Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Perhaps you should look and realize you're only engaging with prior probability and not looking at the probability after all the data is taken in.

All you've got really is Hume's argument and for that you need to read Earman and then read Keener and see how many people all over the world are reporting miracles.

[Gary]

Perhaps you should look and realize you're only engaging with prior probability and not looking at the probability after all the data is taken in.

All you've got really is Hume's argument and for that you need to read Earman and then read Keener and see how many people all over the world are reporting miracles.

Nick, check the internet for how many people claim to have a "natural" cure for cancer. There are hundreds if not thousands! Yet most educated people do not spend hours and hours researching each of these "miracle cures" to determine if they are true. We don't do that. We pay attention to a "miracle cure" natural herb or therapy when science finds the evidence so compelling that the herb or therapy is scientifically studied and substantiated.

You are asking me to investigate thousands of miracle claims. Yet how many of these claims have triggered the interest of neutral investigators to verify the claim due to the quality of the evidence? Not many if any. If prayer really had the power that you believe it does for cures and resuscitation from the dead, scientists and doctors would be studying and using it. Why aren't they? You will allege bias. I will allege a lack of good evidence.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Because prayer involves a free-will agent and free-will agents do not necessarily conform to experimentation. (Yeah. Try pleasing the Mrs. one way that really worked the last way. No guarantee.) Also, God has not agreed to be subject to prayer tests and sometimes prayer outcomes are affected by the faith and devotion of the ones praying. Too many variables that we can't account for.

[Gary]

Because prayer involves a free-will agent and free-will agents do not necessarily conform to experimentation. (Yeah. Try pleasing the Mrs. one way that really worked the last way. No guarantee.) Also, God has not agreed to be subject to prayer tests and sometimes prayer outcomes are affected by the faith and devotion of the ones praying. Too many variables that we can't account for.

Ok, I will accept that: We can't test miracles.

But I am not arguing for the non-existence, non-probability of miracles. I am arguing for the very low probability of one miracle: a resurrection. Even you will agree that there has only been one (alleged) resurrection. What I am suggesting that you consider is to compare the probability of one unheard-of-before-or-since miracle compared to the probability of alternative, naturalist explanations for the event in question.

We both agree that no one witnessed the body come back to life. We both agree that no one witnessed the body leave the tomb. So neither one of us has ANY evidence for how the body left the tomb. My argument is this: What is the probability that the body left a sealed tomb by supernatural means vs. a natural means?

We both agree that there has only been ONE (alleged) resurrection in all of human history. We know that Jews did move bodies under certain circumstances, such as to move a body to a family plot. So even if we say that a Jew moving a body only happened TEN times prior to 33 AD, in the entire history of the Jewish people, probability tells us that the odds that the body was moved by a Jew and not by a resurrection is TEN TIMES greater. And then there is the possibility of other natural causes for the early Christian belief in a resurrection. I know that you believe that these explanations are implausible, but you can't say that they are impossible.

---The Romans moved the body.
---Grave robbers stole the body.
---The Sanhedrin secretly moved the body after the Sabbath had ended.
---The majority of scholars are wrong; there was no tomb. Jesus' body had been thrown into an unmarked, common grave.

I suggest that the probability that any one of these alternative, naturalistic explanations, although possibly very low, is still much greater than a once in history event---a resurrection.

I am not saying that your miracle is impossible, only that there are other much more probable explanations. Please explain why I am wrong.

[One Bad Pig]

We both agree that there has only been ONE (alleged) resurrection in all of human history.

False. There have been several resurrections recorded in scripture alone (and there are more recorded in hagiographies).

We know that Jews did move bodies under certain circumstances, such as to move a body to a family plot. So even if we say that a Jew moving a body only happened TEN times prior to 33 AD, in the entire history of the Jewish people, probability tells us that the odds that the body was moved by a Jew and not by a resurrection is TEN TIMES greater. And then there is the possibility of other natural causes for the early Christian belief in a resurrection. I know that you believe that these explanations are implausible, but you can't say that they are impossible.

Your source significantly post-dates the start of the Christian Era. It is also rather implausible that a decaying body would be moved; in the practice of the time, the remains were typically transferred to ossuaries anyway once the flesh had decayed. Further, Passover kicked off a week of festivities, and anyone rendered unclean wouldn't be able to take part in the remaining festivities; they'd be motivated to wait at least until the festivities were over (and, by that point, until the flesh had decayed - a week after death, the corpse would be stinking to high heaven). Further, a shameful member of the family would be left anywhere rather than be brought back to heap dishonor on the family by continued association.

---The Romans moved the body.

There is no plausible motive for the Romans to do so.

---Grave robbers stole the body.

Grave robbers stole precious items buried with the body, not bodies.

