Jesus Was Probably Resurrected By God

As I will demonstrate, his proposed challenges fail to undermine the aforementioned facts. -The Burial Of Jesus- Con is right in perceiving that Fact#1 is part of a cumulative case towards the resolution "God probably raised Jesus from the dead. " As such, it does not undermine my argument to say: "People get buried all the time, so this fact alone does nothing to warrant any supernatural claim. " It is simply not my claim that "this fact alone" warrants a supernatural explanation, and so Con inadvertently attacks a straw-man. I have stated the significance of the burial towards my cumulative case as demonstrating that the location of the tomb was common knowledge to the people alive at the time of the resurrection. Con formulates his central objection to the burial of Jesus: "It is not even a fact that is accepted by all people of expertise. " As Con surely knows, the fact that not ALL people of expertise agree on something says nothing about whether that thing is true. As established in the previous round, "proof" in the definitive mathematical sense is an inappropriate and unachievable standard when reconstructing ancient history. As such, it should be no surprise to Con, as it is no surprise to our readers, that there not be 100% agreement on any particular detail of ancient history. That being said, I sit comfortably within the mainstream of leading scholarship in affirming the burial of Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps Con finds it harmful to my case that it may not have been J of A's tomb used for the burial when he quotes James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici? Firstly, I fail to see the relevance of the question "what are the chances" Joseph had a tomb near the site of the crucifixion? If there were any tombs near the site of the crucifixion, it doesn't seem particularly far-fetched that a wealthy member of the Sanhedrin would own one! But say we suppose, for the sake of argument, that we cannot confidently claim the tomb belonged to J of A, that would do nothing to undermine the fact that Jesus was buried BY J of A in a location known to the people alive at the time of the crucifixion. As a last resort, Con quotes James F. McGrath stating: "The idea that Joseph of Arimathea was a disciple of Jesus' and buried Jesus in his own tomb . .. is found only in the Gospel of Matthew, and so is of dubious historical value. " As we've noted, my claim is that Jesus was buried in a tomb by J of A. Whether or not this tomb belonged to Joseph is irrelevant to my claim. The question Con raises must then be: Does the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea enjoy multiple, independent attestation? The answer is yes: Matthew 27:57-61, Mark 15:42-47, and John 19:38-42 all mention Joseph of Arimathea by name as burying Jesus' dead body, with Pilate's permission. Con's challenges have failed to undermine the truth of Fact#1. Thus, we can be confident in the historicity of Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea. -The Empty Tomb- Con opens his challenge by pointing out that a large consensus doesn't equal truth. Though this is true, notice that I did not appeal to the majority. It is merely Con's assumption that this is why people accept the truth of the empty tomb. Though this vast scholarly support for the historicity of the empty tomb demonstrates that intelligent, rational thinkers can confidently affirm the truth of the empty tomb, Fact#2 stands on it's own merits. Dr. Craig explains: "1. The empty tomb story is also part of the old passion source used by Mark. The passion source used by Mark did not end in death and defeat, but with the empty tomb story, which is grammatically of one piece with the burial story. 2. The old tradition cited by Paul in I Cor. 15.3-5 implies the fact of the empty tomb. For any first century Jew, to say that of a dead man "that he was buried and that he was raised" is to imply that a vacant grave was left behind. 3. The story is simple and lacks signs of legendary embellishment. All one has to do to appreciate this point is to compare Mark's account with the wild legendary stories found in the second-century apocryphal gospels, in which Jesus is seen coming out of the tomb with his head reaching up above the clouds and followed by a talking cross! 4. The earliest Jewish allegation that the disciples had stolen Jesus' body (Matt. 28.15) shows that the body was in fact missing from the tomb. The earliest Jewish response to the disciples' proclamation, "He is risen from the dead! " was not to point to his occupied tomb and to laugh them off as fanatics, but to claim that they had taken away Jesus' body. Thus, we have evidence of the empty tomb from the very opponents of the early Christians. " Con's challenges have failed to undermine the truth of Fact#2. Thus, we can be confident in the historicity of the empty tomb. -Jesus' Post-Mortem Appearances- Con appeals here to the alleged sightings of Elvis and 2pac, attempting to undermine belief in Fact#3. The challenge fails immediately because these claims simply have no bearing on whether or not Jesus appeared to people after his death. Fact#3 being true does not preclude people from falsely or mistakenly claiming that someone else was seen alive after their death. Con's assertion that "This is purely psychological," is therefore not adequately supported by these irrelevant "sightings. " If Con wishes to hold to this assertion, he will have to provide an adequate psychoanalysis of each individual who witnessed Jesus' post-mortem appearances, and then demonstrate why we should take these as accurate. On the other hand, do we have good reasons for believing Fact#3 to be true? The answer is yes. Dr. Craig explains: "1. The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection appearances which is quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15. 5-7 guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, the 500 brethren, and James. 2. The appearance traditions in the gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of these appearances. This is one of the most important marks of historicity. The appearance to Peter is independently attested by Luke, and the appearance to the Twelve by Luke and John. We also have independent witness to Galilean appearances in Mark, Matthew, and John, as well as to the women in Matthew and John. 3. Certain appearances have earmarks of historicity. For example, we have good evidence from the gospels that neither James nor any of Jesus' younger brothers believed in him during his lifetime. There is no reason to think that the early church would generate fictitious stories concerning the unbelief of Jesus' family had they been faithful followers all along. But it is indisputable that James and his brothers did become active Christian believers following Jesus' death. James was considered an apostle and eventually rose to the position of leadership of the Jerusalem church. According to the first century Jewish historian Josephus, James was martyred for his faith in Christ in the late AD 60s. Now most of us have brothers. What would it take to convince you that your brother is the Lord, such that you would be ready to die for that belief? Can there be any doubt that this remarkable transformation in Jesus' younger brother took place because, in Paul's words, 'then he appeared to James'? " Con's challenges fail to undermine the truth of Fact#3. Thus we can be confident in the historicity of Jesus' post-mortem appearances. -The disciples' belief in the resurrection - Does Con claim hallucination or conspiracy? Surely it cannot be both. I will wait for clarification before responding to this section. So far, Con's challenges fail to undermine the facts. The resolution is the best explanation of these facts, as I will demonstrate in my final round. Source: www. reasonablefaith. org/the-resurrection-of-jesus