Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Pree]

In what sense were the disciples “in a position to know for a fact” whether Jesus had risen from the dead?

I’ve heard this argument made countless times. It’s argued that nobody would be willing to die for something that they knew was a lie, and the disciples were in a position to know for a fact whether Jesus had truly risen. So because they were willing to die for it, this lends credibility to them having told the truth.

But in what sense were they in a position to know this information? It seems to me that anybody could be fooled.

[jimwalton]

1. Since the disciples were followers of Jesus, who had spent three years with him...
2. And since Jesus didn't just whisk himself back to heaven but instead...
3. Showed up in the flesh so they had evidence of this resurrection (Mt. 28; Mk. 16; Lk. 24; Jn. 20; Acts 1; 1 Cor. 15.1-6)...
4. And since they had a chance to watch him eat (Lk. 24.40-43) and to touch him to know he was real (Lk. 24.38-39; Jn. 20.27)...
5. Then we should be able to assume they were in a position to know for a fact that Jesus had truly risen.

After all, it's not personal experiences that are unreliable. If they are always unreliable, we have to doubt all science, journalism, and courtroom proceedings. It's not personal experience that is the problem, but unreliable personal experience. So let's examine the disciples.

1. The disciples fully believe they had seen the risen Jesus in the flesh. The had real visual experiences of some sort. They were certain that Jesus in the flesh had impinged on their visual field.
2. The disciples' lives were all transformed after this visual experience. What they believe they saw was life-changing for them.
3. An educational or religious experience does not adequately explain the change we see in every one of these men.
4. The message of the disciples was both founded and grounded in a physical resurrection that they themselves had seen the evidence of with their very eyes. In their preaching they repeat over and over that they were witnesses of these things.

This is what places them in a position to know these things. But were they fooled? Fooled by what?

1. Wrong tomb. Idiots went to the wrong tomb and were fooled into thinking Jesus rose. This is too easy to prove wrong. A mistake like this lasts about an hour.
2. Hallucination. Poor guys wanted to see him so bad they had visions. The problem with this is it doesn't explain all the appearances, it doesn't fit James (the brother of Jesus) who wasn't a believer until after the resurrection, group hallucinations are impossible and unknown, and it doesn't explain the conversion of Paul, a hostile.
3. Were they fooled by an imposter? Jesus's unknown twin brother perhaps? We know about Anastasia Nikolaevna, and how difficult it was for her to pull off the imposter game. It's hard to fool the people who know you best. But this twin would have had to put holes in his hands and feet. Not plausible.
4. Were they influenced and fooled by tricksters? Who might the perpetrators of such a prank be? Mary Magdalene, the first person to see Jesus? Hardly. She didn't have that kind of influence. Peter? He had the prominence, but he was in a group every time he saw Jesus except once. Not probable. Paul? At the time he was not a believer and was not trusted.

It's not plausible that they were fooled. The conclusion is that the disciples were in a good position to know for a fact that Jesus had risen from the dead.

[Farmer]

> and it doesn't explain the conversion of Paul, a hostile.

Why would you even bring this up? Paul only had visions of Jesus, never saw him in the flesh. Doesn't count.

[jimwalton]

Maybe don't be so quick to conclude "Doesn't count." The reason to bring up Paul is because there are different views on whether Paul saw Jesus in the flesh after his resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15.8, Paul says he saw Jesus, but not as the disciples saw him. Paul considers what he saw to have been less normal than what the other disciples got to see. But it wasn't just a vision Paul saw (as his vision in Acts 9). what he says in 1 Cor. 9.1 leads us to believe he saw Jesus in the flesh (not just in a vision) after his resurrection, but in somehow a different way than the disciples did. And when Paul says "last of all" (1 Cor. 15.8), he couldn't possibly be implying that his was the last that anyone ever saw Christ in a vision. Therefore, it is thought, Paul actually got to see Jesus physically in some way, though it wasn't with the disciples. It's interesting that 1 Cor. 15.1-11 as a whole speak explicitly of public, physical eyewitnessing of Jesus's resurrection, and Paul includes himself in that category.

I'm just saying that these things are much debated and may never be resolved, but we just can't cavalierly conclude as you did and toss my observation to the side. The evidence seems to indicate that Paul did see Jesus somehow somewhere in the flesh.

[Sharpie]

5) he didn't die but merely passed out of exhaustion and for some strange reason granted the chance to be "buried " in a tomb.

6) the story is a tale with no actual evidence for corroboration.

[jimwalton]

I'll assume you're adding to the possible ways they might have been fooled. I'll also assume you want me to address your additions.

