Evidence for the Resurrection

[Goose]

In my opinion, when determining the truthfulness of Christianity virtually everything is secondary in importance to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the Rez). Paul made this clear when he said in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "if Christ has not been raised, then our message means nothing and your faith means nothing." I believe the truthfulness of Christianity hangs primarily on the Rez.

I also believe there is a solid case for the Rez that meets a reasonable burden of proof for matters of history. Equal, at least, to that which we accept for other pivotal events in ancient history accepted as true and rarely questioned.

As indicated by the spectrum of the below quoted scholars and historians, I propose we can be reasonably certain some historical "facts" are probably true regardless of our philosophical predispositions. We can then look at theories that account for those facts.

The Methodology:

A "fact" shouldn't necessarily need to pass all of the listed criteria to be considered probable. Failing any one particular criterion does not necessarily make the fact false. Indeed very few, if any at all, ancient historical "facts" we rarely question would adequately pass all the requests of such a rigorous criteria as set out below. However, a fact that fails to pass a single criterion we would be justified in believing it to be improbable. Passing one or two should be sufficient to have the "fact" be at least considered probable. If a fact passes three I think we can be confident that it is very probable and so on. This methodology is not fool-proof of course as it is open to our biases and ultimately subjective to a degree. However, this seems to be the only way (I know of) to establish a reasonably objective treatment of evidence - i.e. pass the evidence through a standard set of criteria using a consistent methodology that can be applied to ALL ancient events. So, using criteria such as (but not limited to)...

• 1. Eyewitness attestation
  2. Early attestation (the earlier the better - written during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses is preferred)
  3. Multiple independent attestation (independent does not mean non-Christian, but rather independent from other sources)
  4. Enemy or neutral source attestation
  5. The Principle of Embarrassment (If it's embarrassing or harmful to the case it is very likely that it is authentic or actually happened. It's very unlikely to have been propaganda simply “made up”)

Marcus J. Borg, a liberal theologian and "fellow" of the Jesus Seminar wrote, "The logic is straightforward: if a tradition appears in an early source and in another independent source, then not only is it early, but it is also unlikely to have been made up." Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus (1999), p. 12.

Historian Paul Maier notes, "Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable." Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks a Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (1991), p. 197.


As a side note, I’m confident we can reconcile alleged contradictions in the NT, demonstrate traditional authorship of the Gospels/Acts (i.g. The disciple Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and so on. Just as we would for any other ancient document, see here ), and demonstrate the synoptics were written before 70AD. However, we'll forgo debate over the preceding to avoid rabbit trails and make it more of a challenge for the Rez theory. So, for the sake of argument in this thread we will assume:

• 1. The Bible is errant and not inspired by God. We'll consider it merely a collection of ancient writings.
  2. The Gospels/Acts are technically anonymous and may or may not be eyewitness accounts.
  3. The Gospels and other Christian/non-Christian accounts contain minor errors and contradictions in secondary details.
  4. The Gospels/Acts were written after 70AD, but no later than 100AD.
  5. Mark was the first Gospel written. The authors of Luke and Matthew used some of Mark as a source for their Gospels.

We could submit many, but to start, here are 5 "facts" that should pass enough of the listed criteria to be considered probable:

FACT 1. Jesus’ crucifixion and death

• a) Early (and enemy) attestation from the Apostle Paul - (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, 2:15; 1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:2 and early creedal passages in 1 Corinthians 15:3 - ca. 50-60AD)
  b) Multiple attestation in all four Gospels and the Book of Acts (ca. 70-100AD)
  c) Enemy/neutral attestation from Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18:64 - 96AD)
  d) Enemy/neutral attestation from Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15:44 - ca. 115AD)
  e) Enemy/neutral attestation from Greek satirical writer Lucian (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13 - ca. 150AD)
  f) Enemy/neutral attestation from Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a - ca. 200AD)
  g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the humiliating suffering and death of a supposed Messiah and the Son of God (as well as Principle of Dissimilarity from Jewish anticipation of a military type leader in the Messiah).

Atheist NT scholar Gerd Lüdemann acknowledged, "Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable." Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Christ, pg 50.

The critical NT scholar and Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan wrote, "Jesus’ death by execution under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For, if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus...We have, in other words, not just Christian witnesses but one major Jewish and one major pagan historian who both agree on three points concerning Jesus: there was a movement, there was an execution because of that movement, but, despite that execution, there was a continuation of the movement." John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, pg. 5

Crossan also said, "Despite the differences between the studied impartiality of Josephus and the sneering partiality of Tacitus, they agree on three rather basic facts. First, there was some sort of a movement connected with Jesus. Second, he was executed by official authority presumably to stop the movement. Third, rather than being stopped, the movement continued to spread. There remain, therefore, these three: movement, execution, continuation. But the greatest of these is continuation." John Dominic Crossan, The Essential Jesus, p. 7.

John P. Meier wrote, "For two obvious reasons practically no one would deny the fact that Jesus was executed by crucifixion: (1) This central event is reported or alluded to not only by the vast majority of NT authors, but also by Josephus and Tacitus...(2) Such an embarrassing event created a major obstacle to converting Jews and Gentiles alike...that the Church struggled to overcome..." (John P. Meier, "The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist during Jesus' Public Ministry?", Journal of Biblical Literature 116 [1997] p. 664–665).


