Historicity of the Resurrection?

A thought experiment – let’s assume Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus as historical fact, and we were able to install a video camera in front of the grave. What’s on tape at the alleged time of the “historical resurrection”? (After “3” days)

Here’s our camera view:

 

tomb-stone

Please feel free to script what’s on camera in your own words.

My version: There is nothing on tape to be seen, no change at all.



Categories: Bible, Christianity

54 replies

  1. Agreed: There is nothing on tape to be seen, no change at all.

    Paul said he too saw the resurrected Jesus just as the apostles had done, but he characterised it as a “vision” of Jesus (Acts 26:19). Very telling.

    Like

    • So you believe they all saw visions of Jesus?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes. In the telling, the stories became progressively embellished till we end up with the physical resurrection appearances we see in Luke and John towards the end of the first century, over 50 years after Jesus lived.

      Like

    • Paul, the problem with that theory is that the earliest oral sources we have (e.g 1 Cor 15) affirm the resurrection and are dated to only months after the fact according to scholarship. If we are generous, it is still within a year or two.

      So a progressive embellishment theory doesn’t fit with the evidence scholars have and what is recorded in the gospels is consistent with oral creeds.

      Like

    • Paul said he too saw the resurrected Jesus just as the apostles had done, but he characterised it as a “vision” of Jesus (Acts 26:19). Very telling.

      Paul’s account is by far the earliest eye-witness account in the NT. It does not suggest a bodily resurrection of Jesus.

      Like

    • How is that relevant to my point? I’m talking about the earliest oral creeds that scholars date to within a few months or at worse years from the event in question, which affirm a bodily resurrection.

      Whether or notPaul’s personal vision was spiritual or not is completely irrelevant at this point. The oral creeds are pre Pauline. Even the most sceptical of scholars agree with me because it is absolutely true.

      “The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” — Robert Funk co-founder of the Jesus Seminar.(13)

      Your claim that the stories were imbellished until 50 years after the event is contrary to evidence and scholarly consensus.

      So to return to the point- the bodily resurrection was pre Pauline and has its roots to possibly within months and at worst a few years after the event.

      Like

    • Paulus

      “scholars date to within a few months or at worse years from the event in question, which affirm a bodily resurrection.”

      I wonder why you distort and try to construct a scholarly consensus on a “bodily” resurrection?

      I would argue most mainstream scholars would have no problem to admit there was nothing to be seen on that alleged video camera.

      Like

  2. Of course you have to make this claim Paul. If Jesus Christ rose again then Islam is a fraud. Here’s the challenge. Read the Gospels with an open heart and pray for God to show you the truth.

    Like

    • The challenge is what’s on your tape. Come on don’t be shy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • This is both a ridiculous and facetious debate. There were no videos of the Battle of Hastings, of the Spanish Armada, of the English Civil War and 1,000 other historic events. We believe they happened because of the weight of historical evidence. On that basis I would suggest there is more historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Christ than there is for the life of Mohammed. That’s does not mean I believe that was not a man called Mohammed who resisted the idolatry of his day in Mecca. There clearly was, but where are the photographs? Now I am being as ridiculous as you are.

      Like

    • FFTS

      I have done all that thanks. Now I’m Muslim.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Food for the soul wrote: “If Jesus Christ rose again then Islam is a fraud.”

    If Jesus rose again, he will say “I never knew thee” and he will then affirm that Islam is the Truth!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Just to be clear, it is questionable and unproven that he arose the first time, let alone “again.”

      Alhmadullah!!! We Muslims can look forward to his second coming with full confidence in Islamic belief.

      Like

  4. he was a spirit.. so the stones didnt have to be moved

    Liked by 1 person

    • Prashant,
      A “spiritual” resurrection would make no sense, as the spirit doesn’t die and therefore cannot be resurrected. Christ clearly told His disciples it was His body that was resurrected: “A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” Luke 24:39. If there is no bodily resurrection of Jesus, then Christianity offers nothing of value to the world which is already contained in other faith religions, for as apostle Paul said, “our faith would be “useless” and the life-giving power of the gospel would be altogether eliminated.” Unfortunately, The Bodily resurrection cannot be proven beyond doubt.

