Evidence for the Resurrection

[Goose]

In my opinion, when determining the truthfulness of Christianity virtually everything is secondary in importance to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the Rez). Paul made this clear when he said in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "if Christ has not been raised, then our message means nothing and your faith means nothing." I believe the truthfulness of Christianity hangs primarily on the Rez.

I also believe there is a solid case for the Rez that meets a reasonable burden of proof for matters of history. Equal, at least, to that which we accept for other pivotal events in ancient history accepted as true and rarely questioned.

As indicated by the spectrum of the below quoted scholars and historians, I propose we can be reasonably certain some historical "facts" are probably true regardless of our philosophical predispositions. We can then look at theories that account for those facts.

The Methodology:

A "fact" shouldn't necessarily need to pass all of the listed criteria to be considered probable. Failing any one particular criterion does not necessarily make the fact false. Indeed very few, if any at all, ancient historical "facts" we rarely question would adequately pass all the requests of such a rigorous criteria as set out below. However, a fact that fails to pass a single criterion we would be justified in believing it to be improbable. Passing one or two should be sufficient to have the "fact" be at least considered probable. If a fact passes three I think we can be confident that it is very probable and so on. This methodology is not fool-proof of course as it is open to our biases and ultimately subjective to a degree. However, this seems to be the only way (I know of) to establish a reasonably objective treatment of evidence - i.e. pass the evidence through a standard set of criteria using a consistent methodology that can be applied to ALL ancient events. So, using criteria such as (but not limited to)...

• 1. Eyewitness attestation
  2. Early attestation (the earlier the better - written during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses is preferred)
  3. Multiple independent attestation (independent does not mean non-Christian, but rather independent from other sources)
  4. Enemy or neutral source attestation
  5. The Principle of Embarrassment (If it's embarrassing or harmful to the case it is very likely that it is authentic or actually happened. It's very unlikely to have been propaganda simply “made up”)

Marcus J. Borg, a liberal theologian and "fellow" of the Jesus Seminar wrote, "The logic is straightforward: if a tradition appears in an early source and in another independent source, then not only is it early, but it is also unlikely to have been made up." Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus (1999), p. 12.

Historian Paul Maier notes, "Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable." Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks a Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (1991), p. 197.


As a side note, I’m confident we can reconcile alleged contradictions in the NT, demonstrate traditional authorship of the Gospels/Acts (i.g. The disciple Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and so on. Just as we would for any other ancient document, see here ), and demonstrate the synoptics were written before 70AD. However, we'll forgo debate over the preceding to avoid rabbit trails and make it more of a challenge for the Rez theory. So, for the sake of argument in this thread we will assume:

• 1. The Bible is errant and not inspired by God. We'll consider it merely a collection of ancient writings.
  2. The Gospels/Acts are technically anonymous and may or may not be eyewitness accounts.
  3. The Gospels and other Christian/non-Christian accounts contain minor errors and contradictions in secondary details.
  4. The Gospels/Acts were written after 70AD, but no later than 100AD.
  5. Mark was the first Gospel written. The authors of Luke and Matthew used some of Mark as a source for their Gospels.

We could submit many, but to start, here are 5 "facts" that should pass enough of the listed criteria to be considered probable:

FACT 1. Jesus’ crucifixion and death

• a) Early (and enemy) attestation from the Apostle Paul - (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, 2:15; 1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:2 and early creedal passages in 1 Corinthians 15:3 - ca. 50-60AD)
  b) Multiple attestation in all four Gospels and the Book of Acts (ca. 70-100AD)
  c) Enemy/neutral attestation from Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18:64 - 96AD)
  d) Enemy/neutral attestation from Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15:44 - ca. 115AD)
  e) Enemy/neutral attestation from Greek satirical writer Lucian (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13 - ca. 150AD)
  f) Enemy/neutral attestation from Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a - ca. 200AD)
  g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the humiliating suffering and death of a supposed Messiah and the Son of God (as well as Principle of Dissimilarity from Jewish anticipation of a military type leader in the Messiah).

Atheist NT scholar Gerd Lüdemann acknowledged, "Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable." Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Christ, pg 50.

The critical NT scholar and Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan wrote, "Jesus’ death by execution under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For, if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus...We have, in other words, not just Christian witnesses but one major Jewish and one major pagan historian who both agree on three points concerning Jesus: there was a movement, there was an execution because of that movement, but, despite that execution, there was a continuation of the movement." John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, pg. 5

Crossan also said, "Despite the differences between the studied impartiality of Josephus and the sneering partiality of Tacitus, they agree on three rather basic facts. First, there was some sort of a movement connected with Jesus. Second, he was executed by official authority presumably to stop the movement. Third, rather than being stopped, the movement continued to spread. There remain, therefore, these three: movement, execution, continuation. But the greatest of these is continuation." John Dominic Crossan, The Essential Jesus, p. 7.

John P. Meier wrote, "For two obvious reasons practically no one would deny the fact that Jesus was executed by crucifixion: (1) This central event is reported or alluded to not only by the vast majority of NT authors, but also by Josephus and Tacitus...(2) Such an embarrassing event created a major obstacle to converting Jews and Gentiles alike...that the Church struggled to overcome..." (John P. Meier, "The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist during Jesus' Public Ministry?", Journal of Biblical Literature 116 [1997] p. 664–665).