FACT 2. The tomb was discovered empty.

• a) Early attestation from Paul - he implies an empty tomb (1 Cor. 15:3-4)
  b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (the very early Pre-Markan Passion source probably contained the empty tomb)
  c) The disciples were accused of stealing Jesus’ body by unbelieving Jews - indirect enemy confirmation that the tomb was empty (Matthew 28, Christian apologist Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 108 - ca. 150AD; Christian apologist Tertullian De Spectaculis 30 - ca. 200AD)
  d) The principle of embarrassment applies to the empty tomb reported as having been discovered by women
  e) We have no record of Jesus’ corpse being produced only accusations that the disciples stole the body.
  f) Setting the stage for the empty tomb was the honourable burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimethea (another fact we could admit as number 6 - but won't as it isn't really necessary to do so). It is attested by all four Gospels. As well Paul mentions the burial of Jesus(1 Cor 15). It also is strengthened by the Principle of Embarrassment where a Jewish member of the council, rather than a disciple or family member, that condemned Jesus was reported as honourably burring Jesus. This would have been offensive to the disciples and as such is unlikely to be a fabrication.

Liberal theologian John A. T. Robinson commented on the burial of Jesus, "[it is] one of the earliest and best–attested facts about Jesus." John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (1973), p. 131.

William Wand, a past Oxford University church historian wrote, "All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favour [of the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other grounds than that of scientific history." William Wand, Christianity: A Historical Religion? (1972), p. 93-94

NT critic D. H. Van Daalen wrote, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." D.H. Van Daalen, The Real Resurrection(1972), p. 41.


FACT 3. The apostles sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and then appeared to them. So sincerely that some were willing to endure persecution and possibly even death because of this belief:

Claims of appearances to the disciples:

• a) Early (and enemy) attestation from Paul (1 Cor. 15:4-8)
  b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (even without the later addition of 16:9-20, early attestation in Mark's Gospel predicts the Rez and appearances in 8:31, 9:31, 10:34 and suggests there will be appearances made by Jesus 14:28, 16:6-7)
  c) Multiple attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 1-5, 10, 13, 17)
  d) Possible neutral/enemy attestation from Tacitus (he may be inadvertently providing evidence that the apostles at least believed Jesus appeared to them in Annals 15:44 when he says, "...[Christianity] thus checked for the moment [by the crucifixion of Jesus], again broke out not only in Judea...")
  e) Possible neutral/enemy attestation from Josephus (he may be reporting that the disciples at least believed Jesus appeared to them in Antiquities 18)
  f) The Principle of Dissimilarity applies to the notion of a man/Messiah resurrecting from the dead before the end of time was contrary to Jewish belief and therefore reduces the odds it was "made up."
  g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the evidence that some disciples at the first instance did not believe but had doubts that Jesus was alive (Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:36-38, John 20:24-25).

Persecution and death of some disciples:

• a) Early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 12 - death of James brother of John)
  b) Early attestation from Clement of Rome (1 Clement 5 - ca. 95AD)
  c) Attestation from Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3:2-3 - ca. 110AD)
  d) Attestation from Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9 - ca. 110AD)
  e) Attestation from Dionysius of Corinth (ca. 170AD - quoted by Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2:25:8)
  f) Attestation from Tertullian (Scorpiace 15 - ca. 200AD)
  g) Attestation from Origen (Contra Celsum 2:56,77 - ca. 230-250AD)

Atheist NT scholar Gerd Ludemann said, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus? A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, (1995) p. 80. (It should be noted Ludemann believes these were visions)

Paula Fredriksen, a sceptical historian and scholar of religious studies, said in an interview with Peter Jennings (ABC) entitled The Search for Jesus in July 2000, "I know in [the disciples] own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that's what they saw. I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something."



FACT 4. Paul, an enemy and persecutor of the church (Acts 8:3, 1 Cor. 15:9, Gal. 1:13) was transformed and became a prolific apostle because of his belief that a risen Jesus appeared to him. He was persecuted and reported as martyred.

Appearances of Jesus to Paul and his conversion:

• a) Early, multiple and eyewitness attestation from Paul himself (1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1, Phil. 3)
  b) Multiple and early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 9, 22, 26)

Paul’s suffering/martyrdom:

• a) Early, multiple and eyewitness attestation from Paul for his suffering (2 Cor. 11, Phil. 1)
  b) Multiple and early attestation from Book of Acts (ch. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23)
  c) Early attestation from Clement of Rome (1 Clement 5)
  d) Attestation from Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9:2)
  e) Attestation from Tertullian (Scorpiace 15 and also quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2:25:8)
  f) Attestation from Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170AD - quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:25:8)
  g) Attestation from Origen (Commentary on Genesis as quoted by Eusebius in EH 3:1)

FACT 5. James, brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and sceptic of His claims before the appearance of Jesus to him, was transformed and became a leader in the Church in Jerusalem. He was reported as martyred.

