"Jesus rose from the dead" is an Empirical Claim

The weaker sense of the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" (JRD hereafter) can be clarified in terms of three historical claims:

(1) Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in or near Jerusalem in about 30 CE.
(2) Jesus died on the cross on the same day that he was crucified.
(3) Jesus was alive and walking around within a few days after he was crucified.

If all three of these assumptions are true, then so is JRD, at least on the weak-sense interpretation of that claim. Since these three claims are empirical claims, I conclude that it is possible, at least in theory, to confirm that JRD is true on the basis of empirical evidence.

If one of these assumptions were known to be false, one could reasonably conclude that JRD is also false. This latter inference is not logically necessary; however, since we can imagine scenarios in which one of the three assumptions was false while JRD was true.

For example, suppose that Jesus suffered on the cross for three days then died (instead of hanging on the cross for part of one day, as indicated in the Gospel accounts) and that he came back to life two weeks later (instead of two days later, as indicated in the Gospel accounts). In this case it would be true that Jesus rose from the dead, but at least two of the above assumptions would be false.

However, this scenario is significantly different from what we find in the Gospel accounts. So, if this imaginary scenario were the case, then the Gospel accounts would be unreliable and untrustworthy, at least in terms of some of the key details they present about the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, and about the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus. If the Gospel accounts are unreliable and untrustworthy, then it is difficult to see how we who live in the 21st century could ever have solid reasons for believing that Jesus rose from the dead. The three assumptions above provide a general summary of the resurrection of Jesus as presented in the Gospels. If one or more of the assumptions is false, then the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion, burial, and post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus are unreliable and the case for the resurrection of Jesus collapses.

If a solid case cannot be made for the resurrection of Jesus, then one should reject JRD. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since common experience and scientific medicine agree that a person who dies and stops breathing for two hours or more will stay dead, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that this applies in the specific case of Jesus, and thus that the Gospel accounts of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are in error.

The falsehood of one or more of the above historical assumptions could thus reasonably be taken as disconfirmation of JRD, in view of the fact that JRD is presumptively false on the basis of common experience and scientific medical knowledge. The burden of proof rests upon Christians to provide solid evidence in support of the above three assumptions.

So, it seems to me that JRD could be confirmed or disconfirmed by empirical evidence. JRD is a factual, empirical, and historical claim which is subject to evaluation in terms of empirical and historical evidence.

Skepticism about the Resurrection

There is a weak and a strong sense of the claim "Jesus rose from the dead." The meaning intended by most Christian apologists is the strong sense:

(s) Jesus died and then came back to life with a new immortal body that had amazing supernatural powers (e.g. he could walk through walls and could levitate himself up into the sky at will).

This claim is not supportable even if one makes the extremely dubious assumption that the Gospels present highly reliable accounts of the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, and post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus. So, Christian apologists will never be able to prove this strong claim.

At best, the Gospels can only support a weaker sense of this claim:

(w) Jesus died and then came back to life.

This weaker sense of the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" can be clarified in terms of three historical claims:

(1) Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in or near Jerusalem in about 30 CE.
(2) Jesus died on the cross on the same day that he was crucified.
(3) Jesus was alive and walking around within a few days after he was crucified.

Skepticism about the resurrection can be categorized in terms of these three claims: skepticism about the crucifixion of Jesus, skepticism about the death of Jesus, and skepticism about Jesus being alive after the crucifixion. There are also, of course, various degrees of skepticism or doubt:

• Ordinary Doubt: I'm not sure whether that is true or false.
• Weak Agnosticism: No one knows whether that is true or false.
• Strong Agnosticism: No one can ever know whether that is true or false.
• Weak Disbelief: I believe that is false, but I'm not sure.
• Firm Disbelief: I firmly believe that is false.
• Strong Disbelief: I know that is false, and I can prove that it is false.

There are thus at least three categories of skepticism about the resurrection and at least six different degrees of skepticism in each category, so there are at least 18 different forms of skepticism about the claim that "Jesus rose from the dead", not including the skeptical view expressed above that no one will ever be able to prove the strong sense of this claim--strong agnosticism concerning (s).

Why I Rejected Christianity

Before I began to study philosophy in college, I already had a strong leaning towards an intellectually-oriented, even philosophical, Christian faith. I believed that there were good, solid reasons for believing in God, and in the inspiration of the Bible, and in the resurrection and deity of Jesus.

As I studied the arguments for the existence of God and the various objections that skeptics have raised to these arguments, it became clear to me that there were no compelling arguments for the existence of God, and that there were plenty of good reasons to doubt that such a being existed.

At the same time that my belief in God was being challenged by my studies in the philosophy of religion, I was also struggling with the idea that a perfectly good and perfectly just creator would consign some of his/her own creatures to eternal torment and misery in hell. I attempted to find alternative interpretations of the New Testament, so that I could maintain my basic Christian beliefs but discard the revolting idea of a loving parent who tortures his/her own children by burning them alive. This attempt was not successful. I was left with the firm conclusion that if the creator had indeed inspired the NT, then he/she must either be an evil and immoral person, or else be an incompetent bungler who unintentionally left the clear impression that he/she was an evil and immoral person.

Up until that point I had managed to ignore a number of apparent inconsistencies and absurdities in the Bible, but as I became open to the possibility that there were errors in the Holy book, a number of examples of such problems began to quickly pile up, and my dozen-year love affair with Jesus and the Bible came to an abrupt end.

Why did I reject Christianity? I rejected Christianity because there are no solid arguments for the existence of God, but there are good reasons to doubt the existence of God. I also rejected Christianity because the Bible contains a number of inconsistencies and absurdities. Most of all, I rejected Christianity because the moral principles that I learned from Jesus led me to the conclusion that Jehovah (the God that Jesus worshipped) was an evil and immoral person.