jlowder

Hi everyone,

I'm a panelist at the "Debater's Toolbox" at CFI West on 6/18 and 6/19 in Los Angeles, CA (see http://www.cfiwest.org/). I'm leading a session on "Answering Arguments for the Resurrection of Jesus." Since I need to limit my time to one hour and since this will be a popular forum (not an academic one), I wanted to poll the members of this board. What are the top arguments for the resurrection that I should discuss how to answer?

Regards,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Peter Kirby

I haven't yet read Bishop Wright's book, but I would consider focusing on Craig's three talking points (empty tomb, appearances, unlikelihood of story's development) or on Habermas's list of four or more "facts". Both of these are an argument to the best explanation. The best counter may be to present an alternate explanation(s).

Then there is a completely different argument for the resurrection that is made by Peter Carnley in The Structure of Resurrection Belief. It has little to do with historical evidence, and that might throw off the reader/listener, but it might be closer to being sound than the offerings of Wright, Craig, and Habermas.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Toto

The Structure of Resurrection Belief is not readily available on Amazon (but you can see a review by Peter Kirby there.)

Also reviewed here

Toto

If this is about debating, you probably want to discuss answers to the most common arguments, the "minimal facts" that Craig and other apologists use - that Jesus existed, that there was an empty tomb, that followers of Jesus saw him after his death, that a Resurrection is the best explanation of these "facts."

Diogenes the Cynic

I would suggest not letting yourself get bogged down in trying to come up with naturalistic explanations for "appearances." That's just what they want you to do and it plays unnecessarily into their hands by amounting to a tacit acceptance that anyone ever claimed to have seen a physically resurrected Jesus in the first place. The thing to do is make them prove that any direct followers of Jesus ever made such a claim. If they can't prove the claim was made, then the claim does not need to be explained.

The gospels narratives are easy enough to dispense with. They weren't written by witnesses or associates of witnesses, they are obviously highly fictionalized (perhaps that should be articulated less polemically by stating that they contain numerous historical inaccuracies, mutual contradictions and clear evidence of literary construction from the OT. At the very least, they won't be able to explain why the gospels should be taken as historical.

They will probably also try to appeal to Josephus and the TF. You should know what to do with that.

Personally, I think the toughest point you're likely to face is Paul's reference to appearances to "Cepahas and then the 12 and then the 500." This is the one thing that seems to attest to some sort of early resurrection tradition. Some ways to deal with it are to point out that it does not explicitly say the resurrection was physical, that it doesn't mention an empty tomb, that the chronology of appearances contradicts the gospels, that the "500" reference is not mentioned in the gospels and that spiritual, metaphorocal or mythical meaning should be logically preferred to the historicized tales concocted by the the authors of the gospels.

Steven Carr

I also think that these 500 witnesses will come up.

And perhaps you could mention that even the NT says that Peter and Paul were the sorts of people who believed that the people they saw in dreams were real.

Peter Kirby

More specifically, the three most popular arguments that stick out in my mind are:

1. The 500 witnesses of 1 Cor 15
2. For the empty tomb: why make women (whose testimony had no value) the witnesses?
3. For the empty tomb: why didn't the authorities produce the body?

Other popular arguments for the empty tomb are:

4. The Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb
5. No tomb veneration because it was empty
6. Story in Mark is unadorned/unapologetic
7. Unlikely to pin a false story on a famous Sanhedrinist

Cribbed from Josh McDowell, here are some popular arguments for the resurrection, which assume that the NT accounts are true:

FACT #1: BROKEN ROMAN SEAL
FACT #2: EMPTY TOMB
FACT #3: LARGE STONE MOVED
FACT #4: ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL
FACT #5: GRAVECLOTHES TELL A TALE
FACT #6: JESUS' APPEARANCES CONFIRMED
#6A OVER 500 WITNESSES
#6B HOSTILE WITNESSES

Then, after discussing four potential explanations, McDowell concludes with the point:

[FACT #7] REAL PROOF: THE DISCIPLES' LIVES

Also worth looking at are some points made by Yamauchi:

C. Ancient Concepts of the Afterlife
D. Jewish Concepts of the Resurrection
E. The Pauline Evidence
F. The Evidence of the Gospels

Particularly the first two (C and D).

Then there is the essay be Craig.

Hopefully this gives you some points to talk about.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

here's another thing you might answer...it's fashionable in the more erudite apologetic circles to argue that methodological naturalism amounts to a denial of the possibility of the resurrection, an a priori denial. You might want to address this common assault on the critical faculties if you have time.

JoeWallack

JW:
I think you should first communicate that:

"What are the top arguments for the resurrection"

is a misleading question. The question has an implication that "the resurrection" was at a minimum possible and maybe more than that and is inappropriate for an Impossible event. A better question would be:

"What are the top Christian arguments for the resurrection"

Generally, non-Christians don't make arguments for "the resurrection".

Basically, the Christian argument for the resurrection is:

We have testimony claiming a resurrection (the Christian Bible) which is old and contemporary to the resurrection, preserved by an old and large institution and not disputed by the same type of testimony (this argument is not unique to Christianity).

I would suggest the following order of responses:

1) Resurrections are Impossible. "Thank you and good night." The one hour limit should be no problem.

2) If you accept that resurrections are Possible (God knows why) then you still have a default position that there was no resurrection. Perhaps more amazing than the supposed resurrection is that Apologists have a default position that because something was written, it's true, but when it comes to Impossible claims there is no default position.

3) If you accept that resurrections are Possible and there is no default position that the Impossible didn't happen then you only need at least one Possible explanation to prove that the Impossible didn't happen. Some people wrote that the Impossible happened even though it didn't and because of this some Readers believed the Impossible happened even though it didn't. You still have a half hour to discuss the Michael Jackson trial.

4) If you accept that resurrections are Possible and there is no default position that the Impossible didn't happen and there is no Possible explanation for the resurrection point out that the value of evidence, unlike wine:

1. Decreases with age.

2. Decreases when "maintained" by the biased.

5) If you accept that resurrections are Possible and there is no default position that the Impossible didn't happen and there is no Possible explanation for the resurrection and in Spite of the Uncertainty there is certainty, so you are "forced" to deal with the Christian evidence, just point out that the Christian Bible itself is proof that you can have testimony claiming sower and sower, which is old and contemporary to the resurrection, preserved by an old and large institution and not disputed by the same type of testimony, which is known to be False. This is evidenced by the many Contradictions within the Christian Bible. I believe that someone has even come up with a list of 1001 of them.

6) If you accept that resurrections are Possible and there is no default position that the Impossible didn't happen and there is no Possible explanation for the resurrection and in Spite of the Uncertainty there is certainty and even though the Christian Bible has been proven to be False it could be true then focus on the post-resurrection evidence of what was Likely the first Gospel written, "Mark", and what was Likely the Original Ending.

By an act of Providence you have a thread right here that does that:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=125251

Be sure and emphasize that the Patristic evidence indicates that the Original Ending was 16:8 with these little known but Possible evidences:

1) In Contra Celsus, probably Origen's most famous work, Origen tries (unsuccessfully) to defend the assertions of Christianity, including the most important Assertion, that Jesus resurrected. Keep in mind that Contra Celsus was probably written after Irenaeus' Against Heresies where Irenaeus' supposedly refers to the Long Ending.

In Book II

http://www.earlychristianwritings.c.../origen162.html

Origen quotes from "Matthew", "Luke" and "John" to provide supposed post resurrection evidence:

Origen does not quote from "Mark" for post resurrection evidence when he had specific reason to which is Evidence that Origen either was unaware of the Long Ending or was lying when he responded to Celsus' charge that Christianity changed the Original Gospel:

"CHAP. XXVII.

"After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the. followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.""

Nice Evidence, conveniently preserved by Christianity itself that there was One Original Gospel like "Mark" which was Edited to support Christian Assertions.

2) Eusebius - Early 4th century

Letter To Marinus:

"[Marinus] How is it that in Matthew the savior appears late on the sabbath after he has been raised, but in Mark it is early on the first day of the week?"

