Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Romans

[Tarnished]

> I don't cherry pick at all. I examine the evidence deeply—as much as I can get my hands on.

And if you can't get evidence for something, you accept the claim if it supports your existing belief, right?

Why do you believe the resurrection occurred?

[jimwalton]

> And if you can't get evidence for something, you accept the claim if it supports your existing belief, right?

Of course not. That's just bias. Your prejudicial judgments of me are palpable.

> Why do you believe the resurrection occurred?

On the basis of the evidence.

We know the tomb was empty, for several reasons. (1) the historical accounts we have claim that it's empty. (2) there is no record from antiquity disputing that claim. Those in opposition to the resurrection had other accusations, not that the tomb wasn't empty. (3) The empty tomb is necessary to justify early Christian belief. Neither the empty tomb by itself nor the claimed appearances by themselves could have generated the early Christian belief. The empty tomb alone would be a puzzle and a tragedy, subject to other explanations. 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, which is what we see in history.

Since the tomb was empty, we can be sure the stone was rolled away. No one would claim an empty tomb if the stone were still in place. Then, of course, we have to explain the stone weighing several thousand pounds and being sealed by the Roman prefect would be moved.

Since the stone was rolled away, we can know that people looked inside. No one would claim an empty tomb but not have looked inside. The comments about the material evidence of the grave clothes is evidence of what they saw.

Since we know they looked inside, we can know that an eyewitness would have told what he or she saw. Not only do we have those eyewitness accounts, but we also have the criteria of embarrassment for claiming that a woman with a questionable history was the first witness.

We can evaluate the credibility of the witnesses who claim to have seen Jesus in the flesh after his resurrection. Those records of their testimonies bear out their credibility as witnesses.

Other historical and cultural evidences bolster the case: The disciples had real visual experiences of some sort. Their lives were transformed as a result. Their message was grounded in the reality of the physical resurrection. A literal and historical resurrection is the most reasonable conclusion to explain why many staunch 1st-c. 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 the execution recently occurred.

The idea of a physical resurrection back to life on this Earth was not part of anyone's theology or expectation.

The alternative explanations fall short of sufficiency of explanation.

Those are the reasons I believe the resurrection occurred.

[Tarnished]

> However, an empty tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a powerful reason for the emergence of the belief,

Where's this tomb?

Putting that aside, two weak or fallacious pieces of evidence do not add up to good evidence. Especially of the quality and quantity to justify belief of such an extraordinary and world view altering claim.

[jimwalton]

> Where's this tomb?

We no longer know, but it was common knowledge back then. His burial was public and the tomb was a known location. The site of Jesus's tomb was known to Christians and non-Christians alike. Were the tomb not empty, it would have been impossible for a movement to explode into existence in the same city in a very short time.

> Putting that aside, two weak or fallacious pieces of evidence do not add up to good evidence.

I agree. You're being too cavalier if you think either of these is weak or fallacious.

The historical data we have was widely held, consistently shaped, and highly influential. There is no doubting that the disciples were convinced that he physically rose and appeared to them. We have evidence that this belief was held by all early Christians. It was at the center of their preaching, their belief, and their theology. So we have to ask what caused this belief.

(1) They were deranged and delusional; (2) someone tricked them; (3) it was true that Jesus did rise; (4) they were hallucinating; (5) a legend developed.

Let's consider some background and examine the facts we have.

1. Resurrection was not part of Jewish theology. There was no expectation of even the possibility let alone the actuality of a physical resurrection.
2. The empty tomb by itself would not cause the rise in the belief of the resurrection. There could be many explanations: human theft or animal access being the best choices.
3. The appearances of Jesus would not cause the rise in the belief of the resurrection. It could be visions or hallucinations.
4. But we have BOTH: the tomb was empty, and many people in various times, places, and situations saw Jesus. Together they explain why the disciples were convinced it was true.
5. The meaning the followers of Jesus gave to the resurrection is impossible within their Jewish mindset, upbringing, context, and theology. The best explanation is that such a belief could and would only emerge if there were evidence that they knew Jesus was dead, they knew his corpse got buried, and they saw him again in the flesh after that.
6. The other explanations that are offered do not rise to the level of having the same explanatory power of how Christianity started and grew in the very city of Jesus' death.
7. It is therefore historically highly probable that Jesus's tomb was indeed empty on the 3rd day after his crucifixion, and that the disciples really did encounter him in different times, places, and groupings of people.