FACT 2. The tomb was discovered empty.

• a) Early attestation from Paul - he implies an empty tomb (1 Cor. 15:3-4)
  b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (the very early Pre-Markan Passion source probably contained the empty tomb)
  c) The disciples were accused of stealing Jesus’ body by unbelieving Jews - indirect enemy confirmation that the tomb was empty (Matthew 28, Christian apologist Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 108 - ca. 150AD; Christian apologist Tertullian De Spectaculis 30 - ca. 200AD)
  d) The principle of embarrassment applies to the empty tomb reported as having been discovered by women
  e) We have no record of Jesus’ corpse being produced only accusations that the disciples stole the body.
  f) Setting the stage for the empty tomb was the honourable burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimethea (another fact we could admit as number 6 - but won't as it isn't really necessary to do so). It is attested by all four Gospels. As well Paul mentions the burial of Jesus(1 Cor 15). It also is strengthened by the Principle of Embarrassment where a Jewish member of the council, rather than a disciple or family member, that condemned Jesus was reported as honourably burring Jesus. This would have been offensive to the disciples and as such is unlikely to be a fabrication.

Liberal theologian John A. T. Robinson commented on the burial of Jesus, "[it is] one of the earliest and best–attested facts about Jesus." John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (1973), p. 131.

William Wand, a past Oxford University church historian wrote, "All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favour [of the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other grounds than that of scientific history." William Wand, Christianity: A Historical Religion? (1972), p. 93-94

NT critic D. H. Van Daalen wrote, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." D.H. Van Daalen, The Real Resurrection(1972), p. 41.


FACT 3. The apostles sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and then appeared to them. So sincerely that some were willing to endure persecution and possibly even death because of this belief:

Claims of appearances to the disciples:

• a) Early (and enemy) attestation from Paul (1 Cor. 15:4-8)
  b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (even without the later addition of 16:9-20, early attestation in Mark's Gospel predicts the Rez and appearances in 8:31, 9:31, 10:34 and suggests there will be appearances made by Jesus 14:28, 16:6-7)
  c) Multiple attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 1-5, 10, 13, 17)
  d) Possible neutral/enemy attestation from Tacitus (he may be inadvertently providing evidence that the apostles at least believed Jesus appeared to them in Annals 15:44 when he says, "...[Christianity] thus checked for the moment [by the crucifixion of Jesus], again broke out not only in Judea...")
  e) Possible neutral/enemy attestation from Josephus (he may be reporting that the disciples at least believed Jesus appeared to them in Antiquities 18)
  f) The Principle of Dissimilarity applies to the notion of a man/Messiah resurrecting from the dead before the end of time was contrary to Jewish belief and therefore reduces the odds it was "made up."
  g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the evidence that some disciples at the first instance did not believe but had doubts that Jesus was alive (Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:36-38, John 20:24-25).

Persecution and death of some disciples:

• a) Early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 12 - death of James brother of John)
  b) Early attestation from Clement of Rome (1 Clement 5 - ca. 95AD)
  c) Attestation from Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3:2-3 - ca. 110AD)
  d) Attestation from Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9 - ca. 110AD)
  e) Attestation from Dionysius of Corinth (ca. 170AD - quoted by Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2:25:8)
  f) Attestation from Tertullian (Scorpiace 15 - ca. 200AD)
  g) Attestation from Origen (Contra Celsum 2:56,77 - ca. 230-250AD)

Atheist NT scholar Gerd Ludemann said, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus? A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, (1995) p. 80. (It should be noted Ludemann believes these were visions)

Paula Fredriksen, a sceptical historian and scholar of religious studies, said in an interview with Peter Jennings (ABC) entitled The Search for Jesus in July 2000, "I know in [the disciples] own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that's what they saw. I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something."



FACT 4. Paul, an enemy and persecutor of the church (Acts 8:3, 1 Cor. 15:9, Gal. 1:13) was transformed and became a prolific apostle because of his belief that a risen Jesus appeared to him. He was persecuted and reported as martyred.

Appearances of Jesus to Paul and his conversion:

• a) Early, multiple and eyewitness attestation from Paul himself (1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1, Phil. 3)
  b) Multiple and early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 9, 22, 26)

Paul’s suffering/martyrdom:

• a) Early, multiple and eyewitness attestation from Paul for his suffering (2 Cor. 11, Phil. 1)
  b) Multiple and early attestation from Book of Acts (ch. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23)
  c) Early attestation from Clement of Rome (1 Clement 5)
  d) Attestation from Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9:2)
  e) Attestation from Tertullian (Scorpiace 15 and also quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2:25:8)
  f) Attestation from Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170AD - quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:25:8)
  g) Attestation from Origen (Commentary on Genesis as quoted by Eusebius in EH 3:1)

FACT 5. James, brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and sceptic of His claims before the appearance of Jesus to him, was transformed and became a leader in the Church in Jerusalem. He was reported as martyred.

