Evidence for the Resurrection

[snarflemike]

Hopefully I’ll have a new thread up by tomorrow going over why I don’t think the evidence for the resurrection has probative force. For now, I’d like to address the claim that folks would’ve tried to find Jesus’ body in response to the kerygma.

First, you’d need to entirely dismiss Carrier’s spirit-body hypothesis according to which the earliest Christians believed Jesus physically resurrected by receiving a new resurrected body from God. On this theory, it’d make no sense to go out and find Jesus’ corpse since he didn’t resurrect with that body.

Second, this assumes that had they found Jesus’ body, it would’ve shaken the disciple’s faith. Here, you must contend with the cognitive dissonance reduction hypothesis, according which such a revelation would’ve just received rationalization. (This phenomena is well documented, and we all experienced it after Harold Camping’s October prophecy not only failed but quickly received a rationalization, and with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists et al).

Finally, the kerygma wasn’t preached (allegedly) until 7 weeks after Jesus death, and decades by the time Paul wrote 1st Cor. Could they have even identified Jesus’ decayed body? Especially if he was buried in a criminal’s lot, with multiple other bodies?

There are all kinds of objections I could list here.

Sure, there are all kinds of ways you can say that the biblical acocunt is a lie. One can say that about any account of any event.

As for disciple’s faith being shaken, that’s only half the matter. The Jews, had they recovered the body of the blasphemer (in their view), would have spread the news far and wide, and that event would still be a part of Jewish tradition, and we would know of that today.

 

[Perplexity]

Sure, there are all kinds of ways you can say that the biblical acocunt is a lie. One can say that about any account of any event.

As for disciple’s faith being shaken, that’s only half the matter. The Jews, had they recovered the body of the blasphemer (in their view), would have spread the news far and wide, and that event would still be a part of Jewish tradition, and we would know of that today.

“It is often pointed out that the technical definition of blasphemy recorded in Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:5) requires that to be guilty a person had to pronounce the name of God, the Tetragammeton (often transcribed as ‘Yahweh’ today). Because there is no evidence that Jesus ever defied that prohibition, some scholars argue that the Evangelist displays considerable ignorance of first-century Judaism. But the problem is not so simple. The Mishnah was compiled about ad 200, and incorporates not a few regulations modified by the relatively more humane and sophisticated heirs to the Pharisees. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Sadducees ever adopted so narrow a definition of blasphemy, and they largely controlled the Sanhedrin and influenced not a little of religious opinion in and around Jerusalem. The hotch-potch of competing and fervent religious opinions in Palestine before the fall of Jerusalem in ad 70 sometimes mocks the streamlined, restrained and largely univocal vision preserved in the Mishnah.” - Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 1991. p. 396

I bring this up because we don’t really know what would’ve been involved in someone being a blasphemer. Would it have spread so publicly? Who knows?

 

[danserr]

Hopefully I’ll have a new thread up by tomorrow going over why I don’t think the evidence for the resurrection has probative force. For now, I’d like to address the claim that folks would’ve tried to find Jesus’ body in response to the kerygma.

First, you’d need to entirely dismiss Carrier’s spirit-body hypothesis according to which the earliest Christians believed Jesus physically resurrected by receiving a new resurrected body from God. On this theory, it’d make no sense to go out and find Jesus’ corpse since he didn’t resurrect with that body.

Second, this assumes that had they found Jesus’ body, it would’ve shaken the disciple’s faith. Here, you must contend with the cognitive dissonance reduction hypothesis, according which such a revelation would’ve just received rationalization. (This phenomena is well documented, and we all experienced it after Harold Camping’s October prophecy not only failed but quickly received a rationalization, and with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists et al).

Finally, the kerygma wasn’t preached (allegedly) until 7 weeks after Jesus death, and decades by the time Paul wrote 1st Cor. Could they have even identified Jesus’ decayed body? Especially if he was buried in a criminal’s lot, with multiple other bodies?

There are all kinds of objections I could list here.

I’ll mostly wait for your new thread and hopefully have time to post since the history behind the Resurrection interests me more than a lot of the philosophical arguments for theism.

As for one, I would doubt it if on no other grounds than those that it seems to me historically probable that there was an empty tomb known to have been the correct tomb. Furthermore, St. Paul seems to teach the numerical identity of the risen body with the fallen body when he refers to God who will “give life to your mortal bodies also.”

Second, the cognitive dissonance seems implausible for many reasons, but to mention one, there is no record of anyone finding Jesus’ body and the debates taking place on “no, that’s not his body,” or “piffle, sure that’s his body, but it doesn’t matter.” The debates lay elsewhere. The same applies to your final point.