• a) Principle of Embarrassment applies as Jesus' own family and brother James were described as sceptical prior to appearances (multiply attested - Matthew 13:57, Mark 3:21, 6:3-4, John 7:4-5)
  b) Jesus appeared alive to James after His death (early and enemy attestation from Paul - 1 Cor. 15:7)
  c) James is later described as an apostle by Paul(Gal 1:19) and leader in the early church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9,12 and Acts 15)
  d) Suffered and martyred - Enemy/neutral attestation from Josephus (ca. 96AD - Antiquities 20), further multiple attestation from Hegesippus (ca. 160AD - as quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2:23), and Clement of Alexandria (ca. 180-200AD as quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:1).

Note that none of these 5 facts are supernatural or hard to believe on their own. They are all well attested with early and multiple sources. By any reasonable historical methodology these should be considered solid facts. Keep in mind on their own each fact presented does not build a strong case for the Rez. However, it is as a collective unit we must consider the evidence. We are looking for the best explanation that accounts for ALL the evidence. I posit the theory that God resurrected Jesus from the dead best accounts for ALL the evidence and combines explanatory power and scope given the context of Jesus' life and the claims made of Him and by Him.

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?


Additional considerations and requests:
1. Persons who side with the weight of evidence, what the evidence suggests, and cogent arguments supported by good evidence could be described as taking a rational position. We would be justified in deeming "irrational" a position that denies evidence with out good reason and opposes strong arguments to side with weak unsupported arguments. On this, we can all agree.

2. As history deals more with degrees of probability rather than absolute certainty I would suggest the following. A single theory that has explanatory scope and power, given the context of surrounding events, and accounts for ALL the evidence should be considered more probable over a compilation of several theories stacked upon one another in an ad hoc manner. Especially if those ad hoc theories are speculation rich and evidence poor.

3. Please supply the methodology/criteria for questioning any one of these 5 facts (or any other evidence one wishes to refute or admit for consideration). We can then apply this methodology to other ancient historical facts. This will help us determine if the objection has credibility or is merely stemming from a bias against either the supernatural or Christianity. Simply making the objection, for example, that we cannot trust anything written by a Christian because they were biased is very problematic. Applying that overly simplistic criterion to the rest of ancient history would call almost all of it into question (even most of modern history).

I'll look forward to reading the responses.

[Goose]

Duke, you've presented a similar argument to that of MrWhy a few posts ago. But you've taken some time to respond so I'll address your post.

Goose: You're making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

That's an interesting perspective. I'm looking for the explanation that has explanatory power, scope and accounts for all the evidence. The web of theories and conspiracies you guys have to come up with to squirm out of it is certainly NOT simple.

I pointed out supernatural aspects preclude claims from being considered historical...

You beg the question. You've backed yourself into the corner of some painfully obvious circular reasoning. It looks like this:

Sceptic: Show me some evidence for your supernatural claim.
Christian: Ok, here it is, (see the OP)...
Sceptic: I don't accept that evidence because it is a supernatural claim.
Christian:

And around we go, where we stop, nobody knows...

...Today, when people claim to have seen the impossible we demand evidence of them or consign their claims to the wastebasket of lies or embelishment. Why should we do otherwise for history? When we see historical claims that involve supernatural aspects, the last thing we do is believe them at face value.

You are missing the entire point of this thread. I'm not asking anyone to accept the claim at face value. I'm suggesting we use a standard methodology to look at the claim. In fact, if you read the OP again, not one of the 5 facts I've presented is a supernatural claim. There could be naturalistic explanations for each one. However, we are looking for the BEST explanation that has explanatory power and scope and best accounts for ALL the facts given the context. It's a logical process.

There may have been a Trojan war. Do you think Ares and Apollo participated in it? Of course not. The question then becomes "Was there a guy who Apollo was based on or is it something the author outright invented?" The Ilead is (at best) a work of historical fiction... heavy on the fiction.

If you'd like to pass the evidence for the claims in the Iliad through my methodology in the OP, that's fine by me. We can then look for an explanation that best accounts for the evidence.

The NT is the same way. There wasn't a Jesus, but instead a host of individuals who caused a ruckus with the Romans and Jewish authorities alike. This is well documented from Josephus and others. We also have records of early first century wannabe prophets and messiahs. There simply is no valid record of the godman alleged in the gospels.

No "valid record"? Let's see the "valid record" documenting these other wannabe's. Let's see if they are any more "valid" than the record for Jesus. The funny thing Duke, is you take the word of people like Josephus and Tacitus to support your argument yet you reject their testimony when it's against your argument.

As to supernatural claims, you accused me of dismissing them a priori... that I refuse to consider the evidence. Nothing could be further from the truth. I consider the supernatural false because evidence demonstrates it as being false.

Perhaps you haven't seen ALL the evidence yet. Or the evidence hasn't been presented in a correct format. If you take the position that there is NO evidence for the supernatural, this would be logically impossible for you to know. You would need to be all-knowing. You can not possibly know all the evidence in existence or that has ever existed. Therefore, you must be open to the possibility that the supernatural might exist. It would be a much more intellectually honest and tenable position for you say that so far there hasn't been evidence presented that you feel warrants belief in the supernatural.

You see, the issue of the rez is a scientific question...