So the question remains: what explanation do you offer for the empty tomb and the belief that we see recorded in history, along with the growth of Christianity in Jerusalem that has has more explanatory power than the Gospel record?

[Tarnished]

> We no longer know, but it was common knowledge back then. His burial was public and the tomb was a known location.

How do you know that if you don't know the location?

> Were the tomb not empty, it would have been impossible for a movement to explode into existence in the same city in a very short time.

Possibility and impossibility are both claims that have a burden of proof. How is it that you know this to be impossible? I find this an absurd claim. People start movements all the time based on beliefs which can be true or false. See other religions, I'm sure you'll agree that they are movements based on false beliefs. Anti vaxxers is another movement on false beliefs.

> I agree. You're being too cavalier if you think either of these is weak or fallacious.

Not at all. A story about speculation about an empty tomb, is absolutely not sufficient evidence of someone coming back to life after being dead for three days, a claim so extraordinary, it has never been verified to have happened under controlled conditions. This is not good evidence.

People dying for their beliefs. This has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the claim.

These are not good evidence. Sorry.They're great for someone who is defending a belief, but not sufficient to justify that belief. And all we have is a story in a book, which makes it even worse.

> The historical data we have was widely held, consistently shaped, and highly influential.

An argument from popularity is a fallacy. Consistently doesn't equal truth, and influential doesn't equal truth.

> There is no doubting that the disciples were convinced that he physically rose and appeared to them. We have evidence that this belief was held by all early Christians.

Again, that doesn't make it true.

I'm not going to address each of your points on this. They don't add up to anything other than speculation. I can see thinking that maybe it could be true, but then I remember that we're talking about a person coming back to life after three days, and this is about as extraordinary as it gets.

But most Christians don't just think it could probably happen, they are convinced to well beyond 100%, and they'll defend that with extreme persistence. Why? Because the religion teaches you to defend it, so much so that you can't even fathom it not being true. You'll defend the belief whether it makes sense or not. The evidence isn't there, yet you're absolutely sure it's true.

[jimwalton]

> How do you know that if you don't know the location?

That's pretty easy. If the tomb weren't empty, his detractors, enemies, and the skeptics just had to show the rotting body. Second, if the tomb weren't empty, the preachers have no case. Third, (a) the tomb was at the same location as the crucifixion, (b) his burial was public, (c) his friends knew where it was, (d) his enemies knew where it was, and (e) the Romans knew where it was.

> Possibility and impossibility are both claims that have a burden of proof. How is it that you know this to be impossible?

Because of the nature of the Judaistic culture in Jerusalem in the first century. As I mentioned, you'd never see a polytheistic religion take hold and grow rapidly in Mecca during Ramadan among the faithful Muslim community. Couldn't happen. Knowing the nature of religion, the zeal of people for their religion, and how intractable the most sacred beliefs are, it's impossible—UNLESS something of undeniable spectacularity happened. You know, where extraordinary evidence actually is available to verify an extraordinary claim.

> People start movements all the time based on beliefs which can be true or false.

This wasn't just starting a movement on a belief. I hope I'm talking to someone who knows at least a little bit about history and evidence, though the last several questions make me wonder. The resurrection and Christianity were beyond radical, just in general, but even more so in their context.

> A story about speculation about an empty tomb

It's not speculation. I'm left to presume you're not catching on the nature of what happened there when Christianity was born in Jerusalem. Sorry, I really can't explain it much more clearly and obviously. This makes me wonder about your objectivity here.

