[soc.religion.christian] Attempts to Prove the Resurrection

tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/23/91)

Folks,

    Back shortly after Easter, a person asked about the empty tomb.  How
did we know the body wasn't stolen etc.

    A number of people wrote in suggesting that the heavy Roman guard on
the tomb would have prevented this.  I just finished reading "Evidence
That Requires a Verdict", I found that the author also cites this
argument, (several times actually).

    Mr. Clark (Our "Loyal Opposition") brought to our attention a story
of a Roman guard whose compassion caused him to, (help me on this one if
I get it wrong).  Take a dying man down from a cross, and replace him
with a dead body.

    There's really no need to go beyond the Gospels however...

Matthew 28:11-15
  11 While the women went on their way, some of the soldiers guarding
the tomb went back to the city and told the chief priests everything
that had happened.  12 The chief priests met with the elders and made
their plan; they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers  13 and said,
"You are to say that his disciples came during the night and stole his
body while you were asleep.  14 And if the Govenor should hear of this,
we will convince him that you are innocent, and you will have nothing to
worry about."
  15 The guards took the money and did what they were told to do. And so
that is the report spread around by the Jews to this very day.  (TEV)

    So, these guards by Matthew's account were not above taking a bribe.
This conjures up all sorts of things.  For instance, Pilate, upset with
the way the Council has manipulated Rome in this matter decides to teach
them a lesson.  He goes to the grave, has the guard move the heavy
stone, remove the body, and destroy it.

    So, I don't think we can use the account of the guard, or the
heaviness of the stone as a proof that the body was not removed by
earthly means.

    Here then for me is a stronger indication...

    Let us assume that the resurrection never took place.  Therefore,
everything after the crucifixion is a work of fiction.  Doesn't this
leave a glaring hole in the Gospels?

    There is no resurrection story!  We don't have any account of Jesus
emergence from the grave!  We have no explanation of how the stone was
rolled aside!

    Can you imagine someone freely making up stories about a man who had
been crucified, and then came back to life.  Can you imagine this person
only telling stories about what the man did *after* he had come back to
life?

    Many assume that the dramatic accounts of the crucifixion are works
of fiction, (added for dramatic effect.)  Can you imagine an author
giving the death such a dramatic description, and then not including a
resurrection scene?

    "And then the Earth shook to it's very foundations, and an angel of
the most high appeared, and while a chorus of angels sounded trumpets,
he roled the mighty stone aside.  Jesus, appeared at the door of the
tomb, dressed in a new robe of purest white, and the guards were
frightened almost unto death..."		(TRB)

    Well you get the idea... the resurrection is a central event of the
Christian church.  If the Gospel authors (or the disciples) took such
great liberties with the truth, where is the resurrection account!?

					Tom Blake
					SUNY-Binghamton

MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (05/26/91)

Tom,  The idea that Pilate faked the Resurrection to teach the Jewish
leaders, who had pressured him into approving the Crucifixion, a lesson
doesn't work.  Pilate went along with the Crucifixion because he wanted
to keep things quiet.  A disappearance of the body could only stir up
the people, as indeed it did.  (The people were even more stirred up
by the appearances of Jesus after the Resurrection, and by the working
of the Holy Spirit, but that does not affect the basic point.)  Furthermore,
after Pentecost the Apostles proclaimed the Resurrection of Jesus, causing
a lot of disorder.  If Pilate had moved the body he would then have produced
it to quiet things down.

You are correct in saying that if the Apostles were going to invent a
Resurrection they would probably have described the scene.

Marty Helgesen

lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (05/30/91)

In article <May.26.01.32.03.1991.13252@athos.rutgers.edu> MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet writes:

>Tom,  The idea that Pilate faked the Resurrection to teach the Jewish
>leaders, who had pressured him into approving the Crucifixion, a lesson
>doesn't work.  Pilate went along with the Crucifixion because he wanted
>to keep things quiet.

True enough... Although from what we know of Pilate from other, more reliable
sources, he comes across as just the kind of hard nosed guy who would have 
any messianic pretender killed... It doesn't seem to me that he would be 
forced to do something like crucify Jesus just because the Jews 'pressured'
him into it.  Quite likely this was an embelishment of later Christian writers
who had become more than just a little frustrated with the Jewish community 
who refused to recognize Jesus as Christ, like they did.  Evidence of this 
is plentifull... MANY early Christian writers employed more than their share
of blatant antisemitism in their works.

> A disappearance of the body could only stir up
>the people, as indeed it did. 

Excuse me? Jesus died a relatively obscure figure in history.  Many historians,
and myself, contend that Paul was largely responsible for the foundation of 
the Christian religion.  The death of Christ stirred little... very little
evidence of Jesus can be found outside of the Bible, let alone accounts of his
body disapearing.  
   I believe you overestimate the public response to Jesus during His time,
as many Christians do.  The Bible gives a very utopian model.  In fact, things
aren't really "stirred up" until some 70 odd years later when the Romans finally
destroy the temple... that turned some heads indeed.

>further,
>after Pentecost the Apostles proclaimed the Resurrection of Jesus, causing
>a lot of disorder. If Pilate had moved the body he would then have produced
>it to quiet things down.

Again, absolutely NO evidence of any 'disorder' at all can be found for this
period in history as it relates to Jesus outside the Bible.  As such, I 
doubt Pilate would have any motivation to produce a body to quiet things
down... there was nothing to quiet down.  

Christianity doesn't gain a significant number of adherents until nearly a 
century after his death. 


Jeff Lindborg

mangoe@tove.cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (06/11/91)

Jeff Lindborg writes:

>Many historians, and myself, contend that Paul was largely responsible for
>the foundation of the Christian religion.  The death of Christ stirred
>little...  very little evidence of Jesus can be found outside of the Bible,
>let alone accounts of his body disapearing.

The foundation for "Paulianity" arguments, as I understand it, is the rather
obvious discrepancy between christianity as Paul talks about it and what the
gospels relate Jesus saying.  The comments above are a little strange
considering that there's no extra-scriptural evidence at ALL for Paul, as
far as I know.  I just don't find these "lack of evidence" arguments
compelling, given that one would tend to expect little evidence.

The gospels and the epistles pretty clearly divide up into several lines of
transmission.  The synoptics from one line, ending in Luke, who pretty
clearly has some sort of Pauline connection.  Paul's letters form another.
The Gospel and epistles of John are a third, and tradition (and all
indications) hold these to be separate from the synoptic/pauline line.  The
first letter of Peter seems to arise separately from all of these, and
indeed, its style testifies to a very primitive model.

If you put this all together, I think it shows pretty clearly that Paul is
the inheritor of the apostolic tradition rather than the inventor.
--
C. Wingate        + "How blest are they who have not seen,
                  +  and yet whose faith has constant been,
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  for they eternal life shall win.
tove!mangoe       +  Alleluia!"

[I should note that Paul's letters are earlier than the Gospels, and
have a less complex literary history.  Thus one could argue that where
there are differences (and I think the differences are often
exaggerated), Paul has at least as good a claim to credence.  In fact
I think you can find all the important parts of "Paulianity" in
the other major traditions.  --clh]