• a) Principle of Embarrassment applies as Jesus' own family and brother James were described as sceptical prior to appearances (multiply attested - Matthew 13:57, Mark 3:21, 6:3-4, John 7:4-5)
  b) Jesus appeared alive to James after His death (early and enemy attestation from Paul - 1 Cor. 15:7)
  c) James is later described as an apostle by Paul(Gal 1:19) and leader in the early church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9,12 and Acts 15)
  d) Suffered and martyred - Enemy/neutral attestation from Josephus (ca. 96AD - Antiquities 20), further multiple attestation from Hegesippus (ca. 160AD - as quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2:23), and Clement of Alexandria (ca. 180-200AD as quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:1).

Note that none of these 5 facts are supernatural or hard to believe on their own. They are all well attested with early and multiple sources. By any reasonable historical methodology these should be considered solid facts. Keep in mind on their own each fact presented does not build a strong case for the Rez. However, it is as a collective unit we must consider the evidence. We are looking for the best explanation that accounts for ALL the evidence. I posit the theory that God resurrected Jesus from the dead best accounts for ALL the evidence and combines explanatory power and scope given the context of Jesus' life and the claims made of Him and by Him.

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?


Additional considerations and requests:
1. Persons who side with the weight of evidence, what the evidence suggests, and cogent arguments supported by good evidence could be described as taking a rational position. We would be justified in deeming "irrational" a position that denies evidence with out good reason and opposes strong arguments to side with weak unsupported arguments. On this, we can all agree.

2. As history deals more with degrees of probability rather than absolute certainty I would suggest the following. A single theory that has explanatory scope and power, given the context of surrounding events, and accounts for ALL the evidence should be considered more probable over a compilation of several theories stacked upon one another in an ad hoc manner. Especially if those ad hoc theories are speculation rich and evidence poor.

3. Please supply the methodology/criteria for questioning any one of these 5 facts (or any other evidence one wishes to refute or admit for consideration). We can then apply this methodology to other ancient historical facts. This will help us determine if the objection has credibility or is merely stemming from a bias against either the supernatural or Christianity. Simply making the objection, for example, that we cannot trust anything written by a Christian because they were biased is very problematic. Applying that overly simplistic criterion to the rest of ancient history would call almost all of it into question (even most of modern history).

I'll look forward to reading the responses.

[Goose]

OK, guys here's a quick summary so far. Forgive the paraphrasing and tongue-in-cheek humour. I'm not trying to misrepresent anyone only summarize what I perceive to be the gist. Also, thanks to those that have taken the time to respond. Here's what I've gathered so far.

Flail has a thing for soup kitchens and is peddling magic potions for $9.95 a bottle.

Cmass seems to be more interested in debating the evidence for UFOs and little green men. He seems to believe there's good evidence for their existence.

Zzyzx's criteria seems to be that he requires "Independent, Impartial, and Verifiable" evidence. The fallacy of which I have previously dealt with here. Oddly he believes

"Attestation" is equivalent to hearsay unless by identified eyewitness. Even eyewitness testimony is a level of evidence that is far from conclusive.

To Zzyzx, it seems, even if we had eyewitness testimony that probably wouldn't be good enough. How can we know anything from history with such scepticism?

Duke seems to think that if I don't provide 5 instances where the supernatural is considered an historical fact then I must concede, "The resurrection isn't a historical event because of the supernatural claims it makes." But he hasn't specified if those quotes must come from atheist historians or theist ones. He also mistakenly thinks that I employ a double standard for supernatural claims. Duke also doesn't see that he begs the question. The Rez might actually be an historical fact. That's what we trying to determine. I think he's dismissing the possibility of the supernatural at the start before looking at the evidence because the claim is supernatural. How can we know if the supernatural exists if we won't allow for the possibility and consider the evidence? Duke has also presented the typical argument from silence of the Jesus-myther. The main thrust of his argument is that because Philo of Alexandria doesn't mention a "peep" about Jesus, Jesus probably didn't even exist. The irony for Duke is that there is less evidence to support the existence of Philo than there is for Jesus. Yet, Duke obviously seems to believe Philo was a real person. There seems to be a problem with the methodology.

Beto seems to feel that if an ancient work contains a supernatural claim then it should be automatically considered "fiction." However, that overly simplistic criterion would place many ancient works that historians use to reconstruct the past into the fiction genre as well (such as Suetonius' Twelve Caesars and Plutarch's Parallel Lives as examples). I'm not aware of ANY mainstream historians that dismisses the entire Bible as merely a work of fiction. If Beto is only rejecting a claim in an ancient work on the sole basis that it is a supernatural claim then he has committed the logical fallacy of begging the question that the supernatural cannot possibly exist. In that case, he's rejected the evidence a priori because of a bias toward the supernatural.

Cathar has some interesting but unsupported theories about Homer. Even if this could be proven that early Christian writers paralleled Homer how does this prove the Rez false? Maybe the writers of the Gospels did use common and well known stories to help the audience of the time identify with the subject matter. I don't see any problem with that if it even happened. That wouldn't make the core of the Rez unhistorical.

Goat seems to think that comparing the Rez to other mystery religions such as the Cult of Augustus and finding parallels would prove the Rez false. Even if goat could substantiate this claim that there are parallels by providing good evidence that predates Christianity, that would only prove one thing. That there are parallels. Parallels would not prove the Rez false. Parallels could just as easily be coincidence as anything else. The evidence that exists for the Rez must still be addressed.

McCulloch is the ONLY person to make a legitimate attempt at some of the evidence (facts 1 and 2), but has perhaps lost interest now. In fact I'm going to donate 200 tokens to him for his much appreciated effort!

There a reason you guys ignored my posts?

Hey, don't take it personally. But I don't feel any special obligation to answer your Red Herring demands for 5 instances where the supernatural is considered an historical fact or take any time addressing your Jesus-myth arguments. They've been thoroughly taken to task many times in this forum most recently starting hereand finishing here. I spent several hours putting together the OP and the closest you've come to addressing it is this:

Honestly, most of the "evidence" you give is simply more sets of claims from individuals who, themselves, were only allged to exist. Yes, that's right. We haven't a shred of evidence the apostles existed and no compelling reason to believe they're anything other than fictional parts of the godman myth.

So please don't complain about me ignoring your unsubstantiated ramblings.

Duke,

There is a very good reason that religionists ignore your posts. You make excellent points that they cannot answer.

Zzyzx my friend, these types of you-go-girl-frien' comments would carry much more weight coming from one that displayed a willingness to address the evidence and arguments presented in the OP.

For those that are interjecting obscure speculations and such, a friendly reminder from the OP:

1. Persons who side with the weight of evidence, what the evidence suggests, and cogent arguments supported by good evidence could be described as taking a rational position. We would be justified in deeming "irrational" a position that denies evidence with out good reason and opposes strong arguments to side with weak unsupported arguments. On this, we can all agree.

Those that wish to dispute the facts presented in the OP, here's a friendly reminder of a request from the OP.

3. Please supply the methodology/criteria for questioning any one of these 5 facts (or any other evidence one wishes to refute or admit for consideration). We can then apply this methodology to other ancient historical facts. This will help us determine if the objection has credibility or is merely stemming from a bias against either the supernatural or Christianity. Simply making the objection, for example, that we cannot trust anything written by a Christian because they were biased is very problematic. Applying that overly simplistic criterion to the rest of ancient history would call almost all of it into question (even most of modern history).

Simply asserting the Rez, or evidence supporting it, is a myth is not evidence.

Now for the sad part: out of 20 some odd posts from detractors to the Rez and 4 pages not a single person has attempted to address the question for debate:

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?

[MrWhy]

In my opinion, when determining the truthfulness of Christianity virtually everything is secondary in importance to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the Rez). Paul made this clear when he said in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "if Christ has not been raised, then our message means nothing and your faith means nothing." I believe the truthfulness of Christianity hangs primarily on the Rez.

I also believe there is a solid case for the Rez that meets a reasonable burden of proof for matters of history. Equal, at least, to that which we accept for other pivotal events in ancient history accepted as true and rarely questioned.

What other ancient historical supernatural events? I know of no, non-religious, ancient accounts that are miracle in nature, and are also rarely questioned.

It is not reasonable to compare the validity of miracle stories with stories that are not. Natural events are completely different from claims of miracle events. One type may occur often, may be expected, and does not violate current knowledge of chemistry or physics. The other is none of the above. Comparing the two types of events is not like comparing apples and oranges, it's more like comparing apples with a mythical fruit.

A dead body returning to life has never been verified. Not in any manner that would satisfy a non-religious skeptical mind. It has never happened in recent time, and that's only part of the reason to reject the idea. Trusting any ancient testimony account of a miracle is an amazing act of what? Well, we'll be kind and call it faith.

If there were dozens of accounts on todays news that a body, dead for days, had returned to life, ask what would it take to convince you this had really happened. You probably would not accept the story that the body was placed in a cave, was not there on later inspection, and then appeared again in a living state. And thousands of eye witnesses would not lend much credibility. Christians have no trouble believing this supernatural story because, believing there is a god, they already accept that the supernatural exist. If you start from a base of not believing in the supernatural, then the resurrection account is a huge stretch that's without evidence. How is it possible that testimony from text that is hundreds of years old can be considered as evidence for such an unnatural, non-repeated event?

Christians may say that there is nothing that would convince an atheist. This is not the case. There are procedures that would validate this claim, and they have been discussed before on this forum.

Yes, there are multiple explanations that are more credible.
1. The story was created intentionally to make the idea of the Christian god more powerful. Religious preachers and promoters don't do this kind of thing. They really like to tell stories that emotionally move the audience.
2. The story gradually took on more miracle aspects as it was retold. See "The telephone game".
3. The eye witnesses were not accurate about dates, times, and places. Some recent studies have indicated eye witnesses are not reliable.
3. The body was not really dead. Impossible to substantiate with ancient text.
4. Could be a combination of more than one. There are surely other possible explanations, but more are not unnecessary.

When faced with the choice of one of the above explanations, or the ancient account of a dead body returning to life, the conclusion is obvious.

[Goat]

Assuming you've provided the five instances, you can then provide a record the godman contemporaneous with the time he allegedly existed. The simple fact is we have records from the third decade of the first century in the form of Philo's works... Philo of Alexandria who hung out with Essenes and Pilate. There's not a peep about Jesus even though we have many records of charlatans and wannabes from that time period.

