Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Mr. Bojangles]

>Showed up in the flesh so they had evidence of his resurrection (Mt. 28; Mk. 16; Lk. 24; Jn. 20; Acts 1; 1 Cor. 15.1-6)... And since they had a chance to watch him eat (Lk. 24.40-43) and to touch him to know he was real (Lk. 24.38-39; Jn. 20.27)... Then we should be able to assume they were in a position to know for a fact that Jesus had truly risen.

There is no evidence for any of this, so this is not an argument. This is just an assertion of personal faith in the Gospels (regardless of how mutually contradictory they are).

The minimal facts argument fails both in its premises and in its conclusions from the premises.

First, there is no evidence that anyone ever claimed that a body went missing from a tomb. The empty tomb story is unknown by Paul and no claim about it is present in Christianity before Mark's Gospel after 70 CE. The other Gospels got the story from Mark. Mark says nobody was ever told about the tomb. There is also no evidence that anybody claimed to have seen Jesus walking around alive on Earth. There is also not the slightest evidence that any of the followers of Jesus were martyred for their beliefs.

You need to prove the following:

1. That a body went missing from a tomb
2. That anybody ever claimed to have seen Jesus walking around alive on Earth after his crucifixion
3. That anybody was persecuted for claiming anything about a resurrection.

Even if you can get that far, any of the straw man hypotheses that this stupid argument tries to distract people with is still more probable than anything supernatural. There is no methodological justification for appealing to magic, and, just FYI, all supernatural hypotheses have equal probability, so to assert one particular supernatural theory over another requires you to prove no other supernatural hypotheses is possible. Can you prve that jesus was not an undead vampire? There is just as much evidence for that as for Canaanite sky gods impregnating virgins.

Minimal facts is a garbage argument and is completely ineffective on people who are actually knowledgeable about this stuff. It's an argument intended to try to retain people who are already in the faith. It does not hold up to any rigorous critical examination. Like I said, it fails in its premises. The argument is not methodologically entitled to claim some of its core premise as facts.

Oh, and just FYI, there are no appearance claims in Mark. Mark says the women ran away from the tomb and never told anybody about it.

[jimwalton]

> There is no evidence for any of this, so this is not an argument.

There actually is, and it's the foundation of the Christian Church. A literal and historical resurrection is the most reasonable conclusion to explain why many staunch first-century Jews would abandon the Sabbath, the sacrifices, and the Law of Moses and claim the reality of a physical resurrection in the city in which it recently occurred. The Jews had no notion expectation of bodily resurrection in their theology. The Jews were fanatically attached to their Sabbath. Since the early church was almost exclusively Jewish, it must have required an event of deep and startling significance to make them switch. The institution of Christian worship on Sunday traces back to the place and date of the resurrection. The resurrection accounts for this transition. If the story were false, the movement would have been quickly and easily stamped out.

N.T. Wright says, “Neither the empty tomb by itself…nor the appearances by themselves could have generated the early Christian belief. The empty tomb alone would be a puzzle and a tragedy. Sightings of an apparently alive Jesus, by themselves, would have been classified as visions or hallucinations, which were well enough known in the ancient world. However, an empty tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a powerful reason for the emergence of the belief."

It is indisputable that Jesus's disciples taught that he was raised from the dead and had appeared to individuals and groups. It is also indisputable that Jesus's disciples intended for us to interpret the resurrection as an actual event.

In other words, the tomb was verifiably empty, and the appearances of Jesus are plausible on the basis of indisputable evidence of the birth and growth of Christianity. You really have to wonder if a miraculous model of resurrection is really so much less likely than some kind of deceit, that is, unless you have a priori made a decision that it's not possible and therefore are closed to consider the evidence with some kind of objectivity.

> First, there is no evidence that anyone ever claimed that a body went missing from a tomb. The empty tomb story is unknown by Paul

In 1 Corinthians 15.4 Paul speaks of the empty tomb (since he had been buried) and that the body of Jesus was now risen in such a way as to be visible evidence to eyewitnesses. It is thought by skeptics and Christians alike that this creed originated from between 2-5 years after the crucifixion.

> and no claim about it is present in Christianity before Mark's Gospel after 70 CE.

I find good evidence to put Mark's Gospel in the late 50s, but that's another discussion.