---The Sanhedrin secretly moved the body after the Sabbath had ended.

With another week of festivities to attend? Nope.

---The majority of scholars are wrong; there was no tomb. Jesus' body had been thrown into an unmarked, common grave.

You have to throw out a whole heap of the evidence presented in the Gospels for that to work. And what happened to your asseveration that you go with the scholarly majority? I see that you only do that if the majority agrees with you.

I suggest that the probability that any one of these alternative, naturalistic explanations, although possibly very low, is still much greater than a once in history event---a resurrection.

I am not saying that your miracle is impossible, only that there are other much more probable explanations. Please explain why I am wrong.

All of the above ignores post-Resurrection audial, visual, and tactile appearances of Jesus to multiple people at once, which render the body-stealing hypothesis moot.

[Adrift]

False. There have been several resurrections recorded in scripture alone (and there are more recorded in hagiographies).

To be fair, he probably meant resurrection to eternal life.

Your source significantly post-dates the start of the Christian Era. It is also rather implausible that a decaying body would be moved; in the practice of the time, the remains were typically transferred to ossuaries anyway once the flesh had decayed.

Further, Passover kicked off a week of festivities, and anyone rendered unclean wouldn't be able to take part in the remaining festivities; they'd be motivated to wait at least until the festivities were over (and, by that point, until the flesh had decayed - a week after death, the corpse would be stinking to high heaven). Further, a shameful member of the family would be left anywhere rather than be brought back to heap dishonor on the family by continued association.

There is no plausible motive for the Romans to do so.

Grave robbers stole precious items buried with the body, not bodies.

With another week of festivities to attend? Nope.

You have to throw out a whole heap of the evidence presented in the Gospels for that to work. And what happened to your asseveration that you go with the scholarly majority? I see that you only do that if the majority agrees with you.

All of the above ignores post-Resurrection audial, visual, and tactile appearances of Jesus to multiple people at once, which render the body-stealing hypothesis moot.

Yeah, waiting a year till the flesh had decayed from the bones before moving to the family tomb seems to have been more than a practice, it was the law. And let's not forget about this happening on the Sabbath. Also more than not having any plausible motivation, there are other reasons Romans wouldn't have moved the body. I quoted Craig Evans on this subject once before in Nick and Gary's Resurrection of Jesus comment thread, but here it is again:

Source: Matthew by Craig Evans

Protecting tombs was a serious matter in late antiquity, among Gentiles as well as Jews. There were stiff laws against tampering with tombs, including vandalism, unauthorized entry, theft, and removing or adding corpses without authorization. An inscription of uncertain provenance, perhaps originally erected in Galilee and probably dating to the early first century A.D., records Caesar's edict against grave robbery (SEG 8.13):

Ordinance of Caesar: It is my pleasure that graves and tombs - whoever has made them as a pious service for ancestors or children or members of their house - that these remain unmolested in perpetuity. But if any person lay information that another either has destroyed them, or has in any other way cast out the bodies which have been buried there, or with malicious deception has transferred them to other places, to the dishonor of those buried there, or has removed the headstones or other stones, in such a case I command that a trial be instituted, just as if they were concerned with the gods for the pious service of mortals. For beyond all else it shall be obligatory to honor those who have been buried. Let no one remove them for any reason. If not, however [i.e., if anyone does so], capital punishment on the charge of tomb robbery I will to take place.

In all probability, Matthew's readers would have understood the story of the posting of the guard and the sealing of the stone that covered the entrance in light of the laws and values expressed in this inscription, whatever its precise date and provenance. Caesar's edict forbids the removal or transfer of bodies. If one violates the edict, the emperor wills "capital punishment on the charge of tomb robbery."

Of course, Jewish readers would also be mindful of their own laws and customs that forbade full funeral rites for condemned criminals. These rules made it unlawful to remove the corpse from the dishonorable place of burial to a family crypt (cf. 1 Kings 13:21-22; Jer 22:19; Josephus, Ant. 5.44, "he was given the dishonorable burial proper to the condemned"; m. Sanh. 6:5, "And they did not bury [the executed criminal] in the burial grounds of his fathers, but two burial places were kept in readiness for the use of the court"). Mourning was not allowed (cf. Jer 22:18, "They shall not lament for him"; m. Sanh. 6.6, "they did not go into mourning; but they observe a private grief, for grief is only in the heart"; Semahot 2.7, but mourning is allowed if the condemned person had been judged only by the Roman government; cf. Semahot 2.11). Sanctions against mourning and reburial (i.e., in an ossuary) were lifted after one year, or when the flesh had decomposed (cf. m. Sanh. 6.6, "when the flesh had wasted away they gathered together the bones and buried them in their own place"; Semahot 2.13, where there is also reference to execution by crucifixion). Only then would Jesus' followers and family be permitted to rebury his bones in an ossuary (or bone box) and inter it in the family tomb.

