Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

There is a reference of armed Jesus followers in NT itself. How does a group of followers enter the temple area on a very very important day and create serious enough disturbance and mayhem to force the Romans to not arrest them then, but arrest the leader later in the night in secret? Only a numerically superior and threatening armed mob can be the explanation. Roman imperial authority was brutal but not idiots. They crucified Jesus because they saw him to be leading a significant threat to their order by the activities he and his followers did in the temple.

I’ve read that this may relate to the temple riots when Pilate went and used temple funds for an aqueduct and also the eagle images.

 

[blü 2]

2 I ask you to explain qhat you mean by evidence

'Evidence' is information offered for or against or qualifying a particular proposition or argument.

'Information' is that which is intended to inform, or is capable of informing ─ a set of things purportedly known about a particular topic.

What definition did you have in mind?

 

[Colt]

Did he? The Bible idiotically says men are liars and men wrote the Bible so how can we know that he wasn’t just some follower of the Baptist, who was anti-Herodian and executed for irritating the authorities?

We know because of the things he did like resurrecting Lazarus from the dead, other miracles and finally returning from death on his own. But if you think that's a lie you can trust God like he trusted God and come to know the Father yourself.

But being a skeptic is the easier path.

 

[Colt]

How come people who die from obvious fatal causes don’t get resurrected, only people who “die” of something vague? The Bible never has, say, a headless man resurrect.

Crucifixion was a "vague" way to go? Try it yourself! If resurrected, then you will ask for beheading next time!

 

[Colt]

Do you accept that Elvis sightings have been widely reported for decades after his death? Do you accept this led to a dedicated set of people who believed that Elvis did not die, but was alive and would reveal himself at a later date? Is that not very very similar to what happened with the Jesus case...only with religious overtones because Jesus was afterall a religious leader? Does this not show that thousands of people can be utterly convonced that they saw a dead man alive even though no such thing happened? So why invoke supernatural explanations at all?




The question here is....how much value can we put on assertions made by a group of people who are basically scholars of religious studies about matters of history and historicity. Jesus studies is a niche cottage industry run by a group whose methods are not cross-verified by actual historians and whose conclusions vary over such a huge spectrum (Jesus never existed to Jesus was resurrected!!). Have you ever seen a 3 volume 7000 page tome written by any historian on any important figure of ancient history (Alexander, Pericles or even Caeser?) I have seen such things on Jesus, several such ponderous tomes (James Dunn, N T Wright, Habermass etc etc). Yet the actual material available is far far ....far less. And they are frankly peer reviewing each other! If you read them....you will see that they NEVER refer to any historical method that had been applied by other historians in constructing the life of any other historical figure outside Biblical ones (say Socrates or Hannibal etc.) After reading their work over a period of years....it has become clear to me that their work is like a pack of cards....a gigantic behemoth of assumptions and rationalizations resting on little if any actual solid evidence. So, I am sorry. I do not have any confidence in their findings.




Look at sources. I have read many books on this many years ago. I can dredge them up. But slave rebellion was considered treason, as slavery was at the core of the Roman republic. Crucifixion was something that was done on rebels, brigands and enemy soldiers, as well as deserters from the army...basically who threatened the government by committing treason.
There is a reference of armed Jesus followers in NT itself. How does a group of followers enter the temple area on a very very important day and create serious enough disturbance and mayhem to force the Romans to not arrest them then, but arrest the leader later in the night in secret? Only a numerically superior and threatening armed mob can be the explanation. Roman imperial authority was brutal but not idiots. They crucified Jesus because they saw him to be leading a significant threat to their order by the activities he and his followers did in the temple.

Jesus was a threat to the lucrative Temple business and the religious claims of Jewish nationalism! Ironically, it's still a problem today! Consider this, in Israel TODAY how are Liberal Jewish politicians viewed by the more right-wing faction???

Pilate didn't find Jesus guilty of anything but because he had failed in his duties in dealing with the Jews before they had some influence over him.

 

[Colt]

The difference between the Baha'i Faith and other religions, particularly Christianity is that no one outside this forum has ever heard of or gives a hoot about the Baha'i faith.

I'm a disciple of Jesus, I have heard of the Baha'i Faith and visited one of their beautiful temples in Israel. They know God!

