The Impossiblity of Proving or Disproving the Resurrection

I have been reading the book, The Resurrection of Jesus, edited by Robert Stewart, which contains the dialogue between N. T. Wright and Dominic Crossan on the resurrection. The book also contains a number of responses from other scholars. One of these scholars is Alan Segal, Professor of Religion and Jewish Studies at Columbia University in New York. I only recently became aware of Segal. His book, Life after death: a history of the afterlife in the religions of the West , published in 2004, is a treasure-trove (880 pages) of information about how the Egyptians, the Canannites, the First Temple Jews, the Greeks, the Persians, the Second Temple Jews, the Christians, and finally the Muslims understood life after death. I have learned a great deal from the book, so I was delighted when I saw he was one of the respondents to the Wright-Crossan dialogue.

In his response, he writes: The resurrection is neither probable nor improbable; it is impossible to confirm historically. This is particularly important theoretically: a problem is neither improbable nor probable if it is neither confirmable nor disconfirmable. . . (The Resurrection of Jesus, p. 135).

He goes on to argue that those Christians who insist that the resurrection can be shown to be a historical fact are misguided. He says: It is one thing to conclude that the early Christians took it as fact; it is another thing to propound that it can be demonstrated historically. Such an endeavor is always bound to fail (p. 137).

He maintains that apologists, presumably such as N. T. Wright (and others), who think they can demonstrate the historicity of the resurrection fail to recognize that they are restricted in their interpretation of the evidence by their prior faith commitment. He says: To be part of a rational and historical community of historians, one has to be willing to admit to disconfirmation as well as confirmation.. . . How could they admit to disconfirmation without disconfirming their faith? This suggests to me that there is a actually a small group of scholars made up entirely of the faithful trying to impose their faith in the form of an academic argument on the general academic community. (p. 136).

I think he is spot-on. People such as N. T. Wright, William Craig, and others have a vested interest in interpeting the evidence to agree with their belief in a literal resurrection. After all, their livelihoods, their reputations, etc. are at stake. I am not saying these men are intentionally dishonest. I am saying that because of their prior faith commitment and because of their careers being tied to their stand on a literal resurrection, they cannot interpret the evidence in a way that would disconfirm their faith.

On the other hand, I think that I can approach the evidence in a more neutral way. I am not pretending that I am objective and unbiased. I don't believe anyone truly is. We all interpret evidence in light of our worldview and presuppositions. However, I do not have a vested interest in deciding one way or the other on the resurrection. I am not employed by a Christian or a secularist organization. I am not bound to any group or association. I have the freedom to do as Socrates is reported to have done: follow the evidence wherever it leads.

At this point in my intellectual journey, I just simply don't see sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead and,therefore, I don't believe that evangelical Christianity is true.

Observations from 2009 Apologetics Conference

I just arrived back from the 2009 Apologetics Conference at the New Orleans Baptist Seminary. I was very impressed with the Seminary campus. It is one of the more beautiful campuses that I have ever seen. Of course the Southern Baptists do have a lot of money. The campus was damaged by Katrina and was closed for an entire year but there are no visible signs remaining of any damage. One of the more famous NOBTS graduates is Paige Patterson who is currently the President of the largest of the SBC Seminaries--Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. (Patterson is, more than any other single person, responsible for driving the liberals out of the SBC seminaries and reinstating conservatives who would defend the inerrancy of Scripture).


The Seminary also sponsors every year the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum which involves an evangelical scholar and a non-evangelical scholar dialoguing over a specific issue. Last year they had N.T. Wright and Dominic Crossan discussing their different viewpoints on the resurrection. Each man presents his case and then they sit down and informally ask each other questions. The next day they have two evangelical scholars and two non-evangelical scholars respond to the previous day's dialogue. I like this format. Sometimes in a debate format, people talk past each other. I purchased the book of last year's discussion and look forward to reading it.

I will be making some random observations as time goes forward on the various presentations that I attended.

The conference was opened on Thursday night by J. P. Moreland speaking on Why Christian Knowledge Matters for your Mind, Your Heart and Your Life.

Dr. Moreland is Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in Southern California and a prolific author. One of the more interesting things Moreland said was: You can know something without certainty. He admits that he is not 100% certain that God exists. He says he has a true belief based on good reasons but not certainty.

I find it significant that Moreland honestly admits that he cannot be 100% certain of Christianity. This is my whole point and why I continue to be agnostic. He believes in historic Christianity and I don't believe; but, neither of us know with certainty.

Another thing that surprised me was that Moreland said that God had spoken to him directly and internally (on more than one occasion). He related an incident in Korea where God revealed to him that a certain man named "Mike"needed to call his Pastor. He had no idea who "Mike" was but he mentioned it during his lecture and, sure enough, a man named Mike came up afterwards and asked Moreland how he knew there was an issue between him and his Pastor. Moreland said that God told him.

I found it unusual that he would claim to have direct revelation from God. Historically, his institution (Talbot)would have opposed such a position. The historic fundamentalists were adamant about revelation having ceased with the canon. I am sure that Moreland doesn't place God's speaking to him on the same level as canonical literature but it seems to ultimately minimize written revelation. If one can hear from God directly and internally, that seems superior to interpreting an ancient revelation given to someone else.

I will comment on other presentations as time goes forward, but let me say in advance that nothing new or revolutionary was put forth. I left being more convinced than ever that evangelical Christianity is false.

2009 Apologetics Conference--Evangelical Philosophical Society

I have been attending the 2009 Apologetics Conference sponsored by the Evangelical Philosophical Society in New Orleans. I have heard presentations from Drs. William Craig, Mike Licona, Craig Keener, Gary Habermas, J. P. Moreland, and other leading evangelical apologetes.

Someone might ask, Why would someone who has de-converted from evangelicalism want to attend such a conference?. The reason is simple. I want to hear the very best that evangelicalism can offer in terms of defending conservative Christianity. I am not afraid to examine my beliefs.

I will be writing more on the various presentations and why they didn't convince me to re-convert to evangelicalism as time goes forward.

Tonight I will be meeting with John Loftus, Hector Avalos, Jim Linville and others who are in New Orleans for the Society of Biblical Literature Conference. As announced on this blog previously, we are planning a new group within SBL for strictly secular Bible scholars.

Even More on the Burial of Jesus and the Empty Tomb

In the last two posts, I have outlined a completely naturalistic explanation for the empty tomb. William Craig in his debates has said that its not enough to deny the resurrection but that one needs to offer an alternative explanation which will explain all the phenomena as well or better than the resurrection hypothesis does. I think he is right.

In addition to the scenario I have already outlined, there are also other possibilities to explain the phenomena before one has to resort to a supernatural explanation.

For example,

1) Jesus' body was taken straight from the cross to the criminal graveyard by a devout Jew. We know that the Jews did not want to leave a person hanging on a tree or a piece of wood overnight. Deuteronomy 21:23 says: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.

2) Jesus' body was taken straight from the cross and thrown into Gehenna. Perhaps a Roman soldier did this. Louis Feldman has argued that it was the Romans who put Jesus to death and that the Jews had nothing to do with it. See Who Really Killed Jesus? A Critical Response to "The Passion" , 2004. Feldman maintains that the gospel accounts, which place the blame on the Jewish leaders, are so full of mistakes that it obviously did not happen the way they describe it.

3) Jesus' body was taken by Joseph of Arimathea and placed into a different tomb. We know that the first tomb where Jesus is said to have been placed was a new family tomb and maybe Joseph had another tomb somewhere else to which he moved the body. The Bible says he was a rich man, so it is reasonable to assume, he may have had another tomb.

4) The empty tomb story was a later embellishment of the gospel narrative. In other words, the story as we have it in the gospels did not happen at all. This is certainly possible. We know that the earliest account of the resurrection in I Cor. 15 contains no mention of the empty tomb nor of the women visiting it. The earliest gospel record, Mark, ends abruptly with the women leaving the tomb scared and silent. As Robert Price remarks: Isn't it obvious that the claim that the women "said nothing to anyone for they were afraid" functions to explain to the reader why nothing of this had been heard before. By This Time He Stinketh, 1997.

So, there are a number of different ways to explain the empty tomb without opting for a supernatural one.

Next, I will deal with the "appearances" of the resurrected Jesus and offer a naturalistic explanation for them.

More on the Burial of Jesus and the Empty Tomb

In my previous post, I outlined a scenario in which the body of Jesus was taken from the cross and placed in a tomb on Friday just before sundown. The quick burial was carried out by a Jewish benefactor who was concerned that the body hanging on the cross over the Passover celebration would be dishonoring to God. This person, who the Gospels say is Joseph of Arimathea, removed the body at the end of the sabbath (Saturday night) and buried it in the criminal graveyard. Thus, when the women came to the tomb on Sunday morning, the tomb was empty.