> The other Gospels got the story from Mark.

There is pretty solid theory that Matthew & Luke got some of their content from Mark, but that's barely justification for your claim. Matthew and Mark's account are closer to each other than Luke and Mark's (Matthew's account and Luke's account share only 10-12 words. Out of the 136 words in Matthew's account of the resurrection, on 35 are also in Mark. It has all the signs of Matthew's own telling of it. At almost every point it's obvious that Matthew is giving an independent rendering. Whatever his sources were, he made this narrative his own. Luke and Mark are even further distinct. And of course John's is different again, not from Mark at all. Your case really doesn't hold.

> There is also no evidence that anybody claimed to have seen Jesus walking around alive on Earth.

Of course there is. Matthew 28.9-10, 17-20; Lk. 24.36-51; Jn. 20.13-21.24; Acts 1.1-9; 1 Cor. 15.1-7.

> That a body went missing from a tomb

Covered above

> That anybody ever claimed to have seen Jesus walking around alive on Earth after his crucifixion

Covered above

> That anybody was persecuted for claiming anything about a resurrection

Acts 12.1-4. The martyrdom of Peter is a matter of historical record.

> There is no methodological justification for appealing to magic

Not magic. Verifiable miraculous events are distinct from sleight of hand and ruse. The only way to disprove the possibility of miracles is to disprove the existence of God, a task that is both logically and scientifically impossible.

> It does not hold up to any rigorous critical examination.

I obviously beg to differ. It has been examined critically by many, and it passes the test of plausibility.

> there are no appearance claims in Mark. Mark says the women ran away from the tomb and never told anybody about it.

You're correct. Mark states the fact of the resurrection, but there are no appearances.

[Farmer]

> what he says in 1 Cor. 9.1 leads us to believe he saw Jesus in the flesh (not just in a vision) after his resurrection

You see, I looked this up, and it's so weak that it makes me feel like you're being intentionally disingenuous. "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" That's it. There's no implication as to whether it was in the flesh or in a vision.

> And when Paul says "last of all" (1 Cor. 15.8), he couldn't possibly be implying that his was the last that anyone ever saw Christ in a vision

This wasn't a courtroom setting, and Paul wasn't writing a patent specification. He could have just been listing off the appearances that he was personally aware of, or maybe he meant "last of all so far as of the time that this creed was composed", or maybe it was just a list of appearances that he felt belonged together in some category.

> It's interesting that 1 Cor. 15.1-11 as a whole speak explicitly of public, physical eyewitnessing of Jesus's resurrection, and Paul includes himself in that category.

Good grief, what surgically precise quoting. That listing concluded "and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." Implying that the way in which he appeared to Paul was different than the others.

> I'm just saying that these things are much debated and may never be resolved

Oh, so we don't know the resolution?

> The evidence seems to indicate that Paul did see Jesus somehow somewhere in the flesh

Ah, so you know the resolution.

A quick glance at your comment gives the impression that you cite lots of verses, but really you only point to two pieces of evidence. The first is laughably weak, and the second was surgically quoted to avoid the phrase that guts your claim.
But let me take a rhetorical play from your book - Although some people dispute it, and probably always will because they have a theological axe to grind, the fact remains that there is no evidence that Paul thought he ever met Jesus in the flesh, even though such an event would certainly be notable, much more than many of the other less important meetings he relates.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for allowing me to explain.

> You see, I looked this up, and it's so weak that it makes me feel like you're being intentionally disingenuous. "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" That's it. There's no implication as to whether it was in the flesh or in a vision.

Well, I'm certainly not being disingenuous, and even more certainly not intentionally. I just don't want to dump text on people. But if you want to talk about it, I'll be more thorough.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is giving his case for why the bodily resurrection of Jesus is both real and meaningful. It is believed that he wrote this in about AD 54-55, which is within 25 years of Jesus's death and resurrection. He wants to encourage the Christians that Jesus's resurrection was real and physical, and so will theirs be.

In v. 3 he starts with what he received from others. This is a creed that Paul received from within 2-5 years of Jesus's death and resurrection, so it was in existence even before that. Scholars across the spectrum agree on how early this was. It's the earliest report we have outside of the Gospel accounts, but those weren't written down until later (just as this wasn't written until 55).

