Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Gary]

"it is not possible that there is a better explanation for the facts of the empty tomb than the resurrection."

I am not asking Christians to admit that there is a better explanation for the Empty Tomb/general concept of a bodily resurrection. I am asking if Christians will agree that there are other possible explanations for these beliefs.

[Bisto]

...
Would you be willing to respond, set by step, to one naturalistic scenario for the early Christian belief in the Resurrection, explaining for each step in the scenario, why each step, taken one at a time, is impossible? For instance, if the first step were this:

1. Jesus body was left to rot on the cross for days. Days later it was taken down and tossed into an unmarked common grave with other executed persons in a location known only to a few Roman soldiers, who told no one and soon forgot its location.

This would make all early Christians deceivers and/or deceived, since their witness is more or less uniform that he died on the day of his crucifixion and was put down and buried (somehow) soon thereafter, so as to rise on the third day. The tradition of 1 Cor 15 would be wrong/deceptive on its less controversial part: that Jesus was crucified, buried and risen (whatever that is) on the third day. This theory is WORSE than your previous ones, because you leave a big hole with regards to burial stories of all kinds.

That isn't embellishment, if you'd argue that, but deception they wouldn't have approved of to the best of our knowledge of their Christian ethics. One wonders: when did both changes in thinking occur (we know he was there for long > let's make up early (!) burial accounts and exciting new details, betraying YHWH's covenant via our false witness > we're back to claiming YHWH-modelled truthfulness, as true Israelites in whom there is no deceit)?? Whence an honest-to-God Resurrection belief?

As Wright says, if they experienced "appearances" of Jesus at some point (visions, in your view) they would naturally check where his body was to evaluate a real thought of Resurrection. If they saw it on the third day, why not go see his hanging rotting body (both the "visionaries" and whoever they told)? If they had visions later, why not just say so in their preaching? Whence the "third day" bit? (Don't say "ad hoc Hosea-based embellishment", we're talking about the early tradition.) Besides, with no tomb or a way to check on his body, how would they conclude Resurrection? Who would believe them like that anyway? Why not interpret the visions as Ascension/translation like an Enoch or Elijah instead, with Jesus talking to them from heaven? Whence the rise in a couple of years to high Christology?

Whence the further lies of Easter appearances in the Gospels? Whence a Paul converted? (Historically speaking, you can forget the Guilt card, unless you give Paul a modern western values set.) Whence a James converted? (Biblically speaking, you can forget the Prestige card, unless you imagine James in a "mainstream"(?) church where he can request tithes and whatnot.)

Whence a Pentecost story, their vehement changes thereafter, and later miracle claims? I'll mention only 1: my "uneducated" church brother who once spoke Italian in a prophetic tongues utterance (very Acts 2-like), translating it to us as he went -- how did he learn it and why doesn't he use it thereafter? (It would sure be a plus in a CV!)


(Off-topic question: was my use of "Whence" in these questions gramatically correct or odd? Thanks in advance .)

[lilpixieofterror]

Friend, I thought you were being funny enough when psycho-analyzing the Apostles and Disciples and giving them (and everyone else involved!) a script of how they should think, dream and react to Jesus' death in order to spark a Resurrection belief (of sorts). But now you're performing the same overall procedure to ALL miracle-claim makers? I mean, seriously? I would understand if, from statistics alone, you were to claim that SOME of them behaved thus. But you're doing this for all of them (or most of them, whatever). If your thesis was improbable enough for the Apostles, how improbable is THIS? Is that even a proper way to apply statistics?


Besides, I repeat what I mentioned before: Do you know of any study that might show whether Christians get significantly more of such "sudden recoveries" than other people or not, or something like that? After all, you keep repeating this "miracles are really fast recoveries" thesis, but are these things really so common everywhere as to beget so many miracle claims among Christians and "other superstitious folks" around the world? I wonder, what if these "sudden recoveries" of yours (which would explain most miracle claims, by your word) DO happen more often among Christians (or all similarly "uneducated, superstitious, multi-religion miracle-believers")?