© Copyright Original Source

[Gary]

False. There have been several resurrections recorded in scripture alone (and there are more recorded in hagiographies).

Your source significantly post-dates the start of the Christian Era. It is also rather implausible that a decaying body would be moved; in the practice of the time, the remains were typically transferred to ossuaries anyway once the flesh had decayed. Further, Passover kicked off a week of festivities, and anyone rendered unclean wouldn't be able to take part in the remaining festivities; they'd be motivated to wait at least until the festivities were over (and, by that point, until the flesh had decayed - a week after death, the corpse would be stinking to high heaven). Further, a shameful member of the family would be left anywhere rather than be brought back to heap dishonor on the family by continued association.

There is no plausible motive for the Romans to do so.

Grave robbers stole precious items buried with the body, not bodies.

With another week of festivities to attend? Nope.

You have to throw out a whole heap of the evidence presented in the Gospels for that to work. And what happened to your asseveration that you go with the scholarly majority? I see that you only do that if the majority agrees with you.

All of the above ignores post-Resurrection audial, visual, and tactile appearances of Jesus to multiple people at once, which render the body-stealing hypothesis moot.

Your statement uses a definition of "resurrection" that I do not think that most apologists would agree with. A resurrection is not a resuscitation of a dead body, such as what happened to Lazarus. Lazarus was "raised from the dead" but he continued to have a mortal body that would eventually die again. Christians allege that Jesus not only was raised from the dead but he was raised from the dead with an IMMORTAL body; a body that would never die and a body that possessed supernatural powers.

I agree with you that all the possible naturalistic explanations for the Empty Tomb may have a low probability, but I challenge you or any other Christian to prove that these naturalistic explanations are IMPOSSIBLE. My argument is not that the Resurrection of Jesus is impossible, but that it is less probable than even the most improbable naturalistic explanation for the reason that exceptions to rules/generalizations have occurred rather frequently in collective human history whereas a resurrection has only occurred once... if at all. Does that make sense?

[Gary]

To be fair, he probably meant resurrection to eternal life.



Yeah, waiting a year till the flesh had decayed from the bones before moving to the family tomb seems to have been more than a practice, it was the law. And let's not forget about this happening on the Sabbath. Also more than not having any plausible motivation, there are other reasons Romans wouldn't have moved the body. I quoted Craig Evans on this subject once before in Nick and Gary's Resurrection of Jesus comment thread, but here it is again:

Source: Matthew by Craig Evans

Protecting tombs was a serious matter in late antiquity, among Gentiles as well as Jews. There were stiff laws against tampering with tombs, including vandalism, unauthorized entry, theft, and removing or adding corpses without authorization. An inscription of uncertain provenance, perhaps originally erected in Galilee and probably dating to the early first century A.D., records Caesar's edict against grave robbery (SEG 8.13):

Ordinance of Caesar: It is my pleasure that graves and tombs - whoever has made them as a pious service for ancestors or children or members of their house - that these remain unmolested in perpetuity. But if any person lay information that another either has destroyed them, or has in any other way cast out the bodies which have been buried there, or with malicious deception has transferred them to other places, to the dishonor of those buried there, or has removed the headstones or other stones, in such a case I command that a trial be instituted, just as if they were concerned with the gods for the pious service of mortals. For beyond all else it shall be obligatory to honor those who have been buried. Let no one remove them for any reason. If not, however [i.e., if anyone does so], capital punishment on the charge of tomb robbery I will to take place.

In all probability, Matthew's readers would have understood the story of the posting of the guard and the sealing of the stone that covered the entrance in light of the laws and values expressed in this inscription, whatever its precise date and provenance. Caesar's edict forbids the removal or transfer of bodies. If one violates the edict, the emperor wills "capital punishment on the charge of tomb robbery."

Of course, Jewish readers would also be mindful of their own laws and customs that forbade full funeral rites for condemned criminals. These rules made it unlawful to remove the corpse from the dishonorable place of burial to a family crypt (cf. 1 Kings 13:21-22; Jer 22:19; Josephus, Ant. 5.44, "he was given the dishonorable burial proper to the condemned"; m. Sanh. 6:5, "And they did not bury [the executed criminal] in the burial grounds of his fathers, but two burial places were kept in readiness for the use of the court"). Mourning was not allowed (cf. Jer 22:18, "They shall not lament for him"; m. Sanh. 6.6, "they did not go into mourning; but they observe a private grief, for grief is only in the heart"; Semahot 2.7, but mourning is allowed if the condemned person had been judged only by the Roman government; cf. Semahot 2.11). Sanctions against mourning and reburial (i.e., in an ossuary) were lifted after one year, or when the flesh had decomposed (cf. m. Sanh. 6.6, "when the flesh had wasted away they gathered together the bones and buried them in their own place"; Semahot 2.13, where there is also reference to execution by crucifixion). Only then would Jesus' followers and family be permitted to rebury his bones in an ossuary (or bone box) and inter it in the family tomb.

