How do you prove the Resurrection of Jesus never happened?

Answer 1

The early Church Fathers spoke of a physical resurrection rather than a spiritual resurrection. Irenaeus, as an example, was a pupil of Polycarp, who was also in turn a pupil of John the apostle who had witnessed Christ's resurrection first hand. Irenaeus , in his 'Against Heresies' affirmed his unwavering belief that the saints would rise physically, just like Christ, and be part of he new heaven and earth.

Some theologians (but certainly not all) interpret Paul as thinking of Jesus' resurrection as spiritual; however this is based on just a few verses taken out of context and an ambiguous use of the word 'soma' meaning 'body'. They are easily explained away if we remember that Paul did not witness the resurrected Christ physically. The only encounter with the risen Christ that Paul had was on the Damascus Road at his conversion, when Christ appeared in the form of a blinding light. Also Paul's encounter with Christ was a long time after the resurrection and bodily ascension of Christ (Acts 1-6), so that any physical appearance of Jesus would not be possible for Paul as it was for the disciples.

Paul even admits the fact in 1 Corinthians 15, where he lists the resurrection appearances he knew about, finally adding himself as the last to whom Christ appeared. Thus, for Paul, Christ appearance was not physical as it was for the disciples, nor to those on the road to Emmaus, nor to those who passed on the oral tradition in the early church as witnesses of the physical resurrection and subsequently teaching the new followers of Christ accordingly, before the Gospel message was written down. However, this does not mean that Paul did not believe in the physical resurrection.

Finally, while Mark's account was indeed used by Luke and Matthew in formulating their own gospels, the Gospel of John is unique. Less than 10% of John's gospel is to be found in the other accounts of Matthew Mark and Luke, and so more than 90% is unique and independent. Moreover, most theologians regard John's gospel as written by John the apostle. Irenaeus certainly believed so and he was only one generation away from John himself. And in John's gospel the resurrection was irrefutably physical.

Thus it is impossible to disprove the resurrection, or prove it. However, the evidence points clearly to its reality; evidence not only of the Gospels but of the early Church Fathers, many of whom were either the pupils of the disciples themselves, or pupils of pupils.

Answer 2

It is usually almost impossible to prove a negative, so the question should be how to prove the Resurrection actually did happen. However, this is also impossible to prove, and few Christians are willing to even try (other than by relying on you to believe in The Bible).

The weight of evidence is that the resurrection was not a physical resurrection but was at first believed to have been a spiritual resurrection. Later, the gospel authors created elaborate stories to 'prove' that Jesus had been resurrected physically. This contention is supported by some important theologians.

Paul wrote his epistles before any of the gospels was written. 1 Corinthians 15:15-44 show that Paul believed the resurrection was of his spiritual body, which is not the physical body, and that all people are raised from the dead in the same meaning. At 1Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul also seems to have believed that when the risen Jesus appeared to Cephas, then the twelve, then to more than 500 (most of whom were still alive) then to James and all the apostles, that the appearances were all of the same nature as the appearance to himself, with no suggestion that any of those appearances somehow more real than the spiritual appearance he experienced. Paul seems to say that the risen Jesus did not show himself physically, but only through visions or dreams.

John Shelby Spong (Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus) rejects the physical resurrection. In his view, Jesus was not physically resurrected, but rather "exalted" by God.

Mark's Gospel originally ended at verse 16:8, with the young man telling the women that Jesus was risen and they told no one. The "Long Ending" (verses 16:9-20) was added to Mark's Gospel long afterwards to provide the necessary resurrection appearances. The authors of the other gospels relied on Mark's Gospel for everything they knew about the life and mission of Jesus, but since Mark as yet had no resurrection details, each author had to create his own ending, and each ending is entirely different to the other. Since all accounts of the empty tomb are dependent on Mark, the story hangs by a slender thread indeed.

Archbishop Peter Carnley (The Structure of Resurrection Belief ) writes: The presence of discrepancies might be a sign of historicity if we had four clearly independent but slightly different versions of the story, if only for the reason that four witnesses are better than one. But, of course, it is now impossible to argue that what we have in the four gospel accounts of the empty tomb are four contemporaneous but independent accounts of the one event. Modern redactional studies of the traditions account for the discrepancies as literary developments at the hand of later redactors of what was originally one report of the empty tomb...
There is no suggestion that the tomb was discovered by different witnesses on four different occasions, so it is in fact impossible to argue that the discrepancies were introduced by different witnesses of the one event; rather, they can be explained as four different redactions for apologetic and kerygmatic reasons of a single story originating from one source.
Having established that there is no good reason to believe that Jesus was resurrected in his physical body, it then depends on faith, and faith alone, whether you believe that he was resurrected spiritually.