No it isn't. It's a historical one. You're beginning to build a strawman argument. Matters of history are technically speaking non-repeatable and therefore can not be subjected to the scientific process. We are NOT conducting a scientific experiment but rather a historical enquiry.

The rez has similar problems. We know from biology what happens in the brain after death and how it's impossible for a person to be a living breathing talking functional person after three days of death.

You're strawman argument is now completed. Science tells us that people do not return to life by natural means once dead. The Rez hypothesis does NOT claim that Jesus rose by natural means but rather by supernatural. The supernatural along with history can not be subjected to the scientific process. If the supernatural exists then it is entirely possible that God acted in space and time, violated the laws of physics, and raised Jesus from the dead.

Now, the obvious way around all this is to say "goddidit", but as soon as you invoke god you're no longer talking about an historic claim.

Why? The only way one can hold to this position is if they reject the supernatural a priori. You're back into your circular argument again.

As for Philo? You've used improper terminology. The "Jesus-mythers" were individuals living towards the end of the first century and early second century who invented the Jesus myth. What you're evading (like most people do in this argument) is the fact we have records from the early part of the first century. We have recollections of Josephus, writings of Philo and many others. This is an era of literacy due to the written religion of the Jews... the first century equivalent of the blogger community. Into this community comes a magical man drawing huge crowds:

You don't see the irony in the, "We have recollections of Josephus" statement, eh? You're again willing to use him for your argument.

Duke prove that Philo existed. All we have are some anonymous writings assigned to some guy named Philo who we think is from Alexandria and allegedly existed in the first half of the first century. Despite his allegedly prolific writings and impact on Christianity we haven't a "peep" about him until 50 years later by a fellow biased Jew Josephus. No one is even really sure when Philo was born or died. Even the Christian writings that Philo allegedly so heavily influenced don't even so much as allude to him. Go ahead, prove Philo existed... He's a myth Duke, a creation of Jewish polemics. Philo never existed! Try and prove me wrong while I use your methodology.

• 7 But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea, 8 And from Jerusalem,and from Idumaea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him. 9 And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should throng him.

Mark 3:7-8

There's another passage I can't find at the moment that discusses Roman soldiers having to work their way through a crowd to get to Jesus.

So, what we have are allegations from the seventh decade of the first century claiming a rock-star-popular godman performed magic in the earlier parts of the century and early first century accounts which are utterly silent on the issue. Taking into account we know the individuals who invented Christianity did so deliberately to "re-judify" Judea... understanding they were like the Mormons or Scientologists of their time... Which do you think is more likely?

Which is more likely? That's easy - it's what the evidence suggests. That's ALWAYS the more likely answer Duke. The most likely answer is NOT the one you WANT it to be. Nor is the most likely answer the one that requires an elborate scheme of unsupported theories stacked upon each other like a game of Jenga. The evidence suggests Jesus lived, died by crucifixion, was buried, and was seen alive by different people in different places at different times over a period of several days.

As aside note, Tiberius Caesar - the emperor in power during the life of Jesus - had more than "rock star" status. Yet we have only 10 extant sources that reference him within 150 years, most Roman and therefore biased. By comparison, there are approximately 42 sources that make some reference to Jesus in the first 150 years after his death (some Christian and some not). Even if we remove the Christian sources we're at a tie of 9 each. Not too shabby for a trouble making Jew that was executed like a common criminal.

Note also that the argument from silence is not always fallacious:

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argume ... o_the_Rule

The first sentence from the wiki article, "In general, no inferences can be drawn from a lack of evidence."

But hey, if you're giving the green light to an argument from silence fallacy, then I'll employ it too. There isn't a single record or scrap of evidence from the first century that counters the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Yet there were many parties that had a vested interest to do so. Therefore, the Rez is true. How's that for an argument?



Duke, I think I've been pretty patient and allowed you to take this thread off course long enough. I've taken some time to address your arguments. I'll expect your next post to address the question for debate.

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?

[Beto]

Sceptic: Show me some evidence for your supernatural claim.
Christian: Ok, here it is, (see the OP)...
Sceptic: I don't accept that evidence because it is a supernatural claim.
Christian:

If the problem begins because one asks for proof of a supernatural claim, why would you offer a second one as evidence? Aren't you the one causing the circular reasoning?

[stevencarrwork]

In my opinion, when determining the truthfulness of Christianity virtually everything is secondary in importance to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the Rez). Paul made this clear when he said in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "if Christ has not been raised, then our message means nothing and your faith means nothing." I believe the truthfulness of Christianity hangs primarily on the Rez.

Paul , of course, was speaking to people who had converted to Christianity and scoffed at the idea that God would choose to raise a corpse.

Paul regards the whole idea of discussing how a corpse is raised as idiotic, and reminds the Jesus-worshippers that the body that is planted is not the body that is sown.

Paul reminds them that heavenly things are as different from earthly things as a fish is different to the moon.

Nobody thinks a fish turns into the moon.

So why were the idiot Corinthians discussing how a corpse can turn into a resurrected being?

Paul heaps scorn on the idea that resurrected beings are made of the dust that a corpse dissolves into.

The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God....

