A hallucination would explain only the post resurrection appearances; it would not explain the empty tomb, the rolled-away stone, or the inability to produce the corpse. No theory can explain all these data except a real resurrection.
–evangelical apologists Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics; Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions (1994) , pp. 186-188
This quote by Kreeft and Tacelli is used by many Christian apologists. I am currently reading Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh and Sean McDowell. The McDowells reference this quote on page 292. This quote drives me crazy!!! Why do Christians assume that there must be only one theory that explains every aspect of the Resurrection?
For example, if a skeptic asks, “Isn’t it possible that someone moved the body as a reason for the empty tomb?” Christians will respond, “Well, that theory accounts for the empty tomb, but it doesn’t explain the claims of appearances by Jesus to several different people and groups; it doesn’t explain Paul’s conversion and his claim that Jesus appeared to him; it doesn’t explain James’ conversion and his claim of an appearance by Jesus to him. Therefore, the theory that someone moved the body fails!”
Wait a minute!
I never said that the theory of someone moving the body explains the appearances and the conversions of Paul and James. I simply said that the theory that someone moved the body could explain the missing tomb. There are separate possible natural explanations for the appearance claims and the conversions.
“But the probability of a resurrection is much greater than the sum of the probabilities of a long string of individual theories!” Christians frequently respond.
Are you out of your minds!!!
This is only true if one has already assumed the existence of the Christian god, Yahweh, and all his magic-making powers! If one simply looks at the probability of a resurrection compared to the probability of the sum of the individual probabilities for multiple naturalistic theories, based on cumulative human history, then the sum of the probabilities of multiple individual theories is still going to be much greater than a never heard of before or since “resurrection”!
Rumors and legends are typically based on a constellation of factors, not just one. Take the conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy. People don’t build a case for multiple gunmen and CIA/Russian/Cuban/mob involvement based on just the Zapruder film alone. The Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theories are all based on multiple factors.
And that is most probably what happened with the Resurrection belief. Here is just one possible scenario of a constellation of factors that led to this belief:
-the tomb was empty because someone moved the body for reasons we will never know.
-one disciple had an hallucination due to severe depression, sleep deprivation, hunger, and alcohol excess: Jesus appeared to him in bodily form, touched him, and spoke to him. People who have hallucinations remember them as real events.
-this ecstatic disciple convinced the other disciples that he had seen the risen Jesus. Soon other disciples were seeing Jesus in vivid dreams, illusions of natural phenomena (bright lights), and false sightings. Groups of disciples saw illusions (misperceptions of natural phenomena) they presumed to be Jesus, just as groups of hundreds of Roman Catholics today “see” the Virgin Mary in bright lights and cloud formations.
-Paul was mentally unstable. Not crazy, just prone to mood swings and prone to “seeing and hearing things” occasionally. Maybe he was bipolar or maybe he was depressed with occasional psychotic features to his depression. Bizarre conversions are not proof of the veracity of the new (bizarre) belief.
-James converted shortly before the death of Jesus. His experience of receiving an appearance of Jesus was based on seeing a bright light on his bedroom wall late one night.
-the disciples put the empty tomb and the alleged appearance experiences together and came to the conclusion that the general resurrection of the dead had begun. Jesus was simply the first fruits of the resurrection, kind of like the first fruits of a harvest. Harvest doesn’t occur in just one day but over a period of days and even weeks. The Kingdom of God will begin at any second! Sell all you have and live in our Christian commune because Jesus’ return will occur any second now!
-Christianity, with its emphasis on social justice and the equality for all regardless of male or female, rich or poor, free or slave, and a promise of eternal riches in an afterlife of perfect happiness appealed to the oppressed lower classes in the Roman Empire. The new cult spread like wildfire…among Gentiles. Very few Jews converted to this sect.
And the rest is…history!
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
Gary, it’s possible someone moved the body of Jesus, but for someone who doesn’t have a naturalistic world view, or an anti supernatural kind of bias, it seems less likely. Who would have moved the body, though? It seems impossible that the Roman or Jewish authorities would have done this. This would be totally counter productive. I mean they wanted Jesus and his movement done, and out of the way. On the other hand, it doesn’t make good sense to me that the disciples or early followers of Jesus would have done this, and then went around propagating at risk to their lives and safety something they knew to be a lie simply to somehow give people false hope or something like that. To me, this would have been quite cruel actually.
I agree that Christian belief in the resurrection is also a matter of faith. But, for someone who believes that there is a God who created the cosmos, and established natural law to start with, it doesn’t appear as this delusional leap into the dark. It truly seems to me that the resurrection of the Son of God is a more reasonable explanation for the spread of the early Christian movement than mental illness or hallucination. But, then I’m not starting from a naturalistic kind of world view, and I think that is what makes a huge difference in people’s thinking.
