Christians: What is your best evidence for the literal, historical resurrection of Jesus

[Meatros]

@ch4rl3s

The length of time itself has no bearing on whether something is true. I explained it in the previous post. You quote it in your next question, which is basically the same as this one, so I’ll answer them both in a moment.

not length of time, connection to the event. My point can be stated as it already was…

If you said you had personally seen Kim Jung Il control the weather, I would discount the claim immediately if you were shown to have never been within 1000 km, (or 1900 years,) of the man.
I would consider it closer if you could be shown to have met him, or at least been in the same city at the same time. The two situations do not have the same evidentiary value. Even if I don’t believe Kim Jung Il can control weather, I now have to consider if you might make it up, or probably saw something, but mistook the event, or if you got it right. I don’t have to consider any of that if you have no connection to him at all.

It seems I misinterpreted the 1900’s part, my apologies. Your clarifications, while correcting that misinterpretation, does not help your case.

You said (initially) that Mark/Luke/Paul have the possibility of being connected to the event.

By the same token, I have the possibility of being connected to the event of Kim Jung Il controlling the weather. I do not need to have personally seen him, nor would I need to be within 1000 km of him in order during the event in order to be ‘connected’ to him. By your standards, I’d just have to talk to someone who said they witnessed it.

To confound even this evidence of yours, it’s not clear whether or not any of the writers did check with the eyewitnesses.

You say that you would consider my claim had I met Kim, but none of the writers claim to have met the living Jesus. It’s also not clear that the writers even lived in the same city as Jesus did during his purported life. In fact, since the Gospels were written in Greek, this was most likely not the case.

So my claim is on equal footing, since none of the criteria that would make you consider my claims more seriously hold true for the writers of the NT.

BTW - I’m not making up the Kim Jong-il control the weather thing - there are people who believe it, apparently.

@ch4rl3s

Umm, they had a heck of a lot more reason to know than you or Dio do…

Please, go on share with us your reasons why this is the case…

@ch4rl3s

I was saying, if there is a being that could create this entire universe, he probably lives in his own fully formed reality. Begbert2 said more than once, that it was just as likely he existed in a closet attached to this universe. Just like in this debate with you and Dio, I was showing that the two situations don’t have the same value as evidence as you all claim, (resurrection of Christ in one case, the reality God would live in in the other case.)
You can’t see a difference in the one case, I’m not surprised you can’t see it in the other either, since it’s the same difference.

I don’t see the analogy - Begbert’s explanation prima facie doesn’t make sense since closets exist on earth, in structures built by men out of pre-existing material. To say a closet was attached to the universe (ie, empty space) doesn’t make sense on the face of it.

You could say the same might apply to ‘ice ants’, which is why I specifically changed the example to ‘aliens’. Aliens ‘resurrecting’ Jesus through technology that dwarfs are own is not equally nonsensical.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Further, as to your surprise, you are prejudging me - since I specifically said that the example didn’t make any sense and that I was withholding comment in that post - are you now claiming to have the ability to read minds or something?

@ch4rl3s

Already answered, but once more. If Dio had had a history showing that the ice ant theory could date back to the event.

Change ice ants to aliens, first.

Second, why does the length of time a theory has been around matter at all?

Relativity is recent - does this diminish it’s credibility?

@ch4rl3s

Was believed at the time by people who had a good chance to meet Jesus or the disciples, or those people directly taught by them, and quoted Jesus and the disciples as having said ice ants did it, Then, I would have to lend them relatively the same credibility.

Again, I’m not sure how this has much relevance to the truth of the matter; you don’t have evidence that the writers met with Jesus or the disciples. Let’s say you did, if this was ‘evidence’ then we have plenty of evidence of UFO abductions.

Further, let’s suppose you did - that would mean you had second hand evidence, which is worse that eyewitness evidence. I’m not sure how this is supposed to add credibility to a claim - if it did then Urban Legends have credibility.

@ch4rl3s

Since he can’t, I don’t. His, and your, claim to being of the same value shows you don’t understand evidence.