What is it that has been abuzz since AD 30? Jesus was crucified (with theological benefit: died for our sins), he was verifiably dead and buried (physical death, not just a metaphor. And this comment presupposes an empty tomb upon rising), Jesus physically rose from the dead (physical death, physical burial, physical resurrection, and the rest of the chapter expands on the theme), and then he was physically seen as evidence. He didn't just zoom to heaven, but stuck around to give physical and material evidence of the theological claim. He was seen by Peter, then all of the disciples. The verb for "appeared" is *orao*, which can mean actual visual sight with the eyes, or it can mean by a vision. The context has to lead us. Those who want to claim it was just a vision or hallucination do so, obviously. People believe what they want to believe. But the verb is passive, and its normal meaning would be "was seen by" the eyes in a physical sense. The list of witnesses is a clear indication Paul isn't asserting Jesus's resurrection to have be a metaphor of a spiritual experience. All the different times and places of the appearances take it away from the territory of "this is our legend."

When he gets to his own story, however, there's a subtle change along with a similarity. He still uses the same verb, but he has broken his literary rhythm and repetitions that bind all the others together. He says, "He appeared to me also," which indicates it was after the apostles and after the ascension. So Paul saw him with his eyes, as they did, but it was after the ascension, so different from what they did (abnormal). He says he was the "last" one to get this. So he can't be talking about a vision, because lots of people see visions of Jesus. He can't be talking about a hallucination. And he can't be talking metaphorically. In 1 Cor. 9.1 he claims to have seen Jesus, as any normal human would see with normal human sight.

So Paul is claiming to have the resurrected Jesus, in his flesh, not in a vision, but after the ascension and not with the other disciples. That's what we're left with, but it's his testimony that he saw Jesus in the flesh.

> This wasn't a courtroom setting, and Paul wasn't writing a patent specification.

Paul was a logical and methodical thinker. He is making his case with assertion, evidence, and conclusion.

> Oh, so we don't know the resolution?

I'm saying that no matter how strong the evidence, you'll find someone who disagrees. As we all know, there is still a "Flat Earth Society."

[Pree]

So it seems you’re saying that the disciples were in a position to know that Jesus had risen because they physically touched him and saw him eating:

"And since they had a chance to watch him eat (Lk. 24.40-43) and to touch him to know he was real (Lk. 24.38-39; Jn. 20.27)..."

It’s interesting, though, that you only quote Luke and John (our latest gospels). In our earliest gospel Mark, Jesus doesn’t appear to anyone. In Matthew, he appears only once to the disciples and there’s no mention of them touching or eating with him. Then in Luke and John (nearly 50-70 years after the events), we finally start seeing Jesus interacting with the disciples.

As you can see, there’s an obvious progression from NO appearances to ONE appearance to TWO appearances to FOUR appearances. The story grows over time. If Jesus was really cooking fish for his disciples and letting them stick their fingers in his nail holes, you would think that’s something Mark and Matthew wouldn’t leave out. I’m not denying that the apostles had appearances, but the later gospels have obviously been somewhat embellished. So it’s hard to know whether the disciples were actually claiming to have touched and eaten with Jesus. Based on Paul’s writings, all we can know for sure is that they believed they saw him.

[jimwalton]

> So it seems you’re saying that the disciples were in a position to know that Jesus had risen because they physically touched him and saw him eating:

Yep, those are generally reliable ways to know if it's a real person in front of you or a ghost or a vision...and certainly not just a metaphor. Empirical evidence and conformance to reality is what we generally use to assess reliability.

> In our earliest gospel Mark, Jesus doesn’t appear to anyone.

That's correct. Throughout his whole Gospel, Mark is rough on the disciples. They never say anything right, do anything right, or perceive anything right except for Peter's confession in Mk. 8.29. That's the only time. He ends his Gospel the same way: despite all the evidences, they don't get it and they're afraid.

Mark mentions Mary Magdalene and the other women as the first eyewitnesses, which is of interest because in their culture women were not considered reliable enough to testify in court. They were women, so who would believe them? Why pick them to be the first meaningful witnesses of the Bible's most important event?