IF, and I repeat, IF that were indeed the case, then I wonder whether you would postulate that miracle claims do not arise from sudden recoveries, but from deception instead.


And I wonder, by your thinking, how does a decapitation/amputation recovery "claim" start. Surely that isn't a sudden recovery. So, what could it be according to you? Lies? O I know, cognitive dissonance!!!

It's rather simple. His faith will not allow even a smudge of anything outside of nature to exist, so he needs an excuse to hand wave them all way. It's kind of funny really; he complains about religious people being irrational while he keeps proving he's the most irrational of them all.

[Gary]

This would make all early Christians deceivers and/or deceived, since their witness is more or less uniform that he died on the day of his crucifixion and was put down and buried (somehow) soon thereafter, so as to rise on the third day. The tradition of 1 Cor 15 would be wrong/deceptive on its less controversial part: that Jesus was crucified, buried and risen (whatever that is) on the third day. This theory is WORSE than your previous ones, because you leave a big hole with regards to burial stories of all kinds.

That isn't embellishment, if you'd argue that, but deception they wouldn't have approved of to the best of our knowledge of their Christian ethics. One wonders: when did both changes in thinking occur (we know he was there for long > let's make up early (!) burial accounts and exciting new details, betraying YHWH's covenant via our false witness > we're back to claiming YHWH-modelled truthfulness, as true Israelites in whom there is no deceit)?? Whence an honest-to-God Resurrection belief?

As Wright says, if they experienced "appearances" of Jesus at some point (visions, in your view) they would naturally check where his body was to evaluate a real thought of Resurrection. If they saw it on the third day, why not go see his hanging rotting body (both the "visionaries" and whoever they told)? If they had visions later, why not just say so in their preaching? Whence the "third day" bit? (Don't say "ad hoc Hosea-based embellishment", we're talking about the early tradition.) Besides, with no tomb or a way to check on his body, how would they conclude Resurrection? Who would believe them like that anyway? Why not interpret the visions as Ascension/translation like an Enoch or Elijah instead, with Jesus talking to them from heaven? Whence the rise in a couple of years to high Christology?

Whence the further lies of Easter appearances in the Gospels? Whence a Paul converted? (Historically speaking, you can forget the Shame card, unless you give Paul a modern western values set.) Whence a James converted? (Biblically speaking, you can forget the Prestige card, unless you imagine James in a "mainstream"(?) church where he can request tithes and whatnot.)

Whence a Pentecost story, their vehement changes thereafter, and later miracle claims? I'll mention only 1: my "uneducated" church brother who once spoke Italian in a prophetic tongues utterance (very Acts 2-like), translating it to us as he went -- how did he learn it and why doesn't he use it thereafter? (It would sure be a plus in a CV!)


(Off-topic question: was my use of "Whence" in these questions gramatically correct or odd? Thanks in advance .)

"This would make all early Christians deceivers and/or deceived, since their witness is more or less uniform that he died on the day of his crucifixion and was put down and buried (somehow) soon thereafter, so as to rise on the third day. The tradition of 1 Cor 15 would be wrong/deceptive on its less controversial part: that Jesus was crucified, buried and risen (whatever that is) on the third day. This theory is WORSE than your previous ones, because you leave a big hole with regards to burial stories of all kinds."

Just to reiterate, I am not saying that this is what happened. I am not saying that I have evidence that indicates it happened. I am just saying that it is a possible explanation and that all evidence has been lost due to the passage of time.

First, I do not think that this explanation makes anyone out to be a liar or deceiver. I personally think that the earliest Christians were most likely very sincere in their beliefs. So how is it possible that Jesus was buried in an unknown hole in the ground but yet early Christians came to believe that he had been resurrected "on the third day"? Here is one possible scenario:

Jesus' body is tossed into an unmarked, common grave as was the custom of the Romans. No disciple knows where Jesus' body is located. However, three days after his death, Peter has a vivid trance in which Jesus appears to him and tells him that he is risen. Soon other disciples are having visions and dreams of Jesus. Other followers are seeing Jesus in bright lights, cloud formations, etc. (misperceptions of nature). One of these misperceptions happens to a crowd of approximately 500 followers. Then family members, who had previously doubted, started "seeing" Jesus in visions, including James, Jesus' brother. The Early Creed is based on these trances, dreams, and visions. Since everyone knew that Romans toss executed criminals into the ground into common graves, they knew that Jesus was "buried" and when Peter "saw" Jesus on the third day, they remembered that Jesus had told him that he would be raised on the Third Day. Great joy (hysteria) grips them, and the legend of the Resurrection is born.

