" to him in a dream was so significant as to move him to marry a pregnant woman and move his family to a foreign country. I see that as very strong evidence that at least some first century Jews took their vivid dreams very, very seriously and were willing to drastically change their worldview and lives based on those vivid dreams.

[Gary]

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!

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

"Not likely" is not the same as impossible, is it? The question is, which has a higher probability: a miracle that Yahweh nor any other god had EVER performed before, or, alleged appearances based on vivid dreams, the same kind of dreams that Joseph, husband of Mary had; that Jacob son of Isaac had; that Joseph, son of Jacob had; that Pharaoh had; that Nebuchadnezzar had; that many other men and women in the Hebrew Bible experienced and believed were REAL messages sent from God.

The writers of the Gospels were trying to tie Jesus to the Hebrew Scriptures. Vivid dreams in which God sends his divine messengers to faithful Hebrews (or pagans whom he wants to humble) was just a continuation of a long Hebrew/Jewish tradition. Can't you see that folks? A few disciples had vivid dreams of Jesus appearing to them and pretty soon everyone was "seeing" Jesus! Imagine the excitement (and hysteria)! A large group of Christians is having a meal on a hillside and a bright light appears at the top of the hill (a reflection)and a howl of the wind sounds like a human voice...and then it is gone.

"Jesus just appeared to five hundred people!!!"

That is how rumors spread, folks. These types of sightings of Jesus, Mary, Hindu gods, etc., have been happening for millennia. Why believe such claims from two thousand years ago???

[Adam]

You're as repetitive, Gary, as the Baptist preacher you used to be.
But I don't see anyone disparaging Baptist preachers for being repetitive.
I disagree with you and dislike repetition, but I agree with your right to speak even repetitively.

[Gary]

You're a terrible mind-reader.

You absolutely refuse to answer the question, don't you? This is a sign of a cult.

Don't be afraid of the truth, folks.

[Gary]

You're as repetitive, Gary, as the Baptist preacher you used to be.
But I don't see anyone disparaging Baptist preachers for being repetitive.
I disagree with you and dislike repetition, but I agree with your right to speak even repetitively.

How about you answer my questions, Adam: Is it possible or impossible that someone robbed Jesus' body from the tomb, and, that the alleged post death appearances of Jesus were based on vivid dreams?

[Bisto]

One could bring up further background data, besides what has already been mentioned throughout this thread, showing this kind of stuff is more unlikely than you currently think it is... but I don't think that would make much of a difference to you at this point, right? You have pretty much settled that the outcome will not be more improbable than that of YHWH choosing to vindicate a man as his true Messiah (i.e. promised king) through a necessarily unprecedented means.

[Gary]

One could bring up further background data, besides what has already been mentioned throughout this thread, showing this kind of stuff is more unlikely than you currently think it is... but I don't think that would make much of a difference to you at this point, right? You have pretty much settled that the outcome will not be more improbable than that of YHWH choosing to vindicate a man as his true Messiah (i.e. promised king) through a necessarily unprecedented means.

How many resurrections had Yahweh performed prior to the death of Jesus: Zero.
How many tombs had been robbed in first century Palestine: probably dozens if not more.
How many times did a first century Jew have a vivid dream and believe it was a message from God: at least twice (Joseph).

So the odds of a bodily resurrection are still lower!

You can't see this because you are ASSUMING, a priori, that Jesus was the Son of God. You need to prove the Resurrection to assume that, my friend, not the other way around. I am not claiming that a resurrection is impossible, I am just pointing out that statistically, it is less probable than the natural explanation of a grave robbery and vivid dreams.

[Gary]

So how about it, Nick? Even if we accept the existence of miracles; even if we accept all the miracles in Keneer's book as true, that still doesn't make a once in history resurrection more probable than grave robbery and vivid dreams. Agreed?

[Gary]

One could bring up further background data, besides what has already been mentioned throughout this thread, showing this kind of stuff is more unlikely than you currently think it is... but I don't think that would make much of a difference to you at this point, right? You have pretty much settled that the outcome will not be more improbable than that of YHWH choosing to vindicate a man as his true Messiah (i.e. promised king) through a necessarily unprecedented means.

Even if only two graves had been robbed in Jerusalem during the first 33 years of the first century that is two times more than the number of resurrections in all of human history to that point!!

[psstein]

Yes, allowing for the supernatural ANYTHING is possible. However, I am not making an outrageous claim as you insinuate. I am comparing the probability of one bodily resurrection with the probability of the combination of two, known, natural events: grave robbery and vivid dreams. You can claim that they are unlikely, but you can't claim that these explanations are impossible. And I would bet that most educated people would guess that there was more than just one or two robbed graves in Jerusalem in the first century and that there were at least a few first century Jews who confused vivid dreams with reality, or at least took their vivid dreams to be as significant as reality.