If this were fictional, that would be the stupidest move of a fiction writer. Not only was she a woman, a person given zero credibility in an ancient court of law because their testimony was not considered reliable, but she was also reported to be a woman out of whom Jesus had cast seven demons, so she could easily be considered a loony bin. If someone were making up this story, trying to make it fly, this would be the worst strategy in the world. So likely the story is not pure fiction.

But if the story is a legend that grew up through the years, growing in its fantastical elements to creating a superhero out of nothing, this again seems unlikely. Why would the legend of the hero expand to the point where NOW the story is told with him being first discovered by… a loony-bin woman?? That doesn’t make sense to me either. Legends are usually cool and powerful and enviable and all that. A woman with a reputation of less than sanity is not at all typical of legends or the way this hero story would evolve.

> In Matthew, he appears only once to the disciples and there’s no mention of them touching or eating with him.

That's true, too. It doesn't discredit the story. Matthew's view is that Jesus is the new Moses. In his account we see Jesus on the mountain (as if it were the new Sinai), giving the new "law": Go and make disciples of ALL nations! Bring everyone possible into the fold. Teach them everything you know (like Moses giving the law). Obey everything I've said (like Moses giving the law). I'm always with you (like the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant). Matthew's intent is different, that's all. When I come back from a party and say, "My friend Nick was there," I'm not implying no one else was there. It's just that the story of Nick is the story I want to tell.

> Then in Luke and John (nearly 50-70 years after the events)

Well, this is a minimalist assessment. I place Luke in about AD 60, roughly 30 years after the events. Acts (same author) doesn't mention the Fall of Jerusalem (AD 70), Nero’s persecutions (mid-60s), the martyrdoms of James (61), Paul (64), and Peter (65), the Jewish war against Rome from 66 on. He ends Acts with Paul still in prison. It then ends surprisingly abruptly. It gives every indication of having been written in about 61. And Luke was written before it. So Luke may have been written right on the heels of Mark, which was probably in the late 50s.

> As you can see, there’s an obvious progression from NO appearances to ONE appearance to TWO appearances to FOUR appearances.

You've missed 1 Corinthians 15.3-7, a creed that dates back to within 2-5 years of the crucifixion and resurrection. Even people who don't believe in the Bible at all have dated it to then. The text mentions many appearances within the first 40 days after the resurrection, so your theory is defenestrated. The story didn't grow over time. It was in place from the starting line.

> If Jesus was really cooking fish for his disciples and letting them stick their fingers in his nail holes, you would think that’s something Mark and Matthew wouldn’t leave out.

Not necessarily. When I tell about a movie, and my wife tells about it, we tell completely different things. Parts that appealed to me she couldn't care less about, and vice versa. I may have like the action, she liked the kissing. Mark's point is how difficult it was for the disciples to grasp the identity of Jesus. Matthew's point is how Jesus was the Moses that Moses never was, the Israel that Israel never was, and the Law that the Law never was. He doesn't care about eating fish and sticking hands in wounds. John, on the other hand, is presenting like a lawyer in court so that you believe that Jesus is God. He wants all that visceral stuff. Luke is the historian. He wants the details.

[Dan Kind]

> Of course not. Supernatural stuff can't be confirmed.

So the sensible/logical/rational thing to do is to not accept the claim surely? You've no idea whether or not it can be confirmed btw.

> What do you have?

As with all your scenarios...nothing of any worth. No reason for anyone else to accept my story and no reason for me to claim I know what I saw.

> Because my investigation of the Bible and its evidences have convinced me of its reliability.

Everyone says that about their holy book. The bible is an awful piece of "evidence".

> Of course we do. Our experiences count, or science is pretty worthless.

Individual experiences are pretty worthless indeed, notoriously unreliable. That's why science is a falsifiable method. Trying to marry science to an individual's experience is just dishonest.

> I saw a ball drop and I timed it. I create a chart as I repeat the experiment 100 times to create a graph. Are my experiences valid, or do we throw it all away?

They're not to be immediately trusted just because they're what you think you observed happen though.

> If so, we throw away all science, all news reporting, and most of what our friends tell us.

So you don't think the scale of the claim is tied in anyway to the quality/amount of evidence needed to accept that claim?

> I saw a rainbow last week. I couldn't begin to prove it to you. Even if others saw it, there's still no proof. I had a stomach ache this morning. Can't prove that either.

