What Do We Know about the Resurrection of Jesus?

[_KevinSim]

Everybody on this forum knows that I'm an active, devout Latter-day Saint. I believe in God, and I believe that God has told me that He wants me actively involved in the LDS Church. Still, I like to think of myself as flexible. At times I find myself doubting the existence of God, and at times I wonder, given the existence of God, what God is likely to want me to believe and what He is likely to not want me to believe.

That said, I've been wondering recently what the reasons are for believing in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. At one point it seemed like someone said that things the Talmud said made it likely that at least some of the New Testament accounts are accurate. Does anybody know what the relevant parts of the Talmud are, and what exactly they say about Jesus? Do we know, independently from the New Testament, that Pilate did actually give the Jewish leaders a watch of soldiers to stay by the tomb where Jesus was laid? Do we know, independently from the New Testament, that a very large boulder was rolled over the entryway?

Quite a while back, I even remember some critics of the New Testament account saying that it was their opinion that Jesus' body didn't make it into the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea at all. They said that it was the standard practice among Romans to take the dead bodies of crucified men and just cast them into the streets, to be eaten by dogs and other animals; and they didn't know any good reason to believe that's not what happened to the body of Jesus. I'm especially curious if the Talmud says anything that contradicts such a theory.

I would enjoy reading anything anybody might have to say on this subject.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Everybody on this forum knows that I'm an active.

me too, but I am agnostic

I believe in God

Why? a life changing event? a miracle? read the Improbability Principle by Dr. Hand.

I believe that God has told me

How? Did you hear his voice? Please give us details

Quite a while back, I even remember some critics of the New Testament account saying that it was their opinion that Jesus' body didn't make it into the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea at all. They said that it was the standard practice among Romans to take the dead bodies of crucified men and just cast them into the streets, to be eaten by dogs and other animals; and they didn't know any good reason to believe that's not what happened to the body of Jesus. I'm especially curious if the Talmud says anything that contradicts such a theory.

I would enjoy reading anything anybody might have to say on this subject.

It's an interesting possibility that makes sense.

[_KevinSim]

Everybody on this forum knows that I'm an active.

me too, but I am agnostic

You're an active Latter-day Saint but you're an agnostic? That doesn't horribly surprise me. Some people attend church and seem to not say very much; I've sometimes wondered if they're keeping doubting opinions to themselves so as not to destroy other people's testimonies.

I believe in God

Why? a life changing event? a miracle?

No, neither of those. For the first part of my life, to be absolutely honest, I probably believed in God because my mother raised me to believe in God. Later, in attempts to rebel, I shedded a lot of the things my mother and father taught me, but I never saw the need to shed my belief in God. For the first few months of my mission in southern Chile I struggled with atheistic thoughts, but I think deep down I wanted there to be a God, so I never actually lost my testimony. For quite a bit of my life I believed in God pretty much because I didn't see a good reason to conclude that there wasn't a God. More recently I got to thinking that I was solidly convinced that I had free will, and that I was therefore non-deterministic. It didn't make sense to me that something non-deterministic could result from a totally deterministic universe. Where would the non-determinism have come from? So I concluded that something non-deterministic must have existed since the Big Bang. Why couldn't that something be God?

read the Improbability Principle by Dr. Hand.

I read the website at "http://improbability-principle.com/the-laws-of-the-improbability-principle/"; looked pretty interesting.

I believe that God has told me

How? Did you hear his voice? Please give us details

I did not hear his voice. I struggled for a while trying to get to the point where I was willing to accept either a yes or a no answer, and then, achieving that goal, I asked God if the LDS Church was true, and was immediately overwhelmed by a very affirmative rushing sensation that left my whole body feeling tingling. I felt like I had no choice but to accept that that sensation came from God.

Quite a while back, I even remember some critics of the New Testament account saying that it was their opinion that Jesus' body didn't make it into the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea at all. They said that it was the standard practice among Romans to take the dead bodies of crucified men and just cast them into the streets, to be eaten by dogs and other animals; and they didn't know any good reason to believe that's not what happened to the body of Jesus. I'm especially curious if the Talmud says anything that contradicts such a theory.

I would enjoy reading anything anybody might have to say on this subject.

It's an interesting possibility that makes sense.

