# 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:** 20
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/381 "2011-09-21T11:50:53Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Maybe in countries where Catholics have been heavily oppressed, but I assure you that Mary (and the saints) were and still are very much worshipped in other countries. I know for a fact that the RCC’s teaching is that only God can be worshipped and any one who does worship any saint or person is committing a huge sin. The only one they should worship is God! I have a relative who is a Catholic Priest and he said they could honor Mary, and ask her to Pray to God for them, Just as people ask other people to pray for things. Mary intercedes for the person, and is not worshipped, or they would be( according to the churches teaching) committing idolatry. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/382 "2011-09-21T11:59:53Z")
It could well be that Jesus was comatose when put in the tomb. Then came to later on. years ago there were people who were buried because they thought they were dead,but were just in a coma. Now we have machines to detect when the brain stops working, once no brain activity they are pronounced to be dead. In a case where the brain registers so low I would guess the person may not be actually dead,but that would be a very rare occasion. If they had truly died, they could not be revived! ---
**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:** [September 21, 2011, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/383 "2011-09-21T12:06:42Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > IMHO, **Calculon** makes a fair objection that rather little scholarship for the skeptical view has been cited in this thread. And in my opinion, the title asks for the best evidence for the literal, historical resurrection of Jesus, not for evidence against it. Wait, let me correct that…it is not my opinion-it is a _fact_. ---
**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:** [September 21, 2011, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/384 "2011-09-21T13:50:08Z")
Calculon said: > [@](#): > > My argument in a nutshell is: > > 1. The NT is broadly historically reliable > 2. The NT describes Jesus as rising from the dead > 3. No naturalistic theory (aparant death, wrong tomb, hallucinations, myth, ect) adequately accounts for the historical evidence for the resurrection in the NT and other extant writings > 4. The only credible possibility is therefore that Jesus rose from the dead. At the risk of repeating myself (and others), 3) just seems so obviously inadequate to me. Deception, delusion, hallucination, sleight of hand, and/or trickery easily could account for any historical evidence. Looking at it objectively, I don’t see how it’s possible to conclude that an _actual resurrection_ is more likely than a faked resurrection and/or deceived/hallucinating/lying witnesses and/or stuff-was-made-up. Basically, why should I believe in a miraculous/supernatural explanation when there are mundane explanations that fit all the evidence? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/385 "2011-09-21T14:53:16Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > First of all this is a classic ad hominem fallacy. Whether or not the scholars involved have signed statements of faith has nothing to do with the quality of their arguments. It’s not an _ad hominem_ fallacy to slam the credentials of a person someone is using as an authority. If someone has signed a statement of faith, I will discount their opinion on anything related to that. > [@](#): > > With the authority of conservative Christian scholars being meaningful, if my argument was “the resurrection happened because these scholars say it did”, then that might be a fallacy of appealing to authority. However the reason that I cite these people is not because they are authoritative, but because I agree with their arguments. I cite them simply as reference, not as authority that proves my point, and so it is not fallacious. If you know of scholars that reflect your views then please provide some reference to them. As I say I appear to be the only one really trying to interact with scholarship on this issue. OK, so which is it? Are you going by the arguments, and merely giving reference pointers to the scholars, or are you looking for authority to back up arguements? You’re saying both here. > [@](#): > > It is also worth noting that your accusation of fallacy itself contains an implicit ad hominem fallacy. By describing them as conservative Christian scholars you are seeking to discount their arguments not on the merits of the arguments, but on the basis of who is making them. That is again simply ad hominem. Oh, bullshit. Describing them as “conservative” Christian scholars is saying that they’re married to specific positions on the questions and are unwilling to objectively evaluate the evidence, so we should be skeptical of using them as an authority. It’s not an ad hom. > [@](#): > > It also makes no sense in the context of the early church since Paul also writes that several other people (up to 500 at once) saw the risen Jesus, and so while we may be able to write off Paul, we can’t simply discount the others, which brings into question the whole theory. Wait - are you actually saying that you think Paul was one of the people who saw the physically risen Jesus? I thought I had heard just about all the viewpoints before, but I hadn’t heard that one yet. How could that be? How long do you think this physically-resurrected Jesus remained on Earth? > [@Calculon](#): > > Do you accept the miracles of Vespasian? If not, then why do you think I should? It would be one thing if you were at least honest in your questions and were present alternative miracles that you yourself found credible. Asking about miracles that you yourself don’t accept is hardly an honest debate tactic. This has been repeatedly explained to you. You’re accusing Czarcasm of dishonesty while pretending to not understand the point of the question that’s been explained again and again. No one is saying that we believe Vespasian actually healed people. The question is why you _don’t_ believe it, because the accounts of his miracles are at least as credible as the accounts of Jesus’s miracles. So are the BOM claims, and the superman yogi, etc. etc. We’re pointing out that what you’re doing is special pleading. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/386 "2011-09-21T15:08:22Z")
My apologies for the length, part 1: > [@Calculon](#): > > First, all of the gospels do not depend on just Mark. Scholars think there are at least 5 sources for the gospels, Mark, Q, M (the independent material in Matthew), L (the independent material in Luke) and John. These sources may be comprised of other sources, like for instance a passion narrative which may form part of Mark. The gospels are not just one source written out four times. I’m not sure what to make of this - yes, it’s possible there are more sources, but that is not the majority scholarly position. The [two-source hypothesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis) still seems to be the favored one among scholars. So to definitively state that there are five sources as a matter of fact seems premature. I think you would have to argue for it’s superiority over the two-source hypothesis (which, again, is the dominant view of scholars). > [@Calculon](#): > > Secondly, do you have any argument that shows that Mark and the other gospels were not written from a historical point of view? The consensus is that the gospels are examples of ancient biography which, while different to ideas of biography today were still considered historical pieces of writing. The text of Mark demonstrates that it’s not written from a historical point of view. I’m not sure of your distinctions between ‘biography’ so I’ll just say that I do not think it could be said to be historical/based on eyewitnesses. It’s anonymous, written around 70 AD, and in Greek, for three things (which make it unlikely, but not impossible, for it to have been written by someone close to an eyewitness). For another, in your previous paragraph you say that “These sources may be comprised of other sources, like for instance a passion narrative which may form part of Mark”, which indicates to me that you don’t think that Mark was writing history (or you are not certain of it, at least) - he was forming a narrative based on the stories going around. For another thing - if it’s supposed to be history, then who was doing the witnessing of the empty tomb? The women who told no one? If it’s history, where’s Jesus’s early life? Why does Mark have a poor understanding of the geography of Palestine? (From [here](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html)): > [@](#): > > The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): “Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that ‘Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road’ (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory ‘by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns’ (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that ‘the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine’ (40).” > > Nineham states the following on the provenance of the Gospel of Mark (Saint Mark, pp. 42-43): “of all the places suggested Rome has been by far the most popular, and, so far as the evidence permits of any conclusion, it is perhaps the most likely. The Gospel of Mark was clearly intended for a church consisting largely of Gentile members (see e.g. 7:3f., 11:13, 12:42), and one which had known, or was expecting, persecution for faith (cf. 8:34-38, 10:38f., 13:9-13); all this is compatible with Roman origin, and if the Gospel circulated from the beginning with the authority of the Roman church it is easier to explain how it so soon won an authoritative position.” There’s more to suggest suspicion in my mind on that page. There’s also curious information in the Gospel itself (some of which I mentioned earlier): Who witnessed Jesus’s temptation by the Devil? When Jesus is in Gethsemane his disciples fall asleep and Jesus prays to God about the crucifixion. Who was the eye witness for this? > [@Calculon](#): > > First, your view of Mark and the empty tomb is far too simplistic. Really we don’t know with a great deal of certainty when Mark was actually written. 