Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Newbie]

If you take the gospel account of Jesus's death and resurrection at face value, you're not being skeptical. It's possible that the other people who claimed to see Jesus simply convinced themselves that they saw him because they wanted it to be true. People have claimed to see the Emperor of Ethiopia (central figure of Rastafar) after he died. Some Hasidic Jews think that Rabbi Schneerson is the Messiah, and they claimed that he was still alive just 3 short days after his apparent death. 7% of Americans are convinced Elvis is still alive.

[jimwalton]

There are hypothetical reasons for why the resurrection might not have happened, and that's what we must deal with. We're dealing with a cold case here, and we must approach it like cops, realistically—cops and detectives, lawyers and scientists (you probably watch some of the forensics shows on TV, as many do). We have some alleged eye-witness testimony that we have to evaluate, and some material evidence.

First, what do we have to know?

1. Was he alive at point "A"? Virtually every scholar believes that Jesus was a live human early in the 1st century.
2. Was he dead at point "B"? For Jesus' death we have 5 ancient sources outside the Bible corroborating the historicity of his death. The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the best-attested historical events of the ancient world. The weight of the historical and medical evidence is that Jesus was dead even before the wound to his side was delivered. Jesus’ death is practically indisputable.
3. Was he alive again at point "C"? There are several strands of evidence:

a. His tomb was empty. The site of his tomb was known to friends and enemies. If the tomb wasn't empty, it would have been an impossible story to maintain in the city where the death and burial occurred.
b. Women were the first to witness and report the resurrection. This is the last thing a fiction writer would want to claim in their culture. It would just ruin the credibility of their story.
c. Enemy attestation. The opponents of Jesus and his followers admitted the body was gone.
d. The disciples were absolutely and passionately committed to the conviction that Jesus had risen, and were willing to suffer for their story

But now we're left to try to explain it. Were they wrong? Lying? Delusional? Fooled? Influenced? Distorted? Or accurate?

Maybe they were wrong, and Jesus never died. Jesus had been beaten and scourged, too weak to carry his own cross. Then crucified. The soldiers didn't bother to break his legs, but they spear his side, bringing blood and water. he had circulatory shock, where the result is either pericardial effusion or pleural effusion—a sure sign of death. Joseph and Nicodemus wrap the body, working with it to prepare it for burial. With all this time they would have seen the mortis triad: algor mortis, rigor mortis, and lividity mortis. Is it reasonable to assume Jesus is not dead? No.

Maybe they were lying, and it was a vast conspiracy. A successful conspiracy needs factors of a low # of co-conspirators, only a short time to hold the conspiracy together, excellent communication between conspirators, strong relationships, and little or no pressure to confess. But in this case there were 11+, holding the conspiracy for 60 years, with little communication between them, unrelated to each other, with huge pressure to confess. A conspiracy is not reasonable.

Maybe they were delusional, and were subject to hallucinations or mass hysteria, as you suggest. Well maybe Mary Magdalene and Peter really really wanted a resurrection to happen, but what of James, Jesus' brother? What about Saul/Paul—did he want to see Jesus? Were the two on the road to Emmaus expecting to? The 10 disciples? The 500? It's not reasonable to assume mass hysteria or group hallucinations.

Maybe they were fooled, a look-alike walking around pretending it was Jesus, pulling off a grand fraud.If you're playing a character, you need to know more about the topic than the person you are trying to con, and fool the people who know him best. And you still have to be able to do miracles, like ascend into heaven. Would that play well in Jerusalem? Not reasonably so.

Maybe they were swayed. Mary and Peter got caught up in their hallucinations, and influenced the others. Are you kidding? Was Mary that influential in the group? Not likely. And Peter was NEVER alone in his sightings. Paul? Paul influences the 12? They didn't even TRUST Paul.

Maybe they were distorted. Maybe it's a legend that grew over time, or making it all up. That doesn't make sense given that it's historically verifiable that these stories were widely circulating within just a few years, and we have a chain of custody about the story.