I'm hoping that somebody with knowledge of the Talmud can tell me whether this possibility fits in with what the Jews wrote at the time.

[_Maksutov]

I have almost zero understanding of the Talmud. What my understanding is, is that it is a body of commentaries on the Torah and commentaries on those commentaries. I don't think you can refer to it monolithically and I suspect that it would be subject to all of the concerns about provenance and interpretation that the Old Testament and New Testament are in general. There are controversial passages in the Talmud that have been exploited by AntiSemites of various kinds. I would not invoke it in an argument without undertaking a fair amount of reading and research first.

[Guest]

How? Did you hear his voice? Please give us details

I did not hear his voice. I struggled for a while trying to get to the point where I was willing to accept either a yes or a no answer, and then, achieving that goal, I asked God if the LDS Church was true, and was immediately overwhelmed by a very affirmative rushing sensation that left my whole body feeling tingling. I felt like I had no choice but to accept that that sensation came from God.

How did you rule out the possibility the sensation was caused by:
A. Satan trying to trick you
B. Confirmation bias
C. Physiology
D. Male menopause
E. Emotion

We Can Be Deceived

Be ever on guard lest you be deceived by inspiration from an unworthy source. You can be given false spiritual messages. There are counterfeit spirits just as there are counterfeit angels. (See Moro. 7:17.) Be careful lest you be deceived, for the devil may come disguised as an angel of light.

The spiritual part of us and the emotional part of us are so closely linked that is possible to mistake an emotional impulse for something spiritual. We occasionally find people who receive what they assume to be spiritual promptings from God, when those promptings are either centered in the emotions or are from the adversary.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/01/the-candle-of-the-lord?lang=eng

[_KevinSim]

I have almost zero understanding of the Talmud. What my understanding is, is that it is a body of commentaries on the Torah and commentaries on those commentaries. I don't think you can refer to it monolithically and I suspect that it would be subject to all of the concerns about provenance and interpretation that the Old Testament and New Testament are in general. There are controversial passages in the Talmud that have been exploited by AntiSemites of various kinds. I would not invoke it in an argument without undertaking a fair amount of reading and research first.

Then are you saying that as far as we know Jesus' body was just thrown into the streets where it was consumed by dogs?

The New Testament says Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus' body to the tomb, that the Jews got Pilate to give them a watch, and that a great boulder was rolled over the entrance to the tomb. Is the New Testament the only document that implies this took place, or are there other documents that corroborate the Christian account?

[_Maksutov]

I have almost zero understanding of the Talmud. What my understanding is, is that it is a body of commentaries on the Torah and commentaries on those commentaries. I don't think you can refer to it monolithically and I suspect that it would be subject to all of the concerns about provenance and interpretation that the Old Testament and New Testament are in general. There are controversial passages in the Talmud that have been exploited by AntiSemites of various kinds. I would not invoke it in an argument without undertaking a fair amount of reading and research first.

Then are you saying that as far as we know Jesus' body was just thrown into the streets where it was consumed by dogs?

The New Testament says Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus' body to the tomb, that the Jews got Pilate to give them a watch, and that a great boulder was rolled over the entrance to the tomb. Is the New Testament the only document that implies this took place, or are there other documents that corroborate the Christian account?

I have no dog in that fight. There are many stories about Jesus in the Apocrypha as well. The Talmud is also the source of the story that the Roman soldier Pantera was the actual biological father of Jesus. It seems to be the repository of many stories from that milieu over centuries. I would be as skeptical as usual. I think it gives us more of an insight into mentality and imagination than into actual events.

[_honorentheos]

I have almost zero understanding of the Talmud. What my understanding is, is that it is a body of commentaries on the Torah and commentaries on those commentaries. I don't think you can refer to it monolithically and I suspect that it would be subject to all of the concerns about provenance and interpretation that the Old Testament and New Testament are in general. There are controversial passages in the Talmud that have been exploited by AntiSemites of various kinds. I would not invoke it in an argument without undertaking a fair amount of reading and research first.

Then are you saying that as far as we know Jesus' body was just thrown into the streets where it was consumed by dogs?

The New Testament says Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus' body to the tomb, that the Jews got Pilate to give them a watch, and that a great boulder was rolled over the entrance to the tomb. Is the New Testament the only document that implies this took place, or are there other documents that corroborate the Christian account?

