Agnosticism, Atheism, Bible History, Bible Study, Christianity, God, Historical Jesus, Religion, Truth

Jewish Disciples Wouldn’t Have Created the Idea of the Resurrection, So It Must Have Really Happened… Right?

Nate

If you’ve discussed the resurrection with Christians before, then you’re probably familiar with the above argument. Since first century Jews didn’t believe in a bodily resurrection like Jesus’s, then they’re no way the disciples would have believed it without actually witnessing it for themselves. William Lane Craig has used this argument several times:

He made the case again in a 2005 debate at California State University. At the 29 minute mark, he says that Jews like the Pharisees believed in a resurrection that would happen to everyone at the end of time. They never believed that an individual could have a bodily resurrection within the course of human history.

But recently, while I was reading Crossan’s The Historical Jesus, he pointed out something that I hadn’t thought of before. It turns out that there are a couple of New Testament passages that really throw a wrench in Craig’s claim. For instance, Mark 6:14-16 says:

King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known. Some said, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.” But others said, “He is Elijah.” And others said, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.”

Here, we have a number of people who are ready to believe that Jesus is actually a resurrected John the Baptist, Elijah, or some other prophet from antiquity. And we find similar passages in both Matthew and Luke as well. So now we have a problem. Either Craig’s argument is totally false, and the idea of a bodily resurrection from the dead is something that people in Jesus’s time were ready to believe with virtually no evidence, or the writers of the synoptic gospels were lying or mistaken. Either way, it illustrates how an actual resurrection is the least likely explanation for the resurrection story.

If you’d like to read about other issues with the resurrection, you can check out this article.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

110 thoughts on “Jewish Disciples Wouldn’t Have Created the Idea of the Resurrection, So It Must Have Really Happened… Right?”

  1. That’s a lot of information, Powell – I’m going to have to read some more of his stuff, he doesn’t seem to pull any punches. Thanks for the intro.

    Like

  2. @Arch

    Glad you like it!

    From the brief reading I have regarding other articles, it seems that this is actually a Christian website or that’s how I see it.

    Interesting to see one of their contributors whacking the core tenet of Christianity.

    Like

  3. Ark, nate may be one of the few truly good people left – if he wants to advocate for courtesy and wants to be long-suffering and gracious, maybe we shouldn’t discourage him.

    He actually seems to do a better job of exuding the christian virtues better than most christians. We may need more like him rather than less.

    Like

  4. Pingback: 25 January 2016 Religion and Atheism News | Evangelically Atheist

  5. Hi Powell,

    Yes, that was me…fighting the fight of debunking supernaturalism on as many Christian blogs as I can.

    🙂

    Gary

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Ark, nate may be one of the few truly good people left – if he wants to advocate for courtesy and wants to be long-suffering and gracious, maybe we shouldn’t discourage him.

    Agreed, he is one of the few nice guys left. And because he doesn’t wish to offend unklee , even though his arguments are somewhat suggestive of a condescending rude individual, I for one don’t mind taking his arguments to task and exposing them for what they are: absolute crap.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. He actually seems to do a better job of exuding the christian virtues better than most christians. We may need more like him rather than less.

    For flipping heck’s sake, William, are you serious?
    That is really cruel to suggest Nate has ”Christian virtues”.

    I don’t thin k you actually thought this statement through, did you?

    Maybe an apology to Nate is due?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I don’t know about you people, but in my village whenever a person has ended up in a morgue for the wrong reasons and wakes up from their death like slumber, people run away, it is a news story. To tell me back in the day it was common place for people to resurrect and everyone goes on with their business is to bullshit me.

    And when we start wasting time on this minimal facts business, I wonder what others have smoked. No one witnessed a resurrection. No one. All we have in the bible is so and so said they heard so and so say.

    Someone should read about the early church and their beliefs in healing and resurrections. You will be amazed.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. “Someone should read about the early church and their beliefs in healing and resurrections. You will be amazed.”