Well, maybe it's just accurate, and the truth. Granted, this theory has a HUGE liability. It requires that supernatural things are reasonable. So the core under investigation is: Are supernatural events possible? If you are honestly investigating it, you can’t start with the presupposition that there is no such thing. If you start with “supernaturalism is not possible”, then no evidence will convince you. It’s called circular reasoning, when you are committed to your position before the investigation begins. There are only two choices: either Jesus rose from the dead, or he didn’t. But if your presupposition is that rising from the dead is impossible, then evidence never matters.
The resurrection hypothesis is significantly stronger than competing hypotheses. Historical investigation will never give you 100% certainty, but it does give reasonable certainty. Historians must choose the most probable explanation. The story of Jesus' bodily resurrection was circulating very quickly after the alleged event, and it can be virtually confirmed that it was a consistent narrative within a very short period of time.

[Laser Beam]

Why could it have not been grave robbers or mistaken? What if it was the disciples or someone else obsessed with him? How can you base belief on an event that may not have even happened involving someone who may not have ever existed?

[jimwalton]

Mistaken tomb? That's easy. Go, "Hey, stupids, you went to the wrong tomb. Here's the body! Morons."

I know I'm being a little impertinent, but if they went to the wrong tomb, that would have been found out pretty quickly.

Someone that may have never existed? The consensus is strongly in the majority that Jesus was historical. "Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus). "...and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. ... There is a significant debate about his nature, his actions and his sayings, but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4 BC and died 30–36 AD,[13][14][15] that he lived in Galilee and Judea..."

[Corinthian]

Sorry, why couldn't it have been hallucinations? Or an imaginative memory?

As I understand it, Paul himself never mentioned the empty tomb or the bodily resurrection. If you just read the Gospel of Paul, you'd never know that Jesus allegedly rose from the dead. And it just so happens that Paul's Gospel is the earliest of all the Gospels.

Is it not possible that the idea of a bodily resurrection was invented some time between the writing of Paul's Gospel and the other writing of the other 3 Gospels?

[jimwalton]

There are no such things as group hallucinations. Hallucinations are an individual phenomenon. There are, however, group memories, but if there's a "group memory" of a resurrection of Jesus, all somebody has to do to debunk it is produce the body. Also, remember that his followers were not expecting a resurrection, and so the thought of many individual hallucinations, especially while they were gathered in the same place, isn't tenable.

> "Paul himself never mentioned the empty tomb or the bodily resurrection."

Paul mentioned the bodily resurrection in 1 Cor. 15.4. The same body that was buried was raised again. The death was real and confirmed; the body was buried and witnessed, and the resurrection was bodily as well.

> "Is it not possible that the idea of a bodily resurrection was invented some time between the writing of Paul's Gospel and the other writing of the other 3 Gospels?"

Actually, that's not possible. The creed of 1 Cor. 15.3-7 has been proved to be extremely early, most likely in circulation by AD 35. Even Bart Erhman, who isn't exactly what anyone would call a naive believer, has placed this creed that early. Thus what you are speculating isn't possible.

[Corinthian]

> There are no such things as group hallucinations. Hallucinations are an individual phenomenon.

But mass hysteria does exist. As during the Salem Witch trials: one person claims they see a demon in the room and, hyped up on fear, emotion, and adrenaline, pretty soon everyone in the room sees it.

> but if there's a "group memory" of a resurrection of Jesus, all somebody has to do to debunk it is produce the body.

An understandably difficult proposition 2,000 years after the fact.

But there are hypothetical reasons for why this might not have happened back when the claims were first made: perhaps Jesus was never actually buried, perhaps the body was stolen by graverobbers, or perhaps the body was even stolen by the people who were claiming that he had resurrected.

[jimwalton]

> But mass hysteria does exist.