I came across a couple of objections to my proposed series of events. One is from the Christian Think Tank website owned by Glenn Miller. Miller argues that Jews could not move a body once it was fully buried. He quotes the rabbinic teaching: Whosoever finds a corpse in a tomb should not move it from its place, unless he knows that this is a temporary grave. . . . Neither a corpse nor the bones of a corpse may be transferred from a wretched place to an honored place, nor, needless to say, from an honored place to a wretched place; but if to the family tomb, even from an honored place to a wretched place, it is permitted, for by this he is honored (Semahot 13:5, 7). Miller says: this is a strong statement of no-movement-allowed. The only exception given is for movement to the family tomb, likely at ossilegium time, but under this alternative interpretation, it could be a trip to the homeland.

First, Miller begins his whole discussion of this topic by stating seven caveats about the rabbinical writings.

1. Is not a legal code at all, but a history of legal and semi-legal debate

2. Described the fictional, idealized world, desired/planned/invented by the rabbi's

3. Was typically not descriptive of a real world, neither past nor present

4. Was not a 'conservative' description of ancient actual laws/traditions (but sometimes preserved legal debates)

5. When it did describe a real world, it sometimes applied to ONLY an ancient one--and not the world of Jesus.

6. When it did describe a real world, it sometimes/often applied ONLY to post-2nd-Revolt Galilee (where the rabbi's resettled)

7. Many elements it 'proscribed' are known to have been not in practice.

So, Miller effectively undercuts his own argument. It is not altogether clear if the Shemot was official Jewish practice at the time of Jesus. But even if it was, there is still the very real possiblity that due to time constraints a "full burial" was not conducted on Friday afternoon. As Richard Carrier writes: A clue lies in the earliest report, Mark 16:1-3, which has the women visit the tomb Sunday morning with the intention of opening it and completing the burial (ritual washing and anointing were among the required burial rites). Thus, from the earliest report, they did not regard the burial of Jesus as completed. And Mark also notes the peculiar urgency of the Sabbath. Even before Joseph so much as asks for the body, "evening had already come" (Mark 15:42).

So, it is certainly possible that Jesus was quickly placed in the tomb late on Friday and that the burial, as far as the women knew, would be completed after the Sabbath. Instead, after the Sabbath, the owner of the tomb removes the body and buries it in the criminal graveyard.

Another objection to my theory was raised by a poster on TheologyWeb. She argued that Paul, as a member of the Sanhedrin, would have known first hand from Joseph of Arimathea if he had in fact moved the body and since Luke was a companion of Paul, Paul would not have allowed Luke to include the empty tomb story if he knew it was a mistake.

This is an excellent point. It stands to reason that IF Paul and Joseph of Arimathea were members of the Sanhedrin, then Paul would be privy to the moving of the body on Saturday night by Joseph. Notice I said, “IF.” Do we know that both Paul and J of A were really members of the Sandhedrin? No,we don’t know it. If one accepts the inerrancy of the NT, then one is bound to believe it but inerrancy is another whole assertion to be proven by evangelicals. In addition, I find it strange that if Paul and J of A knew each other, Paul never mentions this fact in any of his writings. It seems that if Jesus really did rise from the dead out of J of A’s tomb, and Paul knew J of A, then he would have said something about it.

So, there is still a lot of uncertainty here as it relates to whether J of A is a real person or someone whose name came to be attached to the story. I tend to think that his name is a later addition to the story.

The Burial of Jesus and the Empty Tomb

Paul says the gospel includes three elements. The death, the burial and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Cor. 15:4-“that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures”). For the past 25 posts or so, I have been discussing the Evangelical view of what it means that “Christ died for our sins”. Today I want to move on to the burial of Jesus which Paul says is the second component of the gospel.

Why does Paul include “the burial” of Jesus as part of the gospel? It is the only one of the three elements that he does not say is “according to the Scriptures.” Why does he mention it? I think he does so in order to emphasize the fact that Jesus really died. (Sort of a preemptive strike against the Swoon Theory, i.e., Jesus swooned on the cross and then revived in the cool tomb). Jesus death was an absolute necessity in Paul’s theology and the reference to his burial is the ultimate proof that Jesus had in fact died.

What is interesting is that Paul does not mention the “empty tomb” nor the story of the women who first came upon the tomb on Sunday morning. He does mention that Jesus was seen of Peter, the 500, James, and then all of the apostles. Why does he leave out the story of the women which all of the other gospels include? There could be three reasons: 1) The testimony of women was not highly regarded in the Ancient world and Paul did not feel the need to cite their testimony when he had an abundance of male eyewitnesses to reference; 2) Paul did not know the empty tomb story. It had not been written down yet as I Corinthians was written earlier than any of the four gospels; 3) Paul did not believe the empty tomb story. Even though the stories had not been written down, Paul no doubt had heard them. He had been in contact with all of the early followers of Christ. Why would he not believe them? I think, and this will have to be developed later, that Paul’s view of the resurrection body being a “spiritual body” does not require the tomb to be empty.

So, what happened to the body of Jesus? If the gospels are correct, Jesus died quicker than most do when being crucified. When the guard came out to break the legs of the criminals so that they would die sooner, Jesus was already dead (John 19:33). The Sabbath was approaching rapidly. It would be a disgrace for these dead, naked, bodies to be left nailed on crosses throughout the Passover celebration. Normally, the Romans would allow birds of prey to eat the carcasses of the crucified but the Jews were very sensitive to this type of thing and wanted them buried. So, it became imperative for these men to be dead and off the cross before the beginning of the Sabbath (sundown on Friday).

Here is where the gospels say that Joseph of Arimathea stepped up. Joseph was a member of the Sanhderin and, according to Matthew 27:57 and John 19:38, a secret follower of Christ. Whether the story of Joseph's claiming of the body is true or not is impossible to say. It does seem less likely that Joseph was a secret follower of Jesus as this is mentioned only in Matthew’s and John’s gospel and not in the earlier ones. One would think that this important information about Joseph would have been included in the earlier gospels. Thus, it appears that the claim of Joseph being a disciple of Jesus is probably a later embellishment to the original story.

Whether it was Joseph or some other devout Jew, the bodies were not going to be left up while the Passover was going on in Jerusalem. So, let’s say for the sake of argument that Joseph of Arimathea is a real man, who although not a follower of Jesus is a good Jew and offers up his new tomb as a “temporary” burial site for Jesus’ body. It was getting late in the day and so this offer was taken up by the Romans and the body was placed into the newly hewn family tomb of Joseph. These tombs were expensive and to think that Joseph was going to donate his family tomb permanently is stretching the man’s generosity. Christians have only assumed that Joseph’s tomb was to be the final burial site of Jesus.

The women all watched the burial and saw precisely where Jesus’ body was laid. They came back to the same tomb early on Sunday morning and it was empty. What had happened? Well, Joseph of Arimathea came back to the tomb after the sun went down on the Sabbath (Saturday night) and took the body and disposed of it in the criminal’s graveyard. This was the normal place that the executed would be buried. By the time, the women arrived at the tomb at day break on Sunday, the stone was rolled back and the tomb was empty.

The gospels now record various accounts of either one or more angels announcing to the women that Jesus was risen. In Mark’s account, the earliest, the women leave the tomb afraid and do not tell anyone about their experience. In the other three gospels they run and tell Peter.

Why the divergence in accounts? It could be that the women first coming upon the scene was not always included in the retelling of the Easter story. As time passed and an explanation was needed for why some accounts had it and others didn’t, the gospel of Mark says that although the women were the first ones present at the empty tomb,they told no one.

The question might be raised, why didn’t the women or the apostles check with Joseph of Arimathea to verify that he had not moved the bodies? That is an excellent question and perhaps the key to my view of why the tomb was empty.

Two possible explanations come to mind. 1) The disciples were afraid to approach a member of the Sanhedrin with any questions about Jesus’ body lest they be recognized as one of his followers and be imprisoned. 2) Joseph of Arimathea is a name that came to be used of the Jewish Sanhedrin member that offered up his tomb to Jesus. In other words, the original and true benefactor was not named but as the story was retold, somehow Joseph’s name came to be included. This would mean that the early disciples did not know who precisely owned the tomb and consequently did not know who to ask.

Another important question is: Why didn’t Joseph of Arimathea, or whoever the anonymous benefactor might have been, refute the disciples claim that Jesus had risen as the early Christians began to circulate Jerusalem with the good news (gospel)? The explanation is twofold: 1) The preaching of the early disciples in a large bustling city like Jerusalem really did not attract that much attention at first; 2) Once the crowds got larger after Pentecost, it was too late for anyone to produce a corpse of Jesus that could be identified as his. People were buried anonymously in the criminal graveyard. If the right grave could be located, the body would be so decomposed fifty days after his death, that it would be unrecognizable. (It is also conceivable that Jesus' body could have been thrown into Gehenna, the city landfill where dead criminals were sometimes cremated. Fires were kept burning and the valley became the garbage dump of the city. The dead bodies of criminals, and the carcasses of animals were also thrown there.).

Perhaps the Sanhedrin benefactor did let it be known that he had moved the body to the criminal graveyard but the Christians were already in full motion by then, and they were not going to believe the benefactor.


