The Evidence Skeptics would like to see for the Resurrection Claim

[One Bad Pig]

There is no such thing as a "miracle scholar", therefore your appeal to scholarship regarding the historicity of miracles fails miserably.

You can't possibly be this dense other than on purpose. I'm talking about historical scholars, who would lament your abysmal understanding of first century culture.

Scholarship tells us:

-there most probably was a first century Jewish man named Jesus who taught a message of pacifism and a coming divine Kingdom of God. He got on the wrong side of Jewish authorities and was executed by the Romans. Soon after his death, his followers came to believe that he had been bodily resurrected from the dead.

That's about it.

That's a rather minimalist position (though not surprising, coming from you). Pacifists do not get on the wrong side of authorities trying to keep the peace with their overlords.

No evidence for turning water into wine, feeding thousands of people with five loaves and two fishes, casting out demons, healing blindness, leprosy, lameness, irregular menstrual bleeding, and raising the dead. None.

Only if ruled out a priori.

And the standard for accepting miracle claims today by western science and medicine is not set by me but by panels of experts for each field of western medicine and science. I'm sorry that you don't like them, but that is the way it is.

"Panels of experts" do not set the standard for accepting miracle claims for "each field of western medicine and science." Many medical experts accept the possibility of miracles (as attested by Keener). The only panel of which I'm aware that discusses miracles is that at Lourdes, which rather ironically you don't accept.

[Bisto]

Isn't the following possible, guys?

The author of Mark is a Gentile Christian living in Antioch or Rome who had never stepped foot in Palestine; never knew Jesus; and had never met any of the Eleven or Paul. He was a devout Christian who wanted to spread the Good News of Jesus...as he knew it, based on the legends circulating about Jesus at the time in his region of the world.

In circa 75 AD, "Mark" writes a book about Jesus. It isn't meant to be a historical biography. It is meant as a first century version of a Jack Chick gospel tract with exciting stories and devious supernatural beings and spectacular supernatural events all for the purpose of extolling the virtues of Jesus of Nazareth. This is why Paul never mentions any of Jesus' miracles in any of his epistles: Because no one on earth in the 50's and 60's AD had ever heard of any miracles by Jesus!

Once "Mark" had invented Jesus performing miracles, subsequent "gospel" authors repeated his miracle claims and added new ones of their own invention!

Maybe there originally were no miracles, folks. Maybe the only original miracle was the resurrection, and this miracle belief arose not because of an empty tomb (another concept never mentioned by Paul) but due to vivid dreams, visions, and trances by a few of the disciples, one of them most likely Peter who is said to have seen a sheet floating in the sky full of animals, during the middle of the day!

This is why miracles never occur today in front of a panel of skeptical experts! Because miracles aren't real. They never were real! The miracles in the Bible were either legendary stories circulated by uneducated peasants, or, they were theological inventions for literary purposes only.

I'll give my thoughts on your scenario just for the fun of it. I'm sure someone else will come by with real things to comment and learn from and we all may get something from this opportunity.

What do you mean with Mark being a "Christian" in a community centered around a no-Resurrection, no-Lordship, Teacher-only Jesus? Do you have any evidence that such a community existed? How do you suppose Mark would go from turning THAT kind of "Christianity" you assume existed before ALL our extent evidence, into the Gospel we see as authored by Mark? How do you reconcile this with the scholar claim that there were "proper" Christians only a few years after the Cross, preaching a Risen Lord?

You speak of "theological embellishments". What is that in Mark's context exactly? Do you have similar documents with similar "embellishments" that you can prove really are "embellishments" in whatever way it is you mean? I mean outside the Gospels themselves, since you are talking about them. Do you know any documents from the period that share the Gospels' literary genre and can be shown to have these? In other words, what is your literary-historical reason for believing such process could have happened?

You compare Mark's Gospel to a Chick Tract. Obviously the comparison is superficial at best; it cost good money and resources to write down a copy of Mark, and tracts as a literary genre of sorts are yet to come. You assume this document would bring supernatural characters and events and mesh them in the story without making them central to the story, but keeping the focus on the life and teaching of Jesus. Was there a literary genre at the time where he would put historical people with fantasy elements as a sort of propaganda you assume happened? Again, leave out the gospels, otherwise it's question begging.