65-70AD is really the latest possible dates, but it may have been written earlier. Actually the dates range from 65-80AD for Mark [according to scholars](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html). It may have been written earlier and it may have been written later - both are possible, but not probable and not backed by the majority of scholarship. I only know of one scholar who thinks that the earlier source contains an empty tomb account - and that scholar is an apologist. This is not the consensus position and I think it would have to be argued for. Also: 1. Why does the proximity to the events lend any sort of credibility towards their historicity? 2. What evidence is there that the actual crucifixion took place in/around 30AD? Certainly you could argue that the church/Q/early Christianity may have started around there, but that does not mean that the events they are describing started there. This seems like a leap to me. > [@Calculon](#): > > Also many scholars believe that the passion narrative with Mark itself comes from an earlier source that also includes the empty tomb account. Read about it here. The possible dates for the passion narrative go back to 30AD, giving a solid historical basis for the resurrection accounts. It should be noted that this page you give, provides scholars who disagree with the premarkan passion. That said, the conclusion that the passion narrative ended with the empty tomb is still in doubt, I see nothing from your source to support it. Further, you mistake the belief in a passion account with “_giving a solid historical basis for the resurrection accounts_.” Just because a group of people believe it, doesn’t make it so. People believe that Manson levitated a bus (and they were historically closer to the events), does that give the story any further credibility? From [here](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/horner-till/till2.html): > [@](#): > > And let’s, let’s talk about Charles Manson; That’s a name that you recognize. And Charles Manson had a following, of course. If you’re familiar with the history of the atrocious crimes that he committed, you know that the man is now serving a life prison, rather a term of life imprisonment. While Edward Sanders was researching his book, The Family, he uncovered that numerous legends were circulating already about Manson’s followers. Or that is among Manson’s followers. One legend maintained that while they were on a bus trip through Death Valley, Manson levitated the bus over a creek where there was no bridge. As Till asks Horner, I ask you, do you believe this? > [@Calculon](#): > > Secondly, I think there is no reason to think that Paul was talking of a spiritual resurrection as you seem to want to assert. The reasons are: > > 1. “Ressurrection” as a pre-Christian Jewish idea was a physical resurrection. Spiritual resurrection in that context is an oxymoron. This simply isn’t true, as I’ve argued elsewhere on the SD and as Carrier puts forth in the book The Empty tomb. There were pre-Christian jewish ideas of a spiritual resurrection. The link I pull Philo’s words from has been suspended, but [here’s the post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13834396&postcount=35) I made and Philo’s words: > [@](#): > > I therefore, consisting of soul and body, and appearing to have a mind, and reason, and outward sense, find that not one of all these things is my own property. (114) For where was my body before my birth? and where will it go when I am departed? And what becomes of the differences of age of that being which at present appears to exist? Where is now the infant?–where the child?–where the boy?–where the youth just arriving at the age of puberty?–where the young man?–where is he now whose beard is just budding, the vigorous and perfect man? Whence came the soul, and whither will it go? and how long will it remain with us? and what is its essence, or what may we speak of as such? Moreover, when did we acquire it? Was it before our birth?–But then we ourselves did not exist. Shall we have it after our death?–But then we shall not exist, we who are now a combination of distinctive qualities in combination with our bodies; but rather we shall then be hastening to a regeneration, becoming in combination with incorporeal beings: (115) and now, when we are alive we are governed rather than governing, and we are understood ourselves rather than understanding anything else; for our soul understands us without being understood by us, and it imposes commands upon us which we are necessitated to obey, as servants are compelled to obey a mistress; and whenever it chooses to abandon us and to depart to the Ruler of all things, it will depart, leaving our house destitute of life. And even if we attempt to compel it to remain, it will disappear; for its nature is composed of unsubstantial parts, such as afford no handle to the body. To say that there was only one ‘Jewish thought’ out there is simply wrong. More from Philo (from [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13834434&postcount=36)): > [@](#): > > (192) Having then in this manner learnt to accomplish the abandonment of mortal things, you shall become instructed in the proper doctrines respecting the uncreated God, unless indeed you think that our mind, when it has put off the body, the external senses, and reason, can, when destitute of all these things and naked, perceive existing things, and that the mind of the universe, that is to say, God, does not dwell outside of all material nature, and that he contains everything and is not contained by anything; and further, he does not penetrate beyond things by his intellect alone, like a man, but also by his essential nature, as is natural for a God to do; (193) for it is not our mind which made the body, but that it is the work of something else, **on which account it is contained in the body as in a vessel** ; but the mind of the universe created the universe, and the Creator is better than the created, therefore it can never be contained in what is inferior to itself; besides that it is not suitable for the father to be contained in the son, but rather for the son to derive increase from the love of the father. More [Philo](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13834463&postcount=37), and some [Josephus](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13834503&postcount=38). > [@Calculon](#): > > 1. Paul, before becoming a Christian was a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5), and the Pharisees believed in a physical resurrection at the end of days. I’m not sure how this matters, it’s clear from the text that Paul radically changed his Pharisee belief. So maybe you could argue that _Saul_ wouldn’t have believed in a spiritual resurrection… > [@Calculon](#): > > 1. The word used for resurrection by the rest of the NT to mean “physical resurrection” (anastasis) is also used by Paul when describing the resurrection. If Paul meant a different concept he would have used a different word to differentiate the meaning. Had Paul been referencing the rest of the NT, which hadn’t been written yet, this might be valid. However, anastasis has a variety of meanings, [from here](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/responses.html#anastasis): > [@](#): > > He has not seen any evidence of this, because he never bothered to look. Take a gander at the definition of anastasis in the Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon: anastasis. There you can see how wrong Holding is, for you will find listed every mundane meaning with cited examples: \*\*it could mean any ordinary getting up or rising up \*\*(even in the Septuagint: Lamentations 3:63), or it could mean **any kind of rising from the dead**. Not only does Hebrews 11:35 use it to refer to what Holding would tell you were mere “resuscitations” in the Old Testament, but we have it in pagan texts as well. Aeschylus uses it to refer to the mere revival of a corpse (Eumenides 648). Lucian uses it to refer to the resurrection of Tyndareus by Asclepius (De Saltatione 45). **Plotinus uses it to refer to the soul’s “resurrection” from the body (Enneads 3.6.6)**. According to the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, **the word anastasis is used over thirty times in extant pagan literature before the time of Christ**. Are we to believe these are all in reference to “what is