The Argument from Miracles: The Resurrection

[Luke_K]

a). Jesus’ predictions- It is admitted on all hands that none of the disciples thought Jesus would rise after his death. Anytime, he mentioned it, they never got it. This is widely admitted, so there is no reason to infer that the idea of resurrection could come from that. The disciples just had no concept of that. Consider the conversation on the road to Emmaus, “we hoped he would be the one to redeem Israel.” A dead messiah was a failed messiah, and the disciples knew it.

But how can you hold this position in light of Matthew 27:62-64? : “The next day,…the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, “Sir, we remember that this imposter while still alive said, ‘After three days I will be raised up.’ Give orders then, that the grave be secured until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him and say to the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead.’ This last imposture would be worse than the first.””

Are you saying that the people who killed Jesus were able to understand that Jesus predicted he would rise from the dead, but his disciples weren’t?

 

[danserr]

danserr;7746385:
Now you are not even trying, you are just ignoring my previous answers, repeating the same questions, and just throwing stuff out there. Go back to my previous answers for problems with this.

To some extent, but not all scholars agree that the resurrecyion is the best explanation.

Agreed, but I am only appealing to them to establish the facts, which you keep going back and forth on. Here you agree, later you question them, but don’t offer any evidence against them. Make up your mind.

I do not know that the gospels were propaganda, but it is obvious that one of their purposes was to spread a religious belief, so, it makes it at least probable that they contain propaganda.

Why does that make it probable, that is quite a jump in logic and you have not given any evidence; just claimed, they were written to convince people of something, and are therefore propaganda. You need evidence to support your assertions. Second, as I keep saying, even unreliable sources contain valuable nuggets of information that we can pull out of them using the historical method.

If the gospels are not reliable, how can we go from "the gospel at this particular point says x and therfore y is is totically probable. If e.g. x is not true, how do we infer y?

The same way historians do with any document. By reasoning something like, "this source at this point says x, it would probably not say x if y were not the case, therefore y is probably the case.

An example. Some scholars doubt whether or not Matthew’s story of the guard at the tomb is legit. Now even supposing this is unreliable, it can still tell us something. It tells us that when confronted with the fact of the empty tomb, the Jews did not claim that they body was really there, but that the disciples stole the body, by which even the enemies of Christianity admitted the tomb was empty.

Mass hystery is a well-documented phnomenon.

Mass hysteria is different from hallucination. I have refuted the latter, if you want to claim it was mass hysteria, provide some evidence, don’t just throw out random possibilities.

Nobody says it must have a basis in Jewish thought. It had a basis in what Jesus taught.and what Jesus’ disciples believed.

It did not. As I have said and you keep ignoring. I’m taking the time to reply, the least you can do is take the time to read what I write. The disciples has no concept of a dying and rising messiah, for them resurrection was something that happens to all God’s people at once, at the end of the world.

Yet Paul, having never seen the risen Christ, only his ‘ghost’ (or the voice of his ghost), believd in the resurrection.

Paul did see the risen Christ, as he himself says explicitly. That was not a ghost he saw, nor did he think of it as a ghost.

Even if Paul had written only a few months after the alleged facts, there could have been legends. Legends do not take years to develop.

You have ignored the rest of what I wrote. very well. As for legends not taking long to develop, this is lazy, vague, and wrong. A.N. Sherwin White, a Roman Historian in Roman Society and Law in the New Testament argues that even 2 generations if insufficient time for legend to arise in that period. Tacitus wrote 90 years after the events and historians still trust him as a valuable source of info.
Furthermore, the authoritative control of the apostles would have kept the rise of legend in check, and legends could not have arisen while the first generation of witnesses were still alive. Think of Paul’s challenge, to “go and ask the witnesses.” Paul, himself, was in contact with the apostles only 3 years later, which makes the legend hypothesis incredibly implausible on these grounds alone. And you have ignored my other answers to it.

Quote:

2. Mark’s story is simple and lacks significant legendary development

.

That’s question begging. Mark’s story of the empty tomb cannot be a legend because Mark does not contain legends.

You don’t appear to understand what I mean by legendary development. I mean the burial account is very bare, stark, and unadorned. This tells against the legend hypothesis. Especially when compared to the gnostic gospels of the second century and later which have Jesus emerging from his tomb to huge numbers of witnesses, both Roman, Pharisee, as a larger than life figure flanked by powerful (also larger than life) angels. This is legendary development. Matthew’s stark, unadorned, burial account is hardly analogous to this, or to modern urban legends or stuff like Paul Bunyan, which are real legends.

see 1.

See my response to 1.

 

[danserr]

Of course something happened that shaped the Christian movement. Jesus preached and people believed him and also preached.

Which hardly would explain why they believed he rose from the dead. Stop ignoring everything I write and going over the same ground without providing new evidence. Nor would this explain the changes in resurrection belief from the Jewish context, or near universal agreement of that belief and what resurrection meant.