Indeed it does, but that's a different phenomenon. If 11 people were standing in a room, and all 11 say they saw Jesus, that can't be a group hallucination, because there is no such thing, and it's not mass hysteria, because they're not hyped up. If you're just going to treat the whole account in the gospels as lies, and make up whatever "facts" you want to set a scene the way you want it set, then we're not having a very reasonable discussion.

> An understandably difficult proposition 2,000 years after the fact.

Correct, but not very difficult at all just a few days later, when the stories started to circulate.

You're right, there are hypothetical reasons for why this might not have happened, and that's what we must deal with. We're dealing with a cold case here, and we must approach it like cops, realistically—cops and detectives, lawyers and scientists (you probably watch some of the forensics shows on TV, as many do). We have some alleged eye-witness testimony that we have to evaluate, and some material evidence.

First, what do we have to know? 1. Was he alive at point "A"? Virtually every scholar believes that Jesus was a live human early in the 1st century. 2. Was he dead at point "B"? For Jesus' death we have 5 ancient sources outside the Bible corroborating the historicity of his death. The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the best-attested historical events of the ancient world. The weight of the historical and medical evidence is that Jesus was dead even before the wound to his side was delivered. Jesus’ death is practically indisputable. 3. Was he alive again at point "C"? There are several strands of evidence:

A. His tomb was empty. The site of his tomb was known to friends and enemies. If the tomb wasn't empty, it would have been an impossible story to maintain in the city where the death and burial occurred.
B. Women were the first to witness and report the resurrection. This is the last thing a fiction writer would want to claim in their culture. It would just ruin the credibility of their story.
C. Enemy attestation. The opponents of Jesus and his followers admitted the body was gone.
D. The disciples were absolutely and passionately committed to the conviction that Jesus had risen, and were willing to suffer for their story

But now we're left to try to explain it. Were they wrong? Lying? Delusional? Fooled? Influenced? Distorted? Or accurate?

Maybe they were wrong, and Jesus never died. Jesus had been beaten and scourged, too weak to carry his own cross. Then crucified. The soldiers didn't bother to break his legs, but they spear his side, bringing blood and water. he had circulatory shock, where the result is either pericardial effusion or pleural effusion—a sure sign of death. Joseph and Nicodemus wrap the body, working with it to prepare it for burial. With all this time they would have seen the mortis triad: algor mortis, rigor mortis, and lividity mortis. Is it reasonable to assume Jesus is not dead? No.

Maybe they were lying, and it was a vast conspiracy. A successful conspiracy needs factors of a low # of co-conspirators, only a short time to hold the conspiracy together, excellent communication between conspirators, strong relationships, and little or no pressure to confess. But in this case there were 11+, holding the conspiracy for 60 years, with little communication between them, unrelated to each other, with huge pressure to confess. A conspiracy is not reasonable.

Maybe they were delusional, and were subject to hallucinations or mass hysteria, as you suggest. Well maybe Mary Magdalene and Peter really really wanted a resurrection to happen, but what of James, Jesus' brother? What about Saul/Paul—did he want to see Jesus? Were the two on the road to Emmaus expecting to? The 10 disciples? The 500? It's not reasonable to assume mass hysteria or group hallucinations.

Maybe they were fooled, a look-alike walking around pretending it was Jesus, pulling off a grand fraud.If you're playing a character, you need to know more about the topic than the person you are trying to con, and fool the people who know him best. And you still have to be able to do miracles, like ascend into heaven. Would that play well in Jerusalem? Not reasonably so.

Maybe they were swayed. Mary and Peter got caught up in their hallucinations, and influenced the others. Are you kidding? Was Mary that influential in the group? Not likely. And Peter was NEVER alone in his sightings. Paul? Paul influences the 12? They didn't even TRUST Paul.

Maybe they were distorted. Maybe it's a legend that grew over time, or making it all up. That doesn't make sense given that it's historically verifiable that these stories were widely circulating within just a few years, and we have a chain of custody about the story.