conceptually Jewish resurrection”? Holding’s bluff has been called. There simply was no terminological distinction between “kinds” of resurrection in antiquity. > > More recently, in Holding’s new response (which mostly waxes on about irrelevant points), he falsely claims that I also deny there was any conceptual distinction between kinds of revival, but that must betray his poor memory, since I repeatedly said in the original chapter that there was such a distinction in concept, but not in the vocabulary–another example of Holding’s inability to get straight what I actually say. I call all readers to go back and read what I actually said in Chapter 3. (for the sourcing, go to the original link). Why go to what the Christians may have believed decades later as opposed to what was probably meant at the time? > [@Calculon](#): > > 1. Paul talks in different places as Jesus resurrection as being a resurrection “from the dead” or even “out of death” (eg: Philippians 3:11). In the ancient world spirits were considered “dead”, as life was a property of material beings. Therefore these passages make no sense in the context of a spiritual resurrection. I’m not sure I agree with your interpretation of Philippians and since the ancients did not have a monolithic view of ‘spirits’ or what happened after death, I see no reason to simply take your word on the matter - especially considering that I have shown that a spiritual resurrection was a belief of some Jews apart from Christianity (philo/josephus). > [@Calculon](#): > > 1. The typical passage used to support the spiritual resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:44) does not support the view of a spiritual resurrection. Paul uses the phrases psychikos soma “natural body” and pneumatikos soma “spiritual body” to describe the transformation from the present to the resurrection bodies. The word “soma” here always meant the physical material of the body. Soma is even used in some places to refer to corpses. This is the opposite meaning for the spiritual resurrection. If Paul meant to talk of a spiritual resurrection he would have simply used the word pneuma or “spirit”. Pneumatikos soma does not carry the meaning required for the spiritual resurrection. This is speculation on your part, while _possible_, I do not think it’s likely. I’m persuaded by Carrier’s argument [here](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/carrier-oconnell/carrier1.html): > [@](#): > > Besides his plain statement of the fact in 1 Corinthians 15, on every other occasion when Paul speaks of the resurrection body he says the same thing or something that can be so interpreted. He responds to Christian worries about aging and dying (or being killed) by reminding them that “though our man outside is being destroyed, yet our [man] inside is being renewed day by day,” hence: > > We look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal. For we know that if our earthly house of a tabernacle is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens. For in this [domicile] we groan, yearning to put on [like a coat] our domicile from heaven. (2 Corinthians 4:16-5:2) > > Paul thus says our resurrection body is a new body God has made for us in heaven, while our current bodies will decay and be destroyed. Paul also argued we need a different body for heaven than the one we have on earth (1 Corinthians 15:39-50), and he imagined we would actually fly up to heaven in our new bodies (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, as also implied in 1 Corinthians 15:45-52 and Philippians 3:20). > > Paul frequently speaks of our inner and outer man, or our seen and unseen bodies, and specifically uses the analogy of planted seeds (1 Corinthians 15:36-44), which evokes the notion that the outer shell (the husk) is sloughed off and the inner germ rises to glory.[5] In such an analogy the husk corresponds to the earthly corpse, and the resurrection body to something greater hidden within, or donned after death, in either case numerically different. This is clearly implied in 1 Corinthians 15:46 (“the spiritual [body] is not first, but the natural one, then the spiritual one”) and in a literal translation of 1 Corinthians 15:44 (“a natural body is sown, [then] a spiritual body is raised” and “if there is a natural body, there is [also] a spiritual one”). Paul conspicuously omits saying these are the same body on any of these occasions–or anywhere at all. And Paul never says the one body becomes the other. A discourse of change and transformation he only uses of current Christian life, not the future resurrection (e.g. 2 Corinthians 3:18, which is how Romans 8:11 is probably intended, per 2 Corinthians 4:16).[6] > > Paul also describes the resurrection in the language of mercantile trade: we will exchange our old bodies for new ones, hence he repeatedly employs the metaphor of wearing different garments (1 Corinthians 15:49-54, 2 Corinthians 5:1-10). The verb allagêsometha (literally “we will be exchanged,” i.e. “we will undergo an exchange”) in 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 deliberately echoes the apocalyptic replacement of one world with another (by analogy, again, with exchanging coats) in Hebrews 1:10-12 (hence Psalms 102:25-27).[7] We will thus discard our old body like an old coat, and don a new body in its place. Such an analogy entails an old coat left behind, which is the old body, the one in the grave. Hence the implication that in the resurrection everyone will get “a body of his own” (1 Corinthians 15:38). And this is probably what Paul means in Philippians 3:21, where he says our bodies will be changed, using the same verb Josephus does to mean changing clothes (metaschêmatizô).[8] Since we must interpret that passage in light of Paul’s others, the garment analogy is most probably intended, hence changing bodies here does not mean transformation, but the same thing as changing clothes. > > Paul says a lot else that supports this interpretation. He refers to our current bodies as the ritual clay vessels that are (of course) made by hands and must be destroyed after use (2 Corinthians 4:7, cf. Leviticus 6:28, 11:33, 15:12 and Lamentations 4:2) and then to our future bodies as eternal abodes “not made by hands” (2 Corinthians 5:1), thus establishing a contrast that implies exchange, not transformation: entirely new bodies must be made, and the old ones must be destroyed.[9] Hence he also refers to our current bodies as “the body parts we have on the earth” (Colossians 3:5) and says the flesh must be destroyed in order for the spirit to be saved (1 Corinthians 5:5), again implying the old body will be destroyed and replaced with a better one. Paul also repeatedly equates his doctrine of resurrection to a new Genesis, hence a new Creation (in 1 Corinthians 15:35-50 and elsewhere), which also implies the creation of a new body to replace the old one, just as God will create a new world to replace the old one.[10] Paul’s idea was not just a spiritual resurrection - it was an exchange of bodies, the physical for the spiritual. Our ‘inner man’ gets new garments. As to Pneumatikos soma I’m not sure what you mean, it seems to fit _perfectly_; a spiritual body, as opposed to a physical one - it’s a differentiation. Your argument seems to presuppose what Paul meant - you are _begging the very question that I’m raising_. > [@Calculon](#): > > 1. Related to this Paul uses a similar phrase in Philippians 3:21, saying that Christ has a glorious body, or doxa soma. Here, without the ambiguous word for spirit, it is clear that Paul envisages that Jesus has a physical body, and therefore was resurrected physically. I’m not convinced - I find [Carrier’s explanation](http://www.richardcarrier.info/SpiritualFAQ.html#trans-phil) more plausible: > [@](#): > > **Q: Doesn’t Philippians 3:21 clearly state that the body will be transformed?** > > **A** : Not clearly, no. Philippians 3:21 says Jesus “will change the scheme of the body” of our humble condition “to correspond in form with the body” of his glory (metaschêmatisei to sôma…summorphon tô sômati), which is vague as to details. I discuss this on pp. 118-19 (with corresponding notes, pp. 204-05). As I explain there, the key verb (metaschêmatizô) was also used to refer to changing clothes, which is not a transformation but an exchange, so this verse alone is inconclusive. That means it must be read in the context of Paul’s other statements, especially his frequent allusions to resurrection as changing clothes (pp. 120-50). Likewise, Paul’s only other use of this verb is in the sense of “disguise” rather than real transformation (three times: 2 Cor. 11:13-15), and that connotation of “disguise” comes from the verb’s colloquial use in referring to the changing of clothes (e.g. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 7.257, 8.256-57). I would also point you to Carrier’s chapter in the Empty Tomb, which does the topic greater justice than I could, since I have no training in Koine Greek. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/387 "2011-09-21T15:10:01Z")
