Jesus' Resurrection: Argument from ignorance?

[Pieman333272]

I recently bought a book on Jesus’ Resurrection by N.T. Wright called The Resurrection of the Son of God. I find it a great (but long) read and really convincing, but in my ways, I had to go read some opposition and screw it up. I read essentially the only legit negative review of it by Robert Price, found here. He made two objections that were refuted, one by Wright on the idea of “resurrection cults” at the time outside of the book, and another, on “spiritual vs physical resurrection” which Price claims that Jesus’ resurrected form’s powers were too spirit-like to be physical. That’s discredited by others (and Price acknowledges it!), but certain Christian Texts (some of which Wright cites) also show the early Christians, possibly as early as the apostles, believed in a physical resurrection. There are also certain non-scholarly theological ideas suggesting this is possible, such as that being another miracle, or teleportation being possible for his body (it could, after all, be resurrected from the dead). The third objection he made sort of tickled me (but didn’t convince me), though. He said even if the resurrection were proven, we shouldn’t attribute this to God just because science can’t explain it. I think that that’s not a great argument, because its highly improbable that even if science can explain it, that it happened to exactly the right person at exactly the right place at exactly the right time independent of Divine Intervention.

Most of the rest of the essay was restating certain arguments he thinks Wright failed to debunk (or didn’t at all, note I haven’t finished the book but am a good way into it), some ad hominem attacks (and comparisons), and critiques of his style of presenting, scholarly, and quoting (some ad hom., some seemingly legit). I actually question if he read the book in its whole rather than picking out the weak/missing points, but anyway, that last objection got me thinking:

Is Jesus’ resurrection just an argument from ignorance? If not, why, if so, why? I personally think not, but I want to get some rebuttals/viewpoints from others. Feel free to comment on the rest of the essay, but that one’s my real question.

 

[EricFilmer]

Price claims that Jesus’ resurrected form’s powers were too spirit-like to be physical. That’s discredited by others (and Price acknowledges it!), but certain Christian Texts (some of which Wright cites) also show the early Christians, possibly as early as the apostles, believed in a physical resurrection.

Although I have not read the material you are commenting on, I think the gospels clearly present the Apostles as believing that Jesus’ resurrection included his physical body. For example, notice how Luke, in both his gospel and in Acts, specifically mentions Jesus eating in the presence of the Apostles. Only a physical, living being can eat and digest food. This was Luke’s way of clarifying that Jesus’ resurrected form was not simply spiritual, nor was Jesus a ghost. For example:

(Jesus’ words to the Apostles after his resurrection): “See my hands and my feet, that is I myself; handle me, and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he had said this he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it before them." (Luke 24:39-43, RSV)

(From a speech of Peter): “…but God raised him on the third day and made him manifest; not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.” (Acts 10:40-41, RSV)

Also consider John 21:9-15. Notice that even though Jesus was already preparing a meal of fish on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias, he also asked the disciples to bring some of the fish they had just caught. It stands to reason that the only kind of fish a ghost could eat would be ghost fish. But if the disciples provided the fish (as what happened here and in the above passage from Luke) then the fish was real. Jesus ate real fish in front of his followers to prove to them that his resurrected form included a physical living body.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Thomas doubted that Jesus was physically resurrected and Jesus responded by telling him to touch the wounds inflicted upon Him during the crucifixion, which he did, and subsequently believed. There’s your answer.

 

[Windfish]

Are we speaking in historical terms, or are we allowing for other considerations? I mean, a miracle such as this, to me, affirms or at least is consistent with the Catholic claims about the Resurrection. Since I have done enough research to be satisfied, the matter is pretty much settle for me.

However, on historical grounds, I can kind of see the criticism, but it ultimately fails. I mean, there could not have possibly been a Jewish Messianic movement without the Resurrection, so this is kind of an argument from ignorance, but I still think it’s a good one given what we know about Jews at that time. However, the thing that is square in the way for skeptics is Paul, who quite clearly states that there was a bodily Resurrection, or, if you want to be diplomatic, at least a “belief” in a bodily Resurrection. And this serves as positive support for part of Wright’s argument.

