# Christians: What is your best evidence for the literal, historical resurrection of Jesus **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 22, 2011, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680 "2011-08-22T17:51:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/241 "2011-08-29T11:40:54Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > As to “many” being raised & seen by “many”- yep, no denying that is in the text. But how many is “many”? _L_ How many saints & how many witnesses? Jesus was only one person who appeared to few people, and yet _that_ got mentioned in the Bible multiple times. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/242 "2011-08-29T13:05:55Z")
> [@Megas\_P](#): > > Meatros and Diogenes, as we are discussing whether Christ and not any hypothetical person resurrected or not I think you will both agree that magic and giant ice ants from Pluto come as a second to God as far as how Christ was resurrected. Not to be snarky, but I don’t see why this is necessarily true. Suppose the Ancient Greeks were correct (WRT hercules and co), if that’s the case, then Christ would simply be a false prophet - someone to be ignored. > [@Megas\_P](#): > > Don’t forget that the only information we have for Jesus comes from the NT and although I haven’t read that for a long time, I am quite positive that Jesus relationship with God is discussed more detailed than one with giant ice ants from Pluto. As the NT goes to a great length explaining how Jesus is God and vice – versa God gets first claim as far as miracles are concerned. You are presupposing that the NT has authority. > [@Megas\_P](#): > > So to recap – You basically think that the whole NT is worthless, oral tradition holds no ground and to top that you require actual PHYSICAL evidence (I don’t even know how this is possible) that the resurrection occurred. Not to speak for DtC, but I think that the NT is largely worthless as far as ascertaining a miraculous event. I’m open to being wrong, of course. I think the NT is useful for determining what a certain group of people believed back in the day - but as far as reality goes, it’s no more persuasive then the Illiad, IMO. > [@Megas\_P](#): > > Under these circumstances, yes there is no evidence about the resurrection. I freely admit it. Why do you believe the NT claims as opposed to Seutonious - a historian - who said that Vespaisian miraculously cured someone’s blindness with spit? > [@Megas\_P](#): > > Meatros I have to agree with you that there were different versions of Christianity even back then, Paul even mentions this in his epistles (false preachers will come, wolves disguised as sheep or something like that). So suppose one of those alternative versions is correct - would you then change your beliefs to the gnostic version? > [@Megas\_P](#): > > Judging from the swift action taken by Paul to protect his flock, I think it’s a safe bet to say these teachings were marginalized and known to deviate from mainstream teachings. Of course someone could argue otherwise but I believe the small number of Christians in each town in conjunction with the communication between Christians from different towns (if Paul send letters then others have done as well) could alert to different teachings than the ones the Apostles told them. > Also, Paul (and presumably other apostles as well) re – visited those towns and set out disputes regarding Christianity. > You make a good point though, one that possible needs to be addressed further. Unless, of course, Paul’s beliefs WERE the ones that were eventually marginalized! ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/243 "2011-08-29T13:20:16Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Unless, of course, Paul’s beliefs WERE the ones that were eventually marginalized! Uhmm, I would suggest that it is Paul who is the wolf is sheeps clothing. Didn’t he, basically, set up his own version of Christianity? A version different from the original movement, we know this. We are left with Paul’s version, in which the other (real!) apostles are derided, mind you. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/244 "2011-08-29T13:21:40Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > I think you are vastly understating the evidence that “supernaturalists” as you put it would appeal to. Maybe so, but that is not my intent. > [@Calculon](#): > > One of the key evidenses of the reurrection is the early Christian community itself that believed in the physical resurrection of Christ. Historically we know that almost from the date of the resurrection itself onwards there was a community in Jerusalem and around the ancient world that believed in the physical resurrection of Christ. It is especially significant that this community started in Jerusalem, which was the city in which the resurrection took place, as these people would be in the best position to evaluate the truth claims of the resurrection story. I think you are begging the question on the physical resurrection. IMO, it’s not clear that the early Christian community _did_ believe this, as I’ve repeatedly stated. We know that the physical resurrection belief probably gained traction around 70AD. Prior to that I think the evidence is good that the early Christians, a la Paul, believed in a spiritual resurrection. > [@Calculon](#): > > In that sense Paul is called on as a witness not to the resurrection itself, but to the existence of the community that believed in the resurrection. The reason passages like 1 Corinthians 15 are so powerful is that: > > 1. It is early, written probably between 20-30 years after the resurrection, which in historical terms, almost immediately. > 2. It is incidental. Ultimately Paul is not trying to convince the Corinthians of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus. What Paul argues for is that the Corinthians themselves will be resurrected. Apparently the Corinthians already accept the resurrection of Jesus, and so Paul uses that as a premise of his argument. Paul is also evidence for a plethora of early competing Christian belief. I would say that Paul supports a spiritual christ, not a physical one. You would disagree. I think Paul was trying to explain to the Corinthians the exact nature of the resurrection - a spiritual one - which is why he repeatedly attempts to explain it. > [@Calculon](#): > > Secondly, we also have the accounts of the resurrection itself, given from at least two entirely independent source traditions (The synoptics and John). These are also, in the context of history, extremely early accounts of the resurrection, comeing probably between 30 and 60 years after the resurrection. There are also layers within