# Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524>\
**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:** 2\
**Page:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\
**Post date:** [August 19, 2017, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/101 "2017-08-19T19:12:39Z")

</div>

> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#):
>
> You are operating under a very specific assumption here, that Christianity is “founded on” the New Testament and that the New Testament contains everything we can reliably know about the life, times and teachings of Jesus and those around him. . . .

I never said any such thing, and do not believe this. I don’t know where you got it, but it ain’t so.

I only said that if you allow yourself to interpolate evidence “between the lines” – Judas survived his hanging and went on to live for a few more days – then you can justify or prove or defend anything.

Jesus might have survived, been cut down, and lived a few more days. If one is a permitted interpolation, the other must also be.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\
**Post date:** [August 19, 2017, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/102 "2017-08-19T20:20:36Z")

</div>

> [@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.

These seems like problematic solutions; for the first, it would mean that we would also need to treat Luke’s and Mark’s totals at other times as not meant to be comprehensive, and so questionable. For the second, it’s a bigger problem; if gospel writers felt no big issue about referring to angels as merely “men”, then again, this is an approach we’d need to apply to the rest of their writing; that references to “men” may well have actually been to angels in human form, and moreover, that no specificity was seen as needed.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524.md?page=5)