Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[2PhiloVoid]

2PV spotted in this forum? Have I gone mad? Surely I'm seeing things that aren't there.

lol, NV! Yes, it's me in the cyber-flesh ... But, don't get too used to it--I'm on a leash and might not be able to be here as often as I'd like.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Grafted In]

There are 2 rock solid witnesses for those who call on the name of Jesus, that accept Him as their personal Lord and Savior. Those 2 witnesses are the inspired Word of God and the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Without Christ you will not find any witnesses.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ok, Merle. So, you don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. Other than my possibly seeing Paul (and maybe Peter) as a candidate, I don't either. But, don't we need to establish at some point the nature of "credibility" as it pertains to a witness of any kind? Who gets to determine precisely what constitutes "credibility," and is there an absolute denotation of this concept to which we can all resort and by which we can then consider the attending connotations?

Correct, there is no absolute standard of credibility in terms of witnesses. All have varying degrees of credibility.

I don't see the credibility of the claimed witnesses to be sufficient to establish that somebody rose from the dead.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It makes not much difference from the claim the evidence shows that monkey existed long ago.

Can you put some details in, say, who credibly stood witnessing for Alexander? Provide a a name if you can.

There is far better evidence for Alexander than for Jesus. Carrier details this in his book on the historical Jesus. See also https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252FAskHistorians%252Fcomments%252F178ez0%252F .

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yet within 100 years after their deaths, more books were written about Jesus than Cesar. Interesting.

Within 100 years of Jesus death there were 4 books about Jesus, yes. However we have no mention of these books during that time, and next to nothing to cover what the church thought in the critical period from 60 AD to 110 AD. We don't know if these books were thought to be history or legend. But if we judge by the fact that later gospels seem to just copy previous authors with edits, it indicates they didn't have other reliable sources, and that they considered the other gospels as inaccurate statements they could readily change at will.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Nevertheless it is a sizable majority.

Thanks so much for coming here and sharing with us that 75% is sizably bigger than 25%.

But I do think you are moving the goalposts. Your original claim that you were repeating was that there was a consensus of opinion on the empty grave. My point is that you did not have a consensus. It looks like you now agree with me.

You keep getting back to resolution by popular vote. That is not the way questions of history or science are resolved. Who would get to vote? Let's say we give everybody in the world a vote on the resurrection. You lose. My guess is the vote would come out with about 5 billion people saying Jesus did not resurrect and 2 billion saying he did. I win. No doubt you will say many of those "no" votes are from non-scholars, but who then gets to decide who is a scholar? For your "75% of scholars" to be legitimate, it must include all true scholars and exclude all non-scholars. And we could have endless arguments over every claimed scholar and whether his opinion should count or not. All of that is a waste of time. Truth is not based on counting scholars. It is based on arguments. That is why I keep on trying to steer you away from votes and steering you back to evidence.

But somehow, you want to steer us back to the irrelevant fact that 75% of the people you consider scholars is greater than 25%.

But of course, we know that they obviously did later tell others because as we know from the hymn that is over 20 years earlier than Mark that over 500 people saw him alive at one time.

And you know my response to this, yes? And you just ignore it, yes? Repeatedly I have told you I and many scholars disagree that v5-7 are an ancient hymn. I have shown you the evidence that it is not. You have simply ignored my response, and assume that I agree it is a hymn.

Are you even trying to listen?

When I show you evidence against the "hymn", you turn to the women. When I show you evidence against the women, you turn to the "hymn". I feel sometimes like I am playing Whack-a-Mole.

It is not totally convincing, that is true. But it is one large piece of multiple evidence lines. Very few people have survived crucifixions. And the tomb was a well known one among His earliest followers so very unlikely to have gone to the wrong one.

OK, the empty tomb would be one piece of evidence. But you have not proven the tomb was empty. The Romans dumped convicted criminals into mass burial ditches, not into single graves. After a few weeks, it would be impossible to tell whose remains were missing. The story of Jesus being in a specific tomb that was empty did not come until later.

But even if Jesus was in a tomb that was found empty, there is a possibility that the women were confused and went to the wrong place. Perhaps that is rare, but it is far more likely than a resurrection.

And there are other possibilities such as a moved body or survival of crucifixion. Josephus tells us of a man who survived crucifixion. Far more people were thought to be dead and then showed signs of life, as compared to people that have been dead for 3 days and resurrected.

so that if He had not been resurrected would have been easily refuted by those that had seen His dead body, but they could not because His body was no longer in the tomb.

