Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

[74x12]

With all due respect to my Christian brothers and sisters, why is Christ's Resurrection so fundamental to Christian belief?

It establishes victory over death. Without that we're still in fear of death and thus enslaved to satan who must still have power of death. If Jesus did not rise from the dead then satan's power is not broken.

Jesus raised Lazarus physically from the dead. It's no surprise that He raised Himself.

It also was the victory over sin. This was foreshadowed in the brazen serpent who was "lifted up" in the wilderness. When the people were bitten by a serpent in the wilderness they needed to look at the brazen serpent and they would live. The symbolism here is that the serpents biting the people were their sins which cause death. By looking on Jesus on the cross we admit we're in need of Him being there. Therefore we see our own sins on the cross just as they saw the form of the brazen serpent on the pole in the wilderness. Thus, we repent and are saved through Him. As He said "look unto me all the ends of the earth and be saved" and He said "If I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me".

He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities. Jesus had to die to put sin to death in Himself. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." The resurrection was just as important because by rising again from the dead He rises; but free. The power of sin is broken. It remains put to death. So we, when we are baptized into the body of Christ we are joined with this freedom and are raised a new creation. So He said "Remember ye not the former things, neither consider the things of old. Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert." The rivers in the desert is obviously the holy Spirit and it makes our desert into a garden. The "way" in the wilderness is clearly the Way. Which is Jesus who said "I am the way, the truth and the Life".

So the resurrection is the foundation and the power behind the "new birth"(John 3) of the new Covenant.

 

[Kenny]

Of course by saying making the news, I mean being recorded in history.

Earthquakes, depending on the magnitude, not necessarily recorded as you say. I personally see that it was more likely an earthquake in that the foundation of Jewish belief that was shaken, but it could be both literal and figurative. All those dead people rising from their graves....sounds figurative doesn't it? Through Jesus the blind can see, the mute can speak, and lame can walk, and the dead can live. Not only can they live, but live eternally. If it was literal it makes little sense, and history is silent about an extraordinarily unusual event of epic proportions.



I suppose that's how the Jews felt about many of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled figuratively, such as Jesus in regards Davidic Kingship. He was a spiritual not a worldly King.

Once again, the problem is when we insist the allegorical to be literal and the literal allegorical. It is when humanity clings stubbornly to old ways and is unable to embrace the new, or religious adherents fail to see with their own eyes but through the eyes of others.The word that comes to mind is discernment.

So other than an empty tomb (which isn't a proof of a resurrection) do you have any more 'evidence'?

Yes... I can see how you could apply it allegorically.

As far as evidence... the reality that the resurrection was preached by disciples. It is recorded history by the believers and substantiated (that they preached this superstition) by non believers.

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel should answer some of thes points.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes... I can see how you could apply it allegorically.

As far as evidence... the reality that the resurrection was preached by disciples. It is recorded history by the believers and substantiated (that they preached this superstition) by non believers.

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel should answer some of thes points.

To hear you can see another's POV is the best I can hope for. I see no need to believe in the resurrection literally. The gospel writers were not first hand witnesses to events they wrote about. Their writings in regard the resurrection to me convey the spiritual reality that comes with believing in Christ. I have no problem with your belief in a literal resurrection, though don't share your belief. I'm unlikely to be buying a Christian apologetics book on the resurrection but if you have any any links that you feel represent the conservative Christian perspective, I may be interested. The Christian that has made the most sense to me though is Bart Ehrman.

 

[oldbadger]

However, when a spear is thrust into the side of a person (like Jesus) and the blood has already separated into serum and cells, one can be sure he is dead.

We don't know enough to be sure.
Magdalene the others watched from afar and not from the base of the cross.......... the soldiers would have kicked and beaten anybody away that dared to come too close.

Last October I was speared through the side and a lot of fluid was syringed out of my right lung. Maybe crucifixion could cause such fluids or pleurisy?

Flavius Josephus saved the life of a friend (being crucified) by appealing to the Roman General who had ordered it, and the friend was taken down to survive. It took up to three days to die on a cross which is why this method was used for serious criminals. Jesus would not have died in a few hours, nor did the other two convicts, until their legs were broken so that they could not push up and breath.

 

[Kenny]

We don't know enough to be sure.
Magdalene the others watched from afar and not from the base of the cross.......... the soldiers would have kicked and beaten anybody away that dared to come too close.