Your Philo argument is hardly compelling. From a previous post:

Philo didn't write about everyone. His writings do not include the renowned Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, a Rabbi of great significance (Gamaliel was the president of the Sanhedrin, and he was the head of the School of Hillel). If Philo did not write a single word about this important individual, then why on earth should he be concerned with a very small sect growing in Jerusalem?

What we do have is a pervasive need in the post temple destruction era (after 70 ce) for a new religion Jews would WANT to adhere to even in the face of ongoing Roman propaganda.

Many of the Jews were worshiping Baal, Molech, and a host of other worthless 'gods' long before Jesus. They've always had a compulsion for that sort of thing. Pre or post 70's was nothing new, except for the fact that there were significant Messianic expectations in 1st century Judea.

...and there's a lot of evidence pointing to the religion being invented after the fact and attempting to re-write more modern history (re-writing 1-33 ce in 70 ce).

That doesn't hold water. There's not a single instance in any of the NT writings concerning such things as Nero's persecution of Christians OR the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. All there is is a prophecy foretelling of that later event.

I wonder if any CJZ-ists here will have the intellectual bravery to even acknowledge this statement let alone debate it.

There's nothing that requires any bravery in answering these dead-end arguments. Do you have something better?

Why didn't ANYBODY aside from people pushing a religious agenda write about him before 20 years after the destruction of the temple.Not one. Plus, the only first century secular writing about him was from the very late first century, and is very likely to be a later insertion.

The reason Philo IS a good example is that not only was he a historian that was living during that time period, but he specifically wrote about Pilate, and what he did that was wrong.

Since Pilate and Jesus were supposedly interconnected, and Jesus was supposed to be so miraculous and important,it is more likely that Philo would have said something. He mentioned the Samaritan massacre in relation to Pilate, but not Jesus.

[Goose]

In my opinion, when determining the truthfulness of Christianity virtually everything is secondary in importance to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the Rez). Paul made this clear when he said in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "if Christ has not been raised, then our message means nothing and your faith means nothing." I believe the truthfulness of Christianity hangs primarily on the Rez.

I also believe there is a solid case for the Rez that meets a reasonable burden of proof for matters of history. Equal, at least, to that which we accept for other pivotal events in ancient history accepted as true and rarely questioned.

What other ancient historical supernatural events? I know of no, non-religious, ancient accounts that are miracle in nature, and are also rarely questioned.

I think you misunderstand. I said, "Equal, at least, to that which we accept for other pivotal events in ancient history accepted as true and rarely questioned." I did not say, "other pivotal [supernatural] events in ancient history accepted as true and rarely questioned." You added the "supernatural."

It is not reasonable to compare the validity of miracle stories with stories that are not...

That would be true if one were biased and dismissed supernatural claims a priori.

...Natural events are completely different from claims of miracle events. One type may occur often, may be expected, and does not violate current knowledge of chemistry or physics. The other is none of the above. Comparing the two types of events is not like comparing apples and oranges, it's more like comparing apples with a mythical fruit.

If one is not open to the possibility of the supernatural and held that we can only know for certain what science can tell us, I can see where they would feel this way.

A dead body returning to life has never been verified...

That of course begs the question that the Rez is false. "Never"? How do you KNOW that? It might be more accurate to say the scientific data we have up to this point suggests that people do not return to life by natural means. However, we are not conducting a science experiment here. We are conducting an historic enquiry.

...Not in any manner that would satisfy a non-religious sceptical mind. It has never happened in recent time, and that's only part of the reason to reject the idea. Trusting any ancient testimony account of a miracle is an amazing act of what? Well, we'll be kind and call it faith.

Faith is required to accept many things from history. It takes faith to believe that life originated on earth by pure chance. It takes faith to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. However, if we have evidence to base that faith upon, and we feel it is good evidence, having an element of faith is not irrational.

If there were dozens of accounts on todays news that a body, dead for days, had returned to life, ask what would it take to convince you this had really happened...

Yes, if it were reported today I'd want all the modern medical confirmations just like any one else. However, we don't have that luxury with the Rez. We have to evaluate the evidence we do have. Not demand more evidence that does not exist. That's the reason we use historical methodology. It helps us look at events on an equal playing field. The only reason one would place a supernatural event into a "special" category for evaluation is if they had a presupposition against the possibility of the supernatural.

...You probably would not accept the story that the body was placed in a cave, was not there on later inspection, and then appeared again in a living state. And thousands of eye witnesses would not lend much credibility. Christians have no trouble believing this supernatural story because, believing there is a god, they already accept that the supernatural exist. If you start from a base of not believing in the supernatural, then the resurrection account is a huge stretch that's without evidence. How is it possible that testimony from text that is hundreds of years old can be considered as evidence for such an unnatural, non-repeated event?

Technically speaking ALL of history is non-repeatable. You are confusing the scientific process with the historical. Wouldn't it be more reasonable and less biased to start from a base that the supernatural might exist? Then evaluate the evidence to see if a supernatural explanation best fits the evidence? Why beg the question and start with the supposition that supernatural couldn't possibly exist?

Christians may say that there is nothing that would convince an atheist. This is not the case. There are procedures that would validate this claim, and they have been discussed before on this forum.

I don't think I'm trying to convince atheists as much as demonstrating to myself (and maybe a few others) that there is a also a rational procedure that a Christian (or prospective or doubting one) can follow to base his/her belief soundly in the Rez.