Again, how do you know that any of this was discussed before Mark brings it up years later? The epistles seem to know nothing about an empty grave, and arguably know nothing about a bodily resurrection. If you look at the earliest record, we don't find anybody talking about an empty grave, hence no need to refute it.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Within 100 years of Jesus death there were 4 books about Jesus, yes. However we have no mention of these books during that time, and next to nothing to cover what the church thought in the critical period from 60 AD to 110 AD. We don't know if these books were thought to be history or legend. But if we judge by the fact that later gospels seem to just copy previous authors with edits, it indicates they didn't have other reliable sources, and that they considered the other gospels as inaccurate statements they could readily change at will.

There were actually 10 books that mention Jesus. Only 9 books mention Cesar. Yet I assume you believe in Cesar...right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Correct, there is no absolute standard of credibility in terms of witnesses. All have varying degrees of credibility.

I don't see the credibility of the claimed witnesses to be sufficient to establish that somebody rose from the dead.

Right, but all that you're saying, then, is that "Merle doesn't see that there are credible witnesses for the resurrection of Jesus." Which, on it's own is a cogent and understandable enough statement, but none of the rest of us have to infer, by some obvious step of inductive logic, or by deductive proof, that "neither should the rest of us." I don't think it's that epistemologically cut-and-dried.

From a kind of Cliffordian perspective, I can understand very well how the writers of the New Testament documents don't count for much within your own personal epistemological structure, as it presently sits in the neuro-complex of your brain. Obviously, your response is an instance of a typical human reaction to the fragmentary 'evidence' we have pertaining to Jesus and His ~resurrection ... but it isn't the only rational one; and in the case of religion, we all have to individually decide what we think constitutes "credible evidence" since it's not a given by nature, nor simply a matter of "degree" of credibility.



2PhiloVoid

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't think it's that epistemologically cut-and-dried.
we all have to individually decide what we think constitutes "credible evidence" since it's not a given by nature, nor simply a matter of "degree" of credibility.

Sure, hence this thread.

So do you have credible evidence that Jesus resurrected? If so, what reasons do you have for saying your evidence is credible?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure, hence this thread.

So do you have credible evidence that Jesus resurrected?

That question tells me you're missing my meaning ... What did I say in my first post to you?

 

[doubtingmerle]

That question tells me you're missing my meaning ... What did I say in my first post to you?

There have been 350 posts on this thread. Which of those 350 are you referring to?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There have been 350 posts on this thread. Which of those 350 are you referring to?

Uhhhh..... #337.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I didn't say it proves me right but it IS evidence against your position.

ROFL! You found somebody that agrees with you, so that is evidence for your position?

You can find people that agree with those that think the earth is flat. Is that evidence for that position? When I ask for evidence, I am expecting more than, "Some people agree with me."

Plus I noticed that you totally ignored all the evidence I provided from what Paul said in I Cor. 15:12-58. He would have said none of that if Christs resurrection was spiritual, it would make no sense. I will take that as an unable to refute.

ROFL! What thread are you reading? I have quoted lengthy portions of that passage several times with extensive comments on why I think this refer to a spirit body after the resurrection!

We have been over this again and again. I have told you why I think it refers to a spirit resurrection. You have told me why you think it refers to a bodily resurrection. Please don't pretend that only you are discussing this.

His main point was that the gospel is not a manmade idea or philosophy. He was not necessarily talking about how he himself received the gospel,

Just as I said, in Galatians 1:11-12 it says, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." But you claim the sentence in bold means, "I received it of man, and I was taught it" I disagree. Paul clearly is not saying what you claim he is saying.

And let me guess: You will respond, once again by saying that "I neither received it of man" really means "I received it of man", yes?

but it is true that he did not directly receive the gospel from the apostles, he received it from the bodily resurrected Christ as shown in the book of Acts. The creed he quoted is part of the gospel but it is not the full gospel.

Huh? First Corinthians 15:1 specifically declares that this is the gospel: "Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,"

It is very clear to me that the verses as recorded here say this is Paul's gospel.

Again, it is hard to believe that Paul would say he did nor receive his gospel from men, and then, in another book, say, "I declare the gospel that yada yada yada", where yada yada yada is a verbatim quote of a hymn he received from other people. That makes no sense.

I don't remember seeing you present any evidence for such a case. Re-present it and I will comment.

Sigh. I have repeated this several times.

Post #92 is where I argue against I Cor 15:5-7 being a creed.
Post #92.
Post #92.

Do you need me to repeat that a dozen times more for your benefit?

No need to, I have already refuted it earlier in this thread.

ROFL! So you admit you are hyjacking this thread!

No, you have not refuted the idea that Jesus might have been mythical. There are lengthy arguments in that other thread if you care to join me there.

Please quite trying to hijack this thread.

Did you read his letter to the church in Corinth?

Yes, I have read most of Clement's letter to the Corinthians. He most definitely does not claim that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew. You claim he said that, and I think you know that your claim is totally bogus. I have asked you over and over to show me where Clement says what you claim. You refuse--refuse!--to address that question. Instead you ask me again to read again a book that you know does not say what you claim is there! If you really think Clement declares that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew, than show me where he says that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Uhhhh..... #337.

Uhhh, there are 350 posts in this thread and a dozen other threads I follow. How exactly was I supposed to remember that you had never posted anything here before post 337?

Anyway, you asked me what you said in post 337. You said, "Ok, Merle. So, you don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. Other than my possibly seeing Paul (and maybe Peter) as a candidate, I don't either. But, don't we need to establish at some point the nature of "credibility" as it pertains to a witness of any kind?..."

Your point is?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Uhhh, there are 350 posts in this thread and a dozen other threads I follow. How exactly was I supposed to remember that you had never posted anything here before post 337?

Anyway, you asked me what you said in post 337. You said, "Ok, Merle. So, you don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. Other than my possibly seeing Paul (and maybe Peter) as a candidate, I don't either. But, don't we need to establish at some point the nature of "credibility" as it pertains to a witness of any kind?..."

Your point is?

The point is that since a Cliffordian epistemological framework is itself suspect and subject to criticism, we're going to have a difficult time not only agreeing on what constitutes "credibility," but also the extent to which it's presence is actually needed in the act of Christian faith as it relates to the resurrection; in essence, the fact that some one person (or two) would prefer to have "credible witnesses" doesn't tell us whether or not the activation of Christian belief should ONLY work in light of the presence of said "credible witnesses." Neither does it tell us whether the activation of Christian belief WILL work in the presence of "credible witnesses."

See where I'm going with this? Even if we had "credible" witnesses to the resurrection, there's little reason for us to assume that you'd believe anyway.

Furthermore, if we consider Lessing's Ditch, we also may not have a Cliffordian legitimacy to believe EVEN IF we were to have perfectly "credible" (historical) witnesses to draw upon. So ... all this arguing about the credibility of witnesses to the resurrection may be leading everyone down a road of expectation that no kind of evidence, even if seemingly credible to everyone, could ever fully meet.

Now, do I think there is at least one "credible" witness? Yes, I suppose I do. Paul. But the "credibility" I perceive about Paul likely isn't going to be the "credibility" that you will require of him to count as credible. Additionally, to say that I think Paul is "credible" isn't to say that my faith depends upon his being credible as a witness to the resurrection of Christ.

2PhiloVoid

 

[doubtingmerle]

2PhiloVoid, I will try to fill in voids I see in your argument.

The point is that since a Cliffordian epistemological framework is itself suspect and subject to criticism, we're going to have a difficult time not only agreeing on what constitutes "credibility,"

Understood. In court the jury is instructed to consider the credibility of the witnesses. One juror may find a particular witness credible, but another may see reasons to doubt. But that does not mean every trial ends in a hung jury. It is possible to discuss the credibility of the various witnesses, and come to agreement. That is what we are looking to do here. Although the evaluation is subjective, we are trying to see if the overall witness is credible.

but also the extent to which it's presence is actually needed in the act of Christian faith as it relates to the resurrection; in essence, the fact that some one person (or two) would prefer to have "credible witnesses" doesn't tell us whether or not the activation of Christian belief should ONLY work in light of the presence of said "credible witnesses."

That certainly is an option, to believe in spite of credible witnesses, just as a Mormon or Muslim could choose to believe a different faith without credible witnesses. If one is in that situation, then he should be honest. He should admit that the evidence he has is not convincing, but he chooses to believe anyway.

Neither does it tell us whether the activation of Christian belief WILL work in the presence of "credible witnesses."

If there are credible witnesses, it would convince many of us. Your job is to make the credible case.

See where I'm going with this? Even if we had "credible" witnesses to the resurrection, there's little reason for us to assume that you'd believe anyway.

That is an ad hominem attack. It is an attack on the person. It is saying that the other person is wrong because he is closed minded. Please refrain from attacking the person.

There are probably many open minded people reading this. Your job is to make your case convincing to those that are open minded, not to attack the readers as being closed minded.

Furthermore, if we consider Lessing's Ditch, we also may not have a Cliffordian legitimacy to believe EVEN IF we were to have perfectly "credible" (historical) witnesses to draw upon.

Obviously it would take very good witnesses to convince most unbiased people that a person rose from the dead. No matter how strong the witnesses, there is always the possibility that the witnesses were mistaken for one of the reasons I have mentioned. Nevertheless, if there was strong witness that the body was indeed dead, that the body was clearly missing, and that the person was clearly interacted with in a physical form, that would be something worth considering.

Do we have that kind of witness?

Now, do I think there is at least one "credible" witness? Yes, I suppose I do. Paul. But the "credibility" I perceive about Paul likely isn't going to be the "credibility" that you will require of him to count as credible.

Paul is credible in that he wrote around the time of Christ, and appears to be telling us what he sees. However, he arguably has nothing to say about an empty tomb or a resurrected Jesus walking around on earth after the resurrection.

Additionally, to say that I think Paul is "credible" isn't to say that my faith depends upon his being credible as a witness to the resurrection of Christ.

Understood. You can choose to base your faith on something other than evidence. The question here is, for those who choose to trust evidence, is the evidence there?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Uhhh, there are 350 posts in this thread and a dozen other threads I follow. How exactly was I supposed to remember that you had never posted anything here before post 337?

Anyway, you asked me what you said in post 337. You said, "Ok, Merle. So, you don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. Other than my possibly seeing Paul (and maybe Peter) as a candidate, I don't either. But, don't we need to establish at some point the nature of "credibility" as it pertains to a witness of any kind?..."

Your point is?

Perhaps he meant 250?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Papias claimed to have spoken to John who told him that Mark was an interpreter of Peter and wrote down many things he said about his time with the Lord.

Actually Eusbius claims that Papias claims that "The Elder" claims that Mark wrote what Peter said. We don't know who the elder is that Papias referred to. There is a whole lot of hearsay here, and we don't know if each chain in the link correctly relayed the information.

At any rate, the book Papias describes is very different from our book of Mark, so it is doubtful he is talking about that book.

Regardless, Papias appears to have never had a copy of any gospel account, and in fact, emphasizes that he sees little value in reading a gospel account. So how can Papias, who discounts the value of any such account, be used as proof that the accounts are reliable?

Justin, Irenaeus, and Clement also all claimed this about the book of Mark.

Wrong. We have already looked at your false claim for Clement. You refuse to provide any evidence for this claim. It is obvious the reason you do not justify your claim is because Clement never said this, and you know it.

The same can be said for Justin. He does not claim that Mark wrote a gospel. If you think he did, show us where.

And Irenaeus is 150 years after Jesus, which is too late to be considered a reliable source.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

2PhiloVoid, I will try to fill in voids I see in your argument.

Alright. Thank you for your assistance.

Understood. In court the jury is instructed to consider the credibility of the witnesses. One juror may find a particular witness credible, but another may see reasons to doubt. But that does not mean every trial ends in a hung jury. It is possible to discuss the credibility of the various witnesses, and come to agreement. That is what we are looking to do here. Although the evaluation is subjective, we are trying to see if the overall witness is credible.

But, to come to an agreement on whether the witnesses are credible or not, wouldn't we also have to have a prior agreement as to what actually counts for "credibility"? Otherwise, if we can't agree on the defining conceptual framework by which we will evaluate the witnesses, then it's unlikely we'll be able to come to much in the way of any kind of agreement about their validity. It seems to me there remains a prior problem regarding the subjectivity of the very criteria by which we will attempt to conjointly evaluate the witnesses of the resurrection. And in my estimation, this has to be resolved first—if it's even possible to do so--before we can assess much of anything metaphysical; and this doesn't even touch upon other problems I could bring into the conversation here, such as those associated with one's personal 'philosophy of history,' or with one's view of how various epistemological structures and functions actually deal with evaluations and justifications.

That certainly is an option, to believe in spite of credible witnesses, just as a Mormon or Muslim could choose to believe a different faith without credible witnesses. If one is in that situation, then he should be honest. He should admit that the evidence he has is not convincing, but he chooses to believe anyway.