You say nobody in Paul's time knew of Jesus' miracles because you consider he never spoke of it and should have. Stein already pointed you to the high context culture, which is very relevant here. You have long known about it, so shame on you if you did not consider it (not so if you just didn't remember ).

Besides, what would a miracle by Jesus give to a discussion on the problems of some church, right? And don't forget Paul also claimed to perform miracles himself, and he could use it as another argument against those who questioned his apostolic authority. I don't think he needed to add something like "Don't forget the Spirit is doing these things through me because our Lord did it first and gave us this also!"

We have already discussed the Resurrection and I don't think you have anything new to add here. I choose to skip it.

[Gary]

lets assume that many of jews and romans did witness the empty tomb and Jesus walking around doing miracles. Then they would believe in the resurrection and become Christians at which time you would dismiss anything they wrote and claim that there is no evidence for the resurrection. oh wait, that IS what happened and why the church began to grow by the thousands immediately.

I guess this thread is done. next?

There is no evidence of any specific miracle allegedly performed by Jesus. None. Nada. Zip.

And there is zero evidence of an empty tomb other than scholarly opinion, a form of weak evidence, and only 70% of scholars hold this opinion (if Habermas' data is correct). How many other events in history do 30% of scholars doubt its history? Therefore it is quite possible that the empty tomb and the many fantastical miracles of Jesus found in the Gospel of Mark were INVENTED by the author of the Gospel of Mark.

One of the biggest assumptions Christians make is that there were eyewitnesses to the crucifixion of Jesus still alive when the Gospel of Mark was written. If Mark was written in 75 AD, that is forty five years after Jesus' death in 30 AD. It is also after the destruction of Jerusalem and the massacre of its inhabitants. How many witnesses were still alive? We don't know, but it is possible that all were dead. But even if a few survived, would they have had the ability to stop "Mark's" story from circulating and being accepted? Maybe, but maybe not.

[Trout]

I'm rooting for Gary.

[Jedidiah]

I'm rooting for Gary.

He needs all the support he can get since he does not have the real story.

[Trout]

He needs all the support he can get since he does not have the real story.

Gotta love his passion

[Gary]

Gary, read this before you keep babbling on about Paul not knowing anything about Jesus' miracles or ministry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-_...ntext_cultures

Oral cultures (like the Mediterranean World in the 1st century) are high context by nature. Written cultures, like the 21st century US are low context by nature.

You are assuming that the reason that Paul never mentions ANY of Jesus' miracles is due to him being in a high context society. This certainly seems to be a possible explanation, and I am more than willing to admit that this MIGHT be the explanation for Paul's complete silence on Jesus' miracle claims, parables, sermons, and most other deeds of his life. But could you admit that it is also possible that the reason that Paul never mentions any of these details is because he had never heard of them (nor had Peter and James, with whom Paul says he met with in Jerusalem for fourteen days, heard of many or all of these stories as told in the Gospel of Mark)?

[Gary]

Please note that I'm not in debate with you on this topic, but really just responding for the sake of others that might be curious about it.

Making the evidence "more real" is an arbitrary statement. There are those that have been given far less evidence that even we have today that were willing to be thrown to lions for their belief, and it's not really based on intelligence as most of the Christians here are just as intelligent, if not more so, than you are as a skeptic. Many of us have debated many skeptics on this board in the past years, presenting skeptical arguments of every flavor and every angle. For me, personally, evidence in favor of the faith has never become more reinforced and clarified as a result. So, evidence is subjective. Some believe with less evidence, others don't believe with more evidence. Evidence can be a driving force towards belief, but like I said, there is apparently other rebellious elements that are determining factors towards belief. From a purely theological perspective, there are biblical passages that imply varying degrees of judgement that are determined by one's exposure to evidence. I obviously don't have specifics about how that will pan out in the end because specifics aren't given. But evidence given to some more than others that are more rebellious in nature might even be shown to have been a form of mercy to them on the day of judgement.

I certainly agree with your point that we all view evidence differently. I would even say that we all view probability differently. For me it is much more probable that if there were an empty tomb that it was empty because someone moved the body than that a dead body exited the sealed tomb by some supernatural power. Christians obviously see just the opposite. Our views of probability are heavily influenced by our worldviews.