 

[Colt]

I will agree yes atheists debate to undermine Theism including Christianity. That is the nature of the debate, and as I said before many of their objections are justified, and I am a Theist. Likewise in debate Christians and other theists try to undermine atheism. Nothing new here.

The problem that remains is your accusation of 'Heckling.' I would like to some examples of what you call 'Heckling.'

If this was an "atheist, non-religious forum" then theist would be fair game! When atheist join religious forums to undermine the faith of believers then that's just evil! IMOP

 

[Colt]

Do you realize that your circular argument is based only on subjective belief and nothing else?

No coherent response here to the atheist or agnostic arguments.

Reality is primarily subjective. I was responding to his question about whether or not I would want to be an Atheist. But you barge in and answer questions that are not directed to you?

 

[wellwisher]

I recently finished Michael Licona's book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach which argues that there are 3 minimal facts that are accepted by virtually all New Testament scholars which form the so called historical bedrock regarding the fate of Jesus. These are as follows:

1. Jesus was killed by crucifixion under Pilate
2. Very soon after his death, his disciples reported having experiences which they interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to them, both individually and in groups
3. The early Church persecutor Paul also had an experience which he interpreted as Jesus appearing to him and this experience convinced him to convert to Christianity

Licona argues in detail against the naturalistic hypotheses that attempt to account for the bedrock and concludes that the best explanation is that Jesus actually rose from the dead. He does so by ranking each hypothesis based on how well they satisfy the following criteria:

- Explanatory scope - does the hypothesis account for all the data
- Explanatory power - how well does the hypothesis explain the data
- Plausibility - is the hypothesis compatible with or implied by facts that are generally accepted as known
- Less ad hoc - does the hypothesis go beyond what is known and makes unevidenced assumptions
- Illumination (a bonus criteria) - does the hypothesis shed light on other areas of inquiry

Has anyone interacted with this argument or others similar to it such as those of N.T. Wright, William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas? If so, what are your objections to it?

Bringing people back from the dead is done by doctors and EMT's daily. People drown and can be resurrected by amyone who knows some CPR. There are many documented cases where people are buried alive, because they were presumed dead. Later, they find fingernail scratches inside their coffins, after they awaken while buried and try to escape.

Maybe Atheists are thinking too much like a Hollywood movie, which tend to exaggerate for special affect. Jesus could have slipped into a coma, after a hard day of torture. They place the body in tomb, which was more like a walk in cave and not buried under the earth. He awakens after a few days of unconsciousness.

Jesus was a young carpenter by trade, who was also said to be a glutton and drunkard. I can infer that Jesus was in good physical shape by his job, and also well fed by his partying. His body would be rugged and durable. Jesus had trained in the desert, going 40 days without food, to strengthen his will and body. Many things that could not be explained back then, which can now be explained and done by science such as CPR and roadside resurrections.

 

[Colt]

Bringing people back from the dead is done by doctors and EMT's daily. People drown and can be resurrected by amyone who knows some CPR. There are many documented cases where people are buried alive, because they were presumed dead. Later, they find fingernail scratches inside their coffins, after they awaken while buried and try to escape.

Maybe Atheists are thinking too much like a Hollywood movie, which tend to exaggerate for special affect. Jesus could have slipped into a coma, after a hard day of torture. They place the body in tomb, which was more like a walk in cave and not buried under the earth. He awakens after a few days of unconsciousness.

Jesus was a young carpenter by trade, who was also said to be a glutton and drunkard. I can infer that Jesus was in good physical shape by his job, and also well fed by his partying. His body would be rugged and durable. Jesus had trained in the desert, going 40 days without food, to strengthen his will and body. Many things that could not be explained back then, which can now be explained and done by science such as CPR and roadside resurrections.

Atheist and skeptics make the fatal mistake of assuming that if they don't understand something then its not logical, rational or possible! Their vantage point is from the EGO of a "know it all".

 

[leroy]

The subject of the thread is the Resurrection of Jesus and NOT weiger.

The first primary evidence is objectively verifiable evidence. Supernatural events in history and today lack objectively verifiable evidence that anything claimed miraculous needs to be justified by such evidence. All ancient tribal religions claim miraculous events and none are verifiable.

