Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Introverted Intuit]

If there were evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, then perhaps we'd expect non-christians to be convinced that the resurrection happened. Eh... I don't know how many times I've had this same discussion with people, maybe I should start counting. If I had a nickel for every time someone said "there is evidence Jesus rose from the dead" and they didn't actually know of any evidence, I'd have enough money to do a fake documentary telling how Jesus rose from the dead.

[jimwalton]

Well, we know the tomb was empty, because Christianity would not have started without it. There is no other reasonable explanation for the start of such talk only a few weeks from the crucifixion in the city where it happened. We have two pretty indisputable facts:

1. Jesus' disciples taught he was raised from the dead and appeared to individuals/groups

2. Jesus' disciples intended for us to interpret the resurrection as an actual event.

If a body were producible, it would have been produced. So there's the first piece of the project. We know the tomb was empty. It was a stone's throw from the crucifixion site, and its location was public knowledge.

Since we know the tomb was empty, we know the stone was rolled away, since otherwise they wouldn't have known the tomb was empty. There's piece #2.

Since we know the stone was rolled away, we know they looked inside, or else how would they have known the tomb was empty.

Since we know they looked inside, we know they formulated ideas about what might have happened. Given that all of them believed that bodily resurrection back to this life was impossible, they would have to formulate theories. This is a given.

And the Bible tells us what theories they formulated based on evidences brought to their attention after their initial opinions. The explanation they all proclaimed, without exception, is that Jesus had physically come back from the dead and that they had seen him, touched him, spoken with him, and eaten meals with him. They preached this message despite great opposition, mockery, and torture.

Those are some of the evidences we have. They're substantial enough to create a discussion from you in rebuttal.

[Introverted Intuit]

This is all your words, it's not the evidence. This is more or less the same apologetics that people use to defend that the resurrection happened. But it's not like, photos (which wouldn't exist whatever) or documents or artifacts or anything tangible and objective. So I should add one more nickel to my collection.

[jimwalton]

It's a fact that the tomb was empty. Nothing can be explained or makes sense if Jesus' body was still able to be confirmed in the tomb. The empty tomb is verifiable, physical, historical evidence. Which means my other points are evidence as well. Your reply betrays that you may not have an argument in rebuttal. Let's talk about it. That the tomb was empty is a historical fact, therefore the stone was rolled away, therefore people looked inside, and therefore we have documents from some of those who saw it. It's also virtually irrefutable that Jesus' disciples taught he was raised from the dead and appeared to individuals/groups, and that Jesus' disciples intended for us to interpret the resurrection as an actual event. Before you drop that nickel into your bank, let's see your evidence to the contrary.

[Introverted Intuit]

So I have asked people before, exactly who was where at what time, where were the tomb guards, and this information seems to have been lost over the centuries since the event.

When you look at the gospels, there are many inconsistencies. On this page https://ffrf.org/legacy/about/bybarker/rise.php , under the header "Internal Discrepancies", there are a list of them. You can check a Bible for yourself, there are in fact discrepancies.

This is sort of a case of, since there's not enough information to recreate the event, rebuttals I come up with could be rebutted by you and I could rebut that and you could rebut me and so on and this could go back and forth for a very long time. It's like we have a novel containing the story of this whole tomb/crucifixion event, and a third of the pages are blank, and we are left with things such as "empty tomb" preceded/followed by a lot of white space and that's all we have to go off. You get the idea.

Let's just go through this properly though. How are you making the connection from "empty tomb" to "the cadaver in there walked away". We aren't idiots, we both realize that in general, "empty tomb" does not imply "the corpse got up and walked away". There are other ways for a dead body to be removed from a gravesite. So before I can even talk about Jesus being raised from the dead, can we at least establish that he was in fact, raised from the dead, in the first place?

[jimwalton]

First of all, regarding the discrepancies. Telling a story from different vantage points doesn't make a contradiction. Someone standing on the left side of the street will talk about a car accident very differently from someone on the right side of the street. It's a difference of perspective, but not necessarily a contradiction in what happened.

Secondly, each Gospel writer had a specific agenda/strategy in what they were trying to communicate with their account. They include what fits their thesis, shuffle events to combine them into themes, and exclude what doesn't fit their point. Of course we get different versions, but those aren't a problem, especially when we understand that culture allowed selectivity in relating events.

I could write for you a harmonization of the four Gospel accounts of the resurrection that included all the details from all of them in a reasonable narrative, but I'm not sure that would do anything for you.

I noticed that your linked account was not objective by any means, but only included sources from detractors and people downright hostile to Christianity.

You want to know, "How are you making the connection from 'empty tomb' to 'the cadaver in there walked away'?" It took some pretty severe evidence, because the disciples were not expecting such a thing and didn't believe it was possible (it is not part of Judaism). The Romans and Jews had every reason to keep Jesus dead. As you say, we're not idiots, but neither were they. We all know that no cadaver gets up and walks away. They were no different. But since the body wasn't there, we have to infer the most reasonable conclusion. What happened to him? If we weigh the various alternative options (they all went to the wrong tomb [idiots!]; someone stole the body; Jesus never really died, but only swooned; the disciples were lying; they were hallucinating; Jesus had a twin brother; it was an imposter; it was a legend), not a single one of them makes sense when played out. What the Bible says is that the disciples didn't believe it either until they saw him and the evidence was irrefutable. Then they wrote about it, preached it, and suffered and died for it. A large movement was started in the same city Jesus had died, by people who saw him die, within two months of his death. There must have been very convincing evidence for them, or the movement would have been ridiculed off the map almost instantly.

What makes it most astounding is it's very "impossibility"—nobody but nobody comes back from the dead. It wasn't part of their religion, their upbringing, their heritage, or even within the realm of possibility. But that's exactly what they all preach, to their graves. While there are other ways for a dead body to be removed from a gravesite, none of them make sense and none of them come close to creating what we see happens to these men, and to the city, and to the world. The resurrection is the most reasonable explanation, given the evidence.

[Introverted Intuit]

> First of all, regarding the discrepancies. Telling a story from different vantage points doesn't make a contradiction.

So can we answer the question of specifically which women were at the tomb? Who were the women?

>Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
>Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
>Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
>John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

Simply, for example, tell me which women were there. Just to illustrate what we are going to consider irrelevant details. Some might consider specifically which people were present as important, some might not.

You can argue which details are important and which are irrelevant. The one important thing trying to be determined is... Q1: "did the corpse of Jesus get up and walk out or was it carried out like any old dead body?"

Let's just agree on facts first. What facts do we have? We have (1) tomb was found empty some time after the body of Jesus was put in there. Do we have more than one fact? Let's get facts first.

> I could write for you a harmonization of the four Gospel accounts of the resurrection that included all the details from all of them in a reasonable narrative

Gonna call your bluff on this one. Please do write a harmonization, it would be very valuable in answering the question Q1 we are trying to answer.

> If we weigh the various alternative options (they all went to the wrong tomb [idiots!]; someone stole the body; Jesus never really died, but only swooned; the disciples were lying; they were hallucinating; Jesus had a twin brother; it was an imposter; it was a legend), not a single one of them makes sense when played out

That's quite the claim. As you've wrote it here and what you've provided, do you think I can accept what you are saying? "Not one of them makes sense" is what you've presented as an opinion. Maybe they do maybe they don't but there's not enough on the table currently to say.

Rather than come at it from top down, come at it from bottom up. We have 1 fact so far. The way I'm laying it out is, we have Q1 that we want to answer. We have F1, call it, the first fact I mentioned. F1 is not enough to arrive at an answer for Q1. So like I said let's compile facts. You say that Jesus rose from the dead. On what facts do you base this assertion?

[jimwalton]

> The women

There was obviously a group of women there. None of the authors claims to be making an exhaustive list, though Luke gets the closest with "and other women." Each of the authors feels free to mention the ones in particular that pertain to their particular reason for telling the story. There's no contradiction here.

Suppose there was a party at my house. The next day a friend of mine asks me who was there. I mention James, Mary, and Peter, because I hung out with them the most. You were there also, but you mention Mary, John, and Rasputin. Have we contradicted each other? Of course not. There were many people there, and we each mentioned the ones that pertained to OUR story. No big deal.

> Harmonization

Jesus was crucified beside a road west of Jerusalem (Mk. 15.29). His trial had garnered some attention around town (Mk. 15.8-15), because he had entered the city a few days previous in the manner of a king (Mt. 21.1-11; Mk. 11.1-11; Lk. 19.28-44; Jn. 12.12-19). His arrest piqued the curiosity of some of the population of Jerusalem, and because the city was bulging with guests at Passover time, the streets were swollen as Jesus carried his cross to the Place of the Skull (Mt. 27.33; Mk. 15.22; Lk. 23.27; Jn. 19.17). Because Jesus was too weak to carry it the entire way, Simon of Cyrene was recruited to carry it the rest of the way for him (Mt. 27.32; Mk. 15.21; Lk. 23.26).

Very few actually followed the procession to the place of crucifixion just outside the city walls. Not only was crucifixion a gory and morbid affair, but most people were too busy with the Passover preparation to bother. There is no reason that we would expect a large crowd to gather for the crucifixion. Jesus, despite his fame in Galilee, was not as well known in Judea. At the execution site were the soldiers (Mt. 27.36; Lk. 23.36), some of the Jewish leaders (Mt. 27.41; Mk. 15.31; Lk. 23.35), a few of Jesus’ followers (mostly women, Mk. 15.40-41), and the passers-by (Mt. 27.39; Mk. 15.29).

Jesus was hung on the cross at 9 a.m. on Friday. Crucifixion was generally a long, drawn-out business, most often a process of days from onset to death. People didn’t exactly pack lunches and stay to watch. In the case of Jesus, since it was Passover weekend, it would likely be cut short and ended before sundown. Unlike the general population, the soldiers were bound to stay (Mt. 27.36) since the guaranteed death of the miscreants was their responsibility. The Jewish religious leaders may have come and gone, but some of the women who followed Jesus, along with Jesus’ mother Mary and John the Apostle, probably stayed through the whole ordeal (Mt. 27.55; Lk. 23.49; Jn. 19.25-27).

Jesus died at 3 p.m. (Mt. 27.46; Mk. 15.33-37; Lk. 23.44-46), and the attending soldiers were surprised by his quick demise (Mk. 15.44-45). They broke the legs of the other malefactors (Jn. 19.31-32), but were confident that Jesus was already dead (Jn. 19.33). Just to make certain, they plunged a spear in his side, up under his rib cage, into his chest cavity (Jn. 19.34). Now there was no doubt he was dead.

Meanwhile, Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, had requested of the authorities permission to take Jesus’ body upon death and bury it in his own family tomb, within sight of Golgotha (Mt. 27.57-58; Mk. 15.42-43; Lk. 23.50-54; Jn. 19.41). That permission is granted. Joseph and another member of the ruling council, Nicodemus, received the body of Jesus from the cross, and wrapped it as best they could in the time they had before sundown (Mt. 27.59; Mk. 15.46; Jn. 19.38-41), as some of the women watched (Mt. 27.61; Lk. 23.55). Those same women also observed that the body was not finished being wrapped and filled with spices, so they took note of where the grave was (Mk. 15.47; Lk. 23.55-56). A stone was rolled over the tomb entrance (Mt. 27.60; Mk. 15.46).

Some of the Jewish leaders were wary of the rumors that Jesus had predicted his own resurrection (especially in the Temple courts just a few days prior to his death, as well as at other times). They requested that the tomb be sealed to prevent tampering and a guard posted to dissuade any activity around the tomb, presumably so the body wouldn’t be stolen. Both of these activities—the sealing and posting the guard—happened sometime during the day Saturday (Mt. 27.62-66). The Sabbath passed otherwise uneventfully (Lk. 23.56).

Sometime just before dawn on Sunday morning, the earth shakes (Mt. 28.2) and Jesus rises from the dead. The stone is lifted right out of its track and removed from the entrance (Mt. 28.2). The soldiers all fall unconscious (Mt. 28.4). Jesus emerges from the tomb and walks away.

Now the guards come back to consciousness, see the stone rolled away, notice there is no body inside, and they run away in fear and report the empty tomb to their bosses (Mt. 28.11-15).

On Sunday morning at about the same time, just before the break of dawn, some women had woken early to walk to the tomb to finish dressing the body for its burial (Mk. 16.1; Jn. 20.1). It was important to them to reach the body before the fourth day, for Jewish tradition held that decomposition set in after three days. The sun rises while these three women are walking, and it has just creased the horizon as they arrive (Mt. 28.1; Mk. 16.2; Lk. 24.1). On the way they remember that there is a large stone over the entrance and ponder how they are going to gain entrance to the burial chamber to finish the work that had been begun late Friday afternoon (Mk. 16.2). (They are probably unaware of the sealing, or of the posted guard.)

Not only to their surprise, but also to their utter shock, they arrive at Joseph’s family tomb to find that the stone is no longer over the entrance, but displaced and to the side of the opening (Mk. 16.4; Lk. 24.2; Jn. 20.1). Mary Magdalene stops in her tracks, changes directions and runs to tell the disciples (Jn. 20.2), leaving the other women behind. This small group of women continues to the gravesite, and they see angels who declare to them that Jesus has risen from the dead (Mt. 28.2-6; MK. 16.5; Lk. 24.4-8). An angel instructs these women to go and tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee (Mt. 28.7; Mk. 16.6-7), but the women are scared (Mk. 16.5). They leave the scene (Mk. 16.8). On the way Jesus appears to them, and they worshipped him. He tells them to tell the others (Mt. 28.8-10; Mk. 16.8). Despite what they have seen and what Jesus has said, they don’t tell a soul (Mk. 16.8). They hardly know what to think of it all (Mk. 16.8).

Mary Magdalene, meanwhile, has found John and Peter, both of whom run to the tomb in fear, confusion, and surprise. John reaches the tomb first and glances in the tomb. Peter arrives shortly behind him, crashes past him and bursts into the burial chamber (Lk. 24.12; Jn. 20.33-5). John then follows him in, notices the position of the graveclothes and the head cloth (Jn. 20.6-7, and then both he and Peter leave the scene to head back to find the other disciples (Jn. 20.10).

Mary Magdalene, who has walked back to the site, now arrives (Jn. 20.11). She is the only one there now, and is still noticeably upset (Jn. 20.11). She thinks someone has stolen the body, and is beside herself with grief and confusion (Jn. 20.13). She looks in the tomb and sees two angels (Jn. 20.12), but, still confused, retires a short distance away, where Jesus himself appears to her (Jn. 20.14-17). At first she thinks he is a gardener, but Jesus reveals himself to her, and she worships him. She goes to tell the other disciples (Jn. 20.18).

In the middle of the day, Jesus walked the road to Emmaus with two of his disciples, and revealed himself to them (Lk. 24.13-35).

Later that same day, still Sunday, the day of resurrection, Jesus appears to Peter, and then to ten of the disciples (the other nine plus Peter, minus Thomas; Lk. 24.36ff.; Jn. 20.19ff.). The story continues from there.

> Alternative theories

1. They all went to the wrong tomb. This is easy to prove wrong. Take the idiots to the right tomb, still closed, sealed and guarded, and show them to corpse of Jesus. But that didn't happen. this theory is trite and without basis.

2. Someone stole the body. To claim that, we have to justify the motive, the means, and the opportunity. If we examine the potential perpetrators, we find that there is a substantial doubt beyond a reasonable doubt in all of the cases. Nothing about it really makes sense.

The disciples had no motive. They were in hiding for their lives. They weren't expecting a resurrection. The power of Rome was lethal and the Jewish leaders were not shy about killing, either. Nor did they have anything to gain from such a ridiculous story: there was no fame or money in it for them, as far as they could see. Only ridicule and persecution.

The women? Not likely. Neither the motive nor the means.

The Jews? Hardly. They had a dedicated reason to keep Jesus in the grave.

The Romans? Even less motive than the Jews, if that's even possible.

3. Jesus never really died, just swooned. Nothing about this makes sense if you think it through.

4. The disciples were lying. A successful conspiracy requires factors that weren't present: (a) a low number of conspirators. The lower the better. The more people involved, the greater the chance of failure. (b) The shortest amount of time to hold on to the lie. The longer the lie has to be maintained, the greater the chance someone will break. (c) excellent communication between conspirators. As the lie expands and gets elaborated on, all conspirators need to keep their stories in conformity with each other. (d) Family members. A conspiracy has greater chance of success with blood ties. The disciples were anything but. (5) Little or no pressure to confess. The greater the pressure, the more chance of break down.

Remember also that Palestine in the Greco-Roman era was an honor/shame culture. One would do anything possible to avoid shaming the family and community.

That they were liars and conspirators doesn't make a shred of sense.

5. All appearances of Jesus were hallucinations. This is impossible. There is no such thing as a group hallucination.

6. They were fooled by an imposter. No sense to this theory. That might work on a glance, but to pull off a convincing fraud you have to know more about the topic than the person you are trying to con. If someone were “playing” the person of Jesus risen from the dead, he would have to be able to fool the people who knew him best, including some doubtful disciples who didn’t want to be known as gullible halfwits.

7. One (or several) had hallucinations and tricked the others. Mary? No, she didn't have that much influence with the disciples. Peter? Others were with him when he saw Jesus, so that doesn't make sense. Paul? They didn't trust him when the story of the resurrection was being spread. He was an enemy. This alternative doesn't make sense.

8. It was all made up—a legend. It doesn't make sense, given what we know. If the story of resurrection were suddenly made up in Jerusalem, the city where he was killed, people wouldn’t fall for it. All people would have to do is produce the body and put an end to the lies. It also doesn't make sense given the chain of custody (the writings of Paul, the Gospels, and the Church fathers) about his bodily resurrection and appearances. This alternative doesn't make sense.

About all you have to go on is (1) Miracles aren't possible because (2) I have made the assumption that miracles aren't possible, and therefore (3) it didn't happen. But that doesn't make sense either, because you can't prove miracles aren't possible.

[Introverted Intuito]

One thing that is not harmonious about it is whether the stone was removed or not when they got there.

John 20:1-3 "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

Your summary was "Sometime just before dawn on Sunday morning, the earth shakes (Mt. 28.2) and Jesus rises from the dead. The stone is lifted right out of its track and removed from the entrance (Mt. 28.2). The soldiers all fall unconscious (Mt. 28.4). Jesus emerges from the tomb and walks away. Now the guards come back to consciousness, see the stone rolled away, notice there is no body inside, and they run away in fear and report the empty tomb to their bosses (Mt. 28.11-15)."

Matthew 28:1-7 " After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. 2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”"

So John is telling me the stone was already moved when the party got there (I shall call it the "party" as we are not sure which people went to the empty tomb Sunday morning). You seem to be agreeing with this. Matthew is not, Matthew is saying that right after the women got there, an angel descended from the sky and rolled the stone back. So the women watched the stone being rolled back by the angel according to Matthew, and the angel had a chat with them. But in your retelling of the story, the angel had already done the dirty work of rolling the stone back and had already deserted the scene long before the women got there.

And another thing: Matthew's telling of the events required Jesus to either have tunnelled through the wall or ghosted through the rock. You know, how does an object get out of a completely sealed space?

So again if you read anything from this comment, my suggestion is that we first just collect facts rather than judge them. We have some other facts we agree on... F2: Jesus was crucified to death on Friday, F3: The deceased body of Jesus was put in a sealed tomb. On top of F1: The tomb was found empty sometime around Sunday morning. I mean I wouldn't stake my life on any of these being true because I simply don't have the caliber of evidence that I prefer to have, but it seems reasonable that we have F1, F2, F3 as givens. Which would you add to this list?

So the thing that really doesn't add up for me... you said the events happened in this order: the guards fell unconscious, Jesus walked out of the tomb, the guards regained consciousness. This begs the question, who exactly is witnessing all this happening? The guards and the dead body of Jesus were the only bodies (living or dead) at the scene. When the guards went unconscious, we now have 0 witnesses at the scene. So who exactly was reporting the situation? I can at least see how in this time, with unconscious guards and an open tomb, that the dead body could have been dragged out by the living. This is reasonable, isn't it?

[jimwalton]

> The moving of the stone.

John's account is that the stone was moved before the women got there, as you said (Jn. 20.1). Luke says the same thing (Lk. 24.2). So also Mark (Mk. 16.3-4). Matthew, if you read carefully, doesn't say when the earthquake of v. 2 was. All it specifies is that the guards were there and passed out. Verse 1 says the women were on their way to the tomb ("went" is aorist tense: no claim as to timing, progress, or duration, but simply presents the action as happening); vv. 2-4 say an earthquake happened ("was" in v. 2 also an aorist). Matthew is not making claims to chronology or duration, but listing facts/events. Matthew's account doesn't necessarily put the women there at the time of the earthquake. He is not making claims about chronology or duration, but only of events. Since Mark, Luke, and John all say that the earthquake happened before the women got there, that's the best way to understand Matthew, who is making no timing or chronological assertions.

> Matthew's telling of the events required Jesus to either have tunnelled through the wall or ghosted through the rock. You know, how does an object get out of a completely sealed space?

Not so. Matthew is making no commitments to time, chronology, or duration. The angel speaking in v. 5 is also aorist tense. Analysis tells us that our best understanding is a harmonization of the 4 accounts. We're just collecting facts, but carefully, like scientists, forensics experts, detectives, or lawyers. The earthquake and removal of the stone happened pre-dawn. The guards passed out; Jesus emerged; the angels were present for various appearances. Right at the cusp of dawn the women arrive.

> F2

We have good evidence even from extra-biblical sources about the death of Jesus. His crucifixion is mentioned by Tacitus, Josephus, Thallus, Ignatius, Suetonius, Lucian, the Babylonian Talmud, and possibly Mara bar Sarapion. John Crossan, a skeptic who denies the authenticity of just about everything in the Gospels, says, "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."

> F3

The biblical account is the only one we have of the burial, but all of the details given accord exactly with what we know of the Roman empire, Jews, and Palestine. There is no particular reason to doubt it. Plus we can't rightly have a resurrection without a burial.

> Which would you add to this list?

I have added "the stone was rolled away" (or they wouldn't know the tomb was empty), "they looked inside" (or they wouldn't know the tomb was empty), "they made observations" (or why did they bother to look), and "they wrote and spoke about what they saw" (the Gospel accounts and the history of Christianity).

> This begs the question, who exactly is witnessing all this happening?

Great question. No one witnessed the actual resurrection. You'll notice that there is no account in the Gospels about Jesus coming out of the tomb: did he walk or float? They don't write about it because no one witnessed it.

> So who exactly was reporting the situation? I can at least see how in this time, with unconscious guards and an open tomb, that the dead body could have been dragged out by the living. This is reasonable, isn't it?

Oh, excellent question. For that to have happened, we'll need to say who was there and why in that space of, what—about an hour? First of all, no one was expecting the resurrection, so there would be no reason we would expect anyone to be there at the time. Secondly, an earthquake and the passing out of the guards would instill fear, not courage. Third, why would this person think, "Oh, I'll steal the slaughtered body in this tomb!" What would be his or her motive for dragging Jesus' cadaver out of the tomb and into hiding, and then carefully arranging the graveclothes and head cloth into a nice pattern? While it's remotely possibly that some passer-by just happened to be there at the time (though not likely at all), we have trouble creating a motive that makes this alternative plausible. And then, of course, we still have to explain all the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.