 

[GEddie]

The problem with the Resurrection being “Spiritual” is, what happened to HIS original human body?

When the ladies came to visit the tomb on Sunday morning, there was nobody – noBODY, there, and the Roman guard had been overpowered. The only people who would have carried out such a dangerous deception (by removing the body) were the very ones who would years later die as martyrs for belief in the Resurrection. So a deception makes no sense. His natural body could only have left that tomb if its original owner walked it out of there.

Whatever HIS resurrectional form was, it included the standard-issue Human Body of our LORD.

ICXC NIKA

 

[fhansen]

I recently bought a book on Jesus’ Resurrection by N.T. Wright called The Resurrection of the Son of God. I find it a great (but long) read and really convincing, but in my ways, I had to go read some opposition and screw it up. I read essentially the only legit negative review of it by Robert Price, found here. He made two objections that were refuted, one by Wright on the idea of “resurrection cults” at the time outside of the book, and another, on “spiritual vs physical resurrection” which Price claims that Jesus’ resurrected form’s powers were too spirit-like to be physical. That’s discredited by others (and Price acknowledges it!), but certain Christian Texts (some of which Wright cites) also show the early Christians, possibly as early as the apostles, believed in a physical resurrection. There are also certain non-scholarly theological ideas suggesting this is possible, such as that being another miracle, or teleportation being possible for his body (it could, after all, be resurrected from the dead). The third objection he made sort of tickled me (but didn’t convince me), though. He said even if the resurrection were proven, we shouldn’t attribute this to God just because science can’t explain it. I think that that’s not a great argument, because its highly improbable that even if science can explain it, that it happened to exactly the right person at exactly the right place at exactly the right time independent of Divine Intervention.

Most of the rest of the essay was restating certain arguments he thinks Wright failed to debunk (or didn’t at all, note I haven’t finished the book but am a good way into it), some ad hominem attacks (and comparisons), and critiques of his style of presenting, scholarly, and quoting (some ad hom., some seemingly legit). I actually question if he read the book in its whole rather than picking out the weak/missing points, but anyway, that last objection got me thinking:

Is Jesus’ resurrection just an argument from ignorance? If not, why, if so, why? I personally think not, but I want to get some rebuttals/viewpoints from others. Feel free to comment on the rest of the essay, but that one’s my real question.

The physical resurrection of Jesus’ body is consistent Catholic teaching and was essential-precisely because it gives us an actual object to believe in-so we can’t “allegorize” the whole event into a some mere spiritual awakening type thing which would end up, for all practical purposes, irrelevant for mankind.

If the dead are not raised,
"Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die. 1Cor 15:32

 

[Pieman333272]

Thanks for the clarification for Jesus’ resurrection being physical. I think when he referred to it as an argument from ignorance, he meant we shouldn’t say God caused Jesus’ resurrection (and therefore he exists) just because science can’t explain this, even though it violated a lot of the laws of physics. So I guess its in scientific terms. But the presence of other miracles consistent with the faith, as Windfish showed, seemed to weaken that a little. Anyway, just want to get your opinions on this objection.

 

[Uranage]

I recently bought a book on Jesus’ Resurrection by N.T. Wright called The Resurrection of the Son of God. I find it a great (but long) read and really convincing, but in my ways, I had to go read some opposition and screw it up. I read essentially the only legit negative review of it by Robert Price, found here. He made two objections that were refuted, one by Wright on the idea of “resurrection cults” at the time outside of the book, and another, on “spiritual vs physical resurrection” which Price claims that Jesus’ resurrected form’s powers were too spirit-like to be physical. That’s discredited by others (and Price acknowledges it!), but certain Christian Texts (some of which Wright cites) also show the early Christians, possibly as early as the apostles, believed in a physical resurrection. There are also certain non-scholarly theological ideas suggesting this is possible, such as that being another miracle, or teleportation being possible for his body (it could, after all, be resurrected from the dead). The third objection he made sort of tickled me (but didn’t convince me), though. He said even if the resurrection were proven, we shouldn’t attribute this to God just because science can’t explain it. I think that that’s not a great argument, because its highly improbable that even if science can explain it, that it happened to exactly the right person at exactly the right place at exactly the right time independent of Divine Intervention.