I think I do understand the evidence - it is very poor evidence - among the worst we have for events.

To clarify - your evidence consists of - at best (this assumes things about the Gospels and Paul that I do not believe are warranted):

Third hand accounts of people who may have talked to witnesses.

Is this all you have? If so, it’s looking down right weak. We have this evidence for alien abductions, urban legends, big foot, the springheeled jack, and vampires.

Do you accept these things as real or are you inconsistent in your application of what constitutes evidence?

[ch4rl3s]

@Trinopus

While there is an element of justice in what you say…

Damn straight.

@Trinopus

… I think that the “rejection of the impossible” is something we all do, pretty much every day. We do not accept highly implausible claims.

When a little child says, “I saw an elephant,” we think, at first, okay, maybe the circus is in town. We say “Where?” “On the roof.” And, poof, just like that, we stop bothering to give the statement any further credibility.

I agree, unless there is more evidence for the elephant. Another child comes in saying there’s an elephant; you hear a creak on the roof, etc. Just a couple more pieces, and you investigate. Nobody is giving those extra pieces to say ice ants did it.

@Trinopus

I recently read Plutarch. Basically, it seems to be a sound history, or series of biographies. But Plutarch keeps telling stories about miraculous auguries…

That tipped you off, but you didn’t notice that he changed the facts to fit the parallel he was trying to make, or the moral point he was emphasizing?

@Trinopus

I agree that Diogenes the Cynic would be committing a lazy argument if it consisted of nothing other than “it’s impossible because it’s impossible.” But we know too much about human physiology to accept a human body dying, then coming back to life. God would have to do immense, detailed repair to denatured proteins, coagulated blood, etc. It just requires too many concessions to reality as we know it. The elephant on the roof is vastly easier to believe!

Coming back to life naturally. You ascribe to a god, (that would have created the universe,) the same skill as a current day physician and say it’s impossible for us, so it’s impossible for a god. You ascribe to a god, (that would have created the universe,) only the skill available to a being created in that universe, And then what? Simply reject it because these things don’t happen? Ascribe to him, first, the skill and power to create the universe, and then wonder whether that power level makes it more likely. Maybe even, just imagine what it might take for humans in our universe. science fiction has done as much. Star Trek TNG used the transporter to renature proteins and restore altered dna of a prematurely aged person. So, we would need a computer able to store a human’s entire pattern, and a machine that can manipulate the placement of all those atoms. We can’t do it yet, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible for humans to achieve. Your first thought must have been, “humans will never be able to do anything remotely like that.” If you are intrigued with the idea we may be able to do this, or are even unsure of whether it will ever be physically possible, then you didn’t give a god enough credit.

@Trinopus

The key to all of this is evidence.

I’ve said I’m not going to convince anyone. Dio has as much as said that having Jesus himself appear to him would leave him unconvinced. What evidence can you produce to someone who will reject all evidence as unreliable based on his prior belief?

@Trinopus

Tradition is not evidence. And the testimony of the gospels is very, very weak…

I’ll admit, the testimony of the gospels is weak. But, it’s not as weak as Dio’s claim that ice ants could have resurrected Jesus. That was my main point. It’s an attempt to restructure the debate, by ignoring what evidence there is, and equating it to something that actually has no evidence, and summarily dismissing the restructured, misrepresented, argument, and believing it has any bearing on the ignored argument.

@Trinopus

As asked above, why accept the tradition of the resurrection of Jesus, but not the tradition of the resurrection of Osiris?..
I see 'em both as about equal in terms of evidence.

Do you believe a man existed who was our model of Jesus; a Jewish teacher with a following who was crucified, and maintained a following after his death? Do you believe similar things about Osiris? That he existed and we know of people who knew him at the time? Is it possible that Mark was taught by Peter, and Peter was a disciple of Jesus? What source do you have for Osiris of someone who was taught by a disciple of Osiris before his death, who could have seen his empty tomb? What? Nothing even possible? Hmmm. There are credible scholars who will admit that Mark may have based his account on the testimony of Peter. (And others who don’t.) Do you have any scholars who will admit that much about the Osiris legends? Once again, it looks to me like an attempt to restructure the debate. To ignore evidence by saying it’s equal to something with no evidence.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@ch4rl3s

I agree, unless there is more evidence for the elephant. Another child comes in saying there’s an elephant; you hear a creak on the roof, etc. Just a couple more pieces, and you investigate. Nobody is giving those extra pieces to say ice ants did it.