Actually, I'm not saying a person should be able to believe despite the presence of credible witnesses; I'm saying that even the presence of credible witnesses guarantees little to nothing on an epistemological level. It's an existential and epistemological set of problems that usually gets ignored. (It's kind of like wanting to drive your car, but neglecting to air up the tires sufficiently.)

For the most part, I'm suggesting that belief about the resurrection can also emerge out of a conglomeration of personal considerations coming out of the totality of one's (constructed) understanding of existence and reality—and obviously, this in itself is problematic right from the start because worldviews and working paradigms will vary from person to person. I'm also suggesting that belief is not merely derived by building some kind of Foundational style structure of justification … which is the usual epistemological “go to,” one that I don't subscribe too.

If there are credible witnesses, it would convince many of us.

I'd have to disagree that anyone is really fully convinced merely by the perception that the New Testament contains credible witnesses. I say this because we are talking about placing faith in a transcendent being who has supposedly broken into the natural events of human history, a very unusual thing; we're not simply trying to decide whether or not Johnny Joe actually murdered his neighbor and is thus subject to a collective judgment of guilt or innocence.

In addition to the possibility of valid witnesses, I think our individual perception of any supposed credibility in the New Testaments texts would also need to include our individual recognition and acceptance of any ethical and metaphysical claims which may be embedded within the content of the New Testament texts themselves. If we only come to a place where we think some writer in the New Testament really saw and experienced the resurrection of Jesus, I don't think we will automatically conclude that God is good, God is great, and thank Him daily for our fate, and thereby become pious Christian men and women.

Your job is to make the credible case.

Is it "my job" to make it credible? All I can do is offer you considerations about the resurrection emerging out of my respective worldview, your own acceptance of which will depend on various factors within your psychological structure.

That is an ad hominem attack. It is an attack on the person. It is saying that the other person is wrong because he is closed minded. Please refrain from attacking the person.

I'm not presenting an ad hominem attack since I'm not saying that you simply have decided not to believe. Nor am I saying you lack belief due to some "deficiency" of your mind or in your character. No, I'm saying that, despite your claim to the contrary, the presence of "credible witnesses" won't necessarily evoke faith in your mind, Merle, regardless of any kind of epistemological structure you subscribe too.

There are probably many open minded people reading this. Your job is to make your case convincing to those that are open minded, not to attack the readers as being closed minded.

I'm making no evaluations as to just how open or closed minded you may be. So far, I have no idea about any of that, and it remains to be seen.

Obviously it would take very good witnesses to convince most unbiased people that a person rose from the dead. No matter how strong the witnesses, there is always the possibility that the witnesses were mistaken for one of the reasons I have mentioned. Nevertheless, if there was strong witness that the body was indeed dead, that the body was clearly missing, and that the person was clearly interacted with in a physical form, that would be something worth considering.

Yes, it would be worth considering, but consideration alone isn't necessarily going to bring about belief; this isn't science, this is religion, and I have yet to see anyone assert that there is a precise “method” or a “formula” for arriving at Christian belief, even as it pertains to the resurrection of Jesus.

Do we have that kind of witness?

Maybe … in minute amounts. But, again, we're not trying to build belief in a theory and an application that will help us construct a spaceship and landing mode which will get us to and from Mars. No, we're trying to enter into a mental position where we can value Jesus as a historical and metaphysical entity via the sublime concept of His resurrection, along with other historical, epistemological, metaphysical, ethical, experiential and various personal considerations.

Paul is credible in that he wrote around the time of Christ, and appears to be telling us what he sees. However, he arguably has nothing to say about an empty tomb or a resurrected Jesus walking around on earth after the resurrection.

I'd like to suggest that perhaps you don't think Paul is credible because you want to see (or be able to cite) certain kinds of historical and empirical statements in his texts, and it may just be that Paul simply didn't deem it necessary to articulate the earthly qualities about Jesus' life, death, and resurrection in the ways that would jive with empirical expectations and thus provide epistemic gratification for those with such expectations, let alone gratify scientific mindsets more appropriate to the 21st century. So, a claim to whether Paul qualifies as “credible” or not is contingent on how one conceives the requirements of credibility.

Understood. You can choose to base your faith on something other than evidence. The question here is, for those who choose to trust evidence, is the evidence there?