      IF the Biblical accounts of the Disciples having seen Jesus post crucifixion can be trusted at all, then I agree with Paul, Burhanuddin, and Dr. Bart Erhman – the Disciples most likely were deluded by their extreme love for Prophet Jesus, and therefore saw a vision of him, or claimed to see a vision…….and the stone was not moved.

      Like

    • …which is NOT already contained….

      Like

  5. For Christians information, we believe that Allah resurrected some of men from the death, yet we don’t consider those men as gods!
    Death and resurrection of Jesus don’t prove that christianity is true!
    Also, we believe that Jesus( will) die and (will) resurrect, so what?

    Like

  6. Prashant Thomas,
    If Christ was a spirit and there was no bodily resurrection, then doesn’t that negate Christian doctrine? Isn’t that what resurrection means – returning from the dead? If Christ’s body was not resurrected from the dead, then you have no Savior, no salvation, and no hope of eternal life according to Christian belief. If there is no bodily resurrection, the apostle Paul said, “our faith would be “useless” and the life-giving power of the gospel would be altogether eliminated.”

    If you don’t believe in the bodily resurrection, then you might as well accept Islam…because either way we still have a savior in Almighty God Allah!!

    Like

  7. Is there any tape of mohammed splitting the moon in half? Or at the very least some contemporary eye-witness accounts from any civilization in the region who must have noticed it happening?

    Like

  8. “Yes. In the telling, the stories became progressively embellished till we end up with the physical resurrection appearances we see in Luke and John towards the end of the first century, over 50 years after Jesus lived.”

    I bet that only took a few moments for you to write. How I wish God would have dedicated just a few more moments of His time in the Quran to let Christians know this.
    Would have saved us a hell of a lot of trouble [pun intended ;)]

    On a more serious note though. Does that really satisfy you? I feel like it only leads to more questions than answers, especially for Islam. I mean if you believe they all saw visions, are you then acknowledging that Jesus did die or are you suggesting that he ascended as the Quran says? If so, did do you believe he ascended bodily or spiritually? Got way more questions because things make less sense, especially hearing or reading from the Quran that it is Jesus’ followers who were made superior over disbelievers.

    Like

    • the Quran is was not written to satisfy our endless curiosity about Jesus’ life. It is about telling us how to get to paradise and avoid hell.

      Like

    • Paul

      Why is the quran (the supposed word of god) reliant on the hadiths written and probably highly embellished by men hundreds of years after mohammed’s death to tell muslims how allah wants them to practice his religion?

      Why doesn’t the quran teach these things?

      Like

    • The Quran tells us to obey God and obey his prophet. Muhammad gives more practical detail about prayer, fasting etc. Quran plus sunnah.

      Why do you say the hadiths were written “hundreds of years after mohammed’s death”?

      Like

    • Trey, it is obvious that you are an insecure Christian and your convictions rely on the extent to which other religions can be proven false.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “the Quran is was not written to satisfy our endless curiosity about Jesus’ life. It is about telling us how to get to paradise and avoid hell.”

      You’d think that on this one very important matter and potentially most dividing point of all for Christians and Muslims, that Allah would have taken extra care as He had done so with other Quranic passages to clarify this once and for all for Christians. Surah 18 was apparently revealed because some Jewish rabbi’s had questions for Muhammad. Their curiosity is assumed to have been satisfied.

      Like

    • Paul Williams

      “The Quran tells us to obey God and obey his prophet. Muhammad gives more practical detail about prayer, fasting etc. Quran plus sunnah.”

      Exactly. Muslims submit to a human being because allah gave little instruction on how to go about worshiping him. THis is why muslims practice pagan rituals – allah never revealed these practices to mohammed, they were taken from pagans.

      “Why do you say the hadiths were written “hundreds of years after mohammed’s death”?