Or , more probably because he didn’t know about the women since Mark invented them.
BTW, women were regarded as credible witnesses on several occasions.

Any role the women would play was a role that would better have been filled by men. You admit the gospels were written to convince people, and obviously men as witness would be more convincing than women. See my post 49. And pleas actually read all of what I write.
To suggest women were on a par with men as witnesses in the ancient world is nonsense. This wass not 21st century America. Consider Josephus’ description of rule supposedly left by Mosses, “let not the testimony of women be admitted on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.” Another text "sooner let the words of the law be burnt than delivered to a woman.’

And Jesus put women front and center during his life.

Which explains neither what I say above, not my post 49, which you seem incredibly reluctant to actually read. Any role the women could play would better have been served by men. the presence of women as first witnesses was an embarassment. that they are there indicates this part of the account is historically reliable.

People are willing to die for all sorts of beliefs.

A very lazy response. Think! I talked about evidence early Christians died for their belief to refute your absurd argument that they were hoaxing the whole thing and your historically mistaken claim that no Christians died for their belief. This I have done.

Second, they were enough trouble to spread the story that disciples stole the body.
Years after the facts and there is no evidence this rumour was spread at all.

The story in matthew would never have been put there unless the Jews were really going around claiming that the disciples stole the body, (which you admitted in an earlier post). by which they admitted the empty tomb.

Do you believe that Sai Baba resurrects people?

Stop being ridiculous. I have no evidence for that. If you wish to present evidence I will consider it.

Your last response is incredible lazy and you haven’t even read what I have written in many places. You keep contradicting even yourself, since in some place, you contradict what you have said earlier. Actually read what I write before you respond. I’m going to stop responding and start just referring you to earlier posts if you keep repeating yourself. Also, you still haven’t justified your bias against miracles and your preconceptions. Which means you are not considering the evidence with an open mind.

 

[gentle_atheist]

b). As for Corinthians. One of the most interesting parts of NT Wright’s exhaustive study of the Resurrection is his study of pre-Christian beliefs of life after death, and they all admit that Resurrection does not happen. So this would have been the situation in Corinth. As pagan romans, they would have “known” just as surely as the modern naturalist, that “dead men men do not rise.” So this is the cause of disagreement Paul is discussing. He is trying to convince greeks that a dead man did rise and that we can, but given their naturalistic background, this is not an easy task.

This entry in Wikipedia under “Resurrection” says just the opposite (emphasis mine):

In ancient Greek religion, a number of men and women were made physically immortal as they were resurrected from the dead…

The parallel between these traditional beliefs and the later resurrection of Jesus was not lost on the early Christians, as Justin Martyr argued: **“when we say … Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus.” **(1 Apol. 21). There is, however, no belief in a general resurrection in ancient Greek religion, as the Greeks held that not even the gods were able to recreate flesh that had been lost to decay, fire or consumption. The notion of a general resurrection of the dead was therefore apparently quite preposterous to the Greeks. This is made clear in Paul’s Areopagus discourse. After having first told about the resurrection of Jesus, which makes the Athenians interested to hear more, Paul goes on, relating how this event relates to a general resurrection of the dead:

“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, `We shall hear you again concerning this.’”[4]

So it appears that the resurrection of Jesus would be very much in keeping with Greek religious beliefs.

 

[belorg]

Agreed, but I am only appealing to them to establish the facts, which you keep going back and forth on. Here you agree, later you question them, but don’t offer any evidence against them. Make up your mind.

I really do not know what actually happened, danserr, there just is far too little information

Why does that make it probable, that is quite a jump in logic and you have not given any evidence; just claimed, they were written to convince people of something, and are therefore propaganda.

I did not say they are therefore propaganda, I said it is very probable that thye contain propaganda, based on what we see in texts that try to convince people. I do not think that is such a jump in logic.

The same way historians do with any document. By reasoning something like, "this source at this point says x, it would probably not say x if y were not the case, therefore y is probably the case.

Sure, but if x and y are completely made up for whatever reason, this does not apply.

An example. Some scholars doubt whether or not Matthew’s story of the guard at the tomb is legit. Now even supposing this is unreliable, it can still tell us something. It tells us that when confronted with the fact of the empty tomb, the Jews did not claim that they body was really there, but that the disciples stole the body, by which even the enemies of Christianity admitted the tomb was empty.

And that’s the sort of inference I object to. It does not take the Jews believing the tomb was empty. Most Jews in the time Matthew was writing wouldn’t even have known it. all it takes is some Christians claiming it.

Mass hysteria is different from hallucination. I have refuted the latter, if you want to claim it was mass hysteria, provide some evidence, don’t just throw out random possibilities.