Paul goes on to contrast God breathing life into dead matter (and so creating Adam), with what happened to Jesus , who became a life-giving spirit.

In short, Paul simply has no idea that a corpse was supposed to be raised from the ground.

Or else he would have rubbed the converts to Jesus-worshipper's noses in stories of corpses rising from the ground.

Instead, he regards them as stupid for even discussing how corpses can rise.

[stevencarrwork]

What principle of embarrasment?

According to the earliest Gospel, the resurrection was announced by a man, not a woman.

Paul nowhere implies ANY tomb, empty or otherwise.

Why did people convert to Jesus-worship and scoff at the idea of God choosing to raise a corpse?

It is like people converting to Mormonism and laughing at the idea of Joseph Smith being a prophet.

If that had happened, Christians would claim that Mormonism was obviously false.

[stevencarrwork]

Maybe you can start by citing where Mark lifted the Rez from Homer and the LXX.

In 2 Kings 4:27-37 a distraught parent of an only child comes to Elisha just as in Mark 5:22-24 (which continues in verses 35-43) a distraught parent of an only child comes to Jesus,pleading for help.

In both stories someone tries to discourage the parent from bothering Elisha and Jesus.

In both stories it is unclear to some people in the story whether the child is dead ,dying or asleep.

In both stories the child is in a house some distance away.


In both stories a second source comes from the house and confirms that the child is dead.

In both stories Jesus and Elisha continue anyway to the house.

In both stories the parent precedes Elisha or Jesus

In both stories Elisha and Jesus seek a high degree of privacy by turning people out of the house before their miracle .

The story in Mark is such an obvious rewrite of the story in Kings that if I remind you that Jairus in Mark 5 falls at Jesus's feet, you can guess what the parent in 2 Kings 4 did.

As confirmation that Mark used 2 Kings 4 for his stories of the feeding of a crowd, and the raising of a dead child, Mark 5:42 says that after the miracle, the parents were 'amazed with great amazement' (exestesan ekstasei megale), while 2 Kings 4:13 we have 'amazed with all amazement' (exestesas... pasan ten ekstasin tauten)

Or take another miracle...

Jesus in Luke 7 raises the son of a widow from the dead. In 1 Kings 17, Elijah raises the son of a widow from the dead. Both stories employ exactly the same words - and he gave him to his mother.The Greek is 'kai edoken auton te metri autou', copied word for word from the Septuagint version of 1 Kings 17.

Did Luke use 1 Kings 17 as a basis for his story? Jesus met the widow at the gate of a city. Elijah met his widow in 1 Kings 17:10. It should come as no surprise that it was at the gate of a city. Luke 7 also copies other phrases from the Septuagint version of 1 Kings 17.

Luke writes 'tay pulay tays poleos kai idoo' (to the gate of a city and behold), which is almost identical to the Old Testament Greek of 'tou pulona tays poleos kai idoo'.

How much ripping-off would you like?

Of course, Paul knew nothing of these stories.


So little that when one of his greatest followers wanted to teach other followers of Christ about the birth of a child, which ushered in a new covenant, he never thought about using the birth of Jesus. (Galatians 4)

And when the writer of Hebrews wanted a good example of a valuable thing being betrayed for a small reward, he did not think the betrayal of Jesus was the example he wanted - he preferred the story of Esau.

Why were early Christians not inspired by the Gospel stories about Jesus?

Because they had not been written at the time Paul and the author of Hebews were writing.

[stevencarrwork]

I think Goose might need more examples of the plagiarism found in the Gospels.

In Jonah the sailors and Jonah are in a boat during a dreadful storm just as in Mark 4 the disciples and Jesus are on a boat. The sailors look for Jonah and find him asleep. The disciples look for Jesus and find him asleep.

This could be a coincidence except that this story is the one and only time Jesus is ever shown sleeping in the entire New Testament.


Sleeping in a tiny, tiny boat on the point of sinking, during a storm of such severity that experienced sailors were unable to cope, is quite a feat.


One best selling commentary on Matthew in the UK is by J.C.Fenton, who was Principal of Lichfield Theological College. He says about Matthew 8:24 'but he was asleep recalls Jonah 1:5, Jonah ...was fast asleep.'

He says about Matthew 8:25:- 'they went and woke him, saying, Save (soson), Lord (kyrie), we are perishing. (apollymetha) Cf Jonah 1:6, So the captain came and said to him, What do you mean, you sleeper? Arise, call upon your God (Kyrie)! Perhaps your God will give a thought to us. (Greek 'save us' diasose), that we do not perish (apollometha). He says about Matthew 8:27 'And the men (hoi de anthropoi)... Are they an echo of Jonah 1:16 -Then the men (hoi andres) feared the Lord exceedingly.?' When else does Matthew call the disciples 'the men'?

Mark also is quite aware that the story comes from Jonah, as he also draws heavily upon it.

In both Mark 4 and Jonah the witnesses after the sea-calming miracle are portrayed as afraid and awe-struck. In Mark 4 'feared with great fear (ephobethesan phobon megan)'. In Jonah (LXX) 'feared the men with great fear' (ephobethesan hoi andres phobon megan)



Mark's Gospel is anonymous, makes no mention of sources, or where the stories came from, or gives any attempt at chronology.

