Justin70

Someone on Theologyweb posted this proof of the resurrection of Jesus. Comments? Problems? What fallacies has he commited?

http://www.geocities.com/spl_cadet/a...urrection.html

Writer@Large

Well, immediately, I note that the author is unnamed, and he or she provides absolutely no reference or citation for the "facts" inthe article. Right off the bat, I am suspicious.

Then I see this:

I have two problems with this assumption. First, we have concrete reports of paramedics and doctors "resurrecting" people who are clinically and legitimately dead. Secondly, the author offters no proof that resurrection (which we've already seen is ill-defined) is something that only God could have, and of course further assumes that the only God who could have it is the Xian deity.

Note here how he doesn't tell us what "secular records" he is referring to, nor what they say. There is *no* direct secular record of the crucifixion of an individual that could be identified as Jesus.



I'd love to see this author support that assertion. Of course, he doesn't; this author is very good at asserting without proving. He does make an argument that the bible is older than "secular sources," but by that logic I could argue that the Iliad is a more accurate report of the events at Troy than historian Michael Wood's In Search of the Trojan War.

There's no evidence for any of these claims. No record exists to show that the apostles "immediately" started preaching. They didn't keep itineraries. Further, there's no report of anyone "checking the tomb for Jesus." And even allowing that they might have, there are plenty of explanations for an empty tomb that don't require the leap that "Jesus was resurrected."

This author is obviously hoping you'll accept his jumps, if they're small enough, without questioning. And that was just in the first few paragraphs! Is there really any point in continuing further?

--W@L

Celsus

It's basically a quote mine of Lee Strobel's chapter on the resurrection in The Case For Christ, which even Christians rubbish as pisspoor apologetics. I believe I attempted a debate with spl_cadet on TheologyWeb a few weeks ago, but got little response (or was that the other guy?). You'll find some good responses in the Secular Web Library here.

Incidentally, the Journal of the American Medical Association's 1986 article "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ" is, "in appropriate for a journal of scientific inquiry. Such arguments are virtually analogous to a palaeoanthropologist using a literal reading of the Genesis creation story as the basis for the reconstruction of human origins." Charlesworth J.H. and Zias, J., 1992, "Crucifixion: Archaeology, Jesus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls" in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, New York: Doubleday. [Notice how none of that is a deterrent to apologists and creationists.]

Joel

CX

This kind of dreck is pretty tedious and oft refuted, but I'm bored this morning so I'll make a few points.

Unsupported assertion. There have been, throughout the history of Xianity, numerous sects who rejected the resurrection. Secondly if Jesus were actually resurrected from the dead it does not therefore dictate that the remainder of the Xian message is true.

Another unsupported assertion. Accepting for the sake of argument that Jesus was resurrected we know only that an extrordinary anomolous event occured. We cannot without more information not presently at our disposal determine the cause or mechanism of that resurrection. It could be attributed to naturalisitic though as yet unknown mechanisms (certain species of frog freeze solid in the winter and appear, for all intents and purposes, dead, only to "resurrect" in the spring.) It could be attributed to extraterrestrials with advanced medical technology. (Such is no less fantastic than a deity effecting the resurrection by fiat). It could be attributed to some other deity for motivations unknown. The point is if the resurrection occured we cannot with any certainty say how or why.


Unsupported assertion. For the reasons already discussed. Further we cannot, with any degree of certainty, no what Jesus' claims were based on the available written record.

This presupposes the truth and accuracy of the gospel record without establishing that fact.


This is another unsupported assertion that seems to ignore the state of historical knowledge.

This is highly misleading. There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 or 6 MSS fragments which account for a tiny percentage of the entire New Testament opus prior to the 3rd century (and about half of which can only be reliably dated to the turn of the 3rd century). Furtermore, prior to Codex Sinaticus which dates to the 4th century, there are only about 46 or so MSS fragments known which account for less than half of the entire NT. The current state of NT MSS evidence only tells us what the predominate orthdox view was as of the 4th century when the church was already well-established and enjoyed significant political power.


The only "evidence" for this is the gospel record. It presupposes the accuracy of that record which has nowhere been established by this argument and which is significantly in question. There is no historical basis for concluding this to be true.

Basically this type of apologetic makes believers feel better, but is of little use in real scholarship or in making a determination of what actually happened etc. It certainly does little or nothing to establish the truth of the Xian religion for anyone but other Xians.

Writer@Large

No wonder it sounded so familiar!

--W@L

Peter Kirby

The writer, spl_cadet, is now taking challengers for a resurrection debate. I believe that Steven Carr will be one of them.

Here are a few comments on the "Hallucination" section.

