# Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 13, 2017, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524 "2017-08-13T08:53:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/61 "2017-08-14T14:53:10Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > No takers? :o 60% for the “Jesus was God incarnate” explanation, 40% for “Other”? ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/62 "2017-08-14T14:53:27Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > None of them except maybe Sweden has as high a percentage of irreligious people as the Czech Republic, Estonia or the former East Germany, or for that matter China. Your original point was a tu quoque in defense of an argumentam ad populum, but to further poke holes in your line or argument here, in Norway the number of people answering “no” to the question “Do you believe in God?” passed below 50% in 2013. In 2007 it was still over 50% at 51.6%, but only 40% believed in the crucifixion and resurrection. This is despite having a state church and zero government push for atheism. Your argument was inaccurate at best from the start. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/63 "2017-08-14T14:57:15Z")
n/m duplicate ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/64 "2017-08-14T14:59:55Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > How does this make it any different than atheism? No-one’s ever gone to war for atheism. Communism =/= atheism even if it’s atheistic. > [@](#): > > The countries where people are most likely to be atheist are also countries where nonreligion was (formerly) promoted by government action (China, Estonia, Czech Republic, eastern portions of Germany etc…) > > [Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism) Demonstrably untrue[from your own cite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#/media/File:Europe_No_Belief_enhanced_2010.png)- None of Estonia, CR, Germany aren’t even the most atheist part of Europe (that would be France) and Sweden and Netherlands come between CR and Estonia. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/65 "2017-08-14T15:01:05Z")
> [@protoboard](#): > > Historians generally accept (with only a few exceptions) that Jesus existed Acknowledged. > [@](#): > > and was executed by crucifixion I don’t think that’s part of the general acceptance of the existence of a historical Jesus, no. One of the likelier elements, yes, but not at the same level as “there was some sort of Jesus”. > [@](#): > > at the very least No, the “very least” is an apocalyptical preacher like several others with more historical evidence but less of a lasting cult. But the testimony wasn’t all that convincing to people back when it was recent, so why would you think it was convincing today, except for those primed to believe? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/66 "2017-08-14T15:02:10Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > You think someone somewhere might have noticed and written about it. Is it worth pointing out that, just because no writings exist today, doesn’t necessarily mean that no one wrote about it at the time? ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/67 "2017-08-14T15:07:01Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No-one’s ever gone to war for atheism. Communism =/= atheism even if it’s atheistic. OK, this is true and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. You’re right that it’s not a great analogy and I should not have used it. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Demonstrably untrue[from your own cite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#/media/File:Europe_No_Belief_enhanced_2010.png)- None of Estonia, CR, Germany aren’t even the most atheist part of Europe (that would be France) and Sweden and Netherlands come between CR and Estonia. You’re right, but I did say “the eastern portions of Germany” specifically, they have a much higher prevalence of nonreligion than the western parts. > **[Eastern Germany: the most godless place on Earth | Peter Thompson](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/22/atheism-east-germany-godless-place)** > > Peter Thompson: East German atheism can be seen as a form of continuing political and regional identification – and a taste of the future ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/68 "2017-08-14T15:08:47Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Demonstrably untrue[from your own cite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#/media/File:Europe_No_Belief_enhanced_2010.png)- None of Estonia, CR, Germany aren’t even the most atheist part of Europe (that would be France) and Sweden and Netherlands come between CR and Estonia. I see I was a bit hasty - the CR is, in fact, more atheist than France now. My point still stands - there’s a mix of Eastern and Western European states there at the top. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/69 "2017-08-14T15:09:19Z")
> [@naita](#): > > Your original point was a tu quoque in defense of an argumentam ad populum, but to further poke holes in your line or argument here, in Norway the number of people answering “no” to the question “Do you believe in God?” passed below 50% in 2013. In 2007 it was still over 50% at 51.6%, but only 40% believed in the crucifixion and resurrection. This is despite having a state church and zero government push for atheism. Your argument was inaccurate at best from the start. I’ll certainly concede that “a lot of people believe in Christianity, therefore the arguments for it must be good” is a poor argument. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/70 "2017-08-14T15:13:52Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > You’re right, but I did say “the eastern portions of Germany” specifically, they have a much higher prevalence of nonreligion than the western parts. > > [Eastern Germany: the most godless place on Earth | Peter Thompson | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/22/atheism-east-germany-godless-place) That’s less because they were under Russia and more because they were less Catholic. IMO, the less religious parts of Europe also track nicely with the less Catholic bits, and vice versa (with a blip for Orthodox Greece) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/71 "2017-08-14T15:18:45Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > In other words you’re not open to arguments that what you think are contradictions might not really be so? > > John is an independent source from the three synoptic gospels (as well as, in the traditional view, an eyewitness), and Luke claims to have based his gospel on eyewitness testimony, as well as on the writings of Mark. The noncanonical Gospel of Peter also probably relies on a tradition independent from the other four, so you can add that in as well. John 20: > [@](#): > > 20 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. > 2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. > 3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. > 4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. > 5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. > 6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, > 7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. > 8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. Luke 24: > [@](#): > > 24 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. > 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. > 3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. > 4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: > 5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? > 6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, > 7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. > 8 And they remembered his words, > 9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. > 10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. Mark 16: > [@](#): > > 16 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. > 2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. > 3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? > 4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. > 5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. > 6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. > 7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. > 8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. 1. How many women went to the tomb-1, 3, or 4? 2. Who greeted them-nobody, one angel, or two men in shining garments? 3. Who did they tell-Simon Peter and “The One Jesus Loved”, the apostles, or no one? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/72 "2017-08-14T15:21:00Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Is it worth pointing out that, just because no writings exist today, doesn’t necessarily mean that no one wrote about it at the time? No, it is not. You can “prove” that _anything_ happened in history that way. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/73 "2017-08-14T15:28:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > No, it is not. You can “prove” that _anything_ happened in history that way. Nobody’s trying to prove anything that way. It’s only relevant if you’re using lack of written records as evidence that something didn’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/74 "2017-08-14T15:32:56Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > That’s less because they were under Russia and more because they were less Catholic. IMO, the less religious parts of Europe also track nicely with the less Catholic bits, and vice versa (with a blip for Orthodox Greece) Fair enough, I think that’s reasonably convincing. I’ll concede that I was wrong that prevalence of nonreligion tracks particularly well with history of atheist government. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/75 "2017-08-14T15:39:24Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Nobody’s trying to prove anything that way. It’s only relevant if you’re using lack of written records as evidence that something didn’t happen. But I don’t have a need to prove that something _didn’t_ happen-That’s not the way it works. On the other hand, when you are trying to prove that something _did_ happen(as is the case here), then pointing out evidence that doesn’t exist without any evidence that it once existed is about as useful as the prosectution putting “…and witnesses that might exist but we can’t find” on the end of a witness list that that is given to the court. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/76 "2017-08-14T15:40:21Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > John 20: > > Luke 24: > > Mark 16: > > 1. How many women went to the tomb-1, 3, or 4? > 2. Who greeted them-nobody, one angel, or two men in shining garments? > 3. Who did they tell-Simon Peter and “The One Jesus Loved”, the apostles, or no one? 1. All four women were at the tomb. I don’t the fact that John leaves out three of the women and Luke and Mark leave out one apiece means that they weren’t there, it just means none of them was giving a comprehensive list, especially since Luke explicitly says there were “certain others”, unnamed, with them. 2. Angels in the bible often appear in human form, so the ‘men’ vs. ‘angels’ comparison isn’t contradictory. There were two angels, in human form. 3. First Simon Peter and the disciple that Jesus loved, and then the rest. I believe the Longer Ending of Mark is reliable, but even if you don’t, it’s quite likely (believed by Bruce Metzger among others) that the original ending of Mark was lost, so there’s no reason to believe that “told no one” actually means that they told no one, ever. ---