> it has never been verified to have happened under controlled conditions.

Now this is just silly. No one was expecting it. How could they have engineered and enforced controlled conditions? You don't seem to grasp the surprise of the event.

> This is not good evidence.

As far as history goes, it's sufficient. it's as good or better than we have for most historical things.

> People dying for their beliefs. This has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the claim.

I never said it did. Where in the world did this come from? You asked me about historical corroboration for the existence of the apostles. That's what I was showing, not about people dying for their beliefs proving the truth of the claim. This makes me wonder about your objectivity.

>> The historical data we have was widely held, consistently shaped, and highly influential.
> An argument from popularity is a fallacy.

Of course an argument from popularity is a fallacy; that's why I didn't make that argument. The historical data we have has corroboration. That's different an argument from popularity. I also said it was consistently shaped. We can look at the data we have and see that's it's not self-contradictory. I'm guessing you're not in this for a true discussion or because you're in any way objective. You just seem to deprecate without even reading or thinking about anything I've said, let alone, if I may guess, having done any research about it.

> Consistently doesn't equal truth, and influential doesn't equal truth.

Of course it doesn't, but it can lend credence to the position.

> Again, that doesn't make it true.

Oh...my...gosh. Of COURSE it doesn't make it true. Geez Louise. Are you paying attention to what I'm saying?? This is an abductive case: weighing the evidences to infer the most reasonable conclusion. These things don't make it true, but they contribute to the evidence in favor of the case.

> I'm not going to address each of your points on this. They don't add up to anything other than speculation

This just confirms to me that you haven't read or seriously considered what I've wrote, that's all. It's not speculative at all. And the evidences for the resurrection abductively outweigh alternative explanations. But if you have an alternative explanation that isn't speculative, I'll be glad to read it.

> we're talking about a person coming back to life after three days, and this is about as extraordinary as it gets.

That's true, and that's the point. There's nothing natural or explainable about it outside of divine activity.

> But most Christians don't just think it could probably happen, they are convinced to well beyond 100%, and they'll defend that with extreme persistence. Why? Because the religion teaches you to defend it, so much so that you can't even fathom it not being true.

No, not because I'm taught to defend it, but because I've examined the case and weighed the evidences and the resurrection is the strongest case. No alternative explanation rises to sufficiency of explanation.

> The evidence isn't there, yet you're absolutely sure it's true.

The evidence is there. This comment makes me assume you've never examined the case with any thoroughness or objectivity.

[Tarnished]

> If the tomb weren't empty, his detractors, enemies, and the skeptics just had to show the rotting body.

How do you know anything about the tomb? All you have to go on are stories in a book.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-would-it-take-to-prove-the-resurrection/

[jimwalton]

>How do you know anything about the tomb?

What we seem to have here is failure to communicate. We've been through this.

1. The tomb was at the same site as the crucifixion.
2. It was a site known to his followers, the Jewish leaders, and the Roman officials.
3. The tomb was empty on Sunday, or the whole movement would not have gained traction.
4. The empty tomb by itself would not have generated what we now know as Christianity. Nor would the appearances by themselves. But the reality of the empty tomb and the physical appearances of Jesus together create the only sufficiency of evidence to explain the rise of Christianity in Jerusalem within 2 months of the crucifixion.

> All you have to go on are stories in a book.

We have to assess the credibility of the reports. It's illegitimate and prejudicial to discount them just because they're in the Bible. There has yet to be any evidence anywhere that proves anything in the Bible is untrue. While much cannot be confirmed, nothing is disconfirmed. The Bible has proven time and again to be reliable. We have every reason to "go on" the narratives in the Bible because of their proven track record.

As to your link, the guy just never brought his case over the goal line. He fails especially in his final paragraph.

> What about the eyewitnesses? Maybe they “were superstitious or credulous” and saw what they wanted to see, Shapiro suggests.

Then he hasn't weighed the evidence of the records and of the known history of the growth of Christianity. The evidences we have point to a physical resurrection of the historical figure named Jesus.

