Christians around the world will soon celebrate Easter in remembrance of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.While being ignorant of just how poorly supported that hypothesis is historically. I say that after reviewing Craig's, Licona's and Habermas' best efforts otherwise.
Most people understand, however, that no one comes back to life after being dead for “three days.” How could any intelligent person believe such a thing?Good question.
We could be cynical and say the key word is “intelligent” but there are many people with Ph.D.’s who believe that Jesus rose from the dead. What reasons could they possibly have?One thing appears certain, they don't have any explanation for why Jesus' family rejected his claims during his earthly ministry.
First, Jesus’ crucifixion is considered to be historical fact. It is confirmed even by ancient non-Christian sources like Josephus, Lucian and Mara Bar Serapion. In addition, since crucifixion was considered such a shameful way to die, most biblical scholars don’t believe Christians would have invented a crucifixion story that would expose them to ridicule and hinder the spread of their message.My explanation for the empty tomb is easy: it is nothing but legendary embellishment. I do not believe Jesus was perceived by the Romans or Jews to be anywhere near the significant threat that the gospels pretend they perceived him to be. Jesus was a common blasphemous criminal whose miracle claims were even denied by his own family, most of whom were allegedly absent from the crucifixion, and after the authorities were satisfied he was really dead, they didn't give two shits what happened to his body, nor about his alleged claims that he would rise from the dead. All this malarkey about the Jews complained that Jesus predicted his own resurrection and thus the disciples might steal the body then claim the prophecy came true, is total bullshit.
Second, Jesus’ tomb was found empty.
Either way, there was a period of time between a disciple of Jesus burying him in a tomb, and the arrival of the guards at that tomb, for foul play to occur. If the guards could be bribed with money to say they were asleep on the job and that's how the body disappeared (the biblical excuse that would render them deserving of the death penalty) they would be more susceptible to a bribe from the "rich" Joseph of Arimathea to tell a lie that would not warrant the death penalty (i.e., when we came to the tomb to guard it, we found the body already missing). And indeed the guards would find that particular lie more attractive since the emptiness of the tomb would be exactly what they in fact experienced, and having been gone during the foul play, their boss could not be reasonably expected to fault them for the loss of the body while it was outside their custodial reach. All they need to do is avoid saying that they accepted a bribe to tell that story. They arrived, the body was already gone, simple.
Or even easier: when the guards arrived, the body was already missing, somebody had stolen the body before the guards arrived. No need to bribe, simply march back to headquarters and report the body went missing before the guards arrived.
You will say "Matthew 27:60 says Joe rolled a large stone against the tomb, so it was secure before the guards got there!"
Really? If Joe could move the stone over the mouth of the tomb, somebody could also roll it away before the guards got there. The only way you can avoid this is to sinfully add to the word of the Lord and pretend that when it says "he" rolled the stone, it really means a group of men. But even that doesn't work, since if a group of men could roll it in place, another group, like the disciples, could roll it away before the guards arrived.
Regardless, the empty tomb dies under my theory that Mark intended to end at 16:8, which means the earliest gospel had nothing to say about anybody actually seeing the risen Christ. Nothing you do with the empty tomb theory can overcome the historical problems created by Mark's unwillingness to say people actually saw the risen Christ.
All four biblical Gospels claim that Jesus’ tomb was empty (as does the second century “Gospel of Peter). The Gospels are unanimous in presenting women as the first eyewitnesses to the empty tomb.But Paul's "creed" in 1st Cor. 15 doesn't mention the women, and you cannot show that your explanatory theory (female testimony not considered reliable) is more plausible than the skeptical theory (the version of the story Paul heard did not involve women being the first witnesses). After all, it was Paul himself who believed women were not inferior to men.
And your "unanimous" argument is weak, if we give credence to the majority scholarly Christian consensus that Matthew and Luke borrowed most of their gospel material from Mark. Gee, the copy reflects the source?
Since women were not regarded as reliable witnesses in those days,Apparently you are unaware that a religion called Christianity started with the testimony of women...which shows that the Christians themselves, who made up this resurrection story, didn't view female testimony as negatively as non-Christians did. So don't forget about the Christians.
even many skeptical scholars are convinced that early Christians would not fabricate a story in which the earliest eyewitnesses were thought to be unreliable.It's not typical Jews saying the women were the first eyewitnesses, it is Christians who tell this gospel story, and the Christian view of women wasn't as negative as the non-Christian view.
