OK, here's the second part including the resurrection with large chunks of material at the end cut out because, while it is important for a believer, it has nothing to do with whether or not the resurrection occurred. There is nothing new here; it's the same old list of: Jesus died, was buried in a tomb, the tomb was empty, they saw Jesus alive afterwards, etc.
At this point I would like to move on to the direct evidences for the resurrection of Christ. There are a certain number of historical facts that we can glean from the biblical records. They are: Jesus died by crucifixion, he was buried in a tomb known to the authorities, his disciples were distraught because of his death, his tomb was found empty, the disciples believed that they saw Jesus risen from the grave, this experience changed their lives, the message was central to early church teachings, and it was preached in the very city in which Jesus died (Miethe, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, p. 19, 20). These historical facts will be the basis of our argument for Jesus' resurrection.
OK, Jesus died by crucifixion probably. We have nothing but heresay evidence that he was buried in a tomb and conflicting reports from the various gospels about how he was buried and the relationship between Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus. In Mark he votes with the entire assembly to punish Jesus but seems to want to do the right thing and not leave a Jew hanging on a cross overnight since that would be wrong. In the other gospels he is either a secret or open disciple.
OK, his disciples in Mark are distraught and scatter. In John, one of them is there at the crucifixion – the two accounts not jibing. His tomb was reported as empty, which could only happen if he were placed in a tomb in the first place, which would be highly unlikely. Yes, the disciples believed that they saw Jesus risen from the grave which changed their lives.
After being whipped Jesus was forced to carry his own cross to the place of crucifixion. The gospel records indicate that in his weakened state, he was unable to carry the cross (which would have been carried on his wounded back Mt 27:32). Incidentally, Jesus was probably not a weak man. Before his preaching ministry he had been a carpenter and during his ministry he walked hundreds of miles throughout Israel.
Doesn’t he know his own traditions? It depends on which gospel we read as to whether Jesus carries the cross on his own. Mark introduces a nice literary device to contrast with the scattered disciples. He has a man named Simon carry the cross soon after another Simon (Peter) has denied Jesus three times.
In John’s gospel Jesus carries his own cross. Can’t you guys account for your own inconsistencies?
The gospel records indicate that upon his death two prominent Jewish admirers came to gather Christ's body. "And after these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate granted permission. And Nicodemus came also, who had first come to Him by night; bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight" (Jn 19:38). These men were both of the ruling class of the Jews (seventy-one men in all) and well known in the community as well as to Pilate. The mention of prominent men indicates that this account is not fictitious. If the disciples had created this story it would have been counterproductive to make up a person that was supposed to be in a prominent position. This could easily have been refuted were it not true. (Moreland, p. 167).
What do you mean it could have been easily refuted if not true? Who from 60 years earlier was alive in the 90’s to refute the story. Joseph and Nicodemus together are mentioned only in John. Joseph is mentioned in all the gospels.
There is a very good reason to use figures such as this. They needed a story about Jesus being placed in a tomb. Mark created the story of Joseph of Arimathea to contrast with the disciples who have scattered to the four winds, just as he created the story of Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross. These were literary foils, men who did the right thing, as opposed to the disciples who fled – in keeping with the rest of the theme of Mark’s gospel. The author of Mark also needed proof of what happened to Jesus, so placing him in a tomb could provide a story that would work. We put him in a tomb and he wasn’t there three days later, so he must have risen from the dead.
Just for jollies figure out how much spice that is and let me know what person would have put that much spice in a tomb.
Archaeological evidence confirms the description of this tomb being that of a rich man, which was rare in this day. The probable location described in the gospels correlates with the specific location of the Garden Gate at the north Wall of Jerusalem where tombs have been excavated like those described in which Jesus was laid (Ibid.)
Yes, it would be rare in that day, thank you for making our point for us. And the location? Meaning that such tombs actually existed? This helps how?
Now on the next day, which is the one after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, and said, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I am to rise again.' Therefore give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, lest the disciples come and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last deception will be worse than the first" Pilate said to them, "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how." And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone. (Mt 27:62-66)
Well, suffice it to say that no one could have invented that story for dramatic effect.