Yes, there are multiple explanations that are more credible.

"Credible" if naturalism is true and the supernatural does not exist.

1. The story was created intentionally to make the idea of the Christian god more powerful. Religious preachers and promoters don't do this kind of thing. They really like to tell stories that emotionally move the audience.

Religious preachers such as the disciples usually don't promote stories they believe to be untrue especially if those stories lead to persecution and possibly even death. Further, a "story" that was circulating which had no factual basis would hardly convince Paul or James.

2. The story gradually took on more miracle aspects as it was retold. See "The telephone game".

This is a possibility. However, it's mitigated by early evidence from Paul. 1 Corinthians 15 is believed, even by some sceptical and critical scholars, to be a creed that originated with in months of the crucifixion declaring Jesus rose from the dead. Paul recieved his information directly from eyewitnesses James, Peter, and John (Gal. ch 1). The Rez was being proclaimed very early. Far too early to be simply a product of "the telephone game". The Gospels were written during the lifetime of at least some possible witnesses that could have corrected embellishments or offered counter testimony. The gospels were read allowed and openly in group settings where they could have been questioned, not just passed from one person to another in secret.

3. The eye witnesses were not accurate about dates, times, and places. Some recent studies have indicated eye witnesses are not reliable.

I've already conceded in the OP that the Gospels may not have been eyewitness accounts and may have discrepancies. We should expect some small discrepancies in secondary fringe details in testimony given by different people. In fact, this helps give the historian assurance that the accounts are truly independent of one another. Despite minor discrepancies, the core of the story remains unanimously consistent. Jesus lived, died by crucifixion for our sins, was raised from the dead, and then seen by different people in different locations at different times. Discrepancies don't bother historians when it comes to evaluating secular accounts, why should it be different with religious ones?

3. The body was not really dead. Impossible to substantiate with ancient text.

That's the long ago debunked Swoon Theory. It is a theory that flies in the face of all the direct evidence we have to the contrary. Not to mention a half dead Jesus in desperate need of medical attention claiming to be the Risen Lord would hardly inspire already fearful disciples to promote the faith despite the fear of death. As well, it would not adequately account for the conversion of the church enemy Paul or sceptic James.

4. Could be a combination of more than one. There are surely other possible explanations, but more are not unnecessary.

From the OP:

2. As history deals more with degrees of probability rather than absolute certainty I would suggest the following. A single theory that has explanatory scope and power, given the context of surrounding events, and accounts for ALL the evidence should be considered more probable over a compilation of several theories stacked upon one another in an ad hoc manner. Especially if those ad hoc theories are speculation rich and evidence poor.

When faced with the choice of one of the above explanations, or the ancient account of a dead body returning to life, the conclusion is obvious.

If one looks at the evidence as objectively as possible using a standard historcial methodology with out a bias toward the supernatural, yes, I think the conclusion is obvious.

[Cathar1950]

Of course he may have mentioned them as he wrote about some sects we don't recognize as part of the Jerusalem assembly.

He "may have"? How about some evidence he did instead of more speculations?

The silence is overwilling until the second century.

Nope. The 1st century historical accounts of the NT bust this next theory of yours wide open.

You have no first century historical accounts therefore no theory busting on your part.

That's wrong. Scholarly support (list of scholars) for the 1st century writings of the NT has been routinely presented in these fora.

Read "Jesus 100 years before Christ", he deals with Philo who seems to have influenced the unknown author of the prelude to the Gospel of John.

The author of that mess is just another in a long list of revisionist Christ-deniers.

You have not shown any support of anything you have said or even an explanation. There may be a handful of scholars including the dead ones that agree with some of your claims but it hardly endorses every writing.
You leave out the obvious rewriting and addition that seem obvious to even the believing scholars. You have not presented any of your scholars as it relates to any issue and even some of your post seem out of context.
Have you read "Jesus 100 years before Christ"?
The gospels themselves are revisionist works. It does not take your imaginary staw man the "Christ-deniers" to see the evolution and understand their history.
If what Paul says about being raised is not a later orthodox addition then he makes no mention of a body being raised. He seems to be writing of an elevation or promotion as the "Second Adam" borrowing from the mystery religions.
Even the gospel of Mark shows tradition and stories handed down. But his fiction became the bases for others reworking his story to fit the times and there is no reason to think they didn't have their fair share of fiction. Much of the NT stories look like passages and stories from the OT stories. Matthew remakes Moses. Some remake the Elijah stories others David.

[Cathar1950]

Cathar has some interesting but unsupported theories about Homer. Even if this could be proven that early Christian writers paralleled Homer how does this prove the Rez false? Maybe the writers of the Gospels did use common and well known stories to help the audience of the time identify with the subject matter. I don't see any problem with that if it even happened. That wouldn't make the core of the Rez unhistorical.

The evidence that exists for the Rez must still be addressed.

Simply asserting the Rez, or evidence supporting it, is a myth is not evidence.

Now for the sad part: out of 20 some odd posts from detractors to the Rez and 4 pages not a single person has attempted to address the question for debate:

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?