LikeLike
Who would have moved the body, though? It seems impossible that the Roman or Jewish authorities would have done this. This would be totally counter productive.
Based on cumulative human experience, it is much more probable that SOMEONE (human) moved the body than that a reanimated/transformed corpse escaped his sealed tomb and later flew off into the clouds!!!
For someone who believes that there is a God who created the cosmos, and established natural law to start with, it doesn’t appear as this delusional leap into the dark.
If there is a supernatural, all-powerful being (God) then ANY supernatural claim is equally as possible as any natural event. So if we ask ourselves, which is more probable: Mohammad really did fly on a winged horse to heaven, or, he imagined it, he was delirious, he was hallucinating, he was drunk, or he lied—we must accept the claim that he flew on a winged horse as equally as probable as the other explanations!
Just admit it Christians: You assume the resurrection is the most probable explanation for the early Christian resurrection belief because you assume the existence of YOUR god, Yahweh, not just the existence of any generic “God”.
LikeLike
LOL, common ground
I don’t think Jesus flew off into the clouds either like superman.
I think the cloud that is said to have received Jesus is a symbol of the divine presence, a device often used in Scripture i.e. Ex. 19:16, Daniel 7:13, Mk. 9:7. According to theologian John Polkinghorne. “The Ascension is not Jesus starting out on a curious space journey but signifies His return to the Father taking up exalted authority and is to use another symbolic and metaphorical image is “seated at the right hand of God.”
Gary, and I shared this on another blog, there are spiritual realities so deep and profound that only story, metaphor, and symbolism can begin to convey the truth and the depth of them. For instance, how can we speak of God at all except at some point to use anthropomorphic language? But, really we are only scratching the surface of human understanding.
Even the resurrection of Jesus means so much more than simply a resuscitated corpse. But, I know you realize this as well.
LikeLike
I see no difference between your belief in Jesus the Christ and a child’s belief in Santa Claus. Both of you believe what you believe because it makes you feel good.
LikeLike
I see no difference between your belief in Jesus the Christ and a child’s belief in Santa Claus. Both of you believe what you believe because it makes you feel good.
LikeLike
@ Rebecca.
Without even a tomb it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that there was even a body.
Furthermore, If the tomb’s location was known it would surely have become a place of pilgrimage for later followers of the Way and much later so-called Christians.
And of course, contrary to all the claims it is not known.
Outside of the bible there is no record of Arimethea, who must have been a person of some influence to have persuaded Pilate to release the body for a formal burial, an unheard of practice, in a private hewed out rock tomb.
We know about Pilate’s nature: he was a vicious man who was eventually recalled to Rome for excessive cruelty. Not the type of person that would suddenly become misty-eyed over some Jew he had just had crucified for treason and all those crucified as enemies of the state were unceremoniously left on the cross to rot and afterwards dumped in a shallow trench and buried,
To have acceded to such a bizarre request from anyone is so out of character for what history records of Pilate that it be completely legitimate to suggest this is simply a flight of Christian influenced fancy.
LikeLike
Sorry, I didn’t see the last part of your comment. I don’t agree that we must accept the equal possibility of all supernatural claims, though, depending on the evidence presented.
For one thing, all contradictory claims cannot be equally true. For instance, Islam considers it a terrible blasphemy to suppose that Jesus died on the cross at all, or that He was anything more than a great teacher or prophet.
So, if I really conclude that Jesus rose from the dead this will invalidate other claims to religious or philosophical truth that contradict this. Not to say, that there isn’t any truth, at all, to be found in other religions, or philosophies. We can easily find common ground.
But, of course, an atheist would have to conclude that all are equally false and based in total delusion.
Anyway, Gary I”m sure you have studied and discussed this with people far more learned and qualified than me. We will have to agree to disagree.
Pax.
LikeLike
But, you were not always feeling in this way. Do you feel that it was simply exposure to critical scholarship and analysis that impacted your thinking or something much deeper than this?
LikeLike
It was evidence. Lots and lots of evidence.
LikeLike
i’ve just written a post on my own blog based around Acts 2.17 where ‘Luke’ tells his readers that in the last days ‘young men will see visions and old men dream dreams.’ (https://rejectingjesus.com/2018/06/10/young-mens-visions-old-mens-dreams/) Luke believed he was living in those last days and he puts these very words into Peter’s mouth – that’s Peter who was reputedly one of the first witnesses of the ‘resurrection.’