A couple years later, for unknown reasons, Saul of Tarsus has a vision of Jesus.

And decades later, anonymous Gentile Christian authors, writing in foreign lands, who had probably never stepped foot in Palestine, wrote stories based on oral legends about Jesus that had been circulating in their countries at that time; stories which had become embellished over many years with stories of empty tombs, women seeing angels, earthquakes, the tearing of the veil of the Holy of Holies, guards, and dead saints roaming the streets.

[Gary]

This would make all early Christians deceivers and/or deceived, since their witness is more or less uniform that he died on the day of his crucifixion and was put down and buried (somehow) soon thereafter, so as to rise on the third day. The tradition of 1 Cor 15 would be wrong/deceptive on its less controversial part: that Jesus was crucified, buried and risen (whatever that is) on the third day. This theory is WORSE than your previous ones, because you leave a big hole with regards to burial stories of all kinds.

That isn't embellishment, if you'd argue that, but deception they wouldn't have approved of to the best of our knowledge of their Christian ethics. One wonders: when did both changes in thinking occur (we know he was there for long > let's make up early (!) burial accounts and exciting new details, betraying YHWH's covenant via our false witness > we're back to claiming YHWH-modelled truthfulness, as true Israelites in whom there is no deceit)?? Whence an honest-to-God Resurrection belief?

As Wright says, if they experienced "appearances" of Jesus at some point (visions, in your view) they would naturally check where his body was to evaluate a real thought of Resurrection. If they saw it on the third day, why not go see his hanging rotting body (both the "visionaries" and whoever they told)? If they had visions later, why not just say so in their preaching? Whence the "third day" bit? (Don't say "ad hoc Hosea-based embellishment", we're talking about the early tradition.) Besides, with no tomb or a way to check on his body, how would they conclude Resurrection? Who would believe them like that anyway? Why not interpret the visions as Ascension/translation like an Enoch or Elijah instead, with Jesus talking to them from heaven? Whence the rise in a couple of years to high Christology?

Whence the further lies of Easter appearances in the Gospels? Whence a Paul converted? (Historically speaking, you can forget the Guilt card, unless you give Paul a modern western values set.) Whence a James converted? (Biblically speaking, you can forget the Prestige card, unless you imagine James in a "mainstream"(?) church where he can request tithes and whatnot.)

Whence a Pentecost story, their vehement changes thereafter, and later miracle claims? I'll mention only 1: my "uneducated" church brother who once spoke Italian in a prophetic tongues utterance (very Acts 2-like), translating it to us as he went -- how did he learn it and why doesn't he use it thereafter? (It would sure be a plus in a CV!)


(Off-topic question: was my use of "Whence" in these questions gramatically correct or odd? Thanks in advance .)

"As Wright says, if they experienced "appearances" of Jesus at some point (visions, in your view) they would naturally check where his body was to evaluate a real thought of Resurrection."

How would they do that if Jesus' body was in an unknown, unmarked, common grave mixed with the remains of other executed criminals?

"If they saw it on the third day, why not go see his hanging rotting body (both the "visionaries" and whoever they told)? If they had visions later, why not just say so in their preaching? Whence the "third day" bit? (Don't say "ad hoc Hosea-based embellishment", we're talking about the early tradition.)"

Maybe the Romans did not leave Jesus body up; maybe out of concern for a riot, they did take his body down before sunset and Passover, but, they tossed it into a common, unmarked grave, that no one but a few Roman soldiers knew about and they weren't talking. So if Jesus "appeared" to the disciples three days later...in visions/trances/vivid dreams, the "third day" would be consistent with this history.

