Is Jesus' Resurrection Plausible?

[Biochemist]

This thread is a specific line of argument carried over from the "GASP-Unbelievers in Church?" thread.

 

I recognize this is a potentially volatile subject, but it certainly comes up often enough on the site to warrant a clean debate.

 

I would like to make clear my intent. My intent is not to attempt to "convert" anyone on this site. (I mention this because someone suggested that recently). THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION.

 

My intent is to offer a case that it is reasonable to suggest that Christ's resurrection is plausible. I do not think for a minute that I can convince even a substantial minority of this forum that it happened. But a number of participants have suggested that the evidence in support of Jesus' very existence is absent. This is just plainly not the case. My only intent is to suggest that the resurrection is plausible on the evidence. I will NOT contend the evidence is irrefutable. I merely would like to assert that it is plausible.

 

I have already asserted:

 

1) the evidence for Jesus' existence is strong (at the end of the "GASP..." thread)

 

Now I will assert:

 

2) that the evidence that He left his tomb is strong.

 

Subsequently, I will assert:

 

3) that the evidence for that resurrection is reasonable.

 

You might note that I will concede at the outset that the proof case for the resurrection is not as strong as the proof case for the empty tomb. They are certainly related, but the number of witnesses to Jesus after His resurrection is only about 500. Ergo, the historical veracity through contemporaneous records is necesarily thinner. Furthere nearly all of the records from those 500 are Christian writers. We might expect this, perhaps. Folks who actually saw it would tend to believe it and make decision related to it. But, from our 2005 standpoint, we are probably obligated to take those texts with a degree of bias. The bias does not obviate the content, but it is fair to suggest the bias exists.

 

It is wholly a different statement to suggest that we can prove Jesus was God. My only intent in this argument is to establish that a reasonable, rational person could view the evidence that Christ rose as credible. My personal view is that it is. I have never taken the resurrection as an element of faith. Personally, I don't think anyone should, but that is just my opinion.

 

Perhaps a more critical point is that believing Christ rose does not make anyone a Christian. This is a discussion of history. Either He did or He didn't. The spiritual implications of this discussion are (I think) beyond the bounds of this forum.

[lindagarrette]

. Either He did or He didn't. The spiritual implications of this discussion are (I think) beyond the bounds of this forum.

I agree with that last statement. If there were such a thing as resurection from the dead and all the mystique that goes along, then it would require belief in the supernatural. For such a thing to occur would require a miracle. It could not happen under natural circumstances. Therefore, it is way outside the realm of believability by anyone who does not subscribe to spirituality.

[paradox]

My only intent in this argument is to establish that a reasonable, rational person could view the evidence that Christ rose as credible.

do you consider yourself to be rational and reasonable ?

you can't expect anyone, believer or not

to say It is RATIONAL to assume somebody died and then became alive again

beliefs and religion have NOTHING to do with ratio, it is what it is - (just) faith

 

it is plausible only if Jesus wasn't really dead and instead he went into a deep coma or something

that would be a rational explanation of 'ressurection'

[Queso]

yeah we discussed that in the other thread. but then think about it. being nailed to wood and stabbed multiple times...i don't think you could live through that.

[Fishteacher73]

It is possible for the human body to endure huge amounts of stress and survive under certain situations (i.e. drowning in frigid water). It was reasonably widespred for the clergy of religions to pass science or slight of hand off as miricles (and probably even more so at this Jesus' given time period). Some of this was genuine and some was used to intentionally mislead.

 

If it is ceded that Jesus existed (either as a man or god) and that he died (possible speculation there... such trauma as crucifixion could cause the onset of shock) and he was placed in a tomb. Given this could be an accurate acount of the events up to that point. (Biochem noted that the predonderance of lit. sources sugests it as so, but could one not find porportional evidence to other religions in literate cultures (Egyptian, Roman, Chinese, Greek, Hindu, etc.))

 

Quite simply it seems that it was not much more than a parlor trick. It seems more plausable that one of his followers removed his body to propogate his mythology. People understood mass psychology at this point much better than I think most want to give them credit for.

 

As for witnesses, we have come to understand that eye-witness accounts are hardly consistant nor credible source of evidence. (There was a case where a raped woman identified the wrong man whom had raped her).

 

Apostle : "Have you seen Jesus?"

Random Jew/Roman: "I don't know. What's he look like?"

Apostle: "Long hair, beard, dirty tunic."

Random Jew/Roman: "Sure, why not? I see that guy all over the place."

[Biochemist]

If there were such a thing as resurection from the dead...it would require belief in the supernatural. For such a thing to occur would require a miracle. It could not happen under natural circumstances.

LG- This is a valid point. However, under the scientific method, it it not legitimate to let the implications of the conclusion obviate the hypothesis.

 

The folks that actually saw Christ post-resurrection apparently shared exactly your incredulity. Certainly Thomas did. Thomas did not even believe the report of his fellow disciples, and these were folks that he knew well and presumably trusted. Paul agreed with the incredible nature of the resurrection when he accepted it as fact. Paul's arguments eplicitly state that without the resurrection, Christians have nothing to talk about (I Cor 15). That is, Paul agreed with you. He said that if Jesus didn't rise, this is all foolishness.

 

Essentially, Paul used your argument backwards. He thought the resurrection was impossible too. Then when it was corroborated, he took it as a sign of spiritual significance. Paul's change in thinking (along with the other apostles) was dramatic, and attests to the veracity of the event.

 

This is really the core of the argument in the plausibility of the resurrection, although there is more detail around it. As I said before, there is a lot more evidence for and logical support of the empty tomb per se than the resurrection. But it appears true that the witnesses to the resurrection had a hard time believing it was true when they saw it. I certainly would have.

[Freethinker]

I have already asserted:

 

1) the evidence for Jesus' existence is strong (at the end of the "GASP..." thread)

And I assert that monkeys fly outta my butt. So what?

 

So rather than admit you have failed to provide ANY support for this assertion. Rather than actually live up to your claims, you pretend it is still real and want to change the subject to cover those failures.

 

Once you have proven the basic assertion the entire premise is based on THEN we could have an intellectually honest dialog about the other issues.

 

Otherwise this seems fit only for Christer sites that love meaningless platitudes and warm fuzzy ramblings. As I understand it this site is supposed to be for, if not Science specific discussions, at least scientifically valid approaches to discussions. If I am wrong and this has become a Christer rambling site, ... another bites the dust!

[C1ay]

Moved from "GASP" thread...

 

Subsequently, I will assert:

 

3) that the evidence for that resurrection is reasonable.

 

You might note that I will concede at the outset that the proof case for the resurrection is not as strong as the proof case for the empty tomb. They are certainly related, but the number of witnesses to Jesus after His resurrection is only about 500. Ergo, the historical veracity through contemporaneous records is necesarily thinner.

 

And when do you propose to share this reasonable scientific evidence? Thus far I have not seen anything I would consider credible evidence for resurrection.

[lindagarrette]

Paul agreed with the incredible nature of the resurrection when he accepted it as fact. Paul's arguments eplicitly state that without the resurrection, Christians have nothing to talk about (I Cor 15). ... But it appears true that the witnesses to the resurrection had a hard time believing it was true when they saw it. I certainly would have.

Not necessarily. Look how many people throng Lourdes where Bernadette saw the virgin. Many of them even claim to have seen her there themselves. Without Paul, there probably would not have been any Christianity. He is a historical figure but, like many other evangelists, just because he said so doesn't make what he said true. It's like the Bible being its own corroborator. He also tied the resurection to the original sin of Adam which means that without the creation story from Genesis, Christians would have nothing to talk about.

 

Now, Paul did not accept the physicalist narration of the Gospels. He either didn't know of or consider valid the argument of the empty tomb. So his interpretation of the event was spiritual. That means, it didn't actually happen in the bodily sense. Very hocus pocus.

[Biochemist]

Quite simply it seems that it was not much more than a parlor trick. It seems more plausable that one of his followers removed his body to propogate his mythology.

Thanks for offering this. It is a good place to start building the argument for the empty tomb.

 

There are three commonly offered justifications for the finding that Jesus' tomb was empty:

 

A) Someone stole the body (either Jesus' followers or the authorities)

:o Jesus "swooned" and regained consciousness (the "swoon" theory)

C) The followers went to the wrong tomb

There are several arguments that are interrelated for the defense of the notion that the real tomb was empty, and that there was something very special about the curcumstances. It is true that the majority of these arguments rely on Biblical texts and closely related documents. Some (notably Freethinker and lindagarette, I believe, on this site) contend that all of these text are frauds. That is not a commonly held view

 

I have included a couple of trailing links (that are egregiously detailed) both in support and in refutation of the notion that the tomb was empty. You will note that even the detractors of the empty tomb position do not assume that all documents are fraudulent, but they will question specific passages for validity. The trailing links do not summarize the core arguments, so I did this briefly here:

 

1) The Jews understood something of what Jesus meant when he predicted his own resurrection, and hence requested that Pilate post a Roman guard.

 

The Jewish leadership (e.g., the Pharisees and some others) apparently had a little better understanding of Jesus' intent than the disciples did. This is not surprising, since they were far more educated in Jewish history and tradition than the disciples. They went to Pilate and asked him to post a guard at the tomb, explicitly because they assumed His followers would try to retrieve the body to claim He was resurrected.

 

2) The Roman guard contingent (Centurions) was assigned to guard the tomb

The quantity of guards assigned is unknown, but the number was plural. Centurions, by tradition were quite disciplined. They were under threat of death for a number of discipline violations, reportedly including drinking on duty, falling asleep on duty or losing a prisoner.

 

3) The tomb had a Roman seal on it.

The tomb was sealed by the Romans. Breaking the Roman seal was probably punishable by death if the perpetrator was a local peasant. If it were a Roman citizen, it probably would have precipitated a trial.

 

4) The stone at the opening of the tomb was probably over one half ton

By tradition, the stones used to seal a tomb were large (1000-2000 pounds) to avoid incursions by predator animals. They were usually rolled in place with levers, and required more than a single man to move.

 

5) The guards were surprised when they found the tomb open and empty.

Given that they were under threat of death, it is not surprising that the Biblical record states there was "no small disturbance" among the Centurions when they found Jesus missing. It is not clear if any of these Centurions were actually executed. The Biblical record states that the guards were bribed to say that Jesus' followers stole the body. Since admission of that fact would have resulted in the Centurion's premature demise, one might assume that their military careers were somewhat shortened, but I know of no confirmation of the execution of the actual guards.

 

6) The disciples were apparently quite fearful, and hiding out from the authorities.

The notion that the disciples were engineering a body theft appears implausible. They were hiding out in an "upper room" when Jesus found them. Further, Peter had famously denied any knowedge of Jesus during the mob events around His crucifixion to avoid injury at the hands of the mob. The disciples were not yeat acting like confrontational defenders of truth. Something happened to make them act that way.

 

7) The discovery of the empty tomb by women is at odds with what one might expect for a story written by first century Jewish males.

It is unlikey that a first century Jewish male would assign discovery of the empty tomb to a woman, much less Mary Magdalene. She was a woman of ill repute, and would not be the ideal standard bearer for the message.

 

8) Those who saw Jesus had a really difficult time believing it was Him, and some mistook Him for someone else.

Mary Magdalene saw Jesus and thought he was the gardener. She asked Him were He had taken the body. The exchange is bizarre enough that it is hard to imagine a reason for someone to make it up.

 

9) The ensuing Jewish polemic against Christians assumed the tomb was empty and the body was missing.

All subsequent text references presume that the tomb was empty. It was commonly asserted that the body was stolen. If the tomb was not empty, the authorities could have produced the body to refute the claims of the resurrection. They didn't.

 

Hence the problems with the three theories above:

 

A) Someone stole the body (either Jesus' followers or the authorities)- We would need to explain who had the nerve to try it, and how they got the body past the Centurions.

:o Jesus "swooned" and regained consciousness (the "swoon" thwory)-We would need to explain how He moved the stone at the cave entrance in His debilitated condition and then made the multi-mile walk to town

C) The followers went to the wrong tomb- This would also mean that the Centurians were at the wrong tomb, guarding an empty one, or the authorities would have produced the body to refute the resurrection.

 

 

References:

 

This is a long treatise covering many of the textual supports for the empty tomb:

Dr William Lane Craig, a Th.D. at Talbot

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html#text2

 

This is a detailed critique of the argument above by Peter Kirby. You might note at the end that he contends the are "grounds for debate" on the issues.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/rebuttal2.html

[Biochemist]

And I assert that monkeys fly outta my butt.

Sound like an interesting homeopathic approach to an enema.

 

I certainly hope that you shampoo the little rascals well afterwards.

[Biochemist]

He {Paul}also tied the resurection to the original sin of Adam which means that without the creation story from Genesis, Christians would have nothing to talk about.

Paul made lots of interesting assertions, but I don't think he hung his hat on anything as much as the centrality of the resurrection (again, I Cor 15). He was a pretty educated guy. By tradition, Pharisees, as Paul was, had the Old Testament memorized. He made lots of Old Testament connections because of his background.

Now, Paul did not accept the physicalist narration of the Gospels. He either didn't know of or consider valid the argument of the empty tomb. So his interpretation of the event was spiritual. That means, it didn't actually happen in the bodily sense.

There is a detailed point-counterpoint on this issue in the link I posted above. To summarize the "point" portion: Becasue Paul did not explicitly mention the empty tomb in I Cor 15 does not mean he did not believe it. It just means he accepted it as part and parcel with the resurrection statement.

 

I do understand your point, however, and I think it is a valid one.

[bumab]

Now, Paul did not accept the physicalist narration of the Gospels. He either didn't know of or consider valid the argument of the empty tomb. So his interpretation of the event was spiritual. That means, it didn't actually happen in the bodily sense. Very hocus pocus.

 

Could you show me (or anyone really) where he states or implies this? Don't doubt your impression on it, just want to check it out myself!

[lindagarrette]

Could you show me (or anyone really) where he states or implies this? Don't doubt your impression on it, just want to check it out myself!

It's not my impression. How can I show what isn't there? There is no reference in any of Paul's writings to the physical Jesus, the tomb, or anything else about his supposed life, only the "teaching" and aftermath. If you can find something to support your claim, then quote it.

[Queso]

look at the google ads at the bottom of this thread...

[bumab]

It's not my impression. How can I show what isn't there? There is no reference in any of Paul's writings to the physical Jesus, the tomb, or anything else about his supposed life, only the "teaching" and aftermath. If you can find something to support your claim, then quote it.

 

I didn't make the claim, you did...

 

"He either didn't know or didn't consider valid..."

 

Just wondering if you got that from a specific writing or the lack of specific writing. Appears to be the later. I was just curious.

 

The fact that he DIDN't mention the tomb or any of that only goes to show he didn't consider it important. That could be for at least 3 different reasons:

1. He didn't believe it, as you said.

2. He didn't consider it important, which is doubtful

3. He assumed everyone he was writing to, in the ancient churches, already took that as a matter of course.

 

Anyway, I was just wondering where you got your info for that statement. Thanks!

[Biochemist]

There is no reference in any of Paul's writings to the physical Jesus, the tomb, or anything else about his supposed life, only the "teaching" and aftermath.

LG- I do think this is a valid argument, although I tend to agree with some of Bumab's points in response.

 

I thought it would be useful to include the link below. This is a good discussion/review of four authors/researchers: two Christian apologists, and two atheistic Christian critics. The author of this review (Jeff Lowder) is (I believe) not a Christian, but I am frankly not sure. He reviews in detail the pros and cons of all four sets of arguments in a style much like an academic review article.

 

I include this because I believe the Christian critics (Barker and Martin) are among the most articulate for the case against elements of Jesus' historicity and/or the resurrection itself. The text in this link is well referenced as well.

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/chap4.html

 

The Christian apologistis (McDowell and Craig) are representative of the mass of Christian apologists. McDowell is far less academic, and has sort of a populist style, although he is famous because of it. Craig is a well regarded Th. D. academic theologian.

 

This is a long read, but the last sentence in the review is the point that I agree with, and is really my only point:

"a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection."

You may recall that my assertion is not that the historicity of Jesus or the resurrection is irrefutable. My assertion is that accepting the resurrection based on a preponderance of evidence is plausible.

 

I have no problem with folks not agreeing with any of this. I do think that asserting that belief in the resurrection is irrational is itself irrational based on the evidence. Disagreement, however, is perfectly reasonable.