What is this but an admission that what the founders of the cult experienced were visions?
There was no empty tomb until much later on, when Mark’s gospel came to be written decades after these visions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very possible.
LikeLike
But, on the other hand, we also can read in the book of Acts material such as Acts 13:26-37 where the writer in this very same book speaks of the empty tomb, and then explicitly goes on to say concerning the Christ.
“You will not let your Holy One see decay For when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep, he was buried with his fathers and his body decayed. But the one who God raised from the dead did not see decay. …Take care what the prophets have said..I am going to do something in your days that you would never believe even if someone told you.”
Guys, there is a reason why equally informed people and even among eminent scholars can see all this so differently. We are all going to be impacted by our own world view, and inherent bias. There are no truly and completely intellectually unbiased folks out there interpreting all this.
All of us in every generation have to answer this question for ourselves. “Who do you say that I am?” And, of course how we respond will make a huge difference in the direction of our lives, and our thoughts.
LikeLike
Gary. Did you see Wallace has posted a second part to the Mark Papyrus nonsense?
https://danielbwallace.com/2018/06/11/first-century-mark-fragment-second-update/
LikeLike
Yes, he complained about people going off topic and then stated that he would no longer accept comments on his blog! I wonder why? He committed a major screw up and I suspect he engaged in a fair amount of lying and deception to limit the damage to his reputation. So no wonder he doesn’t want to deal with any more comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark,
I think you will find this conversation on this topic very interesting. This is the site where the news first broke that there was no first century fragment of Mark.
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2018/05/first-century-mark-published-at-last.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Rebecca
Are you aware of the findings of the Acts Seminar?
https://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/the-jesus-seminar/seminar-on-the-acts-of-the-apostles/
The Acts Seminar met twice a year beginning in 2001 and concluded its work at the spring Westar meeting in 2011. Dennis Smith, the seminar chair, compiled a list of the top ten accomplishment of the Acts Seminar:
The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical reassessment.
Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts.
Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.
Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.
Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature.
The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices.
Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.
LikeLike
Thank you, Ark. I am familiar with this, but by no means an expert.
I”m more familiar with their earlier study, the “Jesus Seminar.” Ark, I’ve had the opportunity and privilege of studying some of these matters at secular as well as in conservative and very progressive religious settings as well, so it’s given me a broad perspective in certain areas.
It seems to me that so much depends on the perspective of the individual scholars, and how they take hold of and interpret the evidence. Across the board, they will not all agree, generally even within the groups themselves.
I can tell you that I have not seen one that I think is completely objective and totally unbiased. But, as I say, I”m not an expert or a scholar myself. There could be a first time. 🙂
LikeLike
I mentioned them as you raised Acts in a previous comment.
Are you saying that you consider Acts to be historical fact?
LikeLike
On the origins of resurrection belief, according to Mark 6:14-16 some were saying John the Baptist had been “raised from the dead.” This is interesting because like Jesus, John was the leader of an apocalyptic sect who had a following and was unjustly executed. John also had disciples, used baptism as an integral part of his ministry, some thought he might have even been the Messiah. Is it just pure coincidence that we have the followers of two Jewish apocalyptic sects claiming their leaders had both Risen from the dead after their executions? Obviously, the concept of a *single* dying and rising prophet figure existed in the apocalyptic Judaism of Jesus’ day so it’s no surprise that his followers applied the concept to him.
On the appearances, Paul is the earliest and only firsthand source and is thus more likely to accurately preserve the earliest Christian beliefs. Paul says “God revealed His Son in me” – Gal. 1:16. This was an experience Paul had while Jesus was believed to be *in heaven.* It was not a physical encounter with formerly dead corpse that had returned to life. Paul uses this experience as a *Resurrection appearance* in 1 Cor 15:8. This shows that early Christians certainly accepted “visions” or spiritual experiences of the Risen Christ as evidence of a resurrection. Paul places his vision in parallel with the “appearances” to the others without making a distinction in regards to their nature, quality, or type. Without appealing to the later gospels and Acts apologists have no reason to conclude the “appearances” were anything other than spiritual experiences like Paul had.
As for the group appearances, they could have been nothing other than a mass ecstatic worship experience like people have today in church. Plenty of people claim to have “seen” or “experienced” Jesus without actually physically seeing him! What must be kept in mind is that Second Temple Judaism was a visionary culture in which people claimed to have visions of God and angels all the time! Therefore, it’s perfectly plausible to think of the resurrection appearances as visions.
LikeLike
Very interesting points! Thanks!
LikeLike