We know also that the disciples were very disillusioned by Jesus' death. The man they had followed around Israel for three years, whom they believed would be the next ruler of the nation, had just been crucified. They had expected a Messiah who would be king, not a criminal to be convicted and killed in the most humiliating way. They probably felt that their lives had been wasted for the past few years and they had publicly been made fools. Of course, they realized that what they had experienced with Christ for the last three years was significant. But how and what was significant, they did not yet understand. The disciples scattered when Christ was arrested in the garden of Gethsemene (Mrk 14:50ff). Peter denied ever knowing Jesus during his "trial" on the night before his crucifixion (Mrk 14:66ff). The disciples were ready to return to their lives as fishermen because they thought it was over (Jn 21:3).
Again, that is primarily Mark’s gospel, not the others. In John one of the disciples is standing there at the crucifixion.
Three days after his burial the tomb was found empty. Each of the gospels reports that Jesus' tomb was found empty (Mt 28: 1-10, Mrk 16:1-8, Lk 24: 1-3; Jn 20:1-10). "But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus" (Lk 24:1-3). When it had been reported to the disciples by Mary that the tomb was empty, they came running:
Or, as others have said, well, what if several members of Jesus’ family came and robbed the tomb (assuming he was placed in one), were discovered by the Roman guards, killed, and all their bodies placed in a mass grave? Presto, resurrection.
The only reasonable explanation for the missing body is that the disciples stole it. But is this plausible? These are the same men who scattered when Jesus was arrested.
Jeez, doesn’t this guy read his own sources? No one scatters in John’s gospel. Depressed, sure they were depressed, but they were not running for the hills. And remember the scenario with Jesus’ family? Granted, it's not likely that his family would have stolen his body, but it is certainly possible and therefore more likely than a miracle (miracles, by definition, being incredibly unlikely).
A number of incidental details in this account bear the markings of history as opposed to fraud or fiction. The gospels do not portray the disciples in a very glamorous light. If the disciples had propagated this myth we would expect their own accounts of the events to paint them in a better light than we actually see them in.
Gosh, Sherlock, how about the disciples didn’t write it? Remember, the stories originate with Mark, who was admittedly not an eye-witness even if it was John Mark who wrote that account and there is no reliable evidence that he did. The theme of Mark’s gospel is that no one knows that Jesus is really the Messiah; that is why the disciples are painted as such dolts.
It is of crucial importance to notice in all the accounts that the women were the first to see the risen Jesus (Jn 20:11-17; Lk 24:1-9; Mrk 16:1-8; Mt 28:1-7). In the first century women had no legal power as witnesses in a court of law. A woman's testimony was unacceptable. But it is to the women that Jesus first appears. If the story is fabricated, why choose women, whose testimony no one would accept, to be the first witnesses? Instead of being a story concocted by the disciples for their own gain, it appears to be an historical record of what actually took place.
Because no one was left in Mark’s account. The disciples had scattered. Having women find the tomb empty was another rhetorical device – yep, their testimony was unacceptable and they were scared. That fits perfectly with the rest of Mark. It doesn’t look anything like an historical record of what happened. It looks like a piece of literature. Literary devices are spread throughout Mark’s gospel.
But they came to believe that they had witnessed something unique as Jesus appeared to them many times over a period of four days. These experiences had a profound impact on their lives.
Yes, they believed they had seen Jesus risen from the dead and it changed their lives. Whether that really happened is an entirely different matter.
What did the disciples see? Could they have seen a vision that they assumed was the risen Christ?
Possible but very unlikely. Much more likely is that several of them had dreams that Jesus had risen from the dead. Dreams were considered differently in the past than they are now.
It is important to note that the message was preached, not in a remote location where no one could verify the account, but it was preached in Jerusalem where all of these events took place and where the story could have easily been falsified or verified.
No, there is a story that the author of Luke gives us about that being preached in Jerusalem. Luke’s gospel and Acts are highly literary accounts. They are not histories. They are framed like histories, but the accounts themselves are filled with similar themes, and the portrayal of Paul is contradicted by his own letters.
Like many apologists, this guy spends his time assuming the truth of the account, then using the account to prove that it is true; and around and around we go...........................
Anyway sure, no disagreement there - Matthew clearly is modeling his overall structure on Moses - I'll explain what I mean if you are not familiar with the idea - but the reason I wonder if we do have some calumny directed at Mary is the genealogy listed in Matthew, which is a mighty curious thing --- I refer of course to all the women who feature in it...
Still the netbook allows posting...