[Eusebius] "The solution of this might be twofold. For the one who sets aside the passage itself, the pericope that says this, might say that it is not extant in all the copies of the gospel according to Mark. The accurate ones of the copies, at least, circumscribe the end of the history according to Mark in the words of the young man seen by the women, who said to them: Do not fear. You seek Jesus the Nazarene, and those that follow, to which it further says: And having heard they fled, and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

For in this [manner] the ending of the gospel according to Mark is circumscribed almost in all the copies. The things that seldom follow, which are extant in some but not in all, may be superfluous, and especially if indeed it holds a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the evangelists. These things therefore someone might say in avoiding and in all ways doing away with a superfluous question."

But someone else, [someone] who dares to set aside nothing at all in any way of the things that are extant in the writing of the gospels, says that the reading is double, as also in many other [passages], and each is to be accepted, not this rather than that, or that than this, as the classification of the faithful and the reverent.

And indeed, this part granted to be true, it is fitting to interpret the mind of the reading. If I at least grasp the meaning of the word, we should not find that it is opposite to the things said by Matthew: Late on the sabbath the savior was raised. For the [statement]: And having risen up early on the first day of the week, according to Mark, we will read with a pause. And after the [statement]: And having risen up, we will place a comma. And we will divide the meaning of those things that are said following. Then, on the one hand, the [statement]: Having risen up, might be upon that of Matthew: Late on the sabbath, for then he was raised. On the other hand, that which follows we might join together with the things said after that, which gives rise to other meanings: For early on the first day of the sabbath he appeared to Mary Magdalene."


JW:
The key Statements of Eusebius:

"The accurate ones of the copies, at least, circumscribe the end of the history according to Mark in the words of the young man seen by the women, who said to them: Do not fear. You seek Jesus the Nazarene, and those that follow, to which it further says: And having heard they fled, and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

"For in this [manner] the ending of the gospel according to Mark is circumscribed almost in all the copies. The things that seldom follow, which are extant in some but not in all, may be superfluous"

So according to Eusebius the accurate copies of "Mark" as well as most copies of "Mark" have the Short Ending.

Eusebius is the first Patristic evidence of Identifying the Ending of "Mark" as an Issue. Eusebius gives clear and explicit testimony that the Short Ending was likely Original. This evidence is strengthened by the observation that in General Eusebius is considered to be an expert on Manuscripts. On the other hand the Context of Eusebius' evidence here is in response to a question from a single Letter and not from a General Writing for the Church.

Note that if Possible this creates an even bigger problem for Christianity than "Mark" Originally Ending at 16:8. Here you have the most famous Christian Historian of all time confessing that his objective is to harmonize the Christian Bible even at the expense of ignoring what he knows the manuscripts evidence supports. I fully expect Bede and Roger Pearse to update their "Was Eusebius A Liar" articles accordingly.

3) Jerome - 5th century

Epistle 120, to Hedibia (century V):

"Of which question the solution is twofold. For either we do not receive the testimony of Mark, which is extant in rare gospels, almost all of the Greek books not having this chapter at the end, especially since it looks like it narrates things diverse from and contrary to certain evangelists"

Like Eusebius we have an expert in Manuscripts Identify the issue and clearly state that almost all Greek manuscripts did not have the Long Ending and the Long Ending may also contradict other Gospels. Also like Eusebius though, we have the weakness that this answer was in response to a question, sort of a "Dear Abbey", and not a Work for the General Church establishing policy.

4) Hesychius - Fifth Century

Collection of Difficulties and Solutions, question 52

"For [he appeared] to different women who had run to the tomb, not to the same women, but now to two from among them, and then to the other one who happened to be with them, and then to others, and differently did the Lord appear, to one of which who was weaker, and to another who happened to be more perfect. The Lord measured out his own appearance appropriately. Whence Mark, having gone through in brief the things until the one angel, ceased the word."

