The Resurrection

[WConn]

Perhaps I needed to reword my question: I am somewhat confused about the resurrection of Christ. I believe that the historical documentation is adequate to insure that he was crucified, died and was buried in a tomb provided by a rich man who appeared to have a change of heart regarding Christ. He was placed in the tomb and it was sealed with a great rock and guarded apparently by Roman Soldiers. On the third day it was discovered that he was not in the tomb and that he "arose" from the dead and ascended into heaven. Here is where I have a problem. The Roman soldiers said that his body was taken away by his followers? But they said that the body was still in the tomb? Cant have it both ways, did I misread something or misunderstand something. Why didn't the Roman soldiers stop the followers from removing the body if they did indeed do so? There seems to be some disconnect here in my mind as a result of the reading. I am missing something. Anyone?

W

[Gabrielman]

I am not the brightest bulb in the box, but let me see if I can get this right. From what I understand the roman guards were frightened by two angels (Probably Michael and Gabriel) and ran away or passed (can't remember which it was, I will look that part up)out at the time of the resurection. I do not remember reading that the guards said his followers took him, then again he also was seen alive afterwards so it probably wouldn't matter if they did. If the guards had simply seen people they would have stopped them, you are right. Then again the guards could have lied for fear that no one would believe that two angels visited them. God bless!

[WConn]

I am not the brightest bulb in the box, but let me see if I can get this right. From what I understand the roman guards were frightened by two angels (Probably Michael and Gabriel) and ran away or passed (can't remember which it was, I will look that part up)out at the time of the resurection. I do not remember reading that the guards said his followers took him, then again he also was seen alive afterwards so it probably wouldn't matter if they did. If the guards had simply seen people they would have stopped them, you are right. Then again the guards could have lied for fear that no one would believe that two angels visited them. God bless!

Thank you Gabrielman, I often misread things or do not fully understand them. The bible, even the NIV version is written in a manner inconsistent with current English mannerisms and I find it somewhat confusing at times.

W

[Jac3510]

The story of the Roman guard is really interesting on historical grounds as it points to a developed argument that can be traced in the first century.

Look at it this way: Matthew, written in the middle to late first century, points out that the story circulating at the time that the disciples stole the body while the guard was sleeping was a Jewish fabrication. Notice that this is his answer to a commonly circulating story.

So, we know that in the middle to late first century, the story was going around that the disciples stole the body. But where did that come from? It was an attempt to explain how the body was missing from the tomb. You could imagine the conversation going something like this:

Christian: Have you seen the evidence for Jesus' resurrection?
Jew: Such as?
Christian: Well, for starters the tomb is empty, and . . .
Jew: Wait, the only reason it is missing is because the disciples stole the body.
Christian: They couldn't have. The guard would have prevented it.
Jew: No, the guard fell asleep. That's how they pulled it off.
Christian: No, no, no. They were paid to say that by the Sanhedrin!

The last line is what you see in Matthew, but it presupposes the conversation. But that had to develop. It didn't happen all at once. Now, what is really interesting is the argument that the disciples stole the body requires an admission that the body was missing! Beyond this, the fact that the Jewish leadership had to concoct such an absurd story points to how little they could credibly say, and points to how powerful the evidence really was and is. When you have to drop to the level of "ITZ UH CONSPEERASY!!!!" you've lost the argument on evidence.

We don't even have to believe that a guard ever was posted at the tomb and that any of this ever happened. What IS intersting are the historical arguments the statements presuppose, and those arguments require an admission from the opposition that the body was missing. That's very strong evidence for a missing body, which presents a very strong piece of evidence in the direction of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection.

[erawdrah]

Jac3510,

What's even more interesting is the fact that these disciples died a martyrs death because they wouldn't renounce their statement that Jesus rose again from the dead. You could try to make a case for the disciples profiting from a Jesus who's body was "missing", just look at aliens and Elvis (no offense to Elvis lovers). But these disciples died because they would not change their statement and say that Jesus did not raise again. No one would have died for this belief if they hadn't witnessed it themselves. No one would have died for a lie, what's the profit? Let me rephrase that. No one would have died for a lie that they knew was a lie. That doesn't mean people haven't died for lies they believe to be true. These were the ones Jesus revealed himself to after He came back from the dead. They had first hand knowledge.

I hope I said this the way I meant it.

[Jac3510]

The point is well taken, erawdrah. I was just responding to how the Roman guard story fits into a proper discussion on the resurrection. There are several indisputable historical facts that any theory of the resurrection must consider:

1. Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.
2. Jesus was buried in a tomb by a rich man named Joseph who served in the Sanhedrin.
3. Jesus' body was missing from the tomb three days later.
4. Jesus' disciples truly believed that Jesus spent no less than one month talking with them in a physical body on multiple occasions.
5. Jesus' disciples' theology radically changed in several ways as a direct result of whatever happened that morning. They came to believe that:

a) Jesus was God in the flesh.
b) Faith in Jesus was the only way to be reconciled to the Father.
c) The resurrection at the end of time had begun with Jesus' resurrection.

In short, (5) is the origin of the Christian faith. It would take a truly radical event to get these people to change their views so seriously. I've asked people this before: what would it take to convince you that a friend you watched die not only had resurrected from the dead but was God in the flesh? When you put it that way, people respond that it would be almost impossible! And of course it would. Why should we think any less of the disciples, when they had the unshakable belief in 1st century Judaism as a backdrop? If anything, it would have been HARDER for them to accept such a notion.

Conspiracy theories, hallucinations, legendary developments . . . none of these types of answers explain the historical evidence. A person can either be rational and concede that the best explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead, or they can be irrational and choose to reject it, which is tantamount to a demonstration of blind faith. And I'm sorry, but I don't have that kind of faith.

[WConn]

Jac and Erawdrah, good answers both. I am currently reading "The Case for Christ," by Strobel and am on the chapter, The Evidence of the Missing Body. Good info all around. Sometimes I think it's asking a lot of 20th century man to accept some of these concepts. Bottom line is that if Jesus actually did arise from the dead, the case is closed and
there is not much left to ask. You can't do much better than that.

Walt

[erawdrah]

I agree with you Jac with the exception of I believe they knew Jesus was God prior to His resurrection. I just thought I would put my thoughts down on the subject too.

Jesus' whole purpose on this earth was to die on the cross and raise again. If you read the Gospels with that in mind, you will see that his disciples do not understand that. Jesus tells them over and over again but they just don't catch on to what he is saying. They believe already that Jesus is the messiah but they have been taught that the messiah would come down to earth and set up his kingdom(Mat 16: 13-17). You can actually see the disciples trying to establish their rank in His kingdom. I believe they didn't fully understand why He came until after the resurrection. Then all of the teachings made sense to them.

[Gman]

Conspiracy theories, hallucinations, legendary developments . . . none of these types of answers explain the historical evidence. A person can either be rational and concede that the best explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead, or they can be irrational and choose to reject it, which is tantamount to a demonstration of blind faith. And I'm sorry, but I don't have that kind of faith.

It appears that many would believe that we all came out of a rock than believe in the resurrection.. Which requires more faith?

[ageofknowledge]

That we slid off the back of a rock.

[jerry]

The latest arguments that are being made by atheists are not that the resurrection didn't happen, but that God didn't raise Jesus. My last debate opponent argued that Jesus was either an extraterrestrial who knew how to naturally raise himself or he had help from extraterrestrials who used natural means to raise Jesus. He argued what scientists might find out in 800,000+ years from now. That debate can be found at http://www.challenge2.org/coverres.pdf. He and I are going to have another debate on the subject. In the first one he did not deny the resurrection, so I am going to use that and then just argue against his arguments in this debate. I used the stock arguments in the first one, and in this one I will get into philosophy and theory. It will be held on Freedom & Rationalism Discussion Board.

[ageofknowledge]

They'll believe anything but the truth.

[Jac3510]

Jerry,

It shows the absurdity people are willing to go to to avoid Christianity. The two easiest ways to respond to that babble are to to use the standard canons of historiography (Craig lists and explains them) to show the inadequacy of the alien theory. Bottom line, it is too ad hoc and even disconfirms other ideas about what we know to be true about the universe.

Second, it doesn't have the explanatory power it claims, because in addition to the historical arguments about the resurrection, you can point to the historical arguments about Jesus' self-understanding. He considered Himself to be God, and more specifically, to the the God of the Old Testament. If a person is going to argue that an alien pretended to be the OT God, then you may as well apply that to any great event in human history. All great geniuses were aliens playing tricks on us. In fact, maybe the Roman Empire never existed. It was just an elaborate hoax played on us by aliens. We can follow Douglas Adams and point out that the television is an alien invention, given to us to dumb us down so that we wouldn't find our way into space and beyond.

It's just stupid. I respect the non-Christians who are still looking for a real answer to the resurrection (although they obviously never will). But the ones who run to aliens? Put them in the loony bin with the 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy nuts. You can't have a serious conversation with them.

DA ALEEUNS DID IT!!!11!1! :p

[jerry]

Jerry,

It shows the absurdity people are willing to go to to avoid Christianity. The two easiest ways to respond to that babble are to to use the standard canons of historiography (Craig lists and explains them) to show the inadequacy of the alien theory. Bottom line, it is too ad hoc and even disconfirms other ideas about what we know to be true about the universe.

Second, it doesn't have the explanatory power it claims, because in addition to the historical arguments about the resurrection, you can point to the historical arguments about Jesus' self-understanding. He considered Himself to be God, and more specifically, to the the God of the Old Testament. If a person is going to argue that an alien pretended to be the OT God, then you may as well apply that to any great event in human history. All great geniuses were aliens playing tricks on us. In fact, maybe the Roman Empire never existed. It was just an elaborate hoax played on us by aliens. We can follow Douglas Adams and point out that the television is an alien invention, given to us to dumb us down so that we wouldn't find our way into space and beyond.

It's just stupid. I respect the non-Christians who are still looking for a real answer to the resurrection (although they obviously never will). But the ones who run to aliens? Put them in the loony bin with the 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy nuts. You can't have a serious conversation with them.

DA ALEEUNS DID IT!!!11!1! :p

Where do I get hold of Craig's works?

[Jac3510]

Two sites, Jerry:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer

I'd also recommend his book Reasonable Faith. Heavy reading, but given the level you are talking to people, I have no doubt you'd get through it with little to no problem. It has two excellent chapters on Jesus, one on His self-understanding and one on His resurrection. He also has chapters in The Case for Christ (very popular level stuff) and Jesus Under Fire. I highly recommend JUF. Very, very good.

There are also several of his debates on YouTube.

Hope that helps!