    I’ll go you one better than that, Mak – apply that sponge-like brain of yours to reading stories in church history about “incorruptible” corpses – bodies of certain church officials which, due to the purity of the individual during life (according to the church), their bodies didn’t decay after death – while you’re there, read about all of the behind-the-scenes bizarre means employed to make that appear to be happening!

    Liked by 1 person

  12. They listen because he makes like he actually knows something by dropping names and referencing various sources to “support” his views. Any politician does the same.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. Unkle E can reference scholar after scholar but not one of them can provide any evidence of a “resurrection”. No one witnessed the body in question come back to life. No one witnessed this body exit his tomb. All these scholars can do is try to convince us that people living 20 centuries ago sincerely BELIEVED that they had seen a resurrected body.

    So the only evidence that Christian scholars have regarding this alleged event are claims of post-death appearances to grieving relatives and friends by the dead person. And each year, probably since the beginning of time, thousands of grieving humans have claimed to see their dead loved ones and friends. How many Christians believe such claims? Probably not many. So why on earth do they believe ONE claim, about ONE dead man, who lived and died several thousand years ago??

    It makes no sense whatsoever.

    What about Paul? He wasn’t a friend or relative, yet he believed. Answer: Paul specifically states he “saw” Jesus in a “vision”. Visions are not reality. There are numerous natural, much more probable explanations for Paul’s very odd conversion than that he really did see a resurrected dead body.

    It
    is
    one
    big
    tall
    tale.

    Liked by 4 people

  14. According to Acts (not Paul) all he really saw was a bright light. His only indication that it was Jesus was a phantom “voice” (most likely in his head) that identified itself.

    Of course, there’s also the question of the guards that were with him. Some translations say the guards heard the voice but didn’t see the light; others say they saw the light but didn’t hear the voice. Hmmm. Who are we to believe?

    Plus, something many don’t realize is this “heavenly” event supposedly took place THREE years after Jesus’ heavenly ascent. I’ve always wondered why he waited so long if spreading the word to the Gentiles was so important.

    But who am I to question such sacred facts?

    Liked by 4 people

  17. i’m sure we all agree that Nate is a nice, civil guy. good job, Nate.

    and I think we all can agree that Ark is absolutely correct in putting Unklee and all those other bullshitters in their place.
    Personally, I love it.
    Ark is an artist with his words as much as he is with his camera.
    good job, Ark.

    Like

  22. Are you freakin’ believing this?!!!

    Judge Orders Kentucky To Give Millions In Subsidies To Creationist Amusement Park

    The state of Kentucky must give millions of dollars in tax subsidies to a Noah’s Ark theme park owned by a creationist ministry, even though that ministry refuses to comply with the state’s request not to engage in hiring discrimination, according to an opinion by a George W. Bush appointee to the federal bench …[read more – http://thinkprogress.org/health/2016/01/25/3742625/documents-michigan-contradict-flint-narrative-snyder/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tptop3&utm_term=1&utm_content=52&elq=505a0cc81e6244479a86c95c2bb773d6&elqCampaignId=4880&elqaid=28912&elqat=1&elqTrackId=13bacc82b5d64d69bc3c14a9161ff26e%5D

    Liked by 1 person

  23. @Arch,

    I don’t think this is the end of it – the judge ruled that ARC can apply for subsidies, but it’s still up to the City Council to determine if they approve the subsidies.

    Previously they didn’t allow ARC to apply for it even.

    Like

  25. oh, I won’t be going to see it either. lol.

    speaking of the ark:
    two days ago I watched “noah” with russell crowe. OMG, it was ridiculous. more than half of the movie wasn’t even in the bible.
    I at least thought with modern movie technology they would have an amazing scene with all of the animals, but no, it took less than 2 minutes for all of the animals to come running in so fast and then they all laid down and went to sleep for the whole cruise. ridiculous.
    also, the fallen angels, who were giant rock creatures, built the ark. ???????
    and there was an evil stowaway that tried to kill Noah. ??????
    and noah’s daughter in law gave birth to twins girls and noah was going to kill them?????

    Like

Leave a comment