Hesychius does not explicitly identify textual variation as an issue but has an implication that he considered the short Ending Original based in part on textual variation. Also, the context is the General issue of "difficulties" rather than a response to an individual giving Hesychius' evidence more weight.

5) Severus of Antioch - Sixth Century

Severus of Antioch, homily 77

"In the more accurate copies, therefore, the gospel according to Mark has the end until the [statement]: For they were afraid. But in some these things too stand in addition: And having arisen early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons."

Severus Identifies the Ending of "Mark" as an Issue and explicitly Identifies the Short Ending as Likely Original. Note that Severus is also an especially good witness against Victor above as they are both from Antioch.

This Patristic evidence as well as the manuscript evidence, common sense argument (always the best), and Internal evidence that Mark 16:8 was the original ending is a huge problem for someone arguing that the Christian Bible testimony proves the resurrection. "Mark", the Original, had no post-resurrection sightings. "Matthew" and "Luke" used "Mark" as their Primary source and since "Mark" didn't have post-resurrection sightings, where did their post-resurrection sightings stories come from? Probably not from witnesses since "Mark" was their best potential "witness" and had nothing to tell them. Also, how does Christianity's documented Change of the Ending affect the Institution's credibility and ability to construct a Bible based on what it wanted to believe as opposed to what the Manuscript evidence indicated? As Yoda would say, "Hmmmm. Use the Force to silence objections. Help you it will."

The most common Apologist explanation for the Ending of "Mark" problem is that the Original Ending was Lost. Yet when I looked at related Patristic commentary through the sixth century I did not see a single explanation that the Original was Lost. Every comment was in terms of which was the Original Ending, the words in what is now 16:8 or what is now 16:20.

The discussion of Patristic evidence is given by a real Bible scholar here:

http://www.degruyter.com/journals/zn...pdf/92_078.pdf

The only error I could find here is making this public before this Professor had received tenure.



Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Error...?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

dost

Hi there.

Some time ago I saw a debate between Craig and a Muslim apologist, Shabbir Ally. Craig mostly talked about the appearances and quoted scholars who made claims that the appearance stories are quite early and solid. This was one of Craig's main argument in support of the resurrection.

These are the thoughts on my mind regarding this issue and I will be grateful if others will comment upon it.

Regarding the appearance stories, according to my understanding, which I admit is limited, it seems that all we have is the following type of evidence: "he saw him and those other folks saw him"; "look so many people saw Jesus that one time" etc. Besides the words of Paul, we have second hand accounts. People are claiming that there are these other individuals who supposedly saw Jesus. May be they did, but I think that there are also many people alive today who claim to have seen Elvis alive. People claimed to have seen Elvis alive soon after his death. But I don't think that many people give much credence to this view despite the many appearance stories and claims of individuals.

Paul says 500 people saw Jesus, but did they? Who are they? Were Paul’s audience in a position to verify his claim? Is it not likely that Paul was exaggerating and making a sweeping claim in the face of objections and criticisms levelled against him and his views by other rival preachers? When he claimed in the same breath that Jesus appeared also to Cephas and the 12, was he emotionally exaggerating? May be Paul truly believed that Cephas and the 12 saw Jesus alive, however, it remains that we do not have their direct testimony. And even if we do have someones direct testimony, say for instance that of Paul, is that really solid evidence? Should we not seriously consider that Elvis was alive because there were (and are?) people who claimed to have seen him after his death?

Does not the defensive attitude of Paul in 1 Cor. 15 imply that the views and beliefs in question were disputed among Christians?

Hence what we have is hearsay evidence and not strong solid evidence for the resurrection.

Also, when we read the stories within the gospel of the crucifixion of Jesus, it seems quite unusual to me that he was taken off the cross within a few hours because I read a while ago that people were often left hanging for days on the cross. The entire story seems rushed and hasty. If we read the story about Jesus, after the crucifixion, going to the upper room and meeting doubting Thomas, Jesus eats and drinks to prove to the doubters that he is ALIVE. Thomas touches his wounds for instance. Could it not be that Jesus, who was put on the cross, did not die? He was hurt and injured, but later met some of his followers?