So I do not expect to convince Christians that a natural explanation is more probable than a miracle (supernatural) explanation for the early Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

However, my goal is to get Christians to admit that there are plausible natural explanations for the Resurrection belief. Believing that it is plausible that a first century Jew or Jews moved the body of Jesus is not as far fetched as Christians try to insinuate it is. It is not as if skeptics are suggesting that Martians moved the body. First century Jews were human beings and human beings break even the most sacred of rules once in a while. To say that it is impossible that a first century Jew moved the body of Jesus is not rational. To say that it is impossible that Jesus' body was tossed into an unmarked grave and forgotten by the few soldiers who knew its location is also not rational. Both these scenarios are possible and plausible and Christians need to be honest and admit so.

[Gary]

You can't possibly be this dense other than on purpose. I'm talking about historical scholars, who would lament your abysmal understanding of first century culture.

That's a rather minimalist position (though not surprising, coming from you). Pacifists do not get on the wrong side of authorities trying to keep the peace with their overlords.

Only if ruled out a priori.

"Panels of experts" do not set the standard for accepting miracle claims for "each field of western medicine and science." Many medical experts accept the possibility of miracles (as attested by Keener). The only panel of which I'm aware that discusses miracles is that at Lourdes, which rather ironically you don't accept.

Historical scholars do not evaluate miracle claims, therefore, there is no such thing as a "scholar" when it comes to miracles.

Experts in science and medicine can evaluate if prayer is an effective treatment for terminal cancer, Parkinsons, epilepsy, leprosy, amputations, and death. To date, no such nationally recognized scientific or medical group has confirmed prayer as an effective treatment for these conditions. I fully agree that these expert panels are not going to comment on whether or not ANY miracles occur as that is a theological question.

[Gary]

I'll give my thoughts on your scenario just for the fun of it. I'm sure someone else will come by with real things to comment and learn from and we all may get something from this opportunity.

What do you mean with Mark being a "Christian" in a community centered around a no-Resurrection, no-Lordship, Teacher-only Jesus? Do you have any evidence that such a community existed? How do you suppose Mark would go from turning THAT kind of "Christianity" you assume existed before ALL our extent evidence, into the Gospel we see as authored by Mark? How do you reconcile this with the scholar claim that there were "proper" Christians only a few years after the Cross, preaching a Risen Lord?

You speak of "theological embellishments". What is that in Mark's context exactly? Do you have similar documents with similar "embellishments" that you can prove really are "embellishments" in whatever way it is you mean? I mean outside the Gospels themselves, since you are talking about them. Do you know any documents from the period that share the Gospels' literary genre and can be shown to have these? In other words, what is your literary-historical reason for believing such process could have happened?

You compare Mark's Gospel to a Chick Tract. Obviously the comparison is superficial at best; it cost good money and resources to write down a copy of Mark, and tracts as a literary genre of sorts are yet to come. You assume this document would bring supernatural characters and events and mesh them in the story without making them central to the story, but keeping the focus on the life and teaching of Jesus. Was there a literary genre at the time where he would put historical people with fantasy elements as a sort of propaganda you assume happened? Again, leave out the gospels, otherwise it's question begging.

You say nobody in Paul's time knew of Jesus' miracles because you consider he never spoke of it and should have. Stein already pointed you to the high context culture, which is very relevant here. You have long known about it, so shame on you if you did not consider it (not so if you just didn't remember ).

Besides, what would a miracle by Jesus give to a discussion on the problems of some church, right? And don't forget Paul also claimed to perform miracles himself, and he could use it as another argument against those who questioned his apostolic authority. I don't think he needed to add something like "Don't forget the Spirit is doing these things through me because our Lord did it first and gave us this also!"

We have already discussed the Resurrection and I don't think you have anything new to add here. I choose to skip it.

I believe that the earliest Christians very definitely believed in a Resurrection, as evidenced by the Early Creed in First Corinthians 15. Therefore the author of Mark would have believed that Jesus had been bodily resurrected and had appeared to some of his followers. I am not questioning the early existence of the Resurrection belief. I am questioning the origin of the miracle claims in the Gospel of Mark and the Empty Tomb story which we see for the first time in Mark. We don't see this in Paul's letters, for what reason we will never know for sure.

[Sparko]

I'm rooting for Gary.

you need to change your signature block then

[Sparko]

Gotta love his passion

so ignoring everything that proves you wrong and repeating yourself is "passion" now?

[Christianbookworm]

But he tries so hard.