Mass hysteria can lead to hallucinations. And I don’t have evidence . All we have is a vague reference by Paul. It could have meant virtually everything.

The disciples has no concept of a dying and rising messiah, for them resurrection was something that happens to all God’s people at once, at the end of the world.

That us false. Jesus himself told them on several occasions. And if we are to believe the gospel stories, Jesus on several occasions rose people from the dead.

Paul did see the risen Christ, as he himself says explicitly. That was not a ghost he saw, nor did he think of it as a ghost.

That i an anachronism. By the time Paul converted, Jesus had already ascended.

As for legends not taking long to develop, this is lazy, vague, and wrong. A.N. Sherwin White, a Roman Historian in Roman Society and Law in the New Testament argues that even 2 generations if insufficient time for legend to arise in that period.

People were more sceptic then than they are now?

Tacitus wrote 90 years after the events and historians still trust him as a valuable source of info.

Tacitus is known as a historian, he would not write about too many legends.

Furthermore, the authoritative control of the apostles would have kept the rise of legend in check, and legends could not have arisen while the first generation of witnesses were still alive.

That is false. Legends do arise, people interprate what they think they witnessed in light of their own beliefs. There are legends about Micheal Jackson appearing to people and he has been dead fro less than 2 years.

Think of Paul’s challenge, to “go and ask the witnesses.” Paul, himself, was in contact with the apostles only 3 years later, which makes the legend hypothesis incredibly implausible on these grounds alone. And you have ignored my other answers to it.

You can go and ask witnesses who claim Michael appeared after his death too.

You don’t appear to understand what I mean by legendary development. I mean the burial account is very bare, stark, and unadorned.

It was, of course earlier than other legends and shows less detail, but that does not say it is not based on legend.

This is legendary development. Matthew’s stark, unadorned, burial account is hardly analogous to this, or to modern urban legends or stuff like Paul Bunyan, which are real legends.

This is more elaborate legendary develpoment, yes.

 

[belorg]

Granting that Matthew wrote it ‘decades’ after the resurrection appearances (which is debatable in and of itself),

It is hardly disputed among Biblical scholars that GMatthew was written in the 70s or 80s.

the body would have been producible. The Jews of the time were very organized in their burials and had Jesus not been raised the scribes could just look in every tomb across the country until they found Jesus’ tomb or ossuary.

They could have produced any body and told it was Jesus. After so many years, it wouldn’t have been recognizable anyway.

Also, the Jews and Romans had multiple years to produce the body between the empty tomb discovery and Matthew’s gospel.

But the Jews didn’t produce any body, which would have been easy. to do. And the Romans wouldn’t have bothered.

 

[belorg]

Additionally, Paul was a Jewish man and persecuted the Christians. He originally was trying to destroy the church, as he said in his own words in Galatians. Now, if the body of Jesus was still in the tomb, why didn’t Paul and the Jews produce it in order to destroy the growing Christian movement? Since Paul himself came to believe in the resurrection, the tomb must have been empty.

That presypposes there was even a tomb to be discovered.
Despites claims to the contrary, the empty tomb is mentioned in the four gospels, three of which are generally acknowlegded to be interdependent, while the 4th is considered late enough to be based on accounts heard from people heraing about one of the 1st 3 gospels. So, a case can be made that in fact there is only one real attestation of an empty tomb, because** Paul does not mention an empty tomb**.

And secondly, Paul could have produced any body and claimed it was Jesus if he had wanted to.
Christians would have denied it was Jesus, but they would probably have denied it even if it truly was Jesus’ body. Anyway, most Jews would have taken the word of Paul over that of a bunch of Christians.

 

[Windfish]

This entry in Wikipedia under “Resurrection” says just the opposite (emphasis mine):

So it appears that the resurrection of Jesus would be very much in keeping with Greek religious beliefs.

Thanks for point that out. If I get that chance, I will correct Wikipedia’s entry. It was probably made by some atheist or loony skeptic who bought into the bunk “pagan parallels” BS, the Justin Martyr fake quote is huge giveaway.

 

[danserr]

So it appears that the resurrection of Jesus would be very much in keeping with Greek religious beliefs.

Not even close. And if we are comparing NT Wright and Wikkipedia, it is no contest. It was not believed that the emperors went bodily to heaven (Hercules for instance mounted his own funeral pyre), which alone makes this very different from Jesus. This is not (anastasis) resurrection; this is the typical view of the body as a prison from which the soul is released. (Resurrection of the Son of God pp.55-60) In this mindset, Resurrection was not even an option. That is why some Athenians sneered on hearing Paul, and he struggled with the Corinthians, They were classical ancient Greco-Roman culture, and they “knew” just as surely as the modern naturalist, that dead men do not rise.

@Belord
Since one of your points was similar, I’ll put it here.

Jesus on several occasions rose people from the dead.