The earliest explanation for the empty tomb is found in the Gospel of Matthew which says that the guards reported that someone stole the body while they slept (if they were sleeping, how would they know)?Your question is precisely why that story doesn't ring true. Were the guards so stupid, they didn't anticipate that their boss would naturally ask "how could you possibly know what happened to the body, if it happened while you were asleep?" Furthermore, to lose the guarded object would likely warrant severe punishment possibly including execution, making it highy unlikely the guards would be willing to tell such a tale.
You are also forgetting that Joseph of Arimathea, allegedly the guy who buried Jesus, was "rich" (Matthew 27:57), and thus it is equally as plausible to suggest that Joe bribed the guards to say "the body was gone when we first arrived at the tomb". Between Matthew 27:60-62, a full day transpired between Joseph burying Jesus and the arrival of the guards.
You will insist they would surely check that the body was still there before sealing the tomb, but on the contrary, modern history is plagued with examples in which the authorities did a shocking piss-poor job of evidence collection and otherwise violated common sense in their effort to secure evidence. Combined with Joe's being rich and thus having capacity to offer the guards even more money than the earlier Jews who first bribed the guards, you are a fool to pretend that Matthew's version is the most historically plausible version of the events.
And if the body was indeed gone when the guards arrived, they could truthfully say to their boss that the body was missing when they arrived, and this misleading impression would carry far less risk to their lives than the bullshit "disciples-stole-the-body-while-we-were-asleep" yarn that no fool would fall for. Since Joe's bribing the guards this way makes them far less prone to the fearful penalties of failing their task, Joe's bribing the guards to truthfully say the body was gone when they first arrived, sounds like the more likely historical truth. Feel free to keep your own theory alive by speculating that the guards were retarded, drunk or stupid but sheer possibilities can never trump the probability you just read.
The stolen body theory might explain why the tomb was empty but we would still have to account for the stories that say Jesus was seen alive after his death.I do account for them. They are legendary embellishments, because they only appear in the later gospels, the earliest gospel, Mark, stops at 16:8, exactly the point where Matthew and Luke diverge. Doesn't matter if Marcan priority is technically false, reasonableness doesn't require accuracy or comprehensive rebuttal to counter-theories. Markan priority is what most Christian scholars agree with, so its obviously reasonable to accept. If any reader wishes to mount the case against Markan priority, they can consider themselves invited to try.
Some have suggested that Jesus survived the crucifixion. Most biblical scholars find this unconvincing. Three crucified friends of Josephus (a first century historian) were taken off their crosses after only a few hours. Although all of them presumably received medical attention, two of them died the same day, and the third one died shortly thereafter. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (March 21, 1986) concluded that theories about Jesus’ survival are contrary to the evidence. Even if Jesus had survived, however, it seems a bit silly to think that early Christians would have hailed this very bruised and broken man (most likely in critical condition) as their resurrected Messiah!I don't bother with such foolishness. Dismissed. Next?
Third, Jesus was believed to have appeared alive physically after his execution (Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:39-43; John 20:17, 27-28). Recent scholars have argued that in the Gospels we are in touch with what early Christians believed about Jesus.But most scholars deny the apostolic authorship of the gospels, so without good argument that they are wrong, to trust the word of the canonical gospels is to trust the word of several different authors and redactors, whose unique contributions making up the final canonical form can no longer be distinguished from the "original", a situation you'd scream your head off about, if the eyewitness affidavit showing you committed murder, suffered the same degree of multiple authorship and textual changes and borrowing extensively from a prior similar affidavit.
But the fact that Matthew and Luke often "tone down" Mark's version of things might indicate that these two gospel authors didn't view Mark as inerrant. If they thought Mark's choice of wording was "inerrant", then what could possibly motivate them to think inerrant wording inspired by God needed the least bit of alteration?
Regardless of whether anyone today believes their stories, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the Gospel writers taught that the resurrection of Jesus was physical, not merely “spiritual.”Agreed.
Even Ignatius, writing shortly after the last New Testament book was written, said that that Jesus was still in the flesh after his resurrection.You mean the epistle that shows that some of the Christians in his church irrationally denied the possibility of resurrection from the dead? 1st Cor. 15:12. Isn't that about as believable as followers of Paul who deny the existence of God? Gee, what could have motivated these "some" to conclude that resurrection doesn't happen? It couldn't be their serious investigation into the gospel sources, could it?
Years before the Gospels were written St. Paul also affirmed the physical resurrection of Jesus. In First Corinthians—which even the most skeptical scholars believe is genuine
—Paul writes that the resurrected Jesus was seen by more than 500 people.A fact the gospels don't mention, a fact gospel authors wouldn't likely remain silent about if they knew such a thing had happened.