[Raphael]

Jesus' body is tossed into an unmarked, common grave as was the custom of the Romans.

Your scenario fails on its first premise. All accounts have him being buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.
The Romans did allow this as evidenced by the fact that we have the ossuary of a man, Yehohanan, who was crucified in the first century (which would mean he was not put in an unmarked grave). Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin and he would have been able to easily counter any claims made by the disciples if they were false.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-a-st...f-crucifixion/
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...ixion-methods/

[Gary]

This would make all early Christians deceivers and/or deceived, since their witness is more or less uniform that he died on the day of his crucifixion and was put down and buried (somehow) soon thereafter, so as to rise on the third day. The tradition of 1 Cor 15 would be wrong/deceptive on its less controversial part: that Jesus was crucified, buried and risen (whatever that is) on the third day. This theory is WORSE than your previous ones, because you leave a big hole with regards to burial stories of all kinds.

That isn't embellishment, if you'd argue that, but deception they wouldn't have approved of to the best of our knowledge of their Christian ethics. One wonders: when did both changes in thinking occur (we know he was there for long > let's make up early (!) burial accounts and exciting new details, betraying YHWH's covenant via our false witness > we're back to claiming YHWH-modelled truthfulness, as true Israelites in whom there is no deceit)?? Whence an honest-to-God Resurrection belief?

As Wright says, if they experienced "appearances" of Jesus at some point (visions, in your view) they would naturally check where his body was to evaluate a real thought of Resurrection. If they saw it on the third day, why not go see his hanging rotting body (both the "visionaries" and whoever they told)? If they had visions later, why not just say so in their preaching? Whence the "third day" bit? (Don't say "ad hoc Hosea-based embellishment", we're talking about the early tradition.) Besides, with no tomb or a way to check on his body, how would they conclude Resurrection? Who would believe them like that anyway? Why not interpret the visions as Ascension/translation like an Enoch or Elijah instead, with Jesus talking to them from heaven? Whence the rise in a couple of years to high Christology?

Whence the further lies of Easter appearances in the Gospels? Whence a Paul converted? (Historically speaking, you can forget the Guilt card, unless you give Paul a modern western values set.) Whence a James converted? (Biblically speaking, you can forget the Prestige card, unless you imagine James in a "mainstream"(?) church where he can request tithes and whatnot.)

Whence a Pentecost story, their vehement changes thereafter, and later miracle claims? I'll mention only 1: my "uneducated" church brother who once spoke Italian in a prophetic tongues utterance (very Acts 2-like), translating it to us as he went -- how did he learn it and why doesn't he use it thereafter? (It would sure be a plus in a CV!)


(Off-topic question: was my use of "Whence" in these questions gramatically correct or odd? Thanks in advance .)

"Besides, with no tomb or a way to check on his body, how would they conclude Resurrection? Who would believe them like that anyway? Why not interpret the visions as Ascension/translation like an Enoch or Elijah instead, with Jesus talking to them from heaven? Whence the rise in a couple of years to high Christology?"

What proof do we have that the original Eleven immediately believed that the appearances of Jesus were as a resurrected Jesus and not as a "raised from the dead" Jesus? I agree that early Christians eventually came to believe this, but what proof do we have that the original Eleven believed this? If you say, "the stories in the Gospels" there is no way to prove that these stories were the original beliefs of the Eleven or beliefs that developed sometime before Paul's epistles.

[Gary]

This would make all early Christians deceivers and/or deceived, since their witness is more or less uniform that he died on the day of his crucifixion and was put down and buried (somehow) soon thereafter, so as to rise on the third day. The tradition of 1 Cor 15 would be wrong/deceptive on its less controversial part: that Jesus was crucified, buried and risen (whatever that is) on the third day. This theory is WORSE than your previous ones, because you leave a big hole with regards to burial stories of all kinds.

That isn't embellishment, if you'd argue that, but deception they wouldn't have approved of to the best of our knowledge of their Christian ethics. One wonders: when did both changes in thinking occur (we know he was there for long > let's make up early (!) burial accounts and exciting new details, betraying YHWH's covenant via our false witness > we're back to claiming YHWH-modelled truthfulness, as true Israelites in whom there is no deceit)?? Whence an honest-to-God Resurrection belief?