Those pieces don’t exist for the Resurrection either. You actually don’t even have the first child, much less corroborating children. You have one child saying other children (who he doesn’t know and has never met) saw an elephant on a roof.

I’ve said I’m not going to convince anyone. Dio has as much as said that having Jesus himself appear to him would leave him unconvinced. What evidence can you produce to someone who will reject all evidence as unreliable based on his prior belief?

You would have to show me a compelling reason to believe that I was not hallucinating or being deceived somehow. Hallucinations are not evidence. Let’s see Jesus appear at the halftime show of the superbowl and juggle some stars and planets around. If everybody else sees it, then I’ll at least know I’m not hallucinating. Hallucinations are commonplace, though and are always more likely than magic.

I’ll admit, the testimony of the gospels is weak. But, it’s not as weak as Dio’s claim that ice ants could have resurrected Jesus. That was my main point. It’s an attempt to restructure the debate, by ignoring what evidence there is, and equating it to something that actually has no evidence, and summarily dismissing the restructured, misrepresented, argument, and believing it has any bearing on the ignored argument.

The evidence is equally non-existent for both, and a sky god is no more plausible than ice ants.

Is it possible that Mark was taught by Peter

No.

There are credible scholars who will admit that Mark may have based his account on the testimony of Peter.

Not really, no. Not unless they’re basing their assertion on a priori faith beliefs. in point of fact, there is no evidence connecting Canonical Mark with Peter, or any secretary of Peter’s (that’s a 2nd Century tradition based on some vague claims made by Papias, and even Papias’ description doesn’t match the book), and there is a lot of evidence against such a hypothesis.

Moreover, Mark’s Gospel doesn’t even say that anybody saw a physically resurrected Jesus, only that some women saw an empty tomb, then ran away and didn’t tell anybody.

[Meatros]

@ch4rl3s

I agree, unless there is more evidence for the elephant. Another child comes in saying there’s an elephant; you hear a creak on the roof, etc. Just a couple more pieces, and you investigate. Nobody is giving those extra pieces to say ice ants did it.

An elephant is something we have experience with - a supernatural resurrection is not. If the child said the elephant was blowing fire from it’s trunk and that his best friend witnessed it and this happened yesterday, would you believe the child?

Further, I’ll have to point out that the evidence you’ve presented here for the elephant is greater than that of the Gospels.

1. You know who the child is
2. You can talk to him
3. This is happening currently

None of these things is true with the writers of the new testament.

@ch4rl3s

Coming back to life naturally. You ascribe to a god, (that would have created the universe,) the same skill as a current day physician and say it’s impossible for us, so it’s impossible for a god. You ascribe to a god, (that would have created the universe,) only the skill available to a being created in that universe, And then what? Simply reject it because these things don’t happen? Ascribe to him, first, the skill and power to create the universe, and then wonder whether that power level makes it more likely. Maybe even, just imagine what it might take for humans in our universe. science fiction has done as much. Star Trek TNG used the transporter to renature proteins and restore altered dna of a prematurely aged person. So, we would need a computer able to store a human’s entire pattern, and a machine that can manipulate the placement of all those atoms. We can’t do it yet, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible for humans to achieve. Your first thought must have been, “humans will never be able to do anything remotely like that.” If you are intrigued with the idea we may be able to do this, or are even unsure of whether it will ever be physically possible, then you didn’t give a god enough credit.

I think you missed his point - the point wasn’t that it was impossible, it was that the elephant was easier to believe because of what we know. We would need greater evidence in the resurrection than in the case of the elephant.