As far as historical academic evidence here is another problem with ancient tribal scripture narratives. Academic historical Standards apply here. I have cited them before in the redundant threads on the same topic and can repeat them again here. Evidence needed is archeological, cross-referenced sources, and other records to compare. They are not history as recorded. They contain some facts and persons in history, but are only verified by limited outside evidence. The problem with the gospels there are no records that even recorded the existence of Jesus much less the claimed miraculous events such as the Resurrection. This is universally true of all ancient religions. Academic history cannot take sides for anyone or the other religion.

Religious history is not subject to the same standards as academic history. Religious history is dominated by what people believe us true base on their scriptures and traditional beliefs, Thus apologetics.

Well the OP is building a case for the resurection that only uses verifiable historical facts.

The OP doest presuposes that the new testament is true or even reliable, it only uses the bits of data are are considered to ve true by the majority of scholars.

 

[leroy]

The thread is about the mythical resurrection of Jesus. You are not fooling anyone.

There is no wager. Drop the false analogy

Dude!! You have not moved it 1%. You do not even know how to calculate such odds.


Nope, not even 1%. To get anywhere close to 99% or even 50% you would need rock solid evidence and you do not have that.

No, I said that there is no reliable evidence. You keep trying to change what people claimed.

And I did so. You ignored that.


No, I even made you an offer since you ignored the time I gave you a definition. You ran away from that.



Pure projection on your part. You ran away from a reasonable offer. When you do that you cannot keep making demands. Did you forget that your refusal to debate properly is why you are on corrections only so often?

Your hability to run away when you are cornered is amazing.

Stop claiming that there is not reliable evidence if you are not willing to define what you mean.....,remember you have your own personal language where words have different definitions from their real definitions , this is why you have to define dome terms.

You ran away from a reasonable offer.

Stop the hypocrisy I have accepted you "reasonable offers" multiple times and you always find am excuse for not defining your terms or explaining your views.


Here is the challenge
1 define "evidence"
2 explain why doesn't the information in the OP (and his source) qualify as evidence for the resurrection
3 explain how alternaive naturalistic hypothesis do have evidence.


Dont worry this is just a joke, nobody in this forum expects you to answer to this challenge.

 

[leroy]

'Evidence' is information offered for or against or qualifying a particular proposition or argument.

'Information' is that which is intended to inform, or is capable of informing ─ a set of things purportedly known about a particular topic.

What definition did you have in mind?

I find that definition to be ok, I would only add that such información has to make the proposition more likelly to be true, than without such información)in order to qualify as evidence.......but @Subduction Zone wont accept it, because he has his own language and has his own definitions for words.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Just explain your hypothesis in detail, (or quote a source that does that) and explain why is that hypothesis better if you already did, then I am sorry I missed your post, why is it so hard to copy-paste something that you already wrote?

You didn't do the search I recommended, or you would have found it. What you don't understand, Leroy, is that I expect you to do your part, and you show no interest. I showed you how to review a post while answering it to be thorough about its claims and questions, but you apparently never saw it. I also showed you how to do your own searches and you didn't acknowledge seeing it when it went by nor try to make it work for you, and then you want me to repeat myself. Why bother? Do you remember Einstein's definition of insanity? I don't know how to reach you, and I've given up trying.

I´ve seen WLC claiming that X or Y thing would falsify Christianity………… so you are obviously misrepresenting him.
these are WLC words
"the discovery of Jesus’ remains would, of course, give good reason to think Christianity to be false"

No, if Craig said that he can moved by evidence, then he is contradicting himself and should not be believed. He's already told us that no evidence can do that. Nothing would make him believe that if a body were found, it was Jesus of the Gospels. He told you so.

You've heard the creationists who claim that nobody has ever seen life come from nonlife, implying that it would be evidence for naturalism if we could do that and they would accept it as that. If they believe that, then they don't know themselves very well. This is what people who don't use evidence say to those who do to make themselves appear more reasonable and tethered to reality, but we already know that there is nothing that would change their minds.

That's what locked in means. That's what faith absent critical thinking skills leaves one with. There is no way back for them. If you show them a pathway from nonlife to life, they won't accept it as evidence against intelligent design after all. It suddenly become evidence that intelligence is needed.