"Why didn’t the Jews simply retrieve the body of Christ and present it to the people, perhaps on a cart wheeled through Jerusalem? It would have proven the apostles false and also killed Christianity before it could even really begin."

This makes all kinds of assumptions: that the location of the body of Christ was remembered, that there were people in Jerusalem that were determined to "kill Christianity," that these people thought that wheeling a decomposed body through the streets would be effective enough to warrant the hassle of becoming impure by handling a dead body, and finally that such an act actually would crush every ounce of Christian faith (whose existence is the only evidence offered that such an act wasn't undertaken). Probably the most difficult assumption to make is that there were people in Jerusalem who were really determined to destroy what was just another wacky cult, the claims of Acts notwithstanding.

"There are too many witnesses for it to be a hallucination. He appeared to Mary Magdalene and the twelve apostles among others. In fact St. Paul states that “he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present.” (First Corinthians 15:6). This is not how a hallucination works. You do not have five hundred people all at the same time in the same place hallucinating that Jesus came about them."

We have had a discussion of the alleged 500 brothers in this forum before. Some claimed that the verse (or the passage) was interpolated. The point that I made is that a bodily appearance of Christ is not necessary to explain the origin of such a tradition, when people would be eager to claim inclusion with those who had a vision, and when a spiritual experience (such as Eucharist) could be interpreted as the presence of Christ.

"Why would an admitted hater and persecutor of the Church (St. Paul) suffer from this hallucination as well?"

Someone with an intense emotional investment in the matter of Christ is one of the most likely to enjoy such an experience.

"Hallucinations last for hours at the extreme upper limit. But Jesus was around for fourty days."

This is confused. Acts is the only text to mention forty days, but it does not claim that the appearance of Christ was continuous over that time period.

"Hallucinations do not hold extended conversations and certainly not with eleven people at once (Acts 1:3)."

There is nothing to suggest the factuality of the details of the vision stories in the four gospels and Acts.

"Any theory of hallucination breaks down on the fact (and if it is invention [rather than fact], it is the oddest invention that ever entered the mind of man) that on three separate occasions this hallucination was not immediately recognized as Jesus (Lk 24:13-31; Jn 20:15; 21:4). Even granting that God sent a holy hallucination to teach truths already widely believed without it, and far more easily taught by other methods, and certain to be completely obscured by this, might we not at least hope that he would get the face of the hallucination right? Is he who made all faces such a bungler that he cannot even work up a recognizable likeness of the Man who was himself?" (Miracles, chapter 16)

C.S. Lewis imputes that God is the author of the visions, something which no atheist would grant. Lewis also assumes the factuality of the vision stories on the basis that it would be an extremely odd invention to say that Jesus was not immediately recognized. I find such a failing odd for someone who claims to be familiar with mythology. It is quite common in Greek tradition for the gods to make appearances without being immediately recognized by men. One famous example is the appearance of Athena to Odysseus on his arrival in Ithaka.

best,
Peter Kirby

Answerer

According to the way he was arguing, I think most people can adopt the same (or his) methods to argue for the existence of Hercules, Zeus, Gilgamesh, etc.

Ted Hoffman

The author has used the same arguments MCDowell used in his book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Chapter 9 of McDowell's book (the longsest in the book) is titled Resurrection - Hoax or History?
And I have addressed all the arguments McDowell raised in my Site: http://www.angelfire.com/empire/intensity/
I have addressed most of the arguments in that site among others:
* the Journal of the American Medical Association's 1986 claim
* the other "inadequate" theories about the resurrection including the hallucination theory - which I did not address since McDowell claimed he had "new" evidence. (IMO, you should focus on driving your truch through the "evidence"/"proof" he puts forth - these other "theories" are just red herrings and strawman arguments - 'banana peels' so to speak).
*Nazareth Inscription.
*Testimony from Hostory and Law.
*The resurrection scene
*post resurrection scene
etc etc. Just give him a link to my site. Or you can use it if you find it useful.

malookiemaloo

Just a small point. Jesus was resurrected not brought back from the dead Lazarus style.


m

Ted Hoffman

This too, I have addressed in my site. Special Pleading.
From Dictionary.com:
Resurrect: To rise from the dead; return to life.

Do you have a special meaning other than that?

You could start by telling us - was Jesus born Lazarus-style?
Did Jesus eat after resurrecting? What happened to the food he ate in Luke 24:36-44? Did it turn to urea or mist? Are there toilets in heaven?

Your kind of argument - arguing for different kinds of resurrection while making a special plead is addressed after the highlighted words: "But an apologist will object to this and say"

Check the full argument In this page