Paul also said he would pretend to believe things he didn't truly believe, if he felt doing so would help him gain converts. 1st Cor, 9:20-21. When Paul circumcised Timothy "because of the Jews (Acts 16:3), what was he saying while using the knife? Maybe "all things in my Jewish past that were gain to me, like my heritage and circumcision, I count as dung "(Phil. 3:8)?
Paul also confessed, that, 14 years after the fact, he still couldn't tell whether his flying into the sky happened to his physical body or only to his spirit. 2nd Cor. 12:1-4. And you set forth this hack as if his credibility is beyond question? FUCK YOU.
It seems pretty clear that Paul is not intending to say that 500 people had hallucinations or visions!No, that's not clear at all. Mass hallucination does not require that the exact same mental image be shared by everybody during the experience, only that they are all having the same general delusion. Just look at today's Pentecostals. They insist they are all slain by the single selfsame Holy Spirit, but that hardly implies that they are claiming to have shared the exact same mental images during the experience. once you correct that misunderstanding, mass hallucination becomes a far more likely candidate. It's what happened at Fatima.
Not only that, but Paul uses the word “resurrection” to describe what happened to Jesus. Resurrection” meant that the body came back to life, not that the spirit lived on after death which is something most people believed anyway.Paul is not credible. If he wanted to say Jesus' body came back to life, he could have done so in a couple of paragraphs instead of a whole chapter going off into eotericc nonsense about how the glory of the sun is different than the glory of the moon, etc. Paul apparently knew how to phrase things in order to convey that Jesus' flesh came back to life, see Acts 2:31.
Worse for Paul, he allegedly could have simply quoted the specific resurrection tradition unique to his follower Luke, namely, that when Jesus rose, he proved he wasn't a spirit (Luke 24:39). Paul's choice to go into a mile-long rant about spiritual bodies makes me suspicious that the matter of his belief about resurrection is a bit more complex that you are letting on.
What you appear to have overlooked is that Paul felt his bodily resurrection beliefs needed to be taught to the Corinthians because some were denying the whole idea. It's hard to believe that Paul would have taken this much time to correct them, if their denial of bodily resurrection was "clear" error. How much time would you spend with a "Trinitarian" who denies that the Holy Spirit is a person? I thus reasonably conjecture that the reason Paul devoted so much time to the subject is because exactly how Jesus "rose" was NOT "clear" to the Corinthians, but rather a subject of significant dispute.
In Second Corinthians, Paul reminds his readers of the persecution he faced for preaching the gospel, including imprisonment, beatings and life-threatening danger like being stoned (with real stones)!My grandpa also told me lots of stories from WW2, which under your trusting logic apparently means I have no choice but to assume he was incapable of exaggerating what really happened to make it more dramatic.
Paul was so convinced of the resurrection that he staked his whole life on it!Paul started out persecuting the Christian violently, then suddenly started agreeing with them. I don't have a lot of faith in people who can teleport between two such extremes at the speed of light. I'm also suspicious that Paul's tendency to go to extremes likely manifested itself by him exaggerating what really happened to him. Yes, grandpa was in the army and suffered many things. No, that doesn't mean every shocking detail he related was the historical truth. You also overlook that Paul was aware that his churches couldn't easily "check" his facts, unless they were willing to take dangerous first-century trips over long distances, which would involve leaving their families and jobs, sacrifices most people in honor/shame cultures would have difficulty with unless they were rich and bored. I see no motive for Paul to fear he might be caught lying. Look at Benny Hinn, any fool can tell that asshole is nothing but a con artist...but does the prospect of being exposed bother Hinn in the least? NO.
And you know what sinners will do if they think they can get away with it. Paul himself said all men should be presumed to be liars.
Many other early Christians staked their lives on the same conviction.They were deluded Pentecostals just like Paul. Did you have a point?
Finally, the resurrection of Jesus could be treated as a historical hypothesis; a hypothesis which explains a lot that is difficult to explain otherwise. For example:A stupid internally conflicted extremist would also explain Paul's radical shift in thinking.
The hypothesis of Jesus’ resurrection explains the conversion of Paul.
By his own testimony Paul had violently opposed Christianity.Something also not corroborated by any independent or first-hand source. Once again, its just grandpa embellishing the historical truth to make it more dramatically memorable.
How did this rabid opponent of Christianity became one of its most ardent promoters?Maybe the way a know-nothing farm boy became the founder of Mormonism? Claim a vision, seek gullible followers, and wait a few years to see if the plan works?
Also, you don't know what exact historical accidents happened so that among all the Christian talkers of the first century, Paul ended up having the most popularity.