No, he reanimated. Reanimation is not resurrection. Lazarus was still going to die. Resurrection involved some transformation of the physical body from which immortality followed.

Anastasis (Resurrection) is life after life after death. It involves a continuation of some sort of physical life (as opposed to Greco-Roman divinization or astral immortality) and the transformation of the physical body.

 

[Windfish]

Just to clarify: that Wikipedia entry is just flat out false and misleading. That article is probably very old and made by someone who was influenced by the 2006-2008 trend of doubting Jesus’ historical existence. That Justin Martyr quotation is a huge giveaway.

 

[danserr]

it is very probable that thye contain propaganda, based on what we see in texts that try to convince people. I do not think that is such a jump in logic.

What reason do you have for thinking this?

Even if this is true and the gospels contain some propaganda (which I have no problem with), historians regularly use a source and separate good information from the bad. It just requires critical examination of the source. To say that a source is imperfect, therefore wholly untrustworthy would leave us unable to know anything at all about history, even history from the 20th century!

The same way historians do with any document. By reasoning something like, "this source at this point says x, it would probably not say x if y were not the case, therefore y is probably the case.

Sure, but if x and y are completely made up for whatever reason, this does not apply.

Yes it does, because then we can look at the motivations of why it was made up, and that can tell us something. And you misunderstand my example, since y was not representing the fact made up, but the inference that the historian draws from it.

An example. Some scholars doubt whether or not Matthew’s story of the guard at the tomb is legit. Now even supposing this is unreliable, it can still tell us something. It tells us that when confronted with the fact of the empty tomb, the Jews did not claim that they body was really there, but that the disciples stole the body, by which even the enemies of Christianity admitted the tomb was empty.

And that’s the sort of inference I object to. It does not take the Jews believing the tomb was empty. Most Jews in the time Matthew was writing wouldn’t even have known it. all it takes is some Christians claiming it.

Look below, let “a” represent, the fact in dispute, which may or may not be reliable.
let “b” represent the historian’s inference, which is valid, whether nor not “a” is true. “c” is the final conclusion.

a). Matthew tells the story of a guard at the tomb and the Jews bribing the guard to say that the disciples stole the body.
b1). He would probably not have said this, unless the Jews were really claiming that the tomb was empty unless the disciples stole the body.
b2). By claiming the disciples stole the body, the Jews admitted that the tomb was really empty.
c). Therefore, it is historically probable that Jesus tomb was really empty.

As you can see, this claim of reasoning does not rest on Matthew’s story of the guard or the Jew’s bribing the guard being true. It works only from the fact that Matthew claimed the Jews bribed a guard, which is not in dispute. From this, we infer points b and c. This is how a historian would use even an unreliable source to pull out valuable nuggets of information. Here, it provides strong evidence of the empty tomb.

combined with other arguments, such as the present of the women as the discoverers of the empty tomb (which is unlikely to be invented since women were unreliable witnesses) we have independent reasons for thinking there really was an empty tomb. Historians will often accept even on line of reasoning as sufficient evidence for an event, the fact that we have several independent lines of evidence for the empty tomb, makes it very historically probable that there really was an empty tomb.

This is why, in the words of Jacob Kremer, “By far, most exegetes hold firmly to the biblical statements about the empty tomb.”

Mass hysteria can lead to hallucinations. And I don’t have evidence . All we have is a vague reference by Paul. It could have meant virtually everything.

So you admit that you are suggesting an idea for which you have no evidence? Then there is really nothing for me to refute. Historians deal in probability, it is not enough for you to toss around a bunch of ideas and see if something sticks, rather you have to show that your suggestion is more probable than mine. If you do not, then the rational thing to do is to believe my position.

Simply saying that mass hysteria can lead to hallucinations is not proof that it did. I have dealt with your hallucination hypothesis already,

The hallucination hypothesis is implausible for many reasons:
1). Hallucinations would have been taken as visions and they would not cause people to say that Jesus was resurrected (alive). As Wright says, “for someone in the ancient world, visions of the deceased are not evidence that a person is alive, but evidence that he is dead!”
2). The diversity of appearances across times to individuals and different groups is unlike anything is the psychological casebooks. He appeared at different times and places, to different groups, to believers and unbelievers and even to enemies.
added to the couple reasons I gave above, this shows why the hallucination hypothesis is widely rejected today.

 

[danserr]

You don’t appear to understand what I mean by legendary development. I mean the burial account is very bare, stark, and unadorned.

It was, of course earlier than other legends and shows less detail, but that does not say it is not based on legend.

You have yet to present any evidence that it is. The fact that Mark’s burial account lacks significant legendary development suggests that it is probably not legend. Consider it: Mark15:45-47: “So when [Pilate] found out from the centurian, he gave the body to Joseph. And he brought fine linen, took him down and wrapped him in the linen and he laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of rock. And rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. And Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of Joses observed where he was laid.”

What about this strikes you as legendary? Even if parts of Mark are legendary what reason do you have for thinking that this is? It is obviously stark, simple, and unadorned by legendary development. Second, as I have said, Rudolf Pesch dates Mark’s material to within (not later than) seven years of the crucifixion. The simplicity of the account tell strongly against the legend hypothosis. What part of the text I have quoted do you think is legendary and why?

Furthermore, the legend hypothesis:

Many things I have said tell against this, the presence of the women, the simplicity of the markan narrative, Paul’s reference to the empty tomb (he refers to Christ being buried, which supports the empty tomb, since it means the location of the tomb was well known.)

A.N. Sherwin-White, a Roman historian in Roman Society and Roman Law points out that sources for Greco-Roman history are typically biased and at least 1-2 generations removed from actual events, but historians use them confidently to reconstruct events. He says that tests show that even 1-2 generations is not enough time to wipe out the hard core of historical fact. Even is the gospels were as late as is often thought, this is not enough time. 2 generations lands you in the second century when you get the gnostic gospels, which are real legends and look like them. Finally, as I have said much of the stories, though written latter, go back even earlier, like Paul and the pre-mark passion source.
reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5207 (source)

Your fondness for referencing a handful people who may claim to see Michael Jackson then, is irrelevant. Why? Among other reasons, there is no comparison to the wide groups of people, close to the event, all agreeing on the burial, empty tomb, appearance, and resurrection of Jesus. Second this fails for reasons I give under the hallucination hypothesis.

It is hardly disputed among Biblical scholars that GMatthew was written in the 70s or 80s.

It is very much in dispute,
See John AT Robinsion, Re-dating the New Testament
Carsten Peter Thiede, Eyewitnesses to Jesus

but when Matt was written is not important for establishing the 3 facts I am concerned with. For the sake of argument, I grant the later dates and argue on that basis.

But the Jews didn’t produce any body, which would have been easy. to do.

Exactly. It would have been easy for the Jews to produce a body and they would have had the motivation to do it. The fact that they did not is evidence there was not a body there to produce! And as see, by their own polemic, the Jews admitted to the empty tomb.

The fact that Paul or the Jews never produced a body, given that they had the ability and very strong motivation to do so, suggest that were was no body to produce and hence, that Jesus’ tomb was really empty.

Despites claims to the contrary, the empty tomb is mentioned in the four gospels, three of which are generally acknowlegded to be interdependent, while the 4th is considered late enough to be based on accounts heard from people heraing about one of the 1st 3 gospels. So, a case can be made that in fact there is only one real attestation of an empty tomb,

Even if this were true, we still have other independent reasons for supposing the empty tomb, (such as the presence of the women and early Jewish polemic).
But I answered this in post 41 and you have not responded.

 

[danserr]

Just to clarify: that Wikipedia entry is just flat out false and misleading. That article is probably very old and made by someone who was influenced by the 2006-2008 trend of doubting Jesus’ historical existence. That Justin Martyr quotation is a huge giveaway.

Thanks for the heads up, I’m glad you noticed the fake Justin quotation, I wondered if it sounded weird, but missed it.

 

[danserr]

But how can you hold this position in light of Matthew 27:62-64? : “The next day,…the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, “Sir, we remember that this imposter while still alive said, ‘After three days I will be raised up.’ Give orders then, that the grave be secured until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him and say to the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead.’ This last imposture would be worse than the first.””

Are you saying that the people who killed Jesus were able to understand that Jesus predicted he would rise from the dead, but his disciples weren’t?

Luke, sorry for the slow response, this is an interesting question, which deserves more than the brief (but hopefully coherent) answer I’m going to give.

Actually, it is just this point that causes many scholars to think the story of the guard at the tomb is fake. I think they are wrong; they Jews had the motivation and ability to establish the guard reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5211

But the relevant point for your question is that scholars are so convinced that the disciples never “got” Jesus prediction of his resurrection, that they think it more probable that the story of the guard at the tomb is fake and the pharisees never got it either.

If you read the gospels, when Jesus predicts his own resurrection, the disciples never seem to get it. Actually, in some ways, the gospels are a big joke on the apostles, who never quite get it. they regularly describe the apostles failing to get the point or failing in some other way. (Which by the criterion of embarrassment supports the general reliability of the gospels).

Now here is the main point. The gospel says that the disciples never “got it.” This would have been an embarrassment, a big one actually, for Jesus’ disciples never to have understood him (and a bigger one that his enemies did). This means that the disciples probable really didn’t understand him. The criterion of embarrassment then makes is probable that Jesus disciples never understood him when he predicted his own death and resurrection. And it makes sense anyway, based on the disciples prior beliefs about resurrection.

