And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him! (ASV)
Edit this section if you suspect error.
Jesus was not resurrected
Impossible Event (Scientific Error)
Logically, you can never prove the Impossible without Impossible evidence (think about that). As long as there is a Possible explanation why the "Impossible" is not impossible then it is not the Impossible. So ends the Serious discussion on whether an Impossible resurrection was Possible.
Moving on.org I don't think Apologists appreciate just how little evidence there is here for an Impossible event. David Copperfield could prophesy to them and an audience of their choosing exactly when and where he would make a Temple disappear right in front of their eyes and then do it. You would have the following evidence that David did the Impossible:
1) David Copperfield is known to you.
2) He personally told you and others you trust that he would make a Temple disappear.
3) You and the others saw David make a Temple disappear.
4) David let you knock on the Temple before it disappeared and it sounded like a Temple.
5) David let you feel the Temple before it disappeared and it felt like a Temple.
6) David let you lick the Temple before it disappeared and it tasted like a Temple.
In summary, a person known to you and people you trust predicted the Impossible to you, and you and the people you trust saw, heard, felt and tasted it with everyone present known to you and agreeing with what happened. Yet because this all has no religious significance to you, in spite of the evidence here you would assume that David merely did the Possible. On the other side, so many women at the tomb, so little time before Jesus' return.
--JoeWallack 21:50, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
MAGIC, n. An art of converting superstition into coin. There are other arts serving the same high purpose, but the discreet lexicographer does not name them.
Extremely Unlikely Event Would Require Extremely Qualitative Evidence
The supposed resurrection is clearly a scientific error which ends the serious discussion. For the sake of argument, assuming that Impossible resurrections are possible:
In his Introduction Ehrman explains why the debate is over before it is started:
"What about the resurrection of Jesus? I'm not saying it didn't happen; but if it did happen, it would be a miracle. The resurrection claims are claims that not only that Jesus' body came back alive; it came back alive never to die again. That's a violation of what naturally happens, every day, time after time, millions of times a year. Wha are the chances of that happening? Well, it'd be a miracle. In other words, it'd be so highly improbable that we can't account for it by natural means. A theologian may claim that it's true, and to argue with the theologian we'd have to argue on theological grounds because there are no historical grounds to argue on. Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition a miracle is the least probable occurrence. And so, by the very nature of the canons of historical research, we can't claim historically that a miracle probably happened. By definition, it probably didn't. And history can only establish what probably did."
This is the correct approach in my opinion for a Skeptic, to clearly indicate at the start that the Impossible is either Impossible or extremely unlikely as Ehrman believes and therefore can Not be history no matter what the Evidence is. Any Possible Natural explanation must be more Likely than any Impossible explanation. The Skeptic should than make clear that the following debate is not needed to determine Historicity. It is merely a theoretical exercise where the Skeptic will point out other weaknesses in the Believer's argument.
Ehrman then lists the Attributes of Quality evidence:
He does a good job of explaining how Christian evidence has none of these qualities:
1) Contemporary - The original Gospels are written 1 to 2 generations after Jesus died and not by Eyewitnesses. Jesus and his witnesses would have spoken Aramaic and the Gospels speak Greek. Subsequent Editors make significant changes. I especially enjoyed Ehrman's commentary on "Mark's" "The Disciples":
"One of Mark's overarching themes is that virtually no one during the ministry of Jesus could understand who he was. His family didn't understand. His townspeople didn't understand. The leaders of his own people didn't understand. Not even the disciples understood in Mark, especially not the disciples! For Mark, only outsiders have an inkling of who Jesus was: the unnamed woman who anointed him, the centurion at the cross. Who understands at the end? Not the family of Jesus! Not the disciples! It's a group of previously unknown women."
So not only are the Gospels not written by eyewitnesses but the original Gospel makes a point that The Disciples, taken by Craig as the witness, never understood Jesus!
2) Quantity - "Matthew" and "Luke" are dependent on "Mark" and "John" may be partially dependent leaving Christianity with at most two independent Gospels.