It has NONE of the markers which ancient historians used to indicate that they were writing history.

And it relies heavily on the LXX for its stories.

[stevencarrwork]

FACT 5. James, brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and sceptic of His claims before the appearance of Jesus to him, was transformed and became a leader in the Church in Jerusalem. He was reported as martyred.

Name one first century source which said that James was a 'sceptic' and then was 'transformed'

Give one word by this James where he said he saw a corpse rise from the dead.

How could James have been a 'sceptic'?

Didn't he know that when his brother was born, his mother knew she was carrying her Lord and Saviour?

Didn't he know that his brother had had a miraculous conception and angels and magi had visited the family, who had been spared by a miraculous intervention?

Hadn't James observed 30 years of Jesus literally Christ like behaviour?

Hadn't James observed that Jesus was the only Jew who never made sin offerings?

By contast, the Gospels claim that John the Baptist leapt for joy in the womb (!!!) when in the prescence of Jesus. (Ludicrous nonsense, but that is what it says)

If that was the effect Jesus had on his cousin, how could James have been a sceptic, especially considering the amazing events that had happened to his family


But as Goose is trumpeting the fact that James was a sceptic and then preached a bodily resurrection, perhaps he can find one person in the first century who claimed that was true..

You can give up finding James himself saying that. That at least would be evidence of a claim by James to be a sceptic and then be transformed...

And Goose hasn't even got that.

[MrWhy]

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?

The age of the text, and absence of non-biblical corroboration makes the evidence very light weight. The weight of the evidence is reduced to null when you consider the extraordinary nature of the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In face of such an extraordinary claim, the evidence you present is less plausible than some other explanations.

We have better evidence of alien spaceships and abductions than we have of a resurrection. There were/are living eyewitnesses interviewed. Photos and radar images. Visual sightings by experienced pilots. Yet, hardly any serious analyst or scientist thinks alien visitors is the best explanation for this evidence. Do you?

[Zzyzx]

.
MrWhy,

You make excellent points.

The age of the text, and absence of non-biblical corroboration makes the evidence very light weight. The weight of the evidence is reduced to null when you consider the extraordinary nature of the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In face of such an extraordinary claim, the evidence you present is less plausible than some other explanations.

We have better evidence of alien spaceships and abductions than we have of a resurrection. There were/are living eyewitnesses interviewed. Photos and radar images. Visual sightings by experienced pilots. Yet, hardly any serious analyst or scientist thinks alien visitors is the best explanation for this evidence. Do you?

Furthermore, “resurrection” is essential to Christianity. Unless it is true, the religion is a fraud. AND, there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that a godman actually “arose from the dead”. That has not been proved to be anything more than a myth or legend created by churchmen to “shock and awe” their audience and increase income and influence.

It seems unwise to base one’s life or beliefs on a single event that may well have been nothing more than an overactive imagination of storytellers thousands of years ago.

That millions fervently “believe” the tale is NOT an indication that it is true.

[Cathar1950]

I am having problems with the OP and your line of “reasoning” Goose.
As I was saying earlier, you presuppose the gospels are historical accounts.
You ask for a better explanation for the resurrection as if it had actually happened and someone actually witnessed it. None of the writers fit that category and each gospel writers used Mark who was clearly not a witness. Mark reads like an ancient Roman/Greek hero tale including the missing person.
He ends his gospel with the supposed missing body. I will get back to that later.
Stevencarrwork makes an excellent point concerning Paul's understanding. Paul shows little interest in a resurrected body as do the other writing bot in the NT and outside that predate the gospel.
It seem they did not separate the resurrection from his accession. When they spoke of God raising Jesus , it simple sound like he was elevated to God's right hand much like the Enoch tales.
It is far more likely that the gospel writers used both the death of Moses and the taking of Enoch or Elijah. As on scholar points out, even Josephus and Philo tell the story of the death of Moses where it was thought he was taken by God because they didn't know where the body was. It is a common plot in Roman/Greek hero stories. Mark creates the first story with no mention of Jesus walking around, asking for his followers to stick their fingers in his holes, or having lunch with his disciples.
The other gospel writers using Mark update his story a generation later and embellish with their own fictions. It is funny how none of the detail are the same and the tale get bigger with each telling of the gospel stories. You ask us to find an alternative explanation for fiction as you presume the gospels are fact. Given all the other tales of missing bodies that were presumed taken to the gods, no other explanation is necessary while your explanation misunderstands the type of writing the gospels are, hero tales. Mark knows nothing of the guards at the tomb or any of the other appearances. Not one of the gospel show similarities except the use of Mark where they plainly seem to have made up what they didn't know. Mark's gospel stresses the secret Christ while the others write about all kinds of miracles with multitudes. Mark has Jesus and angel or a young man tell the women to give a message to the disciples which according to Mark they fail to do while the other gospels have the women giving the message. It seems clear that no one had ever heard of the empty tome until Mark's tale and he could say they fail to relay the message. By the time the other gospel are written Mark's story will no longer do as obviously the women must have told. Matthew and Luke fix the story.
There is no way that you have demonstrated that we know who the authors of the gospel were or when they were written or where. Most scholars feel , with good reasons, that Mark dates to the first Jewish war and the others follower much later. You have given us no reason for thinking otherwise.