I guess I should thank you for the glowing remarks.
It is also a mistake to think I am only claiming Homer as inspiration for the original story. It also looks like LXX stories and ideas were used and handed down to the author of Mark.
Luke and Matthew follow his story line and update his writing with there own fiction based on traditions handed down to them including stories in the LXX that were symbolic of their view of the now cosmic Christ/godman.
Many scholars have followed there use word for word story for story in other works including the LXX and Homer. Josephus seems to have been used by the author of Luke or a later redactor.
John goes against the grain and like the other authors has his own ax to grind but he seems to know at least some of the other gospel writings. Mark seems to think Jesus wasn't nor needed to be of the line of David while Luke and Matthew think it is important enough to make up their own genealogies or at least some one later did.
What ever happened that was later seem in the symbolism of the resurrection we may never know but to claim it is a fact is to go beyond use of the gospels.
As I said in the beginning, your questions presuppose a factual resurrection with dubious evidence.
If you want to claim it is fact and not myth then we see no reason for you to reject the many hero/god stories of resurrection. Even the early church fathers could see the similarities and it was even used as a defence.
It only seems natural that their belief would be told in a story they understood.
Even this quote is taken out of context:
Marcus J. Borg, a liberal theologian and "fellow" of the Jesus Seminar wrote, "The logic is straightforward: if a tradition appears in an early source and in another independent source, then not only is it early, but it is also unlikely to have been made up." Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus (1999), p. 12.

He is not talking about your "fact", he is talking about a tradition. A likely tradition is not a "fact". It seems mean something different to each writer as they were left to fill in the holes based on what they read into the LXX (according to the scriptures?). Meaning and symbols don't need a fact.

[The Duke of Vandals]

So nice to have opposition to reply to other than Easyrider... arguing against him is like smacking around your baby brother.

Goose: You're making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

You stated: "I also believe there is a solid case for the Rez that meets a reasonable burden of proof for matters of history."

I pointed out supernatural aspects preclude claims from being considered historical. Today, when people claim to have seen the impossible we demand evidence of them or consign their claims to the wastebasket of lies or embelishment. Why should we do otherwise for history? When we see historical claims that involve supernatural aspects, the last thing we do is believe them at face value.

There may have been a Trojan war. Do you think Ares and Apollo participated in it? Of course not. The question then becomes "Was there a guy who Apollo was based on or is it something the author outright invented?" The Ilead is (at best) a work of historical fiction... heavy on the fiction.

The NT is the same way. There wasn't a Jesus, but instead a host of individuals who caused a ruckus with the Romans and Jewish authorities alike. This is well documented from Josephus and others. We also have records of early first century wannabe prophets and messiahs. There simply is no valid record of the godman alleged in the gospels.

As to supernatural claims, you accused me of dismissing them a priori... that I refuse to consider the evidence. Nothing could be further from the truth. I consider the supernatural false because evidence demonstrates it as being false.

You see, the issue of the rez is a scientific question in that it either happened or didn't happen; one or the other. It didn't happen for you, but not for me (that's logically impossible). Once we understand the rez is a scientific question, we can begin comparing it to other scientific hypothesis / theories / laws.

Let's go with a simpler example: water to wine. We know that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. We know that wine contains not just water, but a host of organic molecules comprised of more than hydrogen and oxygen. There's carbon, sulfur and a host of elements from the periodic table. For water to become wine, all of these elements would need to appear spontaneuously which violates conservation of energy / matter which we know to be true. And please, no bullshit about closed systems. We know the only way to get water from wine as in the NT is magically through god which is a tremendous cop out.

The rez has similar problems. We know from biology what happens in the brain after death and how it's impossible for a person to be a living breathing talking functional person after three days of death.

Now, the obvious way around all this is to say "goddidit", but as soon as you invoke god you're no longer talking about an historic claim. You've delved into the intellectually bankrupt world of institutionalized folklore. This is why your claim that we have some historical basis for Jesus fails completely. There's no evidence for the mundane Jesus* and we know the gospel is too absurd to be taken seriously.

As for Philo? You've used improper terminology. The "Jesus-mythers" were individuals living towards the end of the first century and early second century who invented the Jesus myth. What you're evading (like most people do in this argument) is the fact we have records from the early part of the first century. We have recollections of Josephus, writings of Philo and many others. This is an era of literacy due to the written religion of the Jews... the first century equivalent of the blogger community. Into this community comes a magical man drawing huge crowds:

• 7 But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea, 8 And from Jerusalem,and from Idumaea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him. 9 And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should throng him.

Mark 3:7-8

There's another passage I can't find at the moment that discusses Roman soldiers having to work their way through a crowd to get to Jesus.

So, what we have are allegations from the seventh decade of the first century claiming a rock-star-popular godman performed magic in the earlier parts of the century and early first century accounts which are utterly silent on the issue. Taking into account we know the individuals who invented Christianity did so deliberately to "re-judify" Judea... understanding they were like the Mormons or Scientologists of their time... Which do you think is more likely?

A storybook godman showed up or a bunch of people were duped into believing said godman appeared in the same way Joseph Smith duped people into becoming Mormon?



Note also that the argument from silence is not always fallacious:

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argume ... o_the_Rule



*Mundane Jesus = Jesus of the gospels minus any and all supernatural elements of the story.