Part 2 (again, apologies): > [@Calculon](#): > > 1. By the time of the gospels it is clear that they teach a physical resurrection. It seems incongruous that Paul would teach a spiritual resurrection given that everything that went before and after him taught a physical resurrection. The necessary evidence that Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection is simply not there. This presupposes a monolithic Christian belief, which I do not think was the case. I think the early Christian church had a variety of beliefs. Some more literal and some more gnostic. Carrier’s view is that Mark actually supports his view of Paul, from [here](http://www.richardcarrier.info/SpiritualFAQ.html#markvspaul): > [@](#): > > I argue that Mark may have crafted the empty tomb story to symbolize (and thus support) Paul’s conception of the resurrection, and that even if he didn’t, he did not craft the story to “prove” a resurrection of the flesh, but merely to represent it (pp. 156-58). Only the Gospels of Luke and John show an interest in “proving” a resurrection of the flesh (by greatly embellishing the story in Mark). Though I believe the use of an “empty tomb” motif probably originated with Mark, this does not mean there were no pre-Markan narratives (symbolic or factual) of the death and resurrection of Jesus. We simply don’t know what those early stories were (they were almost certainly oral and probably communicated in secrecy). And though it’s possible the “empty tomb” motif originated earlier than Mark’s version of it, my arguments for its symbolic function would still then apply. > [@Calculon](#): > > Can you give any concrete examples of what you consider the mythological elements and theological embellishment of the gospels? It is one thing to just simply assert it, but without defining what you mean it is not really possible to discuss it. I have - both in this post and others. One would be the Saints flying out of the grave. In any event, I’m not sure how you reconcile this with your other belief that the Gospels were derived from various different sources. If that’s not embellishment, what is? Do you consider Luke/Matthew embellishing on Mark with the expansion of the empty tomb? Why or why not? > [@Calculon](#): > > Again though again I think that the evidence disagrees with your position. I would take myth to mean something like the “urban legend”, stories that have no real historical grounding (like place, time, people involved, ect) and therefore simply cannot be determined if they are true or not. If you compare Mark with Matthew and Luke and also the later pseudopigraphal gospels you can see that the later pseudopigraphal gospels definately do contain myth and theological embellishment. However when looking at the synoptics, I think that the opposite is observed. Urban Legends have historical groundings. There are urban legends involving the [Bunny Man](http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/library/branches/vr/bunny/) for instance. The bunny man seems to have a historical grounding - but not the one that is purported in the urban legends (briefly, from the site above): > [@](#): > > Forbes claims that in 1904 inmates from an insane asylum escaped while being transferred to Lorton Prison. One of these escapees, Douglas J. Grifon, murdered fellow escapee Marcus Wallster and eventually became the Bunny Man. Not only is the location identified, but also the names of several victims and the dates of their murders. The story ends with a challenge for the reader to check with the Clifton Town Library for verification of the facts. Later from the [same site](http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/library/branches/vr/bunny/bunny6.htm), the origin is revealed: > [@](#): > > Who the Bunny Man was and what motivated him to act in such a bizarre manner is still a mystery, however, the available evidence points to the October 1970 events as the genesis of the Bunny Man legend. Many of the tales collected by Patricia Johnson in 1973 clearly derive from the events as reported in the newspaper and the television news of that period. The official police report makes no mention of any pre-existing stories that this individual could have been copying. Furthermore, William L. Johnson specifically stated to the author that he found no indications of any earlier stories or criminal incidents involving an individual dressed as a rabbit. My point in bringing this up is that this is an obvious urban legend that had its basis in fact, yet the legend purports of radically different origins. So, just because there is some kernal of truth doesn’t mean that we can trust the entire account. So there might have been a man named Jesus and he might have been crucified. His resurrection, his miracles, and his origin as purported in the Gospels aren’t necessarily true simply because there was a man named Jesus who was crucified. > [@Calculon](#): > > In writing Matthew and Luke the authors have put in more concrete, historical data to ground the narrative, thereby making even less mythical than Mark’s account. This is absurd, of course, as even very conservative scholars such as Mike Licona have raised doubts towards some of Matthew’s writings. I’m specifically referring to the account of Saints raising from their tombs. Just because an author puts in details does not mean that those details are true; again, the bunny man has a detailed origin, which is completely fictitious. > [@Calculon](#): > > With the ending of Mark it is widely acknowleged that everything after Mark 16:8 is a later addition, because it is not in the oldest manuscripts that we have. For that reason I would argue that this part of Mark is not useful historically, and therefore does not form part of my argument for the resurrection. Textural criticism tells us that this addition to Mark is really the exception, not the rule, and that with a few minor exceptions the gospels, and certainly the resurrection accounts have not been added to by later people. Also the typical dates for the additions to Mark are much later than the other gospels, so this is an addition that really belongs in the time of the psedopigraphal gospels rather then the canonical ones. It is useful to show how the texts were added to and embellished. Textual criticism tells us that the Gospels are filled with later additions. We do not have the original manuscripts - I agree with Bart Erhman in this regard, we don’t know what the originals say so our confidence cannot be that great. The following from [here](http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/white-ehrman-transcript.pdf): > [@](#): > > We don’t know how often the earliest scribes changed their text. Let me bring up one datum that has not been brought up yet. The later scribes of the Middle Ages don’t disagree from one another very much because they’re trained scribes. **The earliest copyists were not trained scribes**. The fact that later manuscripts agree a lot don’t tell you what the early manuscripts did. Did the earliest manuscripts agree a lot, with themselves or with the originals? As it turns out, **most of the variants that we have in our textual tradition are from the earliest manuscripts**. That means that the earliest copies were the least— copyists—were the least qualified copyists. What about the copyists who were copying earlier than the surviving copyists? Are we to believe that all of a sudden they were virtually perfect? I don’t think so. I think that in fact, they probably changed their manuscripts a lot. What’s the evidence? The surviving early manuscripts differ a lot. Even conservative scholars admit that there are numerous differences in manuscripts. In his debate with Erhman, Craig Evans admits this at several places, most notably with the passage regarding Jesus sweating blood. > [@Calculon](#): > > The historical evidnece that we have from Acts shows that the church had an athority structure and accepted (and rejected) beliefs. It was not simply a free for all. Do you have any evidence that contradicts this view? Acts was written between 80-130 AD, so pointing to that and saying that it represents what the earliest Christians believed is not conclusive. That being said, Acts and Paul’s letters both state that there were rival beliefs (Acts, Simon Magus, Paul, 1 Timothy 1:3-5). As to evidence that contradicts it - I point to the numerous other gospels out there that are not part of the Canon and what little we know of the Gnostics. > [@Calculon](#): > > It is a fundamental assumption of history that, all other things being equal, people writing closer to an event (whether in time or space or both) should know more about it than people writing further away. I don’t think this is necessarily the case, especially regarding ancient history - but in any event, my point is that you haven’t shown that these people were particularly close to the actual events. In an episode of Bullshit, Penn and Teller bring up the point of what Elvis’s favorite food was. While trivial, it demonstrates that simply being closer to an event (time wise) doesn’t mean anything. The same goes for the Bunnyman thing that I pointed to early - AND Sabbatai Zevi, who had miracle stories going around about him during his lifetime. Not to mention Haile Selassie, who was revered as the second coming during his lifetime. > [@Calculon](#): > > If Paul is writing closer to the date of the resurrection then we can assume that his account is more trustworthy. Why? Again, this doesn’t square with other accounts of the same type. We don’t believe Travis Walton was visited by UFO’s simply because we can go up and ask him. Further, Paul says precious little about the life and death of Jesus - he wasn’t an eyewitness. He could be said to be writing about