As far as them "seeing what they want to see," the author is not accounting for the fact that the disciples weren't expecting to see Jesus, and their theology as Jews didn't even believe in such a thing. He's not giving a credible alternative, but rather a cheap toss-off.

> “Maybe they reported only feeling Jesus ‘in spirit,’ and over the decades their testimony was altered to suggest that they saw Jesus in the flesh.

This again ignores the accounts we have. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. It's disingenuous to accuse the Gospel writers of making up stuff when this writer makes up stuff.

> Maybe accounts of the resurrection never appeared in the original gospels and were added in later centuries.

This evidence we have shows this to be patently false. Did this guy do any research?

> Any of these explanations for the gospel descriptions of Jesus's resurrection are far more likely than the possibility that Jesus actually returned to life after being dead for three days.

This is far from true, and a dead-on example of a straw man fallacy.

You would need to show me, apart from the miracles, where the Bible isn't credible. If the Bible's credible in all ways excluding the miracles, then we might wonder about the possibility that the miracles aren't so far-fetched after all. If you can show, however, that the biblical writers are goofballs, liars, delusional, drug addicts, or living in Disney World, then that's the basis we'd have to discredit the miracle accounts.

So, let's assess the Bible. Where would you like to start?

[Tarnished]

> What we seem to have here is failure to communicate.

Yeah because you're not answering my question.

The act of answering the question is supposed to lead you to examine why you think you know what you think you know.

If I answer it for you, you probably won't learn anything. So I'll ask again, how do you know what you claim to know about the tomb?

[jimwalton]

> Yeah because you're not answering my question.

As far as I know, I've answered every question, and I've tried to be thorough.

> how do you know what you claim to know about the tomb?

I have answered this question, but I'll give it another go.

1. The tomb was at the same site as the crucifixion. This is from John 19.41. The Gospel of John is full of eyewitness touches. No evidence has ever surfaced that has proved anything he said to be incorrect. With what we can corroborate, John bats 1.000. We have no reason, based on the evidence we have, to doubt his facts.

What John says about the tomb squares with the evidence. Jerusalem tombs in this period were typically family tombs carved into the limestone caves. The entrances were generally rectangular and low. What John says matches the evidence.

Burial in a tomb is consistent with Roman policies and practices, even if the victim were crucified.

Wealthy Jews in the area buried their dead as John describes. We have no evidence to doubt John's record.

John also says the tomb was "in a garden." It was also common for the wealthy to have tombs in gardens.

2. It was a site known to his followers, the Jewish leaders, and the Roman officials.

The record of the Gospels is that all three demographic groups knew the location. Given that Jesus was considered to be a threat to the religious system and a potential threat to the state, it's plausible that the site of his burial was known. When the resurrection was claimed, what they did *not* say was "Malarkey!" Instead, Matthew says they are prompted to claim the body was stolen—an obvious cover story.

First, this is an Irish bull on the face of it. If they were asleep, they wouldn't know what happened. Second, it's a pretty weak explanation if Matthew is making it up.

No ancient source ever tries to deny the empty tomb.

3. The tomb was empty on Sunday, or the whole movement would not have gained traction.

Christianity depended on a physical resurrection. Without it, there was nothing. The thing is, they were claiming resurrection in the very city where Jesus was killed, it was only weeks later, the eyewitnesses of his execution were still in the city, the tomb was a known location, and there had been no expectation of a resurrection, and the idea of resurrection was considered ludicrous and impossible. The only way Christianity was born is if there was evidence of Jesus's resurrection that was able to persuade the people.

4. The empty tomb by itself would not have generated what we now know as Christianity. Nor would the appearances by themselves. But the reality of the empty tomb and the physical appearances of Jesus together create the only sufficiency of evidence to explain the rise of Christianity in Jerusalem within 2 months of the crucifixion.

Now I'll ask you in return: how do you know what YOU claim to know about the tomb? What is it you know and what is the source of that information?