 

[constantconvert]

There are a couple of other good books called the Case for Christ by Lee Stroebel (written by a lawyer who looks at it from that standpoint-- would it hold up in court?) and another one called Evidence That Demands a Verdict by josh McDowell.

Also CS Lewis has a section in his book Mere Christianity that goes through the evidence as well.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Hopefully I’ll have a new thread up by tomorrow going over why I don’t think the evidence for the resurrection has probative force. For now, I’d like to address the claim that folks would’ve tried to find Jesus’ body in response to the kerygma.

First, you’d need to entirely dismiss Carrier’s spirit-body hypothesis according to which the earliest Christians believed Jesus physically resurrected by receiving a new resurrected body from God. On this theory, it’d make no sense to go out and find Jesus’ corpse since he didn’t resurrect with that body.

Second, this assumes that had they found Jesus’ body, it would’ve shaken the disciple’s faith. Here, you must contend with the cognitive dissonance reduction hypothesis, according which such a revelation would’ve just received rationalization. (This phenomena is well documented, and we all experienced it after Harold Camping’s October prophecy not only failed but quickly received a rationalization, and with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists et al).

What indication, in the Gospels or otherwise, is there that Jesus did not have a resurrection of THAT body (and not simply a new body made for Him)? The Gospels make a note of the women going out to dress Jesus’s corpse on Sunday morning, but there’s no indication they were expecting Jesus to rise at all, much less any indication that Jesus would rise in an entirely new body leaving the old corpse as you postulate.

The problem with this theory is that it places weight upon the shoulders of the Apostles that they don’t even attribute to themselves. You make it out as if they were the prophets foretelling that Jesus would rise from the grave. They were absolutely clueless about it until He actually did rise - at least according to their own story. Now what kind of an impression does that make? Not a Harold Camping, Moses David, or Charles Taze Russell one, I assure you.

They weren’t predicting Christ was going to rise and He was just delayed or taking another form. The Resurrection HAD ALREADY HAPPENED. There was nothing to predict (save that Christ will come again). Christ predicted He would rise.

And He did. The Eleven saw Him. 500 others saw Him. Matthias, Justus, and possibly others saw Him. 120 saw Him ascend.

Finally, the kerygma wasn’t preached (allegedly) until 7 weeks after Jesus death, and decades by the time Paul wrote 1st Cor.

As said before, hundreds of others saw Him. The fisherman on Galilee saw Him cook and eat a piece of baked fish. Two travellers met Him on the road to Emmaus, where He gave a lengthy talk about the Prophets, Moses, and history that predicted His coming. This they record in the Gospels in short, certain terms.

Also, Acts details the events that unfolded after the Resurrection, even though it was written 30 years afterwards, I’d still say it’s reliable.

Could they have even identified Jesus’ decayed body? Especially if he was buried in a criminal’s lot, with multiple other bodies?

There are all kinds of objections I could list here.

But Jesus was buried in a merchant’s tomb. Joseph of Arimathea was a merchant, a somewhat richer fellow, who could afford a nice or decent tomb (in any case, better than a potter’s field). Surely they could have found that tomb and the body within (if there were one)?

 

[chosen_people]

“It is often pointed out that the technical definition of blasphemy recorded in Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:5) requires that to be guilty a person had to pronounce the name of God, the Tetragammeton (often transcribed as ‘Yahweh’ today). Because there is no evidence that Jesus ever defied that prohibition, some scholars argue that the Evangelist displays considerable ignorance of first-century Judaism. But the problem is not so simple. The Mishnah was compiled about ad 200, and incorporates not a few regulations modified by the relatively more humane and sophisticated heirs to the Pharisees. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Sadducees ever adopted so narrow a definition of blasphemy, and they largely controlled the Sanhedrin and influenced not a little of religious opinion in and around Jerusalem. The hotch-potch of competing and fervent religious opinions in Palestine before the fall of Jerusalem in ad 70 sometimes mocks the streamlined, restrained and largely univocal vision preserved in the Mishnah.” - Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 1991. p. 396

I bring this up because we don’t really know what would’ve been involved in someone being a blasphemer. Would it have spread so publicly? Who knows?

While I will not go into all the various problems in what Carson has written, someone who wishes to know what blasphemy means in the Torah needs only go to Vayikra (Leviticus) 24:10 - 16 (which is enough without going into Carson’s total confusion concerning the Sadducees and interpretation of Torah).

 

[Holly3278]

Well, the apostles who claimed He was resurrected were willing to die for that claim and belief. All of the disciples except for John and of course, Judas, were martyred for their faith. I really don’t think they would have been willing to be martyred if the resurrection didn’t really happen.