**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:** [August 14, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/77 "2017-08-14T15:43:46Z")
> [@protoboard](#): > > Aside from its miraculous nature, is there any reason to believe that the Resurrection wasn’t also a historical event? Back before the day of drone copters, I would expect your average person to be AMAZED by seeing someone walk on water, summon food out of air, cure people of leprosy, raise people from the dead, etc. If a person could actually do these things, I would expect that he would quickly gain a massive, deeply convinced following of believers. You would expect to see hundreds or thousands of letters being sent from Jerusalem out to the rest of the Roman Empire talking about how there’s rumored to be this dude walking around town perform honest-to-god miracles. It would be a giant affair and everyone in the Empire would know about it within a couple of months. But the reality of it is that no one else at the time, who wasn’t a follower, seems to have remarked upon the miracles that Jesus performed. By the accounts of his trial and execution, his followers were not particularly devoted to him - fleeing when he was captured - and all of the folk of Jerusalem had no idea who he was other than that he was calling himself the “King of the Jews”. One would expect that a person who was walking on water, pulling food out of thin air to feed hundreds or thousands of people, bringing people back from the dead, etc. would have been more famous. Either these sorts of miracles were so common in those days that Jesus didn’t stand out, or someone failed to preserve all of the letters sent out from Jerusalem about that dude who was doing some amazing things, or…it is a fantastical addition to the story. The Bible talks about people using magic (e.g., Simon Magus), noting only that their magic is “wrong” where Jesus’s magic is “right”. So we could go with the argument that Jesus simply didn’t stand out much among all the people performing miracles. But then…well why believe that his mystery cures and miracles were actually the real ones? Simon Magus is reputed to have been one of the teachers of Mandaenism, which is a religion based on the Baptism and theology of John the Baptist. It’s not noticeably better or worse than Christianity in its teaching. Both Roman sources and the Bible agree that John the Baptist was **actually** famous in his time. The Bible also thinks he was an awesome guy who taught good things, that were similar to and agreeable to what Jesus taught. So it’s not like Jesus couldn’t have been famous preaching what he was preaching. And it’s not like he’s obviously better in any way from Simon Magus, from what we can tell using all available sources. Both of them were magicians who taught stuff related to what John the Baptist taught. But neither was ever as famous as John despite, purportedly, adding magic into the mix. And no one outside of their followers seems to agree that the other was practicing real, good magic. And none of the Romans or other Jews seems to have noticed either of them at all, let alone their magic. Overall, noting the lack of magic in the modern day world, and the popularity of miracles in ancient texts, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that this bit was what we in the biz call “fiction”. > [@](#): > > After all, at least three of the twelve Apostles died a martyr’s death believing it, along with Jesus’ brother James. Preaching and believing are different things. I’ll also note that the only reliable source of information we have about any of these people are the works of Paul, his entourage, and their followers. Paul never met Jesus. He preached in the name of Jesus for 2-3 years before raising a bunch of money to go to Jerusalem during a famine. It’s during that trip, where it’s plausible that James the Just, Peter, etc. were on the verge of starvation, that the Council of Jerusalem was held and they agreed to allow Paul to preach that he had received a divine revelation from Jesus and allow his followers to abandon all of the rules of Judaism that they _the family and followers of the living Jesus_ had been preaching since his death. James the Just is, by multiple attestation, was fairly certainly considered the successor of Jesus among the apostles until Paul showed up. We believe him to be the actual brother of Jesus. Descriptions of him by early orthodox Christian writers are as a dirty, long-haired, vegetarian that fell to his knees to pray so often that his knees had formed calluses like a camel. One of the Jewish gospels, the Gospel of the Ebionites, is known to have endorsed vegetarianism. St Paul announced to everyone that Jesus was a short-haired, clean-shaven man in the popular Roman style and that everyone (except Jews) didn’t have to keep kosher. Paul said that before his revelation, he never knew a single thing about Christianity. But he also says that he had been a lawyer who prosecuted Christians in court before his conversion. Paul eventually enters the final phase of his life when he visits the Jerusalem church, presumably still run by James the Just, a second time and they give him directions to see an angry mob that wants to kill him (he ends up being able to parlay his way into an execution some years later, but that speaks more to his ability to sway the masses than his relationship with the real Jesus’ church and family.) Overall, the religion we have is Paul’s religion and the historical data we have comes from his followers. Peter was a real follower of Jesus, and chose to follow Paul over James the Just, so he was probably able to supply some biographical information. But based on the Gospels, it would seem to be that he might have only known Jesus for a brief time. He is able to share almost no information about Jesus life before his time in Jerusalem. Most of what we have - e.g., the Bethlehem story - seems to be fiction. If we