The explanation for the resurrection is ‘magic’.

Why is ‘magic’ a more likely explanation than what is suggested by human psychology? When has ‘magic’ ever been affirmed as genuine?

What’s ironic about your post is that it would seem to suggest that aliens (or even future humans) with the ability to resurrect Jesus is a better explanation than God/Magic.

Yet you dismiss aliens/future humans…

@ch4rl3s

I’ll admit, the testimony of the gospels is weak. But, it’s not as weak as Dio’s claim that ice ants could have resurrected Jesus. That was my main point. It’s an attempt to restructure the debate, by ignoring what evidence there is, and equating it to something that actually has no evidence, and summarily dismissing the restructured, misrepresented, argument, and believing it has any bearing on the ignored argument.

So your stance is that what the Gospels present is, what, just marginally better than Dio’s claim of ice ants?

If that’s the case, why should we treat the resurrection any more serious than the existence of Bigfoot, vampires, or alien abductions?

Or do you concede that the quality for the resurrection is the same?

@ch4rl3s

Do you believe a man existed who was our model of Jesus; a Jewish teacher with a following who was crucified, and maintained a following after his death? Do you believe similar things about Osiris? That he existed and we know of people who knew him at the time?

We have other examples of people who existed, did miraculous things, and gathered followings: Sabbatai Zevi (he was even a ‘messiah’ and still has followers today), Vespasian (Josephus suggested he was the messiah), Kim Jong-Il, L Ron Hubbard, John Titor (although, technically he didn’t do any miracles, he did supposedly travel back in time). We have loads of examples.

@ch4rl3s

Is it possible that Mark was taught by Peter, and Peter was a disciple of Jesus?

Remotely, I suppose - but ‘Mark’ most likely did not write the Gospel of Mark - at least not according to most scholars.

@ch4rl3s

What source do you have for Osiris of someone who was taught by a disciple of Osiris before his death, who could have seen his empty tomb? What? Nothing even possible?

I’m sorry, but why does the miracle have to include a resurrection/empty tomb/crucifixion in order for you to believe it??

@ch4rl3s

Hmmm. There are credible scholars who will admit that Mark may have based his account on the testimony of Peter. (And others who don’t.)

Most don’t.

@ch4rl3s

Do you have any scholars who will admit that much about the Osiris legends? Once again, it looks to me like an attempt to restructure the debate. To ignore evidence by saying it’s equal to something with no evidence.

You are attempting to restructure the debate so that only a very narrow amount of miracles can be deemed credible - you are special pleading.

[Trinopus]

This isn’t a full or proper rebuttal, but I wanted to zero in on a couple points of disagreement…

Coming back to life naturally. You ascribe to a god, (that would have created the universe,) the same skill as a current day physician and say it’s impossible for us, so it’s impossible for a god. . . .

The problem is that the alternative is too open. A god can do anything. A god can hypnotize people into thinking the grave was empty; a god can deceive people into thinking they saw him walking around with holes in his hands; a god can make Mary think she didn’t have sex with her husband, etc.

The “god” hypothesis explains everything…but it does so in such an irrefutable fashion that it actually explains nothing.

I’ve said I’m not going to convince anyone. Dio has as much as said that having Jesus himself appear to him would leave him unconvinced. What evidence can you produce to someone who will reject all evidence as unreliable based on his prior belief?

I, too, would have to say that if Jesus appeared to me, I would hold that I am far more likely to be hallucinating or under the influence of some form of malicious mind-control than that this is actually Jesus of Nazareth. That’s the way I interpret Occam’s Razor.

In fact, the opposite problem entails: I know I am susceptible to deception. It wouldn’t take much in the way of drugs and conditioning to make me into a Christian – or a Hindu – or to believe the sky is pink. (You alluded to ST:TNG: I know it wouldn’t take much to make me believe that there are two lights rather than one. A little torture goes a long way. I know I could not withstand even the scourging and the mockery, let alone the crucifixion!)