BTW what would convince you that naturalism is false? And please do not answer something vague like “evidence” I want to know exactly what type of discovery or observation would convince you that naturalism is false.

That's your job. You like to talk about shifting the burden of proof, but that's what you're doing. You want to know what would disprove your claim. You have no evidence to support supernaturalism but scripture, which is evidence of nothing except that somebody wrote those words down.

If you can't identify a finding that falsifies naturalism, you have no basis to conclude that it is incomplete.

Atheist and skeptics make the fatal mistake of assuming that if they don't understand something then its not logical, rational or possible!

You flatter yourself thinking that your beliefs are rejected because they weren't understood.

And to call something a mistake, there needs to be a cost to making it. Applying the tenets of critical thought has produced dividends. The mistake would have been to do less. You called skepticism easy. Yet critical thinking is an acquired skill found in a minority and usually coming after a university education, whereas believing by faith is where we start from in childhood.

 

[blü 2]

I find that definition to be ok, I would only add that such información has to make the proposition more likelly to be true, than without such información)in order to qualify as evidence.......but @Subduction Zone wont accept it, because he has his own language and has his own definitions for words.

I may be misunderstanding you, but if we use a court-room as a familiar kind of example, evidence can be offered to show that X did A and evidence can be offered to show that X did not do A. To fit with how you've phrased it above, we'd need two propositions, that '[[X did A] is true], or that [[X did not do A] is true] ─ rather than (as I'd have said) [X did A] is true, or [X did A] is false.

Have I got that right?

 

[Colt]

You didn't do the search I recommended, or you would have found it. What you don't understand, Leroy, is that I expect you to do your part, and you show no interest. I showed you how to review a post while answering it to be thorough about its claims and questions, but you apparently never saw it. I also showed you how to do your own searches and you didn't acknowledge seeing it when it went by nor try to make it work for you, and then you want me to repeat myself. Why bother? Do you remember Einstein's definition of insanity? I don't know how to reach you, and I've given up trying.

No, if Craig said that he can moved by evidence, then he is contradicting himself and should not be believed. He's already told us that no evidence can do that. Nothing would make him believe that if a body were found, it was Jesus of the Gospels. He told you so.

You've heard the creationists who claim that nobody has ever seen life come from nonlife, implying that it would be evidence for naturalism if we could do that and they would accept it as that. If they believe that, then they don't know themselves very well. This is what people who don't use evidence say to those who do to make themselves appear more reasonable and tethered to reality, but we already know that there is nothing that would change their minds.

That's what locked in means. That's what faith absent critical thinking skills leaves one with. There is no way back for them. If you show them a pathway from life to nonlife, they won't accept it as evidence against intelligent design after all. It suddenly become evidence that intelligence is needed.

That's your job. You like to talk about shifting the burden of proof, but that's what you're doing. You want to know what would disprove your claim. You have no evidence to support supernaturalism but scripture, which is evidence of nothing except that somebody wrote those words down.

If you can't identify a finding that falsifies naturalism, you have no basis to conclude that it is incomplete.

You flatter yourself thinking that your beliefs are rejected because they weren't understood.

And to call something a mistake, there needs to be a cost to making it. Applying the tenets of critical thought has produced dividends. The mistake would have been to do less. You called skepticism easy. Yet critical thinking is an acquired skill found in a minority and usually coming after a university education, whereas believing by faith is where we start from in childhood.

Actually, you flatter yourself by drawing conclusions about the universe when you dont know everything there is to know. Thats why true atheists live by a form of faith in the doctrines of doubt.

 

[leroy]

You didn't do the search I recommended, or you would have found it. What you don't understand, Leroy, is that I expect you to do your part, and you show no interest. I showed you how to review a post while answering it to be thorough about its claims and questions, but you apparently never saw it. I also showed you how to do your own searches and you didn't acknowledge seeing it when it went by nor try to make it work for you, and then you want me to repeat myself. Why bother? Do you remember Einstein's definition of insanity? I don't know how to reach you, and I've given up trying.

The post is not there and you know it.