FACT 1. Jesus’ crucifixion and death
Some early church fathers thought Jesus died in 47 CE. They didn't really know when and the gospels don't even agree on the day or the details. In 6 CE thousands of Galileans were crucified by the Roman.
Josephus even writes about three men that were crucified and taken down while one of them actually recovered and lived. It is not a fact as much as it is the story line. You seem to confuse the two.
I have no problem accepting his crucifixion but it hardly supports the other conclusions and we can't tell if it is a story, tradition or both. It is unrelated to the resurrection as support.

g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the humiliating suffering and death of a supposed Messiah and the Son of God (as well as Principle of Dissimilarity from Jewish anticipation of a military type leader in the Messiah).

I really like this bit. Because Jesus did not meet the expectations of a Jewish Messiah he must be the Messiah? Can you blame the Jews for not accepting him as the Messiah or as God? The Messiah was the son of David on the throne of Israel. Mark has Jesus giving reasons for the Messiah not being of the line of David while the others make up genealogies as they tried in vain to compete with post second temple Judaism. The “Principle of Embarrassment” does not make everything that is embarrassing true. In this case I don't think you understand the concept or how it is actually used but then again I doubt it is your argument anyway so I don't really expect you to understand.

FACT 2. The tomb was discovered empty.

Again it is not a fact it is part of the story. You got the women going to the tomb to prepare his body while another gospel tells us Joseph and Nicodemus had already done the job.
Mark leaves us with an empty tomb and the others embellish and add details that don't add up or even know the other's details.

FACT 3. The apostles sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and then appeared to them. So sincerely that some were willing to endure persecution and possibly even death because of this belief:

Again you are confusing facts with the story. We don't have any idea what the apostles believed except for the gospels. Paul gives a formula about appearing to Peter, James, the 12 and 500. If it is not a later
interpolation it may very well be a vision that Paul had or like the Eucharist something he claims to have got straight from the Lord himself in a vision. Maybe this was another vision of his.
Contradicting the fiction of Acts which was a reconciliation of Paul and Peter for the proto-orthodox church, Paul claims to have not even talked to anyone until years later.
Some scholars feel the formula was a combining of different traditions where Peter and the 12 seems redundant and give us a hint. How come Mark's gospel fails to mention it?
Mark is not prediction the resurrection he is telling the story after Jesus fails to return and Jerusalem is in ruins. You do not have “Multiple attestation”, you have other gospel writers using Mark and even changing the story.

Principle of Embarrassment applies to the evidence that some disciples at the first instance did not believe but had doubts that Jesus was alive (Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:36-38, John 20:24-25.

Notice Mark is not included? Why would the disciples doubt if they saw him?
It was obviously written for those that believe with doubts. Again it is part of the story that was used by others and not “Multiple attestation”.

I am not going to bother with your reasoning behind James as the family problems seem to be Mark's invention as the Jerusalem followers seem to be at odds with Pauline followers.
Acts doesn't help us as if leaves out details. I suspect that a number of the brothers of Jesus worked with him all along.

I guess I should thank you for the glowing remarks.

Providing some evidence for your claims would be thanks enough.
Which claims are you objecting to?

It is also a mistake to think I am only claiming Homer as inspiration for the original story. It also looks like LXX stories and ideas were used and handed down to the author of Mark.

"Looks"? Hey, I'm convinced! Maybe the obvious answer is the right one - it's inspired by real historical events. Though your theory that Mark ripped off Homer and the Septuagint is interesting it falls apart under closer scrutiny and it requires you come up with more unsupported theories. Maybe you can start by citing where Mark lifted the Rez from Homer and the LXX. Then you'll need a separate theory for Paul converting and proclaiming Christ's' death, burial and Rez earlier and independent of Mark. On top of that you've got to find some elaborate theory to dismiss the writer of the Gospel of John and other first century writings. A myth lifted from Homer and the Septuagint would hardly convince the sceptic James, a staunch Jew. The disciple's wouldn't likely run around taking all the heat for something they believed to be a myth. If it was all a myth written with the intention of convincing people and meeting the needs of a Christian community why include all the embarrassing parts about Jesus and the discples? Why would the writers of these books construct a mythical and controversial account if it was to put them in harm's way? There are many gaps you now need to fill with a complex set of disconnected theories, when a much more obvious and powerful explanation exists.