what Christians at the time believed, but his accounts get us no closer to the historical bedrock. > [@Calculon](#): > > Paul is also important because of the common (especially to “skeptics” who want to believe it) view that Christianity and the resurrection is a myth that developed over time. Paul writing close to the resurrection shows that this myth theory is impossible because there simply is not enough time for the myth to develop. This is simply false - another trick of apologists. Urban legends can spread very rapidly. I’ve presented two that spread during the lifetime of the people (Manson, Sabbatai Zevi). Kim Jung Il is another - his moods supposedly control the weather. This ‘not enough time’ thing is simply a canard. > [@Calculon](#): > > This is simply a red herring. The miracles of Sabbatai Zevi really have nothing to do with the resurrection, as they are completely independant claims. Christian theology also pre-supposes that other “non-Christian” miracles do happen, so if they did happen then that is not a defeator for Christian belief. I don’t categorally deny that they did happen, so really this point is completely irrelevant. This is special pleading - so only miracles related to resurrections should be considered? Why? Other miracles may happen - but the point is that Sabbatai denied these things (as did Haile Selassie), yet the belief persisted. I could also point to the [cargo cult tribes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult) and [Prince Philip](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement) with regard to this sort of thing… > [@Calculon](#): > > First of all this is a classic ad hominem fallacy. Whether or not the scholars involved have signed statements of faith has nothing to do with the quality of their arguments. You are simply attacking the person and not the argument. Secondly the point of linking to the books is to demonstrate and to provide reference for their arguements and the evidence that they cite. Your position appears to be that there is no evidence for the resurrection and no reason to believe it. These books clearly show that there is evidence and arguments for the resurrection being made by credible scholars. You can choose to ignore them if you want, but you can’t claim that they simply don’t exist. You are going to have to interact with the arguments if you want to maintain intellectual credibility. > > I would also point out that of the people arguing here I appear to be the only one making any reference to scholarly works. All you appear to be bring is just bold assertion. What arguments have you produced here? I was pointing out that the only scholarship you presented was bias. You didn’t say something of the sort like “Craig’s argument here …”, you simply said scholars back your positions and then you linked to them. While those scholars might have interesting and compelling arguments, you haven’t really presented them here. Further, you can point out that you are the only one making reference to scholarly work, but that would be incorrect - I’ve referenced several scholars and their work. > [@Calculon](#): > > I think you are completely mis-characterising Craig. It always surprises me the amount of hate that Craig gets from atheist websites and the like. Craig is clearly more than just a good rhetoritician. He holds PhDs in both theology and philosphy from secular universities, and has written several books and articles on philosophy making an important contribution to the field. Debating is really only a small part of his overall work on philosophy and theology. I do not ‘hate’ Craig nor do I think that he’s simply a good rhetorician - he is clearly versed in the proper material. I find his arguments weak upon examination - for the reasons I’ve mentioned. > [@Calculon](#): > > From listening to some of his talks I don’t think that Craig goes into debates with the idea of “winning” them so much as just having the chance to get a fair hearing for the Christian worldview. If you say so. > [@Calculon](#): > > Where Craig does “win” the debate it is usually for a few different reasons. Craig is undoubtedly good at the skill of debating itself. Also, many of his opponents seem under-prepared for their debates. I think though this is really more to do with the tendancy of many atheists to simply not take Christianity seriously, and so many appear to assume that Craig would be easy to debate because, as a Christian, it is self evident that his arguments are fallacious. I would agree with all of these things, generally. > [@Calculon](#): > > However I do think that Craigs arguments are persuasive, and that is also a reasonable part of why he tends to win debates. Persuasive is slippery - I do not find his arguments particularly convincing nor are they all supported by the evidence. I find his arguments supported by his rhetoric (gish gallop). So when he has an able opponent, he can dwarf them through tactics. > [@Calculon](#): > > I also think you are entirely off on accusing Craig of using the “Gish gallop” debating method. Craig has been using effectively the same set of arguments in debates for the last 20 years. There are really no surprises when debating him. If it were so easy to refute all of these statements by Craig then someone should be able to craft a response before the debate and just read it out. None of your points address my point about the Gish Gallop. I have already said that employing the gish gallop (a common debate strategy) leads to argument inflation. The opening person usually has the advantage. This is why Craig generally leads off with several arguments as opposed to just debating one. When he debates one argument, it’s actually a series of arguments, each conclusion/premise requiring more and more time to address. His statements have been refuted in written form - Jeffrey Jay Lowder does so in the Empty Tomb - addressing all of his resurrection material in one place. Take note of how long Lowder’s chapter is and then you might appreciate how difficult it would be to put this forth in a formal debate. Out of all of Craigs debates, how many times has he _not_ opened? Once (that I can recall)? And that was determined by coin flip (I’m referring to Jessup) and even he admits that it was a very difficult debate for him. He opens and then he attempts to put a burden of proof on the opposition (the opponent must justify atheism as opposed to simply refuting Craig’s argument). > [@Calculon](#): > > The reason that no-one does this is that I think his arguments have merit and simply cannot be dismissed within a few pithy lines. You say this, yet you also do not find my characterization of his tactics to be why he wins debates? I don’t see how both these views can be combined coherently. > [@Calculon](#): > > The standard of the “best explaination” is the standard that historians use. No, it’s not. Historians do not think that miracles are the ‘best explanation’. Conservative Christian historians when referring to the passion narrative do. > [@Calculon](#): > > The reference to Vespasian is again another irrelevant red herring. Whether or not the miracles of Vespasian happened has nothing to do with the resurrection. Thirdly you are just asserting that the miracles of Vespasian are better attested. I pointed out to you before that John Meier in “A Marginal Jew” states that many Tacitus scholars do not take his account as historical because Tacitus himself does not take it seriously, and you have not really responded to that. While it is irrelevant I dispute your premise that the miracles of Vespasian are actually as well attested as the NT. I think that they are clearly not. This is nonsense - if what you are saying about the historical method were correct, then please list the scholars who think Vespasian actually did the miracle! I know of **none**. As to Tacitus, he was not the only source I used, AND I responded to that criticism of Meier’s [on this page](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=623229&page=4). > [@Calculon](#): > > I don’t think you understand what begging the question actually refers to. Begging the question, or circular arguments, is where the conclusion of your argument is contained within the premises. So for instance the general argument here that “the resurrection didn’t happen because there is no evidence because all of the supposed evidence is fake because the resurrection didn’t happen” is clearly circular. The arguments that you cite are not circular in that way and do not beg the question. I have provided several reasons why Paul was speaking of the physical resurrection. The proximity of events lending credence to them is a standard assumption of history (really I don’t understand why you would question that). > > With the authority of conservative Christian scholars being meaningful, if my argument was “the resurrection happened because these scholars say it did”, then that might be a fallacy of appealing to authority. However the reason that I cite these people is not because they are authoritative, but because I agree with their arguments. I cite them simply as reference, not as authority that proves my point, and so it is not fallacious. If you know of scholars that reflect your views then please provide some reference to them. As I say I appear to be the only one really trying to interact with scholarship on this issue. It is also worth noting that your accusation of