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.
Finding Truth 
stupid Christians are going to walk away from this risen movie thinking it’s a documentary.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I guessed that’s what you meant, Powell.
And on a totally different subject, a new series debuted on TV last night – “Lucifer” – it seems that Satan decided he’s had enough and chose to retire in Los Angeles (I would have guessed Las Vegas, but maybe that was too much like home). Lucifer Morningstar, dapper, sophisticated, charming, has a black-feathered angel who keeps popping in to demand that he return to Hell, as things are getting ‘out of balance’. Lucifer also encounters a hot little detective and joins her in the hunt to catch the bad guy, who kills her, but he brings her back to life (also, as an immortal, you can shoot him all day, to no avail). From the teaser at the end, one can infer that he becomes an official police consultant and intends accompanying her to solve crimes. His black-feathered angel thinks he’s being influenced too much by humanity, that he’s going soft. Lucifer can’t stand kids, but the cop has a 6-year old daughter who idolizes him, and you can tell he grudgingly likes her too.
The show has all of the elements for some interesting plot twists and Lucifer gets off some good anti-religious one-liners.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He can drop names till kingdom come, but we will still ask who witnessed the resurrection, who confirmed the fellow had died
LikeLike
Ark,
You’re a good guy. You all are (even the ladies – good guys).
I value each of your insights and enjoy your wittier and sometimes crueler comments as well.
keep on keepin on.
LikeLiked by 3 people
As another off topic contribution, there is an interesting article here where Bob Grundry defends his new book, ‘Peter: False disciple and apostate according to St Matthew’.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/01/25/bob-gundry-responds-to-larry-hurtado/
Once again this scholarship shows the real insight from looking at the Gospels separately and asking why did Matthew change what he did from the earlier Gospel of Mark.
Anyway it makes one think.
LikeLike
Dear skeptic friends. What do you think of this statement:
I am often by Christians that I do not know enough about Christian scholarship to question the historicity of the Resurrection. Here is my response:
I encourage Christians, and persons of other supernatural belief systems, to read both sides of the issue in question, but I warn you of one thing: conservative Christians will NEVER be satisfied with the number of Christian scholars you read UNTIL you finally agree with their position. Christians want you to read STACKS of books written by Christian scholars. Not just one or two, but STACKS. I have read NT Wright’s “The Resurrection of the Son of God”, all 800+ pages, and I have studied the writings of Christian apologists such as Mike Licona and others, but it is never enough. I am always “ignorant” because I haven’t read enough Christian literature.
Let me throw out this suggestion: If any religious person tries to convince you of the central supernatural claim of his or her Faith, such as that God gave Mohammad his “Word” in the form of the Koran while sitting in a cave, or Joseph Smith received God’s new “Word” in the form of the Golden Plates on a farm in upstate New York, or the Buddha ordered a water buffalo to recite the words of a Hindu text in ancient India, or Christians and their claim of the bodily resurrection of Jesus in first century Palestine, tell them this: I’ll give you FIVE minutes to tell me the evidence for your supernatural claim. If within five minutes you convince me that the evidence for your claim is strong, I will read your religion’s scholarly books. If not, I’m not going to waste my time.
Isn’t that reasonable? If Hindus can’t give you strong evidence for a talking water buffalo within five minutes, are you really going to spend hours and hours reading Hindu books to verify their supernatural claim? I doubt it. So why should we demand any less from Christians??
Dear Christians: Give us the evidence for the bodily Resurrection of Jesus in five minutes, and if it is strong, we will read your scholars’ books. But if all you have is hearsay, generalizations, and assumptions, we are not going to waste our time reading a bunch of your religion’s books.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry. “I am often told…”or better yet: “Christians often tell me…”
LikeLike
Why should I read their reading choices, when they ignore mine?
LikeLike
Yeah, I think that’s a pretty reasonable standard, Gary.
LikeLike
Many Christians on Theology Web have accused me of not only using poor logic but also that I am ignorant regarding scholarship on the question of the Resurrection. However, these accusations can easily be shown to be completely bogus.
First, on what issue related to the early Christian belief in the Resurrection of Jesus do I disagree with the majority opinion of scholars? Answer: None. I accept all positions held by the majority opinion of experts regarding the early beliefs, writings, and practices of the early Christians, even (reluctantly), the empty tomb. So how can someone who agrees with majority expert opinion on every issue in question be using poor logic regarding the subject??
Secondly, if I accept the majority expert opinion regarding early Christian beliefs and practices on every issue related to that subject, just as I accept the majority expert opinion on every other subject of Antiquity, why do I need to become an expert myself on early Christianity? Just as I nor the overwhelming majority of educated people feel the need to fully research the beliefs and practices of the Romans and their empire to accept as fact what the majority of historians say about this group of people—we simply accept majority expert opinion on the issue—why then should we do extensive research regarding early Christianity?
Christians won’t admit this but the real reason why Christians are never satisfied with the quantity of research that we skeptics have pursued regarding their belief system is because they will never be satisfied with our knowledge of the “facts” until they have convinced us of the reality of the supernatural…miracles…MAGIC! Until they can convince us that magic is real, that it happens every day, all over the world, due to the supernatural powers of their invisible Bronze Age deity, they know that their evidence on its own is too weak to convince us.
LikeLike