      Because they were written down hundreds of years after the death of mohammed by bukhari and Mulsim, and almost zero manuscripts from before that time exist. They have historical credibility whatsoever.

      Like

    • There are extant hadith collections by people much earlier than Bukhari, for example the Muwatta by Imam Malik (711–795 CE)

      Like

    • Paul

      LOL.

      The earliest source is over 100 years after mohammed’s death? But this exposes one of the problems of the bukhari and muslim “sahih” hadith. THese much, much later collections (of which we have no manuscripts dating from their lifetimes, but rather hundreds of years after their deaths) have at least 3-4 times as many hadith verses.

      This inflation of “stories” renders their authenticity as doubtful – as time passes there should be fewer first hand sources, not more. So it is highly likely that bukhari and muslim are heavily redacted and embellished by unknown authors.

      Like

    • You might like to look into the methodology employed by Imam Malik: the way he collected his hadith, the care he took to ensure that the reported sayings came from reliable sources (companions of the prophet himself). His collection is seen as authentic and reliable by experts in the field.

      Bukhari and Muslim used these hadith in the formation of their own collections. Your mockery is unscholarly and juvenile.

      Like

    • Paul

      LOL. Sorry, but I have to laugh!

      You think that using words like “methodology” makes your claims sound scholarly – that’s funny. You’re only fooling other gullible muslims.

      The earliest Muwatta manuscript dates from around 180 years after hijra – and that is a solitary piece of papyrus with a huge chunk missing. The earliest complete Muwatta? Hundreds of years after mohammed died.

      So again, the hadith have as much historical credibility as Alice In Wonderland.

      Like

    • LOL you claim:

      “The earliest Muwatta manuscript dates from around 180 years after hijra – and that is a solitary piece of papyrus with a huge chunk missing.”

      We require evidence rather than mere assertion.

      While we are about it here is a test for you:

      what is the oldest complete copy of the New Testament in existence?

      Like

    • Paul

      Change the subject why don’t you. Why don’t you want to talk about the lack of historical credibility of the hadith? Even Muwatta does not show up in complete form until centuries after mohammed, and there are scant manuscript fragments to prove its authenticity.

      Like

    • are you serious? I asked you to back up your claim (you have so far failed to do this) AND tell me the date of the earliest complete NT manuscript.

      I am entitled to ask you questions too.

      Like

  9. “Why do you say the hadiths were written “hundreds of years after mohammed’s death”?”

    I assume he’s saying that because Bukhari and Muslim were born in the 9th century. They would have written the hadiths at least 200 years after Muhammad died.

    Like

  10. “Paul’s account is by far the earliest eye-witness account in the NT. It does not suggest a bodily resurrection of Jesus.” paul

    “She thought it was the gardener and said to him, “Sir, if you carried him away, tell me where you laid him, and I will take him.” Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabboni,” which means Teacher. Jesus said to her, “Stop holding onto me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father.”

    Telling that a woman would be the first to see Him upon his emergence from the grave. Women were there at the end, too, while the rugged fishermen had fled out of fear. IMO, no one did or could have composed such an honest, touching, real-life scene as Mary here in real time discovering her Lord was alive. And who in a million years would have thought to include Jesus’ mild rebuke to her as well? The ring of truth permeates the account with a freshness and innocence that moves the heart.

    On that tape, I see in vivid grayness, shrouded in shadows, a small, self-effacing, determined young lady overcome with joy unspeakable the moment the miracle strikes her awareness. HE’S ALIVE

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you Hank for your own personal video take. Is it really like a hollywood fiction movie scene? Music?

      Maybe I should be more specific. At the moment of the alleged bodily resurrection. Before the women arrive. We have a nighttime HD camera, or the scene is lightened, so that we have the actual factual historic recording.The grave is still closed. What’s on your tape?

      You have the ability to deliver creative prose, as you demonstrate again and again in your comments over and over. Try your creativity concerning hard historic facts. No?