 

[belorg]

Look below, let “a” represent, the fact in dispute, which may or may not be reliable.
let “b” represent the historian’s inference, which is valid, whether nor not “a” is true. “c” is the final conclusion.

a). Matthew tells the story of a guard at the tomb and the Jews bribing the guard to say that the disciples stole the body.
b1). He would probably not have said this, unless the Jews were really claiming that the tomb was empty unless the disciples stole the body.
b2). By claiming the disciples stole the body, the Jews admitted that the tomb was really empty.

What I dispute is b2. In Matthews time when some Christian told a Jewthat Jesus had risen, the Jew would have said, "Do you have any evidence?’ Tne Chrsitian would have replied: "His tomb was empty’, to which the Jew would say: “Maybe someone stole the body” …
It does not mean the Jew actually believed the tomb was empty, jus that some Chrsitians claimed it, which is not under dispute.
And therfore c) does not follow.

combined with other arguments, such as the present of the women as the discoverers of the empty tomb (which is unlikely to be invented since women were unreliable witnesses)

The story also says men verified it, so the fact that it were women just isn’t relevant for anything.

Historians will often accept even on line of reasoning as sufficient evidence for an event, the fact that we have several independent lines of evidence for the empty tomb, makes it very historically probable that there really was an empty tomb.

I do not see those independent lines of evidence. You’ll have to argue that the gospels are really independent, which is at least a very controversial issue. And outside the gospels, you have no line of evidence.

So you admit that you are suggesting an idea for which you have no evidence?

Of course I have no evidence other than the fact that these things are known to happen and resuurections not. But there was no sceptic present to give an objective account of the matter, so no, we only have the word of the ones that wrote diown the stoties.

Historians deal in probability, it is not enough for you to toss around a bunch of ideas and see if something sticks, rather you have to show that your suggestion is more probable than mine. If you do not, then the rational thing to do is to believe my position

.
Probability is determined by what the evindence shows and what is a priori more probable.

The hallucination hypothesis is implausible for many reasons:
1). Hallucinations would have been taken as visions and they would not cause people to say that Jesus was resurrected (alive). As Wright says, “for someone in the ancient world, visions of the deceased are not evidence that a person is alive, but evidence that he is dead!”

Who says that the 500 brethern believd in the resurrection due to their experience?
They may very well already have believed it by listening to the disciples.

2). The diversity of appearances across times to individuals and different groups is unlike anything is the psychological casebooks. He appeared at different times and places, to different groups, to believers and unbelievers and even to enemies.

Which ‘unbelievers’? And which enemies? We have no reason to think he appeared to Paul as anything more than a vision.

 

[belorg]

You have yet to present any evidence that it is. The fact that Mark’s burial account lacks significant legendary development suggests that it is probably not legend. Consider it: Mark15:45-47: “So when [Pilate] found out from the centurian, he gave the body to Joseph. And he brought fine linen, took him down and wrapped him in the linen and he laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of rock. And rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. And Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of Joses observed where he was laid.”

If the empty tomb is a legend, Mark contains a legend. Legends can form due to misinterpretation of a story within days of the alleged facts.

Second, as I have said, Rudolf Pesch dates Mark’s material to within (not later than) seven years of the crucifixion. The simplicity of the account tell strongly against the legend hypothosis.

Even if Mark was written 3 weeks after Jesus’ death it could have contained legend.
And Pesch is hardly undisputed.

Furthermore, the legend hypothesis:

Many things I have said tell against this, the presence of the women, the simplicity of the markan narrative, Paul’s reference to the empty tomb (he refers to Christ being buried, which supports the empty tomb, since it means the location of the tomb was well known.)

Paul does not mention the empty tomb. Sure it implies that Jesus had been buried. And if Jesus really resurrected he would have left his tomb empty, but there is no indication here that Paul knew of anybody witnessing an empty tomb or even knew where it was.

A.N. Sherwin-White, a Roman historian in Roman Society and Roman Law points out that sources for Greco-Roman history are typically biased and at least 1-2 generations removed from actual events, but historians use them confidently to reconstruct events. He says that tests show that even 1-2 generations is not enough time to wipe out the hard core of historical fact.

That is true if they were truly written as history, which the gospels may not have been, and the hard core of historical facts has to be identified as such.

Even is the gospels were as late as is often thought, this is not enough time. 2 generations lands you in the second century when you get the gnostic gospels, which are real legends and look like them.

Yes, the hnostic gospels look like true legends and they probably are, but that does not mean the canonic gospels do not contain legend.

Finally, as I have said much of the stories, though written latter, go back even earlier, like Paul and the pre-mark passion source.

Paul does not mention an empty tomb and the pre-markan passion source may have been written 6 years after the facts.

Your fondness for referencing a handful people who may claim to see Michael Jackson then, is irrelevant. Why? Among other reasons, there is no comparison to the wide groups of people, close to the event, all agreeing on the burial, empty tomb, appearance, and resurrection of Jesus. Second this fails for reasons I give under the hallucination hypothesis.