the gospels (such as Q) that were written even earlier, so it is difficult to give a singular dating to the gospels. Those are independent. Those are also not really early. Those are also not eye witness accounts. > [@Calculon](#): > > One of the key stumbling blocks to accepting the gospels in this thread appears to be that people are arguing that they are not “eyewitness” accounts. This I think is a pointless objection. If we were to require that all history were written by eyewitnesses, then we would have to throw out nearly all of recorded history, both ancient and modern. So for instance would you insist that the only people that could write histories of the Vietnam war were veterans who participated in the battles themselves? That unless professional historians were involved in the accounts they describe they are merely reporting “heresay”? In ancient history it is even worse. Nearly no writer in ancient history directly witnessed the things that they record. Many historians write of events hundreds of years before they were born, and yet we find that they are in general reliable. While far from being eyewitnesses themselves they have good material on which to draw on, which enables them to accurately record things they were not a witness to. Given the comparatively early dating of the gospels it is necessary to assume that they likewise would have had access to good, reliable accounts of what happened. This is strengthened by the fact that apart from some minor details, both the Synoptic and John traditions report essentially the same events. We do throw out all recorded historical events of miracles, even when they are written by eye witnesses. Why are you trying to establish a special case for the Christian version, when it’s worse then the other miracle accounts we have! This is a primary question that hasn’t gotten a satisfactory answer here. You act as though modern historians accept that Vespasian could miraculously cure blind people. As though modern historians accept that Alexander was the son of a God, as though Josephus’ account of a calf giving birth to a goat was literal history. Why do you accept the Christian story, which is not as well attested to some of these, AND not the multitude of other miracle stories? During Sabbatai Zevi’s life, he was claimed to have done miracles - do you believe that he did? I think Charles Manson was said to have levitated a bus (I seem to recall that Robert Price said that in a debate), do you believe he did? > [@Calculon](#): > > Thirdly, there is the fact that Christianity is really quite distinct from the existing worldviews around at the time. In particular the Christian view of the resurrection of the Messiah was completely new and had no direct parallel with other beliefs. Here N. T. Wright does a good job of surveying the pre-existing views of Jesus day and showing that the Christian view of the resurrection was quite unique. Despite what people may think the ancients were not all gullable fools. To convince them to change their belief into a previously unknown, especially in the face of persecution, would not have been easy. This is simply false - you can derive Christianity from Judiasm and paganism. How exactly is it ‘distinct’? Messiah claims were not distinct, nor were Godmen. Nor were Godmen who came back to life - there were pagan rituals that were associated with annual harvests. Further, people DID change their beliefs frequently. There were dozens of competing claims during the time - as I mentioned. There were Jewish cults that thought that Herrod was the messiah (IIRC, Carrier mentions this in the Empty Tomb). Your claim about persecutions is vague and I suspect founded on Christian tradition. If this was a legitimate criteria (uniqueness) then Zoroastrianism becomes true, as does the mystery cults of ancient egypt. They were there first, of course. > [@Calculon](#): > > When considering historical questions a proper historical method is to appeal to what is the “best explaination”. Which explaination accounts for all of the facts and ties it together in a way that is not contrived. When considering all possible explainations I think the best one is that Jesus really did rise from the dead. That explains how the early Christian community came to believe in the resurrection and makes sense of the gospel accounts. Just appealing to the fact that resurrection is “physically impossible” as Diogones and his followers does refuses to engage with the evidence and is ultimately circular. To argue that the resurrection did not happen you would have to come up with a better explaination of the data points that we have. This is Craig’s argument - it is poor. We do not use this with any other miracle claim. A better explanation is that Christianity started as a messiah cult of Judaism and that 30 years after the fact a rival sect believed in a physical resurrection - they did this by taking the old testament and creating ‘what must have happened’. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/245 "2011-08-29T13:23:16Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Uhmm, I would suggest that it is Paul who is the wolf is sheeps clothing. > > Didn’t he, basically, set up his own version of Christianity? > A version different from the original movement, we know this. > > We are left with Paul’s version, in which the other (real!) apostles are derided, mind you. Could be. Or he could have been attempting to take the reigns from the other Christian leaders; they all believed the same thing (roughly), and Paul was simply trying to get power. Paul’s version is the first we have. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/246 "2011-08-29T13:25:33Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > And really it is not hard to get atheists to start proclaiming that the laws of nature are in fact non-deterministic. Take for instance the Kalaam cosmological argument. The argument is essentially: > > 1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause > 2. The universe began to exist > 3. Therefore the universe has a cause > What this argument shows at the least is that the natural world is not all there is, that there must be some transendent cause of the universe that exists necessarily outside of the natural world. > > Premise 2 is well confirmed by modern science and cosmology. For instance The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorum states that any universe that is on average inflationary in the past must have a begining at a finite point in the past, irrespective of what goes on in the plank-time moment after that begining point. That covers the vast majority of serious cosmological models. Those few that