Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[jpholding]

IT just has not been demonstrated that there is a difference between ANE and other cultures concerning honor and shame.

Can you cite a source that makes a complete comparison of cultures and does not simply make a claim of uniqueness.

I believe the concept of 'shame and honor' are very human characteristics of human nature in all cultures.

And precisely what was it that caused you to have such serious brain damage?

[Gary]

No. Evangelical scholars for the most part do. Many, even Christian scholars, just don't say anything about the matter.

So you admit that your claim that the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus is the only plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in the Resurrection is not consistent with the majority stated position of NT scholarship.

I accept every position related to early Christian beliefs and practices as held by the majority of experts (NT scholars). You on the other hand think you know more than the experts. So the evidence indicates that it is YOU who needs to read more scholarship, not me.

[shunyadragon]

And precisely what was it that caused you to have such serious brain damage?

From you, this is expected, a dodge no answer avoiding the issue.

It is a matter of fact that many if not all cultures develop a supernatural mythology for their 'Messianic figures,' and great leaders, such as kings and emperors including Resurrection.

[Gary]

No. Evangelical scholars for the most part do. Many, even Christian scholars, just don't say anything about the matter.

Now that you have admitted that your position on the Resurrection is the position of the evangelical fringe of NT scholarship, let's address your claim that no Jew would move the body. First, let's point out to readers that even you accept the possibility that Matthew's "guards at the tomb" may be a theological construct and not historical fact. So therefore the possibility that someone moved Jesus' body from his unguarded tomb is much higher than if there had been guards. But even if Matthew's guards were present, even Matthew admits that there was a period of time on Friday afternoon when the guards were not yet posted, leaving open the possibility of someone moving the body.

But either way, would a Jew or Jews move a dead body? You seem to believe that such a possibility is impossible. However, Jewish scholars say you are wrong.

Question: Is it ever permissible for a Jew to move a dead body?

Answer from the Jewish Virtual Library: Jewish law forbids the transfer of a dead body or of remnant bones from one grave to another, even when it is to a more respected site (Sh. Ar., YD 363:1; based upon Sem. 13:5–7; TJ, MK 2:4, 81b). This traditional prohibition is, however, lifted in the following cases:

(a) If the dead person is to be reinterred alongside his parents or close relatives; the sanction is based on the concept that "It is seemly for a man to repose with his family, and in doing so, honor is conferred upon the deceased" (Sh. Ar., ibid.; Sem. 13:7).

(b) Disinterment for the purpose of reburial in Ereẓ Israel was always regarded as a meritorious deed and a great honor for the deceased (Ket. 111a; Sh. Ar., ibid.).

(c) The body of a Jew interred in a gentile cemetery may be exhumed for reburial in a Jewish cemetery.

(d) Where a grave is in danger of water seepage or if it is not safe against robbers, etc., transfer is permitted.

Gary: Thus, we see that Jews do allow for moving a body in some circumstances. Based on these rules, the family of Jesus could have taken the body of Jesus out of Joseph of Aramethea's tomb to be buried in Galilee in a family plot or in a family plot of family living near Jerusalem, such as in Bethany. And one can imagine other possible scenarios that conform to these Jewish rules and the story of the empty tomb.

The idea that the reason the tomb was empty was because a resurrected body "beamed" itself out of it, is more probable than that someone moved the body, is only believed by persons who want desperately to believe that this supernatural tale is true...at all cost.

[jpholding]

From you, this is expected, a dodge no answer avoiding the issue.

There is no "issue". Your moronic claims are akin to attributing Stonehenge to the activity of Martians, and deserve as much scorn, if not more. Your obscurantist efforts to firmly insert head into sand are noted for what they are, as is your pathetic semantic gerrymandering effort to term as "resurrection" that which is not, and never will be able to be reckoned as, factually or conceptually similar.

Feel free to assume that the mindless mishmash you offer constitutes an "argument" based on fact or evidence. Feel free as well to sprout wings under your armpits and fly to Cuba.

[Gary]

So now that I have given you evidence, from Jewish scholars, that the dead body of a Jew can be moved under certain circumstances, please tell me why this possible explanation for the empty tomb and the early Christian belief in a Resurrection is implausible:


Jesus is buried in Arimethea's tomb, but Matthew's story of guards is a theological embellishment. There were no guards.

Saturday night, after sundown, after the Sabbath has ended, a couple of Jesus' brothers move back the stone, take the body, take it over to Bethany, and bury it in the family plot of their close relatives, Zechariah and Elizabeth, in accordance with Jewish law. The next morning, Sunday, women come to the tomb...and find the stone rolled away and the tomb empty. "He is risen!" they excitedly exclaim and run to tell the disciples, who in turn, come and find the empty tomb and believe that the empty tomb can mean only one thing: Jesus had been raised from the dead, just as he had said! Days, weeks, months later, the disciples begin to have false sightings of the resurrected Jesus and some of them have vivid visions/dreams of a resurrected Jesus.