As Wright says, if they experienced "appearances" of Jesus at some point (visions, in your view) they would naturally check where his body was to evaluate a real thought of Resurrection. If they saw it on the third day, why not go see his hanging rotting body (both the "visionaries" and whoever they told)? If they had visions later, why not just say so in their preaching? Whence the "third day" bit? (Don't say "ad hoc Hosea-based embellishment", we're talking about the early tradition.) Besides, with no tomb or a way to check on his body, how would they conclude Resurrection? Who would believe them like that anyway? Why not interpret the visions as Ascension/translation like an Enoch or Elijah instead, with Jesus talking to them from heaven? Whence the rise in a couple of years to high Christology?

Whence the further lies of Easter appearances in the Gospels? Whence a Paul converted? (Historically speaking, you can forget the Guilt card, unless you give Paul a modern western values set.) Whence a James converted? (Biblically speaking, you can forget the Prestige card, unless you imagine James in a "mainstream"(?) church where he can request tithes and whatnot.)

Whence a Pentecost story, their vehement changes thereafter, and later miracle claims? I'll mention only 1: my "uneducated" church brother who once spoke Italian in a prophetic tongues utterance (very Acts 2-like), translating it to us as he went -- how did he learn it and why doesn't he use it thereafter? (It would sure be a plus in a CV!)


(Off-topic question: was my use of "Whence" in these questions gramatically correct or odd? Thanks in advance .)

Whence the further lies of Easter appearances in the Gospels?

Answer: They aren't lies. The authors believed that the oral legends they heard were true...but they weren't. They were embellishments: the natural process of a story being retold over and over again, over many years, in a long line of story tellers, passing from one country, one culture, to another, until finally reaching the authors of the Gospels.

Whence a Paul converted? (Historically speaking, you can forget the Guilt card, unless you give Paul a modern western values set.)

Answer: Weird conversions happen. There is a case today in Israel of an orthodox settler/rabbinical student converting to Islam.

Whence a James converted? (Biblically speaking, you can forget the Prestige card, unless you imagine James in a "mainstream"(?) church where he can request tithes and whatnot.)

Answer: Strange conversions happen. Who knows why? The point is: It is possible for someone to convert to a despised, new religion without necessarily seeing a literal, walking/talking dead body.

Whence a Pentecost story, their vehement changes thereafter, and later miracle claims?

Answer: The "appearances" of Jesus in visions, dreams, and misperceptions caused cowards to be emboldened by a fervent (hysterical?) belief that something supernatural had occurred. We see this same type of religious hysteria in the world today.

I'll mention only 1: my "uneducated" church brother who once spoke Italian in a prophetic tongues utterance (very Acts 2-like), translating it to us as he went -- how did he learn it and why doesn't he use it thereafter? (It would sure be a plus in a CV!)

Answer: Do you speak Italian? If not, how do you know he spoke Italian, and not just gibberish with an Italian accent?

[Gary]

Your scenario fails on its first premise. All accounts have him being buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.
The Romans did allow this as evidenced by the fact that we have the ossuary of a man, Yehohanan, who was crucified in the first century (which would mean he was not put in an unmarked grave). Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin and he would have been able to easily counter any claims made by the disciples if they were false.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-a-st...f-crucifixion/
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...ixion-methods/

I didn't say that it is impossible that the Romans allowed Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus in his tomb. Maybe they did. But just because four anonymous authors, two at least of whom copied much of the material of the first, say something happened, does that mean it absolutely must be true?

Can stories in books ever be incorrect?

[Gary]

This would make all early Christians deceivers and/or deceived, since their witness is more or less uniform that he died on the day of his crucifixion and was put down and buried (somehow) soon thereafter, so as to rise on the third day. The tradition of 1 Cor 15 would be wrong/deceptive on its less controversial part: that Jesus was crucified, buried and risen (whatever that is) on the third day. This theory is WORSE than your previous ones, because you leave a big hole with regards to burial stories of all kinds.

