Forum:Resurrection of Jesus

Hi all, thanks for taking the time to read this (and hopefully respond!). I'm currently working on debunking the resurrection, because 1 Corinthians 15:17 says "if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain." Why not go straight for the jugular?

I've already come across a multitude of possible explanations, so at this point I'm trying to narrow the field down to the top three explanations for the supposed resurrection. I'm NOT interested in just dismissing and/or ridiculing it just yet - but any help in DISPROVING the resurrection would be greatly appreciated.

I'm going to be going about this from a devil's advocate (no pun intended) perspective, so I'll be posting some of the best arguments/"evidence" I find in favor of Jesus' resurrection so that you can happily help me to disprove (not ridicule) them.

If all goes well, by the end of this we'll each have a simple and straightforward rational way to convince anyone of what really happened to Jesus. In order to keep it simple, I'm going to break the case into the smallest pieces I can so that we can dissect each one without too many tangents/rabbit trails. Please keep it rational!

Here's the first claim I'd like to start with: "Jesus died on the cross and was buried"

Do you believe this to be true? If not, can you help me to prove that it's false?

Thanks for your help!


 * It cannot be proven that Jesus lived, but then it cannot be proven that he didn't. there are no reliable sources from the time indicating his existence, or the existence of most other people at the time. Records of trials, etc, have become lost over time. The main evidence we have is re-tellings of statements by witnesses written down many years after the time. The crucifixion is described inconsistently but the broad description is roughly accurate, ie in those days that was how criminals and troublemakers were punished. Ultimately we have no proof that a person called Jesus actually was crucified, and no proof that he wasn't. Anyone claiming the story as definitely true or false come up equally to this problem. Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 14:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making the first contribution Sophie, but if I'm looking for something a bit more potent than that. Can you clarify what you mean by a reliable source? How do we know that the sources which exist are unreliable? If we apply the same skepticism to other matters of history which we apply to the historicity of Jesus, does that leave us with any certainty?
 * Why go after the resurrection? I would think the very mainstream idea that he failed as a prophet would suffice. All the early Christians including Paul (who wrote that bit) were expecting that Jesus would return in their lifetime. The reason Jesus' resurrection mattered was because otherwise you are waiting for a dead (instead of undead) person to return from heaven where they never were. However it might be worth noting as Hitchens did that it looks like a bit of 'fakery' as the supposed first witnesses were women who were not regarded as trustworthy for court purposes at the time. Additionally, the gospels are horribly inconsistent about which women were there. The oldest gospel (Mark) originally ends with just the women seeing the empty tomb and a young man in a white robe (not Jesus) who tells them what to do. No one else sees anything, nor do they actually see Jesus.Arachne1988 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Claim 1: Jesus died on the cross and was buried
Please help me find the easiest way to disprove this claim - and whatever evidence I can use to convince people that Jesus didn't die on the cross and/or wasn't buried. I understand that there are plausible alternate possibilities, what I'm looking for is some sort of concrete historical evidence.
 * See my comment above. If there's no definite proof or disproof of his existence, then there can be no evidence that the crucifixion happened, or didn't happen. Are you looking for some sort of "smoking gun"? There isn't one, and people on both sides have been looking for the last 2000 years. Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 18:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are a couple of examples of non-biblical sources which affirm the existence of Jesus, which any educated Christian will be quick to tell you is far stronger than that of any other figure of that time, including emperor Tiberius. The issue in question here is whether or not Jesus died on the cross and was buried, Jesus' existence is granted by all of the skeptical scholars I'm familiar with because of the preponderance of non-biblical evidence.

The Roman historian Tacitus (AD 56-117) wrote this: "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind." Unfortunately, this is an anti-Christian record of the execution of Jesus (Christus) which also serves as a record of his existence.

Here's another one: The Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37-100), also not a Christian, wrote this: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and his learning outstanding. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after the crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (translation of Shlomo Pines from the Arabic manuscript) Yet another anti-Christian record of the execution (crucifixion) of Jesus at the hand of Pilate - as well as the supposed resurrection.

If I can disprove (not merely deny) the death of Jesus I can disprove the resurrection, and we'll all have some fun facts to share with our fundie coworkers. If not we'll move on to the next issue on my list of possible resurrection busters. There has got to be someone on here who can help me!
 * Take a look at Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ. It's not as clear cut as the sources you cite make out. Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 19:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Apart from the reasonable doubt of Jesus existing you need to make sure that you are clear about the difference between "magic Jesus" who walked on water and raised the dead and some dude who lived in Palestine and inspired the legend. Demonstrating that the second one existed does not demonstrate the first.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Two questions from an email debate I'm in right now (Help!): 1) Why would even the most liberal scholars (Jesus Seminar) be disputing the so-called "claims" of Jesus if they could prove that he never existed?