      Like

  11. There are many problems with Jesus’ resurrection, not just the for Gospels that contradictory record this ambiguous event. If it can be demonstrated from the Gospels that Jesus did not actually die on the cross that logical support the view that Jesus’ tomb was tampered with human fingerprints everywhere because somebody rolled away the stone and took Jesus’ body to be resuscitate, which could’ve been the same person who temporarily buried him according to Jewish law. Joseph used healing spices and medical substances to cover Jesus’ wounds which suggestive implies he believed Jesus was alive. The angels are later embellishments to the Gospel story and without them we only have a suspiciously rolled away stone without any eyewitnesses. In contrast, we have multiple eyewitnesses to the Prophet’s miracles found in the authentic hadith. Mikel Licona admitted in his debate with Shabir Ally on this topic that the angels at the tomb, just like the zombie apocalypse, is a later embellishment to the story. In the original story there were no angels but somebody moved the stone to allow Jesus to escape and revive him back to consciousness. This would explain the discarded burial clothez left behind at the sepulcher, which is only necessary for a humanly restored body, not necessary for a body that has been glorified and resurrected with an cosmic imperishable body from heaven. Jesus changed into the gardeners clothes to avoid detection because he never died in the first place and deliberately avoided the public atmosphere. If Jesus really had the power to pass through walls, why did he need the stone rolled away? Therefore the power to pass through solid rock and disappear must be later embellishment too. Probably the whole empty tomb story is later invention by the Church to combat those claiming a spiritual event. From a logical view, if Jesus really conquered death why didn’t he knock on the Pilate’s door and show himself publicly. This would support the Quranic view that Jesus never died and never incurred God’s wrath by hanging dead from God’s curse (Deut 21:23, Gal 3:13) so the Quran saves Jesus from a false Messiahship. It is interesting that Paul nowhere mentions the empty tomb and his account doesn’t actually support the later Gospel physical narratives. God could’ve easily assumed Jesus alive into heaven without dying from the grave and the disciples only suffered vision. Finally the Gospels themselves are unreliable documents that cannot be accepted.

    Like

    • “This would support the Quranic view that Jesus never died and never incurred God’s wrath by hanging dead from God’s curse (Deut 21:23, Gal 3:13) so the Quran saves Jesus from a false Messiahship”

      Extremely poor reasoning. Extremely poor.

      The quranic view is that jesus was condemned by the “jews” and was about to be crucified but was saved by allah and somehow it was made to seem as though he had been crucified. Nothing in what you wrote supports this view in the least.

      Like

    • “If Jesus really had the power to pass through walls, why did he need the stone rolled away?”

      Where do you find support for your opinion that he needed someone to roll away the stone?

      Like

  12. Neither the death nor the ressurection prove Christianity to be true.
    As muslims we believe firmly that Jesus ( will ) die and ( will ) be resurrected. These events by themselves don’t mean that Jesus is divine nor did he die for our sin .

    Like

    • What do you believe his death and resurrection signify?

      Like

    • Hank,
      You may have missed a key word in Abdullahs comment…(will).

      I think that Jesus death and resurrection WILL eventually signify that all men will die, then be resurrected to stand before Almighty God Allah to be judged. Yes, that includes you good Christians who think you are already saved and have a free rapture ticket out of Judgment. You are in for a surprise!!! 🙂

      Like

  13. “You might like to look into the methodology employed by Imam Malik: the way he collected his hadith, the care he took to ensure that the reported sayings came from reliable sources (companions of the prophet himself). His collection is seen as authentic and reliable by experts in the field.

    Bukhari and Muslim used these hadith in the formation of their own collections. Your mockery is unscholarly and juvenile.”

    That’s interesting because Luke begins his gospel by mentioning that he took extra care to ensure that his information was accurate and reliable.
    Also many scholars agree that Matthew and Luke used Mark or another source to form their own collections.

    So it’s ok for the hadiths to have been collected at least one hundred years after Muhammad and his companions were dead (the companions would have been dead by the time Malik was born), and then to be recollected again 200 years later by 2 individuals using the first one as a source for their own collection.
    Why is it that you accept these things about the hadiths but refuse to apply that same level of logic to the gospels (who all mention the resurrection as a real event)?

