The Gospel's claim of the resurrection is a falsifiable statement...?

Question

If there is evidence that the Gospels were circulating around 60 AD and so were the eyewitnesses, how would a resurrection claim survive if all one had to do was visit a tomb that wasn't empty. Surely the Romans would of kept it guarded. Give evidence not speculations. Remember even Jesus' own were willing to deny the event in the beginning.

To clarify: See Papyri 52 concerning the age of the gospels. I am trying to demonstrate that the christian claim historically was a falsifiable one not an abstract claim that by definition is non provable. Christianity falls or stands on the resurrection account. The Gospels would have not survived in a persecuting environment without eyewitnesses and evidence to back it up. The early church protected the documents throughout the region. If one was edited it would eventually be discarded when matched with other ones that were displaced geographically. This blows the claim that the Church manipulated christianity for its own power. Noone yet has given a satisfactory answer to explain christianity's ability to survive if the resurrection did not happen.

Answer 1

REWRITTEN:
I misunderstood you originally; I thought you were saying that the believers didn't believe Jesus resurrected.

I think your point is hard to deny, and you will hopefully make seekers who are genuine have a re-think. But its amazing how people's minds will just look for another reason not to believe. I suppose some people will say that early church history is unreliable. I don't think that is so, but some people are so ideologically and emotionally bound to unbelief that they look for reasons for unbelief.

Answer 2

Your last statement is not true at all. If the same disciples who ran like scared rabbits at the Crucifixion knew that Jesus had not risen from the dead, they wouldn't have suddenly been willing to give up their lives for a lie. Instead, they were out preaching boldly to crowds of people about their risen Lord and Savior.

Also, there were over 500 people who all saw Jesus at the same time, according to the Bible account. When the New Testament was being written, many of those people were still alive. They could have contradicted a false report, but they did not.

And finally, there *was* the fact of the empty tomb. Roman soldiers caught sleeping on guard duty would have been executed -- not bribed and told what to say when someone asked them about what had happened "while they were asleep." The fact that they were given money and told to say that Jesus' disciples had stolen the body is one of the best independent pieces of evidence for the Resurrection.

Jesus' own did not deny Him after the Resurrection -- only beforehand. That's why their change of heart is so important as documentation for the fact that Christ rose from the dead.

Answer 3

"Surely the Romans would have kept it guarded." Really? why do you think that?

If we stipulate that Jesus actually existed, and was actually crucified, it seems quite possible that the Romans would have lost interest in guarding the tomb quite quickly. The body of Jesus could have been taken away for any number of reasons and kept secret. This may have led to a rumor that he resurrected.

There are many, many possible stories that do not require any miracles that could have resulted in a mythology around a very charismatic person living at that time. We'll never know which of these stories is correct, far too much time has elapsed.

Answer 4

There *is* no "evidence"; the event happened way too long ago.

What is the "evidence" that the gospels were circulating around 60 C.E.?

I doubt the Romans would have bothered guarding the tomb. It was just the burial place of another Jew they had put to death, nothing that special about it as far as they were concerned. He had been a problem when he was alive; surely the Romans did not think he was going to give them any more trouble now that he was dead.

.

Answer 5

Alright kiddos, let's try this again.... There would not have been a tomb, period. Roman crucifictions were not only a death penalty, but they also served the purpose of reminding others what would happen to them if they broke the law. Bodies were not permitted to be removed. They were left there and eaten by carrion birds and rotted until they fell off. (Can you imagine the stench?!?)

So, historically speaking, Jesus was never laid in a tomb at all. He was consumed by carrion birds and eventually fell apart/off the cross. Even if followers had gone and collected Jesus' bones later, there would be no way for them to tell if those were his bones or the bones of some other guy crucified near him.

~Morg~

PS - Thousands of people "saw" Lacey Peterson after her hubby killed her and dumped her in the bay. Was that a miracle? Did she resurrect? Where is her religion?

Answer 6

The tomb was empty, and also an earthquake. Sooo much happened.

Jesus raised from the dead.

All the witnesses of Jesus alive after He died on the cross. So? Peter even denied He was one of the Apostles, when Jesus died.

They all figured it out though, when He rose from the dead. Jesus also prophecied to Peter that Peter would give his life for the Gospel sake when Peter was old. John would tary.

Answer 7

joey, you got me confused. what are you trying to do? refute the claim of the resurrection or support it???

i think you are urging non-believers to refute the evidence for the resurrection but the wording of your question is rather twisted....

god bless

Answer 8

All they had to do is produce the body
Apparently, they could not