And the rest is history...

So why don't the brothers of Jesus tell anyone that they had moved the body? Answer: Fear of the Sanhedrin and the Romans. Even when the rumor of the Resurrection started passing around, they kept quiet out of fear for their very lives.

[Apologiaphoenix]

*sigh*

First off, work on your reading comprehension. Saying majority of Bible scholars just don't comment in historical Jesus writings on the resurrection is not the same as saying something about what they consider plausible or implausible theories. It does not mean that a position is fringe. How you get that makes no sense whatsoever.

What's wrong with your theory?

Well first off, you have to assume the guards are an embellishment. I don't. Hearing the text say "To this day this rumor is spread" tells me that anyone could go and check on the rumor. Still, let's suppose that they are. You still have a stone in place there. That stone is not moved away easily because the stones were made to roll into place but not so easily roll out of place. They would weigh several several pounds. They could weigh as much as a ton.

Second, an empty tomb in itself would not lead to "He is risen!" It would in fact lead to something like grave robbery.

Third. Pilate had had Jesus crucified and the Sanhedrin would have been watching any activity going on with the tomb.

Fourth. Vivid dreams and visions would not lead to the idea of a resurrection. In fact, it would be just the opposite. It would lead them to absolute certainty that Jesus was dead. Any visions would be of Jesus in Abraham's bosom.

Fifth, there is no hint anywhere that James was scared of the Sanhedrin. In fact, had they wanted to spare their lives, the best way would be to come clean.

Once again, it's easy to come up with a hypothesis that explains one piece of data. It's much harder to come up with one that explains all of them and this doesn't even explain the conversion of Paul or the conversion of the people who had the most to lose in the early church or why it is that Jesus was seen as not just the Messiah but as fully included in the divine identity right from the start.

[Adrift]

*sigh*

First off, work on your reading comprehension. Saying majority of Bible scholars just don't comment in historical Jesus writings on the resurrection is not the same as saying something about what they consider plausible or implausible theories. It does not mean that a position is fringe. How you get that makes no sense whatsoever.

He knows. He's just baiting.

[Apologiaphoenix]

He knows. He's just baiting.

I'm sure. I just want to spell it out to make sure it's known.

[Gary]

*sigh*

First off, work on your reading comprehension. Saying majority of Bible scholars just don't comment in historical Jesus writings on the resurrection is not the same as saying something about what they consider plausible or implausible theories. It does not mean that a position is fringe. How you get that makes no sense whatsoever.

What's wrong with your theory?

Well first off, you have to assume the guards are an embellishment. I don't. Hearing the text say "To this day this rumor is spread" tells me that anyone could go and check on the rumor. Still, let's suppose that they are. You still have a stone in place there. That stone is not moved away easily because the stones were made to roll into place but not so easily roll out of place. They would weigh several several pounds. They could weigh as much as a ton.

Second, an empty tomb in itself would not lead to "He is risen!" It would in fact lead to something like grave robbery.

Third. Pilate had had Jesus crucified and the Sanhedrin would have been watching any activity going on with the tomb.

Fourth. Vivid dreams and visions would not lead to the idea of a resurrection. In fact, it would be just the opposite. It would lead them to absolute certainty that Jesus was dead. Any visions would be of Jesus in Abraham's bosom.

Fifth, there is no hint anywhere that James was scared of the Sanhedrin. In fact, had they wanted to spare their lives, the best way would be to come clean.

Once again, it's easy to come up with a hypothesis that explains one piece of data. It's much harder to come up with one that explains all of them and this doesn't even explain the conversion of Paul or the conversion of the people who had the most to lose in the early church or why it is that Jesus was seen as not just the Messiah but as fully included in the divine identity right from the start.

You agreed that the majority of NT scholars have never stated that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the only plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in the Resurrection. Therefore if only a small group of evangelical scholars are willing to make this statement, they are a minority, and if they are a small minority (which I would bet is the case), they are a fringe minority. Please give us the names of all respected NT scholars who have made a public statement either in a book or in a lecture that they believe that the bodily resurrection is the ONLY plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection. We will then see if I am right.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Sorry Gary. I don't remember the name of every single scholar I read on the field. I just said the majority accept the data that I give and that includes not just evangelicals. I said I see this as the most plausible explanation of the data that is given and the one that I accept. Everything else is too ad hoc.

If you want to know what scholars think, here's a tip. Stop just posting everywhere and replying to everything and go and read yourself.

[Gary]

*sigh*

First off, work on your reading comprehension. Saying majority of Bible scholars just don't comment in historical Jesus writings on the resurrection is not the same as saying something about what they consider plausible or implausible theories. It does not mean that a position is fringe. How you get that makes no sense whatsoever.