are not covered by this model do not obey the second law of thermodynamics, and are therefore pretty much dead in the water. > > The only real way to avoid the conclusion of the argument is to argue that premise 1 is false, and that things can come into existence without cause. This is in direct violation of Diogenes insistence that there are natural laws that govern the behaviour of all things. So for instance in the book “Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology”, the atheist philosopher Quentin Smith argues that the universe simply came into existence, from nothing, by nothing and for nothing. But if things can happen without cause that means that the premise that all things happen according to natural law is simply false. Actually this isn’t true - the entire thing begs the question towards the a theory of time AND although I haven’t read that book, I do not think that is Quentin Smith’s position since he had quite a lot of work related to the b theory of time. It’s largely irrelevant to this discussion though. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/247 "2011-08-29T13:57:48Z")
Why believe the Gospels? They were not eye witness accounts. Because they were independent? is this a reason? If so, then do the Christians here believe that Vespasian cured a blind man with spit? (I originally brought this up [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13765873)) It’s an independently attested miracle: [Tacitus](http://www.novaroma.org/camenaeum/tacitus4.html): > [@](#): > > One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor’s knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feet the print of a Caesar’s foot. … And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood. [Suetonius](http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suetonius-vespasian.asp) > [@](#): > > Vespasian as yet lacked prestige and a certain divinity, so to speak, since he was an unexpected and still new-made emperor; but these also were given him. A man of the people who was blind, and another who was lame, came to him together as he sat on the tribunal, begging for the help for their disorders which Serapis had promised in a dream; for the god declared that Vespasian would restore the eyes, if he would spit upon them, and give strength to the leg, if he would deign to touch it with his heel. Though he had hardly any faith that this could possibly succeed, and therefore shrank even from making the attempt, he was at last prevailed upon by his friends and tried both things in public before a large crowd; and with success. At this same time, by the direction of certain soothsayers, some vases of antique workmanship were dug up in a consecrated spot at Tegea in Arcadia and on them was an image very like Vespasian. According to the multiple attested ‘evidence’, Christians who accept such should also believe that Vespasian cured a blind man through a miracle. Do you believe this Calculon? Why or why not? Josephus [describes the following miracle](http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant8.html) - do you believe this happened - why or why not? > [@](#): > > God also enabled him to learn that skill which expels demons, (4) which is a science useful and sanative to men. He composed such incantations also by which distempers are alleviated. And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never return; and this method of cure is of great force unto this day; **for I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers.** The manner of the cure was this: He put a ring that had a Foot of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down immediately, he abjured him to return into him no more, making still mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed. And when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators that he had such a power, he set a little way off a cup or basin full of water, and commanded the demon, as he went out of the man, to overturn it, and thereby to let the spectators know that he had left the man; and when this was done, the skill and wisdom of Solomon was shown very manifestly: for which reason it is, that all men may know the vastness of Solomon’s abilities, and how he was beloved of God, and that the extraordinary virtues of every kind with which this king was endowed may not be unknown to any people under the sun for this reason, I say, it is that we have proceeded to speak so largely of these matters. Josephus witnessed these sorts of miracles - do you accept that? How about the following, which Josephus mentions [here](http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/war6.html): > [@](#): > > At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Josephus is highly regarded by modern historians - yet I would hazard a guess that none of them believe these miracles actually happened. What’s the ‘best explanation’ for this? That the miracles happened or that the story was hyperbole, myth, misremembered occurrence, or a misunderstanding? As to the uniqueness of Christianity - the early Christian apologists didn’t believe this. In fact, in trying to defend themselves from the Romans, Justin the Apologists tried to play up their similarities. He often pointed out that the Roman versions were Satanic mimicry. In his dialogue with Typhro (a jew), says [the following](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html): > [@](#): > > And Trypho answered, "The Scripture has not, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,’ but, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,’ and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. **And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather[should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ,[it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks."** In other words, one of the reasons the early Jews rejected Christianity was because of it’s similarity with the Pagan religions. Further, as the passage illustrates, the Jews believed that the early Christians twisted scripture (the virgin passage). [Moar](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html): > [@](#): > > CHAPTER LXIX – THE DEVIL, SINCE HE EMULATES THE TRUTH, HAS INVENTED FABLES ABOUT BACCHUS, HERCULES, AND SCULAPIUS. > > “Be well assured, then, Trypho,” I continued, "that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; **just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah’s days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by[Jupiter’s] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that[the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses?** And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, ‘strong as a giant to run his race,’ has been in like manner imitated? And when he[the devil] brings forward sculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? To be sure, Christianity was not a copy - it was not simply plagarized Paganism. It had it’s own unique qualities and it’s own differences - but to say it was completely unique or that it just sprang out without any cultural references or baggage is simply not true. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/248 "2011-08-29T14:04:05Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > OK, I checked the Interlinear Greek & technically, it just says the bodies “were raised”- “to life” was added by the NIV translators. I do happen to think that is the correct interpretation, not the JW one, but the distinction does exist in the Greek. The Greek verb used for “raised” in that passage (_egeiro_) is the same one used repeatedly by Paul to refer to Jesus being “raised,” and is also used by Luke and John to refer not only to Jesus being raised, but Jesus’ raising of Lazarus as well. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/249 "2011-08-29T14:09:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed Total pervs, those Greek gods were… ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/250 "2011-08-29T16:50:42Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > If so, then do the Christians here believe that Vespasian cured a blind man with spit? (I originally brought this up [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13765873)) This URL should point [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13766644) and not where I was pointing it in the quoted section. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/251 "2011-08-29T16:59:26Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > This idea that the further out in time and distance a story travels, the more accurate it is, just doesn’t sit right with me. My point. I believe we’ve had some threads about this, but one of the roots of Christian anti-Semitism is thought to be the annoying fact that the Jews who should have known about the miracles “proving” the Messiah story were dutifully unimpressed. So, either it didn’t happen or we were tools of the devil. For the clergy, better to oppress a weak minority than be out of a job, right? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/252 "2011-08-29T17:05:56Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > _\_ > > “Ummm…are you\* sure\* he was the right Messiah?” Now there is something you don’t see everyday, Edgar. What’s that, Chauncey? 20 dead saints shambling towards the center of town. Nothing to be surprised at, Chauncey. The money lenders are having an Easter sale today. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/253 "2011-08-30T01:57:09Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > > > Jesus was the Criss Angel of his day. > > Or in this case, the Christ Angel… This brings up an interesting episode in “My Life, With Fundies In It”… ( A (nonexistent) show I highly recommend avoiding)… My sister was a fundy for a few years, after rejecting the Catholicism she’d been raised in (and unfortunately she’s still a fundy, and so’s her hubby, but I’d already rejected the Catholicism, as well as the Fundy foolishness she and my brother were embracing, at the time), and I’d been working as a “Civil Engineering Technician” for a while. She was a big fan of David Copperfield (she’d seen several of his shows, starting in her early teen years, knew they were ‘magic’, instead of “MAGIC”), and she wanted me to figure out his ‘tricks’, so she could use them (i.e. reproduce them) in an attempt to show that Jesus’ tricks weren’t “tricks”… Just to save more heathens, you know… Anyway, she recorded them from the TV special, via VHS. I looked at those tricks, repeatedly, and asked myself “Given my knowledge of engineering, how would I reproduce that, and **if** I did, what evidence would show I’m right about how he did it?” I figured out much more than half of his tricks, and proved my reverse engineering, by pointing to what to look at, despite the misdirection. Then I pointed out ways to “reproduce” all Jesus’ ‘tricks’, as recorded in the Gospels, except for the Resurrection one, that one I have no ideas on, given the time and place… That didn’t go over well… It was a couple of decades ago… We still avoid talking about those subjects… Me and my sister still have a rather precarious relationship. I really don’t want to deal with her first child on these issues, the second doesn’t even ask, and the third, well, that’s an interesting issue. She wants to see some actual porn. I’ll actually show her that, if her husband is present. He frequently wants to see it too, so sometimes… The fourth… Her fourth kid? I **shudder** on that one… Nevertheless, I’m NOT responsible for what she wants to teach 'em. She is, and I decided (slightly more than) 20 years ago, I’ll teach 'em what I know, I will answer what they ask. Fuck her if she doesn’t like it. Personally, at this point, I’m kinda partial to the “FUNDIES???. shoot 'em in the head, they’re worse than zombies” theory. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/254 "2011-08-30T06:23:22Z")
Since I’m following the thread and we have several learned folks participating, I thought I’d take this opportunity to ask about Papias. To be clear, I’m an atheist, so this isn’t an attempt to meet the challenge in the OP. It’s just an interesting question. I spent some time about a decade ago reading up on early Christian history, trying to piece together a sense of how the story came together. If I tripped over Papias at the time, I didn’t notice. Anyhoo, [Papias](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis) was an early 2nd century bishop who wrote the following (no longer extant in its original form but only as quoted by others): > [@](#): > > I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord’s disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains. Notice that Papias doesn’t claim to have spoken to eyewitnesses, only to those who had. But he does claim to have spoken to many of those. My question is what mainstream Bible scholars, both believers and skeptics, say about Papias. On its face, it should be pretty good evidence as historians measure such things for the validity of the Gospels. Indeed, if the latter hadn’t included magic claims (e.g., casting out demons, miraculous healings and of course the physical resurrection) I think most people would take it as very suggestive that Jesus existed and had said and done the things reported. Whether he was in fact the Son of God would be another thing, but that he had claimed to be probably would be accepted. Thoughts? BTW, **Czarcasm** , my apologies for having misread your post. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/255 "2011-08-30T06:34:17Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Calculon said: > > This is the weakest part of your argument, Calculon. I can think of a much, much better explanation off the top of my head that takes into account all the facts (I’m not disputing them for the purposes of this post): > > Jesus was the Criss Angel of his day. Everything you say is true, except that instead of being crucified and rising from the dead, he FAKED being crucified and buried (through any number of methods that are more plausible than actually rising from the dead) and then returned three days later. Maybe he hung out in the tomb in the meantime. > > But the point is, even an elaborate, technologically advanced (for the time) scheme **is pretty much infinitely more plausible than him rising from the dead**. > > I’m not saying this is what happened. I’m saying your “best explanation” is wrong, because I have a way better one. (Bolding mine) The bold part here I think reveals the unstated assumption in your thinking, namely that resurrection from the dead is impossible. However, as I have stated it is simply circular to assume that the resurrection is impossible due to lack of evidence when the same conclusion is used to dismiss the lack of evidence. It also has not been demonstrated in this thread that Jesus resurrection is actually impossible. Remember that the Christian claim is that Jesus was raised supernaturally from the dead, not that he rose naturally. Therefore statements that resurrection is physically impossible are simply non-sequitors. The Christian claim is in fact predicated on the impossibility of physical resurrection. If resurrection from the dead was physically possible, then there would be no reason to assert that Jesus was resurrected supernaturally. To have a good case that resurrection is supernaturally or logically impossible, you would have to present an argument that gave reasons to think at the very least that God was unable to intervene in history. So far no such argument has been put forward, and so we have no reason to think that Jesus supernatural resurrection from the dead is in fact impossible, or that any naturalistic theory is in fact infinitely more likely than it. With respect to the actual theory that you present, I think it so unlikely to be virtually impossible. It is essentially a version of the “apparent death” theory that nearly all scholars of every type find implausible. There are several reasons for this: 1. Crucifixion was a brutal method of execution, designed not just to kill people but also to make them suffer as they died. Victims were not just hung up on a cross, but were usually also beaten nearly to death before crucifixion. Simply taking a body down from a cross before they died would not actually ensure that they survived. Josephus tells a story of three friends of his whom he tried to save from crucifixion by the Romans. After appealing to the governor the three people were taken down from the cross and given the best medical care Rome had to offer. Even still two of them died, while the third did recover. If you were interested in faking your own death there are many easier ways to do it than crucifixion. 2. People in the ancient world were used to seeing dead bodies. The means that Jesus would have had to use to convince both the soldiers that he had actually died so they would take him down and the disciples so that they would bury him would have been extraordinary. I am not aware of even any technology today that could achieve that, that would work on a normally healthy male. What ancient world method do you propose Jesus used that would have both convinced people that he was dead and also that would not have killed him in his weakened state? 3. Even if by a miracle Jesus was able to survive the crucifixion he would not have been able to appear to the disciples in any sort of form that would have the appearance that he had risen from the dead. All of the various crucifixion wounds that he had (not just the holes) would still not have healed, and it is unlikely that Jesus would have even been able to walk, let alone appear as though he had risen in glory. 4. Why? To what end did Jesus want to fake his own death? Why did he choose crucifixion? Who else was in on it? What actual evidence is there, apart from the dogmatic statement that miracles are impossible that this view is even likely? The whole theory raises more questions than it answers and in that sense seems entirely ad hoc. Really I think the “apparent death” theory really requires a miracle of it’s own for Jesus to survive the crucifixion and appear risen in glory to the disciples. As such I think it is far less likely than the Christian view, since it is no less physically impossible than the resurrection and makes less sense of the accounts if one assumes that there was a supernatural element involved. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/256 "2011-08-30T07:53:02Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > So, by definition natural laws exist since they have been observed. Like anything else in science, they can change with evidence. And there is nothing that says laws must be deterministic - see the gas laws, which are statistical. This I think is confused on several levels. The question at hand is whether there exist natural laws that are somehow inviolable by supernatural entities. That is really the question that needs answering. Is it possible for God to raise Jesus from dead or not. First of all scientific empiricism assumes the existence of natural laws. Natural laws are not observed directly, their existence is simply assumed. Secondly the key feature in dispute, the inviolability of natural laws also cannot be observed. Even assuming that natural laws do exist, these law are under-determined by empirical experiment. Given any finite set of data points an infinite number of functions can be made to fit those points. By convention we normally assume the “simplest” functional form, but there is no real reason why more complicated functions could not also be just as valid. Therefore by empiricism we will never with certainty what the true form of the natural laws are. Therefore it is impossible to determine through empiricism if a given event violates natural law because it is simply not certain what the actual law is. Therefore your claim that we have somehow “observed” natural laws is simply wrong. The existence of natural laws is inferred, it is not observed. Empiricism alone is also not able to determine if