disregard the Paulian literature, it would be hard to say what James the Just and others believed or preached about the Resurrection. It’s not until the 4th century that we get a description of the Gospel of the Hebrews that mentions it, which is plenty of time for that work to have gained the concept. The Gospel of Thomas just collects quotes, so it is of no use. Other texts are of arguable dating. It’s possible that these men did all believe that Jesus appeared to them. But that could have been during a spell of hunger, while smoking pot, etc. But let’s consider an alternative option. Jesus’ family came from Nazareth. At the time, Nazareth is believed to have been a shanty town for day laborers who were rebuilding a nearby Roman city (I can’t recall the name at the moment). There’s a later rumor from the 2nd century that Jesus’ mom was a prostitute and certainly there’s not much call for women in a shanty town built by and for male laborers rebuilding an abandoned city. One 2nd century work says that James’ father was Thadeus, not Joseph. The Bible tells us that Jesus was chased out of Nazareth as a young man by the people who lived there, for some unnamed crime. The Mount of Olives - which sounds like a pretty name - was an area of Jerusalem that was home to the leper colonies and the poorest people of Jerusalem because the Mount blocked the view of them from the rest of the city. Jesus popularly consorted with and defended prostitutes, beggars, and “tax collectors”. As we’ve already noted, he was not popularly known within Jerusalem nor particularly loved by his direct followers. Overall, it’s not a hard argument to make that Jesus’ life may have been indistinguishable from a beggar. His “church” was largely composed of his own family, and we’re told that James spent most of his time on the streets on his knees. When Paul asked Jesus’ family permission to preach in Jesus’ name, in return for silver, they approved the deal. The concept of the “Apostles” and the “Jerusalem Church” may well be overselling the whole deal by quite a bit. It may be more fair to say that there was a man named Jesus once, who ran a racket of beggars that was mostly composed of his own family - mom, cousins, etc. - that used religious messages (e.g. from the famous John the Baptist) as a selling point to get people to give them money to stay alive. While it may not technically mean anything that a person is a beggar or a handsome, white man in a long white robe, I suspect that if you were wandering around the slums of Mexico and a stinky beggar missing half his teeth came up to you and started telling you about how his brother had come back to him after his death with a message to share with humanity, that **all men should give away all wealth and possessions until no one man is lower than any other** , would you be inclined to believe that this toothless Mexican beggar was the brother of God’s earthly form, just a man hoping to con some money out of you, or simply a religious nutter? > [@](#): > > Additionally, Paul says that five hundred people witnessed the resurrected Christ at once (along with many other individual apparitions), and that at the time of his writings most of them were still living. He could be repeating a rumor, but this implies to me that he personally knew multiple people who claimed to have seen Christ resurrected. If there’s one thing I think we can be certain of, it’s that Paul was a liar. Maybe he believed his own lies. But maybe President Trump believes that he had a bigger Swearing In than Barack Obama. I don’t really know. If you’re sufficiently charismatic, apparently you can say just about anything and a surprisingly large percentage of the population will repeat what you said verbatim, despite all available evidence to the contrary. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/78 "2017-08-14T15:53:09Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > 1. All four women were at the tomb. I don’t the fact that John leaves out three of the women and Luke and Mark leave out one apiece means that they weren’t there, it just means none of them was giving a comprehensive list, especially since Luke explicitly says there were “certain others”, unnamed, with them. > > 2. Angels in the bible often appear in human form, so the ‘men’ vs. ‘angels’ comparison isn’t contradictory. There were two angels, in human form. > > 3. First Simon Peter and the disciple that Jesus loved, and then the rest. I believe the Longer Ending of Mark is reliable, but even if you don’t, it’s quite likely (believed by Bruce Metzger among others) that the original ending of Mark was lost, so there’s no reason to believe that “told no one” actually means that they told no one, ever. Apparently you _can’t_ fix all the contradiction in the short bits I quoted-you can merely pick out the parts from all them you want to believe…and I notice that the parts you choose to believe always contain the greatest number of people, whether it be the women that entered the tomb, the angels that they saw or the number of disciples they reported it to. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/79 "2017-08-14T18:31:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Those that supposedly witnessed are a separate group from those that wrote about the supposed event. Not in the case of John. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/80 "2017-08-14T18:33:45Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > There is no independent historical record of Jesus rising from the dead. None. > > You think someone somewhere might have noticed and written about it. John did. But however, only a small handful of people noticed it, and His time of earth after was very short, He only showed himself to a few faithful. Some of course left the writing about it to others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524.md?page=5)