But those are pretty damn mundane claims. Rainbows are a well documented phenomenon etc. Do you see those as claims on the same level as a god claim?

> Since the Bible has historical, archaeological, geographical, political, religious culture, and cultural practices credibility

What now? It's a pathetic "historical" document...let alone whatever else you're trying to say with that.

> and since the Bible has such deep and profound moral and behavior credibility in what it teaches

You're serious? The book is abhorrent.

> it deserves more than a brush off for its theological claims.

When it can support them to a reasonable degree they deserve pondering. Until then..

[jimwalton]

> So the sensible/logical/rational thing to do is to not accept the claim surely?

No, the sensible/rational this is investigate it against how we test the truth of a thing. As I mentioned, there are only a limited number of things that are confirmable by empirical evidence. Some things can only be tested by math or by logic. Other things can't be tested at all. Each to their own category. We don't use Fahrenheit to test miles per gallon, and we don't use science to test whether Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

Supernatural claims can't be confirmed by science. That doesn't mean they didn't happen, just that they are outside of the range of science just like I had the hiccups 10 days ago is.

> As with all your scenarios...nothing of any worth. No reason for anyone else to accept my story and no reason for me to claim I know what I saw.

But there IS a reason to accept it. You really saw it. You KNOW it's true. In these cases, we accept something as true because of the evidence but instead because of the reliability of the source. If your friends really trusted and respected you, and they could see your body language, hear your tone of voice and your conviction, there is reason to accept it.

> The bible is an awful piece of "evidence".

Everyone says that about books they don't believe. That's what every critic says. It would be my estimation that you haven't given the Bible an objective assessment.

> Individual experiences are pretty worthless indeed, notoriously unreliable.

Then should I put any stock in your assessment of the Bible? Based on your criteria, probably not. Maybe you shouldn't either. Possibly this is a good time for a fresh look.

> So you don't think the scale of the claim is tied in anyway to the quality/amount of evidence needed to accept that claim?

Of COURSE they are, and that's my point. That's one of the reason I find the Bible to be true. The quality and amount of evidence is more than sufficient.

> Do you see those as claims on the same level as a god claim?

Actually, people's experiences of spiritual beings and realities is pretty well-documented and widespread through all of history. 2.2 billion people on the planet self-identify as Christians. That's a substantial number to motivate someone to investigate it as objectively as possible. The god-claim is quite common, and in that sense, mundane. But, as you say, there's nothing simplistic about it.

> It's a pathetic "historical" document.

Again, you have obviously not objectively engaged the material. It would seem that more open-minded research on your part is warranted. Historical material is all over the Bible.

> You're serious? The book is abhorrent.

Of course I'm serious. It has been a beneficial moral guide for people for millennia.

[Farmer]

> In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is giving his case for why the bodily resurrection of Jesus is both real and meaningful
...

> The list of witnesses is a clear indication Paul isn't asserting Jesus's resurrection to have be a metaphor of a spiritual experience.

It seems you're arguing against "Paul didn't think Jesus was bodily resurrected." That's not what I've been talking about.

You referred to something that would have been convincing enough to convert Paul, so the only appearances that are relevant are the ones in between him being a persecutor and a professional apostle. I'm willing to go a little farther and claim that there's no reason to believe he saw jesus bodily after his conversion, either, but that's just extra.

> He says he was the "last" one to get this. So he can't be talking about a vision, because lots of people see visions of Jesus.

Name same of these "lots" of people who had post-easter non-bodily visions of Jesus, and who Paul was aware of at the time of his writing.

> In 1 Cor. 9.1 he claims to have seen Jesus, as any normal human would see with normal human sight.

This verse, specifically, is the one I said it was disingenuous to claim as support. And this verse, you still have not defended, at all. Once again, you throw it out all by itself like it's some kind of slam dunk proof.

> Paul was a logical and methodical thinker. He is making his case with assertion, evidence, and conclusion.

First of all, you don't know anything about his thinking style. You only know about his writing style, and even then, this claim is only weakly supported.