Most of the rest of the essay was restating certain arguments he thinks Wright failed to debunk (or didn’t at all, note I haven’t finished the book but am a good way into it), some ad hominem attacks (and comparisons), and critiques of his style of presenting, scholarly, and quoting (some ad hom., some seemingly legit). I actually question if he read the book in its whole rather than picking out the weak/missing points, but anyway, that last objection got me thinking:

Is Jesus’ resurrection just an argument from ignorance? If not, why, if so, why? I personally think not, but I want to get some rebuttals/viewpoints from others. Feel free to comment on the rest of the essay, but that one’s my real question.

Pieman,

It wouldn’t be an argument from ignorance. Rather, it would be a form of abductive reasoning (or inference to the best explanation). We have a certain amount of testimony on the table from individuals and groups to having seen the risen Jesus. We also know that the earliest witnesses were willing to suffer persecution and matrydom for this conviction-and that some of them did ultimatley did pay with their lives. Christians feel that the best explanation of this belief on the part of the disciples (and James and Paul) was that Jesus really had risen from the dead.

As far as Robert Price goes, there is a lot of material out there dealing with his objections. I would check out his debate with Dr. William Lane Craig on the resurrection of Jesus over at Philvaz’s site here: philvaz.com/apologetics/audio.htm#WilliamLaneCraig

J.P. Holding has some great material dealing with Price as well here: tektonics.org/lp/pricer06.html and here tektonics.org/ezine/pricecase/pricecaseindex.html

Here is an article dealing with Price’s claim that 1 Cor. 15:3-11 is an interpolation: christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_interpolation.html

Steve Hays has written an excellent ebook refuting Price’s book “The Empty Tomb” titled “This Joyful Eastertide” here: triapologia.com/hays/ThisJoyfulEastertide.pdf

Here is an article by resurrection scholar Gary Habermas on the resurrection: garyhabermas.com/books/inbook_to-everyone-an-answer/habermas_case-for-xp-res.htm

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

The probabilistic nature of modern science means that essentially any event, including spontaneous restoration of life to corpses, has a non-zero probability. The probability is vanishingly close to zero, but it exists.

The same can be said of any miracle.

And really, the situation becomes more complicated when the supernatural is on the table. Even if we fired up our chronoscope and watched the events occur exactly as described in the gospels, can we prove that it’s not a trick of Loki or martian vampire wizards? Not really.

So, alternative explanations will always exist. A miracle might be a remarkable quantum coincidence, or a trickster at play, or whatever. But sooner or later, you have to make a choice. You can either accept the ultimate futility of materialism, or believe that we’re continually at the mercy of tricksters beyond our power… or you can believe that it really happened the way the Church teaches, by the power of a loving God, for our salvation.

Why would you choose anything else? It’d be one thing if the resurrection were disproved, but just because an author said “Maybe it was just an unprecedented, gigantically unlikely natural event”… I don’t know. For something that flimsy to sway you, I have to wonder if there are other factors in play that we don’t know about.

 

[anthony022071]

Is Jesus’ resurrection just an argument from ignorance?

The belief in Jesus’ resurrection isn’t an argument from ignorance,it is based upon what what was seen and heard by the apostles and the other disciples of Christ,and what has been experienced by believers since the resurrection. The proof that Jesus is resurrected is to be found in the lives and testimony of the saints,who lived and acted as only people who are sustained by the Spirit of Christ could do. Only if what the Catholic Church teaches were true,that Christ is resurrected and his Spirit poured out to those who are faithful to him,and that the Eucharist really is his body and blood,could people like Saint Francis and Mother Theresa do what they did. The great saints live out the will of God just as Jesus would have us all do,showing a super-abundance of charity,mercy,forgiveness,patience,perseverence which it would be impossible to have without the Spirit of God to sustain them in obedience.