5. The "Swoon" theory isn't plausible on a number of accounts. First of all, it doesn't take into account the viciousness of flogging and crucifixion. Flogging was so brutal that often people died from it and never got to the cross. With hooks on the leather, along with metal balls and pieces of glass, the torso was often torn open so far the entrails were exposed. Muscle was ripped off the body down to the bones. It was horrific. Crucifixion was death by suffocation. With the weight of the body on the arms, the chest cavity collapsed to make breathing difficult or impossible. Usually uncontrollably the body would act to survive, and the victim would push up on the feet and use his hands to support his weight (excruciating pain with nails through them), enough to take a gasping breath. To think that Jesus, within 48 hours, was feeling well enough to get up, unwrap himself from the grave wrappings, move a stone weighing several tons, and then walk around declaring victoriously that he had come back from the dead defies credibility. Secondly, the soldiers were professional executioners. It was their job to warrant the victim's death. To think that they were derelict in their duties is implausible. There were ways to tell is someone was dead: ashen skin devoid of blood flow (livor mortis), rigor mortis, and loss of temperature (algorithms mortis). These people were around death a whole lot more than we are. The ashen skin and cool temp happens quickly. Third, we would have to assume that those who prepared the body never once suspected that the guy was still breathing. It's not realistic to think Jesus passed out, woke up about 38 hours feeling better, escaped the tomb, and that everyone was fooled into thinking he was the victorious savior. Even if he had done those things, they would have put him to bed and worked on him for weeks to nurture him back to health. It just doesn't make sense.

6. This doesn't fly because there is evidence. The tomb was empty. The enemies of Jesus never produced a body. Not a single ancient writer, Christian or secular, disputes that the tomb was empty. More importantly, Christianity would never have flourished in Jerusalem, the center of Judaism, if the tomb had not been empty. Jesus was publicly executed. Sermons about his resurrection would be sheer nonsense if the tomb were not verifiably empty. A literal and historical resurrection is the most reasonable conclusion to explain why many staunch first-century Jews would abandon the Sabbath, the sacrifices, and the Law of Moses and claim the reality of a physical resurrection in the city in which it recently occurred. The Jews were fanatically attached to their Sabbath. Since the early church was almost exclusively Jewish, it must have required an event of deep and startling significance to make them switch. The institution of Christian worship on Sunday traces back to the place and date of the resurrection. The resurrection accounts for this transition. If the story were false, the movement would have been quickly and easily stamped out.

N.T. Wright says, “Neither the empty tomb by itself…nor the appearances by themselves could have generated the early Christian belief. The empty tomb alone would be a puzzle and a tragedy. Sightings of an apparently alive Jesus, by themselves, would have been classified as visions or hallucinations, which were well enough known in the ancient world. However, an empty tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a powerful reason for the emergence of the belief."

It is indisputable that Jesus's disciples taught that he was raised from the dead and had appeared to individuals and groups. It is also indisputable that Jesus's disciples intended for us to interpret the resurrection as an actual event.

In other words, the tomb was verifiably empty, and the appearances of Jesus are plausible on the basis of indisputable evidence of the birth and growth of Christianity.

[Anonymizes]

There's quite a few issues with that argument. Firstly, as others have said, all of that relies on the religious texts to have accurately reported the events - and we don't have good reason to presume that.

Secondly, even if we did agree that this Jesus person "died" and was seen alive a few days later, we have a number of contemporary texts which attest to the fact that occasionally people were mistakenly considered to have died. Even today this sort of mistake happens on occasion - although less frequently than former owing to our greater understanding of medicine.

Even if you don't find that last to be particularly likely, it is much more likely than a miraculous model of resurrection.

[jimwalton]

> all of that relies on the religious texts to have accurately reported the events - and we don't have good reason to presume that.

We actually do have good reason to presume that. First of all, it is apparent from the study of the Gospels that their intent was to communicate history, not legend or mythology. There is not a single hint in any of their writings that their intent was not to accurately report the events.

Secondly, their bias is not a disqualifier because their bias would have come from evidence. Bias is not always a negative trait. There are times when bias, while looking at an event or person from a limited perspective, can also shine light on an issue that would otherwise be unknown. We get bias, but not necessarily distortion, when we hear women report about sexual predators and abuse (#MeToo). They are looking at the event from a very limited angle, and even bias, but we appreciate their reports. Even though what they tell is from their leaning, we can still be hearing an objective statement. The same might be true to hear a Jewish victim’s report on the Holocaust, or any African American writing about slavery before the Civil War. Their bias is actually an advantage to show us what really happened. So a person can be biased and still act and write impartially and objectively. The "bias" of the Gospel writers was clearly because they had experienced something life-changing, not because they were trying to distort and deceive.

The Bible writers, particularly the authors of the Gospels, often get accused by modern detractors of writing with a bias that allows us to discredit their stories and interpretations. The question at hand, then, would be to determine if their experience and consequent leaning kidnapped their objectivity or instead gave them a reporting advantage. Since their aim was not to discredit anything or anyone, and their agenda was to report accurate history, and they had little or nothing to gain from taking the stance they did, it’s more plausible to consider their bias as useful rather than detrimental. Too many elements of the gospels don’t come across as having been invented for the sake of bias. Their objectives were noble (to lead people to life and salvation), not deceitful (to gain fortune and fame, power, or to suppress someone else).