[Gary]

And the claim that my position is contrary to scholarship is ridiculous. My position is fully in line with scholarship, just not the scholarship that Christians like. My position is fully in line with scholars such as Ehrman and Crossan. Neither one of these scholars believe that there is any evidence that Jesus healed leprosy, epilepsy, or raised the dead. Both of these scholars and others believe that a natural explanation is more probable for the Resurrection Belief than a literal bodily resurrection.

Christians need to seriously examine this question: Why did Jesus perform miracles then and why does he perform miracles now? If you say he performs miracles to relieve suffering, you must ask yourself why Jesus allows hundreds of millions of children to suffer agonizing disease, disability, and death. If Jesus performs miracles to demonstrate his power and divinity, why does he always avoid performing them in front of skeptical experts, television cameras, and cellphone recorders? Why is Jesus being so secretive? Does Jesus REALLY want "all" men to be saved? If so why not give indisputable evidence of his divinity? Why the games?

Doesn't common sense tell you that the reason indisputable miracles never happen in front of skeptical experts, television cameras, and cellphones is because miracles are not real; they are a misperception of reality based on the person's intense desire for a miracle to occur.

[Leonhard]

Neither one of these scholars believe that there is any evidence that Jesus healed leprosy, epilepsy, or raised the dead.

Can you state their reason for doing so, other than an anti-supernatural bias?

Why did Jesus perform miracles then and why does he perform miracles now?

Christ performed miracles so that the jews could see that He was who said He was, and therefore to believe His claims when He told them a new message to be believed. Like many things God does, this was supererogabutory, more than what was needed, but simple done out of the excess of the goodness of His heart. They were also done by Christ out of obedience, so that even the tiniest prophecy about Him could be fulfilled. These were considered to be signs of Christ's divinity, in turn with being kind acts.

Likewise God has compassion on those who suffer, and so again, in some cases He allows healings to occur that would not have occured on their own. However no one deserves to be healed, largely the state of the body is almost without importance to God, since its going to waste away anyway and all that really matters is the state of soul in any given moment, and at the moment of death. Those are the only two important moments in a persons life.

In some sense, being poor, sick and handicapped could be a blessing, if it left you virtues of humility and a devotion to God, whereas having been talented, healthy and rich would have been a life of debauchery. O miserable happiness, o joyful unhappiness, as one canticle writes it I remember. I'd rather die having suffered for seven years if it saved me, than life fourty years as an emperor if I became damned.

If you say he performs miracles to relieve suffering, you must ask yourself why Jesus allows hundreds of millions of children to suffer agonizing disease, disability, and death.

That is a good question. I could offer you some plausible reasons, but I don't have to. Not having the answer to that question is not a problem.

If Jesus performs miracles to demonstrate his power and divinity, why does he always avoid performing them in front of skeptical experts, television cameras, and cellphone recorders? Why is Jesus being so secretive?

I tend to find the magnificat praise of God from the Virgin Mary to be the best explanation for this.

"My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is on those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm,
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
52 he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.” Magnificat, Gospel of St. Luke 1:46-55

It implies God chooses to hide things from those who aren't interested in it, but illuminates those who are humble of heart and wants to believe in Him. If you want to believe in Him Gary, and desire that, and don't mind humbling yourself, I have no doubt that you will come to belief.

Does Jesus REALLY want "all" men to be saved? If so why not give indisputable evidence of his divinity? Why the games?

Of course God wants all men to be saved. The trouble is that all men don't want to be saved, or rather, they prefer other things than being disciples of Christ.

But lets turn it around. Why does God need to give intellectual evidence about any of this? The Church Fathers held, and both the Catholic as well as the Eastern Orthodox Church, and even baptists, believe that faith is a gift given. Its true the Catholic Church, and many Christian theologians also hold that anything we believe we can give rational grounds for doing so. Specifically the Catholic Church holds that the existence of God can be demonstrated with certainty from natural evidence.

But we also believe that faith in God doesn't require a phd in philosophy, theology and history. A lone woman sitting down in church before a cross... if she is open to recieve, and desires conversion, I think she'll find everything there she needs.

In other words God doesn't play games. He's given enough natural evidence for anyone to undisputably demonstrate His existence and power, and He allows by His grace and despite us not meriting it, that we can be given supernatural aid to come to know Him, with the kind of strong faith one can die for.

If you don't like this way of doing it, that's your business. At the end of the day Gary, you can receive faith if you want it, even implicity by being open to the truth. If you say you are, and especially if you pray, I have no doubt you'll recieve it.