Secondly, I was discussing whether you can use technical "gotcha" interpretations of his words to prove a point that is not supported by the colloquial understanding. "Today I went to the grocery store. Then I mailed some letters at the post office. Lastly, I picked up a pizza for dinner." Does that mean picking up a pizza marked the end of my life? Or the end of my day? Or is it merely the last of my errands? If I go run another errand after writing this, am I now a liar? Does it mean I cannot possibly be logical and methodical, since I failed to account for the possibility that I might run another errand before carelessly using the word 'lastly' ? You're picking one single narrow, unlikely interpretation just because it supports your theological agenda. The honest way to read is not to look at your conclusion, and see if you can twist the words on the page to mean that.

An honest reasoner would start without any conclusion, and then look at all the relevant facts, and then follow them in the most likely direction. And frankly, I think it's a little damning that you've ignored my point about Paul having nothing to say about his meeting the walking talking bodily resurrection, other than an off-handed vague reference at the end of a long list. In this case, the argument from silence is definitely part of the totality of evidence.

> I'm saying that no matter how strong the evidence, you'll find someone who disagrees. As we all know, there is still a "Flat Earth Society."

So earlier when you said "I'm just saying that these things are much debated and may never be resolved, but we just can't cavalierly conclude as you did and toss my observation to the side", it sounded like you were trying to say "hey, it could go either way, I'm just stating a possibility". But what you really meant was "Hey, there are always going to be delusional morons." If you're lumping me in with the flat earth society because I don't buy your really, really weak argument, then go ahead and assume I've responded with the obligatory level of profanity.

[jimwalton]

> It seems you're arguing against "Paul didn't think Jesus was bodily resurrected." That's not what I've been talking about.

I'm arguing that Paul perceived Jesus's resurrection to have been physical, not just spiritual, metaphorical, or visionary. I am also arguing that Paul saw Jesus physically after his resurrection, not just in a spiritual sense or in a vision.

> I'm willing to go a little farther and claim that there's no reason to believe he saw jesus bodily after his conversion

That's your prerogative. I gave my case and some of the evidences. You gave an assertion but no substantiation of your claim.

> Name same of these "lots" of people who had post-easter non-bodily visions of Jesus, and who Paul was aware of at the time of his writing.

There have been thousands, if not millions of people through history that have had visions of Jesus. Joan of Arc would be one. I think St. Theresa of Avila, if I remember right. Even in our modern day there are hundreds of Muslims having visions of Jesus. You can google it.

As far as from Paul's day, Stephen claims to have seen Jesus in a vision (Acts 7.56). John obviously did (Rev. 1), but Paul was dead by then.

> First of all, you don't know anything about his thinking style. You only know about his writing style

You can't seriously be implying that Paul writes in a way distinct from how he thinks.

> You're picking one single narrow, unlikely interpretation just because it supports your theological agenda.

Sorry, that's an unwarranted assumption. That's not what I'm doing.

> The honest way to read is not to look at your conclusion, and see if you can twist the words on the page to mean that. An honest reasoner would start without any conclusion, and then look at all the relevant facts, and then follow them in the most likely direction

I agree 100%.

> And frankly, I think it's a little damning that you've ignored my point about Paul having nothing to say about his meeting the walking talking bodily resurrection, other than an off-handed vague reference at the end of a long list. In this case, the argument from silence is definitely part of the totality of evidence.

That's odd. I didn't ignore it, but went into detail about the grammar and context of 1 Cor. 15. I explained some terms, looked at the flow, mentioned repetition and style, and then showed you that Pauls'c comment wasn't off-handed at all but filled with meaning, and we can discern the meaning. Argument from silence? Not in the least.

> "hey, it could go either way, I'm just stating a possibility".

I wasn't meaning "hey, it could go either way," but rather, "the evidence is substantial and strong for the position I'm taking, but there are obviously those who see it differently." There are always people who disagree, no matter what the issue or the evidence. Then I used an extreme example to show that even when the evidence is absolutely overwhelming and irrefutable, one can find someone who objects and doesn't believe. That's the effect I was going for.

> If you're lumping me in with the flat earth society because I don't buy your really, really weak argument, then go ahead and assume I've responded with the obligatory level of profanity.

Nah, that's not what I was doing. I was only showing that even in the cases where something is extremely irrefutable one can still find objectors. You had I have had many conversations in the past. I have far more respect for you than that, even though we always part ways disagreeing.