    Like

    • Oops,
      I understand the point you are trying to make, However, the difference is that unlike Luke, Imam Maliik not only reported that the sayings in his collection came from reliable sources, he actually assured that his claim could be verified down through the ages through Usul al-Hadeeth and the measureable criteria of Isnad. Luke just made the claim but did not back it up.

      Furthermore, we know who Imam Malik is, his character and trustworthiness….but who is Luke? we don’t even know who the real author of Luke is.

      Most importantly, the Hadeeth are a secondary source, while the Gospels are Primary source for Christianity, which would not have even been accepted (or only accepted as extremely weak) according to Islamic standards.

      Hope that helps clarify

      Like

    • Ibn Issam,
      Hmm fair point. But how do you know for sure that Luke did not back up his claims? There is accurate information available to see in his gospel.
      Considering the time period was 1st century, it’s hard to know who anyone was in that time really. And the gospel author’s goal was to focus more on Jesus and his mission rather than themselves.

      Like

    • Oops,
      There may be accurate information in a Hadith, but if the Isnad is not trustworthy, we cannot trust the Hadith in its entirety and we don’t accept it Sahih. It would be considered weak or some other lesser classification. This helps to guard against accepting other information that may be in the same hadith that is inaccurate, or at least causes us to question its veracity.

      So, yes, Luke may contain some accurate info, but it may also contain much that is inaccurate as well, I think this is recognized by Biblical scholars, and it is also why there is so much debate among them as to what exactly is the true historical story in regard to the Gospel of Luke in comparison with the other Gospels.

      Again, the author of Luke did not identify himself, so we cannot know his credibility. I agree with you that it is hard to know who anyone is in the 1st century, and this problem with reliability was probably recognized by many in the centuries that followed. In fact I think that early Muslims may have been familiar with the problems that Christians and Jews had experienced, previously and this may have been part of the reason that they developed the sciences of Hadeeth and Isnad, in order to avoid the same problems.

      In regard to the gospel author’s goal being to focus more on Jesus and his mission rather than themselves, this may have been true as well. However, I do not think that this would imply that the early Muslim transmitters of Hadeeth were focusing on themselves either. Similar to the author of Luke, theses Muslims were focused on relaying accurate information about their own Prophet (Muhammad) albeit in a more reliable way which could be cross checked and verified by others.
      Such a process was absolutely necessary in an ancient world with out video tape, TV, and other recording devices, etc. I think the Muslims recognized the problem, and developed a system to not only record the information but to separate accurate information from what is inaccurate.

      I only wish the early followers of Jesus would have done the same. If they had, I think that the Christian doctrines that are not really in line with Judaism and Islam would never have developed, and the three Abrahamic faiths would have been much closer in belief than they are now. It would have been much easier to more clearly see the straight path of Islam as the continuation of the progressive revelatory message, without the muddy waters created by a very errant and unreliable Bible.

      Like

    • I’m curious, what do you do when you come across a reliable Hadith with inaccurate information?
      There are many hadiths out there with stories that sound really ridiculous yet are considered reliable. Did Muhammad really say those things in your opinion? (Serious question)

      In terms of Luke I see your point. I hope new findings can shed light on these questions.

      Like

  14. Oops said: Would have saved us a hell of a lot of trouble [pun intended ;)]

    LOL I just got it!

    Like

  15. Luke 24:39
    Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

    Liked by 1 person

  16. “Neither the death nor the ressurection prove Christianity to be true.” Abdullah

    He repeatedly told everyone that he would rise again after he was murdered. Followers were continuously mystified by those words. The guys who were really into Him became a shriveled up band of nervous, fearful, defeated boobs. Then, he began to appear to them, out of the blue. He walked along side them, listening to their concerns. He plopped down in their midst. On a lonely beach He suggests that they fish in a different spot and he even put foreign languages in their mouths to declare the gospel to others who had gathered from around the world and boom, the explosion occurred, and its sparks ignited a flame that became a fire that swept across the world and burns brightly to this day.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: