Argument Against the Resurrection of Jesus: INDEX

|

PART 7
https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2011/12/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-7/

I think the best way to make a case for my skeptical view of the resurrection, is to develop a dilemma, following the lead of the great Enlightenment skeptic David Hume.
The main question at issue is: Did God raise Jesus from the dead? But at the crux of my skeptical argument will be the following claim:

(JAW) Jesus of Nazareth was alive and walking around unassisted on the first Easter Sunday.

PART 8 
https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2011/12/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-8/
2. (JAW) is not true.
If we suppose (2) to be correct, does that in fact favor or support a skeptical view of the resurrection of Jesus?
PART 9 
https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2011/12/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-9/
4. (JAW) is false.
On this supposition, there are three logical possibilities:

A. Jesus was not alive on the first Easter Sunday.
B. Jesus was alive on the first Easter Sunday but did not walk at all that day.
C. Jesus was alive on the first Easter Sunday but was walking only with assistance from others.

PART 10 
https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2011/12/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-10/
A. Jesus was not alive on the first Easter Sunday.

Now lets consider supposition (A). The most obvious way that (A) would be true, would be for Jesus to have been dead on the first Easter Sunday. Since (JAW) implies that Jesus was alive for at least a portion of the first Easter Sunday, Jesus being dead for only a portion of Sunday would not contradict (JAW).

PART 11 
https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2012/03/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-17/
(JAW) Jesus of Nazareth was alive and walking around unassisted on the first Easter Sunday.

This claim is either true or it is not. In posts 7 through 10 of this series, I have been examining the implications of the supposition that (JAW) is not true. This supposition appears to represent five different logical possibilities, as illustrated in the following diagram.

PART 12

https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2012/05/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-23/
Now I’m going to start looking into the implications of the supposition that (JAW) is the case.

There are many ways to divide up the logical pie, but I propose to analyze(JAW) into eleven different logical possibilities…

PART 13

https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2011/12/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-13/

Another key claim made by Christian apologists concerns the alleged crucifixion of Jesus:

JWC = Jesus was crucified on Friday of Passover week, just before the first Easter Sunday.
 

In proposing a probability of .9 for the truth of (JWC), I am taking into account not just the NT evidence, but also the non-Christian historical evidence (see The Case for the Resurrection of Jesusby Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, p.49) from Josephus (Antiquities 18:63), Tacitus (Annals15:44), Lucian of Samosata, (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13), and the letter of Mara Bar-Serapion.
  


PART 14

https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2012/01/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-14/

The Fourth Gospel plays an important role in determining the probability of the claim that Jesus died on the cross.

Two of the key injuries allegedly inflicted upon Jesus are documented only in the Fourth Gospel:

1. Jesus’ hands and feet were nailed to the cross.
2. Jesus was stabbed in the chest with a spear while on the cross.
 

PART 15

https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2012/02/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-15/

But it is not just the liberal scholars of the Jesus Seminar that doubt the historical reliability of the Fourth gospel and the traditional view that John the apostle wrote the Fourth gospel. Several Evangelical NT scholars and conservative Jesus scholars and moderate Jesus scholars doubt or reject the view that the apostle John wrote the Fourth gospel, and doubts about the historical reliability of the Fourth gospel are also common among NT and Jesus scholars who are moderate or conservative scholars.

PART 16

https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2011/12/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-13/

One key factor determining the probability that Jesus actually died on the cross is the probability (or improbability) of the following claim:

(NTC) Jesus’ hands (or arms) and feet were nailed to the cross.

Crucifixion does not necessarily involve nailing the victim to a cross, and the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion don’t indicate how Jesus was attached to the cross. Binding the victim to the cross was more common than nailing.

PART 17
https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2012/03/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-17/
DSW = On Friday of Passover week, just before the first Easter Sunday, Jesus received a deep spear wound to his chest (i.e. the tip of the spear penetrated at least 3” deep, measured perpendicular to the surface where the spear entered his chest).

HAF = On Friday of Passover week, just before the first Easter Sunday, Jesus’ hands and feet were nailed to a cross.

The probability of both of these claims rests in large measure on the historicity and reliability of the Doubting Thomas story in the Fourth Gospel.

PART 18
https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2012/04/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-20/
Because the occurrence of each alleged major wound significantly increases the probability that Jesus died on the cross on the same day he was crucified, the non-occurrence of each major wound significantly decreases the probability that Jesus died on the cross on the same day he was crucified.  

But we don’t have certain knowledge on any of these claims about the major wounds/injuries allegedly suffered by Jesus, so a rational approach is to examine the evidence and it’s quality and ma

ke a probability assessment for each claim about an alleged major wound or injury.  Once we have assigned an estimated probability to each claim about an alleged major wound or injury, then we can attempt to draw some general conclusions about the probability that Jesus died on the cross on the same day that he was crucified. 

PART 19
https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2012/05/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-23/
Before I say anything more about this specific passage, I would like to take a closer look at Chapter 19, where the spear wound story is found.  If Chapter 19 is as questionable and problematic as the Fourth Gospel in general, then we would have additional good reasons for doubting the historicity or reliability of the spear-wound story from that Chapter. 

PART 20
https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2012/04/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-20/
In addition the Gospel of John reports that one of the guards pierced Jesus to confirm that he was already dead (see John 19:34-37), a practice likewise mentioned by Quintillian, a Roman historian in the first century.
(Michael Licona, from “Can We Be Certain that Jesus Died on a Cross?” in Evidence for God, p.166)

There are at least two problems with Licona’s claim: 
1. Quintillian was not a Roman historian, 
and 
2. Quintillian probably did not write the passage that Licona references. 

PART 21
https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2012/04/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-21/

Another bit of historical information allegedly supporting the spear-wound-of-Jesus story in Chapter 19 of the Fourth Gospel is a quote from Origen.  I think I originally came across this information five years ago from a website called A Lawyer Examines The Swoon Theory. 


PART 22

https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2012/05/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-22/

Given the brevity of the quotation, one should not simply accept Reincken’s and Humber’s interpretation of Origen.  One ought to first examine the passage that this short phrase came from, to see the context and to form one’s own interpretation in view of that context.  That is why it is especially sloppy and careless for Reinckens and Humberto fail to provide a specific reference to where this phrase appears in Origen’sCommentary on Matthew.

PART 23
https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2012/03/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-19/

I believe I located the passage in question in a standard Latin text of Origen’s Commentary on Matthew.  Here is the part that lines up with the snippet given by Mr. Reinckens:

non iussit, secundum consuetudinem Romanorum de his qui crucifiguntur, percuti sub alas corporis Iesus (GCS, His Origenes Werke, v. 11, p. 290)

Since I don’t read Latin, I have to rely on Google Translate, at least for an initial take on this passage:

he did not Command, according to the custom of the Romans, they crucify to them that, under her wings, the body of Jesus to be smitten

PART 24
https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2012/06/argument-against-the-resurrection-of-jesus-part-24/
In my last post on this topic (Part 23), I identified the passage that I believe Humber was referencing, in an early Latin translation of Origen’s Commentary on Matthew.  Here is an image of the relevant passage (GCS, His Origenes Werke, v. 11, p. 290):