An objective examination of the Gospels assures us that their bias is of the advantageous sort. Who else can accurately report about the resurrection but the very people who were eyewitnesses? We would expect nothing less than a report of sheer amazement, which is just what we have. If you will only accept a report from someone who saw the risen Jesus but wasn't convinced, well, that's nonsense. Instead, we have the reports of those who saw him, were convinced, and wrote about it. There is no reason to doubt that they have accurately reported the events. If you still think so, you need to provide your case for their deceit.

> Secondly, even if we did agree that this Jesus person "died" and was seen alive a few days later, we have a number of contemporary texts which attest to the fact that occasionally people were mistakenly considered to have died. Even today this sort of mistake happens on occasion - although less frequently than former owing to our greater understanding of medicine.

This is true, and always possible, but when we consider the scene, it's not plausible. First of all, it doesn't take into account the viciousness of flogging and crucifixion. Flogging was so brutal that often people died from it and never got to the cross. With hooks on the leather, along with metal balls and pieces of glass, the torso was often torn open so far the entrails were exposed. Muscle was ripped off the body down to the bones. It was horrific. As I a said, it was the door to death all by itself. But then follow that with crucifixion. Crucifixion was death by suffocation. With the weight of the body on the arms, the chest cavity collapsed and cramped, making breathing difficult or impossible. Usually uncontrollably as a reflex the body would act to survive, and the victim would push up on the feet and use his hands to support his weight (excruciating pain with nails through them), enough to take a gasping breath and collapse back down (more excruciating pain, and now can't breathe again). Secondly, the soldiers were professional executioners. It was their job to warrant the victim's death. To think that they were derelict in their duties is implausible. There were ways to tell is someone was dead: ashen skin devoid of blood flow (livor mortis), rigor mortis, and loss of temperature (algor mortis). These people were around death a whole lot more than we are. The ashen skin and cool temp happens quickly. It was their job to confirm the criminal's death. They plunged a spear into his chest cavity, releasing blood and clear fluid (subsequent to the flogging and crucifixion), and confirmed his was dead, so much so that they didn't break the legs. (Breaking the legs prohibited the victim from rising up to catch a breath, and therefore would suffocate to death very quickly.) Third, we would have to assume that those who prepared the body never once suspected that the guy was still breathing. Put all of these scenarios together, and it's not at all reasonable to assume that he hadn't really died, but they were mistaken.

But then you have to also assume that 36 hours later he was feeling better enough to rouse, to worm his way of his grave wrappings, to move a stone from the inside that weighed several tons. And then you have to assume he presented himself not as one who barely escaped death, but as the victorious one who had risen.

All of those defies credibility.

> it is much more likely than a miraculous model of resurrection.

If you consider Jesus a man, of course. If Jesus is God as he claimed to be, then it is not more likely. We know the tomb was empty. A literal and historical resurrection is the most reasonable conclusion to explain why many staunch first-century Jews would abandon the Sabbath, the sacrifices, and the Law of Moses and claim the reality of a physical resurrection in the city in which it recently occurred. The Jews had no notion expectation of bodily resurrection in their theology. The Jews were fanatically attached to their Sabbath. Since the early church was almost exclusively Jewish, it must have required an event of deep and startling significance to make them switch. The institution of Christian worship on Sunday traces back to the place and date of the resurrection. The resurrection accounts for this transition. If the story were false, the movement would have been quickly and easily stamped out.

N.T. Wright says, “Neither the empty tomb by itself…nor the appearances by themselves could have generated the early Christian belief. The empty tomb alone would be a puzzle and a tragedy. Sightings of an apparently alive Jesus, by themselves, would have been classified as visions or hallucinations, which were well enough known in the ancient world. However, an empty tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a powerful reason for the emergence of the belief."

It is indisputable that Jesus's disciples taught that he was raised from the dead and had appeared to individuals and groups. It is also indisputable that Jesus's disciples intended for us to interpret the resurrection as an actual event.

In other words, the tomb was verifiably empty, and the appearances of Jesus are plausible on the basis of indisputable evidence of the birth and growth of Christianity. You really have to wonder if a miraculous model of resurrection is really so much less likely than some kind of deceit, that is, unless you have a priori made a decision that it's not possible and therefore are closed to consider the evidence with some kind of objectivity.

[K Kammie]

I would suggest that you omit the reference to Mark. Scholars and the Catholic Church believe everything in Mark post Jesus' death were added much later.

[jimwalton]

This is actually incorrect. It is Mark 16.9-20 that scholars the theologians knew were added much later. Mark 16.1-8, however, are authentic. Those verses speak of the empty tomb (16.4-6), the physical resurrection of Jesus (16.6), and that they would receive visual confirmation of such (16.7).