Have you checked their stories?

Exactly. It would have been easy for the Jews to produce a body and they would have had the motivation to do it. The fact that they did not is evidence there was not a body there to produce! And as see, by their own polemic, the Jews admitted to the empty tomb.

If they were truly motivated to do so , which I very much doubt, then they would have produced some body and claimed it was Jesus. Who could have proven it wasn’t Jesus?

The fact that Paul or the Jews never produced a body, given that they had the ability and very strong motivation to do so, suggest that were was no body to produce and hence, that Jesus’ tomb was really empty.

Eevn if Jesus’ tomb was empty there would have been several bodies to produce.

 

[Pieman333272]

It is hardly disputed among Biblical scholars that GMatthew was written in the 70s or 80s.

That is only because that has to happen for Markean priority. Now, I accept Markean priority but I have seen some compelling evidence against it in recent times which suggests Matthew came from the 40’s-60’s.

They could have produced any body and told it was Jesus. After so many years, it wouldn’t have been recognizable anyway.

Except that they labeled tombs. Not just with the name, but with whose son they were and sometimes sibling affiliations. The fact that he was crucified also cuts down the options.

But the Jews didn’t produce any body, which would have been easy. to do. And the Romans wouldn’t have bothered.

Exactly. Because His body was gone.

 

[gentle_atheist]

If I get that chance, I will correct Wikipedia’s entry. It was probably made by some atheist or loony skeptic who bought into the bunk “pagan parallels” BS, the Justin Martyr fake quote is huge giveaway.

I think that the quote is authentic… From The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr) on the New Advent website:

Chapter 21. Analogies to the history of Christ

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

 

[danserr]

The Empty Tomb: Evidence from early Jewish Polemic

Originally Posted by danserr View Post

Look below, let “a” represent, the fact in dispute, which may or may not be reliable.
let “b” represent the historian’s inference, which is valid, whether nor not “a” is true. “c” is the final conclusion.

a). Matthew tells the story of a guard at the tomb and the Jews bribing the guard to say that the disciples stole the body.
b1). He would probably not have said this, unless the Jews were really claiming that the tomb was empty unless the disciples stole the body.
b2). By claiming the disciples stole the body, the Jews admitted that the tomb was really empty.

What I dispute is b2. In Matthews time when some Christian told a Jewthat Jesus had risen, the Jew would have said, "Do you have any evidence?’ Tne Chrsitian would have replied: "His tomb was empty’, to which the Jew would say: “Maybe someone stole the body” …
It does not mean the Jew actually believed the tomb was empty, jus that some Chrsitians claimed it, which is not under dispute.
And therfore c) does not follow.

If you are only disputing b2, then you are accepting my reasoning up to that point and admitting that this is an rational procedure by which historians may pull valuable historical nuggets from even an unreliable source, which is excellent because now you understand that a case for Jesus’ Resurrection does not require you to assume the reliability of the gospels. You admit that Matt really claimed this (obviously), and then that we may infer that he would not have said this unless the Jews were really claiming this. Excellent.

But we can go further. You question b2, namely, that “by claiming the disciples stole the body, the Jews admitted the tomb was really empty.” Now this actually seems obvious, because if the tomb was really not empty, the Jews would just have claimed that. Why? It would be a far more effective rebuttal to claim that Jesus’ body was really there, than to claim the tomb was empty but Jesus’ disciples stole the body. But they did not. The fact is that there is no evidence that the Jews ever tried to produce a body and claim that it was Jesus’s, since this would have been the easiest way to refute Christianity, but they did not do it, this suggests that the tomb was really empty and Jesus’ opponents knew it. This is especially valuable evidence because it comes, not from Jesus’ own followers, but from his enemies!.

You try to claim (as you did once before, and I refuted) that maybe it was not worth the trouble for the Jews to produce the body. But this is clearly false, the disciples were obviously worth persecuting and killing (as Paul admits he himself did), think how much easier would it have been to produce Jesus’ body if that were really possible. But they did not. This implies they could not. When faced with the disciples’ claim of the Resurrection, they Jews never tried to claim the body was really there, nor did they try to produce a body. Rather, they claimed that Jesus’ disciples stole the body, by which means, even the enemies of Christianity admitted that the tomb was empty!

The Empty Tomb: Evidence from the Presence of Women

The story also says men verified it, so the fact that it were women just isn’t relevant for anything.

I responded to this question is post 49, which I copy below for your greater convenience.

The point is that any role in which the women played a part, was a role that could have been better served by men. It would still be embarrassing that the first witnesses to the empty tomb were women, especially Mary Mag., who had a checkered past (from whom Jesus had driven 7 demons, ie.sin). If these stories had been invented to try to convince people, they would never have put the women, especially Mary Mag. in such a role. The pagan Celsus, for instance, just ridiculed the Christianity as “based on the testimony of some hysterical women.”

