Reason's Greetings

unfriendlyatheist:

apologeticsnstuff:

The truth of Christian theism in particular stands or falls on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15 that if Christ did not rise bodily from the dead, the Christian faith is one cruel joke.

Well shit

Liberal critics claim that Christ’s disciples made the whole story up. Conservative critics point to the trustworthiness of the New Testament documents. Who’s right?
By any reasonable standard, the New Testament shines brighter than any other document of antiquity. For example, the earliest biographical accounts of Alexander the Great were written nearly four hundred years after his death; yet historians consider them generally reliable. The Gospels, meanwhile, were written during the lifetime of the original eyewitnesses, long before there was time enough for legends to appear.

Not necessarily. Given the life span of folks in those times, and how the gospels were written in the late 1st or early 2nd century, it’s more likely that most eyewitnesses were gone by then. The earliest Mark and Matthew could have been written were 30/40 years after Jesus’ death, with the latest John and Luke could have been written were 70/80 years after Jesus’ death.

In short, it would not have been easy to invent or distort the historical events of Christ’s life when hostile (and living) eyewitnesses could easily refute the story.

Unlike legendary sighting of JFK or Elvis, which always transpire in far-away places with virtually no reliable eyewitnesses, the disciples proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus in the very city, Jerusalem, where he was crucified. And they did it in front of the same Jewish and Roman leaders who ordered his death (and who could also order theirs)!

Speaking of which, it’s rather suspicious that said Jewish and Roman leaders never wrote about Jesus. It’s especially suspicious that historians at the time from neither- especially the Romans- gave any sort of record of his death or even of Christians’ preaching.

Think about the events described in the gospels. There was an eclipse? An earthquake? A mob harassing Pontius Pilate? The Romans would have taken note, and the Jews as well, especially as these events happened during an important holiday.

It’s hard to imagine anyone taking risks like that unless the tomb was truly empty.

Conjecture.

And what are we to make of the disciples’ transformation? Remember, on the eve of Christ’s crucifixion, they fled in terror.

Now you’re requiring the assumption the same accounts that you are criticizing are correct. Circular logic.

Peter even denied knowing Jesus. Yet just a few weeks later, here they are boldly preaching a resurrected Jesus. How do we account for this remarkable change? The best explanation is that the disciples truly believed they saw the risen Jesus.
Some critics reply that the disciples stole the body of Jesus and created a resurrection hoax. But why should anyone think the disciples capable of pulling off such a stunt?

Occam’s Razor, perhaps? A resurrection of a dead body is the LEAST likely and MOST improbable (if not impossible) explanation.

Given they fled when Jesus was arrested,

Circular logic, again. They fled according to their own accounts.

it’s difficult to imagine them gathering the courage to subdue or bypass the Roman guards posted at the tomb. And what motivation would they have for taking that risk in the first place?

Again, use Occam’s Razor. Certainly you can imagine up some potential motivations? Off the top of my head, what about their desire to spread a religion? That’s most definitely more plausible than a resurrection.

They had nothing to gain and everything to lose. Creating a hoax would bring them persecution and each, not to mention theological damnation for blaspheming their Jewish faith. The evidence for a stolen body simply isn’t there.

Both a stolen body and a resurrected body are conjecture, and nothing else. The stolen body theory is just one out of a limitless number of more likely possibilities. There doesn’t need to be evidence for a stolen body as it is only one possible explanation, there needs to be evidence for a resurrection.

Other critics assert that Jesus never died, that he was merely in a coma and the cool environment of the tomb revived him. This is extremely unlikely.

Agreed.

First, the Romans were experts at killing prisoners with crucifixion.

They also were experts at keeping records.

They had to be. If a soldier failed to kill the prisoner, the penalty was death!

Are you sure? Romans usually left them hanging for days. They weren’t concerned with certain death, it would happen eventually.

Second, a mere man could not survive torture crucifixion, and three days in a tomb with no medical attention.

If indeed he was tortured cruelly before hand.

Third, how could a semi-comatose Jesus, badly in need of medical attention, roll away the heavy stone and overcome the Roman guards?

Who were there according to the text you are criticizing. Circular logic, strike three.

Fourth, even if he did escape the tomb and overwhelm the guards, would the sight of a Jesus badly in need of medical attention convince his disciples that he had gloriously and triumphantly conquered death? 

Strike four? You’re already out. You’re assuming that he did indeed convince said disciples.

Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life (p. 125-126).