3) Independence - Again, "Matthew" and "Luke" are dependent on "Mark". This also indicates a lack of independent witness available to authors such as "Matthew" and "Luke", a point which Ehrman should make.
4) Corroboration - Ehrman lists examples of significant disagreement amongst the Gospels. There is exponentially more disagreement when considering non-canonical Gospels, another point which Ehrman should make.
5) Objectivity - The Gospels are all written by Evangelists who's soul goal is to be an Advocate for Jesus.
Ehrman was limited by time here and therefore only covers it briefly but a proper discussion should Measure the Distance between what would constitute quality evidence and what the Christians claim to have.
Ehrman accurately points out that Craig is just a Theologian pretending to be a historian:
"I do think, though, that what we've seen is that Bill is, at heart, an evangelist who wants people to come to share his belief in Jesus and that he's trying to disguise himself as a historian as a means to that end. He can't critically evaluate these sources, and the one thing that historians have to do is be able to critically evaluate the sources that they base their claims on."
Ehrman asks Craig if he is an Inerrantist and Craig refuses to answer saying it is Irrelevant. Obviously it's relevant to Ehrman if he's asking and Craig's refusal to answer just prove's Ehrman's above point.
In Summary, Craig's argument that the resurrection is Historical Fails according to Ehrman based on the following:
1) Any Impossible claim is not Historical. No further discussion required.
2) If you Assume that the Impossible is Possible you would need uncommonly Good evidence. There is an Infinite Distance between uncommonly Good evidence and the Christian evidence here.
3) Those who want to use the Christian Bible as their PriMary evidence here like Craig, must, for starters, be Objective regarding the Christian Bible as evidence. If, for Starters, you Assume that the Christian Bible is Impossibly accurate than by Definition you are not Objective about the Christian Bible.
--JoeWallack 15:45, 4 Jun 2006 (CDT)
Doubt That There Was Any Crucifixion To Be Resurrected From
Summary of the argument that Paul was the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified:
Weakness of potential Historical witness evidence:
1) No extant writing by first-hand Historical witness asserting crucifixion.
2) Paul never claims Jesus' crucifixion while Contemporary to Jesus.
3) Potential second-hand Historical witness Paul, never asserts that first-hand Historical witness asserted crucifixion.
4) Paul does not provide any details for the crucifixion.
5) The best potential extant historical witness, Q, makes no mention of crucifixion.
6) Subsequent Christian crucifixion Assertians seem to use Paul as a primary source.
7) The first known crucifixion narrative, in "Mark", in General has an anti-historical witness attitude and Specifically casts the best potential first-hand witness, Jesus' Disciples, as opposing the idea/prediction of Jesus' Passion, never understanding/accepting the need and not witnessing the crucifixion or subsequently promoting Jesus after.
8) Christianity is blessed with multiple Forged claims of first-hand witness to the crucifixion (I have Faith that every Ruler of the Age is covered here, Peter, Caiphais, Herod, Pilate as well as the Ending of "Mark", Amen).
9) "Mark's" related narrative is smeared with implausibility indicating a lack of historical Details.
10) Subsequent crucifixion narratives closely follow "Mark" indicating lack of available historical witness.
11) Common sense, always the best argument, tells us that if Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem it's Unlikely his movement would have been permitted to promote him in Jerusalem.
Strength of potential Revelation witness evidence:
1) Paul's emphasis in General is on Revelation as opposed to Historical witness.
2) Specifically, Paul claims the crucifixion is a Mystery understood by Revelation.
3) "Mark's" crucifixion narrative uses Paul's related ideas as a primary source.
4) Christian authors subsequent to Paul, including "Mark", use the Jewish Bible as a primary source for details about the crucifixion.
Thus we have it on good Authority that it is Likely that Paul was the First to Assert the significance of the supposed crucifixion and Possible that Paul was the First to assert that Jesus was crucified.
--JoeWallack 21:44, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
- A famous book in which St. John the Divine concealed all that he knew. The revealing is done by the commentators, who know nothing.
Edit this section if you doubt error.
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.