fallacy itself contains an implicit ad hominem fallacy. By describing them as conservative Christian scholars you are seeking to discount their arguments not on the merits of the arguments, but on the basis of who is making them. That is again simply ad hominem. I’m pointing out that you are making unsupported assumptions. You rely on conservative scholars as authorities - I point out the problem with those authorities and then you cry ad-hominem. You didn’t provide their arguments, you simply relied on them as authorities. > [@Calculon](#): > > The point of my statement was trying to establish by what standards of evidence do you find the resurrection lacking? So far several posters have been arguing that the normal rules of evidence do not apply to the resurrection (extraordinarly claims require extraordinary evidence and all that), but no-one has provided a reasonable description of what standard of belief is reasonable, and why appealing to that standard is simply not just self-referrential (ie: based entirely on your own pre-concieved ideas of what should be real). The point of your statement was an attempt to undermine my position. > [@Calculon](#): > > Really? I know it is an atheist statement of faith that there is no evidence for the existence of God, but I have provided plenty of justification for my beliefs. My argument in a nutshell is: > > 1. The NT is broadly historically reliable > 2. The NT describes Jesus as rising from the dead > 3. No naturalistic theory (aparant death, wrong tomb, hallucinations, myth, ect) adequately accounts for the historical evidence for the resurrection in the NT and other extant writings > 4. The only credible possibility is therefore that Jesus rose from the dead. An atheist statement of faith? Trying to paint with a broad brush, eh? You have not provided evidence of 1, 3, or 4, you have maybe provided evidence of 2. Even if 3 is true, **that does not entail 4**. You should realize this, so you need to provide evidence of 4. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/388 "2011-09-21T15:11:15Z")
Part 3 (final): > [@Calculon](#): > > This doesn’t beg the question as it is not circular. Paul’s writings show that he believed that Jesus rose physically from the dead, so that would be the natural way in which we should understand his claim to have seen the risen Christ. Your evidence for what Paul’s writing shows is what, exactly? I’ve provided evidence that Paul’s writings do not comport with your position. > [@Calculon](#): > > I don’t think that mental phenomenon are really more rational. A mental “hallucination” theory pre-supposes that the resurrection was spiritual, for which there is no good evidence. No, it really doesn’t - you can toss out the entire ‘physical/spiritual’ debate and still conclude that Paul had a mental hallucination on his trip to Damascus. > [@Calculon](#): > > Secondly when we start saying that historical accounts that we simply don’t like are the result of “mental phenomenon”, then why not just assume that any and every experience that we have is merely a “mental phenomenon”. It’s a good thing that I’m basing the mental phenomenon on the account as opposed to my own personal feelings then. His account is similar to mental hallucinations. > [@Calculon](#): > > Without pinning it down with a specific phenomenon with good reasons for it then I think this is simply meaningless. It also makes no sense in the context of the early church since Paul also writes that several other people (up to 500 at once) saw the risen Jesus, and so while we may be able to write off Paul, we can’t simply discount the others, which brings into question the whole theory. Can you name those witnesses? Do we have any accounts of theirs? Further, [the miracle of the sun](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_miracle) provides accounts of multiple witnesses hallucinations. > [@Calculon](#): > > If you want to argue that Paul experienced some sort of “mental phenomenon”, please specify exactly what you are proposing happened, and why you think that phenomenon in particular explains the events. I’m not a trained psychologist - there are many different mental phenomenon that could account for the experience. Temporal lobe seizures, Schizophrenia, other mental things I suppose. We have evidence of those things and of people hallucinating. We have no evidence of what you are suggesting - outside of the anecdotal - so please present some evidence of it to the same degree that we have evidence of mental phenomenon causing hallucinations. As to the anecdotal, if we are to accept the anecdotal consistently, well then, do you believe in Vampires? UFOs? Etc? No, you ask for other evidence in favor of those things because they are not common to our experience. Neither is the miracle that Paul presents - so it requires more than just his say-so to convince. Or rather, it should, if you are to be consistent. > [@Calculon](#): > > Really? > > From getting together the information in the NT (Pilate was governor, Jesus crucified on a Friday before passover, ect), the possible dates for the crucifixion are either 30 or 33AD. The evidence states (ie: Acts) and common sense dictates that Christianity would have started soon after this event. Certainly by the 60’s Christians were already in places like Corinth, Rome, the region of Galatia, ect as they were recieving Pauls letters. Even non-Christian sources point to Christianity existing as a movement as early as 64AD, as Christians were in Rome, getting blamed for the great fire and being persecuted by Nero. All of this comes after 65 AD (being charitable). All of this supports the early Church’s existence. Common sense dictates that if the events **happened** the church may have risen soon after. So basically if you believe what the Gospels say, you’ll believe that there was an early Jesus who died in the 30’s. So this all depends on whether or not you believe the Gospels then. > [@Calculon](#): > > Really it puzzles me that you would question this sort of simple history as it is not really disputed by any scholars. What actually happened at the start of Christianity (ie: whether Jesus rose from the dead or not) is disputed, but not really the fact that Jesus died and that Christianity started soon after that. What do you suppose the early history of the church was, and what evidence do you have to support your view? I question the Mormon Scholars who arrive at the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a prophet as well. I question a number of things. While I would say that the best explanation is probably that Jesus existed somewhere around the 30’s, my point in this exercise is to show that it’s not a definitive conclusion. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > The fact is, you won’t answer the one question no matter how it is coached, and “the huge list of other possible miracles” that exists only in your mind is a convenient strawman. If you had a _valid_ reason to dismiss any miracles but those in the Bible you would have gladly done so long ago. I think this is true. > [@Calculon](#): > > Do you accept the miracles of Vespasian? If not, then why do you think I should? It would be one thing if you were at least honest in your questions and were present alternative miracles that you yourself found credible. Asking about miracles that you yourself don’t accept is hardly an honest debate tactic. I do not think we should accept the miracles of Vespasian because we have no evidence outside of the anecdotal for miracles in general. We have evidence of people: 1. Being mistaken in what they perceive (not necessarily a ‘trick’ as in 3). 2. Making up things. 3. Being able to be fooled by tricks. We have no solid and convincing evidence of miracles taking place, the best we have are anecdotes and anecdotal evidence is among the worst type of evidence we can have. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/389 "2011-09-21T15:41:24Z")
BTW - our exchanges Calculon are a good example of debate inflation. Imagine doing this in a live debate with a strict 5 minutes per side. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/390 "2011-09-21T16:09:13Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > I’m not sure what to make of this - yes, it’s possible there are more sources, but that is not the majority scholarly position. The [two-source hypothesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis) still seems to be the favored one among scholars. > > So to definitively state that there are five sources as a matter of fact seems premature. I think you and Calculon agree here, it’s just that he’s calling the parts of Matthew that aren’t found in Mark a source (“M”), and the parts of Luke that aren’t in Mark a source (“L”), and John is its own source. You and I would say that Matthew is based on the sources of Mark and on Q, but Calculon is saying that the extra stuff added by the writer of Matthew is a “source” too. Same for Luke and John. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/391 "2011-09-21T16:22:53Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I think you and Calculon agree here, it’s just that he’s calling the parts of Matthew that aren’t found in Mark a source (“M”), and the parts of Luke that aren’t in Mark a source (“L”), and John is its own source. > > You and I would say that Matthew is based on the sources of Mark and on Q, but Calculon is saying that the extra stuff added by the writer of Matthew is a “source” too. Same for Luke and John. Perhaps - but I think he’s referring to something similar to the [four document hypothesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Document_Hypothesis). The difference between the two is that “M” and “L” would have been created prior to Mark, as opposed to during the time of Matthew. So they would be of a similar date to Q, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/392 "2011-09-21T20:22:47Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > I think rather then dealing with all of the data at hand, you are really ignoring it. And I gave you my reason for ignoring it. I have a significant body of evidence to tell me that I should. 1. I have evidence that magic is not real. 2. I have evidence that the gospels were written significantly after the real events, by people who did not witness it, and who are prejudiced towards believing anything they hear, during a time where historical accuracy was not a major concern of authors. 3. There is no evidence otherwise to support the Gospels. No one of the thousands who were fed with magic food seem to have told anyone about it, nor seemed sufficiently impressed by it to become a follower of Christ. No one who was healed by him seems to have told anyone about it, nor seemed sufficiently impressed to become a follower. Only a small handful of people, decades later, seem to think any of these things occurred. Whereas, in real life, any major display of miraculous feats will radiate out to greater and greater numbers of people, from the moment it occurred. You would have reports from all over the continent of such happenings, within a couple of years. Instead, Jesus went so wholly unnoticed that later authors had to insert fake evidence into Josephus’ accounts, so that there would be any reference to him at all. The one line which is believed to be real, in Josephus, isn’t even clearly about the Jesus we mean. 4. There is direct, archaeological evidence, that Jesus was entirely unaware of the history of Judaism. The idea of Yahweh as the sole creator of the world was due to a henotheistic political movement around 500 BC. Previous to that, Yahweh was simply one of the children of El, and one of the pantheon of gods of the Canaanite people. You can watch the development of the religion and how it pulls elements from the surrounding territories through the centuries. But for Jesus to believe the same things about the Old Testament god as the rest of the people of his time displays that he either had no superhuman set of knowledge, or that if there is such a god for real, he is a liar. 5. Nothing within Jesus’ set of rules for life is particularly novel. The Golden Rule is something that exists in many philosophies and many religions from both before and after Jesus. The same is true of everything else he taught. Similarly, there were already plenty of people who believed in Yahweh as the creator of the world. If there was a real Yahweh, what purpose is served by dropping his son onto the planet just to tell everyone everything they already knew? For Jesus, he gets a cult with followers who bow down to him and bring him food and so on – there’s a measurable bonus to being the Son of God. But what is the benefit to the actual God to put Jesus on the Earth? 6. Similarly to how we can trace the development of Judaism, Christianity appears to simply be a modification of Judaism to incorporate Grecian philosophy (specifically, Neo-Platonic philosophy), something already begun by the Sethians and Ophites. So not only was Jesus’ teachings not novel, you could predict that just such a religion would be flourishing in that place at that time, because that was the flavor of the day. 7. Similarly to how Jesus’ teachings were not novel, they were not useful and are in fact wrong. For nearly two thousand years after Jesus’ death, the level of morality of the world was unchanged. It wasn’t until the 18th century that people started to use rational debate and science to figure out ways to reduce suffering in the world, to make sure that all men had a say in their own life, that women were equals to their partners and also had a say in their own life, etc. If Jesus had known anything special, he could have saved us 1800 years of sin and suffering. He actively taught _against_ the modern way of life, by urging such things as poverty and inequality while reproaching interest based loans. Technically you could view us all as sinners according to Jesus, but personally I’m happy to say that he’s factually in the wrong. 8. Christianity is no different from any other number of religions, each of which have as equal a right to be the correct religion. However, they are all mutually exclusive. With thousands of religions through the millenia, putting your faith into any particular one is ludicrous minus evidence otherwise. As yet, there is no evidence of deities, souls, an afterlife, nor anything else commonly taught by religion. This is just the same as we had no evidence of the magical healing powers of beads, of balancing the four humors, nor of getting your chi aligned – and now we know they are bunk. The popularity of something and the sincere, intelligent belief in those things, throughout the millenia simply aren’t evidence. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/393 "2011-09-22T04:20:50Z")
**Meatros** , nicely done. As a point of clarification, I will mention that [Early Christian Writings](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html), cited by both you and **Calculon** , is Peter Kirby’s site. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/394 "2011-09-22T11:56:13Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > **Meatros** , nicely done. As a point of clarification, I will mention that [Early Christian Writings](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html), cited by both you and **Calculon** , is Peter Kirby’s site. In all honesty, some of these threads are melting together for me - I’m forgetting _what_ I posted _where_… 🙂 I’ve posted primary source material at several points too - in this thread, I posted quotes from Philo (although the original link doesn’t work, the text is the same). ---
**Author:** ![ch4rl3s](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@ch4rl3s](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ch4rl3s)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/395 "2011-09-28T13:43:57Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > [QUOTE=ch4rl3s] > Umm, they had a heck of a lot more reason to know than you or Dio do. They had less, actually. They were in no position to know anything at all. We at least have the benefit of critical scholarship and historical perspective. The authors of the Gospels had no connection to the events they wrote about (and sometimes demonstrably fabricated) historically, geographically lingusitically or culturally. The Gospels were written by Gentiles outside of Palestine to a Gentile audience in a Gentile language 40-70 years after the alleged events without any access to witnesses. In point of fact, the supernatural claims in the Gospels cannot be shown to have existed as having been made by Jesus cultists before the Gospels themselves. [/QUOTE] I was comparing various claims. 1.) NT claims that Jesus was resurrected by God. 2.) Your claim that Jesus was resurrected by ice ants from Pluto 3.) Meatros’ claim that Jesus was resurrected by aliens. 4.) Your claim that all these things are equivalent. We have evidence for the existance of only one of these theories from the first century. The only evidence we have for what the earliest Jesus followers believed comes from later sources, (the gospels and the book of Acts,) but they only speak of one of these theories. You may not know which of these theories may have been in use at the time, or the most likely… but… Mark, Luke, and Paul had a heck of a lot more reason to know than you do. And your claim that they didn’t know which of these theories was most likely, that they didn’t meet first hand witnesses, who had more reason to know than you, is pure speculation. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Meaningless tautology. If magic can happen then magic can happen. Fine. Now show that magic can happen. I didn’t start with the tautology. You have presented one as your argument on more than one occasion, though. I couldn’t prove it to you for two important reasons. 1.) It would be met head on by your tautology that things like this can’t happen, so things like this can’t happen. 2.) God is not subject to his creation. He is not our bitch to order around. Jesus is consistantly recorded as not providing proof to those demanding it. He performed miracles when he felt like it, and usually as an act of compassion when impressed by people’s faith. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/396 "2011-09-28T14:29:36Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > I was comparing various claims. > 1.) NT claims that Jesus was resurrected by God. > 2.) Your claim that Jesus was resurrected by ice ants from Pluto > 3.) Meatros’ claim that Jesus was resurrected by aliens. > 4.) Your claim that all these things are equivalent. > > We have evidence for the existance of only one of these theories from the first century. The only evidence we have for what the earliest Jesus followers believed comes from later sources, (the gospels and the book of Acts,) but they only speak of one of these theories. You may not know which of these theories may have been in use at the time, or the most likely… but… Mark, Luke, and Paul had a heck of a lot more reason to know than you do. And your claim that they didn’t know which of these theories was most likely, that they didn’t meet first hand witnesses, who had more reason to know than you, is pure speculation. Dio won’t be able to respond to this, but I think he made a good point by the suggestion that once you introduce ‘magic’ into the equation, how on earth can you then decide what is more probable? What we have evidence for is that people in the first century believed number 1. This does not translate into evidence for number 1 - rather, I should say it does not translate into **good** evidence, since technically speaking anecdotal evidence is still evidence. My friends from highschool relating an urban legend about a serial killer in a bunny suit is evidence, yes, but it is highly dubious evidence and not the type that is trusted. Your assertion that these people had a heck of a lot more reason to know that we do is unfounded. It would be entirely similar to me claiming that my friends from highschool had a lot more reason to know about the serial killer than you do (presumably, if you have not heard of it). The fact is, what they ‘knew’ was almost entirely wrong. If what you say is true, then you would have to also accept the miracles of Vespasian as true (after all, the witnesses were closer to them then you are) or the miracles of Sabbatai Zevi. What the fact is, at best, we have anecdotal accounts and vague ones at that. Now when we are trying to determine what is most likely, out of the 3 claims (excluding 4), it seems that 3 is the most likely, since aliens and their methods are presumably natural entities and their methods of resurrection would be natural. 1 and 2 require us to accept entities that are entirely unlike anything we have experience as would their methods of resurrection. That said, I’d think that it’s most likely that none of those three are the case and that the Gospels/Paul are simply mistaken, as are the sources for Vespasian and a host of other miracle claims. I mean, why accept third hand accounts and anonymous accounts in the case of the Bible, but not accounts from the best historians at the time (regarding Vespasian)? > [@ch4rl3s](#): > > I didn’t start with the tautology. You have presented one as your argument on more than one occasion, though. > I couldn’t prove it to you for two important reasons. > 1.) It would be met head on by your tautology that things like this can’t happen, so things like this can’t happen. > 2.) God is not subject to his creation. He is not our bitch to order around. Jesus is consistantly recorded as not providing proof to those demanding it. He performed miracles when he felt like it, and usually as an act of compassion when impressed by people’s faith. Again, you won’t be hearing from Dio, but let me take a stab at this: 1. How do we know these things **actually** happen? What we know is that people can be mistaken in what they witness, that their memories can be distorted, and that they can hallucinate. What good and solid evidence do we have that these things can happen? Because it’s logically possible? If that’s all you have, then the other three are also logically possible. 2. Jesus was not ‘recorded’ in the sense that someone was going around writing down what they were witnessing. What Jesus supposedly did was written down decades after the fact by people who did not actually witness what he did. I can easily see premodern people ascribing miracles to someone like Penn Jilette and then embellishing these feats. Shoot, this type of thing happens during the person’s lifetime (Sabbatai Zevi, Charles Manson, and Haile Selassie) and one need only look at modern urban legends to confirm this sort of thing. Also, I should point out that you are engaging in an ad-hoc rationalization - one that doesn’t necessarily comport with the Bible. There are several places in the Bible where God _does exactly_ what you say he doesn’t - providing ‘physical evidence’ to Thomas for example. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/397 "2011-09-28T14:33:40Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > For clarity,\*\* is your position\*\*: > > The Gospels are _marginally more credible_ than **Dio** ’s position on ice ants? > > If so, I can certainly concede that. If that’s your position though I don’t find it particularly rational to believe the New Testament accounts. I am curious as to why it is convincing to you - or is yours a position born out of faith/person experience? (To be fair, I’m not even sure if you have explicitly stated that you are a Christian) This is from a prior page, can you please comment on it? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/398 "2011-09-28T18:49:51Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > What we have evidence for is that people in the first century believed number 1. This does not translate into evidence for number 1 - rather, I should say it does not translate into **good** evidence… I don’t really consider it to be evidence at all. In science, _claims_ require _evidence_ to support them. The accounts in the gospels are the claims. We don’t have evidence. ---
**Author:** ![brocks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@brocks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brocks)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/399 "2011-09-28T21:19:16Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > There are several places in the Bible where God [provides proof to skeptics] - providing ‘physical evidence’ to Thomas for example. Not only that, but there are several places where he goes out of his way to show off. A couple of quick examples: In Exodus, he keeps hardening Pharaoh’s heart so he can bring more plagues down on Egypt. And in Judges 7, he has Gideon reduce the number of men in his army from 32,000 down to 300, to make sure that nobody thinks they could have won without God on their side. Not to mention Jesus killing the fig tree, and using the occasion to promise that believers will get ANYTHING they pray for. A promise that fails a million times a day. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680/400 "2011-09-29T12:41:50Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I don’t really consider it to be evidence at all. In science, _claims_ require _evidence_ to support them. The accounts in the gospels are the claims. We don’t have evidence. I can understand why you would say that, but I’m not sure that I can go the full way with you there. Anecdotal evidence, while particularly poor, is a form of evidence - or support for a claim. For instance, if I said “People like ice cream” and someone asked for evidence of this claim, it seems reasonable that all I would have to do is find someone who liked ice cream. Now, I recognize that this is completely different from the sort of claims you are talking about - scientific. Further, I also recognize that this sort of evidence (a person saying they like ice cream) is completely noncontroversial; there is objective evidence that people prefer ice cream as a source of sustenance. We could do empirical tests to confirm it. Finally, as I alluded to, we have direct experience with it (experience that can be empirically confirmed). It’s not remarkable at all if someone claims to like ice cream. This is not the same, at all, with miracle claims - or even non miracle claims that have a low probability. For instance, if I claim that I like chocolate ice cream, you wouldn’t bat an eye. However, if I claimed I’d won the lottery, you would ask for evidence - even though my winning the lottery is a completely possible event. It’s one that you’ve seen evidence of (people win the lottery all the time), however the probability of me winning the lottery is so low that my word is not good enough to substantiate the claim. Miracle claims are even worse since the contain claims that are completely outside of our experience. We have seen no empirical evidence of them. As I pointed out before, even adherents admit they are extremely improbable - out of billions of people who have lived on the earth, the claim is that **one** was resurrected - so excluding everything else, the probability would be far **lower** than the probability of me winning the lottery. > [@brocks](#): > > Not only that, but there are several places where he goes out of his way to show off. A couple of quick examples: > > In Exodus, he keeps hardening Pharaoh’s heart so he can bring more plagues down on Egypt. And in Judges 7, he has Gideon reduce the number of men in his army from 32,000 down to 300, to make sure that nobody thinks they could have won without God on their side. > > Not to mention Jesus killing the fig tree, and using the occasion to promise that believers will get ANYTHING they pray for. > > A promise that fails a million times a day. Good points. I also had in mind a chapter in the Old Testament where one of the prophets summons God to light wet wood on fire with the intent of showing the watching people that their Gods were false and that Yahweh was real. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-is-your-best-evidence-for-the-literal-historical-resurrection-of-jesus/593680.md?page=21)