Well, maybe it's just accurate, and the truth. Granted, this theory has a HUGE liability. IT requires that supernatural things are reasonable. So the core under investigation is: Are supernatural events possible? If you are honestly investigating it, you can’t start with the presupposition that there is no such thing. If you start with “supernaturalism is not possible”, then no evidence will convince you. It’s called circular reasoning, when you are committed to your position before the investigation begins. There are only two choices: either Jesus rose from the dead, or he didn’t. But if your presupposition is that rising from the dead is impossible, then evidence never matters.
The resurrection hypothesis is significantly stronger than competing hypotheses. Historical investigation will never give you 100% certainty, but it does give reasonable certainty. Historians must choose the most probable explanation.

[Corinthian]

> Indeed it does, but that's a different phenomenon.

Not necessarily.

> If 11 people were standing in a room, and all 11 say they saw Jesus, that can't be a group hallucination, because there is no such thing,

I already explained how mass hysteria can induce group hallucinations.

> and it's not mass hysteria, because they're not hyped up.

How do you know?

>We're dealing with a cold case here, and we must approach it like cops, realistically—cops and detectives, lawyers and scientists (you probably watch some of the forensics shows on TV, as many do).

we were treating this like a court case, the entire claim would be thrown out.

The eyewitness testimony is hearsay because the witnesses are not available for cross-examination.

Further: there are only about 5 direct eyewitness testimonials. There are allegedly 500+ witnesses who saw a resurrected Jesus, but we only ever hear from 5 of them, meaning that those 500 accounts of the resurrection are double hearsay.

All in all, not very compelling.

> So the core under investigation is: Are supernatural events possible? If you are honestly investigating it, you can’t start with the presupposition that there is no such thing.

I start with the presupposition that the supernatural, by definition, cannot exist. That does not mean that supernatural claims cannot be proved to be true. For example, we could one day obtain evidence that ghosts are real, or that some people do indeed possess psychic powers. If the day ever arrives when ghosts and psychic powers are proved to exist, then those supernatural concepts will be reclassified as natural phenomena.

The same applies to the Resurrection. If it did indeed happen, then it was a natural phenomenon. That doesn't mean it wasn't a divine phenomenon. It just means that God was using his God-magic to manipulate nature, and thus, it's a natural phenomenon.

So: my position is not that the Resurrection is impossible, it is that resurrections in general have not been proved to be possible. There is a subtle but distinct difference between the two positions.

Why is it unlikely? Because we have no evidence that any resurrection has ever happened.

Think about it like this: What if the claim was not that Jesus had resurrection resurrected, but had instead owned an interstellar spaceship? All of the evidence that currently exists for the resurrection, instead exists for the existence of Jesus Christ's spaceship.

Is it reasonable to accept this evidence -- this hearsay and anecdotal evidence -- and believe the claim is true?

I say no. I say the only way we can reasonably accept the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus's spaceship, is if interstellar spaceships are empirically proved to exist in general. If we cannot prove that they do exist or that they once existed, then we cannot reasonably conclude that Jesus owned one, no matter how many witnesses claim that he did.

> Historical investigation will never give you 100% certainty, but it does give reasonable certainty. Historians must choose the most probable explanation.

So why is the Resurrection not an established historical fact? Christ's existence and crucifixion are pretty much accepted historical facts. But his resurrection is not.

[jimwalton]

You said, "If we were treating this like a court case, the entire claim would be thrown out." This is just not so. Professor Tom Arnold, a one time chair of Modern History at Oxford, said, “The evidence for the…resurrection…has been shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad….I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer.”

Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), known as the finest legal mind of his day: “I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet.”

Sir Lionel Luckhoo, identified by the Guinness Book of World Records (1990) as the most successful attorney in the world, was forced to conclude after an exhaustive analysis of the evidence, “I say unequivocally that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”

If you're starting with an a priori conclusion, then any facts or evidence has no effect on you. How is that the supernatural "by definition" cannot exist? That doesn't make sense. By definition?