inviolable physical laws themselves exist or not. Thirdly the non-deterministic nature of quantum mechanics also throws the existence of inviolable natural laws in doubt, because in quantum mechanics nothing is truly impossible. Quantum mechanics does not deal with possible or impossible, but with varying amounts of probability. So under quantum mechanics everything is technically possible, although some things are fantastically improbable. However if we are to take it is a principle that some things are strictly impossible because of natural laws it seems hard to define what low probability we would assign “impossible” to be. Strictly speaking 0 is the only true impossibility, but that would allow as possible all manner of weird things. You are also wrong about the gas laws. Statistical thermodynamics does not posit that the nature of the motion of gas particles is non-deterministic. Statistical thermodynamics is still a classical, deterministic theory. The reason that gas motions are treated statistically is not because they are not well defined, but because there are so many variables that treating them all gets you nowhere fast. Therefore a statistical framework is adopted as a tool for simplifying the deterministic system to something tractable. > [@Voyager](#): > > You’re still wrong. There is plenty of evidence that dead people don’t come back. At best the fact that people usually don’t come back from the dead may be evidence that it is unlikely that someone would come back from the dead naturally. It is not evidence that someone could not be resurrected supernaturally. In the Christian view God chose to resurrect Jesus from the dead, so the non-resurrection of other people is simply explained as God not choosing to resurrect these people. To demonstrate that it was impossible for God to resurrect Jesus you would have to show that it is somehow logically impossible for God to intervene in history. Simply pointing out that God has chosen to not intervene in a particular way in the past is not a good reason to think that he cannot intervene in a specific instance. Christians believe that Jesus resurrection is a singular event in history, so even if the resurrection occurred there is no reason to think that there would be a lot of other resurrections that should be observable. > [@Voyager](#): > > All you have to do is to show us evidence that this so-called supernatural stuff ever happened. Or happens. You not understanding what a law of physics is in no way implies that the rest of us don’t, or that the concept is fuzzy in some way. I have presented evidence for why I think a specific supernatural event, namely the resurrection has occurred. In that sense my claim is limited to that one specific supernatural event. For the purposes of this argument I have no claim over any other supernatural events, and so I have no burden of proof to show that they occurred. If you want to make the definite claim that the supernatural is in some way impossible, then as with all definite claims it is up to you to shoulder the burden of proof for that claim. Without a good reason to think that supernatural events are in fact impossible, then the possibility of them remains an open question. If you want to argue that it is closed, then you have to present arguments for that. Also, I think it is you that needs to work on your understanding of natural law. Scientific epistemology is much more complicated than the cookie-cutter version that you present. In general I am fine with the assumption that most things happen in a regular, ordered way. Even from a Christian point of view, God is a god of order, not of disorder. What I object to is the statement that it is impossible for supernatural events to occur. I think it is also a poor rebuttal to the resurrection because it does not interact with the evidence, nor does it demonstrate how from a naturalistic point of view the evidence may be explained. I think all of the naturalistic explanations are simply less likely than a supernatural event happening, and therefore I think that the best explanation is that Jesus really was raised from the dead. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/257 "2011-08-30T08:34:22Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Personally, at this point, I’m kinda partial to the “FUNDIES???. shoot 'em in the head, they’re worse than zombies” theory. Classy. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/258 "2011-08-30T12:41:08Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > At best the fact that people **usually** don’t come back from the dead may be evidence that it is unlikely that someone would come back from the dead naturally. It is not evidence that someone could not be resurrected supernaturally. In the Christian view God chose to resurrect Jesus from the dead, so the non-resurrection of other people is simply explained as God not choosing to resurrect these people. To demonstrate that it was impossible for God to resurrect Jesus you would have to show that it is somehow logically impossible for God to intervene in history. Simply pointing out that God has chosen to not intervene in a particular way in the past is not a good reason to think that he cannot intervene in a specific instance. (Bolding mine) This is a dodge that William Lane Craig uses - are you suggesting that people **usually** come back from the dead supernaturally? Because that is the inference you are making. You seem to be mistaking possibility for probability. What is the probability of someone coming back supernaturally? What do you base that probability on? Even you seem to admit that it is incredibly unlikely that people get resurrected, you say: > [@](#): > > “Christians believe that Jesus resurrection is a singular event in history, so even if the resurrection occurred there is no reason to think that there would be a lot of other resurrections that should be observable.” It seems you undermine your entire point (as does Craig), that: "At best the fact that people usually don’t come back from the dead may be evidence that it is unlikely that someone would come back from the dead naturally. " > [@](#): > > I have presented evidence for why I think a specific supernatural event, namely the resurrection has occurred. In that sense my claim is limited to that one specific supernatural event. For the purposes of this argument I have no claim over any other supernatural events, and so I have no burden of proof to show that they occurred. If you want to make the definite claim that the supernatural is in some way impossible, then as with all definite claims it is up to you to shoulder the burden of proof for that claim. Without a good reason to think that supernatural events are in fact impossible, then the possibility of them remains an open question. If you want to argue that it is closed, then you have to present arguments for that. Why should we believe that supernatural claim as opposed to the claim that Vespasian cured people with spit? Further, what evidence have you presented? Paul? He wasn’t an eyewitness. The Gospels? They were not eyewitness accounts? The uniqueness of Christianity? It was not unique. Multiple attestations? The Gospels were not independent, further this logic would support the Vespasian miracle. So what solid evidence have you actually presented? Even you admit that a supernatural resurrection is absurdly unlikely (one time in history) - yet the evidence you have presented is beyond paltry. Why believe Christianity on such evidence and not, for instance, Rastafarianism? Mormonism? or a dozen other religions? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/259 "2011-08-30T13:05:14Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > It also has not been demonstrated in this thread that Jesus resurrection is actually impossible. Remember that the Christian claim is that Jesus was raised supernaturally from the dead, not that he rose naturally. Therefore statements that resurrection is physically impossible are simply non-sequitors. The Christian claim is in fact predicated on the impossibility of physical resurrection. If resurrection from the dead was physically possible, then there would be no reason to assert that Jesus was resurrected supernaturally. To have a good case that resurrection is supernaturally or logically impossible, you would have to present an argument that gave reasons to think at the very least that God was unable to intervene in history. So far no such argument has been put forward, and so we have no reason to think that Jesus supernatural resurrection from the dead is in fact impossible, or that any naturalistic theory is in fact infinitely more likely than it. You are begging the question that the supernatural is a coherent possibility - you are attempting to switch the burden of proof here (which you even admit that a supernatural resurrection has only ever possibly happened once) by saying that we have to put forth an argument against the possibility of supernatural resurrection. You have suggested that a supernatural resurrection is possible - what do you mean by that? What evidence do you have that the supernatural exists? So far, all you’ve got is - at best - the inability of naturalistic theories to cover a literal reading of the bible. Surely even you can admit that this is appealing to ignorance. You aren’t appealing to any positive evidence to support your supernatural claim, you are appealing to the lack of a coherent counter-theory. (I’ll also point out you are begging MASSIVE questions in addition to that!) > [@Calculon](#): > > With respect to the actual theory that you present, I think it so unlikely to be virtually impossible. It is essentially a version of the “apparent death” theory that nearly all scholars of every type find implausible. This is a bit disingenuous - I would say that most non conservative scholars do not necessarily accept the gospels as literal history. Further, they reject the claims made for various reasons - so some might accept the apparent death, others might think that Christ was entirely spiritual (and therefore there was no need for the apparent death). The question is, is the ‘apparent death’ theory more likely than a supernatural resurrection, which has only happened once (according to you) in history. It’s hard to see how the supernatural resurrection is more likely, since we have not verified that the supernatural even exists. So please make your case for how likely the supernatural is and how likely a supernatural resurrection is. > [@Calculon](#): > > 1. Crucifixion was a brutal method of execution, designed not just to kill people but also to make them suffer as they died. Victims were not just hung up on a cross, but were usually also beaten nearly to death before crucifixion. Simply taking a body down from a cross before they died would not actually ensure that they survived. Josephus tells a story of three friends of his whom he tried to save from crucifixion by the Romans. After appealing to the governor the three people were taken down from the cross and given the best medical care Rome had to offer. Even still two of them died, while the third did recover. If you were interested in faking your own death there are many easier ways to do it than crucifixion. From your own post, you actually provide evidence of someone surviving. That’s one point for the apparent death theory. Where’s your evidence of the supernatural? Right now, it’s 1 point apparent death, 0 supernatural resurrection. > [@Calculon](#): > > 1. People in the ancient world were used to seeing dead bodies. The means that Jesus would have had to use to convince both the soldiers that he had actually died so they would take him down and the disciples so that they would bury him would have been extraordinary. I am not aware of even any technology today that could achieve that, that would work on a normally healthy male. What ancient world method do you propose Jesus used that would have both convinced people that he was dead and also that would not have killed him in his weakened state? This begs several questions: What soldiers would he have to convince? the ones that took him down? You might say it’s unlikely, but people are declared dead all the time only to be discovered not dead. So that’s another point to the apparent death: Apparent death: 2 Supernatural resurrection: 0 > [@Calculon](#): > > 1. Even if by a miracle Jesus was able to survive the crucifixion he would not have been able to appear to the disciples in any sort of form that would have the appearance that he had risen from the dead. All of the various crucifixion wounds that he had (not just the holes) would still not have healed, and it is unlikely that Jesus would have even been able to walk, let alone appear as though he had risen in glory. We have no first hand accounts of the disciples witnessing the resurrection - so you are essentially arguing from silence here. Further, the Gospels state that the disciples waited 50 days (IIRC) to go preaching the resurrection - so it wasn’t instant. It could have been much longer than 50 days - giving Jesus ample time to heal. There are passages in the Gospels that indicate that Jesus still had his wounds (Thomas touches them, for instance). To recap: We have no first hand accounts What we have seem to indicate that Jesus, after his reappearance, still had visible