That the disciples did not believe the women at first only confirms this, that women were not considered reliable witnesses, and that they must themselves have required some stronger proof before they would believe. So by the criterion of embarrassment, the presence of women as the discoverers of the empty tomb strongly supports the idea that the tomb really was empty. Their presence was an embarrassment. It would not have been invented.

St. Paul, for instance, when listing the witness to the Resurrection in Corinthians, never mentions the women. Why? Because they were an embarrassment. He didn’t say “well, the women saw it first, but then some men saw it too.” Mentioning the women was just pointless for trying to convince people that it happened. Yet, in spite of this, the gospel writers put the women front and center, which strongly supports the reliability of the accounts.

So, of course, the women being there is relevant. Paul never bother to put them in because he knew it would be pointless, and the Pagan Celsus ridiculed Christianity for being founded on “the testimony of some hysterical women.”

Therefore, the presence of the women as discoverers of the empty tomb, by the criteria of embarrassment, suggests that the tomb was really empty. This is another line of evidence supporting the empty tomb.

 

[danserr]

I do not see those independent lines of evidence. You’ll have to argue that the gospels are really independent, which is at least a very controversial issue. And outside the gospels, you have no line of evidence.

They are two independent reasons, the Jewish polemic, and the presence of the women. Neither is dependent on the other, take on away and the other still stands, especially because as I say repeatedly (and show above), a case for the resurrection does not depend on considering the gospels reliable sources, only pulling valuable nuggets of info. from them. Another independent reason is that the empty tomb and burial account are multiply attested in early sources I showed this in post 41 and you still have not
responded.

Also, it is not entirely true that we have no evidence for the empty tomb outside the gospels. Another reason in support is that the graves of Jewish Holy men were often revered after death, but there is not evidence that Jesus’ tomb every was. This supports the empty tomb (since if the tomb were empty there would be no reasons for reverence the tomb.

Probability is determined by what the evindence shows and what is a priori more probable.

And since you admit that you have no evidence for your views, the rational thing to do is to reject them.
You can’t just throw out a bunch of desperate possibilities and hope that something sticks. Rather, if you want to reject the views for which I provide evidence, you have to provide evidence for your own views. Secondly, you have taken a variety of contradictory positions. You have alternately claimed that women could be reliable witnesses (which is obviously wrong), and that it didn’t matter that they were unreliable because men checked the tomb anyway (also obviously mistaken). This suggests that there is something insincere in your questions. You are not really trying to figure out what happened, only looking for an excuse to avoid the Resurrection. But think about it, the fact that you have been forced into so many contradictory and ad hoc positions, should make you wonder if the Resurrection is probable after all.

Who says that the 500 brethern believd in the resurrection due to their experience?
They may very well already have believed it by listening to the disciples.

You did. Given what Resurrection entailed and how different it was from Jewish belief, they would have required some strong proof, including an empty tomb and the risen appearances. The appearances alone would not have caused them to say that Jesus was risen, only that they had visions or saw his ghost.

Which ‘unbelievers’? And which enemies? We have no reason to think he appeared to Paul as anything more than a vision.

There is Paul’s own testimony. He claims he saw the risen Christ. Second, visions are solely in the mind, Paul’s companions also saw something take place. Third, Paul was in no way disposed toward hallucination.
If you reject Paul, then an unbeliever who Jesus appeared to would be his “brother” James (not to be confused with the James of Peters, James, and John). This James was always an unbeliever even during Jesus’ lifetime, yet he saw the risen Christ after his Resurrection.

Originally Posted by danserr View Post
You have yet to present any evidence that it is. The fact that Mark’s burial account lacks significant legendary development suggests that it is probably not legend. Consider it: Mark15:45-47: “So when [Pilate] found out from the centurian, he gave the body to Joseph. And he brought fine linen, took him down and wrapped him in the linen and he laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of rock. And rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. And Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of Joses observed where he was laid.”

If the empty tomb is a legend, Mark contains a legend. Legends can form due to misinterpretation of a story within days of the alleged facts.

This is logically equivalent to saying: “if Mark contains a legend, then Mark contains a legend.” Obviously. But it does nothing to show that the account of the empty tomb is a legend as you seem to want to claim. Which part of that burial account strikes you as being evidence of a legendary development, ie. something fantastic and strange like tales of Paul Bunyan, legends of King Arthur and dragons etc?

Simply saying “Legends can form within days” is not evidence that they did so form (which is mistaken anyway as Sherwin-White shows). Rather, the simplicity of the burial account and the obvious fact that it shows no signs of legendary development support the idea that is it now legend, and hence provides another independent reason for thinking that Jesus’ tomb was really found empty.