Last October I was speared through the side and a lot of fluid was syringed out of my right lung. Maybe crucifixion could cause such fluids or pleurisy?

Flavius Josephus saved the life of a friend (being crucified) by appealing to the Roman General who had ordered it, and the friend was taken down to survive. It took up to three days to die on a cross which is why this method was used for serious criminals. Jesus would not have died in a few hours, nor did the other two convicts, until their legs were broken so that they could not push up and breath.

Yes... fluid came out of your lung, but not separated blood and I can't equate a seringe to a spear. A doctor's view of the death confirms the separation of the blood is translated into death.

But more than that:

The soldiers broke the bones of the other two because they were still alive and could be seen from afar and didn't do it to Jesus because they knew he was dead
Pilate gave the body to Joseph and wouldn't have done that if he knew he was alive
The Pharisees were close enough to know if he was dead and alive. It was them that asked for soldiers to keep the tomb because they knew he was dead
They brough spices to embalm him.. because they knew he was dead
The soldier said he was dead.

It's enough evidence

 

[oldbadger]

Yes... fluid came out of your lung, but not separated blood and I can't equate a seringe to a spear. A doctor's view of the death confirms the separation of the blood is translated into death.

BUt who saw that spear?
John? John was long dead when G-John was written, and the apostle was nowhere near the event in Mark, Matthew or Luke.
The problem is that G-John is so desperate to fulfill prophecies, and that spear just HAD to be mentioned:
{19:34} But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. {19:35} And he that saw [it] bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. {19:36} For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. {19:37} And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

But more than that:
The soldiers broke the bones of the other two because they were still alive and could be seen from afar and didn't do it to Jesus because they knew he was dead
Pilate gave the body to Joseph and wouldn't have done that if he knew he was alive

But Pilate did not want Jesus killed. That is clearly written.

The Pharisees were close enough to know if he was dead and alive. It was them that asked for soldiers to keep the tomb because they knew he was dead
It's enough evidence

Pharisees? ...... or priests?
No.....nobody would have been allowed close.

Ken, obviously any Christian has to believe that Jesus died and resurrected, I accept that, but I just don't think that Jesus died. I still wonder why the Jesus that was executed was first whipped bloody and features distorted in blood by a thorn crown. I still am not sure whether Pilate killed the other Jesus, 'Jesus Son of the Father' Yeshua Barabbas.

 

[Kenny]

BUt who saw that spear?
John? John was long dead when G-John was written, and the apostle was nowhere near the event in Mark, Matthew or Luke.
The problem is that G-John is so desperate to fulfill prophecies, and that spear just HAD to be mentioned:
{19:34} But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. {19:35} And he that saw [it] bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. {19:36} For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. {19:37} And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Yes... there are many interpretations.

But John was there at the crucifixion within earshot of Jesus along with the women... so not so hard to see.

G-John is so chock filled with prophecies that statistically it would be impossible to fulfill... yet it was.

But Pilate did not want Jesus killed. That is clearly written.

History also notes that he was between the rock and the hard spot... he had to order the execution. That is also clearly written in historicity.

Pharisees? ...... or priests?
No.....nobody would have been allowed close.

Thank you... priests. Depends on what you call close. There were in earshot.

Ken, obviously any Christian has to believe that Jesus died and resurrected, I accept that, but I just don't think that Jesus died. I still wonder why the Jesus that was executed was first whipped bloody and features distorted in blood by a thorn crown. I still am not sure whether Pilate killed the other Jesus, 'Jesus Son of the Father' Yeshua Barabbas.

Yes... that is another version.

But I believe

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I would speculate He would have had significant internal injuries, as a result of how he was treated (and beaten) prior to being crucified or part of rough handling nailing Him to the cross. That would account for His relatively quick death. I don't believe He could have recovered from such injuries to be alive again 3 days later.

We put chest tubes in people who need fluid relief. You take the fluid out, and as long as there aren't other complications like infection, you should be fine later. They didn't put in tubes, but they did provide an exit point for the fluid. I suspect he didn't die at all, merely becoming unconscious, resembling death (it's not like they used an EKG or EEG or anything) and then waking up later. It's convenient that Jesus' legs aren't broken and he's buried in a tomb and not a grave. These practically beg for "resurrections". Had he been beheaded like John the Baptist, he wouldn't be coming back, because God can do anything ... except put a head back on, apparently.

However, when a spear is thrust into the side of a person (like Jesus) and the blood has already separated into serum and cells, one can be sure he is dead.

They thought the guy in my link was dead too. Three doctors signed off on it. They were wrong. I'm an RN. I've seen weird things. The patients I have now have completely confused my "death radar".

Of course by saying making the news, I mean being recorded in history.

A doctor's view of the death confirms the separation of the blood is translated into death.

Need a source, I think. That is not part of any definition of clinical death I can think of.

The soldiers broke the bones of the other two because they were still alive and could be seen from afar and didn't do it to Jesus because they knew he was dead

*thought

The soldier said he was dead.

The soldier could be or have worked for the centurion with the healed servant. The ground had been laid for an inside job.

I still wonder why the Jesus that was executed was first whipped bloody and features distorted in blood by a thorn crown.

So that the guy walking around later with way fewer wounds than should be there could say "I'm Jesus, how you doin'?". The apostles had mostly run off by this point and did not attend, so the fact "Jesus" comes back not looking like hamburger meat wouldn't have surprised them. They would have expected holes from the crucifixion, but those are easily done and aren't lethal to anyone unless you accidentally hit an artery or something. I think Jesus didn't really die, woke up after a horrible three days in the tomb "ICU", so to speak, ran off, leaving a look alike in charge for awhile who was ... Venom Snake - Wikipedia

lol

 

[oldbadger]

But John was there at the crucifixion within earshot of Jesus along with the women... so not so hard to see.

The disciples legged it at the arrest, and only Magdalene, Salome and some other women had the guts to attend and watch 'from afar', so even if John had dressed as a female and stood with the girls, he watched 'from afar'.

History also notes that he was between the rock and the hard spot... he had to order the execution. That is also clearly written in historicity.

Ah, yes, so what would we have done in such a corner? I might have appeared as if to agree to killing the one Jesus who had pleased me greatly by causing so much embarrassment to those irritating aggravating priests, but then had that murdering, rioting insurrectionist Jesus (son of the father) who had caused me so much expense, difficulty etc and whipped him until his features were distorted, and then had him nailed up to a cross.

Yes... that is another version.

But I believe

That's cool.
No probs.
Some of my close friends are strong believers.
They know I'm a heathen.

 

[Kenny]

Need a source, I think. That is not part of any definition of clinical death I can think of.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/deathjesus.pdf


William D. Edwards, MD; Wesley J. Gabel, MDiv; Floyd E. Hosmer, MS, AMI

 

[Kenny]

The disciples legged it at the arrest, and only Magdalene, Salome and some other women had the guts to attend and watch 'from afar', so even if John had dressed as a female and stood with the girls, he watched 'from afar'.

The "legged" moment "D was the night before and John and Peter followed later that night. So... since it was the next day all things are on the table.

John 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

So, rather than create a new story... close enough to speak to both mom and John

Ah, yes, so what would we have done in such a corner? I might have appeared as if to agree to killing the one Jesus who had pleased me greatly by causing so much embarrassment to those irritating aggravating priests, but then had that murdering, rioting insurrectionist Jesus (son of the father) who had caused me so much expense, difficulty etc and whipped him until his features were distorted, and then had him nailed up to a cross.

There you got it! Took me a while... but we got it!

That's cool.
No probs.
Some of my close friends are strong believers.
They know I'm a heathen.

Well... you are loveable!

 

[metis]

Well... you are loveable!

I got competition?

 

[RabbiO]

I got competition?

Ken wasn't voting for a contestant in the extremely senior division.

 

[oldbadger]

Ken wasn't voting for a contestant in the extremely senior division.

True........
Did you get his vote?

 

[Truthseeker]

Note that the Gospels give details that contradict each other. This is as if they are symbolic accounts that differ in their details. For instance in one Gospel Jesus first appears to the disciples in Jerusalem and in another He first appears in Galilee.

 

[Dawnofhope]

We put chest tubes in people who need fluid relief. You take the fluid out, and as long as there aren't other complications like infection, you should be fine later. They didn't put in tubes, but they did provide an exit point for the fluid. I suspect he didn't die at all, merely becoming unconscious, resembling death (it's not like they used an EKG or EEG or anything) and then waking up later. It's convenient that Jesus' legs aren't broken and he's buried in a tomb and not a grave. These practically beg for "resurrections". Had he been beheaded like John the Baptist, he wouldn't be coming back, because God can do anything ... except put a head back on, apparently.