© Copyright Original Source

I accept the fact that moving the body would have been a rare event in that period of time and in that culture. But again, my point is that exceptions to generalizations, even very rare exceptions to generalizations are more probable than a never-heard-of-before-or-since resurrection.

A resurrection therefore is possible, but it is by definition, less probable than other naturalistic explanations, even very rare-occurring naturalistic explanations. Would you agree?

[Adrift]

I accept the fact that moving the body would have been a rare event in that period of time and in that culture. But again, my point is that exceptions to generalizations, even very rare exceptions to generalizations are more probable than a never-heard-of-before-or-since resurrection.

A resurrection therefore is possible, but it is by definition, less probable than other naturalistic explanations, even very rare-occurring naturalistic explanations.

This is the same song and dance dude. We all agree that based on your presuppositions, the fact that you are a non-supernaturalist, leaves you with no other option but to accept any other possibility other than the miraculous. Theists are not stuck with such a limited worldview.

But we've been through this many many times already. There's nothing new here. You've achieved zilch, and your reticence in educating yourself on this subject only makes you look the more foolish.

[One Bad Pig]

Your statement uses a definition of "resurrection" that I do not think that most apologists would agree with. A resurrection is not a resuscitation of a dead body, such as what happened to Lazarus. Lazarus was "raised from the dead" but he continued to have a mortal body that would eventually die again. Christians allege that Jesus not only was raised from the dead but he was raised from the dead with an IMMORTAL body; a body that would never die and a body that possessed supernatural powers.

The terms are interchangeable, as is evident from, e.g., a quick search on biblegateway.com. I will grant, however, that only one person is acknowledged (by Protestants, at any rate) to have been raised with an immortal body (Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe that Mary has also been bodily assumed into heaven with an immortal body).

I agree with you that all the possible naturalistic explanations for the Empty Tomb may have a low probability, but I challenge you or any other Christian to prove that these naturalistic explanations are IMPOSSIBLE. My argument is not that the Resurrection of Jesus is impossible, but that it is less probable than even the most improbable naturalistic explanation for the reason that exceptions to rules/generalizations have occurred rather frequently in collective human history whereas a resurrection has only occurred once... if at all.

Your argument founders on the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. And since miracles happen rather more frequently than you imagine, your ad hoc naturalistic explanations are not necessarily more probable. It's not our fault that you're not willing to countenance the possibility of miracles, or even read the scholarly evidence proffered.

[Apologiaphoenix]

He's open to miracles, he'll just refuse to believe them if there's anything else even if it goes against all the evidence we have and has no evidence for it.

[Gary]

He's open to miracles, he'll just refuse to believe them if there's anything else even if it goes against all the evidence we have and has no evidence for it.

I am happy to look at and discuss each and every piece of major evidence for the early Christian belief in the Resurrection of Jesus with you, Nick; one at a time; then we can put them all together. I believe that I will be able to show that for each and every individual piece of evidence for the early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection, there are possible and plausible, naturalistic, non-miracle explanations. And if there are possible, naturalistic explanations for the individual pieces of evidence then there is a naturalistic explanation for the entire belief.

Right now we are discussing the Empty Tomb evidence. Let see if we can reach an agreement on this piece of evidence. Will you agree with me that it is impossible for anyone living today to know with 100% certitude that a Jew did not move the body of Jesus from his tomb? One can say that they find the idea as highly improbable/highly implausible but they cannot say with 100% certainty that a Jew or Jews did not move the body.

Do you agree with this statement?

[psstein]

It's impossible for us to know with certainty that we are not living in the Matrix.

It's impossible for us to know with certainty whether or not yesterday happened.

See what happens when I follow this argument to the logical conclusion?

[Gary]

It's impossible for us to know with certainty that we are not living in the Matrix.

It's impossible for us to know with certainty whether or not yesterday happened.

See what happens when I follow this argument to the logical conclusion?

I am willing to admit that it is possible that a supernatural being moved the body. I may believe that such an explanation is highly improbable, but I will admit it is a possibility.

Now. It's a simple question, Stein and Nick: Is it possible or is it impossible that a Jew or group of Jews moved the body of Jesus resulting in an empty tomb? I'm not asking if it is implausible or improbable, just possible.

[Gary]

.................................................. .....crickets chirping.......................................... .................