That isn't embellishment, if you'd argue that, but deception they wouldn't have approved of to the best of our knowledge of their Christian ethics. One wonders: when did both changes in thinking occur (we know he was there for long > let's make up early (!) burial accounts and exciting new details, betraying YHWH's covenant via our false witness > we're back to claiming YHWH-modelled truthfulness, as true Israelites in whom there is no deceit)?? Whence an honest-to-God Resurrection belief?

As Wright says, if they experienced "appearances" of Jesus at some point (visions, in your view) they would naturally check where his body was to evaluate a real thought of Resurrection. If they saw it on the third day, why not go see his hanging rotting body (both the "visionaries" and whoever they told)? If they had visions later, why not just say so in their preaching? Whence the "third day" bit? (Don't say "ad hoc Hosea-based embellishment", we're talking about the early tradition.) Besides, with no tomb or a way to check on his body, how would they conclude Resurrection? Who would believe them like that anyway? Why not interpret the visions as Ascension/translation like an Enoch or Elijah instead, with Jesus talking to them from heaven? Whence the rise in a couple of years to high Christology?

Whence the further lies of Easter appearances in the Gospels? Whence a Paul converted? (Historically speaking, you can forget the Guilt card, unless you give Paul a modern western values set.) Whence a James converted? (Biblically speaking, you can forget the Prestige card, unless you imagine James in a "mainstream"(?) church where he can request tithes and whatnot.)

Whence a Pentecost story, their vehement changes thereafter, and later miracle claims? I'll mention only 1: my "uneducated" church brother who once spoke Italian in a prophetic tongues utterance (very Acts 2-like), translating it to us as he went -- how did he learn it and why doesn't he use it thereafter? (It would sure be a plus in a CV!)


(Off-topic question: was my use of "Whence" in these questions gramatically correct or odd? Thanks in advance .)

Most Americans do not use the word "whence". I am not sure about the British. However, your English is fantastic. If only I could speak Spanish and German as well as you speak English!

[psstein]

Nope. Based on the evidence, it is not possible that there is a better explanation for the facts of the empty tomb than the resurrection.

Yes, agreed. There is no explanation that does not require additional entities, ad hoc explanations, or actions we have no record of. It is the best explanation.

[Adrift]

"it is not possible that there is a better explanation for the facts of the empty tomb than the resurrection."

I am not asking Christians to admit that there is a better explanation for the Empty Tomb/general concept of a bodily resurrection. I am asking if Christians will agree that there are other possible explanations for these beliefs.

No, there are no other possible explanations for these beliefs based on the current evidence. The only option available to the open-minded inquirer as I see it is that a personal divine creator intervened and resurrected Jesus, barring the acceptance of a personal divine entity capable of the miraculous, it is a mystery unlikely to be solved any time soon.

[Adrift]

Your scenario fails on its first premise. All accounts have him being buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.
The Romans did allow this as evidenced by the fact that we have the ossuary of a man, Yehohanan, who was crucified in the first century (which would mean he was not put in an unmarked grave). Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin and he would have been able to easily counter any claims made by the disciples if they were false.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-a-st...f-crucifixion/
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...ixion-methods/

Yep. We've been through that with him a few times already. As well as noting that both Roman and Jewish records testify that Jewish burial customs of criminals were observed in that period. He ignored it all as usual.

[One Bad Pig]

No, there are no other possible explanations for these beliefs based on the current evidence. The only option available to the open-minded inquirer as I see it is that a personal divine creator intervened and resurrected Jesus, barring the acceptance of a personal divine entity capable of the miraculous, it is a mystery unlikely to be solved any time soon.

I think that it is telling that Gary is willing to accept or discard various bits of evidence, depending on whatever theory he's propounding at the moment. That's not the modus operandi of the open-minded enquirer, but rather that of the person determined to find an alternative explanation at all costs.

[Apologiaphoenix]

The simplest explanation is often the best.

Resurrection has them all beat by a long shot. I'm open to being wrong, but I need more than just so stories.