I’ll admit, the testimony of the gospels is weak. But, it’s not as weak as Dio’s claim that ice ants could have resurrected Jesus. That was my main point.

Fair enough, and granted. Until a couple days ago, I’d never heard of ice ants, whereas I’ve read the Bible.

It’s an attempt to restructure the debate, by ignoring what evidence there is, and equating it to something that actually has no evidence, and summarily dismissing the restructured, misrepresented, argument, and believing it has any bearing on the ignored argument.

Alas, Meatros suggested you were doing the same thing, by demanding I show you the empty tomb whence Osiris arose. Actually, his parts were thrown into the Nile, so, by pointing to the Nile, I can actually produce more evidence than you can. It’s absurdly slim evidence, but it’s more than you’ve got.

Do you believe a man existed who was our model of Jesus; a Jewish teacher with a following who was crucified, and maintained a following after his death? Do you believe similar things about Osiris? That he existed and we know of people who knew him at the time?

As noted, you fail these requirements for Jesus, also: there are no writings from anyone who knew him at the time. Meanwhile, there are stories regarding Zeus and Odin, of people who saw them in person. Why are you so comfortable rejecting these as fables, but accept the miracle of the Walking on Water?

. . . Once again, it looks to me like an attempt to restructure the debate. To ignore evidence by saying it’s equal to something with no evidence.

That isn’t my intent; my intent was to compare your evidence to other evidence which is equally slender.

Shall I point to the thousands who have seen statues of Ganesh weep? Vastly stronger evidence than any evidence for Jesus. Yet I reject both. You only reject one. What is the intrinsic difference?

If an objective observer were possible, wouldn’t he find the evidence for Ganesh to be vastly more persuasive than the evidence for Jesus? If not, why not?

Anyway, I will continue to attempt to disagree with you respectfully. I used to be a hostile atheist, coming from an early experience having been beaten by Christians (well, so-called Christians, anyway!) But discussions with thoughtful and patient Christians – may I include you in this family? – have taken away my wrath and restored the temper of my spirit. If there is such a thing as a good atheist, I seek to be one.

Trinopus

[ch4rl3s]

@ch4rl3s

There are two basic reasons to report from “unreliable” witnesses. To make the witness more reliable, or as a simple statement of what you think happened.

The Gospel of Mary strikes me as doing the former, and Mark appears to be doing the latter.

I presented two options. Neither of which is what you claim I meant…

@Meatros

I’m not sure how the Gospel of Mark is supposed to be trying to make the resurrection more reliable by introducing the women…

I never said that anywhere. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite.

@ch4rl3s

You don’t make a doctrine more trustworthy by saying it came from “unreliable” witnesses.

So, fail once again. Where do you get the idea to claim I’m saying what I explicitly said I wasn’t saying? No comment on anything else from that post. That’s at least two posts from you based on claiming I’ve said what I specifically denied in my posts. Feel free to read what I actually said and make a comment on that though.

[Meatros]

@ch4rl3s

I presented two options. Neither of which is what you claim I meant…

I never said that anywhere. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite.

???

You did say that, you even quoted it, you wrote:

"There are two basic reasons to report from “unreliable” witnesses. To make the witness more reliable, or as a simple statement of what you think happened.

The Gospel of Mary strikes me as doing the former, and Mark appears to be doing the latter."

Let’s be clear - in the first sentence, you are referring to the women as ‘unreliable witnesses’. In the second, you are referring to Mark (ie, witness, singular). Then you say that Mark appears to be doing the latter; ie, reporting on unreliable witnesses in order to make his account more reliable.

This is what I got from what you wrote. I did not agree with you - I do not feel that Mark was introducing the women to make his account more reliable (I think he introduced the women for other reasons). If this is not at all what you meant, then please explain what you meant.

@ch4rl3s

So, fail once again. Where do you get the idea to claim I’m saying what I explicitly said I wasn’t saying? No comment on anything else from that post. That’s at least two posts from you based on claiming I’ve said what I specifically denied in my posts. Feel free to read what I actually said and make a comment on that though.

I’ve outlined above what I took from what you were saying. Please explain what you meant. Why did Mark include the women?

[Meatros]

@Meatros

???

You did say that, you even quoted it, you wrote:

"There are two basic reasons to report from “unreliable” witnesses. To make the witness more reliable, or as a simple statement of what you think happened.

The Gospel of Mary strikes me as doing the former, and Mark appears to be doing the latter."

Let’s be clear - in the first sentence, you are referring to the women as ‘unreliable witnesses’. In the second, you are referring to Mark (ie, witness, singular). Then you say that Mark appears to be doing the latter; ie, reporting on unreliable witnesses in order to make his account more reliable.

This is what I got from what you wrote. I did not agree with you - I do not feel that Mark was introducing the women to make his account more reliable (I think he introduced the women for other reasons). If this is not at all what you meant, then please explain what you meant.

I’ve outlined above what I took from what you were saying. Please explain what you meant. Why did Mark include the women?

My bad, I seem to be having trouble following along with you - you said the ‘latter’. I’m taking it as the former.

I think I’m having trouble because I’ve presented a third option which is not in keeping with your dichotomy.

Crap, time for more coffee.

[Meatros]

From my POV, I think Mark included the women in an effort to explain why the story had not been heard prior to 65 AD (or whenever) otherwise it doesn’t make any sense (technically it doesn’t make sense either way, but it’s more understandable under my explanation).

The inclusion of the women makes no sense. If he’s presenting it as history, then how would he have heard of it? He wouldn’t have. The rational explanation is that this is just another example that Mark was not writing history, he’s not writing it from the standpoint of ‘this is what I saw’.

[Meatros]

@ch4rl3s

No comment on anything else from that post. That’s at least two posts from you based on claiming I’ve said what I specifically denied in my posts. Feel free to read what I actually said and make a comment on that though.

Yes, that is two posts I’ve misinterpreted, I freely admit that. I am not misinterpreting you intentionally, or out of any bias, nor am I being overtly condescending to you.

If you’d like to focus on only what I get wrong about your position - that’s fine and you are free to do that. I encourage correction as I am not metaphysically married to my position. I would also like comments/responses to the positions I get right though.

It seems to me that although I have misinterpreted you on two occasions, on the occasions where I manage to interpret you correctly your overall stance/position with regard to the reliability of the New Testament is not all that convincing.

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)

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I just want to point out once again that the women in Mark’s Gospel are not presented as “witnesses” in the sense of giving testimony. Mark says they didn’t tell anybody. That severely undercuts the argument for dissimilarity (criterion of embarrassment) there.

[Meatros]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I just want to point out once again that the women in Mark’s Gospel are not presented as “witnesses” in the sense of giving testimony. Mark says they didn’t tell anybody. That severely undercuts the argument for dissimilarity (criterion of embarrassment) there.

Although I don’t wish to speak for him, as I seem to misconstrue what he says, but I think ch4rl3s is saying that the women were in Mark because that’s just a matter of fact, according to Mark. In other words, Mark is including them not to bolster his testimony, but simply because that’s how it happened.

Of course this makes no sense if taken literally.

I think Mark included the women as a way to explain to the audience why they hadn’t heard the story before.

[Meatros]

Dio, what’s your opinion of the Mike Licona controversy?

I figure it’s relevant here since he’s one of the leading conservative New Testament historians.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Meatros

Dio, what’s your opinion of the Mike Licona controversy?

I figure it’s relevant here since he’s one of the leading conservative New Testament historians.

I think Licona is trying to straddle a line between between defending an inerrantist stance while also trying to maintain some kind of basic credibility as a scholar. This has caused him to find ways to interpret some things as “poetic,” rather than literally historical. In particular, he has essentially admitted that the Matthew’s saints crawling out their graves and shambling into the city cannot be taken seriously as literal history, and that, of course, has enraged some evangelicals who are demanding that he change his stance (something that seems illogical and anti-scholarly to me).