KevinSim,

You might find this past discusison on this board of interest: viewtopic.php?f=1&p=970955

Given the four gospel authors wrote in ways that help us understand what it is was they wished to convey about Jesus, it is helpful to look at what they say that none of the others said and how that aligns with their other unique points.

The author of the Gospel of Matthew is unique in claiming the Pharisees asked that there be a guard to prevent theft of the body, otherwise the body could be stolen and the claim made he was resurrected. Matthew also tells us this is a rumor he has heard and with which the reader of his day may be familiar. The author of Matthew not being an eye witness to the events being described, one is probably justified in the belief that this is about something contemporary to Matthew's writing and location. Beyond that, there is isn't much that is justifiable to accept as reasonablely true about this event in the account.

[_huckelberry]

Given the four gospel authors wrote in ways that help us understand what it is was they wished to convey about Jesus, it is helpful to look at what they say that none of the others said and how that aligns with their other unique points.

The author of the Gospel of Matthew is unique in claiming the Pharisees asked that there be a guard to prevent theft of the body, otherwise the body could be stolen and the claim made he was resurrected. Matthew also tells us this is a rumor he has heard and with which the reader of his day may be familiar. The author of Matthew not being an eye witness to the events being described, one is probably justified in the belief that this is about something contemporary to Matthew's writing and location. Beyond that, there is isn't much that is justifiable to accept as reasonablely true about this event in the account.

Honorentheos,

I think your comment is indicating a skeptical take on the report of a resurrection. I am sure there is no report of the matter from people other than Christian believers. Being skeptical has a logical basis.

Considering the idea focused upon by Crossan that Romans would normally have tossed the body into the streets I wonder why that suggestion would not have been the one of choice by first century skeptics of the Christian story. Matthew and the Talmud indicate this stolen body theory had more currency. That would indicate I think that the idea of Jesus landing in a proper burial spot was believable to people then and Christians were about believing Jesus left that burial.

It of course remains possible to suspect that the actual information of what happened never reached Matthew. My observation is I finding myself doubting that Roman treatment of bodies was reliably uniform.

[_honorentheos]

Honorentheos,

I think your comment is indicating a skeptical take on the report of a resurrection. I am sure there is no report of the matter from people other than Christian believers. Being skeptical has a logical basis.

Considering the idea focused upon by Crossan that Romans would normally have tossed the body into the streets I wonder why that suggestion would not have been the one of choice by first century skeptics of the Christian story. Matthew and the Talmud indicate this stolen body theory had more currency. That would indicate I think that the idea of Jesus landing in a proper burial spot was believable to people then and Christians were about believing Jesus left that burial.

It of course remains possible to suspect that the actual information of what happened never reached Matthew. My observation is I finding myself doubting that Roman treatment of bodies was reliably uniform.

I tend to agree to the extent the 1st c. writings we have on the subject beginning with Mark refer to the burial in a tomb. Skepticism should work in all directions regardless of one's preference and in this case if we look to the evidence we have we ought to be skeptical of the claims against burial. Perhaps not to exclude them but the weight of the evidence is not favoring the position the body of the historical Jesus was not buried in a tomb because Romans would be likely to have left the body to rot on the cross or toss it into the street to be eaten by dogs.

That said, in speaking to KevinSim I think there is good reason for him to step away from viewing the New Testament as a unified document as he appears to be doing and start looking at each author, each addition, each codex as coming from a variety of sources with a variety of agendas. Specific to the question of Matthew and the guard at the tomb, we appear to be most safe when we acknowledge it says much about the context in which the author of Matthew was writing and less about the actual events that occurred substantially before his time. That Mark fails to note the guard is very meaningful, as you probably would guess is my position. That Luke fails to include it while relying on both Mark and the narrative context in which that author is writing is, I think, a good indicator it's best to assume it's apocryphal. It seems much more likely Matthew is relaying an apologetic counter to a claim that the body of Jesus was stolen in order to support the miraclous claim of resurrection. Perhaps he even manufacturered the apologetic himself, which he seems capable of given the license he employs elsewhere in modifying the story to support Messianic prophecy being fulfilled in Jesus.