This is how I believe the empty tomb story originated. It is certainly more plausible than interjecting a divine act to explain it. Next, I will deal with the initial “Jesus sightings”.

How Important is the Penal Substitutionary Theory to Evangelicals?

In a previous post entitled, Why Do I Focus on the Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement?, I laid out a "who's who" of evangelical theologians who support voicferously the PST of the atonement. This is not a peripheral doctrine according to Evangelicals. It is at the very heart and core of what they believe about Christianity.

Today, I want to demonstrate this fact further. Al Mohler is the President of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, KY, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.

In 2005, shortly after the anti-PST book by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus, came out, Mohler wrote the following on his blog:

The doctrine of penal substitution--the understanding that, on the cross, Christ died in our place, bearing the penalty for our sin--is described as "a form of cosmic child abuse"[in The Lost Message of Jesus].In their words: "The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse--a vengeful Father punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed." They go further to suggest that "such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement 'God is love'."

The penal substitutionary understanding of the atonement--the doctrine that has stood at the very center of evangelical faith--is rejected as based on a misunderstanding of the cross, described as a "twisted version of events" that is "morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith."

Attacks upon the penal substitutionary understanding of the atonement are hardly new--in fact they are to be found among some who would claim to be evangelicals in the United States. Evangelical identity is at stake in this controversy. But, far beyond that, the Gospel is at stake.

In an interview conducted in 2009, John MacArthur, the President of The Master's College and Seminary in Southern California, was asked about the cosmic child abuse claim in the book, The Lost Message of Jesus. Here is what he said:

My response to that is that you couldn’t be a Christian and say that. That’s just…that’s outright heresy.

It sounds like the language of a flat-out anti-Christian pagan atheist mocking the cross of Jesus. That’s mockery. That’s…that’s outright mockery. These people…and he thinks he’s really cute and clever, this kind of stuff is going to shock people…and it does, that’s why it stood out when you read it. But this is not even Christian thinking.

John Piper, the Senior Pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, MN and one of the most prolific evangelical authors, had the following to say about the importance of the PST.

Oh, how I wish that at least here, at the center of the gospel, there would be common ground among those who claim to be followers of Jesus today. But that’s not the case, and one of the reasons is that the postmodern mind, inside and outside of the church, has no place for the biblical truth of the wrath of God. And therefore, it has no place for a wrath-bearing Savior who endures God’s curse that we might go free. One of the most infamous and tragic paragraphs written by a church leader in the last several years heaps scorn on one of the most precious truths of the atonement: Christ’s bearing our guilt and God’s wrath.

After quoting the famous "cosmic child abuse" passage from the Lost Message of Jesus (pp. 182-183), Piper continues:

With one cynical stroke of the pen, the triumph of God’s love over God’s wrath in the death of his beloved Son is blasphemed, while other church leaders write glowing blurbs on the flaps of his book. But God is not mocked. His word stands firm and clear and merciful to those who will embrace it.

Wayne Grudem, Professor of Theology at Phoenix Seminary and author of one of the leading Systematic Theology textbooks for Evangelical schools, was asked if he agreed with John Piper's assessment that the cosmic child abuse statement was blasphemy. Here is what he said:

(1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. Chalke is denying the heart of the Gospel. (Ed: Grudem has since retracted his agreement to the use of the word blasphemy of Chalke but not his strong criticism of Chalke's views)

Evangelicals in the academic world battled against liberals in scholarly writings about this issue fifty years ago, and I think that evangelicals like Leon Morris won the argument and won the theological battle. Now Chalke is giving away the hard-won victory. He is giving away the heart of the Gospel. I would never agree to give my approval to anyone who denies penal substitutionary atonement to be an elder at a church I attended, or to be a pastor or Bible teacher, or to teach at a theological seminary where I had influence on the appointment.

So, you have four of the leading evangelical theologians in the USA saying that the PST of the Atonement is the heart of the gospel, the center of the gospel, and the doctrine that has stood at the very center of evangelical faith. According to them, those who deny the PST: 1) are not true evangelicals, 2) are not true Christians, 3) are outright heretics, 4) are speaking the language of anti-Christian pagan atheists, and 5)are committing blasphemy. Is there really any doubt as to how important the PST is to evangelicalism?

As a personal illustration, yesterday I went with my mother to her Southern Baptist Church in Northeast Georgia. The Pastor preached from Hebrews 12 and made it emphatically clear that only through the shed blood of Jesus Christ which was offered to God in place of sinners could man be saved and avoid an eternity in hell. While that pastor may not even know the terminology, Penal Substitutionary Theory, he certainly knows and believes the doctrine.