What's wrong with your theory?

Well first off, you have to assume the guards are an embellishment. I don't. Hearing the text say "To this day this rumor is spread" tells me that anyone could go and check on the rumor. Still, let's suppose that they are. You still have a stone in place there. That stone is not moved away easily because the stones were made to roll into place but not so easily roll out of place. They would weigh several several pounds. They could weigh as much as a ton.

Second, an empty tomb in itself would not lead to "He is risen!" It would in fact lead to something like grave robbery.

Third. Pilate had had Jesus crucified and the Sanhedrin would have been watching any activity going on with the tomb.

Fourth. Vivid dreams and visions would not lead to the idea of a resurrection. In fact, it would be just the opposite. It would lead them to absolute certainty that Jesus was dead. Any visions would be of Jesus in Abraham's bosom.

Fifth, there is no hint anywhere that James was scared of the Sanhedrin. In fact, had they wanted to spare their lives, the best way would be to come clean.

Once again, it's easy to come up with a hypothesis that explains one piece of data. It's much harder to come up with one that explains all of them and this doesn't even explain the conversion of Paul or the conversion of the people who had the most to lose in the early church or why it is that Jesus was seen as not just the Messiah but as fully included in the divine identity right from the start.

1. No I don't have to assume that the guards are an embellishment. The body could have been moved in the time period that the Jews were down at Pilate's asking for Matthew's guards.

2. You are assuming the weight of the stone. If Jesus brothers had help, then you can't rule out this possibility.

3. "Third. Pilate had had Jesus crucified and the Sanhedrin would have been watching any activity going on with the tomb."

Assumption! Even you have stated that it is quite likely that the events surrounding Jesus' death were not the big deal that the gospel writers implied they were. Once Jesus was dead, the Sanhedrin and Pilate probably could care less about a few peasants from Galilee. Bottom line: You have no proof that the Sanhedrin had their own guards at the tomb.

4. "Fourth. Vivid dreams and visions would not lead to the idea of a resurrection. In fact, it would be just the opposite. It would lead them to absolute certainty that Jesus was dead. Any visions would be of Jesus in Abraham's bosom."

Assumptions and generalizations! It is preposterous that you claim you have access the dreams and visions of every first century Jew to make such a blanket statement! People have been "seeing" their dead loved ones since the beginning of time!

5. I never said that James was involved in the "body-snatching". Jesus had other brothers.

My hypothetical explanation explains ALL the details...except for your "impossible-for-there-to-be-any-exceptions" generalizations.

[Apologiaphoenix]

1. No I don't have to assume that the guards are an embellishment. The body could have been moved in the time period that the Jews were down at Pilate's asking for Matthew's guards.

So if it was after sundown on the Sabbath, then these guards showed up in a rare moment not knowing the tomb was empty yet? Huh?

2. You are assuming the weight of the stone. If Jesus brothers had help, then you can't rule out this possibility.

No. I am not assuming. Also, the work to do something like that would in fact draw out anyone in the area. They didn't have noise machines to drown out noise during sleep.

3. "Third. Pilate had had Jesus crucified and the Sanhedrin would have been watching any activity going on with the tomb."

Assumption! Even you have stated that it is quite likely that the events surrounding Jesus' death were not the big deal that the gospel writers implied they were. Once Jesus was dead, the Sanhedrin and Pilate probably could care less about a few peasants from Galilee. Bottom line: You have no proof that the Sanhedrin had their own guards at the tomb.

Who said anything about the events surrounding Jesus's death? That says nothing about why Jesus was crucified and that is not an assumption. Jesus would be seen as a rabble rouser and the Sanhedrin would have been paying attention to anyone. Think it would have been difficult to track down another tomb where Jesus would be buried?

4. "Fourth. Vivid dreams and visions would not lead to the idea of a resurrection. In fact, it would be just the opposite. It would lead them to absolute certainty that Jesus was dead. Any visions would be of Jesus in Abraham's bosom."

Assumptions and generalizations!

Keep in mind, when Gary says a miracle hasn't happened in world history and natural law is not broken or suspended or anything like that, that doesn't count as an assumption or generalization.

When you point out that no one in the ancient world who had a hallucination thought it meant the person was alive, you get "Assumptions and generalizations!"

When this is said it means "I disagree with this claim and it's a problem for me but reading books is oh so hard work so I'll just toss out a catch phrase." It's just like the Mormons having a burning in the bosom.

5. I never said that James was involved in the "body-snatching". Jesus had other brothers.

My hypothetical explanation explains ALL the details...except for your "impossible-for-there-to-be-any-exceptions" generalizations.

Except it doesn't work and has too many ad hoc scenarios to it.

And of course, Gary's ideas of how reality works is not proven and is a generalization, but that is okay!

Once again, Gary is a hypocrite.