[Cathar1950]

Another excellent post Duke.
I think you do a good job of putting it in its historical place.
If you look at the gospels you can see the embellishments increasing with each gospel. Looking at the Gospel of John and comparing it to the other accounts you not only know it is not historical but hardly compatable.
The gospel of Mark makes Peter to look like an idiot and almost as bad as Judas.
Judas if he existed was probable a brother of Jesus and Paul's idea of being betrayed meant that Jesus was handed over and mistaken for some act later as the read the LXX looking for clues the figured he must have been betrayed by a friend because they read some passage as such.

[Beto]

Another excellent post Duke.
I think you do a good job of putting it in its historical place.
If you look at the gospels you can see the embellishments increasing with each gospel. Looking at the Gospel of John and comparing it to the other accounts you not only know it is not historical but hardly compatable.
The gospel of Mark makes Peter to look like an idiot and almost as bad as Judas.
Judas if he existed was probable a brother of Jesus and Paul's idea of being betrayed meant that Jesus was handed over and mistaken for some act later as the read the LXX looking for clues the figured he must have been betrayed by a friend because they read some passage as such.

Poor Judas thought he was doing a good thing turning over Jesus to a religious leader, something thought of in high regard at the time. What he received was barely a month's wager if I'm not mistaken. Not really worth betraying Jesus over, if that's what he had in mind. If he only knew the "rep" he was getting...

[Goose]

I guess I should thank you for the glowing remarks.

Providing some evidence for your claims would be thanks enough.

It is also a mistake to think I am only claiming Homer as inspiration for the original story. It also looks like LXX stories and ideas were used and handed down to the author of Mark.

"Looks"? Hey, I'm convinced! Maybe the obvious answer is the right one - it's inspired by real historical events. Though your theory that Mark ripped off Homer and the Septuagint is interesting it falls apart under closer scrutiny and it requires you come up with more unsupported theories. Maybe you can start by citing where Mark lifted the Rez from Homer and the LXX. Then you'll need a separate theory for Paul converting and proclaiming Christ's' death, burial and Rez earlier and independent of Mark. On top of that you've got to find some elaborate theory to dismiss the writer of the Gospel of John and other first century writings. A myth lifted from Homer and the Septuagint would hardly convince the sceptic James, a staunch Jew. The disciple's wouldn't likely run around taking all the heat for something they believed to be a myth. If it was all a myth written with the intention of convincing people and meeting the needs of a Christian community why include all the embarrassing parts about Jesus and the discples? Why would the writers of these books construct a mythical and controversial account if it was to put them in harm's way? There are many gaps you now need to fill with a complex set of disconnected theories, when a much more obvious and powerful explanation exists.

Luke and Matthew follow his story line and update his writing with there own fiction based on traditions handed down to them including stories in the LXX that were symbolic of their view of the now cosmic Christ/godman.

I already gave you guys Markan priority in the OP. You are referring to fulfilled prophecy and typologies, perhaps? There's also the differences between Matthew, Luke, and Mark that need to be accounted for. Let's take the view that the document "Q" existed which usually goes hand-in-hand with the Markan priority hypothesis, now you need a another story to explain away that document too.

Many scholars have followed there use word for word story for story in other works including the LXX and Homer.

"Many" scholars, eh? Don't you mean John Dominic Crossan and Dennis R. MacDonald?

Josephus seems to have been used by the author of Luke or a later redactor.

If the general consensus among scholars for dating Luke and Josephus is correct, Luke predates Josephus. Kinda hard for Luke to use Josephus in that case.

John goes against the grain and like the other authors has his own ax to grind but he seems to know at least some of the other gospel writings. Mark seems to think Jesus wasn't nor needed to be of the line of David while Luke and Matthew think it is important enough to make up their own genealogies or at least some one later did.

That has what to do with the Rez?

What ever happened that was later seem in the symbolism of the resurrection we may never know but to claim it is a fact is to go beyond use of the gospels.

Why? 'Cuz you say so?

As I said in the beginning, your questions presuppose a factual resurrection with dubious evidence.

My question asks if the Rez is the best explanation. All the early evidence suggests Jesus was believed to have risen from the dead. If you have some evidence to the contrary it's high time you produced it.

BTW, you calling the evidence presented in the OP "dubious"... the irony...

If you want to claim it is fact and not myth then we see no reason for you to reject the many hero/god stories of resurrection.

If you have evidence for a god or resurrection story you'd like to pass through my criteria, be my guest. Let's see how it stacks up.

Even the early church fathers could see the similarities and it was even used as a defence.

That's the Robert Price/Brian Flemming fallacy. Justin Martyr was trying to FIND similarities because the pagans couldn't even see them and were persecuting the Christians as a result. Justin was pleading with the emperor so they would no longer be persecuted. He wasn't "defending" the similarities he was trying to convince that similarities existed.

Even this quote is taken out of context:
Marcus J. Borg, a liberal theologian and "fellow" of the Jesus Seminar wrote, "The logic is straightforward: if a tradition appears in an early source and in another independent source, then not only is it early, but it is also unlikely to have been made up." Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus (1999), p. 12.

The quote applies to the logic behind a methodology not to any one particular fact. So yes, it is in context.

When ever you're ready we can discuss the question for debate.

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?