2) Why would the Muslim Reza Aslan directly contradict the Quran, which says "Jesus was neither killed nor crucified" if he didn't have historical data for the crucifixion?&mdash; Unsigned, by: Pentheus / talk / contribs
 * 1. Nobody is saying they can prove that he never existed. The question is how good is the evidence in favour of the existence of either "magical Jesus" or some dude who inspired the Jesus story.
 * 2. I don't know. Why does he say he says that?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute....
I understand what you're trying to do here. I don't think it will help. There are several reasons why, and one which, given premises I think we share, should fairly conclusively show that this undertaking won't succeed. Given that: It may well be that people intuit instinctively that there is a God, or at least a world of spirits, and will invent religions attempting to appease them. But the gist of saving faith must always be beyond the reach of formal proof. As I think Saint Anselm said, non in dialectica complacuit Deo salvum facere - it did not please God to save the world through argument. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) We are saved by faith, however you imagine that works. We are saved by trust in and participation in the saving sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.  I'm not going to bother proof texting this.  But,
 * 2) (F)aith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Heb. 11:1-3) I think this is fairly interpreted as faith is trust in beliefs for which no proof will be forthcoming.
 * 3) Therefore, if the Bible is true, proof of the truth of the revelation of the God of Scripture, who is the only God that matters, will not be forthcoming.


 * This is true. But the opposite is true, i.e. the middle of the church looks for evidence, of the ordinary sort. Hence, e.g., the Alpha Course pushing Josephus Flavius as solid proof Jesus was real oh yes. c.f. sophisticated believers versus typical ones - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * But then, this probably reinforces your basic point, in that that attempting to nail down (ahahaha) Christians on issues of evidence is mostly a way of producing weasels - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks David, I think we're on the same page here - though just to be clear here are some clarifications: 1/ I am not in the least interested in arguing for or against the Bible's inspiration or even general trustworthiness. 2/ My intent is to identify the biggest holes in the resurrection account so that I can end-run all the stupid tangent arguments which rarely lead anywhere productive. A coup de grâce, so to speak. This is because the resurrection is the defining event on which Christian "saving faith" hangs.

According to 1 Corinthians 15 (which most critical scholars agree was written in the first century): "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins."

So if we can disprove the resurrection, the whole "faith" thing will fall apart. Like I said, go for the jugular.

3/ I've used the "faith is trust in beliefs for which no proof will be forthcoming" line in debates and have been shot down on that one, so I'd be hesitant to use it again. The story goes that the apostles claim that Jesus offered "many infallible proofs" over a period of forty days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3). Christians will argue with you all day long about doubting Thomas and the scars and all sorts of "proof." Additionally, the New Testament is chock full of eyewitness claims: "ye are witnesses of these things" "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses" "And we are witnesses of all things which [Jesus did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem]" "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty"

Like I said - If we can prove the object of the faith (the resurrection of Jesus) to be demonstrably false, we can avoid endless arguments and pestering from "the faithful." I've got some good tactics for this with regards to Islam, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses, here I'm interested in developing my guillotine for Christianity.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Pentheus / talk / contribs
 * "Additionally, the New Testament is chock full of eyewitness claims" Indeed.  Things written by authors who probably never met the people who allegedly had the experiences are certainly "eyewitness claims" rather than "claims by eyewitnesses".  And do you think you could sign your posts?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose the chief point is that I think an intellectually honest Christian has to conclude that the Resurrection cannot be proven to have happened. I do think that if you are trying to establish that it cannot have happened, you have to show that, and that for the same reasons we have to conclude that the Resurrection can't be proven, it also can't be proven not to have happened. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in developing my guillotine for Christianity. - you won't succeed. You can argue that the resurrection must have been impossible, but any Christian will simply say it was a miracle. You can say there's no such thing as a miracle, and the Christian will say "ah, but this is a special case - God normally stands back but here he intervened because it was important." You can call that any logical fallacy you like, but faith isn't logic. You can't disprove it. Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 08:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Romans usually didn't bury people they crucified, in all likelihood, a corpse stayed up there and was eaten by buzzards. Hence its no surprise that allegedly someone opened a tomb or whatever and didn't see a body. Why that person then decided zombiejesus had risen from the dead from the lack of a body, in a time when bodies often didn't end up nice and organized underground, I don't know. The book was written like 200 years after the supposed events anyways, right? ROPChain (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * considering the gospels mention his followers coming back and taking him down from the cross/putting him in a tomb, most of your post becomes irrelevant, As for "The book was written like 200 years after the supposed events anyways, right? " Marks gospel is generally given sometime around the late 60's or early 70's, so no, not a few centuries afterwards. -- Mie kal  06:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can somehow prove Jesus didn't come alive again, I will lay down my beliefs and admit God doesn't exist. Of course, that will never happen, because God promised that Jesus would come and crush Satan's head. Also, I feel assured Christ is in me, and his Holy Spirit is working through me. Pitzy 19:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pitzy, you misunderstand the burden of proof. It is not our job to prove that Jesus didn't resurrect. It is your job to prove that he did. 19:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought it was clear I am the proof Jesus was resurrected. Along with any other Christian in the world. But maybe not... Pitzy
 * Oh, oh, oh, I know this one! There's actually an RW article on this, it's called argumentum ad populum. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jesus was resurrected again yesterday and I met him. Case closed. Fonzie (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)