No one gets to just proffer that an “evidentialist” perspective is the key to belief, especially without first entering the rabbit-hole of prior justification for that in itself … Shall we take W. K. Clifford to task...first? Or, how about Peter Boghossian's subscription to Foundationalism? Shall we take his view to task … first? And even if we do all that, will it enable us to surmount the distance of Lessing's Ditch?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Ed1wolf]

dm: Thanks so much for coming here and sharing with us that 75% is sizably bigger than 25%.

Your welcome.

dm: But I do think you are moving the goalposts. Your original claim that you were repeating was that there was a consensus of opinion on the empty grave. My point is that you did not have a consensus. It looks like you now agree with me.

You keep getting back to resolution by popular vote. That is not the way questions of history or science are resolved. Who would get to vote? Let's say we give everybody in the world a vote on the resurrection. You lose. My guess is the vote would come out with about 5 billion people saying Jesus did not resurrect and 2 billion saying he did. I win. No doubt you will say many of those "no" votes are from non-scholars, but who then gets to decide who is a scholar? For your "75% of scholars" to be legitimate, it must include all true scholars and exclude all non-scholars. And we could have endless arguments over every claimed scholar and whether his opinion should count or not. All of that is a waste of time. Truth is not based on counting scholars. It is based on arguments. That is why I keep on trying to steer you away from votes and steering you back to evidence.

But somehow, you want to steer us back to the irrelevant fact that 75% of the people you consider scholars is greater than 25%.

I have never said that a majority PROVES something but nevertheless it IS evidence for the position. I even admit that most of the scholars that believe that the tomb was empty do not believe that it was empty because Christ was resurrected. The majority of scientists believe that the theory of evolution is true. I have had many evolutionists tout that as evidence that evolution is correct. And I conceded that many times the majority is right, but not always. In the case of the empty tomb, most scholars agree it was empty and I believe combined with all the other threads of evidence the most rational explanation for it being empty is that Christ rose from the dead.

dm: And you know my response to this, yes? And you just ignore it, yes? Repeatedly I have told you I and many scholars disagree that v5-7 are an ancient hymn. I have shown you the evidence that it is not. You have simply ignored my response, and assume that I agree it is a hymn.

Are you even trying to listen?

Your only evidence that you don't think it is an ancient hymn is that you believe only Cephas is the Aramaic characteristic but many scholars say that the whole passage to verse 7 has Aramaic characteristics.

dm: When I show you evidence against the "hymn", you turn to the women. When I show you evidence against the women, you turn to the "hymn". I feel sometimes like I am playing Whack-a-Mole.

Your evidence against the women is very weak. If the author was seriously trying to prove Christ's resurrection to a first century audience he would have recorded that men were the first to see the empty tomb. But since the author was a devout jew who believed in moral absolutes and wanted to tell the truth, he mentioned the women thereby confirming its very likely authenticity.

dm: OK, the empty tomb would be one piece of evidence. But you have not proven the tomb was empty. The Romans dumped convicted criminals into mass burial ditches, not into single graves. After a few weeks, it would be impossible to tell whose remains were missing. The story of Jesus being in a specific tomb that was empty did not come until later.

No, since Joseph of Arimethea was a member of the jewish court that condemned Jesus, it is very unlikely to have been a Christian invention and is likely a very early tradition that confirms that His tomb was well known very early on.

dm: But even if Jesus was in a tomb that was found empty, there is a possibility that the women were confused and went to the wrong place. Perhaps that is rare, but it is far more likely than a resurrection.

That is a possibility but given what we know above about the early tradition regarding the tomb, very unlikely. IOW there is absolutely no evidence that they went to the wrong tomb in fact the above evidence shows the opposite. And if the Christian God exists for which there is very strong evidence, a resurrection of His Son is quite likely.

dm: And there are other possibilities such as a moved body or survival of crucifixion. Josephus tells us of a man who survived crucifixion. Far more people were thought to be dead and then showed signs of life, as compared to people that have been dead for 3 days and resurrected.

That is the point, the few people that have survived a crucifixion were almost immediately recognized as being alive, no one would be alive after three days and yet over 500 people claimed to have seen him alive all at the same time.

dm: Again, how do you know that any of this was discussed before Mark brings it up years later? The epistles seem to know nothing about an empty grave, and arguably know nothing about a bodily resurrection. If you look at the earliest record, we don't find anybody talking about an empty grave, hence no need to refute it.

Actually there is evidence that Mark was written before Pauls letters. And see above about Joseph of Arimathea.