Paul himself would say it was due to his conviction that Jesus had risen.And Benny Hinn lies when telling people they are healed. An obvious liar, easily verfied, yet the harsh truth doesn't slow him down at all.
The hypothesis of Jesus’ resurrection explains the change in worship from the Sabbath to the first day of the week.More correctly, the belief that Jesus rose, would explain this. The hypothesis of Santa Claus would also explain presents under the tree that nobody claims responsibility for.
Sabbath observance was so central to ancient Jewish identity that for Jewish Christians (The earliest Christians were all Jewish) to start worshiping on Sunday would be more shocking than if PETA started sacrificing puppies!No, you are just falsely classifying all first-century Jews as extreme devotees, when in fact that was hardly the case. Cornelius was allegedly a "devout" follower of Judaism, yet he didn't even recognize that worship of human beings constituted idolatry. Acts 10:25-26.
It would demand an explanation. Belief that Jesus had risen on the first day of the week would explain the change.Lots of false hypotheses would also explain the evidence in a murder trial, that hardly does anything to help answer the question of what actually DID happen.
This hypothesis also explains the continuation of the Jesus movement even after his death.Well then, since Mormonism continued to grow after Smith and Young died...
Many Jews expected their Messiah to kick the Romans out of Judea.Probably because the OT made it fairly clear that the messiah would be nothing more than an earthly ruler.
When the Romans crushed these Messiah wannabees their movements always died with them. Only in the case of Jesus did the movement continue after his death.Incorrect, the Jesus-cult died out before the 5th century. That crap you call "Christianity" today is nothing close to the legalistic temple worship that constituted original Christianity.
The hypothesis would also explain the worship of Jesus by early Christians who were fiercely monotheistic Jews!Nope, Cornelius was a "devout" Jew, and yet if you conclude he surely knew what types of worship constituted idolatry, you'd be wrong. Acts 10, supra. You are dishonestly painting the first-century Jews as a group of theologians who were in confident agreement about what constituted idolatry. You are mistaken. Philo couldn't even avoid admitting his doctrine of the Logos implied that the wisdom of God was a "second god" (Questions and Answers on Genesis 2:62)
And don't even get me started on how hopeless it is to pretend the author of 2nd Kings 3:27 was a monotheist. He clearly thought the Moabite deity turned the tide of the battle, that's the best explanation for the "wrath" that came against Israel after the pagan king sacrificed his son during a stand-off. If you think that wrath was your god or something else, consider yourself challenged.
We really haven’t even scratched the surface on this topic but evidence like this has convinced even highly skeptical scholars that Jesus’ earliest followers sincerely believed that he had risen from the dead.
These skeptical scholars are quick to add, however, that we can be absolutely certain that Jesus did not rise from the dead because dead people just don’t come back to life.You will never show that it is irrational to use our personal pool of life experience to draw conclusions about stories whose content contradict the way we experience life to work. How the fuck else do you expect cops and criminal investigators to detect when somebody's logically possible story sounds suspicious? Prayer?
Some might say that their philosophical presuppositions (faith) outweigh historical considerations.Just like it is the philosophical presuppositions of Protestants that outweigh the historical evidence and testimony to the Catholic miracles at Fatima, Lourdes, etc. You've already decided that Catholicism is false. Don't tell me you are Mr. Truth-Robot and you are always eager to let the chips fall where they may even when evidence potentially contradicting your chosen religion comes down the pike. I don't fault you for choosing to make up your mind before you turn 98 years old, so you cannot fairly fault skeptics for choosing to making up their minds before they turn 98 years old either. Life is also about arriving at conclusions, it's not limited to just being objectively open to every new theory that comes along. I've made up my mind that Mormonism is false. I will NEVER be open to the possibility that it might actually be true. Now under your own religion, isn't this closed-minded stance a mark of virtue?
In the final analysis, nothing can be “proven” beyond all possible doubt.Which is irrelevant, since it is only stupid amateurs who think the non-existence of absolute proof is somehow compelling one way or the other.
There is always a gap that can be crossed only by faith (this is also true in science).It's nice to know you have a Ph.d and yet you clearly understand "faith" to be something that fills in evidentiary gaps. Perhaps that has something to do with your "passion" for Christianity. $10 says you are either a charismatic or a Pentecostal.
Those of us who have examined the evidence, however, and have experienced what we believe to be the grace and power of God in our lives, and the witness of the Spirit in our hearts, have no trouble proclaiming with Christians around the world that He is risen indeed!Do you ever tell skeptics to avoid appeals to emotion? Why? Is there some law of the cosmos that says only Christians are allowed to do that?