I think it just goes to show that you can’t straddle the line on this. If you’re going to be an inerrantist, go all the way with it. If you’re going to admit somethings simply aren’t plausible history (and I’m not talking about books or passages of the Bible that clearly are intended to be poetic/allegorical/etc., but material which is presented as historical), then don’t bother trying to reconcile that with inerrantism. You just lose credibility with both audiences (traditionalists and critics) that way.

[Ionizer]

Reported for thread closure as OP cannot participate now

[monavis]

@Calculon

(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.

It is possible that it is also just a made up story, so one could say anything they wanted and some people would like to believe that ressurection is a possibility. A matter of faith or desire!

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Ionizer

Reported for thread closure as OP cannot participate now

Which is a damn shame, and an example of poor moderating IMO.

[Malacandra]

@monavis

It is possible that it is also just a made up story, so one could say anything they wanted and some people would like to believe that ressurection is a possibility. A matter of faith or desire!

Yes, thank you for that devastating insight, monavis. A shame it’s never occurred to you to suggest it before.

[Meatros]

@monavis

It is possible that it is also just a made up story, so one could say anything they wanted and some people would like to believe that ressurection is a possibility. A matter of faith or desire!

Yes, that (or something like it) is a possibility. I think Calculon was specifically attempting to refute the apparent death argument.

I do not agree that he was successful, mind you, but his aim in that post was specific.

That said, one thing that I just shake my head at in that post is the following:

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.

This is a line of argument that William Lane Craig used in a debate (with Bart Ehrman, I believe). I find it very problematic, since even Christians would agree that a supernatural resurrection doesn’t happen often and is highly improbable (according to them, it’s happened once - I believe they separate resuscitation and resurrection, which is why I don’t count Lazarus in this).

So while it could be conceded that a supernatural resurrection is not logically impossible, what is actually being done here (and by Craig) is a shifting of the burden of proof. Just because something is logically possible does not mean it’s remotely plausible (or should be rationally affirmed). So Calculon (and Craig) still have an uphill climb as far as evidence is concerned.

In other words, if Calculon wants to rest his case on the resurrection not being logically impossible, fine I can concede that. I have no truck with that. I find it an incredible leap to go from there to the position that it’s rational to believe the resurrection actually happened. It’s like my question to another poster:

Does Calculon feel that:

“The Gospels are marginally more credible than Dio’s position on ice ants?”

[CurtC]

I think Calculon inadvertently stumbled upon Dio’s main point here:

@Calculon

It also has not been demonstrated in this thread that Jesus resurrection is actually impossible.

Then he turns around and says:

The Christian claim is in fact predicated on the impossibility of physical resurrection.

Yes, Calculon, no one was saying that the resurrection was completely off the table for discussion; we were saying that since resurrections don’t normally happen and have never been observed before or since, the standard of evidence is extremely high. Resurrections are, according to everything we think we know, impossible.

@Meatros

This is a line of argument that William Lane Craig used in a debate (with Bart Ehrman, I believe). I find it very problematic, since even Christians would agree that a supernatural resurrection doesn’t happen often and is highly improbable.

The more I listen to William Lane Craig, the more I’m convinced that he’s not sincere in his arguments but is basically a con man who’s found a way to make a living by reassuring the yokels. This part of Craig’s argument boils down to “if there is a God, then a miracle can easily happen, and the standard of evidence is low.” The problem with this is that it just as easily supports every extraordinary claim that’s ever been made. Someone explains that the money from the bank robbery just magically appeared in his apartment? Well, an all-powerful God could make that happen easily! Therefore we should accept that. Does Sylvia Browne really talk to the deceased? Yup, since Craig believes a God exists, then he has to accept those claims as well.

Does Calculon feel that:

“The Gospels are marginally more credible than Dio’s position on ice ants?”

He has said that he thinks the God explanation is more credible than ice ants, but he hasn’t told us why. I don’t think he’s answered your modified question about whether he thinks the God explanation is only marginally more credible. It’s a good question. Calculon, what say you?

To me, the ice ants explanation is quite a bit more believable that God, because it doesn’t depend on magic.