I doubt James was ever a skeptic and you are taking Pauline anti-Pillar story from Acts as if it was true. Luke doesn't bother to tell us why James was elected or how but there he is the leader.
Maybe the obvious answer is the right one? I take it you assume you have the “right” one.
It doesn't seem that obvious to many scholars or to some church fathers that even question the writings. I did not say Mark lifted the “Rez” from Homer and you are missing the point. But Paul, as he explains things, uses the phrase “according to the scriptures as do others. Now considering there was no NT they were referring to the LXX which they not only quote but many passages look copied word of word In Greek from the LXX and used in the stories.
I doubt Homer and LXX were the only possible sources. Many a Greek/Roman hero ended up wit a missing body and were presumed taken by the gods I other tales. As I said earlier both Philo and Josephus tell of Moses being taken into heaven because they couldn't find his body. Elijah must have been taken up because his disciples failed to find his body. After Heracles died they couln't find his body so they assumed he went with the gods. Aristaeus the son of Apollo body could not be found and they assumed the gods took him too. The son Mars, Romulus body was missing after a battle and they assumed he had been taken. Empedocles and Apollonius(Price) are more examples of the same kind of story telling and conclusions you draw when they can't account for the body. Maybe Crossan was right and the dogs ate him. From what we read in Paul or other pre-gospel writings, Jesus went right from the grave to God as a spirit and had no need of a body as the previous poster pointed out the gospel stories don't mesh with what Paul seems to think about flesh inheriting the kingdom. It kind of makes the gospel sound like fiction when Jesus is eating and touch me don't touch interactions after his death.

Luke and Matthew follow his story line and update his writing with there own fiction based on traditions handed down to them including stories in the LXX that were symbolic of their view of the now cosmic Christ/godman.

I already gave you guys Markan priority in the OP. You are referring to fulfilled prophecy and typologies, perhaps? There's also the differences between Matthew, Luke, and Mark that need to be accounted for. Let's take the view that the document "Q" existed which usually goes hand-in-hand with the Markan priority hypothesis, now you need a another story to explain away that document too.

Yes you gave us “Markan” priority in the OP and then took it away by ignoring it.
For all we know even the teaching of Jesus in the hypothetical “Q” were lifted from the LXX.
Paul tells us little of the teaching of Jesus as he felt only the cosmic Christ mattered.

Many scholars have followed there use word for word story for story in other works including the LXX and Homer.

"Many" scholars, eh? Don't you mean John Dominic Crossan and Dennis R. MacDonald?

I wasn't even thinking of them.

Josephus seems to have been used by the author of Luke or a later redactor.

If the general consensus among scholars for dating Luke and Josephus is correct, Luke predates Josephus. Kinda hard for Luke to use Josephus in that case.

But there are scholars that make good arguments that Josephus was used. Luke may not have been the only one that used him. We don't know when the gospels were written but they don't show up until the second century along with others that are now missing. Of course this doesn't take into account any later redactions and interpolations.

John goes against the grain and like the other authors has his own ax to grind but he seems to know at least some of the other gospel writings. Mark seems to think Jesus wasn't nor needed to be of the line of David while Luke and Matthew think it is important enough to make up their own genealogies or at least some one later did.

That has what to do with the Rez?

It has to do with the writers using Mark and not being witnesses or multiple attestations which you hang your defense of the resurrection. Did you forget already? I guess that is what happens when you use someone's argument with your lack of understanding.

What ever happened that was later seem in the symbolism of the resurrection we may never know but to claim it is a fact is to go beyond use of the gospels.

Why? 'Cuz you say so?

Why, because you believe differently?

As I said in the beginning, your questions presuppose a factual resurrection with dubious evidence.

My question asks if the Rez is the best explanation. All the early evidence suggests Jesus was believed to have risen from the dead. If you have some evidence to the contrary it's high time you produced it.

BTW, you calling the evidence presented in the OP "dubious"... the irony...

You need to do more reading and less laughing.

If you want to claim it is fact and not myth then we see no reason for you to reject the many hero/god stories of resurrection.

If you have evidence for a god or resurrection story you'd like to pass through my criteria, be my guest. Let's see how it stacks up.

Why bother, your criteria is hardly needed given the nature of ancient writings.

Even the early church fathers could see the similarities and it was even used as a defense.

That's the Robert Price/Brian Flemming fallacy. Justin Martyr was trying to FIND similarities because the pagans couldn't even see them and were persecuting the Christians as a result. Justin was pleading with the emperor so they would no longer be persecuted. He wasn't "defending" the similarities he was trying to convince that similarities existed.

Dead and resurrected gods are dead and resurrected gods. How is it a fallacy? He was defending his belief by pointing out the other gods that died and lived. Now you are just being little with nonsense. You call that a defense?

Even this quote is taken out of context:
Marcus J. Borg, a liberal theologian and "fellow" of the Jesus Seminar wrote, "The logic is straightforward: if a tradition appears in an early source and in another independent source, then not only is it early, but it is also unlikely to have been made up." Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus (1999), p. 12.

The quote applies to the logic behind a methodology not to any one particular fact. So yes, it is in context.

When ever you're ready we can discuss the question for debate.

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?

Yes you took Borg out of context. There are traditions and then there are embellishments you have not shown that all of the gospels are traditions and not fictions. Given the changes The other gospel authors made in Mark's work it seems they were making it up to correct Mark that no longer made sense and not passing on traditions. But for the sake of argument if they are traditions, true or false, then they are not eyewitness accounts as you claim. Which is it going to be?
A better theory is that Mark wrote his gospel and a generation later or more the others updated him as they felt his story lacked. That Paul had visions of a “Spirit Christ” that was raised to God's side and was misunderstood by later writers. The gospels are typical Roman/Greek hero myths and should be understood as such with out the claims as fact.