[Gary]

So if it was after sundown on the Sabbath, then these guards showed up in a rare moment not knowing the tomb was empty yet? Huh?



No. I am not assuming. Also, the work to do something like that would in fact draw out anyone in the area. They didn't have noise machines to drown out noise during sleep.



Who said anything about the events surrounding Jesus's death? That says nothing about why Jesus was crucified and that is not an assumption. Jesus would be seen as a rabble rouser and the Sanhedrin would have been paying attention to anyone. Think it would have been difficult to track down another tomb where Jesus would be buried?



Keep in mind, when Gary says a miracle hasn't happened in world history and natural law is not broken or suspended or anything like that, that doesn't count as an assumption or generalization.

When you point out that no one in the ancient world who had a hallucination thought it meant the person was alive, you get "Assumptions and generalizations!"

When this is said it means "I disagree with this claim and it's a problem for me but reading books is oh so hard work so I'll just toss out a catch phrase." It's just like the Mormons having a burning in the bosom.



Except it doesn't work and has too many ad hoc scenarios to it.

And of course, Gary's ideas of how reality works is not proven and is a generalization, but that is okay!

Once again, Gary is a hypocrite.

1. You ASSUME that Matthew's guards would verify that a body was still inside the tomb after Jesus brothers (and helpers) had rolled the stone back in place before taking off for Bethany with the body. Again, which is more probable in cumulative human history: A professional soldier making a rare careless mistake, or, a dead body levitating out of its sealed grave??

2. "No. I am not assuming. Also, the work to do something like that would in fact draw out anyone in the area. They didn't have noise machines to drown out noise during sleep."

Assumption, assumption, assumption! The stone was not yet sealed, so you have no idea if simply rolling the stone back would cause a great deal of noise. And who is going to hear? Jesus wasn't buried in the middle of an urban apartment complex. He was buried, in a garden (cemetery), outside the city walls.

3. "Jesus would be seen as a rabble rouser and the Sanhedrin would have been paying attention to anyone."

Assumption!! You have no proof that the Sanhedrin gave a rat's behind about the small group of Galilean disciples of Jesus. Jesus was dead, and maybe that is all they cared about. You are INVENTING details to the story.

4. "Keep in mind, when Gary says a miracle hasn't happened in world history and natural law is not broken or suspended or anything like that, that doesn't count as an assumption or generalization"

Strawman!! I have never said that a miracle has never happened, only that the documentation for said miracle is weak or non-existent.

5. I love it when Christians claim that hypothetical, natural explanations for the belief in a Resurrection are "ad hoc". Try to answer this question, my Christian friends, without using "ad hoc" explanations: Please describe exactly how Jesus body was brought back to life. Did God the Father simply speak the word; did he "breath" on the body; did he anoint Jesus' head with oils; did God the Father warm Jesus body to normal human core temperature to revive the tissue that the disciples would later touch and believe to be real, human flesh, not that of a ghost???

You have no idea!

And how did the resurrected body get out of the tomb? You have no idea! So we both must resort to hypotheticals (ad hoc) possible explanations to explain the development of this belief.

Your logic is absurd!

Christians cannot explain what happened to Jesus' body between the time that the stone was rolled in front and the moment he appeared to the women...or to Mary Magdalene alone, depending on which version of this tale you read...(and maybe to no one that Sunday if we believe the original Gospel of Mark!) Christians must make up ad hoc explanations to explain how Jesus body was revived and how his body got out of a sealed tomb without moving the stone. So if you want to talk about ad hoc stories...

[Gary]

Sorry Gary. I don't remember the name of every single scholar I read on the field. I just said the majority accept the data that I give and that includes not just evangelicals. I said I see this as the most plausible explanation of the data that is given and the one that I accept. Everything else is too ad hoc.

If you want to know what scholars think, here's a tip. Stop just posting everywhere and replying to everything and go and read yourself.

Wait one minute! "The majority accept my data" meaning that they accept your claim that the Resurrection is the ONLY plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection??? PROVE IT!

You can't and you know it. Your assertion if only asserted by the very fringe of scholarship which makes you a member of the fringe, Nick.

And another point: If the Bible is true, Jesus had been preaching that he would be killed and three days later he would be raised from the dead! If Jesus' followers were having visions of him after his death, the most likely thing they are going to envision is a "raised or resurrected" Jesus...because that is what Jesus said was going to happen...and that is what they WANTED to happen!!!

People see things that they want to see! His disciples did NOT want to "see" Jesus in the Bosom of Abraham, that would mean Jesus had been wrong about them ruling with him over the re-established kingdom of Israel. They wanted to see the King of Kings! They wanted to see a Jesus with supernatural powers, a Jesus who could walk though doors, teleport between cities, and fly off into the clouds. THAT is the Jesus the disciples wanted to "see"...and that is exactly what they said they "saw"!