Cool, so you're an RN. I'm a GP. I've been reading a little about the history of medicine. I can't see treatment of a haemothorax or ruptured organ (s) of the abdominal cavity an easy option two thousand years ago, but I could be wrong.

Maybe the Roman's had second thoughts after he died and took him to one of those Roman hospitals to have a state of the art Roman procedure performed.

Surgical Instruments from Ancient Rome - Ancient Roman Surgical Instruments

You're right about the ECG though. Not too many of those around in Roman times.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

We put chest tubes in people who need fluid relief. You take the fluid out, and as long as there aren't other complications like infection, you should be fine later. They didn't put in tubes, but they did provide an exit point for the fluid. I suspect he didn't die at all, merely becoming unconscious, resembling death (it's not like they used an EKG or EEG or anything) and then waking up later. It's convenient that Jesus' legs aren't broken and he's buried in a tomb and not a grave. These practically beg for "resurrections". Had he been beheaded like John the Baptist, he wouldn't be coming back, because God can do anything ... except put a head back on, apparently.

The problem with the fluid is that it compresses the lung preventing breathing. A hole in the chest lets the fluid out but breaks the seal so that air pressure will now prevent breathing. Chest tubes and the related machines that are used to keep the chest cavity drained are sealed systems that keep the chest cavity isolated from the outside.

Adrian please review and comment.

 

[dfnj]

Because we like zombies!

People sure worship the words to the point where they are like little idols. People idol worship the words in the Bible. I'm not sure being a fan of religion is the same thing has having a religion.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The problem with the fluid is that it compresses the lung preventing breathing.

That is true to some extent, depending on how much fluid. It must have been a lot of fluid to have resulted in death. There would have been considerable force used with a spear or sharp implement to penetrated the thoracic cavity as there are the twelve ribs. When a drain is inserted, it is placed between the ribs, but then takes 15 - 30 minutes to drain the fluid. If the hole had been larger smashing through ribs then this would have created a serious injury in its own right, as well as the internal injury that had led to the haemothorax.

A hole in the chest lets the fluid out but breaks the seal so that air pressure will now prevent breathing.

Chest tubes and the related machines that are used to keep the chest cavity drained are sealed systems that keep the chest cavity isolated from the outside.

You may be thinking about a pneumothorax rather than haemothorax which is different and the seal is not necessary, though desirable.

While its theoretically possibly Christ sustained a haemothorax that led to his apparent death, its highly unlikely but not impossible that a penetrative injury due to a spear could have drained some of the fluid.

If we follow this line of reasoning we are making a similar error to Christians who try to use an empty tomb to justify a literal resurrection. Its much more likely He died, and a resurrection narrative developed as a result of the apostles teaching to a Greco-Roman audience that later became part of the gospels. That is Bart Ehrman's view and it makes the most sense from a rational and scientific perspective, even accounting for an Omnipotent God.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

That is true to some extent, depending on how much fluid. It must have been a lot of fluid to have resulted in death. There would have been considerable force used with a spear or sharp implement to penetrated the thoracic cavity as there are the twelve ribs. When a drain is inserted, it is placed between the ribs, but then takes 15 - 30 minutes to drain the fluid. If the hole had been larger smashing through ribs then this would have created a serious injury in its own right, as well as the internal injury that had led to the haemothorax.

You may be thinking about a pneumothorax rather than haemothorax which is different and the seal is not necessary, though desirable.

While its theoretically possibly Christ sustained a haemothorax that led to his apparent death, its highly unlikely but not impossible that a penetrative injury due to a spear could have drained some of the fluid.

If we follow this line of reasoning we are making a similar error to Christians who try to use an empty tomb to justify a literal resurrection. Its much more likely He died, and a resurrection narrative developed as a result of the apostles teaching to a Greco-Roman audience that later became part of the gospels. That is Bart Ehrman's view and it makes the most sense from a rational and scientific perspective, even accounting for an Omnipotent God.

Thanks for the education. And I was thinking of a pneumothorax.

In the original ending of Mark, nobody ever sees the risen Jesus. Just an empty tomb and someone claiming a resurrection. This sounds like it could be a real event and the origin of the whole story. I do not see Ehrman's proposition as very likely. Over time I have become less and less enchanted with Ehrman.The claim of a resurrection was widely known before Paul started writing since he never needs to tell the story, just refer to it. I see the story as having very early roots, like right there on Sunday morning.

I see Matthew as recognizing the essential feebleness of Mark's narrative and going to extremes to cover for it. But no time to detail this right now. Maybe later.