wounds. > [@Calculon](#): > > 1. Why? To what end did Jesus want to fake his own death? Why did he choose crucifixion? Who else was in on it? What actual evidence is there, apart from the dogmatic statement that miracles are impossible that this view is even likely? The whole theory raises more questions than it answers and in that sense seems entirely ad hoc. Maybe he didn’t intend to fake his own death - it’s possible he survived and had no intent on continuing his preaching, yet his followers didn’t listen/believe him and continued to preach miracles and his resurrection. Something similar to this happened with Sabbatai Zevi - he was forced to convert and his true believers refused to believe this. So, again, there are some questions, but this is not support for a miracle - it is unlikely, but completely within the scope of the apparent death theory. > [@Calculon](#): > > Really I think the “apparent death” theory really requires a miracle of it’s own for Jesus to survive the crucifixion and appear risen in glory to the disciples. As such I think it is far less likely than the Christian view, since it is no less physically impossible than the resurrection and makes less sense of the accounts if one assumes that there was a supernatural element involved. It’s slightly ironic that the only evidence you present of miracles is the miraculous nature of the apparent death theory. So, let’s have at it: You accept miracles, so how do you give greater weight to the miracle of a supernatural resurrection than to the miracle of the apparent death theory? Seems like both are unlikely, so even by your (and Craig’s) standards, they should be equal, since both rely on miracles (according to you). In any event, I’ve shown that the apparent death theory does not require any sort of miracles. It’s also not necessary, to be frank, to believe. It begs the question that the gospels are accurate. The fact is, EVEN if you take the gospels as relatively accurate (a big if), one can always postulate naturalistic theories (how about identical twins and a power grab?) that may be unlikely, but are completely possible. Until you show that the supernatural is **probable** (as opposed to simply **logically possible** - which is all that Craig disingenuously argues), even the most unlikely naturalistic theory is more likely that the supernatural. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/260 "2011-08-30T13:29:05Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > With respect to the actual theory that you present, I think it so unlikely to be virtually impossible. It is essentially a version of the “apparent death” theory that nearly all scholars of every type find implausible. There are several reasons for this: > > 1. Crucifixion was a brutal method of execution, designed not just to kill people but also to make them suffer as they died. Victims were not just hung up on a cross, but were usually also beaten nearly to death before crucifixion. Simply taking a body down from a cross before they died would not actually ensure that they survived. Josephus tells a story of three friends of his whom he tried to save from crucifixion by the Romans. After appealing to the governor the three people were taken down from the cross and given the best medical care Rome had to offer. Even still two of them died, while the third did recover. If you were interested in faking your own death there are many easier ways to do it than crucifixion. > 2. People in the ancient world were used to seeing dead bodies. The means that Jesus would have had to use to convince both the soldiers that he had actually died so they would take him down and the disciples so that they would bury him would have been extraordinary. I am not aware of even any technology today that could achieve that, that would work on a normally healthy male. What ancient world method do you propose Jesus used that would have both convinced people that he was dead and also that would not have killed him in his weakened state? > 3. Even if by a miracle Jesus was able to survive the crucifixion he would not have been able to appear to the disciples in any sort of form that would have the appearance that he had risen from the dead. All of the various crucifixion wounds that he had (not just the holes) would still not have healed, and it is unlikely that Jesus would have even been able to walk, let alone appear as though he had risen in glory. > 4. Why? To what end did Jesus want to fake his own death? Why did he choose crucifixion? Who else was in on it? What actual evidence is there, apart from the dogmatic statement that miracles are impossible that this view is even likely? The whole theory raises more questions than it answers and in that sense seems entirely ad hoc. > > Really I think the “apparent death” theory really requires a miracle of it’s own for Jesus to survive the crucifixion and appear risen in glory to the disciples. As such I think it is far less likely than the Christian view, since it is no less physically impossible than the resurrection and makes less sense of the accounts if one assumes that there was a supernatural element involved. > > Calculon. 1. is easy to debunk (by debunk, I mean present an explanation that does not stretch the limits of credulity)- He had the guards bribed, so his beating was minimized. Or he had a look-alike take the punishment for him. He may not have planned to be crucified, but once he was sentenced, he set his backup plan in motion. (no miracles here) 2. There are herbal drugs that can simulate death to various levels (for example, tetrodotoxin). Alternately (and perhaps more plausibly) a subsititute, look alike body was switched. Or he did die, and a look-alike reappeared 3 days later. There are fiction cliches here, but nothing miraculous. 3. is easily explained by various combinations of the previous alternatives. 4. Why? Who can know? Perhaps he wanted people to believe he was the messiah. Perhaps he was nuts. Perhaps it was a scheme to get money, or discredit the Romans. Perhaps he was a big prankster. What evidence? It doesn’t matter- I’m attacking your claim that the actual Resurrection is the best explanation. I’m saying I have better explanations- and any combination of 1) and 2) above is better than your explanation, because it requires nothing beyond the mundane. If your friend arrives at work and says aliens from Saturn took him from his bed and deposited him at work (and has pieces of the spaceship and blurry pictures of aliens to “prove” it), you don’t need anything more to conclude that it’s more likely that he’s lying or crazy than that his story is true. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680.md?page=14)