I'd love to hear your take on why Joseph, husband of Mary, believed that the message from an angel "appearing" to him in a dream was so significant as to move him to marry a pregnant woman and move his family to a foreign country. I see that as very strong evidence that at least some first century Jews took their vivid dreams very, very seriously and were willing to drastically change their worldview and lives based on those vivid dreams.

Gary, don't imply I'm uneducated. You're a far better physician than I am, but unlike you, I can read the NT in the original Greek, have read a wide variety of books on the NT and the culture more generally, and will soon have published work in the field.

Dreams were considered a form of communication between YHWH and people throughout the Hebrew Bible. For example, look at the dreams that Joseph interprets in Genesis 40. However, dreams are often realized as just that: dreams. They're not seen as literal events. Moreover, the text is exceedingly clear when people are having dreams.

Gary, you're combining two events that have almost no probability together. It is overwhelmingly more likely that the empty tomb is a Markan creation and that the earliest Christians believed that Jesus had been "spiritually raised," rather than bodily raised.

[Gary]

Gary, don't imply I'm uneducated. You're a far better physician than I am, but unlike you, I can read the NT in the original Greek, have read a wide variety of books on the NT and the culture more generally, and will soon have published work in the field.

Dreams were considered a form of communication between YHWH and people throughout the Hebrew Bible. For example, look at the dreams that Joseph interprets in Genesis 40. However, dreams are often realized as just that: dreams. They're not seen as literal events. Moreover, the text is exceedingly clear when people are having dreams.

Gary, you're combining two events that have almost no probability together. It is overwhelmingly more likely that the empty tomb is a Markan creation and that the earliest Christians believed that Jesus had been "spiritually raised," rather than bodily raised.

"almost no probability together..."

But that is the issue, Stein. By admitting that this scenario is possible, although highly improbable, you are giving away your bias: You have already assumed that Jesus was the Son of God and therefore that Yahweh would raise him from the dead to confirm his divinity. If one does not make this assumption, and one simply sees Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher who allegedly performed some miracles, then you would have to admit that the very unlikely scenario of Jews mistaking vivid dreams for reality is more probable than a once in history resurrection.

Do you see that?

Even if you admit that a Jew mistaking a vivid dream for reality happened only ONCE, that is still one more time than a resurrection! Therefore, based on prior probability, a vivid dream is more likely to be the cause of the alleged appearances of Jesus than a literal resurrection.

If Christians would stop assuming the divinity of Jesus a priori when looking at the evidence surrounding the alleged Resurrection, then they would see that a literal resurrection is the least likely of all possible explanations.

By the way, I completely agree with you: I believe that the probability that the empty grave was a later theological invention is higher than that someone robbed the tomb. But someone robbing the tomb is still more probable than a previously never heard of bodily resurrection. Even if we skeptics assume the reality of miracles and the reality of Yahweh, that does not change the probability for a resurrection, because we have zero evidence that Yahweh had ever performed a miracle. Therefore if one finds, in 33 AD, an empty tomb and a few Galilean peasants claiming to have seen a resurrected dead body, the odds that these facts/beliefs are due to natural causes is still higher than a previously never heard of resurrection.

Believe in miracles. Believe in Yahweh. But don't believe in a resurrection based on this very poor evidence.

[One Bad Pig]

You absolutely refuse to answer the question, don't you? This is a sign of a cult.

Don't be afraid of the truth, folks.

Now that you speciously accuse me of being afraid to answer it, yes. I refuse to give you the satisfaction. The truth is, your alternative speculations to the resurrection are laughable (as is your increasingly hollow pretense of being open to the possibility of miracles).

[Gary]

Now that you speciously accuse me of being afraid to answer it, yes. I refuse to give you the satisfaction. The truth is, your alternative speculations to the resurrection are laughable (as is your increasingly hollow pretense of being open to the possibility of miracles).

As I said, and will repeat:

You absolutely refuse to answer the question, don't you? This is a sign of a cult.

Don't be afraid of the truth, folks.

[psstein]

What was that about "generalizations and assumptions?" Right.

Find a single living scholar with relevant credentials who supports the tomb robbery idea. Until then, I'll continue to laugh over in the corner.

And no, Gary, the argument is not assuming the divinity or lack thereof of Jesus of Nazareth. The argument simply assumes that a god who can perform miracles exists, not necessarily YHWH.

[Gary]

What was that about "generalizations and assumptions?" Right.

Find a single living scholar with relevant credentials who supports the tomb robbery idea. Until then, I'll continue to laugh over in the corner.

And no, Gary, the argument is not assuming the divinity or lack thereof of Jesus of Nazareth. The argument simply assumes that a god who can perform miracles exists, not necessarily YHWH.

Ok, let's agree that a Creator God exists who performs miracles. How many miracle resurrections were performed by the Creator God prior to circa 33 AD?

See, the question is what is the best explanation, with the highest probability of being true, for the early Christian belief that they had seen a resurrected Jesus: A literal resurrection or natural phenomena that were mistaken for a resurrection. The question is not about the reality of miracles.