No, if Craig said that he can moved by evidence, then he is contradicting himself and should not be believed. He's already told us that no evidence can do that. Nothing would make him believe that if a body were found, it was Jesus of the Gospels. He told you so.

You've heard the creationists who claim that nobody has ever seen life come from nonlife, implying that it would be evidence for naturalism if we could do that and they would accept it as that. If they believe that, then they don't know themselves very well. This is what people who don't use evidence say to those who do to make themselves appear more reasonable and tethered to reality, but we already know that there is nothing that would change their minds.

That is wrong (on red letters) this is not what the quote says.

WLC is simply saying that the main reason for why he belives christianity is true is faith (he had an experience and he trust it was genuine)...... this doesn't imply that nothing could convince him that he is wrong

Note my courtesy: you where wrong and I explained why are you wrong. ..... will I ever have the same courtesy from you ?


But atleast know I know that it is not personal against me, you strawman everybody not just me.

That's your job. You like to talk about shifting the burden of proof, but that's what you're doing. You want to know what would disprove your claim. You have no evidence to support supernaturalism but scripture, which is

I find it ironic that you are doing exactly what YEC do and criticize it so much.

You dont answer what would falsify naturalism because you are no different from a fanatic religious person.


BTW that is a red harring falacy, you made an attempt to move the conversation away from the original question. ..... even if what you said about me and scripture is correct, that still doesn't answer the original question. (What would falsify naturalism)


Note that I had the courtesy of quoting your words and justifying my accusation of you commiting a logical fallacy. ....... why cant you show the same courtesy?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Actually, you flatter yourself by drawing conclusions about the universe when you dont know everything there is to know. Thats why true atheists live by a form of faith in the doctrines of doubt.

Here's the "If you don't know everything, you don't know anything" argument many theists are fond of when confronted with contradictory thinking. It's an attempt to dismiss all knowledge out of hand. The problem with that argument is that it would apply to themselves and their claims as well.

"Doctrines of doubt"? Do you mean skepticism? To the best of my knowledge, I have no unsupported beliefs, including that one. The value of skepticism is empirically demonstrable, and knowing that requires no faith. It reshaped the world and greatly improved the human condition, and it's been invaluable to me personally. It reshaped my life and greatly improved it.

You dont answer what would falsify naturalism because you are no different from a fanatic religious person.

I'm tired of this Leroy. I'm tired of your intellectual shortcomings being framed as my character defects. I'm only willing to discuss that with you at this point, not your religious beliefs.

 

[leroy]

I may be misunderstanding you, but if we use a court-room as a familiar kind of example, evidence can be offered to show that X did A and evidence can be offered to show that X did not do A. To fit with how you've phrased it above, we'd need two propositions, that '[[X did A] is true], or that [[X did not do A] is true] ─ rather than (as I'd have said) [X did A] is true, or [X did A] is false.

Have I got that right?

Both seem ok to me.
........

Imagine that there are 100 neighbors living in a building and someone left his trash in the lobby.

The intrinsic probability that any specific neighbor did it (say John) is 1%.

In this context any bit of information that makes john more likely to be guilty than 1% would be evidence in favor of the John did it hypothesis

Moving the probability from 1% to 2% would be week relatively evidence

Moving the probability from 1% to 50% would be strong evidence

Moving the probability to 80% is convincing evidence

99.99% conclusive evidence

 

[leroy]

Here's the "If you don't know everything, you don't know anything" argument many theists are fond of when confronted with contradictory thinking. It's an attempt to dismiss all knowledge out of hand. The problem with that argument is that it would apply to themselves and their claims as well.

"Doctrines of doubt"? Do you mean skepticism? To the best of my knowledge, I have no unsupported beliefs, including that one. The value of skepticism is empirically demonstrable, and knowing that requires no faith. It reshaped the world and greatly improved the human condition, and it's been invaluable to me personally. It reshaped my life and greatly improved it.


I'm tired of this Leroy. I'm tired of your intellectual shortcomings being framed as my character defects. I'm only willing to discuss that with you at this point, not your religious beliefs.

But still you are avoididing my question

What would falsify naturalism?


And even more important .....you are refusing to provide (and develop) an alternative explanation for the resurrection which is the topic of the OP.

Why did you even participanted in this thread if you are ignoring the OP?